Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
183
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

183 Views
Message 11 of 47

GraysonL wrote IP if everyone is covered it would produce the cheapest rates you could get by covering everyone under the ACA but there are other ways covering everyone that has the potential of producing lower rates.  BUT rates and cost of healthcare are two different things.  Rates, or premiums, are what it cost people to buy insurance.  The cost of healthcare is what insurers use to set the rates.  Regardless of how much the cheapest rate is, reducing the cost of healthcare will reduce the rate.

 

if everyone is covered it would produce the cheapest rates you could get by covering everyone under the ACA. No. Covering EVERYONE means the insurance company can offer things like coverage of pre-existing conditions and still keep the insurance AFFORDABLE. You get the lowest price for the insurance by requiring all the providers to accedpt the lowest negotiated price for the service, and capping the "overhead", (which includes profit) that the insurer can include in the price of the policy, just like PPACA did to restrict the overhead for all health insurance to 20% of the total premium revenue.

 

Regardless of how much the cheapest rate is, reducing the cost of healthcare will reduce the rate. Until PPACA there was NO connection between the cost of insurance and the cost of the healthcare. The cost of insurance was whatever the traffic could bear, including "overhead" that was considerably above the 20% "cap" PPACA installed. I got a nice refund check for the amount ABOVE 20% my insurance company (Aetna) had charged that first year under Obamacare.

 

And the cost (the amount demanded from the customer) of healthcare was designed to maximize profits for the provider and had NOTHING to do with the actual cost of delivering the care.

 

First thing Universal Coverage/Single Payer/Medicare For All does is slash OVERHEAD by standardization of FORMS.

 

Second it eliminates RISK from the system so doctors, clinics and hospitals don't have to increase rates for paying customers to cover those who don't pay.

 

Third is reduces the cost of treating the patients BECAUSE now they can go to the doctor when they feel sick, and not have to wait untily they're sick enough to get in to the ER.

 

Forth, it reduces the spread of disease because people are getting treated and vaccinated in a timely manner.

 

Fifth, it uses the Insurance Industry to negotiate the lowest possible cost for both medical care and prescription drugs, just like they do now.

 

So "Medicare For All" may be a slight misnomer, but it is STILL the only solution for improving our 37th ranking for health care outcomes.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
183
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
182
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

182 Views
Message 12 of 47

@john258 wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:


No I did not miss the point. the ACA if fully implemented would have lowered the cost of health care some what. It would have produced the cheapest insurance rates due to everyone being covered. It made the Insurance carriers have an 80% loss ratio which was about 10 to 20% lower than before. If every state expanded Medicaid as called for in the ACA there would be less people in ER care which is the most expensive care there is. You do not understand risk pools. What you  cover in item 2 is the use of a pre ex to keep a small pool cost down which increases the amount of govt money needed to pay for the sick person care. That means the people pay higher taxes which is cost shifting.


One of the cost saving items in the ACA that ALL Repubs and a few Dems didn't support becuase of the insurance lobby was the "public-option."


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
182
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
179
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

179 Views
Message 13 of 47

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Grayson's fantasy world comments are totally irrelevant. He can post whatever nonsense he wants, I couldn't care less.



Now that is hilarious.  Facts WITH EVIDENCE are fantasy and you "couldn't care less" about them.  On the other hand, it's really not that unusual, at least on this site.  It's how little liberals always handle facts that don't agree with the dogma given them by the liberal elite.

 

Q: Is it true — as the Obama administration claims — that “129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage without new health reform law”?

A: No. The number who would be truly at risk of losing health insurance or paying more money is much smaller.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/millions-with-preexisting-conditions/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
179
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

176 Views
Message 14 of 47

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I love it when makes up his fairy tale version of reality, which of course is defined solely by him. He said, "you don't seem to understand "pre-existing" conditions."

 

It is telling that those who are obstinately devoted to their prejudice and views claim their reality is the only real one.


It's telling that liberals who do not understand the FACTS immediately think they are based on prejudice if they don't agree with their FALSE reality.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
172
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

172 Views
Message 15 of 47

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The most recent study I saw reveals more than 1 out of every 2 Americans has a pre-existing condition.


To your point on your usual on-target posts, CeeTee.

 

"The Morning Consult/Politico poll finds that 81 percent of voters, including 80 percent of Republicans, say insurers should be barred from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, which was a provision in ObamaCare."

 

Poll: Voters of both parties largely support ObamaCare pre-existing condition protections


All insurance is based upon risk )yep, both known risk and unknown risk)  and I assume that it would be acceptable to you if health insurers charged more to those with higher risk (claims) as other insurance plans do?  As has been pointed out before, when you assume how others think, you're often wrong.  Try another tact.


Since you summarily dismissed the question, It wasn't a question just because you added a squiggley line at the end of the sentence.....you made an assumption and hoped I would confirm it. You know what they say about those who assume......

 

I will state my OPINION Cool.  Works better than assuming what others think or believe.  (and I know already that it differs from you  Chances are, you're right unless it has something to do with background checks on gunshow purchases or private sales) 😞 car insurance is based on risk, home insurance is based on risk, flood insurance is based on risk, health insurance SHOULD be based on risk to any thinking person. It is,,,,,based on sex and age!!!!


 


Why is you can't just respond?  Instead you always choose to pick out sentences, usually take them out of context, and then make some snide remark.  And then, as in this case, end with a statement that is just plain wrong.  (Insurance IS based on risk.  Period.  The only reason actuaries use sex and age is because the RISK varies by sex and age.)

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
172
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
173
Views

PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

173 Views
Message 16 of 47

Grayson's fantasy world comments are totally irrelevant. He can post whatever nonsense he wants, I couldn't care less.

 

For the thinking people in this forum, let me repeat what I said earlier. With so many Americans having pre-existing condiitons, we need to spread the cost of health insurance out in a very equitable manner. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I would add one caveat to the equation. 

 

People who meet some or all of the following criteria should receive significant premium discounts. 

  • They Do Not Smoke
  • They Do Not Drink
  • They Do Not Use illegal drugs
  • They Regularly Exercise vigorously
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
173
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

172 Views
Message 17 of 47

@john258 wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

They are so Afraid of the Word - Socialism - instead of embracing it when it's a Winner - who cares about the Word


It is socialism and socialism has not worked anywhere it has been tried.  But that's not the real problem.  Medicare for all opens up many problems and does NOT solve the real problem.  Medicare for all is about where the bill will be sent.  The real problem is how much the bill is, not where it should be sent.  Following is an article my brother wrote las t year on the subject.

 

Sometimes liberals have good intentions. At least that's what I tell myself. But they screw it up in the end and then argue to the death that they saved all us little people from ourselves. For example, they decided we needed “comprehensive health care reform” so they gave us the ACA and now they keep arguing how great it is because fewer people are uninsured. But the ACA did not reform healthcare. It made it easier for a minuscule percentage of the population to buy health insurance and penalized everyone else. But having insurance and getting healthcare are two different things and having insurance does not mean you can get healthcare. Just one obvious example is all the people who were required to buy insurance under the ACA but can't use it because they can't afford the deductibles.

 

Now Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer bill. Strike two. Single-payer only makes the problem worse. For one thing, the cost would be astronomical, a minor point which is seldom considered by liberals until it is too late and we're stuck with the bill. After years of trying, California passed single-payer earlier this year. According to the LA Times, 65% of voters were in favor of it. Then the cost was revealed, which would more than double the budget of the state with the highest state income tax and the 65% in favor changed to 80% against and it was dropped just like it was dropped in Sanders' home state. But liberal states like California are rooting for Sanders. Like all good socialists they believe someone else should pay for what they want. Why else would they be in favor of something they already discarded due to cost unless they thought tax money from other states would offset their cost? And all that money does little more than pay for a giant quasi-insurance company run by the government. It still does not address healthcare.

 

When I was young, my family could not afford health insurance and Medicare and Medicaid did not exist. Yet we got the healthcare we needed because it was affordable. Today it is not and that's the problem. Of the top thirty-five developed nations, healthcare cost per person in the U.S. is far greater than any other country and close to three times the average of the other thirty-four countries. A doctor summed up the problem in an NBC interview: “We have crappy outcomes for a huge price tag. We do all kinds of stuff that doesn’t really work that’s expensive. We are wasting a ton of money and probably not helping people.” Sanders attempted to use cost to justify single-payer by saying we will spend $49 trillion over the next ten years if something isn't done. But single-payer doesn't address the cost. It just addresses who sends the check.

 

Medicare rates are set by a panel of doctors appointed by the AMA. Insurance companies negotiate rates with healthcare providers. Neither seems to get it right. The rates are all over the place and healthcare providers always overbill anyway. For example, according to the HuffPost, a woman was billed $135,000 by a hospital. Per an agreement, her insurance paid $45,000. But the average price the hospital was paid for that procedure was $37,000. According to CNN, an echocardiogram costs $1,714 in Massachusetts, $5,435 in New Jersey and less than $100 in Japan. In some cases, insurance companies pay more than Medicare. In some cases, Medicare pays more than insurance companies. In some cases, both Medicare and insurance companies are paying more than rates set by the healthcare providers themselves. For example, the LA Times reported that a hospital had a set price of $1,054 for a CT scan. Per a “negotiated” agreement a woman's insurance paid $2,336 for that CT scan.

 

Democrats and Republicans can argue the merits of their various plans forever but it's all meaningless until something is done about healthcare cost. The good news is there are lots of things that could be done. For example, rates could be set by law for providers. Personally, I'd hate to see that but we do have laws against price gouging during emergencies. What's a bigger emergency than a life threatening illness? My preference would be a “most favored nation” law that says healthcare providers cannot charge anyone more than the lowest price they charge anyone else.

 

With that and a couple more equally simple laws, healthcare would take care of itself and the government could get out of the healthcare business and stop punishing us for their incompetence. But don't hold your breath. For anything reasonable to happen, liberals would have to admit that the ACA is not the answer. Fat chance. Besides, the AMA has one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, closely followed by the AHA and some other healthcare associations. And their goal is to keep those rates as high as possible.


You have good and bad in what you say. The ACA was a good start and could have lead to the problem being solved. Since everyone today can get health care just go to the ER, and you are correct on the cost part. You need everyone insured as a start and as little ER care as possible. The ACA would do that. Health care will never take care of its self. It will always require a lot of policing from some form of Govt panel. There are experts out there that can solve this. After reading your brothers article he is not one of them, and neither am I even after working for years in this industry. There is no simple answer. By the way. The ACA now has the highest approval ratings from the public it ever has. We see the Reb. running for office telling all how they love it. They lie as actions speak louder than words.


You missed the point.  The problem is the COST of healthcare.  The ACA and single-payer do not address that.  They address who pays.  A couple other points:

 

1.  People like to compare single-payer in other countries to what could be done in this country.  That's an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the cost.

 

2.  If every single person in  this country was insured, the cost of health insurance would still have gone up higher due to adding the people with illnesses that cost millions of dollars, which are the illnesses that are referred to as "existing conditions." A real simple example is an insurance company that has a risk pool of 1000 people who are reasonable healthy for which they are charging a premium of $10/month to cover the costs.  Adding a single person who has an illness that costs a hundred twenty thousand dollars a year to treat doubles premiums for everyone.  But if healthcare costs were reduced to what they are in other countries, which is about one-third of what they are in this country, the premium after adding the person with the major illness would be under $7/month for everyone.


No I did not miss the point. the ACA if fully implemented would have lowered the cost of health care some what. It would have produced the cheapest insurance rates due to everyone being covered.


WROOOOOONG on every point.  For example, if everyone is covered it would produce the cheapest rates you could get by covering everyone under the ACA but there are other ways covering everyone that has the potential of producing lower rates.  BUT rates and cost of healthcare are two different things.  Rates, or premiums, are what it cost people to buy insurance.  The cost of healthcare is what insurers use to set the rates.  Regardless of how much the cheapest rate is, reducing the cost of healthcare will reduce the rate.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
174
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

174 Views
Message 18 of 47

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I love it when Grayson makes up his fairy tale version of reality, which is of course is defined solely b him. He said, "you don't seem to understand "pre-existing" conditions."

 



And I love it when you post a reference that STATES EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. 

 

1.  ACCORDING TO YOUR REFERENCE, their definition of "pre-existing" conditions included "less severe and more common conditions."  Just one example they used was high cholesterol, which is treated by diet and/or a statin like lipitor.

 

2.  ACCORDING TO YOUR REFERENCE, the purpose of the "pre-existing" clause in the ACA was to protect people who could not get insurance due to a "pre-existing."  They defined those people as 44 million who  "went uninsured for at least one month during the two-year period beginning in 2013."  NOT "1 out of 2 people."

 

3.  YOUR REFERENCE is no more than an advertisement from HHS to justify the ACA.

 

4.  While seldom the case with liberals, if have any interest in the truth, below is what Factcheck said and there are many other independent, reputable organizations have also published numbers.

 

Q: Is it true — as the Obama administration claims — that “129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage without new health reform law”?

A: No. The number who would be truly at risk of losing health insurance or paying more money is much smaller.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/millions-with-preexisting-conditions/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
174
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
171
Views

Re: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

171 Views
Message 19 of 47

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Not Happening wrote, "There is even a bigger flaw in Critical's reasoning: ALL people do NOT have health insurance and it IS an option to get or NOT get health insurance."

 

Wrong! Here's a quick note: One of the best parts of the ACA was the section which required everyone , who could afford health insurance (mandatory), to purchase it or pay a fine.

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

Anyway, let's get away from the ACA and back to my point. Person X can afford health insurance but refuses to buy a policy. He or she then has an emergency room appendectemy which winds up costing around $50,000.

 

Guess who pays the bill? The American taxpayer is essentially insuring every American who doesn't buy a policy. 

 

In addition, Medicaid insures about 70 milion Americans who can't afford to buy a policy. This means everyone is covered in one form or another.


Why all the explanation? Why not say you were wrong and ALL people do NOT have health insurance (as John said)? You might have some good reason for why they should have health care insurance, but currently ALL people do NOT have health care insurance as you claimed!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
171
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
172
Views

PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ...

172 Views
Message 20 of 47

Not Happening wrote, "There is even a bigger flaw in Critical's reasoning: ALL people do NOT have health insurance and it IS an option to get or NOT get health insurance."

 

Wrong! Here's a quick note: One of the best parts of the ACA was the section which required everyone , who could afford health insurance (mandatory), to purchase it or pay a fine.

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

Anyway, let's get away from the ACA and back to my point. Person X can afford health insurance but refuses to buy a policy. He or she then has an emergency room appendectemy which winds up costing around $50,000.

 

Guess who pays the bill? The American taxpayer is essentially insuring every American who doesn't buy a policy. 

 

In addition, Medicaid insures about 70 milion Americans who can't afford to buy a policy. This means everyone is covered in one form or another.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
172
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors