you libs need to pay close attention. We have a REAL
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
Well, I do apologize. Since you seem to have done so much better than your comrades, surely you wouldn't mind sharing the particulars of your plan. Gold, silver or what is your plan? Who is it thru and the benefits covered? Deductibles, max out of pocket, co-pays? Premium cost? Any govt matching? Surely you can share so others can give it consideration for their family.
Dave says he's lying through his teeth. If he won't tell us who his plan is with, it's tantamount to agreeing with Dave's charge. I'll say this...he's one lucky Dude if his was the only premiums NOT to have massive increases. I don't insure through an exchange (I have Cigna through my employer) and they blasted us this year. 35% increase in our premiums. Ouch!
There is no plan out there that hasnt grown more expensive. We probably have as good an insurance plan as one could hope since my wife started working at WVU and even our deductibles have almost doubled as well as our premium going up and I would imagine the states cost have gone ip a bit too. I wont complain much about the increases because compared to what my conpanies plan has seen cost wise and what many others pay it is a pretty small increase.
So, if I don't provide my personal information and coverage then "I'm lying"? [roll][roll][roll]
It's Anthem.......and no, mine has not increased. Perhaps for you suckers, not for me.
Mine has gone down too, not by a lot, but they didn't go up and sure didn't skyrocket ... deductibles have remained the same.
Obama wanted to bomb Syria 4 years ago and the GOP wouldn't give him approval ... now all of a sudden Trump is "tough"? He shot missiles, which didn't do any damage ... oh, he sure showed them. We have been carrying out drone missions for years, which you guys bitched about, but 39 ineffective missiles have you creaming your jeans. You guys have no idea how many thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed in the last 8 years ... but act like Obama has been doing nothing.
All of these pictures of women and children suffering from the attack, and you guys suddenly "oh, look at the horror, we have to do something" ... ok, let's bring them here as refugees where they don't have to worry about chemical attacks ... "no, I meant let me watch missiles fly over their country, that will help them"
We showed we have a willingness to openly challenge and check the Assad regime through military action. We had not done that previously. Dont confuse our drone strikes in Syria as being the same as what we did last week. Drone strikes were not targeting the Assad regime. They are vastly different. Don't give me the ******** about the GOP not letting Obama do something. The President has the authority granted in the War Powers Act to do any offensive operations he deems for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. I do know exactly what we've been doing the last several years in that region. We've been punting on Assad.
The moment the legislation was signed by Obama our year increases went from single digits to double digits, upwards 20%. For the first time in 50 years we required employee contribution into the plan, and now have to accept ridiculous deductibles and co-pays.
The people that truly suffered under the ACA are the middle class young folks who are now faced with $1500+ per month premiums but don't qualify for the subsidy because they work and are not withing 400% of the poverty line. If you have employer coverage there's the chance that your employer is eating some of that increase, or they've made alterations to plans to keep the overall cost down.
It was a ****** piece of legislation that hasn't done what they "hoped" it would do. It was all based on flawed theory and lacked any common sense.
Moreover, the problems being realized from it are exactly the reasonings behind the original opposition to the ACA.
The only way to ever make this work is for a single payer system. I'm conflicted on whether we can or should do that. There are negative ramifications to that approach as well.
I'm convinced that's why the legislation was designed as it was. Create a new entitlement (the subsidies) and when premiums fail to control costs, have the justification and the political support (via the new entitlement) to enact a single payer system.
We can do it. We should do it. Will it happen? Beats me. The biggest negative ramifications to single-payer would be to the megacorps like Aetna, Blue Cross, Humana, Mylan, Squibb, AstraZenaca, and the other giants of insurance and pharmaceuticals that control who gets treatment and what kind, and how much they pay for medications. In other words, it will yank the profit motive rug right out from under them and put health care back in the hands of doctors and their patients where it belongs, and a lot of people in both parties who suck on the corporate tit to get elected and re-elected will fight it just as they fought and defeated Hillary's plan in 1993.
No thanks. Wanna see what a single payer system looks like in operation? go to the VA for health care.
Amazes me why we don't want to try what we know works best. You pay for your own insurance what you need and what you can affford. Competition, choice, and Consumers in charge of making the final decisions.
That works everywhere else it's tried.
So fed govt employees didnt see their rates go up but everyone else pays out the nose. That should make everyone feel good. I am probably crazy to point out that fed. employees are a huge democrat voting block too.
And the insanity of the Government making those decisions and not insurance companies. As if the Government will be any better.
Except that in the health care system it's nothing like that, is it? Consumers (patients) have the least influence over those decisions. Doctors have somewhat more, but are still constrained by what insurers will pay for. That said, my biggest gripe about the ACA was taking the middle part of your statement out of the equation -- people who were happy with their coverage should have been able to keep it, period.
Wrong. Like most opponents of single-payer, you're conflating single provider with single payer to support your position.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
I definitely do not have mixed feelings about insurance coverage. It is a personal choice. If it becomes a requirement for all, then it can be a one payers system. Then, the ***** comes in funding it. Really not sure we could float a couple more trillion dollar loans per year.
And you work all govt contracts thru competitive bidding? Seems some of our contributors do not fully understand "profit motive" in the business world. As an alternative, can we have another department like VA to cover medical needs for the rest of humanity? You are damned certainly going to discourage the investment med students have to make financially and in time required when you remove that terrible "profit motive" in the end game.
Well consumer choice seems to work fine when it comes to homeowner's insurance. Works fine for automobile insurance, no government subsidies needed there. No problems for folks deciding what type of retirement insurance they prefer. Life insurance purchasers don't seem to have any trouble finding what types of products they prefer to cover their assets?
Why is health insurance so sacrosanct?
Why would those same insurance customers suddenly be unable to find the correct type of health insurance for themselves at prices they can choose or afford if they can figure out how to buy all of these other types of Insurance at prices and coverage levels that fit their needs and budgets?
Why is health care the "forbidden fruit" when it comes to trusting consumers to make their own private decisions?
Wrong. Under single payer...the Government is the provider of the care. That's how they supposedly control costs. There is no private for profit Insurance market under single payer.
Last edited:
Simple math will give you the answer. Insurers are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying claims. You might go your whole life without a claim against your homeowners or car insurance. Compare the number of claims submitted daily against homeowners' policies, car insurance, and health care. If demand against those other kinds of insurance were anywhere near what they are for medical coverage, they would soon be unaffordable as well.
Your argument makes no sense especially when it comes to Automobile insurance and Life Insurance. The actuarial tables work the same for those insurance providers as they do in health care. Not all Health insurance policy holders get sick simultaneously!
People die everyday, but not everyone! Claims are settled every time based on those Life Insurance policies. Same thing with automobile insurance. Accidents happen everyday (as frequently as folks get sick) claims get paid every time based on those policies. Homes are also bought and sold or repairs are paid on damage claims from homeowner's policies the same way. Not everyone's house burns down on cue at the same time.
All of these Insurance companies operate exactly as Health care Insurers, and consumers are perfectly capable of purchasing the exact types of coverage limits they need and can afford without massive Government mandates or tax payer funded subsidies or one single provider paid for by the Government.
Last edited:
And young or healthy people sometimes go years without needing to utilize their health Insurance coverage. I'm almost 60 years old, and have yet to use mine for anything other than routine check ups. I'm not typical, but I'm also not unusual.
I'm not arguing that it's good legislation, I've mentioned many times what I see the failures of it are ... I'm just pointing out that the impact on my premiums have been nil. My employer isn't eating more of the costs either because I see exactly what the costs are. My employer only pays 80% of my premium, but I have to cover family members myself 100%.
I don't know why ours haven't changed when so many others have, but it hasn't.
That's not what they are telling their investors and actuarial evaluators regarding their overall financial health and escalating costs in some markets. Here's one example...there are many, many more
https://ctmirror.org/2016/09/02/ct-health-insurance-rates-to-rise-sharply-in-2017/
Which is why they want to merge with Cigna...to lower their risks from ongoing cost escalations.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/us-judge-blocks-merger-of-anthem-and-cigna.html