I just bought myself some socialism this week. My rate is $205 per month for the all copay plan. That covers my shot which costs roughly $700 per week. Personally, I wouldn't call it insurance. It most definitely is a mechanism for wealth redistribution. The ACA very clearly is a bill that forcibly extracts the assets of others to funnel it to people like me. This is why healthcare costs have gone up.
You're the one pivoting - the same thing occurred before and after - calling it by a new term after and not applying it to before is deceitful as anything.
Nothing is new, just one new group is allowed in the pool.
What the **** are you talking about? I'm not pivoting. Its a subsidy. You guys call wrongly and deceptively call it insurance.
If it's a subsidy for letting PEC people on now, what was it when PEC people were allowed on as part of an employer insurance pool before (which they were, by and large)? What was it when 55 year olds were allowed in the same pool as 20 year olds?
The same exact thing was happening before - just not in the individual insurance market - that "subsidy" has always existed, so if you're saying it's a subsidy - not insurance - then the insurance industry has been about subsidies for DECADES. [Since I've been old enough to follow insurance data over thirty years ago or so...]
The only difference is PEC individual policies used to be paired with other PEC individual policies before - and individual "normals" got paired together (although age brackets weren't paired separately so the 20 year olds did subsidize the 55 year olds even amongst those)
Claiming it needs to be called a subsidy, not insurance means you should call all the people that actually benefited by insurance for DECADES as "subsidized" people. Insurance is never meant to be a zero sum thing where everyone puts in X and gets out Y in services. It's not a 1:1 equation or even a similar equation from person to person.
LOL....Auto insurance will not pay for damages you've incurred before getting insurance. Please try a little harder. There is zero risk for the person with PEC signing up for insurance. It's a subsisdy.
But they will pay for damages you incur AFTER getting the insurance. Just like with health insurance.
Say you have a dented fender on the back part of the car before you buy car insurance and you damage the front side, the insurance company will not pay for the repair for the dented fender on the back of the car. You have diabetes. You need medication before you have insurancev and after. There is zero risk for you to get "insurance" that covers diabetes.... You are being subsidized the cost of care because you have diabetes. Its not insurance dude.
Say you have a dented fender, you buy insurance, and then your fender falls into the street causing an accident. You're covered.
under the ACA people are required to have insurance their whole lives. This means there is the risk that born babies will get sock, or as is inevitable die.
You would describe life insurance as a subsidy because it covers the preexisting condition of being born, where there is no risk unless you're MacDuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
You can talk about all those things that happen before or after the preexisting conditions and equivocate them to the preexisting conditions but at the end of the day, its still a preexisting condition and its still a subsidy. I'm not sure why you care so much that it's a subsidy rather than insurance.
You refuse to answer if insurance on those with PEC as part of a group plan was a subsidy before. Or on the older members of a pool. Etc.
Either it's always been a subsidy or it isn't now. Nothing is new with the ACA other than a new group being allowed in INDIVIDUAL POLICY pools - even PEC were allowed in group policies before.
You refuse to answer if insurance on those with PEC as part of a group plan was a subsidy before. Or on the older members of a pool. Etc.
Either it's always been a subsidy or it isn't now. Nothing is new with the ACA other than a new group being allowed in INDIVIDUAL POLICY pools - even PEC were allowed in group policies before.
I dont care about anything other than the PEC's. You can talk about getting insurance for all the other stuff but the PEC's you want but "insurance" for stuff related to PEC's is still a subsidy, whether the law mandated it or not. I do not know how else to explain this to you.
What is your intentions to calling it a subsidy? It seems to be to imply it's something new and different, when it's not. Even for PEC - 70% of PEC people were covered before as part of group policies that weren't allowed to discriminate against them.
PS - You know a wonderful phrase I read in a book regarding insurance practices a ong time ago? "Our ultimate goal is for LIFE to be considered a preexisting condition". Or in other words their ideal was to find a PEC excuse for everyone. (an medically speaking, we all have a PEC eventually whether or not it gets caught)
I've answered this at least ten ******* times already, because its not insurance, its a subsidy. I'm not debating whether its a bad thing or a good thing, just merely pointing out its a subsidy not insurance. Quit implying *****. Whether its past present or in the future....when you get compensated for bills associated with a a condition you had before you had insurance, its a subsidy. It's not insurance. You are not managing risk, you are purchasing a product that pays your medical bills for an already present condition with subsidies from either the government or the rest of us who are purchasing insurance and managing our risk. It's basically cost sharing (with other people covering most of the bill), not risk management nor insurance. People with preexisting conditions are getting subsidized for their condition. I'm not saying this is bad or good but rather its not insurance.
You need to stop using words like stonewalling when you have debilitating reading comprehension issue.
You keep using the term as if calling it a subsidy has any point - case in point for it being a "subsidy" why am I as a PEC category person spending less than my wife who is not PEC on a regular basis by a order of about 10 to 1? Am I being subsidized between the two of us or is she as a non-PEC person actually being subsidized by ME the PEC person?
And ALL health insurance has ALWAYS operated that way since I've was in diapers. Especially in group pools.
It's not new, it's not different and it's not always accurately assessed because many people that get PEC'ed don't actually incur extra costs compared to "normal people". (Most blood pressure PEC'ed people for example only have additional cost related to pharmaceuticals - something often not included by policies previous to the PEC clause going away... most diabetics are the same way... my very rare condition... etc)
It's insulting and very disingenuous as someone WHO IS CATEGORIZED AS PEC and barely uses any medical benefits to hear you implying that PEC are being "subsidized" by you oh so generous "normals".
And of course any of the PECs that ARE accepted to be effected by someone's decisions are allowed to be penalized in rates still.
Hell, even for "normal people" insurance is subsidization for Christ's sake - look at your EOB from your insurer next time you get one - even just one doctor's visit is often more that the insurance company subsidized for your than you would've paid if you paid in cash at the quoted rates. Last GP visit for the wife EOB got here a few days ago - would've been $440 for her appointment if she paid in cash, primary insurance took it down to $35.37 and the secondary insurance paid the rest. We pay less than half of that for both of her policies combined - and again she's a "normal".
Health insurance is a health subsidy for EVERYONE except those that choose not to use it. Period. To claim otherwise and that only some sections are is completely ignorant of how the system operates. [Frankly, it's part of why insurance has become so mandatory to get healthcare now - because the costs are inflated to hell assuming you have the subsidy/insurance to cover it]
[Additionally since you keep wanting to harp on "PEC being let in after the fact are..." - again, you do realize that employers still hired people and let them into their insurance pools for PEC people when PEC mattered, right? And that the pool in general paid for it - doesn't matter if they had the condition before or it showed up after - employers aren't allowed to discriminate on such or restrict their insurance pool choices because of it (at least not directly - I would subtly nudge my PEC hires towards one of our three plans with moderate success, but then again it had better coverage for PEC people as well - slit my own throat a bit though, since that was my plan I used as well though)]
You keep using the term as if calling it a subsidy has any point - case in point for it being a "subsidy" why am I as a PEC category person spending less than my wife who is not PEC on a regular basis by a order of about 10 to 1?
Maybe because of the bolded:
It's insulting and very disingenuous as someone WHO IS CATEGORIZED AS PEC and barely uses any medical benefits to hear you implying that PEC are being "subsidized" by you oh so generous "normals".
I'm sorry you are offended by the correct use of a term. Does it hurt your feeling PEC's get subsidized? This is probably why they use the term "insurance" disingenuously because we cant offended the people getting a subside so we need to call it insurance.
And ALL health insurance has ALWAYS operated that way since I've was in diapers. Especially in group pools.
Insurance is not a subsidy for "everyone", its a risk management product for everyone. A person with a PEC is not assuming any risk in regard to paying for their PEC.
It's insulting and very disingenuous as someone WHO IS CATEGORIZED AS PEC and barely uses any medical benefits to hear you implying that PEC are being "subsidized" by you oh so generous "normals".
I'm sorry, I thought the whole goal was to subsidize 40 some odd million people so they can afford health insurance. Now your offended because I use the word subsidize in regards to people who need it? Here is the thing, I think people need subsidies. I'm not sure why you are offended. See, this is the annoying thing, I have no problem with my tax or insurance dollars going to help other people. What I have a problem with is you having the audacity to get offended because I use a more apt term that describes the true nature of this so called "insurance". Too ******* funny. Lobby congress for a subsidy for people who need it but we cant call it a subsidy because people will get offended. I'm not sure why you think I'm using the term subsidy in derogatory way. In my mind this argument is completely about semantics and you are getting pissy you take some weird offence the proper use of subsidy....and to prove this...check post number 7 out:
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
Get pissed at my use of subsidy all you want. I give a damn about you getting pissed at the proper use of term. You keep wanting to get into a debate about the goodness or badness of the subsidy and it is clearly not my goal. ******* read dude. Stop thinking I'm implying something derogatory. Your only objection thus far is an emotional one the uses some straw-man that pretends I'm dissing PEC's. "how dare I call it a subsidy".
Not all PEC people require extra care, that's your first false assumption.
Second false assumption is that the rates are substantially impacted for most people, the 85% of insured Americans that get it through their employer saw no rate bump because of PEC - because PEC were already in their pools.
Third false assumption is that plenty of other categories were mandated to be "subsidized" as well for years, women on average use almost three times the care as men - yet they're not allowed discriminatory rates for decades.
Fourth false assumption is lower risk for non-PEC. Most of the most expensive insurance items are almost never PEC clauses - broken bones, initial cancer diagnosis, heart attack, stroke. Neurologic and psychiatric are the two that are consistently expensive exempting the lifestyle choices that are still penalized. Actuarial risk for an average PEC is 20% more risk over an average client, counting all types of PEC because the truly expensive issues are costly and most aren't PEC. But yet a 700% rate increase is apparently appropriate.
And of course the final false assumption is that some 'normals' don't go out of their way to use it as a subsidy too. In my young days when I worked the front office at my doctor's it wasn't that rare to hear someone schedule an extra appointment to "make sure they got enough value out of their insurance". Didn't need the checkup or physical or whatever, but didn't want it to go to waste - a wasted procedure created entirely because the appointments were a subsidy to them at that point.
And additionally why am I as a PEC person, who barely requires any care (seriously last 6 months I've been to the doc once, to check me up after a car crash... And that technically didn't go through my health insurance even, went through auto), labeled as a "subsidy" to you? I pay more in premiums than I'd pay in cash for the same care I've been requiring. It's rather bizarre to hear someone call overpaying for something to be a subsidy. (and of course note, I'm not a rarity)
Not all PEC people require extra care, that's your first false assumption.
Never stated this.
Second false assumption is that the rates are substantially impacted for most people, the 85% of insured Americans that get it through their employer saw no rate bump because of PEC - because PEC were already in their pools.
Never stated this. It is comical though when you talk about women in the next paragraph, a group that gets heavily subsidized and will never pay the true cost of their insurance or medical care.
Third false assumption is that plenty of other categories were mandated to be "subsidized" as well for years, women on average use almost three times the care as men - yet they're not allowed discriminatory rates for decades.
I'm going to assume you mean "were not" and I've never stated that. I've known for a long time women get subsidized as opposed to get "insurance", I don't mind. I do laugh at "discriminatory rates" though. It's really is comical.
Fourth false assumption is lower risk for non-PEC. Most of the most expensive insurance items are almost never PEC clauses - broken bones, initial cancer diagnosis, heart attack, stroke. Neurologic and psychiatric are the two that are consistently expensive exempting the lifestyle choices that are still penalized. Actuarial risk for an average PEC is 20% more risk over an average client, counting all types of PEC because the truly expensive issues are costly and most aren't PEC. But yet a 700% rate increase is apparently appropriate.
LOL.
And of course the final false assumption is that some 'normals' don't go out of their way to use it as a subsidy too.
never stated this.
And additionally why am I as a PEC person, who barely requires any care (seriously last 6 months I've been to the doc once, to check me up after a car crash... And that technically didn't go through my health insurance even, went through auto), labeled as a "subsidy" to you? I pay more in premiums than I'd pay in cash for the same care I've been requiring. It's rather bizarre to hear someone call overpaying for something to be a subsidy. (and of course note, I'm not a rarity)
Once again, your personal situation is irrelevant to the issue being debated. I've never said absolutely all people with PEC's get subsidized. As you indicated above, there are groups of people who risk and cost are out of line with normal people but are legally protected from paying for that risk. Which means their risk is being subsidized.
If someone is not paying for all of the risk associated with their specific PEC's, they are being subsidized. Its like if their was a law preventing insurance companies from charging higher rates to high-risk drivers except the problem is, that risk is now going to be paid for by everyone. High-risk drivers at that point would be getting subsidized.
High risk drivers are... Ever heard of the portion of auto insurance to cover uninsured drivers? (and yes, even in must carry states it's still mandatory)
You simply have no concept of what contractual insurance means, and can't separate it in your mind from product insurances. Service based insurances are almost always subsidies in your perversion of the word.
Hell, read Consumer Reports sometimes on their product insurance recommendations, only one's they ever recommend are those with a net positive for most cases - a subsidy being paid for by those that get product insurance on the other items that are losers on the odds game.
High risk drivers are... Ever heard of the portion of auto insurance to cover uninsured drivers? (and yes, even in must carry states it's still mandatory)
You simply have no concept of what contractual insurance means, and can't separate it in your mind from product insurances. Service based insurances are almost always subsidies in your perversion of the word.
Hell, read Consumer Reports sometimes on their product insurance recommendations, only one's they ever recommend are those with a net positive for most cases - a subsidy being paid for by those that get product insurance on the other items that are losers on the odds game.
"Government is bad, private sector good."
Government's moreover a tool, you either misuse it or you do not. Sometimes the private sector in attempt to solve a complex problem is like using a butter knife as a screw driver, it just cannot deal with the load. Take for instance the Food Stamps system versus local soup kitchens and bread lines. One is "more local" and more "community oriented" but way less efficient and rather embarrassing and time consuming for those involved trying to feed their children. While the Food Stamps program has purged that from communities and Food Banks, today still struggling five years into the recession, very much help and exist to deal with hunger in the US. Yet, both do not quite deal with the overall problem.
The question to use government is a utility question, not much a paranoid statement about warping markets and their absolute sovereignty over all of existence. I'm an unabashed neo-liberal that believes only in capitalism as a way of life and that the bigger the private sector the better the country. Yet, there are rules of engagement and arbitration. What may have once been "minimal" for government, as expectations and philosophies have changed we no longer function off of what we used to mean as "minimal government." When someone such as myself says "small government" and someone else says "small government," it will mean very different things. Some seek to repeal every law because individuals are these sovereign ubermensch that have control and know everything that is going to happen and can make more resilient behaviors. Until we see what happens with Sandyhook and other such incidents. Then the same people who cry for small government and talk about a government that can give you everything can take everything away, but wants a strong super military misses out that a well armed healthcare system can already take everything away without even trying. It's the police and the military that you would have to eliminate to really be able to "take back government" under a tyranny or else ally with a super power, like we did with France centuries ago.
With regard to healthcare, there was an experimental system with regard to Medicare:
Basically during the 1990's as a part of the balanced budget affairs the government created some incentives to create programs that would improve patient care. Well a bunch of places tried to experiment with those contracts, and only one worked really well statistically and has yet to be scaled up anywhere and was almost shut down. It uses a community driven healthcare program, other similar programs I have read and watched about both point towards trying to mitigate costs by having people interact with people to solve problems.
I'll say this, had Sarah Palin talked about the Fountain of Youth program and other similar attempts than snivel about Death Panels and "repeal and replace," she could be president of the US herself or Romney. But conservatives are stupid, we put in good systems and get some real gems then we just pretend like we didn't do anything right for 20 years and watch young people become Democrats in droves. Then in turn we publish idiot books like Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation by Jason Mattera. I'm an older man, but when I saw this book I thought to myself as a conservative.. "What kind of idiot publishes a book like that?" You start treating people like they're stupid and you end up with a massive exodus into the other party. You know what? Four years later, Republicans still have a problem as the Party of No/Anti-Obama. I agree with Jeb Bush, you have to stand for something than just against it. I'd really hate to see Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton, but for now with what's shaping up for 2016 that's about the best two I can hope to vote between.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Service based insurances are almost always subsidies in your perversion of the word.
I think you kind of prove thep point on why they have to call it "insurance" instead of what it actually is. You've provided no evidence to why it should not be called a subsidy and can only point to other areas to which get subsidized but get called insurance. So, once again I assert you have an negative emotional attachment to the word susbsidized and that is your entire objection to my use of the term.
ANY insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. You seem to not understand my beef is with insurance rather than the people getting subsidized. I do not want to be subsidizing profits.
High risk drivers are... Ever heard of the portion of auto insurance to cover uninsured drivers?
Funny how this covers nothing for the uninsured unless, of course, its the fault of the insured and in that case the uninsured drivers protion of the policy does not come into play, it'd be the normal policy to cover a person if they are at fault in an accident. The uninsured is getting nothing but bills if it their fault. You purcchase that sort of policy to mitigate the cost risk from someone hitting you who does not have insurance.
EDIT: Insurance is a mechnism/product to mitigate the risk of incurring cost associted with a specfiic event and is not this cost sharing mechinism you keep protraying it as. Women who get benefit of cheaper premiumums than what the risk mitigation actually cost are getting a government mandated subsidy that gets paid for by passing the cost onto men. There is nothing wrong with this but its disingenious to cal it "insurance".
Insurance in most forms is a cost sharing mechanism...
Uninsured motorist to cover those that would be screwed in the VERY RARE case of an uninsured motorist causing an accident absolutely is. And dozens of other examples.
The funny thing too is the earliest example of this "subsidy for PEC" nonsense I can find is Mark Levin's radio program, which he actually got talked down and admitted it was inaccurate to portray this aspect of insurance as a subsidy without calling THE ENTIRE US MODEL OF INSURANCE as one.
Insurance is a game of makers and takers - some people in ANY insurance pool will be higher risk and "subsidized" and others will be low risk and "subsidizing".
Of course do note, most of those low risk people in most pools are not comfortable on income where a constant payment to guarantee is easier for them than dealing with a $2000 spike to replace a fridge or whatever.
Welcome to how insurance in our nation has worked our entire lifetimes.
(and do note most of the people subsidizing in the exchanges themselves are subsidized, so at the end of the day the government is subsidizing most of the PEC costs if not all - something they already did in most areas if the PEC person requested access to Medicaid, they almost always were given an income waiver)
PS: Listening to his program explains your penchant for this label BTW. Because he pitched it as more groups being added to Democrat benefit dependence. (which is ironic since its roundabout vs the old way that was direct...)
You are once again using examples of subsidies to suggest its not subsidies.
(and do note most of the people subsidizing in the exchanges themselves are subsidized, so at the end of the day the government is subsidizing most of the PEC costs if not all - something they already did in most areas if the PEC person requested access to Medicaid, they almost always were given an income waiver)
So how does this prove they are not subsidies? Once again, I do not take issue with people getting subsidies in this thread. I take issue with people who reject the fact people are getting subsidized. You are even saying they are subsidized.....
Welcome to how insurance in our nation has worked our entire lifetimes.
No, nine times out of ten, the higher the risk you are, the more you pay in premimums. That is unless the government feels the need to mandate certian groups get subsidized by other people for what ever reasons.
PS: Listening to his program explains your penchant for this label BTW. Because he pitched it as more groups being added to Democrat benefit dependence. (which is ironic since its roundabout vs the old way that was direct...)
I'm not trying to label anything. You and several other people are because of some perverse emotional reaction to the word subsidy. Subsidies are subsidies.
You still do not grasp the fact I reject subsidizing profits in the name of helping others to which occurs under the current model. If we as society deem it as an entitilement to have health care (to which I reject but no crying over spilled milk here) then provide health care with out this lose/lose garbage that you want to call "insurance".
Stop conflating my opinion with other peoples and maybe your feelings will not be hurt.
I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.
I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.
Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.
I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.
Wrong or right, hurt feelings or not, it is what it is.
Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.
I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.
I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.
Actually if you look at the actuarials, you do - and probably more than you actually think - average state minimum benefit actually takes the insurance company $25/mo to cover a $15k value car (and of course scales down from there, slightly), while the average state minimum insurance rate is $65/mo for a "good driver" on the same vehicle - I'm not sure of the breakdown on the rest, not privy to the specifics as an Allstate shareholder but of that $40 some of it is profit and the rest goes into buttressing the rest of the pool, uninsured driver coverage, and administration.
Of which uninsured driver coverage is absolutely a subsidy - saying otherwise ignores what it is. Hell, it even goes into a state fund to allot to people - like most subsidies work.
Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.
ACA only mandates PEC - women was enacted in 1985 or so (bill is referred to as a 1985 bill in my books, but sometimes that's actually the year it's penned not passed), drug users are allowed to be charged different rates still (as are alcoholics and smokers), and the poor aren't mandated anything new that they didn't already have - Medicaid was established in the 80's.
I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.
All policies were required to cover maternity before FYI - it could not be exempted before - it's literally a meme based on nothing, the only difference is now it has to be explicitly listed so people aren't confused if it's available. All forms of birth coverage got mandated before the Contract with America for Christ's sake. It just until now was left under the listing that "Gynocological Services" must be part of a valid insurance policy (yes, even mens policies - but urologists are another line of the old requirement) - that meme is over them adding an extra line to clear up the confusion that child birth is in fact considered a Gynocological Service under Federal guidelines since the last Medicare revision. [Not sure the year off-hand, been quite a while though - a 1998 printing that I got in 2005 or so is the oldest booklet I have, and it's defined as such then]
Again on addiction treatment - yes, you are required to have addiction coverage UNDER THE RATES OF A NON-ADDICT, addiction is something that can be charged an additional premium for under the ACA - there's only a handful of things that can result in an additional charge - but all of them are things that are brought about by choice on the part of the person. [Addiction/Smoking/Drinking and high risk employment are the one's I know for sure off my head - there are others though - I think around 5. Obesity is NOT on there which I disagree with personally (I think it should be on there with a waiver someone can get from their doctor in the rare cases of someone being obese completely by uncontrollable genetics - it should be penalized for the 95+% that are ignoring their health)]
Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.
Incorrect, statistically speaking the highest risk of loss are in fact the elderly by a pretty stark margin. The poor get ruined by medical bills, but over relatively minor ones - even something common like a heart stent for an elderly person (something about 20% of elderly people will have at least twice in their life, my father's on number 5 at this point) runs about $80k before insurance, and that's a simple common procedure. Nursing home care costs around $10k a month, and many elderly are in nursing homes for years - often into DECADES.
Also on diabetes - it wasn't allowed as a PEC declaration unless it gets to the point of amputation and the like. Normal diabetes and COPD for amongst other things that might sound like a "PEC" to a layman, weren't allowed to be termed as PEC. And as stated above most of those are still allowed to be penalized today.
So in your whole thing there, you are legitimately subsidizing obese people in all those things you have consternation over - the other examples are carrying their own weight under what the ACA allows for penalties. [Or per the maternity stuff - already existed, just the wording made it more explicit now - gogo factchecking...]
Additionally, if you have an employer based policy and not an exchange one - you only share risk pool with your fellow employees - so unless your employer is hiring people with all those things you take issue with covering - you're not actually paying anything to cover that stuff. (Unless your employer is on a private exchange of their own - but I've yet to see an employer use those, they've existed a long time too - apparently a good option for really small mom and pop type businesses - but never heard of one that used it. Never really made sense with anyone over a few dozen employees like I always worked for though)
Quote from billydaman »
So how does this prove they are not subsidies? Once again, I do not take issue with people getting subsidies in this thread. I take issue with people who reject the fact people are getting subsidized. You are even saying they are subsidized.....
I'm saying if they're subsidized, their subsidy is actually coming from the Fed - not from other individuals. You and ICM80 now have said "The healthy are..." and "I am..." type statements on where the subsidy is coming from. Taxes come from all types, and inordinately from those that are older and wealthier and tend to consume more healthcare costs (even if they don't get sick as often, they tend to get the best of the best to treat them and get insurance packages that include flights to take advantage of the best, etc). Hell, there was a statistic I saw a few years back that was talking about how many people have PECs normally, then it went on to say how many people ACTUALLY have PECs but weren't showing because of the fact they were 65+ and on Medicare which doesn't care about PECs - if you added the 65+ people in back then the number of people with PECs literally would quadruple. So in a manner of speaking the PEC "subsidy" could be said to be almost entirely footed by those that aged out of having to worry about their PECs due to Medicare. (Even Medicare Advantage when it was established was exempted from considering PEC, FYI)
No, nine times out of ten, the higher the risk you are, the more you pay in premimums. That is unless the government feels the need to mandate certian groups get subsidized by other people for what ever reasons.
Incorrect for most insurances - my wife doesn't pay more on the "tow assistance" part of our insurance policy (or our AAA policy - mental note: I should check if we've been using the AAA travel benefits enough to warrant keeping AAA going since the tows are irrelevant now) even though she's lost her keys and needed assistance EIGHT times in the past two years, our insurance rate nor the additional bit we pay for that coverage has not budged a cent even though she's clearly demonstrated she's a much higher risk of a claim on that item. She has a PEC with that insurance item of "being an idiot who loses her keys or locks them in the car", yet she has yet to budge our rate from the $8/mo it's always been. (And tow calls are around $75 a piece around here cash - so she's only about $400 ahead of the game on that right now, hell with my total insurance rate that's almost breaking even - only pay $600/yr - so literally half my premium came back to me in tows for her)
Never heard of a product warranty/insurance that cares to see if you have a preexisting condition of poor electrical wiring in your house. Renter's insurance doesn't consider anything other than your ZIP code and past number of filings - not even a security system matters for renter's. Home owners has a little more - credit rating and security systems get factored in as well. [Also flood risk used to, but most home owner's dropped nuclear fallout damage and flood damage a few years ago (and no, I'm not kidding on the former - and they were at the same time 2007-9ish)]
You still do not grasp the fact I reject subsidizing profits in the name of helping others to which occurs under the current model. If we as society deem it as an entitilement to have health care (to which I reject but no crying over spilled milk here) then provide health care with out this lose/lose garbage that you want to call "insurance".
Subsidizing profits isn't what you were discussing - that is absolutely a problem with the current system IMO - and I do agree the entire thing is completely half-assed and we'd be better served by something that gutted the entire system and rebuilt it from the ground up in one way or another. Unfortunately opinions on the best revamp to target are really varied - I like Singapore model personally though - but opinions are wildly varied even amongst those that like the same general idea. (i.e. UHC based on Medicare vs. UHC based on a new system entirely just for one quick example of how wildly)
And I don't "want to call it insurance" - insurance is the publicly accepted word in the US for something that helps mitigate the costs of healthcare and to keep them at an affordable level for the consumer.
Or here it is from the US experts on the matter: (from wiki) "According to the Health Insurance Association of America, health insurance is defined as "coverage that provides for the payments of benefits as a result of sickness or injury. Includes insurance for losses from accident, medical expense, disability, or accidental death and dismemberment".
Note nothing about varied costs by risk, note nothing about exempting groups, note nothing about capping benefits - under their definition it's designed to be used to do what PEC people do with it, as does everyone else. In fact, the funny thing is reading the entire Wiki page - something you seem to imply is fundamental to health insurance is never mentioned at all. Nor in many of the online dictionary definitions either for "insurance". [Although at least one does mention risk]
Incorrect for most insurances - my wife doesn't pay more on the "tow assistance" part of our insurance policy (or our AAA policy)
I stopped reading and put you back on ignore after I saw this. You figure out why.
I've never stated women are higher risk for ALL insurance. I've made it clear I was speaking about specific subsidies for specfiic groups as determined by the government...I do not think you can present an honest argument, you have to manipulate things and its not worth my time to keep correct your post
Have to add this dishonest comment:
Subsidizing profits isn't what you were discussing - that is absolutely a problem with the current system IMO - and I do agree the entire thing is completely half-assed and we'd be better served by something that gutted the entire system and rebuilt it from the ground up in one way or another.
\
Oh really?
Post number seven in this thread by me:
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be dishonest but I wish you'd stop. With that said, you are not worth my time.
I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.
I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.
Actually if you look at the actuarials, you do - and probably more than you actually think - average state minimum benefit actually takes the insurance company $25/mo to cover a $15k value car (and of course scales down from there, slightly), while the average state minimum insurance rate is $65/mo for a "good driver" on the same vehicle - I'm not sure of the breakdown on the rest, not privy to the specifics as an Allstate shareholder but of that $40 some of it is profit and the rest goes into buttressing the rest of the pool, uninsured driver coverage, and administration.
If I am covering any cost for the dangerous policy holder,then I shouldn't be.
Point is, the person with the history of wrecks and DUI's pays through their own nose for coverage.
So too should people with PEC's.
Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.
ACA only mandates PEC - women was enacted in 1985 or so (bill is referred to as a 1985 bill in my books, but sometimes that's actually the year it's penned not passed), drug users are allowed to be charged different rates still (as are alcoholics and smokers), and the poor aren't mandated anything new that they didn't already have - Medicaid was established in the 80's.
I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.
All policies were required to cover maternity before FYI - it could not be exempted before - it's literally a meme based on nothing, the only difference is now it has to be explicitly listed so people aren't confused if it's available. All forms of birth coverage got mandated before the Contract with America for Christ's sake. It just until now was left under the listing that "Gynocological Services" must be part of a valid insurance policy (yes, even mens policies - but urologists are another line of the old requirement) - that meme is over them adding an extra line to clear up the confusion that child birth is in fact considered a Gynocological Service under Federal guidelines since the last Medicare revision. [Not sure the year off-hand, been quite a while though - a 1998 printing that I got in 2005 or so is the oldest booklet I have, and it's defined as such then]
Again on addiction treatment - yes, you are required to have addiction coverage UNDER THE RATES OF A NON-ADDICT, addiction is something that can be charged an additional premium for under the ACA - there's only a handful of things that can result in an additional charge - but all of them are things that are brought about by choice on the part of the person. [Addiction/Smoking/Drinking and high risk employment are the one's I know for sure off my head - there are others though - I think around 5. Obesity is NOT on there which I disagree with personally (I think it should be on there with a waiver someone can get from their doctor in the rare cases of someone being obese completely by uncontrollable genetics - it should be penalized for the 95+% that are ignoring their health)]
I shouldn't have to. I should only have to cover the risk I represent.
Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.
Incorrect, statistically speaking the highest risk of loss are in fact the elderly by a pretty stark margin. The poor get ruined by medical bills, but over relatively minor ones - even something common like a heart stent for an elderly person (something about 20% of elderly people will have at least twice in their life, my father's on number 5 at this point) runs about $80k before insurance, and that's a simple common procedure. Nursing home care costs around $10k a month, and many elderly are in nursing homes for years - often into DECADES.
I'm pretty sure elderly people can be both UNHEALTHY, and POOR.
They don't get ruined like youthful poor, but they do contribute to the losses, coverage by Medicaid and Medicare are not free.
Also on diabetes - it wasn't allowed as a PEC declaration unless it gets to the point of amputation and the like. Normal diabetes and COPD for amongst other things that might sound like a "PEC" to a layman, weren't allowed to be termed as PEC. And as stated above most of those are still allowed to be penalized today.
So in your whole thing there, you are legitimately subsidizing obese people in all those things you have consternation over - the other examples are carrying their own weight under what the ACA allows for penalties. [Or per the maternity stuff - already existed, just the wording made it more explicit now - gogo factchecking...]
I shouldn't have to cover other peoples risk.
When I buy car insurance, I am not also required by law to buy boat, motorcycle, homeowners, and flood insurance or face a tax penalty.
When I buy life insurance, I should pay what a healthy,young, nonsmoker, nondrinker, contributes to the risk factor. Certainly I actually do. My life insurance is like $3 a month.
Also, I am not forced through the threat of fines or imprisonment or loss of property if I do not buy life insurance. (I'm sure it's only a matter of time with democrats)
Even moreso that I haven't gone to the doctor in like 6 years, so ANY premium I have paid over that time is unjust. I am paying for a product I do not use.
Just like my auto insurance. I haven't had a claim in over 11 years. 11 years of paying for something I don't use, but if I stop paying, I get ticketed, or worse. This is extortion.
Since I do not use these services I am paying for, I am definitely subsidizing the people who do.
Additionally, if you have an employer based policy and not an exchange one - you only share risk pool with your fellow employees - so unless your employer is hiring people with all those things you take issue with covering - you're not actually paying anything to cover that stuff. (Unless your employer is on a private exchange of their own - but I've yet to see an employer use those, they've existed a long time too - apparently a good option for really small mom and pop type businesses - but never heard of one that used it. Never really made sense with anyone over a few dozen employees like I always worked for though)
Quote from billydaman »
So how does this prove they are not subsidies? Once again, I do not take issue with people getting subsidies in this thread. I take issue with people who reject the fact people are getting subsidized. You are even saying they are subsidized.....
I'm saying if they're subsidized, their subsidy is actually coming from the Fed - not from other individuals. You and ICM80 now have said "The healthy are..." and "I am..." type statements on where the subsidy is coming from. Taxes come from all types, and inordinately from those that are older and wealthier and tend to consume more healthcare costs (even if they don't get sick as often, they tend to get the best of the best to treat them and get insurance packages that include flights to take advantage of the best, etc). Hell, there was a statistic I saw a few years back that was talking about how many people have PECs normally, then it went on to say how many people ACTUALLY have PECs but weren't showing because of the fact they were 65+ and on Medicare which doesn't care about PECs - if you added the 65+ people in back then the number of people with PECs literally would quadruple. So in a manner of speaking the PEC "subsidy" could be said to be almost entirely footed by those that aged out of having to worry about their PECs due to Medicare. (Even Medicare Advantage when it was established was exempted from considering PEC, FYI)
The Fed doesn't have money it has not taken from the people, or borrowed against the labor and future labor of the people and their descendants.
The Fed paying for something doesn't make it free.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm stealing this post from another forum but I have confirmed the numbers are accurate:
Went to WA site used their calculator.
A married couple with combined income $62,500
Monthly cost for silver plan $1253 a month, $15,036 a year
Subsidy $0
Total cost $15,036 a year
A married couple with combined income $59,000
Monthly cost for silver plan $1253 a mont, $15,036
Subsidy $786 a month, $9,432 a year
Total cost $5604 a year, $467 a month
So if the couple earns $3,500 more a year their health insurance costs an extra $9,432 a year.
This is equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 269%
The first couple is not subsidizing other peoples healthcare...
What the **** are you talking about? I'm not pivoting. Its a subsidy. You guys call wrongly and deceptively call it insurance.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The same exact thing was happening before - just not in the individual insurance market - that "subsidy" has always existed, so if you're saying it's a subsidy - not insurance - then the insurance industry has been about subsidies for DECADES. [Since I've been old enough to follow insurance data over thirty years ago or so...]
The only difference is PEC individual policies used to be paired with other PEC individual policies before - and individual "normals" got paired together (although age brackets weren't paired separately so the 20 year olds did subsidize the 55 year olds even amongst those)
Claiming it needs to be called a subsidy, not insurance means you should call all the people that actually benefited by insurance for DECADES as "subsidized" people. Insurance is never meant to be a zero sum thing where everyone puts in X and gets out Y in services. It's not a 1:1 equation or even a similar equation from person to person.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Say you have a dented fender, you buy insurance, and then your fender falls into the street causing an accident. You're covered.
under the ACA people are required to have insurance their whole lives. This means there is the risk that born babies will get sock, or as is inevitable die.
You would describe life insurance as a subsidy because it covers the preexisting condition of being born, where there is no risk unless you're MacDuff.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Either it's always been a subsidy or it isn't now. Nothing is new with the ACA other than a new group being allowed in INDIVIDUAL POLICY pools - even PEC were allowed in group policies before.
I dont care about anything other than the PEC's. You can talk about getting insurance for all the other stuff but the PEC's you want but "insurance" for stuff related to PEC's is still a subsidy, whether the law mandated it or not. I do not know how else to explain this to you.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
What is your intentions to calling it a subsidy? It seems to be to imply it's something new and different, when it's not. Even for PEC - 70% of PEC people were covered before as part of group policies that weren't allowed to discriminate against them.
PS - You know a wonderful phrase I read in a book regarding insurance practices a ong time ago? "Our ultimate goal is for LIFE to be considered a preexisting condition". Or in other words their ideal was to find a PEC excuse for everyone. (an medically speaking, we all have a PEC eventually whether or not it gets caught)
I've answered this at least ten ******* times already, because its not insurance, its a subsidy. I'm not debating whether its a bad thing or a good thing, just merely pointing out its a subsidy not insurance. Quit implying *****. Whether its past present or in the future....when you get compensated for bills associated with a a condition you had before you had insurance, its a subsidy. It's not insurance. You are not managing risk, you are purchasing a product that pays your medical bills for an already present condition with subsidies from either the government or the rest of us who are purchasing insurance and managing our risk. It's basically cost sharing (with other people covering most of the bill), not risk management nor insurance. People with preexisting conditions are getting subsidized for their condition. I'm not saying this is bad or good but rather its not insurance.
You need to stop using words like stonewalling when you have debilitating reading comprehension issue.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You keep using the term as if calling it a subsidy has any point - case in point for it being a "subsidy" why am I as a PEC category person spending less than my wife who is not PEC on a regular basis by a order of about 10 to 1? Am I being subsidized between the two of us or is she as a non-PEC person actually being subsidized by ME the PEC person?
And ALL health insurance has ALWAYS operated that way since I've was in diapers. Especially in group pools.
It's not new, it's not different and it's not always accurately assessed because many people that get PEC'ed don't actually incur extra costs compared to "normal people". (Most blood pressure PEC'ed people for example only have additional cost related to pharmaceuticals - something often not included by policies previous to the PEC clause going away... most diabetics are the same way... my very rare condition... etc)
It's insulting and very disingenuous as someone WHO IS CATEGORIZED AS PEC and barely uses any medical benefits to hear you implying that PEC are being "subsidized" by you oh so generous "normals".
And of course any of the PECs that ARE accepted to be effected by someone's decisions are allowed to be penalized in rates still.
Hell, even for "normal people" insurance is subsidization for Christ's sake - look at your EOB from your insurer next time you get one - even just one doctor's visit is often more that the insurance company subsidized for your than you would've paid if you paid in cash at the quoted rates. Last GP visit for the wife EOB got here a few days ago - would've been $440 for her appointment if she paid in cash, primary insurance took it down to $35.37 and the secondary insurance paid the rest. We pay less than half of that for both of her policies combined - and again she's a "normal".
Health insurance is a health subsidy for EVERYONE except those that choose not to use it. Period. To claim otherwise and that only some sections are is completely ignorant of how the system operates. [Frankly, it's part of why insurance has become so mandatory to get healthcare now - because the costs are inflated to hell assuming you have the subsidy/insurance to cover it]
[Additionally since you keep wanting to harp on "PEC being let in after the fact are..." - again, you do realize that employers still hired people and let them into their insurance pools for PEC people when PEC mattered, right? And that the pool in general paid for it - doesn't matter if they had the condition before or it showed up after - employers aren't allowed to discriminate on such or restrict their insurance pool choices because of it (at least not directly - I would subtly nudge my PEC hires towards one of our three plans with moderate success, but then again it had better coverage for PEC people as well - slit my own throat a bit though, since that was my plan I used as well though)]
Maybe because of the bolded:
I'm sorry you are offended by the correct use of a term. Does it hurt your feeling PEC's get subsidized? This is probably why they use the term "insurance" disingenuously because we cant offended the people getting a subside so we need to call it insurance.
Insurance is not a subsidy for "everyone", its a risk management product for everyone. A person with a PEC is not assuming any risk in regard to paying for their PEC.
I'm sorry, I thought the whole goal was to subsidize 40 some odd million people so they can afford health insurance. Now your offended because I use the word subsidize in regards to people who need it? Here is the thing, I think people need subsidies. I'm not sure why you are offended. See, this is the annoying thing, I have no problem with my tax or insurance dollars going to help other people. What I have a problem with is you having the audacity to get offended because I use a more apt term that describes the true nature of this so called "insurance". Too ******* funny. Lobby congress for a subsidy for people who need it but we cant call it a subsidy because people will get offended. I'm not sure why you think I'm using the term subsidy in derogatory way. In my mind this argument is completely about semantics and you are getting pissy you take some weird offence the proper use of subsidy....and to prove this...check post number 7 out:
Get pissed at my use of subsidy all you want. I give a damn about you getting pissed at the proper use of term. You keep wanting to get into a debate about the goodness or badness of the subsidy and it is clearly not my goal. ******* read dude. Stop thinking I'm implying something derogatory. Your only objection thus far is an emotional one the uses some straw-man that pretends I'm dissing PEC's. "how dare I call it a subsidy".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Second false assumption is that the rates are substantially impacted for most people, the 85% of insured Americans that get it through their employer saw no rate bump because of PEC - because PEC were already in their pools.
Third false assumption is that plenty of other categories were mandated to be "subsidized" as well for years, women on average use almost three times the care as men - yet they're not allowed discriminatory rates for decades.
Fourth false assumption is lower risk for non-PEC. Most of the most expensive insurance items are almost never PEC clauses - broken bones, initial cancer diagnosis, heart attack, stroke. Neurologic and psychiatric are the two that are consistently expensive exempting the lifestyle choices that are still penalized. Actuarial risk for an average PEC is 20% more risk over an average client, counting all types of PEC because the truly expensive issues are costly and most aren't PEC. But yet a 700% rate increase is apparently appropriate.
And of course the final false assumption is that some 'normals' don't go out of their way to use it as a subsidy too. In my young days when I worked the front office at my doctor's it wasn't that rare to hear someone schedule an extra appointment to "make sure they got enough value out of their insurance". Didn't need the checkup or physical or whatever, but didn't want it to go to waste - a wasted procedure created entirely because the appointments were a subsidy to them at that point.
And additionally why am I as a PEC person, who barely requires any care (seriously last 6 months I've been to the doc once, to check me up after a car crash... And that technically didn't go through my health insurance even, went through auto), labeled as a "subsidy" to you? I pay more in premiums than I'd pay in cash for the same care I've been requiring. It's rather bizarre to hear someone call overpaying for something to be a subsidy. (and of course note, I'm not a rarity)
Never stated this.
Never stated this. It is comical though when you talk about women in the next paragraph, a group that gets heavily subsidized and will never pay the true cost of their insurance or medical care.
I'm going to assume you mean "were not" and I've never stated that. I've known for a long time women get subsidized as opposed to get "insurance", I don't mind. I do laugh at "discriminatory rates" though. It's really is comical.
LOL.
never stated this.
Once again, your personal situation is irrelevant to the issue being debated. I've never said absolutely all people with PEC's get subsidized. As you indicated above, there are groups of people who risk and cost are out of line with normal people but are legally protected from paying for that risk. Which means their risk is being subsidized.
If someone is not paying for all of the risk associated with their specific PEC's, they are being subsidized. Its like if their was a law preventing insurance companies from charging higher rates to high-risk drivers except the problem is, that risk is now going to be paid for by everyone. High-risk drivers at that point would be getting subsidized.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You simply have no concept of what contractual insurance means, and can't separate it in your mind from product insurances. Service based insurances are almost always subsidies in your perversion of the word.
Hell, read Consumer Reports sometimes on their product insurance recommendations, only one's they ever recommend are those with a net positive for most cases - a subsidy being paid for by those that get product insurance on the other items that are losers on the odds game.
"Government is bad, private sector good."
Government's moreover a tool, you either misuse it or you do not. Sometimes the private sector in attempt to solve a complex problem is like using a butter knife as a screw driver, it just cannot deal with the load. Take for instance the Food Stamps system versus local soup kitchens and bread lines. One is "more local" and more "community oriented" but way less efficient and rather embarrassing and time consuming for those involved trying to feed their children. While the Food Stamps program has purged that from communities and Food Banks, today still struggling five years into the recession, very much help and exist to deal with hunger in the US. Yet, both do not quite deal with the overall problem.
The question to use government is a utility question, not much a paranoid statement about warping markets and their absolute sovereignty over all of existence. I'm an unabashed neo-liberal that believes only in capitalism as a way of life and that the bigger the private sector the better the country. Yet, there are rules of engagement and arbitration. What may have once been "minimal" for government, as expectations and philosophies have changed we no longer function off of what we used to mean as "minimal government." When someone such as myself says "small government" and someone else says "small government," it will mean very different things. Some seek to repeal every law because individuals are these sovereign ubermensch that have control and know everything that is going to happen and can make more resilient behaviors. Until we see what happens with Sandyhook and other such incidents. Then the same people who cry for small government and talk about a government that can give you everything can take everything away, but wants a strong super military misses out that a well armed healthcare system can already take everything away without even trying. It's the police and the military that you would have to eliminate to really be able to "take back government" under a tyranny or else ally with a super power, like we did with France centuries ago.
With regard to healthcare, there was an experimental system with regard to Medicare:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/28/if-this-was-a-pill-youd-do-anything-to-get-it/
Basically during the 1990's as a part of the balanced budget affairs the government created some incentives to create programs that would improve patient care. Well a bunch of places tried to experiment with those contracts, and only one worked really well statistically and has yet to be scaled up anywhere and was almost shut down. It uses a community driven healthcare program, other similar programs I have read and watched about both point towards trying to mitigate costs by having people interact with people to solve problems.
I'll say this, had Sarah Palin talked about the Fountain of Youth program and other similar attempts than snivel about Death Panels and "repeal and replace," she could be president of the US herself or Romney. But conservatives are stupid, we put in good systems and get some real gems then we just pretend like we didn't do anything right for 20 years and watch young people become Democrats in droves. Then in turn we publish idiot books like Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation by Jason Mattera. I'm an older man, but when I saw this book I thought to myself as a conservative.. "What kind of idiot publishes a book like that?" You start treating people like they're stupid and you end up with a massive exodus into the other party. You know what? Four years later, Republicans still have a problem as the Party of No/Anti-Obama. I agree with Jeb Bush, you have to stand for something than just against it. I'd really hate to see Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton, but for now with what's shaping up for 2016 that's about the best two I can hope to vote between.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I think you kind of prove thep point on why they have to call it "insurance" instead of what it actually is. You've provided no evidence to why it should not be called a subsidy and can only point to other areas to which get subsidized but get called insurance. So, once again I assert you have an negative emotional attachment to the word susbsidized and that is your entire objection to my use of the term.
ANY insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. You seem to not understand my beef is with insurance rather than the people getting subsidized. I do not want to be subsidizing profits.
Funny how this covers nothing for the uninsured unless, of course, its the fault of the insured and in that case the uninsured drivers protion of the policy does not come into play, it'd be the normal policy to cover a person if they are at fault in an accident. The uninsured is getting nothing but bills if it their fault. You purcchase that sort of policy to mitigate the cost risk from someone hitting you who does not have insurance.
EDIT: Insurance is a mechnism/product to mitigate the risk of incurring cost associted with a specfiic event and is not this cost sharing mechinism you keep protraying it as. Women who get benefit of cheaper premiumums than what the risk mitigation actually cost are getting a government mandated subsidy that gets paid for by passing the cost onto men. There is nothing wrong with this but its disingenious to cal it "insurance".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Uninsured motorist to cover those that would be screwed in the VERY RARE case of an uninsured motorist causing an accident absolutely is. And dozens of other examples.
The funny thing too is the earliest example of this "subsidy for PEC" nonsense I can find is Mark Levin's radio program, which he actually got talked down and admitted it was inaccurate to portray this aspect of insurance as a subsidy without calling THE ENTIRE US MODEL OF INSURANCE as one.
Insurance is a game of makers and takers - some people in ANY insurance pool will be higher risk and "subsidized" and others will be low risk and "subsidizing".
Of course do note, most of those low risk people in most pools are not comfortable on income where a constant payment to guarantee is easier for them than dealing with a $2000 spike to replace a fridge or whatever.
Welcome to how insurance in our nation has worked our entire lifetimes.
(and do note most of the people subsidizing in the exchanges themselves are subsidized, so at the end of the day the government is subsidizing most of the PEC costs if not all - something they already did in most areas if the PEC person requested access to Medicaid, they almost always were given an income waiver)
PS: Listening to his program explains your penchant for this label BTW. Because he pitched it as more groups being added to Democrat benefit dependence. (which is ironic since its roundabout vs the old way that was direct...)
So how does this prove they are not subsidies? Once again, I do not take issue with people getting subsidies in this thread. I take issue with people who reject the fact people are getting subsidized. You are even saying they are subsidized.....
No, nine times out of ten, the higher the risk you are, the more you pay in premimums. That is unless the government feels the need to mandate certian groups get subsidized by other people for what ever reasons.
I'm not trying to label anything. You and several other people are because of some perverse emotional reaction to the word subsidy. Subsidies are subsidies.
You still do not grasp the fact I reject subsidizing profits in the name of helping others to which occurs under the current model. If we as society deem it as an entitilement to have health care (to which I reject but no crying over spilled milk here) then provide health care with out this lose/lose garbage that you want to call "insurance".
Stop conflating my opinion with other peoples and maybe your feelings will not be hurt.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.
I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.
Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.
I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.
Wrong or right, hurt feelings or not, it is what it is.
Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Actually if you look at the actuarials, you do - and probably more than you actually think - average state minimum benefit actually takes the insurance company $25/mo to cover a $15k value car (and of course scales down from there, slightly), while the average state minimum insurance rate is $65/mo for a "good driver" on the same vehicle - I'm not sure of the breakdown on the rest, not privy to the specifics as an Allstate shareholder but of that $40 some of it is profit and the rest goes into buttressing the rest of the pool, uninsured driver coverage, and administration.
Of which uninsured driver coverage is absolutely a subsidy - saying otherwise ignores what it is. Hell, it even goes into a state fund to allot to people - like most subsidies work.
ACA only mandates PEC - women was enacted in 1985 or so (bill is referred to as a 1985 bill in my books, but sometimes that's actually the year it's penned not passed), drug users are allowed to be charged different rates still (as are alcoholics and smokers), and the poor aren't mandated anything new that they didn't already have - Medicaid was established in the 80's.
All policies were required to cover maternity before FYI - it could not be exempted before - it's literally a meme based on nothing, the only difference is now it has to be explicitly listed so people aren't confused if it's available. All forms of birth coverage got mandated before the Contract with America for Christ's sake. It just until now was left under the listing that "Gynocological Services" must be part of a valid insurance policy (yes, even mens policies - but urologists are another line of the old requirement) - that meme is over them adding an extra line to clear up the confusion that child birth is in fact considered a Gynocological Service under Federal guidelines since the last Medicare revision. [Not sure the year off-hand, been quite a while though - a 1998 printing that I got in 2005 or so is the oldest booklet I have, and it's defined as such then]
Again on addiction treatment - yes, you are required to have addiction coverage UNDER THE RATES OF A NON-ADDICT, addiction is something that can be charged an additional premium for under the ACA - there's only a handful of things that can result in an additional charge - but all of them are things that are brought about by choice on the part of the person. [Addiction/Smoking/Drinking and high risk employment are the one's I know for sure off my head - there are others though - I think around 5. Obesity is NOT on there which I disagree with personally (I think it should be on there with a waiver someone can get from their doctor in the rare cases of someone being obese completely by uncontrollable genetics - it should be penalized for the 95+% that are ignoring their health)]
Incorrect, statistically speaking the highest risk of loss are in fact the elderly by a pretty stark margin. The poor get ruined by medical bills, but over relatively minor ones - even something common like a heart stent for an elderly person (something about 20% of elderly people will have at least twice in their life, my father's on number 5 at this point) runs about $80k before insurance, and that's a simple common procedure. Nursing home care costs around $10k a month, and many elderly are in nursing homes for years - often into DECADES.
Also on diabetes - it wasn't allowed as a PEC declaration unless it gets to the point of amputation and the like. Normal diabetes and COPD for amongst other things that might sound like a "PEC" to a layman, weren't allowed to be termed as PEC. And as stated above most of those are still allowed to be penalized today.
So in your whole thing there, you are legitimately subsidizing obese people in all those things you have consternation over - the other examples are carrying their own weight under what the ACA allows for penalties. [Or per the maternity stuff - already existed, just the wording made it more explicit now - gogo factchecking...]
Additionally, if you have an employer based policy and not an exchange one - you only share risk pool with your fellow employees - so unless your employer is hiring people with all those things you take issue with covering - you're not actually paying anything to cover that stuff. (Unless your employer is on a private exchange of their own - but I've yet to see an employer use those, they've existed a long time too - apparently a good option for really small mom and pop type businesses - but never heard of one that used it. Never really made sense with anyone over a few dozen employees like I always worked for though)
I'm saying if they're subsidized, their subsidy is actually coming from the Fed - not from other individuals. You and ICM80 now have said "The healthy are..." and "I am..." type statements on where the subsidy is coming from. Taxes come from all types, and inordinately from those that are older and wealthier and tend to consume more healthcare costs (even if they don't get sick as often, they tend to get the best of the best to treat them and get insurance packages that include flights to take advantage of the best, etc). Hell, there was a statistic I saw a few years back that was talking about how many people have PECs normally, then it went on to say how many people ACTUALLY have PECs but weren't showing because of the fact they were 65+ and on Medicare which doesn't care about PECs - if you added the 65+ people in back then the number of people with PECs literally would quadruple. So in a manner of speaking the PEC "subsidy" could be said to be almost entirely footed by those that aged out of having to worry about their PECs due to Medicare. (Even Medicare Advantage when it was established was exempted from considering PEC, FYI)
Incorrect for most insurances - my wife doesn't pay more on the "tow assistance" part of our insurance policy (or our AAA policy - mental note: I should check if we've been using the AAA travel benefits enough to warrant keeping AAA going since the tows are irrelevant now) even though she's lost her keys and needed assistance EIGHT times in the past two years, our insurance rate nor the additional bit we pay for that coverage has not budged a cent even though she's clearly demonstrated she's a much higher risk of a claim on that item. She has a PEC with that insurance item of "being an idiot who loses her keys or locks them in the car", yet she has yet to budge our rate from the $8/mo it's always been. (And tow calls are around $75 a piece around here cash - so she's only about $400 ahead of the game on that right now, hell with my total insurance rate that's almost breaking even - only pay $600/yr - so literally half my premium came back to me in tows for her)
Never heard of a product warranty/insurance that cares to see if you have a preexisting condition of poor electrical wiring in your house. Renter's insurance doesn't consider anything other than your ZIP code and past number of filings - not even a security system matters for renter's. Home owners has a little more - credit rating and security systems get factored in as well. [Also flood risk used to, but most home owner's dropped nuclear fallout damage and flood damage a few years ago (and no, I'm not kidding on the former - and they were at the same time 2007-9ish)]
Subsidizing profits isn't what you were discussing - that is absolutely a problem with the current system IMO - and I do agree the entire thing is completely half-assed and we'd be better served by something that gutted the entire system and rebuilt it from the ground up in one way or another. Unfortunately opinions on the best revamp to target are really varied - I like Singapore model personally though - but opinions are wildly varied even amongst those that like the same general idea. (i.e. UHC based on Medicare vs. UHC based on a new system entirely just for one quick example of how wildly)
And I don't "want to call it insurance" - insurance is the publicly accepted word in the US for something that helps mitigate the costs of healthcare and to keep them at an affordable level for the consumer.
Or here it is from the US experts on the matter: (from wiki) "According to the Health Insurance Association of America, health insurance is defined as "coverage that provides for the payments of benefits as a result of sickness or injury. Includes insurance for losses from accident, medical expense, disability, or accidental death and dismemberment".
Note nothing about varied costs by risk, note nothing about exempting groups, note nothing about capping benefits - under their definition it's designed to be used to do what PEC people do with it, as does everyone else. In fact, the funny thing is reading the entire Wiki page - something you seem to imply is fundamental to health insurance is never mentioned at all. Nor in many of the online dictionary definitions either for "insurance". [Although at least one does mention risk]
I stopped reading and put you back on ignore after I saw this. You figure out why.
Have to add this dishonest comment:
\
Oh really?
Post number seven in this thread by me:
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be dishonest but I wish you'd stop. With that said, you are not worth my time.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That's a special kind of dense to miss.
And zero mention of the subsidy context there, nor was your recent context refetencing it. But I do agree it's an issue.
If I am covering any cost for the dangerous policy holder,then I shouldn't be.
Point is, the person with the history of wrecks and DUI's pays through their own nose for coverage.
So too should people with PEC's.
I shouldn't have to. I should only have to cover the risk I represent.
I'm pretty sure elderly people can be both UNHEALTHY, and POOR.
They don't get ruined like youthful poor, but they do contribute to the losses, coverage by Medicaid and Medicare are not free.
I shouldn't have to cover other peoples risk.
When I buy car insurance, I am not also required by law to buy boat, motorcycle, homeowners, and flood insurance or face a tax penalty.
When I buy life insurance, I should pay what a healthy,young, nonsmoker, nondrinker, contributes to the risk factor. Certainly I actually do. My life insurance is like $3 a month.
Also, I am not forced through the threat of fines or imprisonment or loss of property if I do not buy life insurance. (I'm sure it's only a matter of time with democrats)
Even moreso that I haven't gone to the doctor in like 6 years, so ANY premium I have paid over that time is unjust. I am paying for a product I do not use.
Just like my auto insurance. I haven't had a claim in over 11 years. 11 years of paying for something I don't use, but if I stop paying, I get ticketed, or worse. This is extortion.
Since I do not use these services I am paying for, I am definitely subsidizing the people who do.
The Fed doesn't have money it has not taken from the people, or borrowed against the labor and future labor of the people and their descendants.
The Fed paying for something doesn't make it free.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The first couple is not subsidizing other peoples healthcare...
Keep lying to yourself.
http://www.wahbexchange.org/index.php?cID=472
Its insane that person making more money will net less money due to this idiotic liberal reliance on arbitrary numbers.
EDIT:Both couples are 60 years old
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.