# Obama Care in the news again...



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Two articles:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... id=DELLDHP



> It's a significant development because these insurers are raising prices for this year to recover the losses and taking additional steps like slashing broker commissions and narrowing doctor and hospital choices to rebound in 2016.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... id=DELLDHP

basicly saying the same thing. Companies will be pulling out of the "exchanges" which will lead to less "competition" which is what the ACA wanted to help keep rates lower. Also the second article talks about how costs keep rising and so will premiums.

The second article also tries to paint a good picture saying more "young" people are getting insurance that "should" help lower or stabilize premiums..... Not when they are sick or won't be able to afford it.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The only way to lower insurance premiums is to let the free market work!

ACA was designed to put private insurance out of business, so the government is the only way to get insurance. Once the government have 100% control on insurance, it then can put values on peoples lives.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rubio laid out a plan in the debates last night that would open free market so a person could buy from any company anywhere in the United States. A few minutes later Trump started drawing little circles and saying he would remove the circles from around states to encourage free market. I think Trump was talking about state borders no longer restricting insurance availability, but he didn't express himself very well. Then he tried to tell Rubio he didn't understand. What a dunce. I like what trump says, but his past makes me afraid to trust him. I am sliding further from him all the time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bruce......You are exactly right. Trump did a very poor job of explaining what he wanted to do with health insurance. He kept saying he would erase the lines. Obviously he would allow anyone to purchase insurance anywhere. We both can do that now with a supplement to Medicare. Not sure how that would affect premiums.

All the Republicans are saying they will trash Obamacare. But they are very weak about what they will do instead. I'm not convinced erasing the lines alone would be better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is never going to happen, but it's a day dream of mine that makes me laugh. You know how are churches have a benevolent fund to help people when they are down and out? I would like to see a national benevolent fund as an experiment for about five years. Let people give to it to help the needy. Let people write it off their taxes if they self identify as democrat or republican. Then present the data to the nation at the end of five years. When we have looked at tax returns of democrats and republicans in Washington it has revealed in the past that republicans gave three times as much to charity as democrats. How can that be when democrats hold themselves up as the party of compassion? The truth is they are not the party of compassion, but the party of take from all to give to their chosen which keep them in power. Same as dictators in the mid east and other individual nations that repress the individual. Let the republicans handle health care.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Well....I don't quite agree. You have to look at the make up of the parties. The Republicans are generally called the party of the rich. The Democrats, the party of the blue collar and minorities. So which party has more money to donate....Republican not Democrat. Do you think the blacks and Latinos have the money to donate to charity?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Do you remember a few years ago they published the ten richest people in Congress? Nine of the top ten were Democrats. It doesn't make any difference what you call Dems and Republicans , it's reality that counts. Bill Gates is democrat, the Kennedy's are Democrats, George Soros (spelling?????), and the list goes on. Look at Hollywood.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

And how many low income blacks and Latinos are in the Republican Party. Hardly any. As evidence in elections shows. And all those people at Republican candidate's rallies.....almost all white.All those people are not going to contribute to charities. We are talking millions compared to the top ten richest people.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The problem with having a discussion with a liberal is if the facts do not support their position
they change the discussion. So let's talk about wealthy republicans vs wealthy democrats and 
their individual contributions. This editorial from Investor's Business Daily in 2012 explains it pretty
well.

*Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who's The Most Greedy? *
Greed: Rich businessman Mitt Romney gave more than 16% of his income to charity last year. A few years back, Barack and Michelle Obama gave less than 1% of theirs. Aren't Republicans supposed to be the heartless ones?

According to their tax returns, the Obamas gave to charitable causes just $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004. In 2005 and 2006, they boosted their giving a bit to 5%.

How about Vice President Joe Biden? Surely he could top the Obamas and save some face for the party that purports to be all about helping the poor. But no.

Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity for the decade preceding his vice presidency, according to USA Today. That amounted to 0.3% of their income. They haven't been much more generous since Biden became veep. In 2010, they gave $5,350, or roughly 1.4%.

Maybe the Clintons, the last Democrats to hold the White House before the Obamas, can save the party's reputation. From 2000 to 2006, their donations averaged 8.26% of income, from a low of 1.21% in 2002 to a high of 12.57% two years later, says the Tax Foundation.

Better, but not exactly Romney territory. The former Massachusetts governor gave 13.73% of his income to charity in 2010 and an estimated 19.14% last year.

Romney's top opponent in the GOP primaries, Newt Gingrich, is closer to the Democrats in his giving, having donated 2.6% of his income in 2010.

That leaves him open for criticism. But remember: Unlike Democrats, Gingrich hasn't made a political career of painting himself as a champion of the poor.

Of course when Democrats talk about helping the poor, they don't mean with their own money. They mean using other people's money. Especially money from rich businessmen such as Romney.

Romney, of course, has been blistered in the media and by Democrats for being greedy. But who's greedier?
Those who make their fortunes through honest work and support policies that let Americans keep more of what is theirs? Or the lawmakers who grab, snatch, claw and bite for every dollar they can rake out of others?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Those blacks and latino are supporting Democrats because they believe the lies. This year two latinoes are running for president as Republicans. Keeping out illegal aliens protects jobs of latinoes and black citizens. The greedy want cheaper labor and Democrats wasn't illegals for votes. That's why Democrats are against requiring identification to vote. Dishonest and greedy.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You guys are not reading what I said.....you are looking at a microscopically small number to compare giving to charities. When you compare the total number of people who vote Dems to the total number of Republicans .....you have to include the millions of blacks and Latinos.They are at the bottom of our society money wise. You are only looking at the top numbers of the Democrats.

Oh and Red Label....I am not a liberal if that's what you are accusing me of being. And I wasn't the one who changed the discussion from Obamacare to comparing who gives the most to the poor. And the facts do support my position entirely.So unless you include comparing the total number of people who vote Democrat to the total number of people who vote Republican.....

Anyway, I know how you feel and I won't change it and you won't change my point of view. Time to move on to something else.

And by the way.....I agree with a lot of what Trump says.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

One thing I like about this site is that we have been around so long we can discuss things like old friends in a coffee shop. To much testosterone on some of those sites. Well maybe it's something else because blhunter is a younger fellow. Maybe just more respectful. Now I am off subject. :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree.....Talking politics can get heated sometime. At least we don't get that way here.

Things will get really bloody if it winds up being Clinton vs.Trump. Which I think it will be. This could be the most interesting election in a long time. An outsider who basically says anything vs the first possible female president.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Yes, it is true that in general, the total number of Republicans donate more funds than the total number of Democrats.

It is also true that among those financially able to give, Republicans generally give a higher percentage of their income than Democrats.

The comparisons are those of an apple to an orange.

A lot of this has to do with the make up of the parties. Republicans are generally people who will work hard to get ahead. Democrats seem to want to work for the government or find out how much the government can give them.

The Democratic party of today is a far cry from the party in the 60's. I always remember John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address saying, *"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Red I seriously believe if Kennedy were alive today and you didn't label democrat or republican so he could be party loyal he would pick republican. I think the average republican politician today isn't as conservative as Kennedy was.

I didn't catch it all, but only seconds ago on FOX they were saying something about someone linking Trump to the Mob. Great Trump and Hillary, Mob vs Mob. We are so screeeeeeeeewed.



> first possible female president.


 I sure hope American women have not become so sexual prejudice that they will vote for a person simply because they have a vagina. I wouldn't vote against a woman which I believe is sexist, but it's as sexist to vote for a woman because she is a woman. We are supposed to be voting who is best for the nation, not who best fits our prejudice.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the deal with everything that Trump and Rubio are saying....... Opening up the "borders of states" for the purpose of buying insurance will do nothing. Right now any company can go into almost any state if they want to. Yet they choose not to because of what each state requires them to carry.

To make my point more clear.... companies are not in states because they would lose money or have to have such outrageous premiums to make that state business stay afloat. So they choose not to do business in that state.

Now if any candidate either Dem, Rep, or Independent would come out and say, "I am hear to help cut the costs of doing medicine. I will help slash the costs hospitals are charging the consumer and insurance companies. I will help bring a stop to the rising costs of prescription pills, medical devices, etc." That is the candidate that has it right on how to bring down the cost of health insurance in the USA.

Like I have stated for year...... The reason why insurance premiums are high is because insurance companies are getting charged large amounts of money to pay for the coverage. People know if they say they will pay cash for an operation they will get a lower rate that what an insurance company will get charged. IS THAT FAIR??? It should all be the same costs. This applies to all forms of insurance. People know they can "gouge" insurance companies because they will pay. :bop:

So what does that do to your premiums..... THEY GO UP. Because if insurance companies can't bring in enough money to cover what they have "promised" to every person they insure. They will go belly up and no claims will get paid!

People always say.... They are reporting record profits. You know why..... PEOPLE DONT USE THIER MEDICAL INSURANCE! PEOPLE HATE GOING TO THE DOCTOR!. But yet they have to have the money at hand to pay for everything promised in the insurance contract.

Sorry for the rant..... Got into a heated argument trying to explain how insurance works to someone today and im still boiling. People sometimes just don't get it... and that is about 90% of our voting public.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... id=DELLDHP

My point exactly that no matter what any candidate says about opening up state lines for "insurance competition" does nothing to the root of higher premiums!!!

The past 7 years drug prices have doubled. What does that do to insurance premiums.... they go up!!!!

People the evil empire isn't the insurance companies.... it is the medical field to a certain extent. Insurance premiums reflect what an insurance company has to pay for services..... IE: MEDICAL COSTS.

So until a real politician comes out and goes after some of the price gouging that is going on in the medical industry. Nothing will happen with insurance premiums. and yes... IT IS THAT SIMPLE. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hospitals gouge terribly. I remember my son coming out of a surgery to remove two screws from his hip. They said he would be out for about ten minutes. He went from the OR right to his room. We were charged $200 for recovery room (about 1982) and he was never in it. I called. They said an automatic charge is their policy. I told them an automatic don't pay is my policy. I think way back them two Tylenol were $27. They are not in it to help people, they are in it to help themselves.

I'll bet my son's bill this year will be over a million dollars. Maybe twice that. Five months in the hospital with about four in intensive care.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

There is another threat to make premiums increase.....

The minimum wage debate. Think about it. The medical industry is about 1/3 of the US jobs and economy. So now if the federal government wants to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. What do you think the custodial staffs, clerical workers, laborers, etc of the medical industry will want.... HIGHER WAGES. Because why should they bust there butt for $17 an hour when they can say... "you want fries with that" for $15. What do you think the unions will want for wages when some are now making $25 a hour. They will want an increase to reflect the increase on minimum wage difference. Example... If now a person is making double minimum wage why wouldn't they want to keep that difference when minimum wage increases?

But to the politicians that would never happen..... uke: Also the costs of goods and services would never rise because of that.... uke: uke:

Yes our politicians are that dumb. They don't think if labor costs go up that in retrospect the costs of goods won't go up as well. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

If people don't think this debate about minimum wage won't effect health insurance or medical profession... they are blind!! Everything is intertwined.

edit:
I am not attacking the people who work for the medical industry at all. I want them to make money and live a good life. But just pointing out when people try to blame everything wrong on one industry that everything in our economy is a collective. Insurance reflects what costs are of what the company is insuring. Auto rates go up because it costs more to fix cars is one of the factors. Home insurance goes up because it costs more to put a roof on. Back before I started to sell insurance I worked in a lumber yard. It cost about $150 per square to put a roof on that was 15 years ago. Now it is roughly $600 a square. For the layman... It used to cost about $3000-$5000.... if you hired someone. Now that is $6000-$12000. Depending on roof size, materials, complete tear off, where you are located in the country, etc. Most roofs get put on because of a storm. So the insurance company pays for it.... so what does that do to the price of home insurance....???? Yep goes up.


----------

