how many times does crazy have to explain his plan and cubs is going to completely ignore it and pretend he doesnt know his insurance plan?
Trump going to finish as the best president ever?
- Thread starter Husk in butt
- Start date
Dude, insurance policies are long and detailed and a lot more goes into it than a paragraph. Giving me deductibles and premiums doesnt remotely explain a plan. I am not ignoring anything, I am just not being a simpleton and pretending that a paragraph on a message board is an entire insurance policy.
What more do you want to know? I literally have 1 carrier now that I can get insurance from and they have 3 plans. The deductible is the same for all 3, the premium goes up or down based on the coinsurance. Before ACA I didn't have a policy with coinsurance, it was just straight forward, I pay the first 10 grand and then they pay for the rest. Prior to ACA, I wasn't paying for maternity coverage for my 4, 6, and 8 year old daughters. The following year I was paying for maternity coverage for a 5, 7, and 9 year old and have ever since. Even when I had maternity insurance for my wife for one of my girls, it cost me 100 bucks a month and I had to have it in place for 12 months prior to pregnancy. Of course, back when you weren't obligated by law to have maternity insurance and were a private payer, the entire maternity process costed about 4500 bucks. Now, hospitals charge upwards of 20 grand for having a baby because nobody is in a position to negotiate and they don't have to. Does anybody think it makes sense that maternity rooms are now comparable to luxury suites at the Hilton? Nope, but who cares, somebody else is paying for it.
I dont want to know anytning about your personal information, I am trying to steer this away from an anecdotal argument because they are pointless.
It's not anecdotal when it was available to everyone. Just not everyone took advantage of it.
It's intentional ignorance. I could post an entire copy of that plan and it still wouldn't be enough to make a difference to someone who wants nothing more than confirmation bias.
cubs ignoring crazy's insurance plan details
https://www.apnews.com/d7fa14b4872c4353a740d7e3331a3f46
Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday that calls for upfront disclosure by hospitals of actual prices for common tests and procedures to help keep costs down .
damn that racist trump!!!!111
Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday that calls for upfront disclosure by hospitals of actual prices for common tests and procedures to help keep costs down .
damn that racist trump!!!!111
Huh? It is anecdotal. You are trying to make a point that because your costs went up, it means the ACA drove prices up. There are plenty of people out there with stories about how their insurance became more affordable, but because that isn't YOUR story, it doesn't apply to YOUR argument. I posted a link to actual #s, and your whole argument is based around your policy. Sorry, its a dumb argument.
There is nothing ignorant about telling you that your anecdotal argument is meaningless in the context of the larger debate.
cubs ignoring crazy's insurance plan details
I didn't ignore anything, you just don't appear to have the capacity to understand my point that anecdotal evidence is meaningless in this sort discussion.
Finally, something that will actually start a conversation about the real issue.
*****Disclaimer***** anectodal evidence*****
I had an elective surgery done 2 years ago. I was a cash payer and that was known up front. The surgery cost me 6500 bucks out of pocket, paid ahead of time. 3 weeks after the surgery I got a bill for 29000 bucks. I called the financial office and they apologized. That was the bill that would have been sent to insurance if I had used it.
Tell me, please, someone, that the insurance companies are the ones that are the problem.
ive called for the up front pricing/menu option for years. i believe this will have a big impact on the cost. of course no one will thank trump for this.
also its funny that he craps on your anecdotal evidence but fails to acknowledge that virtually everyone now realizes that the average person saw their costs double but coverage remain the same or slightly lower than before the aca. i know its anecdotal evidence but my coverage was lowered and my costs almost doubled. but im just dont understand his point.
More anecdotal evidence:
My previous plan was priced based on being a non-smoker. There would have been a rate increase if I had been a smoker. Now, there is no differentiation so my lifestyle makes no difference.
More anecdotal evidence:
My prior plan didn't cover HIV treatments. Seemed like a fine deal because I wasn't really planning on doing something that would give me HIV. Not anymore. Have to have a policy that covers my HIV treatment if I ever accidentally have sex with a monkey. I mean, it is kind of nice to know that if I slip and fall at the zoo and my penis accidentally goes into an HIV infected monkey that Im covered, but I just don't really feel like that's worth the extra expense every month.
More anecdotal evidence:
My mother in law had a hysterectomy 21 years ago. She has maternity insurance because the ACA requires it. Granted, she is a Christian so it's possible that she could give birth to the next Jesus but I just don't see that it's worth the extra expense every month.
I mean, this is all just anecdotal so it should be easily dismissed, amirite?
$10 GRAND for 2 nights at Winnie Palmer last March. That's just the nursery fee, not any of the actual medical care. No wonder they didn't balk at us taking a couple of receiving blankets with us when we left. I don't think there's a hotel room in all of Florida that is that expensive.
I apologize, you are right. Actual studies don't matter, the only side of this argument is your personal stories. Thank you for sharing them, we are all much more informed about the ACA because of your graciousness in sharing your personal stories.
I was going to agree with you, except ...
Group insurance plans don't require any personal information.
But the left doesn't want to talk about group insurance plans ... except one ... the worse than a HMO, but you can't sue that HMO, universal federal plan.
Totally cool. But please explain to me why a woman who literally doesn't have any ability whatsoever of carrying a child should be forced by law to pay for maternity insurance.
Maternity insurance is required as part of the insurance under the ACA, because a lot of policies didn't cover it prior. You seem to be implying it is a separate policy she is forced to buy, which isn't true. At the same time, I am sure she has, or will have procedures, meds etc, that others pay for in their policies that they don't use. That is how insurance works and is the purpose of insurance.
Well this explains the problem. You don't understand the basic idea of what insurance is supposed to be. It's not about sharing expense, it's about gambling on your own individual risk. What you are describing isn't insurance at all.
You are simply wrong. The idea of insurance is absolutely sharing expense, if it wasn't no one would pay for insurance and would just pay for their needs out of pocket, but because insurance companies are able to pool lots of peoples money together, we don't have to do that and it makes major medical (or property) problems more affordable to the everyday person than paying for it out of pocket. Do you think when you file an insurance claim they are simply using the money you paid in to pay for that? Of course they aren't, they are using money from premiums they collected from all their customers.
I don't even know what you mean about gambling on your own individual risk? YOU might be gambling, but insurance companies aren't, and they will set their premiums accordingly.
Last edited:
Just wow.
The whole premise of insurance is that you are hedging a bet. If I am 100% confident that I won't incur any medical expenses I dont buy it. If I'm 99% confident then I look to buy insurance but I am probably not willing to pay a whole lot. If I think that there's a chance that I'll have 11000 bucks worth of medical expenses this year then I would probably buy a policy that ends up costing me 10000 bucks in the end. If I think I may have 4 million in healthcare expenses I would be willing to pay exponentially more than that 10000 bucks.
This is where all of you liberals have screwed things up. You think that I need infinite coverage for care that is potentially 100% impossible to even need and take my ability to gauge my own risk and bet on it.
Newsflash: all you are doing by mandating health insurance coverage is giving hospitals and pharma companies the ability to crank up their costs.
Nothing you are saying here disputes the purpose of having insurance. The purpose of having an insurance policy is because it lowers the financial burden during a medical or property incident, crisis, etc. It does that by pooling numerous premiums together and then paying out claims when they happen. Again, if it wasn't about sharing expense then what is the purpose of having any sort of insurance policy to begin with? I don't really understand how you are possibly disputing this.
You can argue whether you should be required to have it, but that is a different argument than trying to argue the reasoning why people have policies and how insurers pay off claims.
Golly Gee, What does this have to do with anything? I simply pointed out to you how insurance companies work since you didn't understand it. I don't know why you are deflecting to something completely unrelated now.
And BTW, insurance companies work like that whether insurance is required by government or not. Pooling client premiums and then paying out policies (hence, sharing expense) is how insurance companies have always operated. That isn't new to the ACA. The only thing the ACA did was make certain requirements of policies.
Last edited:
The only reason that pooling these policies is a thing is because it is also a hedge against loss for the one providing the insurance. They are betting on the premise that if they can get 50 million in premiums that they're only going to have to pay out 49 million in benefits. The basics of this aren't that hard to understand.
Of course, they are for profit companies, who in the world said otherwise? They obviously wouldn't last long in business if they paid out more in claims then they received in.
Last edited:
If you have a point make it. Veiled insults masked as vague questions does nothing to make any sort of point for you or move the conversation forward.
Last edited:
Most insurance companies lose money on their policy portfolios. They make up for it by investing in the stock market with the funds they receive from premiums and delay payments to care providers as long as possible. Ever wonder why a healthcare claim takes 6 months to be resolved? It's not because they don't want to pay it, it's because the longer they can hold on to money the better
What does this have anything to do with this conversation? We were talking about insurance clients, then you take it to banks for some reason, and now you are talking about the business side of insurance companies. You're arguments are all over the place, yet none of them dispute the fact that the reason people have policies in the first place is to reduce the financial burden on them in case of medical or property situations that might require a lot of money to pay for.
Last edited:
And you are making the claim that there is no individual aspect to insurance, which proves that you have an inherent lack of understanding of the insurance industry.
Tell me, why should car insurance rates be higher for someone who has been in multiple accidents than someone who never has been? Why should life insurance rates be higher for a smoker than for a non-smoker?
That isn't what I am saying at all, good lord. Of course the insurance companies are going to evaluate peoples history and situations before setting rates for their policies. I never remotely said otherwise so I don't know where you got I was arguing that. I was arguing the fact you said insurance isn't about shared expense and is only about individuals gambling on themselves.
You just made my point and it is exactly why insurance rates have gone up so much. If you view insurance as "hey, we are all in this together so you can pay for my care and I'll pay for your care", then the cost is NEVER GOING TO COME DOWN!
Flat out, point of fact, totally objective reason here: pay for your own frigging healthcare. If everyone did that, costs would come down. Buy your own insurance policy based on your lifestyle and health choices. Newsflash, it's cheaper if you live healthy. Don't count on your neighbors or co-workers to help out. Not exactly a hard concept to understand. I don't ask my neighbors or co-workers to pay my mortgage. Why should health insurance be any different?
Most people do buy their own insurance polices, with the exception of retirees and poor or disabled people. You dont pay my insurance policy anymore than you pay for my mortgage, so I dont really understand the logic behind that point, unless you just want to get rid of medicare and medicaid. Which if that is the case, vote for candidates who want to get rid of it.
THe reason heatlth insurance exists to begin with is because healthcare was so expensive. So the reasoning that if everyone just dropped their insurance prices would go down isnt historically accurate. The reason prices go up is because we have a for profit healthcare system, so maximizing profits is part of the business plan for both hospitals and insurers, just as in any private business. You would have to overhaul the whole system if you want to make it affordable for everyone, and Republicans dont seem interested in doing that.
And BTW, if you get rid of insurance then doctors are going to have to work in population centers to make money. I live in TN, a pretty poor state outside of the Nashville area. We have had 14 rural hospitals close over the last few years because they cant afford to stay open, It is a direct result of not adding the medicaid expansion so a lot of people in smaller towns cant afford insurance or healthcare period. If we were to do something like you are talking about, that would be the norm throughout the country. Doctors arent going to go school for years and then work in a poor town with a small population where they wouldnt make any money.
Last edited:
You aren't serious are you? Insurance has been around since the 17th century. Health insurance only became a thing because of minimum wage laws and the progressive income tax system of the 1930s. Health insurance wasnt in response to rising healthcare costs, it's the cause of it.
The first health/medical insurance company in the US was founded in 1850, and it was for specific types of accidents only, mostly from injuries people suffered working rail roads or steam boats. Hospital insurance didnt come about until the 1920s, but it more of a prepaid system than actual insurance as we know today. The more modern system we have now didnt come about until after WW2, and medicare and medicaide werent passed until 1965.
Latest posts
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: KnightDiver21
-
***UCF Transfer Portal Update - As the QB Portal Turns...- Latest: greenvilleSC_knightfan
-
-
