Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   ObamaCare (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/obamacare/)
-   -   New leftwing ACA narrative (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/obamacare/52243-new-leftwing-aca-narrative.html)

pjohns 07-29-2017 06:51 PM

Re: New leftwing ACA narrative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660 (Post 898959)
[W]e already pay for health for those that can not afford it. So what is your point?

Presumably, you mean that (a) those who are indigent--and without even Medicaid--are nonetheless treated by doctors, in hospitals; (b) that this causes a ripple effect, what with hospitals and doctors increasing their rates, in order to cover those losses; and (c) that this, in turn, causes insurance carriers to increase their own rates.

But I have an idea: Why not just pursue those indigents relentlessly, for the rest of their lives, rather than just writing it all off and charging the paying customers more?

Doubtless, this would result in some collections; whereas others would still beat the system.

But it would very much lessen the burden, anyway.

pjohns 07-29-2017 07:14 PM

Re: New leftwing ACA narrative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 899099)
The Republicans have already driven the premium prices way above what they should have been under Obamacare where the initial losses to the insurance companies for insuring those with pre-conditions were to be reimbursed up to 80% (Republicans only funded 12% as I recall).

I think another word for government "reimburse[ment]" is subsidies.

And I am thoroughly opposed to subsidies--whether the subject is healthcare, windmill farms, solar energy, or anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 899099)
Now 39 predominately rural county "markets" affecting about 25,000 people don't have any insurance companies.

Evidently, you have very little regard for rural America--presumably, it can quickly be dismissed, as unimportant--since it is urban America that regularly votes for the Democrats (and did so again, in 2016, with regard to Hillary Clinton).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 899099)
If there's nothing to replace Obamacare then it collapses and results in the same 22 million (or more) uninsured that the Republican repeal was going to cause.

This appears to be the left's principal concern--in fact, probably its only concern: getting just as many people as possible insured (even if that "insurance" is largely unusable, because it often contains deductibles of $22,000--or even more).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 899099)
Only 17% of Americans were supporting the Repeal effort by the GOP which means a lot of Americans, including a lot of Republicans, are going to demand the GOP fix the funding so that the insurance continues into the future.

And where, exactly, did you come up with that statistic?

Whereas it is true--unfortunately--that ObamaCare has recently been gaining somewhat in popularity, I am aware of no poll that claims that it is preferred over the status quo ante by an almost five-to-one margin.

Here is an example: News from The Associated Press

It would really be more convincing if you did not attempt to inflate the figures.

Surly 07-29-2017 07:26 PM

Re: New leftwing ACA narrative
 
No it wouldn't, it would just cost more to try to collect. There is a reason bad debts are written off. The health industry even uses debt collectors just like other credit companies to collect as much as possible. But hounding a homeless guy in Pittsburgh probably isn't going to make you a lot of money. It amazes me how simplistic some conservatives concept of a healthcare system is. It is just much easier to charge the rest of us more that can pay. and they can because we have no choice but to pay.
Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns (Post 900668)
Presumably, you mean that (a) those who are indigent--and without even Medicaid--are nonetheless treated by doctors, in hospitals; (b) that this causes a ripple effect, what with hospitals and doctors increasing their rates, in order to cover those losses; and (c) that this, in turn, causes insurance carriers to increase their own rates.

But I have an idea: Why not just pursue those indigents relentlessly, for the rest of their lives, rather than just writing it all off and charging the paying customers more?

Doubtless, this would result in some collections; whereas others would still beat the system.

But it would very much lessen the burden, anyway.


AZRWinger 07-30-2017 09:17 AM

Re: New leftwing ACA narrative
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Surly (Post 900670)
No it wouldn't, it would just cost more to try to collect. There is a reason bad debts are written off. The health industry even uses debt collectors just like other credit companies to collect as much as possible. But hounding a homeless guy in Pittsburgh probably isn't going to make you a lot of money. It amazes me how simplistic some conservatives concept of a healthcare system is. It is just much easier to charge the rest of us more that can pay. and they can because we have no choice but to pay.

Charging those of us that can pay more to make up for those supposedly unable to pay describes the tax system that would fund the "magic pill" of UHC or single payer socialized medicine. The preference of the government run healthcare advocate is to Federal government act as the collections agent harassing or imprisoning those who do not surrender their earnings while refraining from inconveniencing those who are supposedly unable to pay.:rolls

Medicaid seizes assets to offset the cost of medical expenses after the patient dies. Medicare requires a premium for parts B and D. Both are taxes on individuals but we cannot even try to collect from someone who shows up at the ER.:o


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0