Republican position on healthcare.

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
rebelrouser
Pro
Pro
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by rebelrouser » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:22 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:33 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.

Single payer solves your above insurance dilemma, and cuts out all of the current insurance industry profits in the process, but you already knew that, right?
We already have a single payer system if you are older than 65 years. Doctors and hospitals make less off old farts as it is now. Insurance companies sell supplemental plans and make plenty of money. If you made everybody single payer, then have the power to negotiate reductions in cost and drugs. Insurance companies and businesses that want to give or sell perks like premium plans, solves about 90% of the issues we have.

mitch
Expert
Expert
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 8:38 am

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by mitch » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:30 am
1989TransAm wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:57 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:36 pm
What is the Republican position on pre existing conditions going in to midterms?
President Trump has stated repeatedly that we have to accept pre existing conditions on healthcare. He has been stating this for quite sometime at his rallys. The dimoKKKRATS are flat out lying about this issue.
But dump is a f liar...the f Republican candidate's say one thing and then do another and your information sources hide that from thair minions. Or thair cognitive ability is lacking and they can not understand reality. The GOP works for corporations get that in your f head the gop does not work for the people.
And the democrats do? Explain please

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:32 pm

rebelrouser wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:22 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:33 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.

Single payer solves your above insurance dilemma, and cuts out all of the current insurance industry profits in the process, but you already knew that, right?
We already have a single payer system if you are older than 65 years. Doctors and hospitals make less off old farts as it is now. Insurance companies sell supplemental plans and make plenty of money. If you made everybody single payer, then have the power to negotiate reductions in cost and drugs. Insurance companies and businesses that want to give or sell perks like premium plans, solves about 90% of the issues we have.
So we agree, except maybe with amount the single payer pays, and that percentage is what determines the demand for any additional insurance?

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm

rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:31 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.
So the real elephant in the room is, only healthy people should receive and pay for health care, if your sick, just do everybody a favor and die, right? Typical insurance catch 22, pay your premiums, but don't try and collect, as it cuts into the profits, they always can come up with a reason not to pay. Insurance is a gamble and funny how insurance companies always try and renege on the bet. Every modern industrial country in the world provides health care for its citizens except for the USA. Some how Republicans have convinced their followers that going bankrupt any time you have a health problem is normal, and if your sick, why would you need to buy health insurance? Have you ever seen a sick and dying family member that was just to expensive to try and get healthy? Check your facts, we do not have the best health care in the world, other people live longer and pay much less than we do. Another example of people believing their own propaganda.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... item-start
I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.

Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.

Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.

With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.

In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.

Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.

Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.

As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.

Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.

The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy

Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 pm

86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm
rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:31 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.
So the real elephant in the room is, only healthy people should receive and pay for health care, if your sick, just do everybody a favor and die, right? Typical insurance catch 22, pay your premiums, but don't try and collect, as it cuts into the profits, they always can come up with a reason not to pay. Insurance is a gamble and funny how insurance companies always try and renege on the bet. Every modern industrial country in the world provides health care for its citizens except for the USA. Some how Republicans have convinced their followers that going bankrupt any time you have a health problem is normal, and if your sick, why would you need to buy health insurance? Have you ever seen a sick and dying family member that was just to expensive to try and get healthy? Check your facts, we do not have the best health care in the world, other people live longer and pay much less than we do. Another example of people believing their own propaganda.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... item-start
I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.

Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.

Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.

With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.

In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.

Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.

Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.

As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.

Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.

The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy

Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...
Dude, Really?

K.I.S.S. sometimes applies, and is useful in online discussions, like here.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:53 pm

So with everyone on Medicare does that mean no more supplemental insurance? I'm just wondering who is going to pay the extra taxes to support that new system? Big pharma I hope.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:07 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:53 pm
So with everyone on Medicare does that mean no more supplemental insurance? I'm just wondering who is going to pay the extra taxes to support that new system? Big pharma I hope.
So because you personally are at the limits of your understanding, it must be impossible, is what you are saying?

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:08 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:07 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:53 pm
So with everyone on Medicare does that mean no more supplemental insurance? I'm just wondering who is going to pay the extra taxes to support that new system? Big pharma I hope.
So because you personally are at the limits of your understanding, it must be impossible, is what you are saying?
The retard has responded.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:14 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:08 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:07 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:53 pm
So with everyone on Medicare does that mean no more supplemental insurance? I'm just wondering who is going to pay the extra taxes to support that new system? Big pharma I hope.
So because you personally are at the limits of your understanding, it must be impossible, is what you are saying?
The retard has responded.
Pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".Wiki

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:18 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:14 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:08 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:07 pm


So because you personally are at the limits of your understanding, it must be impossible, is what you are saying?
The retard has responded.
Pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".Wiki
Super diaper, learned some new things, and proved he is a liar. Yeah you jcc. Your good at proving who you really are.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:21 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:18 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:14 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:08 pm


The retard has responded.
Pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".Wiki
Super diaper, learned some new things, and proved he is a liar. Yeah you jcc. Your good at proving who you really are.
Lets try a little reverse psychology, Thank you, you proved exactly what I intended, you can move to the front of the class. #-o

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:39 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:25 am
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.
A for profit healthcare system is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. This is one place where I depart with my usual lean towards libertarian/capitalist philosophy. When an industry is profit driven, profit is THE number one priority. There is no way that the best decision for an individual's healthcare will always (or even mostly) align with the best decision for the shareholders. If we completely end corporate subsidies, stop trying to be the world police with our military, prevent insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies from working to price fix drugs, we could lower taxes for everyone, and have plenty of money to inject into the healthcare system to ensure all people have an adequate level of care that doesn't bankrupt them when they have something bad happen. It is a complex issue for sure, but the current state of healthcare in this country is awful in comparison to most industrialized nations.
The ubiquitous assertion that ANY industry that is profit driven is fundamentally flawed, IS fundamentally flawed. I'll universally concede that most companies have an ardent interest in profitability. Most companies ALSO realize (like it or not) profitability is contingent on providing an efficiently produced, quality product consumers are WILLING TO BUY. To the engine builders in this thread, how long would you expect you and many others would continue buying Mahle pistons if they began packaging fecal matter "samples" in their boxes??? Or if we found virtually identical pistons to lower cost JE, SRP or Wiseco pistons sent in their boxes? I'm sure such practices might look good on the books for a brief period, followed by plummeting sales and eventual bankruptcy IF they had no interest in rectifying such matters.

The same logic applies to the conflicting interests of the individuals health care needs and an insurance company's interest of its shareholders. First, the terms of coverage, in large part, are VERY CLEARLY defined. Why would anyone WANT to buy an insurance policy with unclear terms?
Moreover, the reason there are multiple insurance plan products, with varying terms, deductibles and extent of coverage is because there are variations of consumer need. There are of course consumer limits on cost; which invariably results provider limits of service. Any marked distinction (better or worse) of one health insurance provider's quality of service, cost and extent of plan coverage WILL result in changes in the provider's market share.

I completely agree that placing our military on an indefinite sabbatical, reigning in ALL subsidies, grants and special program privileges would send us in the right direction. However, I believe extricating our government from the health care system would be the MOST financially beneficial to the industry. It would lead to more specialists entering the market, more drugs tested and produced more efficiently leading to lowered costs.

A friend of mine having similar views made a great point regarding American people's inconsistency of the widely held support of the separation of Church and State on the grounds that, in its absence, either the Church would be subjected to perverse incentives by government, the Church would corrupt government officials OR BOTH, in other words, Church and State collusion at the expense of all "outsiders", while advocating for further propagation and inevitable collusion of State and Health Care, read Big Pharma, Big Insurance and the AMA.

Why not advocate the separation of State and.. virtually everything?

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:51 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm
rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:31 pm


So the real elephant in the room is, only healthy people should receive and pay for health care, if your sick, just do everybody a favor and die, right? Typical insurance catch 22, pay your premiums, but don't try and collect, as it cuts into the profits, they always can come up with a reason not to pay. Insurance is a gamble and funny how insurance companies always try and renege on the bet. Every modern industrial country in the world provides health care for its citizens except for the USA. Some how Republicans have convinced their followers that going bankrupt any time you have a health problem is normal, and if your sick, why would you need to buy health insurance? Have you ever seen a sick and dying family member that was just to expensive to try and get healthy? Check your facts, we do not have the best health care in the world, other people live longer and pay much less than we do. Another example of people believing their own propaganda.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... item-start
I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.

Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.

Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.

With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.

In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.

Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.

Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.

As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.

Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.

The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy

Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...
Dude, Really?

K.I.S.S. sometimes applies, and is useful in online discussions, like here.
My apologies for attempting to provide logically rooted explanations to a complex topic.

How bout this?

You say single payer, I say free markets! You say, the rich are EVIL!!! I say, that's stupid.
Because that dialogue certainly offers insight of both sides... :roll:

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:33 pm

86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:39 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:25 am
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:54 am
Allow me to be the asshole and talk about the elephant in the room...

Is an Insurance company providing insurance if they’re required to cover pre-existing conditions for the same premiums as those that don’t? How long would a home insurance provider remain viable if it allowed its clients to insure their currently half burned down home to cover the repair costs?

If you want to continue ignoring reality, go ahead, blame those greedy insurance companies. If one has an interest in accepting reality, it would explain why the EXPANSION of insurance coverage has resulted in more EXPENSIVE insurance coverage.

At the expense of being curt and dispassionate, i believe it’s worth noting that those who DO have a pre-existing condition such as cancer, aren’t killed by the insurance company’s or the doctor’s refusal to pay for treatment, they’re killed by the cancer. AND... Something you will NEVER here from anyone in medical community or in political sphere which cannot be ignored. Despite the VERY BEST the medical industry has to offer, at the end of the day they’re only delaying the inevitable.
A for profit healthcare system is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. This is one place where I depart with my usual lean towards libertarian/capitalist philosophy. When an industry is profit driven, profit is THE number one priority. There is no way that the best decision for an individual's healthcare will always (or even mostly) align with the best decision for the shareholders. If we completely end corporate subsidies, stop trying to be the world police with our military, prevent insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies from working to price fix drugs, we could lower taxes for everyone, and have plenty of money to inject into the healthcare system to ensure all people have an adequate level of care that doesn't bankrupt them when they have something bad happen. It is a complex issue for sure, but the current state of healthcare in this country is awful in comparison to most industrialized nations.
The ubiquitous assertion that ANY industry that is profit driven is fundamentally flawed, IS fundamentally flawed. I'll universally concede that most companies have an ardent interest in profitability. Most companies ALSO realize (like it or not) profitability is contingent on providing an efficiently produced, quality product consumers are WILLING TO BUY. To the engine builders in this thread, how long would you expect you and many others would continue buying Mahle pistons if they began packaging fecal matter "samples" in their boxes??? Or if we found virtually identical pistons to lower cost JE, SRP or Wiseco pistons sent in their boxes? I'm sure such practices might look good on the books for a brief period, followed by plummeting sales and eventual bankruptcy IF they had no interest in rectifying such matters.

The same logic applies to the conflicting interests of the individuals health care needs and an insurance company's interest of its shareholders. First, the terms of coverage, in large part, are VERY CLEARLY defined. Why would anyone WANT to buy an insurance policy with unclear terms?
Moreover, the reason there are multiple insurance plan products, with varying terms, deductibles and extent of coverage is because there are variations of consumer need. There are of course consumer limits on cost; which invariably results provider limits of service. Any marked distinction (better or worse) of one health insurance provider's quality of service, cost and extent of plan coverage WILL result in changes in the provider's market share.

I completely agree that placing our military on an indefinite sabbatical, reigning in ALL subsidies, grants and special program privileges would send us in the right direction. However, I believe extricating our government from the health care system would be the MOST financially beneficial to the industry. It would lead to more specialists entering the market, more drugs tested and produced more efficiently leading to lowered costs.

A friend of mine having similar views made a great point regarding American people's inconsistency of the widely held support of the separation of Church and State on the grounds that, in its absence, either the Church would be subjected to perverse incentives by government, the Church would corrupt government officials OR BOTH, in other words, Church and State collusion at the expense of all "outsiders", while advocating for further propagation and inevitable collusion of State and Health Care, read Big Pharma, Big Insurance and the AMA.

Why not advocate the separation of State and.. virtually everything?
I understand what you’re saying, and in principle I tend to agree. Let’s take an example to see what I’m talking about though. Imagine you work at a pharmaceutical company and there is a cure developed for something like herpes. You currently have millions of people buying daily doses of medicine to suppress the effects of the disease. If you price the cure to account for the losses you’ll incur once everyone is cured, no one will be able to afford it. What choice do you think the board is going to make? The one that cures everyone and kills revenue, or the one that keeps the money rolling in?

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:01 am

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:33 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:39 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:25 am


A for profit healthcare system is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. This is one place where I depart with my usual lean towards libertarian/capitalist philosophy. When an industry is profit driven, profit is THE number one priority. There is no way that the best decision for an individual's healthcare will always (or even mostly) align with the best decision for the shareholders. If we completely end corporate subsidies, stop trying to be the world police with our military, prevent insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies from working to price fix drugs, we could lower taxes for everyone, and have plenty of money to inject into the healthcare system to ensure all people have an adequate level of care that doesn't bankrupt them when they have something bad happen. It is a complex issue for sure, but the current state of healthcare in this country is awful in comparison to most industrialized nations.
The ubiquitous assertion that ANY industry that is profit driven is fundamentally flawed, IS fundamentally flawed. I'll universally concede that most companies have an ardent interest in profitability. Most companies ALSO realize (like it or not) profitability is contingent on providing an efficiently produced, quality product consumers are WILLING TO BUY. To the engine builders in this thread, how long would you expect you and many others would continue buying Mahle pistons if they began packaging fecal matter "samples" in their boxes??? Or if we found virtually identical pistons to lower cost JE, SRP or Wiseco pistons sent in their boxes? I'm sure such practices might look good on the books for a brief period, followed by plummeting sales and eventual bankruptcy IF they had no interest in rectifying such matters.

The same logic applies to the conflicting interests of the individuals health care needs and an insurance company's interest of its shareholders. First, the terms of coverage, in large part, are VERY CLEARLY defined. Why would anyone WANT to buy an insurance policy with unclear terms?
Moreover, the reason there are multiple insurance plan products, with varying terms, deductibles and extent of coverage is because there are variations of consumer need. There are of course consumer limits on cost; which invariably results provider limits of service. Any marked distinction (better or worse) of one health insurance provider's quality of service, cost and extent of plan coverage WILL result in changes in the provider's market share.

I completely agree that placing our military on an indefinite sabbatical, reigning in ALL subsidies, grants and special program privileges would send us in the right direction. However, I believe extricating our government from the health care system would be the MOST financially beneficial to the industry. It would lead to more specialists entering the market, more drugs tested and produced more efficiently leading to lowered costs.

A friend of mine having similar views made a great point regarding American people's inconsistency of the widely held support of the separation of Church and State on the grounds that, in its absence, either the Church would be subjected to perverse incentives by government, the Church would corrupt government officials OR BOTH, in other words, Church and State collusion at the expense of all "outsiders", while advocating for further propagation and inevitable collusion of State and Health Care, read Big Pharma, Big Insurance and the AMA.

Why not advocate the separation of State and.. virtually everything?
I understand what you’re saying, and in principle I tend to agree. Let’s take an example to see what I’m talking about though. Imagine you work at a pharmaceutical company and there is a cure developed for something like herpes. You currently have millions of people buying daily doses of medicine to suppress the effects of the disease. If you price the cure to account for the losses you’ll incur once everyone is cured, no one will be able to afford it. What choice do you think the board is going to make? The one that cures everyone and kills revenue, or the one that keeps the money rolling in?
To effectively flesh out your example requires specialized knowledge and information to determine the plausibility of your assertion which I'm quick to admit I don't possess.

I will concede there have been some compelling cases of how the medical industry "keeps us sick" by essentially treating such conditions rather than curing them. However, if that were true, why have there been cures for anything???
https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well ... /wiped-out

It's hard to argue the list of cures in the article aren't significant.

Although I can't say to what degree, the bureaucracy associated with, in some cases, decades long testing to achieve market approval and the subsequent patent protections of similar time time periods INVARIABLY increase prices (in some cases dramatically) of "treatments" which may well influence or undermine the incentive to search for cures.

Here's an article which suggests Big Pharma has no interest in keeping us sick because, as most on this board would likely concede, Science can be really hard...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... iracy/amp/

Post Reply