1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP Healthcare Plan is a Liberal Conspiracy. Follow

#177 Apr 11 2017 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?


How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available", and "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". You're applying a ridiculous double standard here.

Um... But if you want the answer, it's been given multiple times to you. By allowing insurers to offer a wide variety of plans, they can include ones with less comprehensive coverage, but much lower premiums. By allowing insurers to compete across state lines, it can increase competition, resulting in not only more plan options, but forcing prices down on each tier of plan. Tort reform can also reduce premiums by reducing overhead to the health industry as a whole, the majority of which just lines the pockets of lawyers and does little or nothing to contribute to the health of those paying for this.

There's three things right off the top of my head, all of which I know for a fact have been discussed on this forum before. Some of them probably in this very thread. So yeah... How has been answered. Oh. And that is before mentioning that by merely *not* mandating the purchase of health insurance by everyone, you can avoid a cost increase (like what we've seen) that is pretty much guaranteed when you hand out free money like that. IMO, one of the biggest flaws with the ACA is that in their obsession over the true concept that the larger a pool of insurers, the lower the cost per person, they forgot that this only works when those insurers are free to buy or not buy the insurance. Once you mandate the purchase the rules change. Democrats often tend to forget stuff like that. So by just removing the mandate, we could lower premiums. Even if we changed nothing else at all. Viva la Free Market!

And yes, before you go there, that's all still a long way from written legislation. But again, that's a whole different issue. The devil is in the details, but that's true of anything you do, and probably doubly so for legislation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Apr 11 2017 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#179 Apr 11 2017 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here


And?


And nothing, you said you didn't know when they were from, so I looked it up.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#180 Apr 11 2017 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


How does forcing insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions and the Government paying for part of the premiums actually lower premiums though?

I only pay 560 dollars per year for my employer health insurance. But my employer pays 5600 ontop of that. The combined 6160 is still the cost of that health coverage even if I'm only paying 560 dollars.

Edited, Apr 12th 2017 12:11am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#181 Apr 11 2017 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?

When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


How does forcing insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions and the Government paying for part of the premiums actually lower premiums though?

I only pay 560 dollars per year for my employer health insurance. But my employer pays 5600 ontop of that. The combined 6160 is still the cost of that health coverage even if I'm only paying 560 dollars.

Really, dude?
gbaji wrote:
"more affordable", and "more available",
For the record, now that the 401(c)3 I work for decided to get group health insurance for us it cost me ~$125US a month for health insurance. I have no idea what the admin side pays, though.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#182 Apr 11 2017 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Really, dude?


I'm not the one that highlighted the specific question in the quote.

Friar Bijou wrote:
For the record, now that the 401(c)3 I work for decided to get group health insurance for us it cost me ~$125US a month for health insurance. I have no idea what the admin side pays, though.


Not that I care how much your employer pays, but in case you were curious yourself, I think that the new ACA rules (or, if not the rules themselves, it happened around the same time as the ACA) require it to be listed on your W2. It's the only reason I know how much they contribute.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#183 Apr 12 2017 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure when this was released, but this literally took 10 seconds to find on google

This is from 2009, pre-ACA passing. It was mentioned on this page


This is also from 2009 and predates the ACA passing. Found mention of it here

Edited to add:
Oh, also, found this on the first link I provided, looks like the actual legistlation that they wanted to use to amend the ACA. It's here


And?


And nothing, you said you didn't know when they were from, so I looked it up.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#184 Apr 12 2017 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
And now that song is stuck in my head.

Jerkass.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#185 Apr 12 2017 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Fine. Here this will clear it out of your head.



Edit: Love how Maui and Tamatoa have the same face in those two images... Go Disney. Smiley: lol

Edited, Apr 12th 2017 9:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#186 Apr 12 2017 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji's link wrote:
Lowering health care premiums.
The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number
-one priority for health care reform.
Yeah.

How?
How was Obama care supposed to do this? At what point did you demand that same question when the Democrats were telling you how the ACA would make health care "more affordable", and "more available",.
When it changed the law so I couldn't be refused due to PEC's?


How does that make it more affordable? Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the current pool of health care insurance consumers pays X dollars, and the total cost to provide them health care costs Y, with X and Y being relative to each other. Right now, the value of Y is based on the insurers refusing to cover the costs for pre-existing conditions. We change the rules to require this. That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.

We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons. It can only increase costs.

Quote:
When the subsidy cut the going rate in half?


Huh? What subsidy cut what rate in half? Premiums have increased at a rate faster than they were before the ACA was passed. And that's saying something. The law basically made the very thing they sold it on and made it worse. It was never about affordability. It was about getting people to support it by calling it that, while actually doing something else entirely.

How do you not see this?


Quote:
Was...was that supposed to be a trick question?


No. Not at all. The trick appears to be that you've somehow bought the entire line of BS that was sold to you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Apr 12 2017 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons...
I can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons; you historically have argued against doing anything for social reasons. Thought I'd point that out.



Ayn.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#188 Apr 12 2017 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#189 Apr 12 2017 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#190 Apr 12 2017 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
Of couse not. If the choice is a pile of gold 100 meters high or a pile 66 meters high with everyone getting taken care of, historically it's been "100 meters high it is!!"


There used to be a time when companies understood a thing called "the public good". Too bad that concept died, huh?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#191 Apr 12 2017 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons, but not cost reasons...
I can argue for covering PEC's for social reasons; you historically have argued against doing anything for social reasons. Thought I'd point that out.


Then make that argument. What you tried to do was argue that by covering PECs, it would somehow result in decreased costs. It wont. It will (and did) increase costs across the board.

Say "it's worth the extra cost to provide this". It's not that hard. My issue here is the bait and switch nature of this. Its' called the "Affordable Care Act". It was argued based on the issue of rising health care/insurance costs. It was sold to the public as a means to reduce those costs. And that was absolutely a lie.

I guess what bothers me so much about this, is that there are people who honestly think this is a great idea and we should go forward with it, but instead of actually saying "this is a great idea and we should go forward with it", they feel like they have to lie about what they are doing in order to get it done. Vote for the bill first, then find out what's in it. I think that's a terrible way to make law. If you actually think something is the right thing to do then argue for it, and then win the freaking argument. But if you can't win that argument, on those merits, then drop it. Don't just do it anyway by just re-labeling what you're doing as something else. That's never a good idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Apr 12 2017 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,920 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That means that the value of Y (the total cost to the insurer to cover their pool of customers) increases to cover that increased cost. Y goes up. Since X and Y are related, X (the total cost the insurance industry charges their customers) must also increase.
I get that people run a business to make money; really I do. But if covering PEC's means the insurance company has a net profit of 7 billion instead of 12 billion, then, hey, tough sh*t for the insurance company.
But you don't really think they'll eat that extra cost themselves, right?
Of couse not. If the choice is a pile of gold 100 meters high or a pile 66 meters high with everyone getting taken care of, historically it's been "100 meters high it is!!"


There used to be a time when companies understood a thing called "the public good". Too bad that concept died, huh?


While you're at it, why not argue that grocery stores should just provide food for free? That would be for the public good too, right? The problem with the "public good" argument is that there is no end to what is in the public good. Because the public is just as greedy as the businesses you're demanding take action to help the public good. They'll keep taking as much as you're willing to give them. And if you get the government in the business of forcing companies to provide for that public good, you're heading down a really nasty slippery slope.

Oh. And at the risk of repeating myself, that is not in any way aligned with the concept of "affordable". If they wanted to call it the "Public Good Act", then we could assess it on those merits.

There's no such thing as free. The only way to make something free is to make someone else pay for it. I don't know about you, but I don't want a government that gets in the habit of doing that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 12 2017 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then make that argument. What you tried to do was argue that by covering PECs, it would somehow result in decreased costs. It wont. It will (and did) increase costs across the board..
*SIGH*

YOU wrote:
"more affordable", and "more available"
Which is what I was responding to. Quit *****ing changing the subject every time you are answered. It's been pretty tiresome for the past eight years.

The fact that the insurance companies raised their prices is purely a matter of "more money!!" not "OMG we're gonna go broke".


Frankly, I think we should go completely single payer and let the health isurance companies go the way of the buggy harness industry.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#194 Apr 12 2017 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
PECs are a problem because it incentivized insurance corps to aggressively drop coverage, thus not adequately performing the entire function of insurance which is risk mitigation.

Disconnect this from the affordability argument, as it's a totally different discussion. If your argument is that PEC part of the legislation is an onerous cost driver you just don't understand the market, sorry.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#195 Apr 13 2017 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
I love my universal healthcare.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#196 Apr 13 2017 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's no such thing as free.
God knows how costly it is to my aspirin supply every time you think you're insightful about politics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Apr 13 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Apr 13 2017 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#199 Apr 13 2017 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I love my universal healthcare.

No you don't. You have to wait for nine months before you can have your bloody arm sewn back on in a stable.
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Because the animals actually liked Jesus, they were tired of being sacrifices, and he was supposed to put a stop to that. They don't like you so much since you'll just wait until they get turned into hot dogs then eat them. That cow has all the reason in the world to "accidentally bump" the surgeon.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#200 Apr 13 2017 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Being operated on a cross and being thrown in a cave for three days for recovery makes it less appealing.

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 12:21pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Apr 13 2017 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If being born around animals was good enough for Jesus, I can't see why a simple medical procedure around them isn't good enough for me!
Being operated on a cross and being thrown in a cave for three days for recovery makes it less appealing.

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 12:21pm by lolgaxe
Americans and their constant need for luxuries Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)