Insuring The Insurance Industry

[Flanders]

HillaryCare II contains but one economic truth. Pay more for less, yet this article says that older Americans are winners:

These luckless people, most in their 50s and 60s, have emerged this month as early winners under the nation's new health insurance system.

XXXXX​

Americans ages 55 to 64 make up 31 percent of new enrollees in the new health insurance marketplaces, the largest segment by age group, according to the federal government's latest figures. They represent a glimmer of success for President Barack Obama's beleaguered law.

The lies and cruelty are mind-boggling even for Democrats. Clearly, the Administration’s propaganda is an attempt to offset the loss of those American voters already on Medicare who are finally learning that cuts to their care will pay for whatever benefits the 50 and 60 year olds get.

Those Americans close to eligibility for Medicare paid into the program for decades as did the people on Medicare who are seeing drastic reductions in the treatment they receive, and in the higher costs they have to pay out of pocket for the care they used to get. Care they were promised throughout all of those years the government forced them to pay into the system.

The cruelty is in the fact that those who are being told they are getting a break will pay a lot more on the back-end when they get on Medicare.

Also, the number of Americans who will benefit up front is limited to those who become seriously ill, or suffer in an accident. Their number is miniscule in relation to the number who will pay the premiums without ever becoming seriously ill. Basically, the government is selling fear insurance that everybody is buying from the insurance companies:

In Miami, licensed practical nurse Marie Cadet, who is 54, often works double shifts to make ends meet for herself and her 12-year-old daughter. She had been paying more than $150 a month for health insurance, with a $3,000 deductible. In effect, she paid most medical costs out of her own pocket, including about $80 a month for blood pressure medicine.

After choosing a plan from the marketplace, Cadet's monthly payment dropped to $86 a month, with the government kicking in $300. Her deductible fell to a more affordable $900.

"Now," Cadet said, "I'm not scared anymore."

AP February 17, 2014, 3:11 PM
Obamacare's winners include older Americans

Obamacare's winners include older Americans - CBS News​

The final cruelty is insurance company bailouts should a lot more than the projected number of frightened Americans actually require a lot of treatment. A government bailout for the insurance industry protects against that possibility. Naturally, the taxpayers pay the premiums. Write up bailouts as a life insurance policy and Wall Street would be listed as the beneficiary.

 

[emilynghiem]

The lesson from all this govt fiasco will be for Americans to invest in your own businesses, churches, charities, nonprofits, communities. Direct your business investments into creating your own solutions, and deduct all the business expenses from your federal taxes.

Quit giving money and authority to people who abuse it. Invest it directly in the programs you believe in as ethical, sustainable and cost effective. Vote with your dollars, words and actions, and create your own economy and programs locally. Teach people, inside and outside govt, what sustainable solutions look like; and don't accept any legislation written otherwise. Make them revise and rewrite them if they want the people to fund them. If not, go create your own systems to fund and deduct that from your taxes, by charity or by business.

Whatever is proven to work, we can model govt after those blueprints and replicate working programs that save taxpayer money and end abuse or overreliance. People naturally support good policies and solutions by choice, and that's what govt should represent: the consent of the people, the govt should serve and represent those interests.

HillaryCare II contains but one economic truth. Pay more for less, yet this article says that older Americans are winners:

These luckless people, most in their 50s and 60s, have emerged this month as early winners under the nation's new health insurance system.

XXXXX​

Americans ages 55 to 64 make up 31 percent of new enrollees in the new health insurance marketplaces, the largest segment by age group, according to the federal government's latest figures. They represent a glimmer of success for President Barack Obama's beleaguered law.

The lies and cruelty are mind-boggling even for Democrats. Clearly, the Administration’s propaganda is an attempt to offset the loss of those American voters already on Medicare who are finally learning that cuts to their care will pay for whatever benefits the 50 and 60 year olds get.

Those Americans close to eligibility for Medicare paid into the program for decades as did the people on Medicare who are seeing drastic reductions in the treatment they receive, and in the higher costs they have to pay out of pocket for the care they used to get. Care they were promised throughout all of those years the government forced them to pay into the system.

The cruelty is in the fact that those who are being told they are getting a break will pay a lot more on the back-end when they get on Medicare.

Also, the number of Americans who will benefit up front is limited to those who become seriously ill, or suffer in an accident. Their number is miniscule in relation to the number who will pay the premiums without ever becoming seriously ill. Basically, the government is selling fear insurance that everybody is buying from the insurance companies:

In Miami, licensed practical nurse Marie Cadet, who is 54, often works double shifts to make ends meet for herself and her 12-year-old daughter. She had been paying more than $150 a month for health insurance, with a $3,000 deductible. In effect, she paid most medical costs out of her own pocket, including about $80 a month for blood pressure medicine.

After choosing a plan from the marketplace, Cadet's monthly payment dropped to $86 a month, with the government kicking in $300. Her deductible fell to a more affordable $900.

"Now," Cadet said, "I'm not scared anymore."

AP February 17, 2014, 3:11 PM
Obamacare's winners include older Americans

Obamacare's winners include older Americans - CBS News​

The final cruelty is insurance company bailouts should a lot more than the projected number of frightened Americans actually require a lot of treatment. A government bailout for the insurance industry protects against that possibility. Naturally, the taxpayers pay the premiums. Write up bailouts as a life insurance policy and Wall Street would be listed as the beneficiary.

 

[Antares]

Yup, the risk corridors are to bail them out.

 

[Flanders]

the govt should serve and represent those interests.

To emilynghiem: The government should do only what the Constitution enumerates, and NOT one thing more.

Yup, the risk corridors are to bail them out.

To Antares: Risk corridors? Is that your way of saying bailouts are okay for sharpshooters in every business who can create a risk corridor then claim a bailout.

Incidentally, the insurance industry was up to its tricks in writing the original HillaryCare. I wager that they were busy creating risk corridors decades before the current scam was forced on the country.

 

[Antares]

the govt should serve and represent those interests.

To emilynghiem: The government should do only what the Constitution enumerates, and NOT one thing more.

Yup, the risk corridors are to bail them out.

To Antares: Risk corridors? Is that your way of saying bailouts are okay for sharpshooters in every business who can create a risk corridor then claim a bailout.

Incidentally, the insurance industry was up to its tricks in writing the original HillaryCare. I wager that they were busy creating risk corridors decades before the current scam was forced on the country.

LOL, stick around and you'll discern who stands where on these issues.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s an approach to the farce that I never considered (my emphasis):

As the ObamaCare debate rages, we hear much about insurance companies, costs and people’s ability to pay. We hear the policy defended as proponents tell us it will provide healthcare to those who never had it. Of course, these proponents never seem to explain how those who couldn’t afford healthcare when it was a choice can now afford an even more expensive cost now that government mandates it.

ObamaCare: The Terrifying Consequences To Healthcare
By Tom Deweese Tuesday, February 18, 2014

ObamaCare: The Terrifying Consequences To Healthcare​

The explanation is easy. Everybody can afford everything when somebody else is paying.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Antares: you and I probably agree on limited govt.
What I was referring to was "consent of the governed"

This is not specifically stated in the Constitution, so it takes some interpretation to enforce the "consent of the governed" as the spirit of social contracts and laws.

Because it isn't specifically stated as a Constitutional amendment, maybe that's why we're having such trouble teaching people the govt should respect our consent on principle!

that's what our laws are: social contracts we are supposed to agree to; not to legislated blindly and see if someone outvotes it, or a court rules it out of bounds. From the very beginning we should agree what the ground rules are and how to follow Constitutional due process and work WITH the checks and balances, not try to bypass them.

This is what I meant by respecting consent of the governed. AS Constitutionalists we would clearly stick to rule of law to express our consent. As a Democrat also, I would insist on Constitutional INCLUSION to mean respecting all views and beliefs without discrimination.

Consent of all parties would ensure checks and balances where no power is abused to override the representation and due process for all people and interests equally.

Like you said, anything not specifically authorized for federal govt would be handled by other means, so we'd have limited govt based on just the areas where we agree 100%. anything we don't agree is federal policy should be localized to the states or to the people.

the govt should serve and represent those interests.

To emilynghiem: The government should do only what the Constitution enumerates, and NOT one thing more.

Yup, the risk corridors are to bail them out.

To Antares: Risk corridors? Is that your way of saying bailouts are okay for sharpshooters in every business who can create a risk corridor then claim a bailout.

Incidentally, the insurance industry was up to its tricks in writing the original HillaryCare. I wager that they were busy creating risk corridors decades before the current scam was forced on the country.

LOL, stick around and you'll discern who stands where on these issues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders, stop the diarrhea mouth, please.

Crunch the numbers in % and dollars. Right now you are simply running off at the mouth.

 

[Moonglow]

Here’s an approach to the farce that I never considered (my emphasis):

As the ObamaCare debate rages, we hear much about insurance companies, costs and people’s ability to pay. We hear the policy defended as proponents tell us it will provide healthcare to those who never had it. Of course, these proponents never seem to explain how those who couldn’t afford healthcare when it was a choice can now afford an even more expensive cost now that government mandates it.

ObamaCare: The Terrifying Consequences To Healthcare
By Tom Deweese Tuesday, February 18, 2014

ObamaCare: The Terrifying Consequences To Healthcare​

The explanation is easy. Everybody can afford everything when somebody else is paying.

It helps....lol!

 

[Moonglow]

When they wrote the Constitution they were still bleeding people to death to cure them. I doubt I would have wanted it back then.