Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 9th, 2017, 04:23 PM   #11
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
That's why capitalism is a ponzi scheme

Privatized profits

Socialized debts

The insurance industry is the epitome of that

The only free market that exists is your local flea market

Everything else is a subsidized scam, and protection racket
Welcome to anarchy.
Thanks from guy39
Sabcat is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 04:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
If the federal government would assume fiscal liability for individual's catastrophic medical expenses, medical insurers can choose, or government's insurance regulatory laws could compel medical insurance rates be reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks; otherwise medical insurance rates must continue to reflect what are the insurers' probable financial risks under current regulations.



RNG, I agree that it's at cost to the taxpayers; there's no free lunch.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.

Respectfully, Supposn

Do you honestly believe that insurance rates would go down ??? Your smoking something ! Reducing the risk pool WOULD be nothing more than a huge profit increase to the insurance industry.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 05:17 PM   #13
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Do you honestly believe that insurance rates would go down ??? Your smoking something ! Reducing the risk pool WOULD be nothing more than a huge profit increase to the insurance industry.
The only way this would work is if rates were set by the government or if profit margins were set by the government. Both of those are impractical in the real world since the health industry routinely buys politicians and because the health industry has some very creative accountants.

Not to mention that it is the kind of government interference in business that I don't like.
RNG is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 05:20 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
... I am opposed to medicaid for all because I think we need some private insurance. If we go with medicaid it will end up as strict socialized medicine ...
Guy39, Medicaid is paid for by states' human welfare agencies and are subsidized by the federal government. It is similar to a charity rather than an insurance plan.
Medicaid purpose was to provide medical services for those that cannot afford anything else; it fails to do so. The maximum income qualifications for state's Medicaid programs are so extremely low that many people cannot qualify for their state's Medicaid, are too young to qualify for Medicare, or cannot afford the copayments and fees for any adequate medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 05:35 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
... I am opposed to medicaid for all because I think we need some private insurance. If we go with medicaid it will end up as strict socialized medicine and death panels like we recently witnessed in Britain with the infant.
Guy39, I've read that the Catholic Church offered to transport the baby and have it cared for by the Vatican. The hospital couldn't permit it due to Great Britain's laws regarding medical treatment, patients, and parents' rights. Great Britain's socialized medical practices were inconsequential to this case you've referred to.

I do find your references to "death panels" of some interest. I don't recall Medicare or Medicaid grievously intervening with licensed physician's method for treatments, but there have been too many incidences of such interventions by commercial medical insurers.

Tomorrow I must again request that my doctor's office provides me with an additional supply of one of my prescribed medications, because the commercial insurer believes their judgement rather than my licensed physicians judgement should prevail.
To get the Medicare prescription drug coverage, (i.e. Part D of Medicare) passed through congress, Democrats had to acquis to Republican demand that Medicare, (i.e. the government) not be permitted to negotiate drug prices and that non-government insurers, rather than the federal Center for Medicare services should determine which drugs or combinations of drugs they would cover.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from imaginethat
Supposn is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 06:58 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by Supposn
If the federal government would assume fiscal liability for individual's catastrophic medical expenses, medical insurers can choose, or government's insurance regulatory laws could compel medical insurance rates be reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks; otherwise medical insurance rates must continue to reflect what are the insurers' probable financial risks under current regulations.

RNG, I agree that it's at cost to the taxpayers; there's no free lunch.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
The only way this would work is if rates were set by the government or if profit margins were set by the government. Both of those are impractical in the real world since the health industry routinely buys politicians and because the health industry has some very creative accountants.

Not to mention that it is the kind of government interference in business that I don't like.
RNG, due to the reduced insurer's financial risks, and/or competition among existing medical insurers, and/or reduced risks attracting new enterprises into the insurance market places, and/or government's insurance industry regulators compelling insurance rates reflect the insurers reduced risks, YES; medical insurance rates would be less than otherwise. [I.E. otherwise being if the government does nothing to induce reduction of insurers risks or of insurers costs].

The reduction of insurance rates will not be sufficient to satisfy insurance purchasers. Regardless of prices, purchasers always seek still lower prices. If purchasers were paid to accept insurance, they'd want to be greater compensated. That's not capitalism or socialism, that's human nature.

Our natures drive all of us.
Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 07:12 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Do you honestly believe that insurance rates would go down ??? Your smoking something ! Reducing the risk pool WOULD be nothing more than a huge profit increase to the insurance industry.
If what they are proposing is something like what they have in Singapore then insurance rates would go down, but taxes would go up.
Essentially any procedure that cost over $10,000 would be covered by the government out of tax money. Leaving insurance to pay for the inexpensive stuff, premiums would fall.
goober is online now  
Old July 9th, 2017, 07:25 PM   #18
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Originally Posted by Supposn
If the federal government would assume fiscal liability for individual's catastrophic medical expenses, medical insurers can choose, or government's insurance regulatory laws could compel medical insurance rates be reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks; otherwise medical insurance rates must continue to reflect what are the insurers' probable financial risks under current regulations.

RNG, I agree that it's at cost to the taxpayers; there's no free lunch.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn



RNG, due to the reduced insurer's financial risks, and/or competition among existing medical insurers, and/or reduced risks attracting new enterprises into the insurance market places, and/or government's insurance industry regulators compelling insurance rates reflect the insurers reduced risks, YES; medical insurance rates would be less than otherwise. [I.E. otherwise being if the government does nothing to induce reduction of insurers risks or of insurers costs].

The reduction of insurance rates will not be sufficient to satisfy insurance purchasers. Regardless of prices, purchasers always seek still lower prices. If purchasers were paid to accept insurance, they'd want to be greater compensated. That's not capitalism or socialism, that's human nature.

Our natures drive all of us.
Respectfully, Supposn
I will argue that the extreme geographical constraints put on health insurance companies and other factors make it such that the health insurance industry is another example of an area far removed from free enterprise.
RNG is offline  
Old July 9th, 2017, 07:26 PM   #19
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
If what they are proposing is something like what they have in Singapore then insurance rates would go down, but taxes would go up.
Essentially any procedure that cost over $10,000 would be covered by the government out of tax money. Leaving insurance to pay for the inexpensive stuff, premiums would fall.
Premiums would fall if the companies weren't totally profit motivated. The multimillion dollar executive bonus monies have to come from somewhere.
RNG is offline  
Old July 10th, 2017, 02:27 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 389
Excerpted from 9Jul2017, posts of 8:03 PM and 10:58 PM:
RNG, I agree that it's at cost to the taxpayers; there's no free lunch.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
If what they are proposing is something like what they have in Singapore then insurance rates would go down, but taxes would go up.
Essentially any procedure that cost over $10,000 would be covered by the government out of tax money. Leaving insurance to pay for the inexpensive stuff, premiums would fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Premiums would fall if the companies weren't totally profit motivated. The multimillion dollar executive bonus monies have to come from somewhere.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
catastrophic, costs, individuals, individuals’, medical



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peak Number Of Americans Delaying Medical Care Over Costs antares Political Talk 37 January 23rd, 2015 08:00 AM
WHO warn virus could spread to other countries causing 'catastrophic' loss of life antares Current Events 50 August 5th, 2014 08:31 AM
Should medical insurers’ individual catastrophic accounts be federally re-insured? Supposn Healthcare 3 March 1st, 2013 10:06 AM
Cutting medical expenses; limit medical suits? Supposn Healthcare 1 November 29th, 2009 12:17 PM
Bush to be a Dictator in Catastrophic Emergency... tadpole256 Political Talk 8 June 1st, 2007 07:32 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.