SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Another burdensome Obamacare rule, Summary of Benefits and Coverage< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 6:55 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Another of Obamacare's intrusions into the free market of health care and health insurance takes affect next year. See New Health Insurance Form

Most of us believe that in a free market economy, the burden to knowing what you are buying falls on buyers and consumers. We also believe that sellers have a legal obligation not to deceive us - and we have strict consumer laws to enforce that. For example, a seller cannot legally market a 4 pound sack of potatoes as weighing 5 pounds - or add water to something marketed as gasoline. Other than that, free market economics mean that the buyer must beware.

So the burden of reading all the pages of fine print, and knowing that his health insurance policy covers treatment for say, back pain, or cancer, falls entirely on the buyer - as long as the seller does NOT deceive us. This gives each health insurance provider a lot of latitude in defining what their "comprehensive health insurance" is, and what the definitions of terms like "standard medical practice" mean.

Less than ethical health insurance companies can wine and dine your company benefits manager and sell your company insurances that have fine print exclusions that pretty much makes the policy worthless. This gives that insurance company a competitive advantage over a more ethical competitor as long as they are skillful in burying the things that they don't cover in the many pages of legalese and fine print. That is why your company pays your benefits manager and a lot of lawyers and specialists a lot of money to read and understand that stuff so that they can compare policies and make an informed purchase.

That is the way that free markets work. And lots of people are employed both to generate the fine print, and to evaluate the fine print. As long as there is not deceit on the part of the seller, it is the buyer's responsibility to know what he is buying.

But Obamacare's new "Summary of Benefits and Coverage" rule intrudes into capitalistic free market principles by mandating that health insurance policies provide in a relatively short document in clear language what they are selling. The thick pages of legalese and fine print must be replaced with a relatively short standardized eight page summary that makes comparisons straightforward. This requirement violates the principles of free markets and the responsibility of buyers to know what they are buying.

This is another reason that Obamacare must be repealed. Free markets are the reason that America is the way that it is. Obamacare destroys free markets.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42794
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 11:04 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Free market"?

Too funny.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
davela Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 6:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So there is a dollar value on your health?There is no better example of an immoral concept than our healthcare racket.We have a long way to go in understanding this.Every other civilized nation on this earth has figured this out and they provide at less expense and have longer lifespans.We are neanderthals as far as social development is concerned.

*We need to figure out how we can make our country more civilized not how we can monetize every single need or facet of our lives.


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

Protect Greater Canyonlands!

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 4
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8222
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 7:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm with Bass.
Let's keep our health insurance contracts so complicated that we need to have an contract lawyer on retainer to decipher it for us.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
orygawn Search for posts by this member.
Sleeping Bag Man!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6034
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 7:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So your idea of "free market" is that if your company is too small to hire an army of lawyers, or if you have an individual policy but no law degree........well, too bad.  Die.  

We can engrave that on their tombstones.  

"Buyer Beware"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6219
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 8:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In a true free market, there would be no safety or professional qualification standards whatsoever.  As long as an auto manufacturer or meat processor or a doctor was willing to pay the market value of any death or injury their products or services might cause, then they could engage in selling their product or services without any societal oversight whatsoever.  And as long as they were willing to pay for a non-disclosure agreement, they could keep such information from reaching the general public.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
davela Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 03 2012, 8:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 03 2012, 6:55 am)
QUOTE
Free markets are the reason that America is the way that it is. Obamacare destroys free markets.

I agree 100%.Financial crisis culprit:freemarkets.Deregulation culprit-freemarkets.Have at it.

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

Protect Greater Canyonlands!

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 8
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 6:58 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(orygawn @ Oct. 03 2012, 6:53 pm)
QUOTE
So your idea of "free market" is that if your company is too small to hire an army of lawyers, or if you have an individual policy but no law degree........well, too bad.  Die.  

We can engrave that on their tombstones.  

"Buyer Beware"

That is the way things are now. It is the buyer's responsibility to know what he is buying. That's the way free markets work. Obamacare is changing that next year.

Free market economics gave the US the best health care system in the world. This new burdensome rule is just another example of how government rules and regulations are destroying America. More government interferences in free markets, all these regulations, are just leading us down the road to socialism.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 8:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm not sure what planet Bass is from but his doctrine of kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out seems to have extended to healthcare. The "free market" is not what gave the US the "best healthcare system in the world."  During our history of true free market enterprise, where government regulation was practically non-existent, doctors were often paid through bartering. People often died in childbirth, from polio, and from countless other illnesses that today are cured with routine treatment. It's now, in the age of Medicare, Medicaid, government backed student loans, government funded research grants, etc., that the US has moved to a world class system of health. Despite that, as most people who are awake know, we're still ranked 37th by the WHO which here in the real world means we do not have  the "best healthcare system in the world."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 8:29 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Oct. 04 2012, 8:16 am)
QUOTE
I'm not sure what planet Bass is from but his doctrine of kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out seems to have extended to healthcare. The "free market" is not what gave the US the "best healthcare system in the world."  During our history of true free market enterprise, where government regulation was practically non-existent, doctors were often paid through bartering. People often died in childbirth, from polio, and from countless other illnesses that today are cured with routine treatment. It's now, in the age of Medicare, Medicaid, government backed student loans, government funded research grants, etc., that the US has moved to a world class system of health. Despite that, as most people who are awake know, we're still ranked 37th by the WHO which here in the real world means we do not have  the "best healthcare system in the world."

So the cure for polio resulted from regulation

Who knew :)


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42794
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 9:46 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It resulted from medical research Romney/Ryan wants to slash by two thirds.

I worked at the Salk Institute for fifteen years: cut federal medical research by two thirds as the Romney/Ryan budget Maths out in order to slash all federal discretionary spending by two thirds while increasing and locking in military spending at a fixed 4% of GDP without regard for threat, mission or needs and thats what we get; a ghost town.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
orygawn Search for posts by this member.
Sleeping Bag Man!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6034
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 12:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 04 2012, 3:58 am)
QUOTE
That is the way things are now. It is the buyer's responsibility to know what he is buying. That's the way free markets work. Obamacare is changing that next year.

What an immoral, callous worldview.  

The purpose of a business is to create a sustainable revenue stream.  When I go to a medical provider, I don't want to be a sustainable revenue stream.  I want to be treated as a human being.

I'm glad Obama is changing this.  And I could not care less if some health insurance CEO can't add a 15th room to his mansion due to this "imposition".  Boo hoo.  I'm not about to tell my best friend or mother who gets cheated by their health insurance company "it was your responsibility to know what you bought.  Tough apples!  Nice knowin ya!"

Vile.  But I should expect this, from someone with an identical worldview to Osama Bin Laden.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15911
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 12:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What I find funny is that insurance companies have no issues hiring teams of lawyers to draft up plans that stretch on for many dozens of pages of legaleze, but if they're asked to give a one-page summary so people can understand it, they cry how "burdensome it is!"  Waaaaaaahhh!  "Oh, this is gonna bankrupt us!"  Waah waah waaaahhh!

Please.  Crocodile tears.

The only thing "burdensome" about this rule is that companies will have a harder time obfuscating facts and hiding coverage-denying loopholes from potential customers.  Good.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 14
TigerFan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2615
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 12:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I do think it's time that we start acting more like consumers when it comes to medical insurance and care.

Try going to all of your medical care providers, like your doctor, pediatrician, urgent care, etc. and *ask* for a price-list of their services.  You'll get a totally stunned response.

Imo, we don't ask these questions enough and demand straightforward answers from the providers as well as our insurance companies.  Most of us don't even really know how health insurance companies work, especially their relationships with major hospitals and drug companies.

I'm all for this new provision of the health care law because I think it will help change our expectations as consumers.  We don't have a right to complain unless we accept the responsibility to know what we're BUYING and insist on a better product.


--------------
Duct tape is like the Force.  It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6322
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 1:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Oct. 04 2012, 11:32 am)
QUOTE
What I find funny is that insurance companies have no issues hiring teams of lawyers to draft up plans that stretch on for many dozens of pages of legaleze, but if they're asked to give a one-page summary so people can understand it, they cry how "burdensome it is!"  Waaaaaaahhh!  "Oh, this is gonna bankrupt us!"  Waah waah waaaahhh!

Please.  Crocodile tears.

The only thing "burdensome" about this rule is that companies will have a harder time obfuscating facts and hiding coverage-denying loopholes from potential customers.  Good.

+1 exactamundo!

Without this provision the seniors who will be put on Romney's voucher plan would have to hire a lawyer to read the fine print.

On top of that, the basic concept of an individual shopping in the "free market" for health insurance simply doesn't work. Older folks and people with pre-existing conditions could not possibly afford a policy based on actuary tables that calculate the likely payouts by the insurance company.

Health insurance works best when those enrolled are part of a very large pool where the risk factors and costs are spread out. The ultimate large pool is a Single Payer system. Actual health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) would continue to be private and competing for consumer business.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 04 2012, 5:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Oct. 04 2012, 8:29 am)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Oct. 04 2012, 8:16 am)
QUOTE
I'm not sure what planet Bass is from but his doctrine of kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out seems to have extended to healthcare. The "free market" is not what gave the US the "best healthcare system in the world."  During our history of true free market enterprise, where government regulation was practically non-existent, doctors were often paid through bartering. People often died in childbirth, from polio, and from countless other illnesses that today are cured with routine treatment. It's now, in the age of Medicare, Medicaid, government backed student loans, government funded research grants, etc., that the US has moved to a world class system of health. Despite that, as most people who are awake know, we're still ranked 37th by the WHO which here in the real world means we do not have  the "best healthcare system in the world."

So the cure for polio resulted from regulation

Who knew :)

I have a hard time believing you're really as dense as you want us to believe you are.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
CharlesTheHammer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: Jan. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 06 2012, 1:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There are certainly a few good aspects of "The Affordable health care Act", such as preventing companies from dropping people with pre-esiting conditions, and allowing sons and daughters to stay on their parent's policies til around 25-27, but the problem is, a bill couldve been passed to put both of those provisions into law, without spending somewhere between 1-1.5 trillion dollars! All it wouldve cost was the salaries of the lawmakers while they debated it and voted for it, so maybe a few million bucks!

But, there is a reason I referred to Obamacare by its real name, which many have forgotten around the US. Thats because it was supposed to make health insurance more affordable! That was its most important goal, because health insurance premiums have continually gone up over the years. In fact, as was pointed out during the debate yet again, and not disputed by Obama, health insurance costs have gone up significantly since this law was passed!

Here's proof that health insurance costs have gone up significantly over the past 4 years. They do point out that Obamacare wasnt the main reason for higher health insurance costs, but thats not the point. "The Affordable Health Care Act" was supposed to make health insurance MORE affordable. Well, if health insurance costs have gone up significantly, then obviously it hasnt made health care costs more affordable. So it has failed in its most important goal!

http://www.factcheck.org/2011....remiums

But here's the biggest question I have: Libs have been screaming for single payer health care for a long time, and for us to move AWAY from private health insurance, because they are supposedly corrupt, etc., yet what Obamacare does, is the polar opposite of single payer health care, as it strengthens the private health insurance corps, by FORCING millions of Americans to buy health insurance from them, thereby making them more wealthy and powerful than ever before! I might have supported a reasonable plan for single payer, but this? Nope...

Do I need to post a link proving the Individual mandate here... I'm sure everyone heard about that, and saw the resulting court challenges.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
CharlesTheHammer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: Jan. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 06 2012, 1:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 04 2012, 6:58 am)
QUOTE

(orygawn @ Oct. 03 2012, 6:53 pm)
QUOTE
So your idea of "free market" is that if your company is too small to hire an army of lawyers, or if you have an individual policy but no law degree........well, too bad.  Die.  

We can engrave that on their tombstones.  

"Buyer Beware"

That is the way things are now. It is the buyer's responsibility to know what he is buying. That's the way free markets work. Obamacare is changing that next year.

Free market economics gave the US the best health care system in the world. This new burdensome rule is just another example of how government rules and regulations are destroying America. More government interferences in free markets, all these regulations, are just leading us down the road to socialism.



There should be reasonable regulations and laws preventing nonsense like what happened with banks, lenders, which led us  into the recession we are in now. But at the same time, we ALSO need to regulate govt institutions like Fanne/Freddie, which played a BIG role in the collapse, yet they dont seem to want to do anything about Freddie and Fannie, just leave it the same as it was, while coming up with failed regulations that allow a company like Corzine's to lose billions of dollars of customer's money! Then there's Dodd/Frank, which makes just a handful of HUGE banks too big to fail, and guarantees to bail them out when they screw things up again!

Anyway, some smart regulation is important, but not angry, punitive, redundant regulation that sends US companies to China where there is almost no regulation! That, and we need to both stop looking at gov't as either completely incompetent and inefficient, or to stop viewing gov't in such a rosy light that prevents us from ever trying to make it more efficient or effective.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
orygawn Search for posts by this member.
Sleeping Bag Man!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6034
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 06 2012, 1:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(CharlesTheHammer @ Oct. 06 2012, 10:01 am)
QUOTE
I might have supported a reasonable plan for single payer, but this? Nope...

Yes, a single payer system would have been greatly preferable.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, since the most important parts of the law do not go into effect until 2014.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 06 2012, 2:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(CharlesTheHammerless @ Oct. 06 2012, 12:01 pm)
QUOTE
"The Affordable Health Care Act" was supposed to make health insurance MORE affordable. Well, if health insurance costs have gone up significantly, then obviously it hasnt made health care costs more affordable. So it has failed in its most important goal!

The short answer has been posted:

(orygawn @ Oct. 06 2012, 12:33 pm)
QUOTE
The rest of your post is irrelevant, since the most important parts of the law do not go into effect until 2014.

Why do you believe that you should be dealt with seriously if you simply continue to repeat the same, tired propaganda endlessly, without ever attempting to actually inform yourself?
Some people have to be “spoonfed”.

If you simply Google "cbo aca", the first entry is the CBO's page on the ACA. If you click that link, which should be (for your convenience):
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/affordable-care-act
you’ll get the CBO’s page on the ACA. On the lefthand side of the page, in the table, click “reports”. You’ll get the CBO ACA reports page. The very top line is the updated CBO cost report for the ACA insurance provisions.

If you click the link for the report at the top of that page, you’ll get to a summary page. On the lefthand side of the page, under “Full Report”, click “PDF”. This is the full, updated report on the CBO’s estimate of insurance costs, titled, strangely enough, “Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision”.

If you scan through that pdf report, you’ll eventually come to some tables. Go to the bottom table (Table 4, “Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Contained in the Affordable Care Act, Updated for Supreme Court Decision”).

Therein you will see several rows of estimates for the years 2012 through 2022. Note that the numbers start small, then progressively grow in size over time. Also note that most of the grand total in years 2012 and 2013 are the sum of the items “Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending” and “Small Employer Tax Credits”: it seems the government is giving out subsidies to those entities which implement exchanges – and there are other costs.

Note especially that the line labeled “Penalty Payments by Employers” curiously does not have a non-zero entry until 2014! Why is that, do you suppose?

Well, if you search this very document for the string “2014”, you will find it repeated quite often. Why is that, do you suppose?

http://cbo.gov/sites....tes.pdf

Again, not that no one has mentioned this before. You’ve simply chosen to ignore a salient fact about this which renders your “right wing blog” points entirely moot.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Drift Woody
QUOTE
the basic concept of an individual shopping in the "free market" for health insurance simply doesn't work.


Free markets assure that sellers seek to offer what the market demands. If consumers, and the companies that provide health insurance for employees, seek to purchase cheaper versions of "comprehensive health insurance" that exempt coverage for treatments for conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, back pain, or even treatment for cancer, then the free market will provide it. Health insurance companies are free to exclude payment for expensive diagnostic tests like CAT scans if consumers desire to purchase such a policy.

Health insurance companies are free to direct your physician or medical provider in what testing and diagnosis and treatment is acceptable for payment by the health insurance company as long as the contract policy details this. Many health insurance companies employ legions of "managed care specialists" in order to direct your physician in your medical care. Health insurance companies are even free to require "prior authorization" by your medical provider before they will authorize any payment for any action. The consideration and resulting authorization or NOT authorizing action does not need to be conducted by a person with any medical training as stated in the contract policy.

Your homeowners insurance and automobile insurance contain similar "fine print". Your homeowners insurance can exclude payment for damage due to flooding - as most all do. It is up to the buyer to understand what he is purchasing. The concept of free market health insurance is no different.

Free markets have made the US the great country that it is. Free markets work. Capitalism works. That is why Obamacare must be repealed.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42794
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Usually legislation's effect is best analyzed AFTER it goes into effect and not a couple years before?

"But, there is a reason I referred to Obamacare by its real name, which many have forgotten around the US. Thats because it was supposed to make health insurance more affordable! That was its most important goal, because health insurance premiums have continually gone up over the years. In fact, as was pointed out during the debate yet again, and not disputed by Obama, health insurance costs have gone up significantly since this law was passed!"

FAIL: Unless, of course, it actually IS 2014 and I'm very behind on my calendar purchases.

Oh and keeping the young adult coverage and pre-existing condition exclusion ban requires the personal responsibility mandate that Governor Romney and the Heritage Foundation and the Republican party so eloquently argued. No free lunches, the money has to come from somewhere and that
"somewhere" is best by expanding the people participating in the system.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6322
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 1:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 08 2012, 9:50 am)
QUOTE
It is up to the buyer to understand what he is purchasing.

If the buyer has a pre-existing condition and there is no law in place requiring the private insurance company to provide coverage for that illness without increasing the price of the policy based on the projected cost of treatment for that illness, the buyer cannot afford to purchase the insurance, period.

And that's why a "free market" health insurance system can never provide the coverage for everyone who needs it.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42794
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 1:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Oct. 08 2012, 10:24 am)
QUOTE

(Bass @ Oct. 08 2012, 9:50 am)
QUOTE
It is up to the buyer to understand what he is purchasing.

If the buyer has a pre-existing condition and there is no law in place requiring the private insurance company to provide coverage for that illness without increasing the price of the policy based on the projected cost of treatment for that illness, the buyer cannot afford to purchase the insurance, period.

And that's why a "free market" health insurance system can never provide the coverage for everyone who needs it.

So does Romney not know that or simply not care?

I'm judging the latter: "victims" being what they are according to Mr. 47% are on their own.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 4:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 08 2012, 10:50 am)
QUOTE
Free markets have made the US the great country that it is. Free markets work. Capitalism works. That is why Obamacare must be repealed.

As is so often the case with your posts, your conclusion is based on a simplistic, naive and not entirely accurate premise.  There are a lot things that make our country great a lot of things that make it far from great. We haven't had a truly free market on this continent in a few hundred years.  One thing a free market ensures is that someone somewhere will sell cheap crap and someone nearby will buy it. That's what makes Wal-Mart "great" according to your definition. The Wal-Mart model is not what any rational person would want for healthcare.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2012, 3:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Drift Woody
QUOTE
If the buyer has a pre-existing condition and there is no law in place requiring the private insurance company to provide coverage for that illness without increasing the price of the policy based on the projected cost of treatment for that illness, the buyer cannot afford to purchase the insurance, period.


That is true and has always been a characteristic of the US health care system. If you can't afford health insurance, and you get sick, you just die.

That is just the way that free market capitalistic economies work. It is also a major reason that Americans work harder and more hours with less vacation time than workers in other developed economies. It is also why Americans have one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6322
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2012, 4:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 09 2012, 2:16 am)
QUOTE
Drift Woody
QUOTE
If the buyer has a pre-existing condition and there is no law in place requiring the private insurance company to provide coverage for that illness without increasing the price of the policy based on the projected cost of treatment for that illness, the buyer cannot afford to purchase the insurance, period.

And that's why a "free market" health insurance system can never provide the coverage for everyone who needs it.


That is true and has always been a characteristic of the US health care system. If you can't afford health insurance, and you get sick, you just die.

That is just the way that free market capitalistic economies work. It is also a major reason that Americans work harder and more hours with less vacation time than workers in other developed economies. It is also why Americans have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Letting Americans get sick and die when they can't afford health insurance is neither a motivation to work harder nor does it contribute to a higher standard of living. A lot of Americans who've worked hard and played by the rules have gone bankrupt due to our health insurance system that is more expensive and provides less coverage than every other Western democracy, some of which have a higher standard of living than ours.

Bankruptcy and eviction are not positive economic consequences, and forcing people without insurance to wait until their illness is acute enough for an emergency room visit is a cost picked up by everyone else. It is an indicator of a LOWER standard of living, as is having less vacation time.

We can't claim to be the greatest nation on earth while failing to provide adequate health care for a sixth of our population and letting our citizens get sick and die. This is a national shame & embarrassment, and I find it difficult to understand how any moral human being or patriotic American can possibly think it is a good thing.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2012, 7:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 09 2012, 3:16 am)
QUOTE
That is true and has always been a characteristic of the US health care system. If you can't afford health insurance, and you get sick, you just die.

That is just the way that free market capitalistic economies work. It is also a major reason that Americans work harder and more hours with less vacation time than workers in other developed economies. It is also why Americans have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

As usual, nothing you say here is true.

This has not always been a characteristic of the US healthcare system. In fact it never has.

It's not the reason Americans have a higher standard of living than others. We have a higher standard of living than people who live in countries where people actually work longer hours. We have a lower standard of living than people in many counties where people work fewer hours.

You continue to come off as someone who has never stepped foot in the real world as nothing you say relates to what goes on in the real world. The fact that you believe the US healthcare system is designed on the premise that people should just die if they can't pay the piper and the fact that you think this is okay is just more evidence that you are a "man" without a conscience.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2012, 10:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

HighGravity
QUOTE
The fact that you believe the US healthcare system is designed on the premise that people should just die if they can't pay the piper and the fact that you think this is okay is just more evidence that you are a "man" without a conscience.


A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote to repeal Obamacare - thus a vote to eliminate the burdensome summary of benefits provision and almost all of the other Obamacare provisions. This returns health insurance to free market practices where buyers who cannot afford health insurance just die, and buyers who fail to understand what they are buying, what is NOT covered, just die too.

This is NOT something new - and is a view shared by all who support the Romney/Ryan platform. Even you have to admit that a LOT of people support Romney/Ryan.

The US health insurance system has always been a capitalistic system where companies, some "non-profit", competed for policyholders on a free-market basis. It is true that a diminishing number of employers were and are "self-funded". But even those contract with major health insurance companies to manage their plans.

The US health insurance system has worked just fine and is a major reason that the US has the best health care system in the world. Intruding into the free market health insurance system - putting a faceless government bureaucrat into the sacred physician/ managed care specialist/ patient relationship - is a disaster. Adding this useless bureaucracy and government paperpushers is an intrusion into free markets that can only cause health care costs to skyrocket.

This "summary of benefits" intrusion into free markets must be stopped. Obamacare must be repealed. Romney and Ryan believe in free market capitalism. So do the majority of people in the US.

I don't think that believing in free market capitalism means that a person does not have a conscience. In fact, free market capitalism has provided the best standard of living in the world.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3856
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Oct. 09 2012, 11:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Oct. 09 2012, 10:42 am)
QUOTE
I don't think that believing in free market capitalism means that a person does not have a conscience.

Again you utter nonsense. I never said supporting free market capitalism means a person doesn't have a conscience. You're attempting to  excuse your pathology by including it in a larger group of people. What I said is that since you support a system that you believe leaves people to die, that demonstrates you have no conscience.  I have a hard time believing you do given many of your other statements. If you honestly believe that's the way it works and you're okay with that, there's something deeply disturbing about your thought processes.

Our system is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  It's a mixture free market and regulation.  It's a not a system intentionally designed to let people die, although it does and that's why something other than a laisez faire system needs to be in place, as it is in most first world countries, many of which have a better standard of living and longer average life span than ours. This childish black and white view of complex issues you have causes you great confusion on a number of issues.

It would help you to avoid the urge to reduce complex issues down to a simple black and white, either or dichotomy.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
31 replies since Oct. 03 2012, 6:55 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Another burdensome Obamacare rule
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions