Obamacare is almost here - Page 34
+ Reply to Thread
Page 34 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 445
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: Obamacare is almost here

  1. #331
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Most are. Profit is profit. If they can only make 20% profit they are still making a profit. Not that they can't figure out a way to fix those numbers anyway by putting them into overhead or salaries or somewhere else.
    they have to show how much they took in premiums and the percentage paid out in claims. This is subject to audit. They can't count overhead or salaries. That's why premiums are not 100%.

    They can take in extra income such as investments though.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  2. #332
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    I REALLY wish people would stop saying this! That is the premise of insurance.

    And the reason why insurance wasnt' working for the sick before is because not enough healthy people paid into it!

    If you don't want any system and you jsut want to pay for everything out of pocket..then lobby for that, but otherwise stop complaining about this! Insurance has been a concept that existed LOOOOOONG before the word Obamacare was invented.

    How many times do we have to go over this point.

    Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    In case you don't understand what the bold means when it comes to health insurance....it means that healthy people pay for the sick!
    To a reasonable amount. Several people pay in so money is there if something happens to them. A healthy 27 year old is not going to have the same medical costs as an unhealthy 80 year old. With insurance the 27 year old is paying for the costs that HE could possibly incur. Not for the costs that an 80 could incur. Yes, that 27 year old might break is leg, get mono, and get hives in one year. That is not the same as an 80 year old that needs her hip replaced, has high blood pressure, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

    By having the 27 year old pay for the health costs of the 80 year old you are increasing the cost of his insurance too much. There are other ways to bring down the costs of the 80 year old.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #333
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    I, for one, would be fine if we got rid of the for-profit insurance companies altogether. I totally agree with Gloria that having to make sure that the insurance companies make a profit on top of making sure we all have access to medical care is a huge waste of money. That is why Gloria and I are united in our desire for a single payer system where health care costs are covered by tax dollars instead of going to insurance companies who are out to make money, like the rest of the civilized world. Who says Obama is "the Great Divider" when he can drive conservatives to embrace Single Payer Universal Healthcare?
    Absolutely not. 85% of the country has medical insurance and can afford to pay for either their own insurance or their own health care (or at least could before Obamacare). That is why Obama said if you like your healthcare coverage you can keep it, because the majority does like what they have. We are just talking about the 15% who can't get coverage or can't afford it. Which isn't even really 15% because many in that 15% don't have insurance because they don't want it. We don't need to take a sledgehammer to fix a problem that only affects a small percentage of people. We should be finding ways to lower health CARE costs, not making sure everyone has health insurance. Make insurance more affordable by allowing MORE competition by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, not by making it more expensive with less options and more restrictions. And IF insurance is going to be mandatory the minimum requirements should be for catastrophic coverage, not free copays.
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #334
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    To a reasonable amount. Several people pay in so money is there if something happens to them. A healthy 27 year old is not going to have the same medical costs as an unhealthy 80 year old. With insurance the 27 year old is paying for the costs that HE could possibly incur. Not for the costs that an 80 could incur. Yes, that 27 year old might break is leg, get mono, and get hives in one year. That is not the same as an 80 year old that needs her hip replaced, has high blood pressure, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

    By having the 27 year old pay for the health costs of the 80 year old you are increasing the cost of his insurance too much. There are other ways to bring down the costs of the 80 year old.
    What are those ways please. How do we bring down the costs of an 80 year old that is unhealthy.

    To reference again what Kim posted...this goes against the concept of insurance in general.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  5. #335
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It is not the job of health insurance to provide health care to everyone. That is not what insurance is for. Their goal is to make money. By adding all these regulations that people have to pay for coverage they don't want in order to get enough people in the pool to cover other people it is just like taking from the rich to pay for the poor. It would make more sense to me to put all the people who can't afford insurance on Medicaid than doing this dance of making people pay for coverage they don't need so we can cover other people. At least it would be more equitable that way because it would all just come out of tax money and not going to the insurance company as a middle man.
    You're right about that Gloria; it is the government's job to provide health care to everyone, but you and others want the minimum amount of government involvement in your life when it suits you. Until the US can move to a basic public health care system with the option of additional insurance through private providers then ACA might have to do. At least is it a start in the right direction - making sure that even the poorest get their basic needs paid for.

  6. #336
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClairesMommy View Post
    You're right about that Gloria; it is the government's job to provide health care to everyone, but you and others want the minimum amount of government involvement in your life when it suits you. Until the US can move to a basic public health care system with the option of additional insurance through private providers then ACA might have to do. At least is it a start in the right direction - making sure that even the poorest get their basic needs paid for.
    It is not a start in the right direction. It is making things worse not better. It already was that even the poorest people could get care. No hospital could turn them away. They might not have gotten everything they wanted, but they got everything they needed. People with serious health problems already qualified for SS and disability. I know this for sure because of my husbands transplant. Someone with those kinds of health problems (BIL) is on Medicaid regardless of income.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #337
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    It is not a start in the right direction. It is making things worse not better. It already was that even the poorest people could get care. No hospital could turn them away. They might not have gotten everything they wanted, but they got everything they needed. People with serious health problems already qualified for SS and disability. I know this for sure because of my husbands transplant. Someone with those kinds of health problems (BIL) is on Medicaid regardless of income.
    And what about the poor people without serious health problems, Bonita? Seems like they fell into a deep crack. Not quite rich enough to afford insurance, yet a little too healthy to get Medicaid. And out of curiosity, who funds Medicaid?

  8. #338
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClairesMommy View Post
    And what about the poor people without serious health problems, Bonita? Seems like they fell into a deep crack. Not quite rich enough to afford insurance, yet a little too healthy to get Medicaid. And out of curiosity, who funds Medicaid?
    We can solve the problem to cover those people without ruining it for everyone else. WE pay for Medicaid. Obamacare just causes problems for EVERYONE. Like I said we don't need to take a sledgehammer to the whole system for a problem of a few people who fall through the cracks.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #339
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClairesMommy View Post
    And what about the poor people without serious health problems, Bonita? Seems like they fell into a deep crack. Not quite rich enough to afford insurance, yet a little too healthy to get Medicaid. And out of curiosity, who funds Medicaid?
    With Obamacare you might be sealing that crack, but you are just creating a new one. People that are loosing their coverage or their premiums are sky rocketing. People that make too much to qualify for discounts but do not make so much that the can afford the new premiums.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #340
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    It is not a start in the right direction. It is making things worse not better. It already was that even the poorest people could get care. No hospital could turn them away. They might not have gotten everything they wanted, but they got everything they needed.
    Okay the first is just false...assuming you are talking about those that are just above the medicaid line. And second, i can't believe you are trying to argue that the system was working before because people without insurance are going to the emergency room for their medical care. That is a terrible cost to our nation!


    People with serious health problems already qualified for SS and disability. I know this for sure because of my husbands transplant. Someone with those kinds of health problems (BIL) is on Medicaid regardless of income.
    Yeah things were just peachy before.

    ETA: Actually, time to bow out of this again for a while. I'm not going to get myself all riled up two days in a row because of the things being said here.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions