If Obamacare is so great why are there no insurers backing it and

[debbiedowner]

It definitely bothers me. We'll see how it goes, but power gets used. If we give government power over our health care, government will use it to control us. Maybe you imagine government as an eternally beneficial force in the world, but I've seen different.

OH, no, not me! I know for a fact that the only people you can trust are capitalistic entrepreneurs!, like Enron, Goldman Sacs, United Health, United Airlines, and Wells Fargo!

A little history of government's involvement in our healthcare program.


Congress created Medicare in 1965
making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.

Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance.

As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for EVERYONE'S health care and promoted the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.


Congress passed the HMO Act in 1973.
The law created new, supposedly "cheaper" health coverage (does that feel good slogan sound familiar?) with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Result? The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual.


Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

Since the passage of the HMO Act in 1973, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.


The Federal Government and Congress has created this health care mess all under the assumption "we can make it more affordable". Now democrats want to dump the whole thing into single payer, and you think (with the liberal democrats prior track record) they can make it all SO much better? Don't make me laugh.

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

Medicare works just fine and so does Medicare Advantage, if the MAO doesn't get sanctioned lol.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about opportunity costs; sinking money in healthcare is better than sinking money in a drug war.

Maybe - but it's still "sinking" money. Or rather, funneling it through the insurance industry and then sinking it into their bank accounts.

Why would You care, if we can redistribute income from the drug war to healthcare?

Because I don't want government in charge of health care.

it isn't. it is only in charge of access to healthcare.

Wanna bet?

only if you don't resort to special pleading.

emergency health care supports my contention, not yours.

 

[dblack]

Maybe - but it's still "sinking" money. Or rather, funneling it through the insurance industry and then sinking it into their bank accounts.

Why would You care, if we can redistribute income from the drug war to healthcare?

Because I don't want government in charge of health care.

it isn't. it is only in charge of access to healthcare.

Wanna bet?

only if you don't resort to special pleading.

emergency health care supports my contention, not yours.

My pleading is the special-est. The most special. Big league special!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It definitely bothers me. We'll see how it goes, but power gets used. If we give government power over our health care, government will use it to control us. Maybe you imagine government as an eternally beneficial force in the world, but I've seen different.

OH, no, not me! I know for a fact that the only people you can trust are capitalistic entrepreneurs!, like Enron, Goldman Sacs, United Health, United Airlines, and Wells Fargo!

A little history of government's involvement in our healthcare program.


Congress created Medicare in 1965
making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.

Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance.

As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for EVERYONE'S health care and promoted the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.


Congress passed the HMO Act in 1973.
The law created new, supposedly "cheaper" health coverage (does that feel good slogan sound familiar?) with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Result? The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual.


Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

Since the passage of the HMO Act in 1973, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.


The Federal Government and Congress has created this health care mess all under the assumption "we can make it more affordable". Now democrats want to dump the whole thing into single payer, and you think (with the liberal democrats prior track record) they can make it all SO much better? Don't make me laugh.

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

 

[Vandalshandle]

OH, no, not me! I know for a fact that the only people you can trust are capitalistic entrepreneurs!, like Enron, Goldman Sacs, United Health, United Airlines, and Wells Fargo!

A little history of government's involvement in our healthcare program.


Congress created Medicare in 1965
making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.

Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance.

As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for EVERYONE'S health care and promoted the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.


Congress passed the HMO Act in 1973.
The law created new, supposedly "cheaper" health coverage (does that feel good slogan sound familiar?) with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Result? The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual.


Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

Since the passage of the HMO Act in 1973, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.


The Federal Government and Congress has created this health care mess all under the assumption "we can make it more affordable". Now democrats want to dump the whole thing into single payer, and you think (with the liberal democrats prior track record) they can make it all SO much better? Don't make me laugh.

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

 

[debbiedowner]

A little history of government's involvement in our healthcare program.


Congress created Medicare in 1965
making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.

Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance.

As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for EVERYONE'S health care and promoted the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.


Congress passed the HMO Act in 1973.
The law created new, supposedly "cheaper" health coverage (does that feel good slogan sound familiar?) with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Result? The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual.


Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

Since the passage of the HMO Act in 1973, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.


The Federal Government and Congress has created this health care mess all under the assumption "we can make it more affordable". Now democrats want to dump the whole thing into single payer, and you think (with the liberal democrats prior track record) they can make it all SO much better? Don't make me laugh.

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

What do you say? Let's go back to uw and I bet about half these trumpsters have one or more prex and either would be turned down or exclusions. At this point I'm all for it after reading the hateful and misinformed remarks over the months. Serve everyone of them right.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

What do you say? Let's go back to uw and I bet about half these trumpsters have one or more prex and either would be turned down or exclusions. At this point I'm all for it after reading the hateful and misinformed remarks over the months. Serve everyone of them right.

Before ACA, the underwriters who worked for me used an underwriting manual from consulting actuaries, Millimann and Robinson. It was written to decline coverage for 20 to 23% of everyone under age 65, including all pregnant women. The sales force used to refer to us underwriters as the Policy Prevention Department.

 

[deanrd]

Time to do away with the insurance companies. They're just "death panels" that aren't subject to being voted out. Single payer, NOW!

are you crazy. Do you want all medical care to look like the VA? Damn, I cannot believe how ignorant you liberals are.

Why? Because the VA is considered the best medical care in the world?

You don't even know why, do you?

Any problems with the VA is because of "guess who"?

Elderly Vets Could Face Benefits Cut Under Trump Budget | Military.com

House Republicans Propose Benefit Cuts for Seniors, Veterans and the Disabled

 

[deanrd]

how does Obamacare work without insurers

When you figure this out, let Obama know because he has no idea

Before Obamacare, there weren't insurers in counties where few people lived. Duh! Do you guys practice stupid?
No major piece of legislation has ever been perfect the first time. They ALWAYS take tweaks to get them right. Duh! How can you not know that?
It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time. Duh!
If you guys really care, then do something to get insurers into rural areas. Duh!

The right wingers. Determined to be the most ignorant people in the world.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

A little history of government's involvement in our healthcare program.


Congress created Medicare in 1965
making individual insurance for those over 65 obsolete. Subsidized, unrestricted health care for seniors lead to an unprecedented frenzy of spending by patients and doctors.

Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance.

As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for EVERYONE'S health care and promoted the idea of a Health Maintenance Organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor.


Congress passed the HMO Act in 1973.
The law created new, supposedly "cheaper" health coverage (does that feel good slogan sound familiar?) with millions of dollars to HMOs, which, until then, constituted a small portion of the market. Kaiser Permanente was the only major HMO in the country by 1969 and most of its members were compelled to join through unions.

Result? The new managed care plans mushroomed with federal subsidies. Employers perceived managed care as less expensive than individual insurance and stopped offering a choice of plans, making insurance more expensive for the individual.


Combined with Medicare, the HMO Act eventually eliminated the market for affordable individual health insurance.

Since the passage of the HMO Act in 1973, the individual has become a prisoner of the tax code. Covered by an employer and herded into managed care, the individual patient is powerless. Under managed care, if the patient gets sick, he or she may wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, be treated, or, languish in pain awaiting treatment.

Premiums under managed care do not pay for an insured contract for medical care decided between the patient and the physician–premiums pay for the management of care, i.e., health maintenance, by a third party.


The Federal Government and Congress has created this health care mess all under the assumption "we can make it more affordable". Now democrats want to dump the whole thing into single payer, and you think (with the liberal democrats prior track record) they can make it all SO much better? Don't make me laugh.

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

 

[debbiedowner]

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

What do you say? Let's go back to uw and I bet about half these trumpsters have one or more prex and either would be turned down or exclusions. At this point I'm all for it after reading the hateful and misinformed remarks over the months. Serve everyone of them right.

Before ACA, the underwriters who worked for me used an underwriting manual from consulting actuaries, Millimann and Robinson. It was written to decline coverage for 20 to 23% of everyone under age 65, including all pregnant women. The sales force used to refer to us underwriters as the Policy Prevention Department

The last year of uw I would venture to guess I had 35% declined and around 10% come back with exclusions for one thing or another. No, I wasn't writing a lot of crap, we knew which one were going to be declined before writing an app, it was the ones that were iffy.

 

[debbiedowner]

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

Oh I get it another MBA that reads from the book, no practical experience or common sense. I've seen a lot of you in my long career that because something says such and such in a book this is how it should be.

 

[Redfish]

Time to do away with the insurance companies. They're just "death panels" that aren't subject to being voted out. Single payer, NOW!

are you crazy. Do you want all medical care to look like the VA? Damn, I cannot believe how ignorant you liberals are.

Why? Because the VA is considered the best medical care in the world?

You don't even know why, do you?

Any problems with the VA is because of "guess who"?

Elderly Vets Could Face Benefits Cut Under Trump Budget | Military.com

House Republicans Propose Benefit Cuts for Seniors, Veterans and the Disabled

the VA has provided marginal care to our vets for decades. That is no secret to anyone who pays attention. The VA is a single payer, government run medical system-------exactly what you libs keep screaming for. It does not work. Socialism does not work. Liberalism does not work.

We finally have a president that understands what works and how to get things done. Your cites are from fake news outlets and are nothing but political propaganda.

 

[Redfish]

how does Obamacare work without insurers

When you figure this out, let Obama know because he has no idea

Before Obamacare, there weren't insurers in counties where few people lived. Duh! Do you guys practice stupid?
No major piece of legislation has ever been perfect the first time. They ALWAYS take tweaks to get them right. Duh! How can you not know that?
It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time. Duh!
If you guys really care, then do something to get insurers into rural areas. Duh!

The right wingers. Determined to be the most ignorant people in the world.

you said:

"It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time."

that statement alone shows the magnitude of your ignorance. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally. Those of us who paid covered the cost of those who could not or would not pay.

having insurance that has a monthly premium of $1000 and a deductible of $5000 means that you pay $17000 out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. Do you somehow think that is better than what we had before?

the entire left wing argument on this is based on lies.

 

[Redfish]

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

Oh I get it another MBA that reads from the book, no practical experience or common sense. I've seen a lot of you in my long career that because something says such and such in a book this is how it should be.

bottom line: medical care is not free, someone has to pay. you libs say "just let the government pay for all of us". So I ask you, where does the government get its money? Do you have any idea? From us-----either via income taxes, or corporate taxes that are included in everything we buy.

 

[danielpalos]

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

Oh I get it another MBA that reads from the book, no practical experience or common sense. I've seen a lot of you in my long career that because something says such and such in a book this is how it should be.

bottom line: medical care is not free, someone has to pay. you libs say "just let the government pay for all of us". So I ask you, where does the government get its money? Do you have any idea? From us-----either via income taxes, or corporate taxes that are included in everything we buy.

End the drug war to pay for it.

 

[debbiedowner]

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

Oh I get it another MBA that reads from the book, no practical experience or common sense. I've seen a lot of you in my long career that because something says such and such in a book this is how it should be.

bottom line: medical care is not free, someone has to pay. you libs say "just let the government pay for all of us". So I ask you, where does the government get its money? Do you have any idea? From us-----either via income taxes, or corporate taxes that are included in everything we buy.

End the drug war to pay for it.

There are many ways to pay for it without touching our pockets but the right can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to figure that out. Yes, legalize marijuana and tax it, legalize online gambling and tax it or better yet a national sales tax on everything and I mean everything purchased. This way everyone will pay their fair share of taxes, illegals, people working under the table, etc. There are ways.

Oh the sales tax is not over and above what we're paying now I mean to get of fed taxes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

And, yet, as I said before, every industrialized country on earth has some form of universal health care and not ONE of them has EVER discarded it to adopt our insurance model, which leaves millions uninsured, and burdens our employers with the lion's share of the cost of group health insurance, which makes them noncompetitive in the world marketplace. Ford, for example, has spent more per car manufactured in America on employee health insurance, than they spend on steel, since 1977. In spite of that, the RW can't seem to understand why manufacturers are moving jobs to other nations as fast as possible.

 

[deanrd]

Thank you Shackles for the health insurance lecture. Why, I learned so much from you that I did not know as a result of my 50 year career as a health insurance and HMO executive! I have no idea how I managed to reach the level of VP of Underwriting and Compliance without your insight! On top of that, I was one of three founders of two start up HMO's, that succeeded and merged with Humana and United. How I did that without you just boggles my mind!

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

How many dead are OK with you? And who should they be? What part of the country? How many children? What to do with the disabled and the elderly?

Please, give us your detailed plan. We all look forward to it.

 

[deanrd]

Is that why you can't come up with any legislation or bill enacted through Congress that has effectively been able to lower healthcare costs and premiums? Obviously Senator Kennedy felt that government needed to step in and Congress established the HMO Act, because HE felt the government could do a better job at making healthcare more "cost effective". I've provided my facts, so what exactly has kept you from showing us how much more effective our government can be? Evidently you can't think outside of your own resume.

I've been posting on this board since 2013 that the only way this country can have sustainable health coverage for all is through expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. My insurance career began in June, 1965, one month before Medicare went into effect, and endured for 15 years of hearing the RW scream that we were under a commie takeover and that it would fail, before they gave up. .I can't really be blamed if you have not been paying attention. Anything less will result in adverse selection and spiraling loss ratios. It really is that simple.

It's not sustainable. For one, when you say for ALL citizens you are also speaking of those who live off welfare with many who choose not to work. We already have an accruing debt which includes those who never contribute as responsible members of society. What you are purposing is irresponsible healthcare. Irresponsible meaning one where you speak of government handing out all these great "gifts" which sounds appealing on the surface but, when it comes to those little details of how exactly do you make such a dream wish financially sustainable and sound, is too often not thought through very well. Government has the same problem of sustainability with social security, which has this way of being revisited as a hot issue with every other election cycle, a battle between the problem of coverage and cost. In fact I can't find anyone who can name ONE government program that does not have cost problems, and not one that is proven to run more efficiently than the private sector ... not one. Now, like most everything else that surrounds these leftwing ideas of government entitlements, they simply use the familiar default excuse of "the rich will just pay for it'. This the rich will just have to [again] pay their increasing share, basically speaks of a plan where the details have not been thought out so they look to blow them off and brush it aside. Now, in this case, having the government completely take over healthcare with the "rich paying for it" is ...by definition... speaking of socialized medicine.

You see we have the usual promises the liberal democrats try to sell us on tthrough this fantasy of: let government be the parent holding the credit card and we'll just give you what you need. Only to later see those promises being broken in one of three ways - 1) premiums rising .. 2) reduction in coverage ... 3) government costs accruing like a snowball on our national debt. Democrats thought government can do a better job when they passed Obamacare, and it didn't take 8 years to see the consequence of less providers to offer insurance, resulting in a rise to premiums when insurers are left to cover the weight of an increase in the gap of coverages remaining, and cost STILL causing yet another government program to slip in increasing revenue problems from an inability to be self sustaining.

Massachusetts Health Care had the problem of battling the issues of increasing costs associated with care.
California failed to come up with a single payer system for their state, over the issue to cover costs.
Obamacare is collapsing due to a need for health care demand but a growing problem of costs.
NHS has to limit what treatments they will allow and cover, while they still battle over covering its British citizens over costs.
Canada has chosen to allow private insurers as a means to try and lower procedural wait times and battle costs.

Do we see a common thread that every case, which chooses to allow government control of healthcare, faces? It will be the same problem surrounding Medicare expansion for ALL Americans (which include those on a consistent, ongoing, welfare problem of growing government financial dependency).

I took a short cut to the end of your rant after the first two sentences. I have been hearing all the same arguments about Medicare, and how it is going to collapse, since 1965, and I am sure that there is nothing new that you can add. Of course, this is the way it is done in every other industrialized nation on earth, as well.

As I have likewise heard all the angles and excuses over how liberals believe single payer or Medicare expansion that's covers ALL Americans, especially welfare recipients, can be more cost effective and solvent. You haven't proven that at all, nor an explaination on how you believe government will cover the cost. Cost is the underlining issue that you obviously have a hard time with confronting when asked, The same can be said of those who believe social security is the same as it always has been and that funding is not really an issue. Those individuals end up being the very same people who didn't really know how our government set up the program in order to help those retirees in the FIRST place. You really should just go back to your insurance desk, since it's pretty evident that finances is not your forte.

And, yet, as I said before, every industrialized country on earth has some form of universal health care and not ONE of them has EVER discarded it to adopt our insurance model, which leaves millions uninsured, and burdens our employers with the lion's share of the cost of group health insurance, which makes them noncompetitive in the world marketplace. Ford, for example, has spent more per car manufactured in America on employee health insurance, than they spend on steel, since 1977. In spite of that, the RW can't seem to understand why manufacturers are moving jobs to other nations as fast as possible.

NOT MY PRESIDENT! RESIST! LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!
"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed." (Trump)

Trump... told members of Congress.... at a private White House reception that he believes he lost the popular vote in his election because 5 million illegal immigrants cast votes for his opponent...

"You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p**sy. You can do anything."

-------------

While normal people look at those statements and are appalled, Republicans get a sense of pride. "Finally, he's saying the things we believe out loud".
It's pitiful, just pitiful. Republicans say, "Oh stop being so politically correct".