If the mandate is struck down, can the rest of Obamacare still stand?

[Rick]

And the colleges that train Dr.'s and nurses... Should they be non-profit as well?

How about the companies that develop, build, and maintain medical technology... Should they also be non-profit?

If you're simply unhappy about the expense, then you should be blaming government intervention and third party pay systems in the healthcare market for the soaring costs, not companies making profit.

Eactly what is needed is competition, and competition ONLY occurs if their are profits to be made. As I have pointed out, one of the key cost drivers for medical insurance has been state governments meddling in the insurance market, effectively creating monopolies or semi-monopolies for medical insurance in individual states of only a few companies. Almost all the high costs of medical treatment can be traced back to the malfeasance of government.

 

[Pepper]

Competition between insurance companies will create lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions? Sorry, no.

 

[Rick]

Competition between insurance companies will create lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions? Sorry, no.

Your comment is meaningless. If insurance covered pre-existing conditions, it wouldn't be insurance. The idea of buying insurance AFTER you get a disease is like demanding to buy fire insurance AFTER your house has burned down, and then demanding to be reimbursed. You're a "little" confused.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Competition between insurance companies will create lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions?

Why do you say that competition between insurance companies will create lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions? No one else has said that, but you. You seem to have a very warped view of what insurance companies are for.

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designed to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

 

[Rick]

Correct. The problem of the uninsured is a separate problem. Addressing that problem: most people who are uninsured are that way because of the high cost of insurance. To bring down the high cost, what's necessary is to correct the many ways government is responsible for keeping the costs high, as I've already explained. obozocare does nothing to bring the costs down - instead, it effectively implements a crude, stupid polciy of rationing care for everyone.

 

[Pepper]

That's exactly the point, boys. Insurance is designed to benefit the shareholders. Not the people buying the insurance. People don't actually need health insurance, they need health care. Health insurance is just the current vehicle for the delivery of the health care.

I'm guessing that you are all relatively naive when it comes to what the private market calls a pre-existing condition. My son's insurance company recently challenged a bill he presented. According to them, if he's been treated for any condition in the last five years, that condition is preexisting. Now that might make some sense if you're talking about a recurrence of arthritis-but they take it to mean that if you get treated for a burn on your hand, or an infection, or a sprain, and you get another within five years, that's "pre-existing". It's ludicrous.

That's what the public option was about. I assume you both supported the public option?

And yes, there are cost controls in the ACA. You are misinformed, Rick.

 

[Rick]

That's exactly the point, boys. Insurance is designed to benefit the shareholders.

Exactly, and in a free market, as opposed to what we have now due to the interference of government. they can only do that by pleasing their customers.

Not the people buying the insurance.

False. People with insurance don't have to pay the gigantic costs they would otherwise pay.

People don't actually need health insurance, they need health care.

Like saying people on boats don't need life jackets, they need protection from drowning.

Health insurance is just the current vehicle for the delivery of the health care.

The "vehicle" that is VASTLY better than obozocare, and can be much improved except for the malfeasance of government.

I'm guessing that you are all relatively naive when it comes to what the private market calls a pre-existing condition. My son's insurance company recently challenged a bill he presented. According to them, if he's been treated for any condition in the last five years, that condition is preexisting. Now that might make some sense if you're talking about a recurrence of arthritis-but they take it to mean that if you get treated for a burn on your hand, or an infection, or a sprain, and you get another within five years, that's "pre-existing". It's ludicrous.

When you buy insurance, you need to carefully study what it covers and doesn't cover. If you neglect this, you only have yourself to blame. If the insurance company renegs, you can sue them and win.

And yes, there are cost controls in the ACA. You are misinformed, Rick.

The whole obozocare system is a kind of crude, deadly "cost control" ultimately by rationing - as in the NHS and canada, people will die on waiting lists. Old people will die because they can't find competent doctors who will take them as patients, because obozocare has looted medicare of a half trillion dollars. People will die, as in the NHS, because life-saving drugs are excluded form the formulary because some unelected bureacrat thinks they cost too much. People will die because obozocare slows tremendously innovation in meds, medical devices, and medical procedures, stopping what would have been developed from ever being developed. People will die because skilled physicians will leave the field because it's no longer worth it. to be replaced by far less competent doctors.

That's the "cost control" of obozocare - DEATH.

 

[Pepper]

You're openly admitting that the free market can't solve the health care crisis.

The Affordable Care Act, as I explained before, is basically a plan proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the 90s as an alternative to the Clinton plan. The HF prompted it as more of a market based solution than the Clinton's plan. It removes "freeloaders" from the system, requiring that everyone participate in buying health insurance before they get sick.

The alternative is a public option. A plan that people can buy into without forcing health care companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. But when that was raised, the Republicans and the Tea Party had a **** fit. Don't blame the Democrats for the lack of a public option.

People have sued their insurance companies and won, but in the meantime, their illnesses progress. You don't seem to grasp this.

You are seriously misinformed about the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act, and about the Canadian Health Care system.

The cost of your ideas is death. That's why we have to take action. Because the status quo isn't working.

 

[Rick]

You're openly admitting that the free market can't solve the health care crisis.

I said no such thing - you're telling a bald-faced lie, and everyone can see it.

The Affordable Care Act, as I explained before, is basically a plan proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the 90s as an alternative to the Clinton plan.

No they didn't - another lie. Heritage has a recent paper on healthcare which people can see by going to their site, and it bears not the slightest resemblance to obozocare.

The alternative is a public option.

The "public option" "solves" the problem by letting people die.

People have sued their insurance companies and won, but in the meantime, their illnesses progress. You don't seem to grasp this.

This is an extremely rare occurrence - what happens 99.99% of the time is insurance works normally, or people wouldn't buy it. These rare occurrences are distinguishable from statist "health care", where rationing is the fundamental policy and people dying as a "cost contol" measure is a day in-day out occurence.

You are seriously misinformed about the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act, and about the Canadian Health Care system.

You haven't refuted anything I said - you have no facts and no logic. You're just robotically going down a list of easily-demolished obozocare talking points someone has given you, while refusing to engage in debate.

 

[TruthSeeker]

And the colleges that train Dr.'s and nurses... Should they be non-profit as well?

How about the companies that develop, build, and maintain medical technology... Should they also be non-profit?

If you're simply unhappy about the expense, then you should be blaming government intervention and third party pay systems in the healthcare market for the soaring costs, not companies making profit.

The answer to question one is NO.

The answer to question two is NO.

In a "perfect" society, where there is no greed and profiteering and graft and corruption, and everybody has integrity and honesty and morals, a healthcare insurance system operated by private companies would be just fine.

But, we don't live in anything resembling a "perfect" society.

Healthcare in the United States should not be based on the ability, or inability, of our citizens to pay for the healthcare they need to stay alive.

Government control is not the answer. Private control is not the answer. The answer lies somewhere in-between, and the answer lies with finding the right people to oversee our healthcare system. People with dollar signs in their eyes are not those people.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designed to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree that everyone deserves access, because health care is a basic human need. I don't mind a profit being made by the providers, any more than I mind a farmer making money off of his crops or livestock.

Food and shelter are basic needs too.

 

[Dr.Who]

Healthcare in the United States should not be based on the ability, or inability, of our citizens to pay for the healthcare they need to stay alive.

Before obamacare we already had a situation in which every single citizen of this country had access to health care regardless of the ability to pay.

 

[Dr.Who]

. I don't mind a profit being made by the providers, any more than I mind a farmer making money off of his crops or livestock.

How kind of you not to mind that farmers and doctors be able to pay off their loans and feed their families.

You do not have the right to say how much one farmer or one doctor gets paid from some other person. You do have the right not to pay one farmer or one doctor from your own resources of you don't like his deal.

If you think doctors charge too much then get a huge loan, go to med school, work 20 hour days, do an internship, get a job where you are on call 24 hours a day, market yourself and hire a staff, pay your overhead, and take a huge risk that you will lose everything you have worked for, but instead of charging enough to make $200k per year do it at no profit. Every single person in this country who thinks doctors get paid too much should just go and become a doctor and then charge less. That would bring down the cost. I wonder why more people are not doing it and charging less? Could it be that they are actually charging a fair price?

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think it's understood, for some unimaginable reason, that lack of access to health care is a form of oppression, regardless of the reason for the lack of access.

During the founders time, this problem didn't exist. It's a recent development. But it's a basic human need, so when some citizens have abundant access and others have no access, that keeps people down.

Insurance companies are just not designed to really meet this need. Their goal is to make money, not to give access to health care. That's not a political statement, that's just reality. We have people who work hard who cannot afford to go the doctor, who cannot afford chemotherapy or open heart surgery, who cannot afford to catch a minor illness before it becomes a major problem.

Some problems are better solved by government. National defense, national infrastructure, public education, public safety, and public health care. The private sector does better creating restaurants, cool stuff to buy, etc, etc.

KWIM?

Actually we have NO people in this country who do not have access to health care. If they are poor they get medicaid and if they have money they can pay. If they are in between then they can either become rich and pay or become poor and get medicaid.