Fact Check: Premiums will rise under Obamacare

[MASSACHUSETTS!]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check

Quick Obama - send Rahm and Axelrod after these punks! How dare they tell the truth!:rolleyes:

Also this:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

But you keep going Libtards! Stay the course, and fuck the country up.

Don't you love how Obama throws around these numbers like a drug dealer?

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

[I Love America]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check

Quick Obama - send Rahm and Axelrod after these punks! How dare they tell the truth!:rolleyes:

Also this:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

But you keep going Libtards! Stay the course, and fuck the country up.

Don't you love how Obama throws around these numbers like a drug dealer?

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

The truth is that he is hoping employers drop people from their health insurance. You see, the fine that an employer has to pay is miniscule compared to paying health insurance. And to top it off, it will be a fixed expense vs. a variable expense that is going to go up every year.

So when employers start dropping people, Odummy will be there saying "See, your employer is fucking you over, that is why you need me. I won't fuck you over, I care about you so much I am willing to take money from one individual in society and give it to you". He won't tell you that he incentivized them to do so.

Also, I love how the libtardiots here try to demonize the insurance companies, but say nothing about the $316 subsidy Odummy is about to give them.

It is clear to anyone paying attention that Odummy will say AND do anything to get his way. Stalin and Mao would be proud.

Imagine if Bush had done this to ram social security reform through?

[Rush's Anal Boil]

Hey Dumbasses!

How much would the premiums increase WITHOUT comprehensive reform?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yooo hoooooooo!

[I Love America]

Hey Dumbasses!

How much would the premiums increase WITHOUT comprehensive reform?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yooo hoooooooo!


First thank you for conceding that your boy's plan does nothing to bring down premiums. We appreciate that.

Secondly, I have said all along that the way we pay for healthcare in this country needs to be reformed. What I object to is having the federal gobblement, which fucked it up in the first place try to fix it.


Everything that is wrong with the way we pay for healthcare can be traced directly back to the federal gobblement.

[MASSACHUSETTS!]

Hey Dumbasses!

How much would the premiums increase WITHOUT comprehensive reform?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yooo hoooooooo!

Not really sure, and that isn't really the government's concern now is it?

BTW: What is the avarage profit in terms of % that an insurance company actually makes? Anyone? Yoo hooooo!

[The Federalist]

Not really sure, and that isn't really the government's concern now is it?

BTW: What is the avarage profit in terms of % that an insurance company actually makes? Anyone? Yoo hooooo!

Wouldn't matter to them..they think profits are the devil.

[wink]

Premiums will go UP not down.

Obama lies!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/health-premiums-rise-obamas-plan/

[Rush's Anal Boil]

First thank you for conceding that your boy's plan does nothing to bring down premiums. We appreciate that.

Secondly, I have said all along that the way we pay for healthcare in this country needs to be reformed. What I object to is having the federal gobblement, which fucked it up in the first place try to fix it.


Everything that is wrong with the way we pay for healthcare can be traced directly back to the federal gobblement.


Answer the damn question....how much would premiums rise without reform?


First of all, premiums would go down in some instances because you are bringing younger and healthier people into the pool.

Even the idiots own link says so:

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

Secondly, the cost one is paying for private insurance could go down 30% if we just outlawed insurance companies. Overhead and profit does nothing towards DELIVERING healthcare.

Even if the govt got out of it....they would still charge that as overhead. Why should I put money in Aetna coffers because I get a check up. What did they do to diagnose and treat? Their incentives are to undertreat and deny care.....Death panels for proft!

[I Love America]

Answer the damn question....how much would premiums rise without reform?

You are being ridiculous and you know it. If nothing is done, premiums are sure to rise because gobblement intervention in the free market has distorted that market and driven up costs. It is a fact.

First of all, premiums would go down in some instances because you are bringing younger and healthier people into the pool.

Even the idiots own link says so:

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

Secondly, the cost one is paying for private insurance could go down 30% if we just outlawed insurance companies. Overhead and profit does nothing towards DELIVERING healthcare.

Whether you wanted to or not, you just told us with this statement the entire motivation of you and your party. You want to outlaw insurance companies. You want everything to be single payer and you think that this is the easiest way to get there. This plan will eventually put them out of business. This plan destroys whatever free market that might be left in healthcare. Hey dickwad, you do realize that physicians have overhead and profit. Every business has overhead and profit. Even hospitals. Apparently you have ZERO business education otherwise you wouldn't make such a silly statement. And to say that the gobblement does not have overhead is to suspend disbelief beyond all reasonable measure. I have proven you wrong on this fact once before and I can do it again.

Even if the govt got out of it....they would still charge that as overhead. Why should I put money in Aetna coffers because I get a check up. What did they do to diagnose and treat? Their incentives are to undertreat and deny care.....Death panels for proft!

Again, you unwittingly prove my point yet again. What the fuck kind of methhead, shithook are you that thinks a check up should be covered by insurance? In that one sentence you have highlighted one of the major problems with how we pay for healthcare in this country. Insurance should not cover check ups. That isn't what insurance is for. It isn't the definition of insurance. The insurance company shouldn't even be involved with it.

Think about this shithook. You have homeowners insurance dontcha? What does it cover? A tree falling down? Fire? It covers catastrophic events. That is it. Now imagine what your homeowners insurance would cost if the gobblement forced them to cover getting your gutters replace, or a new roof every 10 years, or restaining your deck, etc., etc., etc.,.

The same principle applies to healthcare. Medical insurance should only cover that which could potentially bankrupt you such as cancer, heart attack etc. Not your fucking checkup. Pay cash for that and you would remove the insurance company from the equation.

You know if you would actually educate yourself on basic economic principles and think outside of your partisan box, you might get somewhere.

But, don't worry, I am happy to school your ignant ass on these issues.



;)

[Rush's Anal Boil]

Premiums will go UP not down.

Obama lies!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/health-premiums-rise-obamas-plan/

FoxNews?

snicker.....snicker......

[I Love America]

FoxNews?

snicker.....snicker......


From the guy who uses MediaMatters as a source? Really? Really?


snicker.....snicker...cough....cough.....snicker.. ...snicker

[Rush's Anal Boil]

;)

1. You didnt answer the question. Will premiums rise FASTER without reforms or SLOWER with them?

2. You are right. Single payer is the least costly but I know its not politically feasable. Its call compromise.:) But look where it IS tried around the world. The cost per capita is a lot lower and they cover everybody.

Now, of course doctors and hospitals have overhead. That is factored in their price. THEY DELIVER care....Aetna and Wellpoint does not. Not only that, the doctors now must ad the overhead for someone to fill out forms and call the death panels for profit in order to get approval to PERFORM the delivery of care they deem necessary. Thanks for proving my point, dumbass.


3. There is a difference between homeowners insurance and health insurance. You dont have to have insurance if you dont have a mortgage. You can self fund for any catastrophic losses because they are deemed fairly predictable and stable. Health is NOT. Homeowners insurance is capped at the value of the home and its contents......What you are advoacting is that coming down with disease is your tough luck if you cannot pay for it. Too bad if you develop MS at age 30 or get cancer.

Also, what other countries have is "well care" versus our "sick care". Treating disease early has proven to be less costly in the long run. If someone without insurance fails to manage their diabetes or hypertension, YOU will eventually bear to cost of that limb amputation and dialysis in addition to their payments for disablity.

But if you think that health insurance premiums would go down if it only covered big ticket diseases, you are the one that needs an education. Go look up the term "adverse selection" and "insurance death spiral". Unless you are talking about a "madate".

Your lesson is free this time. The next round is a big slap upside your skull.

[I Love America]

1. You didnt answer the question. Will premiums rise FASTER without reforms or SLOWER with them?

The answer is I don't know and neither do you. If you claim to know, then you are full of shit. Like I said, I do not oppose reform, I just oppose the gobblement controlling healthcare.

2. You are right. Single payer is the least costly but I know its not politically feasable. Its call compromise.:) But look where it IS tried around the world. The cost per capita is a lot lower and they cover everybody.

What they are doing isn't compromise. It is bait and switch and you know it and the American people are catching on which is why they can't pass it. The cost per capita is lower because they RESTRICT the healthcare you can get. I have said all along that as long as you expect someone else to foot your healthcare bill then you will have it rationed. You think I am a supporter of the present system. I am not.

Now, of course doctors and hospitals have overhead. That is factored in their price. THEY DELIVER care....Aetna and Wellpoint does not. Not only that, the doctors now must ad the overhead for someone to fill out forms and call the death panels for profit in order to get approval to PERFORM the delivery of care they deem necessary. Thanks for proving my point, dumbass.

Are you implying that Medicare and Medicaid don't have forms and hoops for physicians to jump through? Are you?


3. There is a difference between homeowners insurance and health insurance. You dont have to have insurance if you dont have a mortgage. You can self fund for any catastrophic losses because they are deemed fairly predictable and stable. Health is NOT. Homeowners insurance is capped at the value of the home and its contents......What you are advoacting is that coming down with disease is your tough luck if you cannot pay for it. Too bad if you develop MS at age 30 or get cancer.

If you can self fund the replacement of your $500,000 home, surely you can self fund your healthcare now can't you? There is nothing predictable or stable about whether or not you will lose your home. It is unpredictable which is why insurance is necessary. Insurance is there to protect against unpredictable events. Homeowners is not capped at the value of the home. You can actually get a replacement value if you choose to pay for it. For example, your home may be worth $250,000 based on what you paid for it, but today it might cost $400,000 to rebuild it. You can insure for the $400,000. Look into it dumbass. Coming down with disease is no more tough luck than having your house burn down or a tornado rip the roof off. These are unpredictable events of life. You should be responsible for mitigating your own losses, not force your responsibility on the rest of us.

Also, what other countries have is "well care" versus our "sick care". Treating disease early has proven to be less costly in the long run.

No it hasn't. In fact just the opposite is true.

If someone without insurance fails to manage their diabetes or hypertension, YOU will eventually bear to cost of that limb amputation and dialysis in addition to their payments for disablity.

Another bullshit claim by you. People with those conditions fail to manage them WITH insurance as well. Insurance isn't a predictor of whether a patient will be compliant with their treatment regimen you dumbass. If you think so, then provide proof.


But if you think that health insurance premiums would go down if it only covered big ticket diseases, you are the one that needs an education. Go look up the term "adverse selection" and "insurance death spiral". Unless you are talking about a "madate".


The cost of health insurance would go down if the following things were done. Do away with state mandates of coverage. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Let people buy the health insurance coverage they want. The free market will do for healthcare what it did for computers. Notice how we now have better and faster computers that are cheaper than earlier versions? Cell phones? That is the free market at work and it can work for healthcare.

The bottom line is you want people dependent on the gobblement so facts and freedome are irrelevent to you.

Your lesson is free this time. The next round is a big slap upside your skull.


You have been owned yet again

[Rush's Anal Boil]

The answer is I don't know and neither do you. If you claim to know, then you are full of shit. Like I said, I do not oppose reform, I just oppose the gobblement controlling healthcare.


Funny, you didnt call the OP "full of shit" in starting this thread. No, its YOU that is full of shit.

What they are doing isn't compromise. It is bait and switch and you know it and the American people are catching on which is why they can't pass it. The cost per capita is lower because they RESTRICT the healthcare you can get. I have said all along that as long as you expect someone else to foot your healthcare bill then you will have it rationed. You think I am a supporter of the present system. I am not.

The cost per capita here is still higher AND we restrict care due to pre-existing conditions, coverage denial, and oppressive rate hikes....all for profit.

NEXT!


Are you implying that Medicare and Medicaid don't have forms and hoops for physicians to jump through? Are you?

I've never heard a doctor complain about this, but I have heard them complain about the endless calls for pre-auths, the different forms for all the insurance companies they have to deal with, and the delays in payments.

NEXT!


If you can self fund the replacement of your $500,000 home, surely you can self fund your healthcare now can't you? There is nothing predictable or stable about whether or not you will lose your home. It is unpredictable which is why insurance is necessary. Insurance is there to protect against unpredictable events. Homeowners is not capped at the value of the home. You can actually get a replacement value if you choose to pay for it. For example, your home may be worth $250,000 based on what you paid for it, but today it might cost $400,000 to rebuild it. You can insure for the $400,000. Look into it dumbass. Coming down with disease is no more tough luck than having your house burn down or a tornado rip the roof off. These are unpredictable events of life. You should be responsible for mitigating your own losses, not force your responsibility on the rest of us.



Oh, so you are telling me that Allstate will pay a homeowner who loses his home $750K for one that is worth $300K? Is that what you want me us to believe?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Whether you get a rider for "replacement cost" or not....the actual dollar amount for a "total loss" is CAPPED. Now, tell us what is the capped value of a human life?

I'm waiting.......


The cost of health insurance would go down if the following things were done. Do away with state mandates of coverage. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Let people buy the health insurance coverage they want. The free market will do for healthcare what it did for computers. Notice how we now have better and faster computers that are cheaper than earlier versions? Cell phones? That is the free market at work and it can work for healthcare.

The bottom line is you want people dependent on the gobblement so facts and freedome are irrelevent to you.

Are you still with that "across state lines" bullshit? I've disposed of that months ago. If you want to see how that worked out in PRACTICE ( not your wingnut talking points) just look at the banking industry. Notice how they all incorporate in Del and SD who deregulated in the 70's under the same premise. How did that work out for the consumer?

OWNED!