From a friend on FB, re ACA

tekkychick said:
It's part of the law. If they make more than that, they have to send it back to the people who paid premiums.
Click to expand...

In a mutual company, that is true, but not all insurance companies are mutual companies. My car insurance generally sends me a check for a couple hundred every December.
 
Jarod said:
Harry Reid causes cancer? Call the CDC, they should do something about this!
Click to expand...
No,,,, He don't care about children with cancer depending on gov't funding.

Doing something reasonable like delaying the mandate isn't going to happen even if these children are going to die.
 
Liberty said:
No,,,, He don't care about children with cancer depending on gov't funding.

Doing something reasonable like delaying the mandate isn't going to happen even if these children are going to die.
Click to expand...

Delaying Obamacare will kill more children than passing the funding.
 
Superfreak said:
No, they don't. But healthy people can determine the risk factor of getting sick. They can set aside money in case of emergency. They can choose to pay out of pocket.



Yes, the person hurt in the accident or the person that comes down with cancer etc...

Yes, it does cost a lot and yes, they are taking a risk (as wacko pointed out) that if they are unable to pay, they are going to get hit on their credit and likely be forced into BK. But again, the vast majority of people in their 20's are not going to need insurance unless they are unhealthy to begin with. The catastrophic does not hit very many of us health wise early in life.



Not necessarily invincible, a person can also know that statistically, the odds are greatly in their favor in their younger years of not needing it. Obviously this varies by individual depending on lifestyle choices etc...



I would love to see the data you are using to justify the above.



The health insurance side of the business is pretty damn predictable in terms of profitability. Again, that is not personal responsibility. You are taking away the personal responsibility and forcing the decision upon the individual as to how they choose to pay.



Except that it really doesn't. How does it help the poor? One catastrophic accident and they are still going to end up in BK. $10000 or $10000000... doesn't matter, they cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

I know you live in a cushy little world, you work hard, make your money, are able to set money aside, but when you are a person struggling from one paycheck to another, trying to meet the bare necessities of life, there certainly isn't enough to set aside.

There are many people on this forum who are very egocentric, they don't seem to have the ability to look outside themselves and see others.
 
Jarod said:
Delaying Obamacare will kill more children than passing the funding.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. Gov't doesn't run anything right. More children will get a worse deal with gov't healthcare.

And nobody is asking for the delay of the UACA. Just the mandate, and the medical device tax.
 
Liberty said:
I disagree with that. Gov't doesn't run anything right. More children will get a worse deal with gov't healthcare.

And nobody is asking for the delay of the UACA. Just the mandate, and the medical device tax.
Click to expand...

Please provide your proof, your opinion means nothing, it is just an opinion.
 
Liberty said:
I disagree with that. Gov't doesn't run anything right. More children will get a worse deal with gov't healthcare.

And nobody is asking for the delay of the UACA. Just the mandate, and the medical device tax.
Click to expand...

Exactly how does the medical device excise tax affect you?
 
tekkychick said:
So all those people who got checks because the insurance companies made more than 20% - um - um - um. Maybe it's not so typical after all.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused on terminology. It is not because they made 20% profit margins. It was because they did not spend at least 80% on actual care.
 
Dungheap said:
Harry Reid did pass a spcific bill that funds the NIH, as well as the rest of the government.
Click to expand...

You are hilarious. Harry Reid also refuses to pass a bill that is actually specific to the NIH. He refuses to fund it, unless everything else is funded too. That is what I was referring to.
 
tekkychick said:
It's part of the law. If they make more than that, they have to send it back to the people who paid premiums.
Click to expand...

no, it is not. Again, it could just be a confusion on terminology. They must pay out 80% of what they take in for actual care. The other 20% is admin etc... of which a portion can/may be profits. Again, the typical insurance company profit margin is around 5-7% on average. That number is fairly consistent.
 
Jarod said:
1) Most Americans do not have the financial wherewithal to set aside enough money in the event of a catastrophic illness, they can play the odds that they wont get sick, but when they do, often there ability to work or make money is gone, and in that event the American taxpayer ends up paying for there medical care in a substandard way that costs more than if they were properly insured.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. Most Americans will also not have a catastrophic illness. You are still asking people to pay for it, one way or the other. That is the point. You ask the taxpayers to pay either via insurance premiums or via taxation to cover Medicaid, Medicare, Obama care. You are still covering those that cannot afford it.

2) The point is that the catastrophe does hit a certain percent of us. When that person is uninsured and forced into bankruptcy or in any other way does not pay for his/her medical bill, we all pay. The taxpayer pays some, those who are insured pay, simply put, those who took personal responsibility pay for those who did not!
Click to expand...

see above.

3) Statistically a percent will get sick, I knew a girl who was 19 when she got melanoma, luckily her parents insured her but when she got kicked off her parents policy she had to quit college and take a corporate job so she could continue her treatment. Luckily, for her and the American taxpayer, and the insured of America she was not so sick she could not work.

4) Its common sense but ill look for the data. It costs more to get healthcare via Medicaid, that if the person was insured by a private company.
Click to expand...

No, it is not common sense. As for your anecdotal evidence... that is the exception to the rule. They most certainly exist. But out of the millions of echo boomers, how many have catastrophic injury or illness?

5) You are simply forcing the personal responsibility by requiring you pay a fine if you choose to take the risk. If you choose to risk the money of the American Taxpayer and the American who is Insured, you should pay a fee for that.
Click to expand...

No, again you are removing personal responsibility and forcing government mandated action.

6) Well, it limits the amount the taxpayer or insured will get stuck with, if you have a $5,000 deductible the limit of liability is just that. If you don't have insurance the limit of liability is unlimited.
Click to expand...

Which is nonsense. No matter what the cost of the procedure/treatment etc... it is being paid for by the tax payers... either via taxation or higher premiums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top