I havent seen Dawgitall on here in a while. I'm wondering if his grandfathered policy got nixed and he's now forced under a real Obamacare plan.

(10-14-2016 11:56 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:12 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:10 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:08 AM)shere khan Wrote:  That's the definition of insurance.

No it isn't .

This is

in·sur·ance
inˈSHo͝orəns/Submit
noun
1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation.

at least put the whole definition, fitfail...

Quote:a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

What part of "guarantee of compensation" don't you understand?

LOL, fit...just stop. You can't be that stupid.

Exactly. What that definition describes is a pre-paid loan. With no guarantee of full repayment.

(10-14-2016 11:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was a stepping stone to single payer.

That was a called shot.

The fact that our government was willing to hurt people so dreadfully in order to achieve their ideological goal should worry all Americans.

This is 100% accurate. You have to destroy the private sector before everyone will clamor to save them with a 100% government option.

(10-14-2016 11:59 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I havent seen Dawgitall on here in a while. I'm wondering if his grandfathered policy got nixed and he's now forced under a real Obamacare plan.

He's popped up from time to time. He claims he's got BIG things going on that keeps him from posting here. I call fabrics on that, but that's what he claims.

(10-14-2016 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:12 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:10 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:08 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You are right.

We should just go back to the good ol days when insurance companies could deny coverage.

That's the definition of insurance.

No it isn't .

This is

in·sur·ance
inˈSHo͝orəns/Submit
noun
1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation.

at least put the whole definition, fitfail...

Quote:a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

What part of "guarantee of compensation" don't you understand?

You got owned fitty. Just own it.

Fitfail!

(10-14-2016 11:56 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:12 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:10 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:08 AM)shere khan Wrote:  That's the definition of insurance.

No it isn't .

This is

in·sur·ance
inˈSHo͝orəns/Submit
noun
1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation.

at least put the whole definition, fitfail...

Quote:a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

What part of "guarantee of compensation" don't you understand?

LOL, fit...just stop. You can't be that stupid.

You're giving Fit too much credit, he is that stupid.

SK,

Deadbeats? Or people who said "wow ... I've never had this 'health insurance' thingy, maybe I should try it out by visiting my new primary physician 100 times per month!"


Trying to solve this optimization problem:

- maximize health insurance coverage of all people
- maximize health of all covered people
- minimize total out-of-pocket expenses of all covered people
- maximize efficiency of health care system
- minimize health care spending

does not work very well.


You either end up with a "solution" that's somewhere pretty far from the theoretical min/max of each individual line, or you "give up" on one or two of the lines in order to push the others closer to their individual min/max.

Anyone who really is interested in making health care work, could start here.

A lot of very good work has already been done. There's enough links on the site to keep you busy for some time.

(10-14-2016 01:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  SK,

Deadbeats? Or people who said "wow ... I've never had this 'health insurance' thingy, maybe I should try it out by visiting my new primary physician 100 times per month!"


Trying to solve this optimization problem:

- maximize health insurance coverage of all people
- maximize health of all covered people
- minimize total out-of-pocket expenses of all covered people
- maximize efficiency of health care system
- minimize health care spending

does not work very well.


You either end up with a "solution" that's somewhere pretty far from the theoretical min/max of each individual line, or you "give up" on one or two of the lines in order to push the others closer to their individual min/max.

Don't call it insurance. It won't be. It's now a failing fascist economic model.

If you want tax based universal health care then call it that. Don't call it insurance though. Call it higher taxed, government regulated health care. It will be pure socialism and will work as well as every other government controlled entitlement.

We can handle pre-existing conditions, but not the way liberals want because they dont understand insurance.

It is a lie that insurance companies didnt cover pre-existing conditions prior to Obamacare. Some certainly did. But the issue with preexisting conditions can be handled by simply separating health insurance from an employer, and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. That gets rid of the issue of preexisting conditions, because the issue only occured when someone with a preexisting condition changed jobs which required them to change heath insurance companies. If you can keep your current insurance, you dont have to worry about changing insurance and getting rejected due to a preexisting condition. Problem solved.

Now, liberals will point to people who didnt have insurance and who now have a preexisting condition. Tough titty. You should have bought insurance.

The poor will be on a separate public system. It will be limited in what it pays for. Very limited.

And thats it. You want protection, buy insurance and keep it.

Otherwise, it you get cancer and dont have insurance, dont scream about preexisting conditions. Go start up a GoFundMe page.

I'm OK with multi-payer systems.

Health insurance and health care are two completely different industries, but closely linked.

(10-14-2016 02:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  We can handle pre-existing conditions, but not the way liberals want because they dont understand insurance.

It is a lie that insurance companies didnt cover pre-existing conditions prior to Obamacare. Some certainly did. But the issue with preexisting conditions can be handled by simply separating health insurance from an employer, and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. That gets rid of the issue of preexisting conditions, because the issue only occured when someone with a preexisting condition changed jobs which required them to change heath insurance companies. If you can keep your current insurance, you dont have to worry about changing insurance and getting rejected due to a preexisting condition. Problem solved.

Now, liberals will point to people who didnt have insurance and who now have a preexisting condition. Tough titty. You should have bought insurance.

The poor will be on a separate public system. It will be limited in what it pays for. Very limited.

And thats it. You want protection, buy insurance and keep it.

Otherwise, it you get cancer and dont have insurance, dont scream about preexisting conditions. Go start up a GoFundMe page.

But that isn't the only problem. Many people, before Obamacare, had insurance but when they got sick, the insurance companies denied payments because of pre existing conditions. In other words, they didn't deny them insurance and gladly took their money, they denied them after the fact.

Yeah, that's something that's hard to account for -- on either end.

How much are agents going to try to cheat??

- Either people trying to cheat the insurance companies, to get fake claims paid out
- Or how much are the insurance companies going to try to weasel out of having to pay a claim

(10-14-2016 02:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah, that's something that's hard to account for -- on either end.

How much are agents going to try to cheat??

- Either people trying to cheat the insurance companies, to get fake claims paid out
- Or how much are the insurance companies going to try to weasel out of having to pay a claim

There was a documentary that was made where it was policy to reward agents for denying claims. They often were given bonuses and promotions.

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm OK with multi-payer systems.

Health insurance and health care are two completely different industries, but closely linked.

Oh wow, I bet you just blew fits mind with that.

(10-14-2016 02:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm OK with multi-payer systems.

Health insurance and health care are two completely different industries, but closely linked.

Oh wow, I bet you just blew fits mind with that.

Please feel free to explain it to me because it seems many on this forum are arguing against both.

It seems that people are complain about the affordable health care act but upset about health insurance going up.

Care to explain?

many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

(10-14-2016 02:58 PM)EagleX Wrote:  many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

You realize that more people have health insurance now than at any time in this country. Right?

(10-14-2016 03:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:58 PM)EagleX Wrote:  many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

You realize that more people have health insurance now than at any time in this country. Right?

your reply is non-responsive to my comment.

(10-14-2016 03:02 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:58 PM)EagleX Wrote:  many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

You realize that more people have health insurance now than at any time in this country. Right?

your reply is non-responsive to my comment.

I just find it odd that you would blame Obama for those who lack health insurance when in fact, his law has provide health insurance for millions who didn't have it before. In fact, his law requires citizens to have it for face a penalty.