Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You need to check your math.

0.31% US
0.17% CA

Assuming the numbers are correct, and there are no uninsured.
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
SailorSam wrote:
Duffy, you're being obtuse.

That's how insurance works, that's why. you are not actually arguing against health insurance, are you?


If you want a plan that covers asthma medicine you should be able to buy a plan that has that.

If I don't want a plan that covers asthma medicine I should be able to buy that.

Right now I am forced to have a plan that covers things that I don't want. I used to have a plan that did not cover any prescription drugs. I liked that plan. I didn't get to keep that plan.

Insurance works when I make a deal with an insurance company and buy the plan I think is right for me.

When I am forced to buy a plan that must subsidize someone else's shit that's a tax. That's not insurance.

And that's what the Supreme Court ruled.

If you wanted a plan that doesn't cover chemotherapy and were able to buy that, then no insurance company in your market would cover chemotherapy at a price that anyone would be able to afford. That's the point of mandating "essential health benefits."

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
getcereal just opened a can of whoop ass on eb. Well done.

Was it the bright blue font that won you over? It clearly wasn't the math or the reasoning.
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you really think people like Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi... our voted leaders are going to fix things?

Did I say anything of the sort? Why, no, I did not. Maybe you should slow down and read before you rant.

Look, I'm as disappointed in the prospects for reform of health care as anybody. But making senseless comparisons to the Canadian system is a useless form of argument.
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [CW in NH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CW in NH wrote:
You need to check your math.

0.31% US
0.17% CA

Assuming the numbers are correct, and there are no uninsured.

I pulled the 1M out of thin air; the number is almost certainly higher than that but I couldn't find a credible, more exact figure in the 5 seconds I spent researching.
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eb wrote:
Do you really think people like Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi... our voted leaders are going to fix things?

Did I say anything of the sort? Why, no, I did not. Maybe you should slow down and read before you rant.

Look, I'm as disappointed in the prospects for reform of health care as anybody. But making senseless comparisons to the Canadian system is a useless form of argument.



Tell that to Anderson he is the one who started the "senseless comparisons to the Canadian system" I just responded and then you jumped in with your BS Medicare and Medicaid analogy.

By the way I agree comparing Canada to the US is like comparing hockey pucks to watermelons.
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just read thru this whole thread.

seems there are a whole bunch selfish mutha fuckers with no sense of shared community values on this board.

RayGovett
Hughson CA
Be Prepared-- Strike Swiftly -- Who Dares Wins- Without warning-"it will be hard. I can do it"
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Serious question...

Why should someone else be forced to subsidize your asthma medicine? That is what's really happening here. And if push comes to shove and, say, Duffy refuses to pay his portion of your asthma medicine the Duffy will get a fine. If Duffy refuses to pay the fine, eventually Duffy will be arrested and if Duffy resists arrest violence will be committed upon him, up to and including lethal violence if necessary.

So why should I be forced by (ultimately) the threat of government sanctioned violence to pay for your asthma medicine?

Drama queen much?
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
It doesn't make it someone else's problem.


Well any insurance coverage makes it someone else's problem at least to some degree. We're just arguing the balance between what's born by the individual with the problem, their immediate family, others in their insurance risk pool, state government, and Federal government.

It's complicated.

Heh, if only anyone had any idea it was so complicated before last Nov....
Quote Reply
Re: ACA v. Repubs: Real World Application Question [SailorSam] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SailorSam wrote:
Duffy wrote:
SailorSam wrote:
Duffy, you're being obtuse.

That's how insurance works, that's why. you are not actually arguing against health insurance, are you?


If you want a plan that covers asthma medicine you should be able to buy a plan that has that.

If I don't want a plan that covers asthma medicine I should be able to buy that.

Right now I am forced to have a plan that covers things that I don't want. I used to have a plan that did not cover any prescription drugs. I liked that plan. I didn't get to keep that plan.

Insurance works when I make a deal with an insurance company and buy the plan I think is right for me.

When I am forced to buy a plan that must subsidize someone else's shit that's a tax. That's not insurance.

And that's what the Supreme Court ruled.


Terrific. What you're advocating is still not feasible. YOU may be able to adequately evaluate your own risk profile and make a good deal with the insurance company. But that is not the norm. If everyone only got coverage for what they think they needed - everyone would have inadequate coverage in the likely event of an unexpected medical event. Consequently, lots of people would be defaulting on unexpected bills for shit they chose not to purchase coverage for (because...FREEDOM!). Then the finance guys at hospitals (like me, got me a new job as a director ;) would shift the cost of bad debt (idiot debt, in my opinion) onto insurance companies via increasing the charges for covered procedures.

Long story short - your custom coverage that doesn't include my asthma coverage would still pay for it by charging 1000x the hospital's cost for whatever procedures you DO choose to cover. It's a purdy dream you got but it's bologna. The more fractured the risk pool the less efficient the risk transfer the higher the average cost to individual users.

One of the reasons insurance seemed affordable pre-ACA is that the policies were shit (annual & lifetime caps) and insurance companies dropped sick people. Those would eventually run out of money and options and land on Medicaid. Fuck me that's an idiotic reimbursement mechanism. But the dumb setup means I get paid a lot of money to deal with this shit. Good luck finding "good" insurance that does whatever you dream it should in case some competent conservatives take over and do whatever they've been promising to do for 7 years.

Hmmmm, as a guy married to a health care admin employee, methinks this dude kinda sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Now maybe if the topic were servicing gas station emissions controls, Duffy wouldn't just be talking out his ass by comparison...
Quote Reply

Prev Next