|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 6:22:08 GMT
From Dr. Ben Carson in American CurrentSee:
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 12:02:49 GMT
From Dr. Ben Carson in American CurrentSee:
I don't believe that Dr Carson isn't pointing out anything that wasn't anticipated or that is surprising but his arguments fail to be convincing.
First of all does he believe that the people receiving these benefits shouldn't be receiving the medications that he cites as being problematic? We knew a lot of people had serious health problems couldn't afford or were being denied medical services and necessary medication. Is he arguing that they should just be thrown under the bus and go without the medical services and medications they require?
His argument that we, the taxpayers, would be "bailing out insurance companies" is misleading. In truth we would be paying for the costs of the medical services that people needed. The "insurance company" is merely an intermediary in the financial transaction that pays for the medical benenfit. The issue is really whether the taxpayers will be willing to pay for the costs of the medical services because not enough people signed up in the first year of Obamacare. As he did correctly note the "penalties" weren't enough to drive more people into signing up the first year but do go up in the future.
Health care under "Obamacare" is in the hands of the patients and their healthcare providers so I don't know what he tries to imply. The only time health care isn't in the hands of the patient and their provider is when the person can't afford to see a health care provider.
I look forward to Dr Carson's proposal will be that will provide the funding so that these people will be able to receive health care services they need. We've been waiting for a "Republican" proposal for years that will provide health care services to the tens of millions of people that didn't have health insurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 18:51:51 GMT
From Dr. Ben Carson in American CurrentSee:
I don't believe that Dr Carson isn't pointing out anything that wasn't anticipated or that is surprising but his arguments fail to be convincing.
First of all does he believe that the people receiving these benefits shouldn't be receiving the medications that he cites as being problematic? We knew a lot of people had serious health problems couldn't afford or were being denied medical services and necessary medication. Is he arguing that they should just be thrown under the bus and go without the medical services and medications they require?
His argument that we, the taxpayers, would be "bailing out insurance companies" is misleading. In truth we would be paying for the costs of the medical services that people needed. The "insurance company" is merely an intermediary in the financial transaction that pays for the medical benenfit. The issue is really whether the taxpayers will be willing to pay for the costs of the medical services because not enough people signed up in the first year of Obamacare. As he did correctly note the "penalties" weren't enough to drive more people into signing up the first year but do go up in the future.
Health care under "Obamacare" is in the hands of the patients and their healthcare providers so I don't know what he tries to imply. The only time health care isn't in the hands of the patient and their provider is when the person can't afford to see a health care provider.
I look forward to Dr Carson's proposal will be that will provide the funding so that these people will be able to receive health care services they need. We've been waiting for a "Republican" proposal for years that will provide health care services to the tens of millions of people that didn't have health insurance.
First, as regarding Dr. Carson's core position: In one of his (several) books, The Big Picture, Dr. Carson has argued in favor of medical insurance that would not cover catastrophic care, so as to make its purchase more affordable; and the government's supplying catastrophic-care coverage instead. But I really would prefer not to digress, for the moment, into this matter. To assert that it is "misleading" to note that a bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies seems inevitable, under ObamaCare--after all, the insurance company is "merely an intermediary"--seems downright disingenuous. If taxpayer dollars go to save (otherwise endangered) healthcare-insurance companies precisely because the regulations under ObamaCare forced them (predictably) into insolvency, that does, indeed, amount to a bailout. Worse yet, it was an easily forseen bailout. But one that the Obama administration never advertised when the ACA was being debated in 2009 and early 2010. I think the word for that is dishonesty.
Of course, it is probably hard to imagine why one should expect anything else from the man who once--no , several times--trumpeted the words, "If you like your healthcare plan [or your doctor], you can keep it"... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 10:09:28 GMT
First, as regarding Dr. Carson's core position: In one of his (several) books, The Big Picture, Dr. Carson has argued in favor of medical insurance that would not cover catastrophic care, so as to make its purchase more affordable; and the government's supplying catastrophic-care coverage instead. But I really would prefer not to digress, for the moment, into this matter. To assert that it is "misleading" to note that a bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies seems inevitable, under ObamaCare--after all, the insurance company is "merely an intermediary"--seems downright disingenuous. If taxpayer dollars go to save (otherwise endangered) healthcare-insurance companies precisely because the regulations under ObamaCare forced them (predictably) into insolvency, that does, indeed, amount to a bailout. Worse yet, it was an easily forseen bailout. But one that the Obama administration never advertised when the ACA was being debated in 2009 and early 2010. I think the word for that is dishonesty.
Of course, it is probably hard to imagine why one should expect anything else from the man who once--no , several times--trumpeted the words, "If you like your healthcare plan [or your doctor], you can keep it"...
So Dr Carson is, at least in part, an advocate of the "Public Funding" as opposed to "Private Funding" of health insurance for working Americans. I am opposed to "Public funding" for working Americans except in very unusual circumstances. I don't believe I should be taxed to subsidize any employers that are unwilling to provide adequate compensation for their employees' basic necessities which includes their health care needs.
I advocate "private funding" of health insurance as opposed to "public funding" of health insurance for working Americans.
Of note we're not even sure that the insurance companies are going to require a bailout. They also knew that enrollment was going to be slow and raised their rates starting in 2009 to build huge financial reserves to mitigate the early enrollment costs. They actually did "plan ahead" in anticipation of the early financial shortfall. Of course the situation would have been far better if Republicans were encouraging people to enroll for health insurance but we somehow forget that fact.
Please get over the political rhetoric. The caveat always existed that the insurance must meet the minimum insurance standards, most of those that lost their private insurance was because of decisions made in the "board room" of the insurance company (e.g. deciding to pull out of a market) that wasn't really because of Obamacare, and the vast majority of those that did lose their "insurance plan" are paying less out of pocket for a superior insurance plan under Obamacare because of the subsidies.
BTW It was brought to my attention that while not all of the insurance plans covered all doctors that between them at least one of them covered virtually everyone's existing primary care physician. If a person did need to obtain insurance on the "exchange" they could have kept their same doctor if they selected the correct insurance option. The only exception was if the person's personal doctor (or clinic) decided against being a part of the insurance network completely and that was a business decision not dictated by the law.
We can't blame "Obamacare" for the decisions made by private industry regardless of whether it's a decision by the insurance company or the hospital/clinic that provides medical services.
Back to the choice:
Private Funding or Public Funding?
Dr Carson is apparently in the "public funding" camp because he wants the government to provide health insurance for working Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 10:10:06 GMT
First, as regarding Dr. Carson's core position: In one of his (several) books, The Big Picture, Dr. Carson has argued in favor of medical insurance that would not cover catastrophic care, so as to make its purchase more affordable; and the government's supplying catastrophic-care coverage instead. But I really would prefer not to digress, for the moment, into this matter. To assert that it is "misleading" to note that a bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies seems inevitable, under ObamaCare--after all, the insurance company is "merely an intermediary"--seems downright disingenuous. If taxpayer dollars go to save (otherwise endangered) healthcare-insurance companies precisely because the regulations under ObamaCare forced them (predictably) into insolvency, that does, indeed, amount to a bailout. Worse yet, it was an easily forseen bailout. But one that the Obama administration never advertised when the ACA was being debated in 2009 and early 2010. I think the word for that is dishonesty.
Of course, it is probably hard to imagine why one should expect anything else from the man who once--no , several times--trumpeted the words, "If you like your healthcare plan [or your doctor], you can keep it"...
So Dr Carson is, at least in part, an advocate of the "Public Funding" as opposed to "Private Funding" of health insurance for working Americans. I am opposed to "Public funding" for working Americans except in very unusual circumstances. I don't believe I should be taxed to subsidize any employers that are unwilling to provide adequate compensation for their employees' basic necessities which includes their health care needs.
I advocate "private funding" of health insurance as opposed to "public funding" of health insurance for working Americans.
Of note we're not even sure that the insurance companies are going to require a bailout. They also knew that enrollment was going to be slow and raised their rates starting in 2009 to build huge financial reserves to mitigate the early enrollment costs. They actually did "plan ahead" in anticipation of the early financial shortfall. Of course the situation would have been far better if Republicans were encouraging people to enroll for health insurance but we somehow forget that fact.
Please get over the political rhetoric. The caveat always existed that the insurance must meet the minimum insurance standards, most of those that lost their private insurance was because of decisions made in the "board room" of the insurance company (e.g. deciding to pull out of a market) that wasn't really because of Obamacare, and the vast majority of those that did lose their "insurance plan" are paying less out of pocket for a superior insurance plan under Obamacare because of the subsidies.
BTW It was brought to my attention that while not all of the insurance plans covered all doctors that between them at least one of them covered virtually everyone's existing primary care physician. If a person did need to obtain insurance on the "exchange" they could have kept their same doctor if they selected the correct insurance option. The only exception was if the person's personal doctor (or clinic) decided against being a part of the insurance network completely and that was a business decision not dictated by the law.
We can't blame "Obamacare" for the decisions made by private industry regardless of whether it's a decision by the insurance company or the hospital/clinic that provides medical services.
Back to the choice:
Private Funding or Public Funding?
Dr Carson is apparently in the "public funding" camp because he wants the government to provide health insurance for working Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2014 19:25:01 GMT
First, as regarding Dr. Carson's core position: In one of his (several) books, The Big Picture, Dr. Carson has argued in favor of medical insurance that would not cover catastrophic care, so as to make its purchase more affordable; and the government's supplying catastrophic-care coverage instead. But I really would prefer not to digress, for the moment, into this matter. To assert that it is "misleading" to note that a bailout of the healthcare-insurance companies seems inevitable, under ObamaCare--after all, the insurance company is "merely an intermediary"--seems downright disingenuous. If taxpayer dollars go to save (otherwise endangered) healthcare-insurance companies precisely because the regulations under ObamaCare forced them (predictably) into insolvency, that does, indeed, amount to a bailout. Worse yet, it was an easily forseen bailout. But one that the Obama administration never advertised when the ACA was being debated in 2009 and early 2010. I think the word for that is dishonesty.
Of course, it is probably hard to imagine why one should expect anything else from the man who once--no , several times--trumpeted the words, "If you like your healthcare plan [or your doctor], you can keep it"...
So Dr Carson is, at least in part, an advocate of the "Public Funding" as opposed to "Private Funding" of health insurance for working Americans. I am opposed to "Public funding" for working Americans except in very unusual circumstances. I don't believe I should be taxed to subsidize any employers that are unwilling to provide adequate compensation for their employees' basic necessities which includes their health care needs.
I advocate "private funding" of health insurance as opposed to "public funding" of health insurance for working Americans.
Of note we're not even sure that the insurance companies are going to require a bailout. They also knew that enrollment was going to be slow and raised their rates starting in 2009 to build huge financial reserves to mitigate the early enrollment costs. They actually did "plan ahead" in anticipation of the early financial shortfall. Of course the situation would have been far better if Republicans were encouraging people to enroll for health insurance but we somehow forget that fact.
Please get over the political rhetoric. The caveat always existed that the insurance must meet the minimum insurance standards, most of those that lost their private insurance was because of decisions made in the "board room" of the insurance company (e.g. deciding to pull out of a market) that wasn't really because of Obamacare, and the vast majority of those that did lose their "insurance plan" are paying less out of pocket for a superior insurance plan under Obamacare because of the subsidies.
BTW It was brought to my attention that while not all of the insurance plans covered all doctors that between them at least one of them covered virtually everyone's existing primary care physician. If a person did need to obtain insurance on the "exchange" they could have kept their same doctor if they selected the correct insurance option. The only exception was if the person's personal doctor (or clinic) decided against being a part of the insurance network completely and that was a business decision not dictated by the law.
We can't blame "Obamacare" for the decisions made by private industry regardless of whether it's a decision by the insurance company or the hospital/clinic that provides medical services.
Back to the choice:
Private Funding or Public Funding?
Dr Carson is apparently in the "public funding" camp because he wants the government to provide health insurance for working Americans.
I would prefer not to digress into a lengthy discussion of Dr. Carson's core positions as concerning healthcare insurance. Suffice it to say that I do not fully endorse those positions. But that certainly does not vitiate the fact that I agree very much with what he said about ObamaCare, which I quoted in the OP. It is hardly "political rhetoric" to note that many healthcare-insurance plans have been canceled, precisely because those plans no longer met the minimum standards under ObamaCare. Which is to say, many Americans must now purchase plans covering services that are either age-inappropriate or gender-inappropriate, so as to "spread around" the costs--which they had not been doing, prior to ObamaCare. And do you really believe that it is perfectly okay to require someone--who may be just barely making ends meet, anyway--to purchase a gold plan (or even a platinum plan) in order to continue seeing his or her chosen doctor? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 4, 2014 10:23:03 GMT
I would prefer not to digress into a lengthy discussion of Dr. Carson's core positions as concerning healthcare insurance. Suffice it to say that I do not fully endorse those positions. But that certainly does not vitiate the fact that I agree very much with what he said about ObamaCare, which I quoted in the OP. It is hardly "political rhetoric" to note that many healthcare-insurance plans have been canceled, precisely because those plans no longer met the minimum standards under ObamaCare. Which is to say, many Americans must now purchase plans covering services that are either age-inappropriate or gender-inappropriate, so as to "spread around" the costs--which they had not been doing, prior to ObamaCare. And do you really believe that it is perfectly okay to require someone--who may be just barely making ends meet, anyway--to purchase a gold plan (or even a platinum plan) in order to continue seeing his or her chosen doctor?
Most of the cancellations, as I understand it, was because the insurance company had few individual policies in the state to begin with and made a business decision to simply pull out because it wouldn't be cost effective to remain in the market and compete with Obamacare that could offer individuals superior insurance with less "out of pocket" costs to the person. That was a business decision. The next largest group of those that had their insurance canceled were people that purchased private insurance after Obamacare was passed and they don't count because they didn't lose insurance they had at the time of passage of Obamacare.
Health insurance should not be discriminatory based upon gender or any other invidious criteria. Insurance "works" because it spreads the financial risks across a large group and reducing the size of the group works against the very principles of why insurance does mitigate financial risks. I find it weird that you might be advocating discrimination against women when it comes to health insurance. Are you really an advocate of gender discrimination?
From what I understand the insurance companies that became a part of the "exchanges" all offerer Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum levels of coverage (with sub-groups within each) and the service providers selected which insurance company (or companies) that they wanted to become affiliated with and they would accept patients from any of the levels of insurance so long as it was from that insurance company. In short a person could have selected a "Bronze" plan and still have kept their doctor unless the hospital/clinic made the business decision to not affiliate with any of the "exchange" insurance companies.
Of note I oppose the "individual mandate" in principle for working Americans believing instead that the employers should be furnishing the health insurance needs based upon the labor of the person that the employer is profiting from. The employer profits from the labor of the employee, not the taxpayer, and it makes no sense to me that the taxpayers should be subsidizing the health insurance costs of the employee. Let the employers that are profiting from the labor of the employee pay for the costs as opposed to the taxpayers that don't profit from that labor.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 4, 2014 19:45:13 GMT
I would prefer not to digress into a lengthy discussion of Dr. Carson's core positions as concerning healthcare insurance. Suffice it to say that I do not fully endorse those positions. But that certainly does not vitiate the fact that I agree very much with what he said about ObamaCare, which I quoted in the OP. It is hardly "political rhetoric" to note that many healthcare-insurance plans have been canceled, precisely because those plans no longer met the minimum standards under ObamaCare. Which is to say, many Americans must now purchase plans covering services that are either age-inappropriate or gender-inappropriate, so as to "spread around" the costs--which they had not been doing, prior to ObamaCare. And do you really believe that it is perfectly okay to require someone--who may be just barely making ends meet, anyway--to purchase a gold plan (or even a platinum plan) in order to continue seeing his or her chosen doctor?
Most of the cancellations, as I understand it, was because the insurance company had few individual policies in the state to begin with and made a business decision to simply pull out because it wouldn't be cost effective to remain in the market and compete with Obamacare that could offer individuals superior insurance with less "out of pocket" costs to the person. That was a business decision. The next largest group of those that had their insurance canceled were people that purchased private insurance after Obamacare was passed and they don't count because they didn't lose insurance they had at the time of passage of Obamacare.
Health insurance should not be discriminatory based upon gender or any other invidious criteria. Insurance "works" because it spreads the financial risks across a large group and reducing the size of the group works against the very principles of why insurance does mitigate financial risks. I find it weird that you might be advocating discrimination against women when it comes to health insurance. Are you really an advocate of gender discrimination?
From what I understand the insurance companies that became a part of the "exchanges" all offerer Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum levels of coverage (with sub-groups within each) and the service providers selected which insurance company (or companies) that they wanted to become affiliated with and they would accept patients from any of the levels of insurance so long as it was from that insurance company. In short a person could have selected a "Bronze" plan and still have kept their doctor unless the hospital/clinic made the business decision to not affiliate with any of the "exchange" insurance companies.
Of note I oppose the "individual mandate" in principle for working Americans believing instead that the employers should be furnishing the health insurance needs based upon the labor of the person that the employer is profiting from. The employer profits from the labor of the employee, not the taxpayer, and it makes no sense to me that the taxpayers should be subsidizing the health insurance costs of the employee. Let the employers that are profiting from the labor of the employee pay for the costs as opposed to the taxpayers that don't profit from that labor.
From what source do you get your information as concerning your belief that these healthcare-insurance cancellations were merely a "business decision," entirely untethered from the new requirements set forth by ObamaCare? Is it from MSNBC? Or even the DNC? You indicated in a previous post that many who have lost their respective doctors did so simply because they chose the "wrong" plan. So how does this square with your current insistence that these patients could have kept their doctors, despite their having chosen "any of the levels of insurance" offered (i.e. bronze, silver, gold, or platinum)? How might it amount to "gender discrimination" to note that women ought not have to pay for prostate exams, and unmarried men ought not have to pay for maternity care? (To assert, boldly, that this is just how insurance "works," is to blithely ignore the fact that it seemed to be working pretty well without this feature, pre-ObamaCare.) As for our requiring employers to provide helathcare coverage: This is, at its core, a statist position. Employers who wish to include healthcare coverage, as a part of their respective compensation packages, should certainly remain free to do so. But it should be entirely a business decision--not a moral (or legal) imperative. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2014 11:33:22 GMT
From what source do you get your information as concerning your belief that these healthcare-insurance cancellations were merely a "business decision," entirely untethered from the new requirements set forth by ObamaCare? Is it from MSNBC? Or even the DNC?
Well, first of all I read the news. There have been numerous news stories on why insurance companies pulled out of different states but I'll only cite one but a significant one because it is California that has a very large population.
www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2013/release053-13.cfm
Three significant facts related to both United Healthcare and Aetna withdrawing from the California private health insurance market.
1. The only had a small share of the private insurance market in California. 2. They were being subjected to $100 million in taxation under California state law that their competitors didn't have to pay placing them at a disadvantage competitively. 3. United Healthcare and Aetna didn't have to worry about those policyholders that they were going to terminate coverage on because they knew these custormers would be able to obtain insurance under Obamacare. In short United Healthcare and Aetna knew that they wouldn't be leaving their customers where they would be without insurance by the cancellation of the policies because those customers could purchase insurance for 2014.
This was all about a "business" decision but United Healthcare and Aetna in California and they were not "driven out" by Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2014 12:18:22 GMT
You indicated in a previous post that many who have lost their respective doctors did so simply because they chose the "wrong" plan. So how does this square with your current insistence that these patients could have kept their doctors, despite their having chosen "any of the levels of insurance" offered (i.e. bronze, silver, gold, or platinum)? How might it amount to "gender discrimination" to note that women ought not have to pay for prostate exams, and unmarried men ought not have to pay for maternity care? (To assert, boldly, that this is just how insurance "works," is to blithely ignore the fact that it seemed to be working pretty well without this feature, pre-ObamaCare.) As for our requiring employers to provide helathcare coverage: This is, at its core, a statist position. Employers who wish to include healthcare coverage, as a part of their respective compensation packages, should certainly remain free to do so. But it should be entirely a business decision--not a moral (or legal) imperative.
Two important facts related to individuals that "lost" their primary care physicians.
First is that the only case I actually investigated a woman claimed that she was losing her primary care physician but in fact she was not. She had a primary care physician and two specialists treating an illness. She was able to keep her primary care physician but only one of the two specialists because they were at different hospitals where one hospital chose to go with one insurance company from the exchange and the other hospital chose to go with another insurance company. It was an "anecdotal" case and, in fact, the woman was not losing her doctor at all.
Next is the fact that we don't know how many people have lost their primary care physcians. While numbers were being thrown around that "X" mumber of people "could" that didn't imply that they would or did lose their primary care physician. In any case the number is really insignifican and not really worthy of discussion and, as I noted, if they did it was either because of their decision in selecting an insurance policy under the exchange or a business decision by the health provider to not align itself with any of the exchange insurance plans.
"Gender discrimination" in health insurance coverage only related to "individual" insurance plans. the smallest percentage of health insurance plans, and it wasn't working as it caused higher rates for women than for men. Advocacy for financial discrimination against women is misogynistic in nature. The fact is it "wasn't working" because of the financial discrimination against women.
The "Statist" position is a "single-payer" system based upon "tax and spend" and is juxtaposed to my position which is about "private funding" of the health care needs for employees. Requiring the employers to fund the health insurance needs of their employees is addressing a fundamental failure of "free market" capitalism and is justifiable even from a "laissez faire" capitalism position because it is not about the government determining economic outcomes and, in fact, elimitates de facto corporate welfare where taxpayers have to make up for the underpayments in compensation to the employees by the enterprise so the enterprise can gain a competitive advantage.
For "capitalism" to actually work both the "employees" and the "enterprise" must profit but when an enterprise doesn't provide enough in compensation to meet the basic needs of the employee the employee is "working at a loss" and requires taxation and spending by government to make up the difference. What part of that do "conservatives" not understand? Capitalism doesn't work if the enterprise profits while the employee can't afford to live off of the compensation the enterprise provides.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 23:09:40 GMT
From what source do you get your information as concerning your belief that these healthcare-insurance cancellations were merely a "business decision," entirely untethered from the new requirements set forth by ObamaCare? Is it from MSNBC? Or even the DNC?
Well, first of all I read the news. There have been numerous news stories on why insurance companies pulled out of different states but I'll only cite one but a significant one because it is California that has a very large population.
www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2013/release053-13.cfm
Three significant facts related to both United Healthcare and Aetna withdrawing from the California private health insurance market.
1. The only had a small share of the private insurance market in California. 2. They were being subjected to $100 million in taxation under California state law that their competitors didn't have to pay placing them at a disadvantage competitively. 3. United Healthcare and Aetna didn't have to worry about those policyholders that they were going to terminate coverage on because they knew these custormers would be able to obtain insurance under Obamacare. In short United Healthcare and Aetna knew that they wouldn't be leaving their customers where they would be without insurance by the cancellation of the policies because those customers could purchase insurance for 2014.
This was all about a "business" decision but United Healthcare and Aetna in California and they were not "driven out" by Obamacare.
So, you have taken two healthcare-insurance carriers, from just one state--totaling about 60,000 policyholders, combined--and extrapolated from that that insurance carriers in general are not being forced to terminate their healthcare-insurance plans, because of ObamaCare's more rigorous standards? You gotta be kidding... |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 23:22:02 GMT
You indicated in a previous post that many who have lost their respective doctors did so simply because they chose the "wrong" plan. So how does this square with your current insistence that these patients could have kept their doctors, despite their having chosen "any of the levels of insurance" offered (i.e. bronze, silver, gold, or platinum)? How might it amount to "gender discrimination" to note that women ought not have to pay for prostate exams, and unmarried men ought not have to pay for maternity care? (To assert, boldly, that this is just how insurance "works," is to blithely ignore the fact that it seemed to be working pretty well without this feature, pre-ObamaCare.) As for our requiring employers to provide helathcare coverage: This is, at its core, a statist position. Employers who wish to include healthcare coverage, as a part of their respective compensation packages, should certainly remain free to do so. But it should be entirely a business decision--not a moral (or legal) imperative.
Two important facts related to individuals that "lost" their primary care physicians.
First is that the only case I actually investigated a woman claimed that she was losing her primary care physician but in fact she was not. She had a primary care physician and two specialists treating an illness. She was able to keep her primary care physician but only one of the two specialists because they were at different hospitals where one hospital chose to go with one insurance company from the exchange and the other hospital chose to go with another insurance company. It was an "anecdotal" case and, in fact, the woman was not losing her doctor at all.
Next is the fact that we don't know how many people have lost their primary care physcians. While numbers were being thrown around that "X" mumber of people "could" that didn't imply that they would or did lose their primary care physician. In any case the number is really insignifican and not really worthy of discussion and, as I noted, if they did it was either because of their decision in selecting an insurance policy under the exchange or a business decision by the health provider to not align itself with any of the exchange insurance plans.
"Gender discrimination" in health insurance coverage only related to "individual" insurance plans. the smallest percentage of health insurance plans, and it wasn't working as it caused higher rates for women than for men. Advocacy for financial discrimination against women is misogynistic in nature. The fact is it "wasn't working" because of the financial discrimination against women.
The "Statist" position is a "single-payer" system based upon "tax and spend" and is juxtaposed to my position which is about "private funding" of the health care needs for employees. Requiring the employers to fund the health insurance needs of their employees is addressing a fundamental failure of "free market" capitalism and is justifiable even from a "laissez faire" capitalism position because it is not about the government determining economic outcomes and, in fact, elimitates de facto corporate welfare where taxpayers have to make up for the underpayments in compensation to the employees by the enterprise so the enterprise can gain a competitive advantage.
For "capitalism" to actually work both the "employees" and the "enterprise" must profit but when an enterprise doesn't provide enough in compensation to meet the basic needs of the employee the employee is "working at a loss" and requires taxation and spending by government to make up the difference. What part of that do "conservatives" not understand? Capitalism doesn't work if the enterprise profits while the employee can't afford to live off of the compensation the enterprise provides.
So, you have taken one case-- one case--in which the person who claimed to have lost her primary-care physician, due to ObamaCare, was mistaken. And this is supposed to prove that it is just not happening, at all?
And what difference should it make exactly how many people have lost their primary-care physicians, vis-a-vis how many theoretically could lose them? If even one person has lost his or her primary-care physician, because of ObamaCare, that is quite sufficient to make ObamaCare a very bad thing, in my opinion--regardless of any competing considerations. Again, I inquire: How might it amount to "[g]ender discrimination" or "misogyn[y]" to allow individuals to continue to purchase plans that are gender-specific (and age-specific) in their coverage? What is statist is the federal government's intrusion into a private concern (in this case, healthcare insurance), with its ubiquitous rules and regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 12:24:40 GMT
So, you have taken two healthcare-insurance carriers, from just one state--totaling about 60,000 policyholders, combined--and extrapolated from that that insurance carriers in general are not being forced to terminate their healthcare-insurance plans, because of ObamaCare's more rigorous standards? You gotta be kidding...
I provided a single example but that did not imply I hadn't investigated this as it applied to other states. In all cases when I looked into the cancellations of private insurance policies it was based upon a business decision by the insurance company and not due to Obamacare with the exception of the fact that in some cases the private insurance company couldn't compete with Obamacare because of the federal subsidies that resulted in lower insurance costs to the consumer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 12:40:49 GMT
So, you have taken one case-- one case--in which the person who claimed to have lost her primary-care physician, due to ObamaCare, was mistaken. And this is supposed to prove that it is just not happening, at all?
And what difference should it make exactly how many people have lost their primary-care physicians, vis-a-vis how many theoretically could lose them? If even one person has lost his or her primary-care physician, because of ObamaCare, that is quite sufficient to make ObamaCare a very bad thing, in my opinion--regardless of any competing considerations. Again, I inquire: How might it amount to "[g]ender discrimination" or "misogyn[y]" to allow individuals to continue to purchase plans that are gender-specific (and age-specific) in their coverage? What is statist is the federal government's intrusion into a private concern (in this case, healthcare insurance), with its ubiquitous rules and regulations.
I sort of lied. I've looked at numerous cases related to people claiming they lost their primary care physician because of Obamacare but I only looked at one case in depth. In the other cases it was evident that it was not because of Obamacare but instead it was becasuse of a business decision by their insurance company or they hadn't even attempted to sign-up under Obamacare where we can probably assume that they could have kept their personal physician.
Do you really believe any law can be "perfect" and not adversely affect anyone? I would suggest that is a very unrealistic belief. There's an old saying that "To make an omlette you must break a few egg shells." No law I'm aware have ever existed that didn't "break a few shells" in the history of the United States.
What part of "discrimination based upon race, ethnic heritage, religion, gender, or other invidious criteria" is still discrimination do you fail to understand. A "Person is a Person" and should not be discriminated against based upon an indivious criteria such as gender in the case of health insurance. Health insurance should insure "People" equally without discrimination and "People" includes both women and men. The government is expressly prohibited from discriminating based upon gender under the law and must, by law, include men and women under the same insurance plans offered by the government exchanges.
I do find it interesting that you express opposition to racial discrimination while here you seem to support gender discrimination. Are women less deserving of protection under the law than blacks in your opinion?
Your definition of Statist is wrong. The very foundation for government in the United States is for government to intervene in the lives of the People to protect society as a whole from the violation of their Inalienable Rights as a Person.
We could note that the financial inability of the Person to obtain necessary health care services due to the flaws of "capitalism" is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person by other persons. Market coercison that forces a person to work for less than it costs them to live is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 1:50:46 GMT
So, you have taken two healthcare-insurance carriers, from just one state--totaling about 60,000 policyholders, combined--and extrapolated from that that insurance carriers in general are not being forced to terminate their healthcare-insurance plans, because of ObamaCare's more rigorous standards? You gotta be kidding...
I provided a single example but that did not imply I hadn't investigated this as it applied to other states. In all cases when I looked into the cancellations of private insurance policies it was based upon a business decision by the insurance company and not due to Obamacare with the exception of the fact that in some cases the private insurance company couldn't compete with Obamacare because of the federal subsidies that resulted in lower insurance costs to the consumer.
Well, that is certainly very different from what I have heard on the news (including the incluusion of some cancelation notices stating, directly, that the cancelation of the plans in question was due to the standards imposed by ObamaCare). |
|
