Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(03-11-2013 11:44 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Because I am not a fucking car Frank!

Insurance is damn near the most convoluted purchase one makes. It is exorbitantly expensive. Our entire system is only viable for people skilled enough/lucky enough/or sheep enough to have a 40hr per week job with good benefits (and that also means that you are stuck with what your greedy corporate overlords in HR decide you get) that take advantage of bulk purchasing to lower rates. When you ensure a vehicle and then stick it in a garage for 5 years because you move to the city it can be insured once more but if you loose your job and lapse for even a month with medical insurance your next insurer will shaft you so hard at any opportunity to deny you coverage that it's mind boggling.

How about because if you get cancer your insurer might decided that the radiation is too expensive so you need to pick between it and chemo. Not to mention fucked up rules about when you can see a doctor, sick vs. well visits (I had to have a sick visit in order to switch doctors).

Because if you don't buy insurance treatments for cancer or lifetime prescriptions will have you shit broke with a reverse mortgage before you even get to retirement...and even if you do have it you'll probably have to load up your credit card and then fight a court battle to get covered.

How about because without reform we continue to go about providing emergency room care for the poor, forced to use the ER as their only source of care, the same hospitals billing your insurance $32 for a box of tissues. It has been proven in studies that caring for chronic patients early and outside of the ER saves millions and millions of dollars.

Or how about because I'm genetically predisposed to give a shit about other human beings rather than watch them starve while some eat up whole herds. Because I don't want to live in a fucked up Ayn-Rand-ian distopia and I understand that The Affordable Care Act is a step closer to that goal even if it is still a giant fucking blowjob for big pharma/ins/medical.

Ohh and BTW your favorite country Switzerland has, you guessed it, the same type of compulsory, part private, part corporate healthcare!

PS. Obama didn't lie, private insurers eliminated or changed those plans. Would you rather have had the "big bawd gubbermint" force those sovereign and holy corporations to offer the same plans?

A more honest way to increase the numbers of people with insurance would be to provide direct assistance to those that actually need it. This ACA scheme is not transparent in how it shifts costs .

P.S. Obama lied. No doubt about it. Even multiple, notable liberals have acknowledged this. Plans were grandfathered only if their costs changed no more than $5. And adding anything that is required under ACA is itself a change in the plan, which if the plan cannot charge for the additional coverage means that the company has no choice but to terminate these plans. The requirements for allowance of grandfathering plans were set so impossibly high that there are no plans that could qualify for grandfathering. This was by design, and as reported by NBC, the Obama admin knew/predicted that millions would lose their plans. Fact checking sites, like the Washington Post, have rated this claim of Obama's the highest rating of dishonesty on their scale (four Pinocchios ):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...alth-plan/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
04-11-2013, 12:48 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
And again I say, I would prefer if we had universal healthcare like all the other smart countries (some of whom still pay less taxes than us).

@BryanS I know the website sucks, love, but they will get it figured out eventually. I don't actually have to pay for my insurance because we are covered under my ex-husband's insurance, but if he switched it looks like he would pay like $4,000 more a year. I have read stories of people who would save money too. I'm not really sure what the deal is with who would save and who would pay more. Then we have states like Ga who refuse to expand Medicaid which I think is ridiculous.
I mean, I'm with you, love, I think the ACA sucks, but it is the best thing we have got for now.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 06:06 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
[Image: agJIP.gif]

Me seeing americans complaining about something that allows many people to get healthcare they otherwise wouldnt be able to afford.

You guys need socialised healthcare already. Cut out the insurance cunts completly.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
04-11-2013, 06:39 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Regular check-ups are part of managing risk. Detecting a disease or condition early can reduce the overall cost of treatment.

This was the calculation on which HMOs were based.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 07:07 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(03-11-2013 08:06 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Insurance has been around for hundreds of years, most people ultimately buy insurance at one point in their lives, and the definition is so simple it can be summed in 2 short sentences:

From wikipedia: Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Car insurance (comp & coll) covers your car in the event of an accident or natural disaster, because those are RISKS, and we pay a premium (insurance) to manage that risk. Car insurance does NOT cover oil changes, tires and brakes. There is NO RISK with those expense. You KNOW in advance that you're going to incur them. Sure, companies will sell plans that cover them. But they are NOT insurance plans. They are maintenance plans.

Health insurance is no different. Like all insurance, it is a way to manage risk--the risk that maybe you'll be unfortunate and get cancer or get hit by a bus and be faced with major bills. When companies like Blue Cross cover planned, predictable expenses like routine checkups, it is NOT insurance! There is no risk, and the management of risk IS the very definition of insurance. Rather it is a maintenance plan, just like the car maintenance plan that covers oil changes, tires and brakes.

So when you listen to people like Obama and many on this forum say that Obamacare mandates everyone buy "health insurance", you have to ask yourself, "Since they don't even know what health insurance is, can we REALLY rely on their opinion of it?" Obamcare makes it illegal to get health insurance, and it mandates everyone buy a health maintenance plan instead.

Next ask financial advisers if maintenance plans are a good value. Anybody who understands the system will say "No, they're a rip off for suckers. It's stupid to pay a middle-man a premium to cover what is a predictable expense". Heck, Best Buy trains their sales people to always offer "maintenance plans" and provides very generous commissions on them, and they can get in trouble if they don't sell any. Why? Because it's pure profit. It's a sucker plan, where a fool and is his money are soon parted. In another post I provided a spreadsheet proving that health maintenance plans are just as much a rip off and will cost the average man at least $1 million over the course of his life.

Why is this concept so complicated for the self-proclaimed liberals to understand? Why can't get their heads around the difference between health insurance (which has value as it's a service to manage risk) vs. health maintenance plans (where you're paying a middle-man a premium to cover predictable expenses)?

Routine check-ups are just a fraction of the total health care costs. Most of
the costs are in unpredictable diseases, in other words true RISKS. Health
insurance is definitely an insurance. Anyway, you are just playing semantics here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(03-11-2013 10:38 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  My insurance covers toothbrushes for my kid

You're waving around a toothbrush saying “Look what I got for free”, and I'm saying “No, dummy, it wasn't free. And for what you paid for that toothbrush you could have bought a Bentley instead.”

The insurance company didn't pay for the toothbrush, because everything they pay for in claims they MORE than receive in premiums. And your employer didn't pay those premiums because empirical studies prove employer's look at total compensation costs—not salary—so that $1,000/month that your 'gold plan' costs is really coming out of your paycheck. Because the money changes hands so many times with so many middleman in between you and that toothbrush, you've forgotten that you actually paid for it. And, I've proven in my spreadsheet, you'll ultimately be paying millions for it.

Next time you see somebody driving around in a flashy car and think “Oh, he must be rich”, just remind yourself that you and he probably spend the same combined amount on toothbrushes+cars, you just put it all into your toothbrush, whereas he buys his toothbrush for $3 at the supermarket and puts the rest in his car.

(03-11-2013 11:20 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Maybe you should go to healthcare.gov, I bet you could get a cheaper plan with better coverage anyways.

I have. I'm one of the lucky ones that actually got the site to work. The cheapest plan on heathcare.gov is 5x MORE than what I was previously paying. But this isn't about me. I can afford it. This is about all the young people who are getting royally fucked and those who, instead of getting financially independent, will now be beholden to an insurance company their whole life.

(03-11-2013 11:44 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Insurance is damn near the most convoluted purchase one makes. It is exorbitantly expensive.

YES!!! And you should ask yourself 'why', because this indicates something is wrong with the system. See my comment above. You guys are thinking you're getting free stuff, when in fact there is no free lunch, and you're getting ripped off, but the money changed hands so many times you lost track of what it actually cost you. That's why it's so expensive.

(03-11-2013 11:44 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  How about because if you get cancer your insurer might decided that the radiation is too expensive so you need to pick between it and chemo. 

See my earlier post with the spreadsheet. Pre-Obamacare you could get BOTH if you wanted. Post-Obamacare you can only get what the insurance company is willing to pay for. Again, Obamacare is the opposite of what you think it is.

(03-11-2013 11:44 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Because if you don't buy insurance treatments for cancer or lifetime prescriptions will have you shit broke with a reverse mortgage before you even get to retirement...and even if you do have it you'll probably have to load up your credit card and then fight a court battle to get covered.

Nope. See my earlier spreadsheet. By cutting out all the middlemen you'll end up with millions and can pay off your house, even if you are so unlucky as to get cancer.

(03-11-2013 11:44 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  because I'm genetically predisposed to give a shit about other human beings

Maybe, but you're like a bull in a china shop oblivious that you're actually fucking over the human beings you say you care about. Remember, the Obama administration has already said the only way Obamacare works is to get healthy, young people who don't need any medical care to pay into the system. Young people, those just out of college, are the poorest in society, already squashed in student loans. It's not the rich or well off who pay for Obamacare. It's the poor. It's a “tax the poor” plan. If you REALLY gave a fuck about equality like you think you do, you'd be looking for a way to get the rich to pay more and relieve the burden on the young, poor, fresh out of college people struggling to make ends meet. Instead you're throwing the burden on the people who can least afford it. That is NOT compassion!!!

(04-11-2013 05:54 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Me seeing americans complaining about something that allows many people to get healthcare they otherwise wouldnt be able to afford.

Perhaps dyslexia got the better of you. It's the other way around. We're complaining about something that deprives millions of people healthcare which they used to be able to afford. We already pay more than any other country on health care, and get mediocre care at best, and we're complaining because this makes it even worse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
04-11-2013, 09:48 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 09:52 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Health insurance is atypical for insurance products for a number of reasons:
1. People are poor judges of their own likelihood of needing medical care, and the expense of medical care, making health insurance hard to price and determine value for. The complexity of what constitutes high quality medical care can easily be lost or made far too confusing up front and by the time you need to cover any shortfall you are in no position to pay for it.
2. The cost of health coverage is somewhat affected by chance, but over a lifetime the likelihood of requiring high standards of medical care are almost a certainty. You can't insure against a certainty.
3. The cost of health care increases as a function of age in a manner that prevents the average elderly person from being able to afford it. There needs to be some levelling out of the cost over a person's lifetime if we are to living a society where those who are most in need of medical care are able to obtain it.
4. The cost of health care disproportionately affects some individuals, such as those with a high needs disability, again typically beyond the average ability to pay

If we take as a basic principle that those with a need for medical care should, on the whole, be able to obtain it then we arrive at a funding model that is not a true insurance system. The funding model would lock in money from the young and healthy and transfer it either to others who are in greater need or to that same person later in life.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 09:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The funding model would lock in money from the young and healthy and transfer it either to others who are in greater need or to that same person later in life.

Do you accept the fact that people's incomes are generally lower earlier in life, when they're fresh out of college and just starting their career, vs. later in life when they've had decades to climb the ladder, save, invest in 401k's, etc.?

If so, then do you accept that what you just proposed is a transfer from poorer people to those who are better off?

Also, do you accept that if, instead, you could get young, healthy people to start learning the merits of saving and investing, then 40 years later when they're old and need medical care, they'll be financially independent and can deal with it? Thus by forcing them to, instead, give their would-be savings to insurance companies to subsidize care for older people, you are condemning them to a life of dependence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 09:06 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Perhaps dyslexia got the better of you. It's the other way around. We're complaining about something that deprives millions of people healthcare which they used to be able to afford. We already pay more than any other country on health care, and get mediocre care at best, and we're complaining because this makes it even worse.

So what happens is the people that can afford to pay for some insurance have to get insurance which means they are covered if they can't afford it they get subsidies towards it. Meaning more people are covered for their healthcare.
It prevents insurers from denying help for pre existing conditions... so tell me How are more people losing out on healthcare?

Seems like a much better system than the current one you have. Where if you can't afford insurance or have a pre-existing condition then tough luck enjoy your drastically reduced life.

Also nice job opening with mocking learning disabilities you must be a wonderful human being. Perhaps you should try reading something about the ACA instead of sucking up whatever spoon-fed bs fox news shits out.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
04-11-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 09:06 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:38 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  My insurance covers toothbrushes for my kid

You're waving around a toothbrush saying “Look what I got for free”, and I'm saying “No, dummy, it wasn't free. And for what you paid for that toothbrush you could have bought a Bentley instead.”

The insurance company didn't pay for the toothbrush, because everything they pay for in claims they MORE than receive in premiums. And your employer didn't pay those premiums because empirical studies prove employer's look at total compensation costs—not salary—so that $1,000/month that your 'gold plan' costs is really coming out of your paycheck. Because the money changes hands so many times with so many middleman in between you and that toothbrush, you've forgotten that you actually paid for it. And, I've proven in my spreadsheet, you'll ultimately be paying millions for it.

Next time you see somebody driving around in a flashy car and think “Oh, he must be rich”, just remind yourself that you and he probably spend the same combined amount on toothbrushes+cars, you just put it all into your toothbrush, whereas he buys his toothbrush for $3 at the supermarket and puts the rest in his car.

Lol bragging about my kids' free tooth brushes. Yea that is what I was doing for sure. I certainly wasn't trying to prove a point that regardless of your definition most insurance plans cover more things. The last time I checked my ex-husband has $97 a month taken out of his check for insurance. I guess in about 236 years he will have spent enough on insurance to pay for a Bentley....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: