+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68

Thread: Theoretical Question

  1. #31
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow View Post
    so maintenance health care cost reimbursement is really not insurance. So would you call this pooled cost sharing?

    Do you not think this should be part of an insurance program?
    Maintenance health care cost reimbursement can be insurance, but it has to be based on actuarial science as it applies to health care. Obamacare never did that since the law was to cover pre-existing conditions. The best example is for a person to be able to purchase fire insurance for their house after it burns or auto insurance after the wreck.

    Special pools to cover the uninsurable are the answer, not forcing the healthy to pay for the sick.
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

  2. #32
    Champ theprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond repute theprofessor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Alexandria
    Posts
    6,358

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    But if I got a diabetes, I could sign up in less than a year whenever the new enrollment period begins. I know diabetes is expensive to treat, but it’s expense adds up because it is long term. That is why I used it as an example. If there could be denial of coverage for pre-existing diabetes, well, that could be catastrophic.
    This has been my fear my entire adult life. It was preached to me by my mother from the day I was diagnosed. "You will always have to have a job that provides you insurance." Coverage for pre-existing conditions is absolutely critical.
    the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor

  3. #33
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    doesn't have anything to do with actuarial tables. if the people who aren't using it stop paying for it, everyone else has to pay more.
    No they won't pay more because of that. The cost is not based on actuarial tables. You'll hear that as an excuse for the price going up, but with more and more people supposedly buying it each year the cost has been going up each year.

    You can't apply logic to Obamacare.
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

  4. #34
    Champ theprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond reputetheprofessor has a reputation beyond repute theprofessor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Alexandria
    Posts
    6,358

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    Not insurance.
    I have health insurance through my work. Whatever you want to call it, they call it insurance. You can argue semantics that it's health coverage or health benefits or whatever, but my workplace provides me with health insurance. I'm not covered by the ACA.
    the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor

  5. #35
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by theprofessor View Post
    I have health insurance through my work. Whatever you want to call it, they call it insurance. You can argue semantics that it's health coverage or health benefits or whatever, but my workplace provides me with health insurance. I'm not covered by the ACA.
    My mistake. I thought when we had this discussion before you said you had Obamacare and no longer had coverage through work. Out of curiosity, have you priced an Obamacare policy for you and your family?
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

  6. #36
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,499

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    No they won't pay more because of that. The cost is not based on actuarial tables. You'll hear that as an excuse for the price going up, but with more and more people supposedly buying it each year the cost has been going up each year.

    You can't apply logic to Obamacare.
    like i said, it has nothing to do with actuarial tables. it's a simple balance of dollars. healthcare has a cost. right now that cost is being payed by a combination of the insured, the taxpayers, and new debt. if you reduce the number of people in the "insured" category without significantly decreasing the overall total cost of healthcare being provided, you have to replace the money those people were paying in. so there's three options:
    1. increase the cost per insured person
    2. increase taxes
    3. increase debt (not significantly different from option 2)

  7. #37
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    like i said, it has nothing to do with actuarial tables. it's a simple balance of dollars. healthcare has a cost. right now that cost is being payed by a combination of the insured, the taxpayers, and new debt. if you reduce the number of people in the "insured" category without significantly decreasing the overall total cost of healthcare being provided, you have to replace the money those people were paying in. so there's three options:
    1. increase the cost per insured person
    2. increase taxes
    3. increase debt (not significantly different from option 2)

    Obamacare costs ARE NOT calculated this way.
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

  8. #38
    2011 Pick 'Em Champion johnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond repute johnnylightnin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Shreevesburg
    Posts
    29,254

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    Obamacare costs ARE NOT calculated this way.
    I donít understand your point. Are you saying that costs are not going to go up when the mandate goes away?

    It seems that can only be true if you do not believe that the mandate actually compelled people to buy insurance (or whatever you prefer to call it).

    Is that your belief?

  9. #39
    Champ brtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond reputebrtransplant has a reputation beyond repute brtransplant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    baton rouge
    Posts
    2,711

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Are public roads socialism? What about the US Armed forces?
    Neither of these things are things that an individual can provide for himself. We can't all have our own individual road system or armed forces. An individual healthcare plan is different. These plans come in all forms, and an individual has the right to choose how much of his income he wants to dedicate to his own individual healthcare. Obamacare is just another welfare/wealth redistribution program that the Democrat Party intended to use stay in power. It won't work any better than has any other welfare program they've started.

    Tell me, do you believe that anything about the current welfare system in this nation has made any part of our society better? Is it EVER reasonable to hold an adult responsible for ANYTHING anymore? Welfare programs have turned our inner cities into war zones. These inner cities are now slums that are full of grown adults that are no more able to take care of themselves than children are. Welfare did nothing "for" these people, it did it "to" these people. To support universal healthcare is to support destroying our healthcare system just like welfare has destroyed the inner cities in this nation.

  10. #40
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    39,655

    Re: Theoretical Question

    The FREE market shall set you free!!!

  11. #41
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,499

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    Obamacare costs ARE NOT calculated this way.
    i don't know why you keep referring to calculations. are you saying the doctors or the insurance companies are just going to eat the loss? it's got to get paid for somehow.

  12. #42
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnylightnin View Post
    I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that costs are not going to go up when the mandate goes away?

    It seems that can only be true if you do not believe that the mandate actually compelled people to buy insurance (or whatever you prefer to call it).

    Is that your belief?
    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    i don't know why you keep referring to calculations. are you saying the doctors or the insurance companies are just going to eat the loss? it's got to get paid for somehow.
    Y'all are assuming there is a large sum of money that goes into some Obamacare kittie from the fines. There is not.

    There is no "loss" due to no more fines. There will be a few more who choose not to buy because they no longer have to, but most of those on Obamacare now are either sick or getting a government subsidy to be on the plan.

    This is NOT a program that relies on normal calculations for premiums.
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

  13. #43
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,874

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by brtransplant View Post
    Neither of these things are things that an individual can provide for himself. We can't all have our own individual road system or armed forces. An individual healthcare plan is different. These plans come in all forms, and an individual has the right to choose how much of his income he wants to dedicate to his own individual healthcare. Obamacare is just another welfare/wealth redistribution program that the Democrat Party intended to use stay in power. It won't work any better than has any other welfare program they've started.

    Tell me, do you believe that anything about the current welfare system in this nation has made any part of our society better? Is it EVER reasonable to hold an adult responsible for ANYTHING anymore? Welfare programs have turned our inner cities into war zones. These inner cities are now slums that are full of grown adults that are no more able to take care of themselves than children are. Welfare did nothing "for" these people, it did it "to" these people. To support universal healthcare is to support destroying our healthcare system just like welfare has destroyed the inner cities in this nation.
    So, if people canít practically provide something for themselves and the government steps in it is not socialism? How did humans exist for tens of thousand years without roads or armies?

    It is wrong to assume I am for welfare.

  14. #44
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,499

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    Y'all are assuming there is a large sum of money that goes into some Obamacare kittie from the fines. There is not.

    There is no "loss" due to no more fines. There will be a few more who choose not to buy because they no longer have to, but most of those on Obamacare now are either sick or getting a government subsidy to be on the plan.

    This is NOT a program that relies on normal calculations for premiums.
    the only assumption i am making is that there are people now who buy insurance and don't use it (or don't use it much) and will stop buying it once they are no longer required to.

  15. #45
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56,392

    Re: Theoretical Question

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    the only assumption i am making is that there are people now who buy insurance and don't use it (or don't use it much) and will stop buying it once they are no longer required to.
    I knew that was your assumption, but is is not a sound assumption. What the liberal talking heads say does not apply. People are not buying what costs THOUSANDS each year to avoid a few hundred in fines. Only a few may stop buying now but not enough to cause the price to go up more. The price was going up anyway.
    HCSH cumulative point differential by quarter:

    231 522 654 -54

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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