Republican position on healthcare.

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

Moderator: Team

Splitter
Pro
Pro
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Manitoba

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by Splitter » Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:06 pm

86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm

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
Actually, if the insurance were made mandatory to include all uninsured homes including those which had already burned down, the individual cost per insured home would likely decrease, because of ‘adverse selection’. People buy home insurance because they believe they will benefit from it, so if you looked at two groups of homes, one insured and the other uninsured, the group of insured homes would have a higher rate of loss due to fire.

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 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:15 pm

Splitter wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:06 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm

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
Actually, if the insurance were made mandatory to include all uninsured homes including those which had already burned down, the individual cost per insured home would likely decrease, because of ‘adverse selection’. People buy home insurance because they believe they will benefit from it, so if you looked at two groups of homes, one insured and the other uninsured, the group of insured homes would have a higher rate of loss due to fire.
Stop stating the obvious, it reduces the asinine arguing. [-X :lol:

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

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by mitch » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:41 am

Splitter wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:06 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm

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
Actually, if the insurance were made mandatory to include all uninsured homes including those which had already burned down, the individual cost per insured home would likely decrease, because of ‘adverse selection’. People buy home insurance because they believe they will benefit from it, so if you looked at two groups of homes, one insured and the other uninsured, the group of insured homes would have a higher rate of loss due to fire.
So I guess the government will cover the cost for those that cannot afford to pay for that MADE MANDATORY. That is just what we need more of

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

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:44 pm

Since everyone wants free, then the hospitals should be forced to do it for free, the drug companies should do it for free. That means what ever job you do that you should also do it for free. There I fixed it. Its time to get rid of money and we all get and do for free. YES. And wow real and true freedom.

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 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:52 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:44 pm
Since everyone wants free, then the hospitals should be forced to do it for free, the drug companies should do it for free. That means what ever job you do that you should also do it for free. There I fixed it. Its time to get rid of money and we all get and do for free. YES. And wow real and true freedom.
Just because other countries can figure it out, its a Given Americans are too stupid to do it.

Make health Industry even more wealthy and selective.

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by Firedome8 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 am

20 states are suing the federal gov to abolish the pre existing condition clause. All driven by the Republicans.

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7957
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by pdq67 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:28 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...
And where did this rant get C&P'd from??

pdq67

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by Firedome8 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:55 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 am
20 states are suing the federal gov to abolish the pre existing condition clause. All driven by the Republicans.
What about this.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9220
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 1989TransAm » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:46 pm

Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:55 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 am
20 states are suing the federal gov to abolish the pre existing condition clause. All driven by the Republicans.
What about this.
FAKE NEWS. The Republicans did not put in a pre existing condition clause. If anything like that is in there it is because of Obamacare.

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4981
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by RevTheory » Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:29 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:46 pm
FAKE NEWS. The Republicans did not put in a pre existing condition clause. If anything like that is in there it is because of Obamacare.
Maybe poor chromedome got confused again and was thinking about ohbummer's "death panels" which turned out to be absolutely true.

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

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:31 am

If the demorats want free health care for everyone, then we should demand free unrestricted by codes etc. land an affordable place to live is just as important or more so.

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:28 am

1989TransAm wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:46 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:55 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 am
20 states are suing the federal gov to abolish the pre existing condition clause. All driven by the Republicans.
What about this.
FAKE NEWS. The Republicans did not put in a pre existing condition clause. If anything like that is in there it is because of Obamacare.
Better look again.

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 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:06 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:46 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:55 pm
Firedome8 wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:49 am
20 states are suing the federal gov to abolish the pre existing condition clause. All driven by the Republicans.
What about this.
FAKE NEWS. The Republicans did not put in a pre existing condition clause. If anything like that is in there it is because of Obamacare.
You are too funny. :lol:

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 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:07 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:31 am
If the demorats want free health care for everyone, then we should demand free unrestricted by codes etc. land an affordable place to live is just as important or more so.
Yea, and no more free police, fire depart, subsidized mail, public schools, highways, etc etc.

I can't wait. #-o

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

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:11 pm

Along with free health care, there needs to be free land, cut the size of national parks down to a 1/32 of what they are now, with all the refugees coming here land with no building codes or restrictions is what is needed, there are too many homeless people as it is. Get rid of the demonrat over priced housing. Yes back to liberty and the right to have property.

Post Reply