Pre-existing conditions coverage

[Seawytch]

Poor Rabbi...

Sir Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield,

Invention of the CT scanner[edit]
While on an outing in the country, Hounsfield came up with the idea that one could determine what was inside a box by taking X-ray readings at all angles around the object.
Hounsfield's sketch
He then set to work constructing a computer that could take input from X-rays at various angles to create an image of the object in "slices". Applying this idea to the medical field led him to propose what is now known as computed tomography. At the time, Hounsfield was not aware of the work that Cormack had done on the theoretical mathematics for such a device.
The prototype CT scanner
Hounsfield built a prototype head scanner and tested it first on a preserved human brain, then on a fresh cow brain from a butcher shop, and later on himself. On 1 October 1971, CT scanning was introduced into medical practice with a successful scan on a cerebral cyst patient at Atkinson Morley Hospital in Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom.[11] In 1975, Hounsfield built a whole-body scanner.

 

[Seawytch]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

 

[The Rabbi]

Poor Rabbi...

Sir Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield,

Invention of the CT scanner[edit]
While on an outing in the country, Hounsfield came up with the idea that one could determine what was inside a box by taking X-ray readings at all angles around the object.
Hounsfield's sketch
He then set to work constructing a computer that could take input from X-rays at various angles to create an image of the object in "slices". Applying this idea to the medical field led him to propose what is now known as computed tomography. At the time, Hounsfield was not aware of the work that Cormack had done on the theoretical mathematics for such a device.
The prototype CT scanner
Hounsfield built a prototype head scanner and tested it first on a preserved human brain, then on a fresh cow brain from a butcher shop, and later on himself. On 1 October 1971, CT scanning was introduced into medical practice with a successful scan on a cerebral cyst patient at Atkinson Morley Hospital in Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom.[11] In 1975, Hounsfield built a whole-body scanner.

Wow you managed to find one or two advances that didnt originate here. That must have taken something, because most drugs, innovations in procedure, and technology do in fact originate here.
And even where they dont, like the CAT scanners, the US has them in abundance while Britons have to wait months for one.
Yes socialized medicine is a gross failure on every level. It delivers sub standard service at premium prices to taxpayers. Like everything else the gov't provides.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

What?
Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting - Forbes

We should overburden a bankrupt program with more people to make it fail faster? Is that your question?

 

[Seawytch]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

What?
Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting - Forbes

We should overburden a bankrupt program with more people to make it fail faster? Is that your question?

How would more people buying it "overburden" it? Wouldn't people actually paying for Medicare on the exchange strengthen it? We're talking young, healthy people paying into Medicare.

 

[Seawytch]

Poor Rabbi...

Sir Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield,

Invention of the CT scanner[edit]
While on an outing in the country, Hounsfield came up with the idea that one could determine what was inside a box by taking X-ray readings at all angles around the object.
Hounsfield's sketch
He then set to work constructing a computer that could take input from X-rays at various angles to create an image of the object in "slices". Applying this idea to the medical field led him to propose what is now known as computed tomography. At the time, Hounsfield was not aware of the work that Cormack had done on the theoretical mathematics for such a device.
The prototype CT scanner
Hounsfield built a prototype head scanner and tested it first on a preserved human brain, then on a fresh cow brain from a butcher shop, and later on himself. On 1 October 1971, CT scanning was introduced into medical practice with a successful scan on a cerebral cyst patient at Atkinson Morley Hospital in Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom.[11] In 1975, Hounsfield built a whole-body scanner.

Wow you managed to find one or two advances that didnt originate here. That must have taken something, because most drugs, innovations in procedure, and technology do in fact originate here.
And even where they dont, like the CAT scanners, the US has them in abundance while Britons have to wait months for one.
Yes socialized medicine is a gross failure on every level. It delivers sub standard service at premium prices to taxpayers. Like everything else the gov't provides.

What I did was prove that you're full of shit. Medical advances aren't stifled in single payer countries, period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poor Rabbi...

Sir Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield,

Invention of the CT scanner[edit]
While on an outing in the country, Hounsfield came up with the idea that one could determine what was inside a box by taking X-ray readings at all angles around the object.
Hounsfield's sketch
He then set to work constructing a computer that could take input from X-rays at various angles to create an image of the object in "slices". Applying this idea to the medical field led him to propose what is now known as computed tomography. At the time, Hounsfield was not aware of the work that Cormack had done on the theoretical mathematics for such a device.
The prototype CT scanner
Hounsfield built a prototype head scanner and tested it first on a preserved human brain, then on a fresh cow brain from a butcher shop, and later on himself. On 1 October 1971, CT scanning was introduced into medical practice with a successful scan on a cerebral cyst patient at Atkinson Morley Hospital in Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom.[11] In 1975, Hounsfield built a whole-body scanner.

Wow you managed to find one or two advances that didnt originate here. That must have taken something, because most drugs, innovations in procedure, and technology do in fact originate here.
And even where they dont, like the CAT scanners, the US has them in abundance while Britons have to wait months for one.
Yes socialized medicine is a gross failure on every level. It delivers sub standard service at premium prices to taxpayers. Like everything else the gov't provides.

What I did was prove that you're full of shit. Medical advances aren't stifled in single payer countries, period.

You proved no such thing. You proved a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then. It would be bizarre if no other country anywhere ever produced some advancement in medicine. But the fact is the vast majority come out of America. Or did, until Obamacare killed a system that worked really well.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

Where's the fed going to get monies above and beyond from?

Five years later, it's largely federal funding that keeps Massachusetts' universal coverage afloat. Since 2005, the state has twice renewed that federal waiver -- the one Lizza and McDonough wrote about -- to provide additional Medicaid dollars to the state.

The most recent renewal was last December 2011, when the state secured $26.75 billion in federal funds over the course of three years. It will, among other programs, continue to finance the universal coverage program.

"The milestone agreement also ensures the ongoing success of Massachusetts’ historic health care reform initiative, through which more than 98 percent of the Commonwealth’s residents, and 99.8 percent of children, have health insurance," Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bixby wrote at the time. "The waiver fully funds our ongoing health care reform implementation."

So Massachusetts used not just federal Medicaid money but federal dollars above and beyond that Medicaid money to finance their health reforms.

How Romney paid for Romneycare, with federal help

 

[Zoom-boing]

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

Stop.....

Yes, Massachusetts has this policy. Now, what is the reality?

Health insurance premiums after the MassHealth system was imposed, were more than double the national average, and almost 40% higher than the next highest state.

MassHealth did not reduce insurance premiums. It did however, lower the quality of care. Wait times for health care in MassHealth is terrible.

The time people spending waiting in Massachusetts, is more than double than anywhere else in the entire country.

If Obama Care is ever enacted exactly like MassHealth, the left can praise themselves for successfully screwing over the entire country.

The 'left' wanted single payer are at least a public option. But America is infested with fear filled right wing ideologues who worship what they falsely believe is a free market, when in fact it is a 'FEE" market.

The individual mandate was created by the right wing Heritage Foundation to address the "free rider' problem.

Conservatives have ZERO solutions, just scorn for what they once praised....

How'd that mandate idea work out back in the 90's? It was such a great idea that it got bi-partisan support, was voted in, and has been up and running ever since. Right?

The left resurrected the dead mandate idea; the left owns the mandate. Period.

 

[Seawytch]

Wow you managed to find one or two advances that didnt originate here. That must have taken something, because most drugs, innovations in procedure, and technology do in fact originate here.
And even where they dont, like the CAT scanners, the US has them in abundance while Britons have to wait months for one.
Yes socialized medicine is a gross failure on every level. It delivers sub standard service at premium prices to taxpayers. Like everything else the gov't provides.

What I did was prove that you're full of shit. Medical advances aren't stifled in single payer countries, period.

You proved no such thing. You proved a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then. It would be bizarre if no other country anywhere ever produced some advancement in medicine. But the fact is the vast majority come out of America. Or did, until Obamacare killed a system that worked really well.

Every one of your "arguments" was shot down like a Christmas goose. Our system didn't "work pretty well" which is why Healthcare always topped the "issues" polls. The Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction, but heathcare reform isn't done yet by a long shot. Not until we have AT LEAST a public option, if not full blown single payer...like the rest of our capitalist allies have.

 

[healthmyths]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

HERE ARE the FACTS about those MILLIONS and MILLIONS who aren't covered because of "Pre-existing conditions"..

The fact is there never were 100 million people ineligible for health insurance due to "pre-existing conditions" as stated below!
The fact is less then 1.5 million that were denied due to "pre-existing conditions"!


Obama's Pre-existing Conditions Whopper
Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) incredibly determined that almost half the American population could be ineligible for health insurance due to a preexisting condition.
This sure sounds like a crisis, but the HHS simply counted all Americans with asthma, bad backs, diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic diseases
that theoretically could be a reason to deny coverage or charge a higher premium.
According to the latest Census Bureau data, 309 million Americans have health insurance.
Of these 4 percent are covered by directly purchased insurance alone. The remaining 96 percent are covered by government or company insurance or some combination.
Government health insurance does not allow discrimination based on preexisting conditions.
Company insurance typically does not either, insofar as the risk pool is already incorporated in the premiums, and there are portability requirements
in moving from company to company.

Thus 12 million people purchased private direct purchased health insurance on the eve of Obama Care.

Insurance industry studies show that one in eight applicants for private health insurance have preexisting conditions that affect their eligibility or premiums.
This gives a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.

The Obama administration has lied with statistics! Instead of 150 million, there are 1.5 million Americans,

who “cannot get insurance or must pay higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.”
The pre-existing conditions crisis becomes a gnat bite when things are measured correctly.

How to Lie with Statistics of the 1960s showed how to fudge statistics a little, not to exaggerate by a hundred-fold.

The Obama administration has taken this to a new level befitting the 21st century.

But must we change our whole health care system to handle a problem that affects one half of one percent?

If we gave a $10,000 subsidy to each person denied coverage or paying a higher premium, we could keep our existing health-care system pre-conditions for one tenth the projected cost of Obama Care.

Obama's Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

See if you can explain to him why my insurance company is not happy to hear that I have cancer? Hint: they aren't just being nice. And why if I have cancer and lose my insurance not a one of them wants me as a client. Thanks a bunch. He'll never listen to me.

Let's say you have home insurance. You filled out the application stating you will not use the home for commercial business.
You get coverage.
Then you decide to bake pizzas.
One day the oven catches fire and burns down the house.
Should the home insurance company pay for the house?

 

[The Rabbi]

What I did was prove that you're full of shit. Medical advances aren't stifled in single payer countries, period.

You proved no such thing. You proved a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then. It would be bizarre if no other country anywhere ever produced some advancement in medicine. But the fact is the vast majority come out of America. Or did, until Obamacare killed a system that worked really well.

Every one of your "arguments" was shot down like a Christmas goose. Our system didn't "work pretty well" which is why Healthcare always topped the "issues" polls. The Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction, but heathcare reform isn't done yet by a long shot. Not until we have AT LEAST a public option, if not full blown single payer...like the rest of our capitalist allies have.

Over 95% of people were satisfied with their healthcare and insurance. It was a fake argument ginned up by liberals. Even the 45M uninsured was a fake. There was never any such number.
Obamacare is a step towards imposing Euro-socialism on this country. It has been a dream of the Left since the 1940s. There has never been an entitlement that has failed as spectacularly as this one. One reason the Dems running this year are chiefly running from it.
Our "capitalist" allies, by which Iassume you mean the Socialist French and Social Democrat Germans among others, are saddled with systems that have rising costs and declining beneifts. Why we'd want to copy failure is beyond me. But the Left is into failure.

 

[dnsmith35]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

Give them two choices, Medicare and Medicaid, with the appropriate premiums billed from their employers or paid by the government if not employed.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

Give them two choices, Medicare and Medicaid, with the appropriate premiums billed from their employers or paid by the government if not employed.

Why would we give people the choice of tyranny or oppression?

 

[Andylusion]

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

Stop.....

Yes, Massachusetts has this policy. Now, what is the reality?

Health insurance premiums after the MassHealth system was imposed, were more than double the national average, and almost 40% higher than the next highest state.

MassHealth did not reduce insurance premiums. It did however, lower the quality of care. Wait times for health care in MassHealth is terrible.

The time people spending waiting in Massachusetts, is more than double than anywhere else in the entire country.

If Obama Care is ever enacted exactly like MassHealth, the left can praise themselves for successfully screwing over the entire country.

The 'left' wanted single payer are at least a public option. But America is infested with fear filled right wing ideologues who worship what they falsely believe is a free market, when in fact it is a 'FEE" market.

The individual mandate was created by the right wing Heritage Foundation to address the "free rider' problem.

Conservatives have ZERO solutions, just scorn for what they once praised....

It's non-answers like this, that cause right-wingers to think the left is ignorant and stupid.

What did you just say, that had anything to do with the topic? Nothing.

The prior poster claimed that Obama Care was good, because it was based on MassHealth in Massachusetts. Yet MassHealth, a "Universal Coverage" health care system, backed by the State Government.... has the highest premiums in the entire US, *AND* has the worst care in the entire US.

Nothing..... *NOTHING*..... NOT ONE THING... you said, changes any of that.

Obama Care is a failure, because it was based on MassHealth which is a failure.

Now, you want to talk about solutions? Ok.... let's talk about solutions.

When people try and escape their crap awful socialized single payer health care systems in Canada, and UK, and France.... where do they go? They go to Singapore, or India, or similar... right... but specifically, what hospitals do they go to? The government regulated hospitals?

No, read up medical tourism. They go to the private, non-regulated, non-controlled, non-government, free-market capitalist based hospitals. Competition, in a un-regulated free-market system, keeps prices low, and quality high.

If we had that here.... we would have the same result.

The problem is, we have regulations out the wazoo. Further, we increase the cost of health in our country, with bad government programs.

You want to know why health care costs are spiking up constantly? It real simple.... (psst: Secret here) Medicare / Medicaid... doesn't cover the full cost of care. Hospitals have to charge private patients a higher price, to cover the loss of government patients. It's called "cost shifting"

See... as the cost of care exceeds the payouts by Medicare and Medicaid, the hospital can't just ignore that.... they'll go out of business, and then no one get's any care.

So instead, they charge *YOU* more money, to off set the loss caused by government.

Of course most of that cost is passed onto the insurance companies, and then of course the insurance companies have to pass that cost on in higher premiums.... and then some brainless idiot leftist twit starts screaming about insurance premiums, and demands me need more Medicare and Medicaid... too plain stupid to realize that they are in fact demanding their own premiums go up even more, to cover the greater loss from Medicare and Medicaid on hospitals.

Dude.... Look in the mirror. There's the problem.

And lastly, about the "FEE".....

Free-market doesn't mean free of cost. We never suggested that it did, nor should it.

We on the right, are not greedy, and envious, and think we should get stuff from others, for nothing.

We WANT to pay for what we have. Hello.... I work for living. I pay for everything I have. That's the way it should be.

And honestly, there is not other system. You guys look at the UK, and it's "free health care", and are not looking at the everything else. You realize that the AVERAGE citizen in the UK, pays over 50% of their income in taxes? Nothing is free.

And when you try to NOT raise taxes, and simply pay people less money, you end up with people pulling their own teeth out, because no dentist in the UK will work for the government system.

Dentist shortage 'forces more people to go to casualty with tooth problems' | Society | theguardian.com

More than 22,000 people had to be admitted to hospital for emergency dental treatment last year, according to figures obtained by the Conservatives.

22,000 people ended up in the HOSPITAL..... for a tooth ache.

FREE HEALTH CARE!! YAY!!! ... Er... no dentists.....

Brits resort to pulling own teeth - CNN.com

Some English people have resorted to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot find -- or cannot afford -- a dentist, a major study has revealed.

So you tax away 50% of their income, and yet they still can't find a government dentist, but now because 50% of their income is gone, they can't afford a private dentist either.

Welcome to socialized health care! Leftist are brilliant! I can't wait until US citizens are pulling their own teeth too!

 

[Andylusion]

Carelessness in driving may justify a higher premium. Simply being sick does not, but I think the government should simply give them Medicaid and bill their employer if profitable.

They both justify higher premiums. The question is, Does the profile of this case create a greater risk of claim down the road? The answer in both cases is Yes. Whch is why their premiums ought to be higher.
Under Obamacare it is not higher. Because the excess risk is paid for by other people. That is unjust and unfair.

Don't get the idea I like Obama care. I don't! But I do agree that no one should be without health insurance, healthy or not, because eventually they incur expenses others have to pay for.

You realize that this is how tyranny starts. You push for, and implement a system where society covers bad behavior. Then you use that policy imposed cost, to justify the controlling of society.

So your neighbor likes to skateboard without any pads. Your neighbor falls down, and gets banged up.

After this happens several times, you determine that you out of compassion will cover the cost of bandages and splints needed to help your neighbor when he falls.

This of course causes your neighbor to skateboard even more, with even less protection, because you are now covering his risk, thus he has no restraint.

After a few weeks, the costs start to mount. You decide now that you can't afford him doing this. Instead of discontinuing the policy of subsidizing his risky behavior, that instead you will force him to stop skateboarding, and control his life.

Congrats. You just outlined tyranny in society.

The only reason "eventually they incur expenses others have to pay for" is if we enact policies that cover their irresponsibility.

There are two very real, and workable solutions to this.

A. Engage in tyranny, and control every aspect of human behavior, revoking freedom and all become defacto slaves of the government.

B. Stop subsidizing other people's irresponsibility.

I vote for plan B.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

Healthy people are forced to pay more for the same coverage than they would if they were not subsidizing the sick.

Yes, that is the point. Requiring everyone to get into the system spreads the risk more uniformly.

How do the young and health have a responsibility to "share the risk" presented by the old and sick, with that responsibility being so acute that the state -must- enforce it?

This means that healthy people are forced to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

Actually they are gambling they won't need it. Requiring everyone to have liability insurance is no different than requiring all persons to join the risk bank for health insurance.

Actually, they are being forced by the state to pay for things they do not receive; no amount of spin will change this.

There's -nothing- fair about that.

No, its not.

So... why do you support the state screwing the young and the healthy?

 

[The Rabbi]

So... why do you support the state screwing the young and the healthy?

If you can't screw the young and healthy, who can you screw? They will continue to vote Dem anyway because they believe in making sacrifices for the dear Leader. They have been sold a bill of goods. People who finished college within the last 5 years are probably the most shit-on demographic in how they've fared.

 

[dnsmith35]

So Rabbi, people like Medicare, they like the VA, other countries seem to be making medical advances with their "socialist" healthcare...what is your problem with simply adding Medicare as a choice on the ACA exchanges?

Give them two choices, Medicare and Medicaid, with the appropriate premiums billed from their employers or paid by the government if not employed.

Why would we give people the choice of tyranny or oppression?

I agree, why should we? But as a modern society we owe our people medical care and I believe it should be done at the least cost to tax payers as possible. Thus instead of Obama care and all the money that will take it will be less expensive to simply cover everyone not currently covered with Medicaid and bill their employer for the premiums if they are profitable. No tyranny! No oppression! It eliminates the tyranny and oppression of not being able to afford insurance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Give them two choices, Medicare and Medicaid, with the appropriate premiums billed from their employers or paid by the government if not employed.

Why would we give people the choice of tyranny or oppression?

I agree, why should we? But as a modern society we owe our people medical care...

We do? Accoring to what?