Colorado health insurers seek 27 percent premium increase in individual market

[jg121783 3,921]

3 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Under the new proposed plan, your wife will probably lose what coverage she has, or have her benefits heavily curtailed, for the simple reason, private health insurance must follow the same unfair rules any other insurance policy is predicated. If you're an alcoholic, your car insurance company will drop you, and you will have to pay an astronomical premium to get insured again. If your credit is bad. money will cost you more than for those whose credit score is good, or you'll be denied credit altogether. Insurance companies are in the business of betting and gambling against risk, and as a business, their first and foremost concern is with their stock holders. They are no different than any other company, that's in the market to make money.

 

What is bad and wrong with the ACA is that it didn't go far enough. The dems balked at the 11th hour and signed a half baked bill, that was meant to appease the GOP. Their plan should have ended up with a single-payer system, backed by the government, which incidentally happens to be you and me, and everyone else. 

 

Left to the private companies, health insurance and health care will forever be rationed - if you can pay you get it, otherwise you don't, or you end up in some county hospital, receiving care when they can provide it, which si not always. There is a reason the armed forces are not privatized, and it's because when you go to war, you're not thinking about ROI, balance sheets, and income statements. The same principle should apply to health care.

 

Ironically, it's those of us who can pay, and who do have insurance who tend to see the benefit of everyone having it, while those who don't are the staunchest defender of the insurance companies, who shun at their economic and social predicament. Bridges for sale. Everywhere.

 

 

Left to the government health care will also forever be rationed. Look at any country that has socialized health care and tell me health care is not rationed in these countries.

[OriZ 3,165]

5 hours ago, IAMX said:

Ouch.

Ouch is right, quite literally.

 

4 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Under the new proposed plan, your wife will probably lose what coverage she has, or have her benefits heavily curtailed, for the simple reason, private health insurance must follow the same unfair rules any other insurance policy is predicated. If you're an alcoholic, your car insurance company will drop you, and you will have to pay an astronomical premium to get insured again. If your credit is bad. money will cost you more than for those whose credit score is good, or you'll be denied credit altogether. Insurance companies are in the business of betting and gambling against risk, and as a business, their first and foremost concern is with their stock holders. They are no different than any other company, that's in the market to make money.

 

What is bad and wrong with the ACA is that it didn't go far enough. The dems balked at the 11th hour and signed a half baked bill, that was meant to appease the GOP. Their plan should have ended up with a single-payer system, backed by the government, which incidentally happens to be you and me, and everyone else. 

 

Left to the private companies, health insurance and health care will forever be rationed - if you can pay you get it, otherwise you don't, or you end up in some county hospital, receiving care when they can provide it, which si not always. There is a reason the armed forces are not privatized, and it's because when you go to war, you're not thinking about ROI, balance sheets, and income statements. The same principle should apply to health care.

 

Ironically, it's those of us who can pay, and who do have insurance who tend to see the benefit of everyone having it, while those who don't are the staunchest defender of the insurance companies, who shun at their economic and social predicament. Bridges for sale. Everywhere.

 

 

I don't support the GOP plan either. I think there are much better ways even without going single payer than anything I've seen proposed so far(but that's a discussion we've had many times). Regardless as I've said before - to me single payer while two words, can mean literally a million different things. I mean look at all the differences between government subsidized health care in all different countries, it's all done differently. So for me to outright support a plan I'll need to see the nitty gritty details of what it actually practically is going to be in this particular situation. Just saying "single payer" is just too vague for me.

[Boiler 47,526]

Just look at what is available in the UK and Europe, all can be described as single payer all are very different.

[bcking 3,157]

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Left to the government health care will also forever be rationed. Look at any country that has socialized health care and tell me health care is not rationed in these countries.

The difference is how it is rationed.

 

Need based or Pay based.

 

I'd pick need based 

[jg121783 3,921]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

The difference is how it is rationed.

 

Need based or Pay based.

 

I'd pick need based 

Except many governments who have socialized health care don't ration based on need. Also there is really no need to ration at all.

Edited July 16, 2017 by jg121783

[Boiler 47,526]

My forst experience was a guy who crashed on his bike and was adamant nobody called the Ambulance, rationing?

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Except many governments who have socialized health care don't ration based on need. Also there is really no need to ration at all.

1. Examples?

2. Unfortunately there is. Even if you eliminate all the "waste" in healthcare, we would still spend far more than other countries because we do more. Most couldn't afford that. Even we can't afford that.

[IAMX 3,055]

I think it's indicative of a problem due to all the debt people have amassed with healthcare bills. Morally and economically, how is this okay? One of my sisters would be in debt millions for the numerous bone marrows, chemo treatments, immunosuppression treatments, and so on.. if it were not for government stepping in. Of course, being a little bit on the dead side she obviously can't owe anything. I mean, I see things partially from a Darwinistic perspective too.. but if we even want to think selfishly, sick and unhealthy (mentally and physically) people aren't very productive. Healthy and happy people, on the other hand, are. At the same time I think it would be silly to pit the US's problems all on this. There's many different facets at work that make what should be a simple fix a rather complicated one. I gotta say though the populace does itself little favors with absolutely uncompromising views on something that isn't spelled out with any clarity by the Constitution.

Edited July 16, 2017 by IAMX

[JimandChristy 1,689]

23 hours ago, IAMX said:

My youngest sister who beat leukemia had 3 private insurances, two through her step-dad, who worked for NASA, all three insurers denied her coverage for her last bone marrow transplant. It was decided by cancer specialists that time was the best to get it done while she was healthy rather than dramatically increasing the risk of having it done while she was having yet another relapse. With all three insurers denying her coverage due to her pre-existing condition of cancer, it was ultimately the state of California that covered her and the wonderful people at UCSFMC (University of California, San Francisco Medical Center) who aided her in killing off that cancer completely, along with defeating numerous other cancers prior. The insurance industry is a farce, and completely counterproductive to the idea of a healthy and productive society.

Wow I'm in agreement! 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

8 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Left to the government health care will also forever be rationed. Look at any country that has socialized health care and tell me health care is not rationed in these countries.

Rationed seems to work better than for profit. In these rationed countries, they are getting far better health outcomes for half the price! With what the US spends on healthcare it should have the best health outcomes of any country in the world.

[Dashinka 25,899]

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Rationed seems to work better than for profit. In these rationed countries, they are getting far better health outcomes for half the price! With what the US spends on healthcare it should have the best health outcomes of any country in the world.

Rationed socialized medicine works really well for healthy people.  For those that are sick and need immediate care, the wait times may be a bit more than they can take.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Rationed socialized medicine works really well for healthy people.  For those that are sick and need immediate care, the wait times may be a bit more than they can take.

Well those on a waiting list are non emergency. Their lives are in no danger, the majority of the population only needs primary care and this is where the USA sucks badly.

[Dashinka 25,899]

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Well those on a waiting list are non emergency. Their lives are in no danger, the majority of the population only needs primary care and this is where the USA sucks badly.

Isn't that what is wrong with the ACA that those people who are healthy and don't think they are in need of primary care aren't willing to pay for it?

[JimandChristy 1,689]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that what is wrong with the ACA that those people who are healthy and don't think they are in need of primary care aren't willing to pay for it?

Agree, the ACA had good intentions but it didn't go far enough. Everyone needs to chip in for it to work. 

[IAMX 3,055]

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that what is wrong with the ACA that those people who are healthy and don't think they are in need of primary care aren't willing to pay for it?

I appreciate the freedom for one to deny themselves the access to preventable care, but when they undoubtedly need more serious care that winds up far more expensive, there's no cases where one can be denied treatment for such actions.. it would fly in the face of everything medical care stands for. Would be highly illegal.

 

As medical advances continue to evolve, we are heading for more real-time preventative and diagnostic approach, as it's consistent with extending lifespan and life quality. This is not consistent with those who simply wish to gamble. They are a societal burden either way whether they wish to put it off until something serious occurs later or whether they get preventative care done.

 

As much as I would like to take us back to the days where we directly negotiated with the people that provided medical services for us, people want more laws and such that dictate how healthcare is run and provided. The idea of leaving this to the invisible hand is increasingly becoming unrealistic. What's being done instead is a hybridized version, as in the insurance industry we have now, which is far worse than universal, far more detrimental to society, and horrific for fiscal sensibility. 

 

The left wish to, for some reason, defend Obamacare, merely because it has a couple sensible laws, but overall contributes nothing to making healthcare overall more reasonable. As usual, a road to hell paved with good intentions.