Obama's address to congress.......

CrackerJax

New Member
It's semantics..... care is given at the time of NEED. Health care is not a right. It's insurance, just like any other kind.

Again, why don't we all just have the govt. cover the ....

Auto insurance industry?

Life insurance industry?

Liability insurance?

Flood insurance?

Why not? It's exactly the same.... no different in any way. It's medical INSURANCE. Not all require it, not all need it, not all CHOOSE it.

It's not the business of the govt. to provide health insurance to the citizens.

Besides, after we disagree on the principles of the entire concept of this.... you cannot PROVE in ANY way that the govt. can do what it says and within any budget it has claimed so far.

Show me a successful govt. program of any large size that has been running more than 20 years...

I can name a few off the top of my head..... except the numbers crush your dreams.

How many can you name to crush mine? How many......
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
It's semantics..... care is given at the time of NEED. Health care is not a right. It's insurance, just like any other kind.

Again, why don't we all just have the govt. cover the ....

Auto insurance industry?

Life insurance industry?

Liability insurance?

Flood insurance?

Why not? It's exactly the same.... no different in any way. It's medical INSURANCE. Not all require it, not all need it, not all CHOOSE it.

It's not the business of the govt. to provide health insurance to the citizens.

Besides, after we disagree on the principles of the entire concept of this.... you cannot PROVE in ANY way that the govt. can do what it says and within any budget it has claimed so far.

Show me a successful govt. program of any large size that has been running more than 20 years...

I can name a few off the top of my head..... except the numbers crush your dreams.

How many can you name to crush mine? How many......

You seem to overlooking one pertinent fact, that is NO government "takeover" of health insurance is going to occur. Noone has proposed it, it isn't included in any of the legislation...

So where are you getting this notion that government regulation of the health insurance industry equates to a "takeover"?

A "public option" might take some profit away from the insurance companies? So what? They'll raise their premiums to compensate? Okay, then they'll lose customers, which also takes away from their profit.

Why is competition good for all other industries, yet bad for the health insurance industry? Answer: it isn't!
 

CrackerJax

New Member
If you disturb the private insurance pools you are in effect taking them over... by subversion. One need only look at Massachusetts to see that much.

Look into Mass. and see ur future...... it is the model. It is NOT working.

Here's what happens in the real world.... the govt. bill will carry mandates for all PRIVATE insurers.... which means the same thing Fred and Fannie did with loans.... force banks to sell loans they would normally pass on...

Now Joe "healthy" citizen has some extra money and decides its time to get some health insurance. This is correct thinking for "some". Others don't need it at all. But let's stick with Joe.

Joe enrolls into the private policy insurer, but because of mandates, all kinds of ppl that the insurer would turn down for that particular pool... (normal healthy adults)... must now enroll all of the "Janes" who now are eligible by govt. decree. The rates go up because of the added costs to the insurer. The healthy Joe says F...this! I can't afford to chase my policy increses, I'm dropping out or finding another pool.
The original pool starts draining of "Joes" and ends up with a lot of "Janes" instead.

Voila, private insurance in tatters..... business models thrown to the gutter.

That is what you are defending.... ur on the wrong side of the equation.
 

Hemlock

Well-Known Member
News flash......House votes DOWN bill to stop funding acorn...WTF....Senate votes 83 to 7 to stop funding..
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Because its a dog and pony show for them..... they think they are in charge.

I think Washington is in for a big letdown come mid term elections......
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
"The rates go up because of the added costs to the insurer"

Wait, so selling more policies doesn't earn the insurance companies more money? Well, golly gee.. how will they afford their private jets and European vacations? By "added costs" you're actually saying "reduced profits", which I couldn't care less about.

So, if we make health care affordable for everyone, the insurance companies will lose profits. Who gives a flying monkey about the insurance companies' profits but the insurance companies themselves?
 

CrackerJax

New Member
It's not about how many policies are sold... see I told you that you don't understand the insurance business. Perhaps you should refrain from this topic until you are up to speed.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
It's not about how many policies are sold... see I told you that you don't understand the insurance business. Perhaps you should refrain from this topic until you are up to speed.

Riddle me this, is it or is it not the number of people in each risk pool that ultimately determines how much each person will pay for their coverage? (Coupled with how many of those in the pool are actually USING the health services their insurance entitles them to)

More people in the pool = mitigation of the "risk".

That's why the insurance companies have repeatedly said that if the government is going to require them to cover pre-existing conditions that they MUST require every citizen to purchase coverage.

Because the more people that are in the "risk pool", the lower the risk is for everyone.

Risk = cost of premiums.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
You know what riddle me not. How about you put down the spin papers, and go do some actual reading up on the insurance business. Not the politics of the insurance business. Do some reading about the nuts and bolts and what goes into making these pools.

It's fool hardy to comment on something you don't grasp. Once you have the fundamental economics down... the govt BS will leap out at you.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The one thing that is being missed is that this is for the people without insurance.

This is money that the insurance companies are not capturing now as it is. The problem is that the people that they kick off or won't allow to get insurance would be balanced out by the people that are healthy but carrying it.

I wouldn't mind seeing this like auto insurance, keep it all private, but make it mandatory that everyone be covered. This way the insurance companies would be forced to not turn people away. Then the government can step up and help the people that can not afford it (the people that are on the cusp financially) can now do so, not that they get it free, but that they can get it at a reduced cost according to their finances.

But everyone needs to get covered. People need to realize that -100 billion loss is better than a 110 billion loss for the country over the next 10 years.



But CJ, what do you mean by failed government controlled company? There are lots of ways to look at it. If you just define that as above or below the break even point that is pretty narrow. You can also look at it as the cost per employee for doing the job, that would be a different way.

Like I did with the Post office (ewwww right?) they operate at a loss of what 7 billion? They could easily make that up by having stamps a few cents, but to get to that magic 36% profit it would be around 56 cents (I did the math a while ago). Either way the american people pay for it.

So you are just saying that because they don't charge more they are not run well? I would say that they operate at a much lower cost and do a far more efficient job than the private companies (If you look at the actual dollar revenue (Money in (Bailouts+sales) - Money out)Divided By Money out(employees)) .

And I do think that the post office should be dismantled, but only after the people there can get reeducated so that they can be a use to the country.

But to say that they don't do a good job is subjective.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
You know what riddle me not. How about you put down the spin papers, and go do some actual reading up on the insurance business. Not the politics of the insurance business. Do some reading about the nuts and bolts and what goes into making these pools.

It's fool hardy to comment on something you don't grasp. Once you have the fundamental economics down... the govt BS will leap out at you.

I'm sitting here with someone who has worked in insurance their ENTIRE adult life and now owns his own insurance agency. I'm fairly certain he knows how the insurance business works, so instead of "reading", I think I'll just talk to an expert.

You have no clue. None. Zilch. Zippo.

It isn't government BS, it's how pools work. The insurance companies are private, remember? So how is what they say "government spin"?
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Here, CJ, a break down of how insurance pooling works that even you should be able to understand:

Health insurance seems like a simple exchange. You pay an insurance company a premium and insurance pays your bills. You get rid of risk and the insurance company takes your risk. However, there is more to it that this. What does the insurance company do with your risk? Do they keep it? Do they also get rid of it somehow? When you understand what the insurance company does with your risk, then you can better evaluate your options and perhaps get a better deal on health insurance.


One measure of risk is the potential for ups and downs. Having a stock that pays $100 in dividends each year and seldom changes in price is not very risky. Having a stock that goes up or down wildly from one period to another is risky. The same is true for health care costs. Paying $100 each year for eyeglasses is not risky. Having a chance of winding up in the hospital and having to pay $100,000 is risky.
"Risk Pooling" happens when many people get together and share their losses by averaging (actually averaging, not CrackerJax style averaging) them together. Risk pooling works because of the "law of large numbers." As you average together more and more numbers in a certain range, the average becomes more and more stable. Unusually high or low numbers tend to cancel each other out. For example, if you roll dice once, the result can be anywhere from 2 to 12. If you roll dice more and more, the average will get closer and closer to 7. By the time you roll the dice 1,000 times, the average will be very stable around 7.
Insurance companies use risk pooling to get rid of the risk they take from you. They charge you a premium based on average cost plus their administrative cost. When they pool many people, the average cost is very stable and they have little risk themselves. Risking pooling is also used in finance. When people buy a bunch of different stocks in a diversified portfolio, their average return from the portfolio is more stable and less risky than the return from a single stock.



Law of large numbers: The law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem in probability that describes the long-term stability of the mean of a random variable. Given a random variable with a finite expected value, if its values are repeatedly sampled, as the number of these observations increases, the sample mean will tend to approach and stay close to the expected value (the average for the population).
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The one thing that is being missed is that this is for the people without insurance.
Nonsense, this is not about that at all. If that was the case the govt. could easily set up a "pocket" pool and subsidize the uninsured. That's not what Obama wants..... he doesn't want a slice, he wants the whole pie.


I wouldn't mind seeing this like auto insurance, keep it all private, but make it mandatory that everyone be covered. This way the insurance companies would be forced to not turn people away. Then the government can step up and help the people that can not afford it (the people that are on the cusp financially) can now do so, not that they get it free, but that they can get it at a reduced cost according to their finances.

That is not what the bill is going to do. Forcing insurance companies not to turn ppl away? Lawdy.... can you not see a big fat failure coming?

You know I was going to answer the rest of this, but i feel overwhelmed at the monumental amount of misunderstanding about insurance on this thread.....

Please go read my article in politics... Obama Health care ...myth and reality. Just get a cup of coffee and read it slow. read it twice. Forget the politics.... just use ur own common sense. Most of the answers from you guys is in there. I gotta go smoke a bowl .... :lol: wow.....















But everyone needs to get covered. People need to realize that -100 billion loss is better than a 110 billion loss for the country over the next 10 years.



But CJ, what do you mean by failed government controlled company? There are lots of ways to look at it. If you just define that as above or below the break even point that is pretty narrow. You can also look at it as the cost per employee for doing the job, that would be a different way.

Like I did with the Post office (ewwww right?) they operate at a loss of what 7 billion? They could easily make that up by having stamps a few cents, but to get to that magic 36% profit it would be around 56 cents (I did the math a while ago). Either way the american people pay for it.

So you are just saying that because they don't charge more they are not run well? I would say that they operate at a much lower cost and do a far more efficient job than the private companies (If you look at the actual dollar revenue (Money in (Bailouts+sales) - Money out)Divided By Money out(employees)) .

And I do think that the post office should be dismantled, but only after the people there can get reeducated so that they can be a use to the country.

But to say that they don't do a good job is subjective.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Nonsense, this is not about that at all. If that was the case the govt. could easily set up a "pocket" pool and subsidize the uninsured. That is not what the bill is going to do.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

Page 22;

Premium Credit. The Chairman‘s Mark would provide a refundable tax credit for eligible individuals and families who purchase health insurance through the state exchanges. The premium tax credit will subsidize the purchase of certain health insurance plans through the state exchanges and will be refundable and payable in advance directly to the insurer.


Forcing insurance companies not to turn ppl away? Lawdy.... can you not see a big fat failure coming?

Again, you're the one with no understanding of how insurance works and it's clear you haven't even read the bill you keep commenting on.

You know I was going to answer the rest of this, but i feel overwhelmed at the monumental amount of misunderstanding about insurance on this thread.....

From the AHFA, page 5:

Pooling refers to the industry practice of pooling the insurance risk of individuals or groups in order to determine premiums. In the individual market premiums are typically based on the risk of the applicant, such as an individual or family. In the small group market, premiums are typically based on the collective risk of the small group.
Is this not exactly what I've been saying all along?

Did you miss the part where even the INSURANCE companies say if they have to cover pre-existing conditions that the bill needs to require EVERYONE to join the "pool" (aka a mandate on purchasing health insurance)? Why do you think they want more people in the pool? Because with more people it's easier to mitigate the risk.

Sheesh.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Nonsense, this is not about that at all. If that was the case the govt. could easily set up a "pocket" pool and subsidize the uninsured. That's not what Obama wants..... he doesn't want a slice, he wants the whole pie.
Yeah lets not look at what is actually being put into the bill, let's go with what we 'feel' that Obama wants. This is for the people that do not have insurance nothing more. Why is that so hard to actually see the facts and understand this.

If you prefer, maybe say that you believe that once this is in place that Obama will want to one day mangle it so that the government then is able to take over every aspect of your care, that is just as factual (totally void of actual facts so they are equal). But to dismiss what is actually going on is insane.

That is not what the bill is going to do. Forcing insurance companies not to turn ppl away? Lawdy.... can you not see a big fat failure coming?

You know I was going to answer the rest of this, but i feel overwhelmed at the monumental amount of misunderstanding about insurance on this thread.....

Please go read my article in politics... Obama Health care ...myth and reality. Just get a cup of coffee and read it slow. read it twice. Forget the politics.... just use ur own common sense. Most of the answers from you guys is in there. I gotta go smoke a bowl .... :lol: wow.....
I think that you don't like to read what is being said sometimes. I was just tossing that out there and never said that is what is actually happening.

Maybe you should read some fact checking sites to get a better understanding of what is actually happening instead of just believing what you want to believe.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The state exchanges will quickly break down into total regulatory bodies. read past the language.... read the data already accumulated in Massachusetts.... the same model. It's a big failure.

Everyone loses choice.... everyone loses quality.... it's a loser.

Check out Massachusetts and get back to me. it isn't pretty, I'll tell you that. that's the model.... the model of failure.

lest we forget about how Obama is now going to cut back on medicare.... there goes the senior vote. You never want to piss off the seniors.... but what can he do? The system is belly up fiscally. How can that be?

Surely it will be done better with national health care ......... right????

use ur heads...........
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
When I was in the USAF I got some of the best health/dental/eye care on this earth.... People steady saying that Goverment should not run health care..I say the private sector should not run health care...They only do it for profit...Your health vs profit... If people take time to think instead of hating ( for what ever reason ) they would see that reform is needed... Question yourself do you really want to have the private sector running your health , your families health, Your freakin mothers health based on profits.... WAKE UP anyone who takes up for the insurances companies must be greedy azzholes ( meaning one of them) or just stupid ( still one of them ).... take your pick
 

vinnytool

Active Member
wow guy you need to back off.
Who cares how many post one has? Because he has little to none his word means less? That reminds me of a few "right" guys.

the plan is set in motion it will pass and we will see its out come. the fact is he has a lot of work to make up that our other shit brain president made a mess of. He wants to do good for the people... hes DOING something good! not going to war not giving money to oil lovers!

If it fails that sucks, but we don't know until we try and if we never try we will never know.

If we never did anything to improve our way of life we would never advance.

I am sure many pres. have set something in motion that failed. Some have set things in motion that worked wonders for our country and we advanced from it.

fact is! we need to do something for all the people who cant afford heath care! we cant let people die because they don't have enough money!

do you think its ok for one person to die because they don't have good health care covering all there bills?

what happens if you get cancer and your health care wont cover all the bills?

or

You have to work in pain just to cover the bills mean time you or your family lives in the slum because you cant afford a house in a nice area anymore?


also he needs to make a big change seeing he is the first black pres. and he needs to go in to the history books with a big story behind him :)

dude notice i have very few post and i have been a member since 2006 i believe.

does that make my word any less meaning full?
 

CrackerJax

New Member
When I was in the USAF I got some of the best health/dental/eye care on this earth.... People steady saying that Goverment should not run health care..I say the private sector should not run health care...They only do it for profit...Your health vs profit... If people take time to think instead of hating ( for what ever reason ) they would see that reform is needed... Question yourself do you really want to have the private sector running your health , your families health, Your freakin mothers health based on profits.... WAKE UP anyone who takes up for the insurances companies must be greedy azzholes ( meaning one of them) or just stupid ( still one of them ).... take your pick
If you look up the profit margins of the insurance companies (you obviously don't bother with facts), you might realize that it is ur post which is ... ahem... not informed. I won't say stupid, but it's a close call.
 
Top