Senate The US Politics discussion

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 10
    Given insurance is all about ensuring risk, I'm not sure why charging people more for PECs is controversial?
  2. Yodaminch Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 6
    Because 1) The sick people are the ones less able to work as much. Therefore the sicker they are, the harder it is to pay for their healthcare and 2) This opens the door to denying people coverage again based on said pre-existing conditions.
    And frankly 3) Some people can't help that they got sick. It's either genetics or bad luck. You are essentially charging them a penalty because of it. And in the case of some, that's as good as condemning them to die.
  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 10
    OK, but that's not what I asked. We've never as a country excluded coverage based on PECs, unless the PEC is not disclosed upfront (and may have resulted in revised terms). But, you are ensuring risk. A PEC means higher risk of claim, so higher premiums are justified. At no point does what you said actually make sense or logically follow, that it opens the door to denying coverage. Well, in a sensible country anyway...
  4. Yodaminch Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 6
    And that is your error. The United States healthcare system is a business. There's far more interest in making money over the wellbeing of our citizens. And therefore, those who drain the most money while contributing the least (aka the sickest) are the first ones to suffer because of pre-existing conditions that most of them cannot help. It's essentially discrimination based on health. The ACA eliminated that and leveled the playing field by allowing affordable care for all. What Republicans are saying is they are still providing access to healthcare, just not affordable healthcare. Essentially that condemns the sickest to death. Now, if this "access" was followed up by robust bills to lower the cost of prescriptions and procedures, then this might make some sense. But, logically if you ask someone who is too sick to work to pay more for their treatment, what do you think happens? They can't afford it eventually, get sicker and die. Or, the burden for paying for treatment shifts to family, they get financially ruined and if they get sick, now they are in the same boat.
  5. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    "There's far more Interest in making money than the well-being of our citizens" covers pretty much everything the United States does now.
    Rew, Jedi Ben, Jedi Merkurian and 9 others like this.
  6. Scapro Tyler Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 2015
    star 3
    How is that we are talking about the PEC portion and not that states could seek to waive emergency and maternity care. How does that work?

    "Sorry your insurance no longer covers ER visits because the state of X has determined that we don't need to. ENJOY THE BILL"
  7. Violent Violet Menace JCC bureaucrat

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 5
    Silly Ender, you know the United States is not a sensible country. [face_shame_on_you]
    Rew, FatBurt and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  8. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 7
    Apparently Sanders is getting a lot of criticism from the left (and DNC) for campaigning for a progressive Democrat in Nebraska who's pro-life
    http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/52496...campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

    If you want to win in Nebraska, getting someone elected who's progressive on economic issues, who's progressive on criminal justice issues, who's progressive on environmentalist issues, whose only "conservative" stance is being anti-abortion (and he's not running with it on his platform as mayor, https://heathmello.com/issues/)... that's a pretty good deal, to me.
    Last edited by Ghost, Apr 21, 2017
  9. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I read somewhere today that Mello said he wouldn't try to impose his pro-life views as mayor, and if that's true, I don't particularly care. I would guess that Nebraska has only a handful of abortion providers anyway, and that's not because of the mayor of Omaha.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Apr 21, 2017
    Ghost likes this.
  10. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 6
    Any Democrat who criticizes Sanders for campaigning for Mello but applauded Hillary's selection of Kaine really needs to look at their self in a mirror.
  11. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 9
    Fixed.
    Abadacus, Scapro Tyler and Darth Guy like this.
  12. Valairy Scot Backpacking One Pack a Day Mod of New Films

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 6
    Ender IS somewhat right in general terms - do NOT jump on me until you finish reading - that, "Given insurance is all about ensuring risk, I'm not sure why charging people more for PECs is controversial."

    Insurance is all about separating people into different risk pools. Those who ignore traffic laws and get into accidents or get multipltickets get grouped with other like folks, and so forth.

    BUT - once we get practically everyone insured and thus end up with a huge insurance pool, we can't stoop IMHO to treating the vast majority of health issues as something the individual can control. A driver can choose to stop for lights, drive the speed limit, etc. A person usually cannot choose to get sick/injured or avoid sickness/injury.

    One *might* make a case for a surcharge for certain behaviors leading to a surcharge in premiums charged. Before the ACA, my health insurer gave credits for wearing a seatbelt, not smoking, etc. - all behaviors I can choose to engage in or not.

    Thus I believe health insurance needs to be treated somewhat differently than Property and Casualty insurance (my field, by the way).
    Rew, Darth Nerdling, Jedi Ben and 3 others like this.
  13. slidewhistle Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2015
    star 2

    wow, bros have discovered pragmatism now that there's a chance to sell out women, who could've seen that coming
  14. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Nope, not me. You must be thinking of someone else.

    But did you just seriously equate the act of not releasing a copy of a tax return or establishing an offshore investment vehicle to inhuman torture? You just Spicer'ed yourself!

    [IMG]

    But it kind of proves my point about how people give an unhealthy focus to mundane financial documents. I guess in a nutshell, my point would still be "dude, it's just a tax return."
    Last edited by Mr44, Apr 21, 2017
  15. Violent Violet Menace JCC bureaucrat

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 5
    He wasn't equating the two actions. He was comparing two identical responses in crafting excuses; the infamous "but what they're doing is worse" or "but they do it too" response. The comparison was in the line of argument, not the thing that is being excused.
    Last edited by Violent Violet Menace, Apr 21, 2017
  16. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Really? No kidding. Oh well, that changes everything.

    But if you were following the overall point, no one cares about the actual financial product Cameron set up. That doesn't matter. However, E_S's justification for Cameron was that absent of any illegal activity, there were plenty of legitimate reasons as to why Cameron did what he did based on financial realities, so while it looked bad, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. I agree with that point, and I agree with the rational analysis in the face of a PR based incident.

    It just doesn't become more valid for one and less valid for another based on liking one and not the other.

    The problem with your above point is that based on equivalence, what Cameron did was much worse (going outside of Britain while British PM to avoid detection in order to use a South American law firm to set up secret offshore holding companies) vs Trump (officially filing his tax returns with the proper agency per the requirement of the law, but simply not releasing the information to the public per the spirit of tradition)
    Last edited by Mr44, Apr 22, 2017
  17. Violent Violet Menace JCC bureaucrat

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 5
    You're the one who was asking "are you seriously equating" this and that with an overdramatic self-righteous tone, and when I simply reply that, no, he wasn't, I'm the dumbass?

    If it's a stupid question, why did you ask it? By your own admission it isn't pertinent to anything.
    Last edited by Violent Violet Menace, Apr 22, 2017
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't know. You said it, not me. I try to avoid labels.

    I guess that's the risk of interjecting one's self into the middle of an exchange?
    Last edited by Mr44, Apr 22, 2017
  19. Violent Violet Menace JCC bureaucrat

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 5
    The better question is why you ask questions that you admit don't amount to anything. Your sarcasm is better directed at yourself, since you asked it in the first place. If you don't want stupid answers, maybe you shouldn't ask stupid questions.
    Last edited by Violent Violet Menace, Apr 22, 2017
    Darth Nerdling and Healer_Leona like this.
  20. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Come now, VVM. There are no stupid questions.

    Just a lot of inquisitive idiots.

    (Full disclosure--I borrowed that line from a demotivator poster)
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Apr 22, 2017
    gezvader28 likes this.
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 9
    Well, I think this deserves a multi-faceted reply. The first point is that the ACA does not forbid segregating into separate risk pools or making such assessments. Instead, it tries to organize those groupings in a way that will have the least impact on customer access to healthcare. In particular, individual assessments are replaced with community ratings. If you offer insurance in an area with high levels of endemic heart disease, diabetes, or other conditions, it is perfectly legal to charge more for health insurance there than in areas where everyone is relatively healthy, long-lived, and doesn't much utilize healthcare. This allows insurance companies to build a sustainable financial model and recoup the losses of covering a few particularly ill individuals. One may not, however, single out people for exorbitant rates relative to their next door neighbors, based on their health.

    This brings us to the second point, which requires an appreciation of the pre-ACA condition in the United States. Especially on the individual insurance market, those with pre-existing conditions were either uninsurable or had huge holes in their coverage. This created a perverse incentive for people to avoid receiving diagnoses that could make them more difficult to insure in the future, even if those diagnoses were imminently treatable if addressed early on. Further, uncapping rate differentials would allow insurance companies to regress to something like the prior status quo. While not technically denying someone coverage for a pre-existing condition, they could charge so much that no one with said condition could actually afford it. There's no clear reason for them not to do this, from a profit-making perspective. In a model like the US, where health insurance is a prerequisite to meaningful access to healthcare, that would be disastrous from a policy standpoint.
  22. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 10

    There's one in the city and one nearby. But Nebraska is pretty red most of the time. Seldom will it swing too far to the left.
  23. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    This.

    To this day, the fact that I have had Crohn's disease for the past 33 years disqualifies me from every life insurance plan I've ever applied to. Going back to that standard for health care coverage will be nothing less than catastrophic in the long run. Insurers won't even look past what's written on your history. By all other metrics, I am very healthy--low blood pressure, physically active, thin, low cholesterol. But none of that matters. Like being convicted of a crime, a pre-existing condition follows you for life.

    Is that the type of society America wants to be? I'm hoping no. I used to be against single-payer, now I'm strongly in support. Health care is a moral right, and should not be subject to the same degree of rampant profiteering that dominates almost every other aspect of American society.

    It's amazing what being in the real world and fear of bankruptcy can do to your political views. That and having a family to care for (and worry about).
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Apr 22, 2017
  24. Yodaminch Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 6
    Well, Trump is well on his way to ending his 100 days with a government shutdown. Still a chance that doesn't happen, but of course he isn't making things easier by holding healthcare hostage and insisting on funds for his stupid wall. While it sounds like the White House won't risk a shutdown over the wall, Trump's not exactly the most rational or consistent person. And I fear his threat to healthcare is far more likely to be what tanks these talks.
    Last edited by Yodaminch, Apr 22, 2017
  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    "Wall or healthcare: you decide." The campaign ads for next year will almost write themselves.

    Shut it down, guys. Please. Shut it down.