Hey Bermie, as you can see, Elfie the Enlightened One, has called your Uncle Ben an Uncle Tom. Would you agree with him?
Trump to shine in the 2nd debate?
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
Hey Bermie, as you can see, Elfie the Enlightened One, has called your Uncle Ben an Uncle Tom. Would you agree with him?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
The problem is ObamaCare is NOT proper healthcare.
It's not socialized medicine, and it's not privatized healthcare.
It's a bastardized combination of the two written by the insurance company, their lobbyists, and our elected criminals.
While I'm not a proponent of socialized medicine, if you're going to to do it......DO IT like Canada/England/etc, FULL TILT!
I would prefer privatized healthcare......which this most certainly is not.
I work in the healthcare industry. I have for almost 20 years now.
I 100% agree on some of the principles introduced in ObamaCare.
No exclusions/refusals/jacked up rates based on a pre-existing condition? Of course. That's common sense. Fantastic idea and should be forced on the greedy insurance company.
As human beings, our bodies eventually breakdown or we have an accident. We most certainly shouldn't be penalized for these things. It's called life as a human. It happens.
Coverage for dependents up to age 26? I'm not a fan, as it encourages sponging longer off your parents and embedding that entitlement mentality in you, but OK, it's not a huge deal.
But the rest?
Because of my job at the time, I was forced to read all 2700+ pages of this screwjob, along with my co-workers.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, white, black, tall, short, fat, skinny.
ALL of us couldn't believe what we were reading,
There are SO many things in this piece of garbage that have zero to do with healthcare.
It's why we were all told that it was not a tax, but then was argued before the Supreme Court........as a tax....as the main and only valid argument.
Please, if you're going to argue for "your side" or "your people"?
Please use something that actually champions your cause and not something that is a total abomination.
Ooooh ****. I forgot about that post. I'm not making excuses, but there was a lot of whiskey and a Montecristo no. 2 involved that night. I would like to say it was sarcasm but I'm afraid I was just being a dick, a little irked with constant Trump bashing. It happens sometimes and I do apologize for that. It was disrespectful and I'm sorry.
tell that to the butt hurts on my FB timeline.
because, you know, Bomma always defended(s) everyone else.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
I only disagree with the bolded part. In general, group policies do not (and, I believe, cannot) use any pre-existing condition issues. This covers the majority of those who have insurance.
Insurance companies to not 'jack up' premiums due to pre-existing conditions. They are supposed to base their premiums upon expected claims, plus expenses, etc. If they charge anything less, they have a product which bankrupts them. Therefore, if you have a policy that pays when a policy holder catches the 'Widgets". If the covered person catches the 'widgets", the policy covers the medical bills and any expenses related to the claim. let's say that will always be $1000 of which $25 is claim expenses. Presumably, there is a pretty small probability of catching the 'widgets" and the premium is set based upon this probability. So, you have a guy who already has the "widgets" and wants to buy the policy to cover it. What do you charge him? Well, you KNOW he needs the medical treatment (i.e. that probability is no longer an estimate and it is 100%) and you KNOW the cost of the treatment and expenses. Therefore, the policy premium is $1000. That is not greedy. It is, simple mathematics. So, now the guy has the choice between paying a $1,000 premium or just paying $975 for the treatment. Obviously, nobody buys this premium.
So, you come up with a rule that the insurance company can't 'jack up' the premiums for this guy. What now? Let's say you have a group of 1000 people you would expect to buy this policy. 500 of them already have "widgets" and the rest have the small probability of catching the "widgets". Since you can't "jack up" the premium for those 200 people, you MUST increase the premium for the whole group. Now, these other 500 people have to decide if they want to pay $500 premiums on the off-chance they get the "widgets" or risk it and pay the $975 if they do. Depending upon their risk tolerance and/or susceptibility to "widgets", they may make that decision. I'd expect that most don't buy the policy. So, now, your population is less than 1000 but you still have the 500 people with 'widgets" and the overall premium goes up even more for everyone. Otherwise the insurance company will money and fail. Now, more people drop out. Rinse, repeat until you are close to having only the 500 people with "widgets" who are paying close to $1000 premiums for a $975 procedure. In the end, no one buys the policy.
Again, it is NOT evil insurance company greed that kept these policies out of the market. It was basic economics.
Now, expand this to every known disease. Imagine what the premiums would be. No healthyish person buys the policy because premiums are too high. Everyone with pre-existing conditions wants the policy. Obamacare TO THE RESCUE. You buy the policy or be fined. BOOM. YOU ARE ****** if you don't have pre-existing conditions.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,801
- Points
- 113
Well, I do appreciate the apology and would like to assure you I have no man hate. I'm married to the greatest guy in the world. He's intelligent, articulate, classy, polite and respectful of people. That's the kind of man I like.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 43
Donald Trump calls Joe Flacco elite, gives unsolicited praise to Tom Brady
“I think Joe Flacco is, actually, a very elite quarterback,” Trump said
http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/09/21/donald-trump-joe-flacco-elite-baltimore-ravens
Just sayin'
“I think Joe Flacco is, actually, a very elite quarterback,” Trump said
http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/09/21/donald-trump-joe-flacco-elite-baltimore-ravens
Just sayin'
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I'm sure Obamacare is full of just loads and loads of bullshit political crap.
But it also forced some "big picture" ideas that needed to be faced by this country. And the States weren't doing it and there was so many differences between states that it was becoming a clusterfuck.
The #1 thing this law does is require insurance at minimum standards. And that alone needed a federal law.
Too many healthy people were avoiding health care or had skeleton health care that didn't cover ****. And any insurance professional will tell you in order for the system to work EVERYONE needs to be involved. If all the good drivers or people that only drove 5000 miles a year decided they didn't have to get insurance the auto system would collapse.
In healthcare, it is the logic that healthy people pay into the system to cover those that aren't healthy. That's how it works. We have millions of 20 somethings just skipping out on the whole system and expecting 30, 40, 50 year olds to cover all health care of everyone before Medicare. It wasn't working.
Health care needs to be required for everyone. We have to decide as a country that Honda health care is good enough and that is isn't Cadillac or Mercedes Health Care (if you want that expect to pay for it). You can't get Yugo health care and say you have health care.
There needs to be more oversight on for-profit hospitals and for-profit drug companies and for-profit insurance companies. Those are the three greedy heads that the health care crisis is feeding and we better make sure what's going on is fair and reasonable.
It really is a super complex system. No law (federal, state or local) is going to simplify it or make it 100% better.
But it also forced some "big picture" ideas that needed to be faced by this country. And the States weren't doing it and there was so many differences between states that it was becoming a clusterfuck.
The #1 thing this law does is require insurance at minimum standards. And that alone needed a federal law.
Too many healthy people were avoiding health care or had skeleton health care that didn't cover ****. And any insurance professional will tell you in order for the system to work EVERYONE needs to be involved. If all the good drivers or people that only drove 5000 miles a year decided they didn't have to get insurance the auto system would collapse.
In healthcare, it is the logic that healthy people pay into the system to cover those that aren't healthy. That's how it works. We have millions of 20 somethings just skipping out on the whole system and expecting 30, 40, 50 year olds to cover all health care of everyone before Medicare. It wasn't working.
Health care needs to be required for everyone. We have to decide as a country that Honda health care is good enough and that is isn't Cadillac or Mercedes Health Care (if you want that expect to pay for it). You can't get Yugo health care and say you have health care.
There needs to be more oversight on for-profit hospitals and for-profit drug companies and for-profit insurance companies. Those are the three greedy heads that the health care crisis is feeding and we better make sure what's going on is fair and reasonable.
It really is a super complex system. No law (federal, state or local) is going to simplify it or make it 100% better.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
God forbid those healthy people weren't buying something they didn't need. your auto insurance analogy is flawed. Obamacare is like making people without cars buy auto insurance because they may someday buy a car.
AND, I might add, it is not the job of the federal government to make sure people have healthcare (affordable or not). That kind of thinking is what has this clusterfuck going so strong.
Obamacare is anything BUT "affordable healthcare".
AND, I might add, it is not the job of the federal government to make sure people have healthcare (affordable or not). That kind of thinking is what has this clusterfuck going so strong.
Obamacare is anything BUT "affordable healthcare".
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,801
- Points
- 113
Actually, it doesn't. What it is is a massive transfer of wealth. Lower income people have to pay a fine of something like 95.00 if they don't have insurance. There is no risk beyond that for not having insurance, as they are guaranteed to be allowed to sign up immediately if they get sick. They also get heavy subsidies if they do purchase insurance, or up to 100% of the cost in many cases. People who actually work for a living and earn a decent wage are forced to buy these ridiculously expensive policies or be fined a percentage of their income.
Healthy people who prefer to pay for their basic medical expenses out of pocket and just carry reasonably priced minimum insurance for major medical catastrophes are no longer allowed to do that. They must purchase expensive policies that cover everything under the sun, and they also have massive deductibles and out of pocket expenses. I looked into it recently as my husband is considering self-employment in the future...for our family the cheapest policy would be over $900.00/month, with a $12,000 deductible. Hardly "affordable". Our current doctors are not network participants so we would not be able to keep any of the doctors my children and I have been seeing for the last several years...out of network providers are not covered. Our pediatricians who have seen my daughters through puberty, my OB/GYN who saw me through a breast lump scare and knows my particular medical situation, nope, we wouldn't be able to see them anymore, even if I was willing to pay part of the cost as I do now in some cases. But hey, at least I can get free birth control I don't need, or 10 quack chiropractic appointments I don't want.
There is no room for competition among providers because the prices and coverage are all set in stone by the government. Insurance companies do not have to do anything to attract a customer, such as offer options based on particular needs or try to compete on price. These so called "exchanges" are little more than a government transfer of wealth to insurance companies.
Last edited:
Maybe "no law (federal, state or local) is going to simplify it or make it 100% better" but it damn sure shouldn't make it worse.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Regarding Obamacare and pre-existing conditions: Health insurance has long covered pre-existing conditions, but only after a "waiting period" of between 2 and 12 months. After that, the condition is then covered.
Why? Because without the ******* waiting period, nobody would need the goddam insurance until AFTER an injury or illness.
Finally, who is outraged that drivers with 3 speeding tickets and 4 accidents pay a higher car insurance rate than a driver with no tickets and no accidents? Then why would anybody be upset that those with pre-existing conditions pay more for health insurance???
Why? Because without the ******* waiting period, nobody would need the goddam insurance until AFTER an injury or illness.
Finally, who is outraged that drivers with 3 speeding tickets and 4 accidents pay a higher car insurance rate than a driver with no tickets and no accidents? Then why would anybody be upset that those with pre-existing conditions pay more for health insurance???
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,801
- Points
- 113
Not to mention, Obamacare allows adults to stay on their parent's policy til age 27 now, so it's the 40 and 50 somethings who are still paying for it.
You guys just have to trot out a black.guy(in this case Bermuda Steel) as if it will automatically validate your argument,...it must be in your DNA.,..lol
Common sense and facts validate our arguments. Irrationality is the tool of the left.
Clearly he loves women. He's married three of them. And he appreciates their beauty too, owning the pageants. Try again.
Well executed piece. Lmao.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
I understand your point and agree somewhat.
Here's my issue.
I have worked for two insurance companies, and currently work for the parent corporation of an insurance company.
At my two previous employers, we had open house meetings in which the CEO would let us know the "state of the company".
In both instances, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, we were told, "This past year we made a net profit of 15 billion dollars" "We made a net profit of 25 billion dollars".
This means, after EVERY insurance claim was paid, after ALL the utilities were knocked out, after EVERY employees' salaries were paid, after ALL the office supplies were purchased, after ALL the marketing/advertising were paid for, et al.......there was still these billions of dollars left over EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
My issue is with the calculations and actuaries.
Yes, not every gets cancer.
Not everyone suffers from diabetes, MS, MD, nearsightedness, gingivitis, AIDS, allergies, broken bones, sprained muscles, dislocated joints, et al.
But everyone will suffer from something at some point.
Sure it's more expensive to cover the treatment of stage four cancer of the spine than it is an ear infection but that's what insurance is.........in case something.
You're also not factoring in the number of people paying into the insurance company and how many people don't ever file a claim for anything and have nothing paid out.
But you also shouldn't be forced to buy something you may not use/need.
I'm a male. Why should I be forced to pay for maternity care, mammograms, pap smears, or any other woman related testing,
Likewise, women shouldn't have to pay for prostate exams and the like.
Much like a person living in the middle of the desert being required to buy flood insurance.
The problem with an auto insurance analogy is that not everyone drives a car, and there are people who are careless drivers.
I know, people who play sports or have dangerous jobs are more at risk than others who do not, but again, we're talking about the human body which is not perfect and will suffer something at some point, and will suffer more and more the older it gets.
Pre-ObamaCare pre-existing clauses - Some did have waiting periods. This is true. But there are and were times that the insurance company flat out said, "We won't take you on because you have _________".
It happened.
I saw it.
There was not an amount of premium the person could pay to get coverage because of their condition.
That's flat out wrong.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
That's the problem.
The government should be completely out of it altogether.
Health insurance is NOT a guaranteed right, nor should it be.
In the 40s and 50s, health insurance was really just for the catastrophic. You typically didn't buy insurance for office visits, check ups, and allergy shots.
You just paid as you went.
No hospital/doctor turned away patients. I know that's what they'll have you believe, but it's completely false.
There's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath that is taken VERY seriously by doctors.
This spills over to the hospitals themselves and the other personnel working there, all the way down to the janitor and grounds crew.
I work for a hospital system now that has 12 hospitals under its umbrella.
I work in the financial portion of this company.
One niche part of my department is charity. This department writes off copious amounts of money to patients who can't afford the care they received at one of these hospitals. This is/was done before and after ObamaCare.
Because, as someone pointed out, it really is not AFFORDABLE.
Lastly, it is indeed a big giant endless circle.
Doctors/Hospitals charge so much money for their services because of the cost of their malpractice insurance. How much? Typically 60 - 70% of their earned income goes to their malpractice insurance.
Why so high?
Because some 8,000 pound ridiculous human choked on the whole turkey they were consuming, were brought into the ER, and they couldn't dislodge the turkey in time and they died.
So of course to the family of said Shed - A - Bed person, the doctor/hospital didn't do enough to save their loved one, so they're suing.
To the doctors that sedate their patients and rape them? They need to die in a fire.
To the doctors that spend 14 hours in surgery to try and repair a heart and fail for whatever reason? You're gonna sue them? Really?
And then there is the charged amount by the doctor/hospital that quickly gets discounted by the insurance company.
So you have a $500.00 ER charge that insurance pays $150.00 dollars on that the hospital agrees to accept. The remaining balance is written off by the hospital.....which is a nice tax deduction for the hospital.
( Side note, our tax system REALLY needs fixed BADLY ).
You can point the finger at all kinds of people.
Government shouldn't be in the insurance business or healthcare business at all, other than to oversee any fraud or shady dealings of the companies themselves.
The government shouldn't be in business at all. See the failed and losing trillions post office as an example for them.
Government should do what they're supposed to do.
Keep us safe, keep up infrastructure, settle any disputes, and stay the F out of our personal lives.
Period. End of sentence.
Really? You want to go there?
So common sense tells you to follow a pompous, racist, mysoginistic baboon in the form of Trump?
Does common sense also tell you that it's the right thing to deport 11 million people, destroy their families, build an unbuildable wall, etc.
Or is it just a sadistic/racist projection that tickles that "funny bone" some of you CONservatives possess?
As far as rationality and CONservatism.....lol non sequitur.
You want to speak on irrationality when it's you tin foil hat cadets that believe the threat from man made climate change is a hoax, or crazier yet: A liberal conspiracy for wealth redistribution?
All the worlds climate scientists, scientific organizations, and even the u.s military are liberal hoaxters?
The only scientists who don't fall for this plot are the few who can be traced back to receiving money from Exxon or the Koch bros.
Now speak to me about irrationality again......
You are wrong about everything. Everything that you think you know is false. Everything that you believe in is a sham. Everything that libtards and their nonproductive followers do revolves around taking money from the workers and giving it to the do-nothings. You are a goddamned idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
But the reason the insurance company says that is not greed it is that, if they offered that person the policy, the premiums would have to have been so high the person couldn't afford it. it isn't right or wrong, it is economics. And that is not the insurance company or government or person's fault, it just is. How much the insurance company is making is irrelevant to that equation. I'm not, entirely, sure, but there may be a requirement that each line of business must not be designed such that it loses money, i.e. an insurance company that makes a mint off of one type of policy can't design another policy that loses money. Not sure why they would, but I think I remember it being a rule.
As for the calculations and actuaries, unless you understand the massive amount of data that has to go into the calculation of health insurance premiums that have to cover a whole range of benefits, it is hard to grasp why you think either of these are to blame. There are actuaries that have to calculate the expected benefits to be paid and, hence, the premium and there are separate actuaries that have to calculate the reserves that are required to be held by the insurance companies. I doubt those are the same actuaries for each firm, but they do have to work together to make sure premiums aren't so low they drain the reserves. Or so I assume. It would be dumb to do it any other way. The probabilities are what they are and the costs can be very volatile. The calculations must take into account both.
sure, the actuaries might be fudging some of the data, but if they are and are caught, they will, probably, go to jail or lose their licenses and be out of work. In addition, I think the companies have to go to each state insurance commission to get premium increases approved. I don't know how much of a rubber stamp that is, though, or the amount of scrutiny.
As to being able to buy a policy you want, I wholeheartedly agree. you don't want mammogram coverage, you don't get it and you don't pay for someone else's
When my policy has to cover cirrhosis of the liver, my likelihood of getting that is small, so my premium should be, too. However, when my policy has to have premiums based upon the same rates as someone who drinks every day all day, it is flat out ****** up. So, do we, as a society force that person to not drink or let him die of cirrhosis for being a dumbass?
Similar threads
