House pulls health care vote for second time

[Belk]

Is your sarcasm supposed to be your way of supporting your point of view?

Yes. It is my way of pointing out what appear to be rather glaring errors in your statement. How is requiring someone to buy a product going to result in it's collapse?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

View attachment 192264

How petty and lacking anything meaningful.

 

[Aldebaran]

I see. So the fundamental change to our health care system that will bring about it's demise is requiring people to have insurance so they can get health care? You seem to be using a different definition of "fundamental" then the one that I am used to.

You don't seem to understand how the insurance industry works, so I'll try explaining it to you.

Insurance companies stay in business by insuring those who are healthy, and they provide coverage for those people by basically betting that those people will pay in more than what they will take out. That covers the people who end up needing it. What those companies are now being forced to do is bet on everyone to stay healthy--including those who are already not healthy. That would be like a home insurance company being forced to insure people after their house catches on fire. It would be a loser of a business model, but that's what the health insurance companies are now forced to do. Small wonder that rates are going up.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. It is my way of pointing out what appear to be rather glaring errors in your statement. How is requiring someone to buy a product going to result in it's collapse?

If you ran a company that insured homeowners, would you want to insure someone's home after it has already burned down (pre-existing condition)? As a health insurance company, would you want to insure an overweight, drug-using, alcoholic who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day?

 

[Hank77]

point already made.

 

[Hank77]

Barbarian observes:
The republicans are the majority now. Like it or not, it's time for them to grow up and govern. And no, the democrats are not responsible for making sure they act like adults.



They didn't take any part in this. The republicans shut them out of the process. They just popped some popcorn and watched the slapstick ensue. They aren't responsible for keeping the republicans from acting like spoiled children.



You're a little confused. It wasn't the democrats who shut this fiasco down. It was the republicans, who couldn't even get their own house in order. They're too partisan to compromise, and too weak to govern.



The democrats were told they had no part to play in this one, so they just enjoyed the show.

Actually the Dems did offer some amendments but none of them were accepted by the Reps.
When the ACA bill was written something like 100 Rep. amendments were accepted by the Dems and written into the ACA bill.

 

[Belk]

You don't seem to understand how the insurance industry works, so I'll try explaining it to you.

I thought we were discussing the fundamental change to health care? So are we talking health care or insurance and which one is being fundamentally changed so that it collapses?

Insurance companies stay in business by insuring those who are healthy, and they provide coverage for those people by basically betting that those people will pay in more than what they will take out. That covers the people who end up needing it. What those companies are now being forced to do is bet on everyone to stay healthy--including those who are already not healthy. That would be like a home insurance company being forced to insure people after their house catches on fire. It would be a loser of a business model, but that's what the health insurance companies are now forced to do. Small wonder that rates are going up.

If the only people who are able to get health care are those who are already healthy that would seem to indicate a rather serious issue. However I am glad you explained this since it is rather different from my own understanding of insurance. My understanding is that people are put into risk pools where they pay a premium based on how likely they are to have health issues. The accountants at the insurance agencies use statistical modeling to try to keep the risk pool spread out so that they are paying out less money then they take in. They then take the extra money as profit. So if they were going to need to worry about greater expenses because they are no longer refusing to pay for the people who have pre existing conditions they would need a pool of healthy people paying in to the system to cover the extra expense. Does that agree with your understanding?

 

[Belk]

If you ran a company that insured homeowners, would you want to insure someone's home after it has already burned down (pre-existing condition)? As a health insurance company, would you want to insure an overweight, drug-using, alcoholic who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day?

Nope. I would want to ensure only people who were and remained healthy so that I could keep all the money. However, that seems rather problematic if the problem you are trying to solve is how to get help for the people who are sick.

 

[Nithavela]

You don't seem to understand how the insurance industry works, so I'll try explaining it to you.

Insurance companies stay in business by insuring those who are healthy, and they provide coverage for those people by basically betting that those people will pay in more than what they will take out. That covers the people who end up needing it. What those companies are now being forced to do is bet on everyone to stay healthy--including those who are already not healthy. That would be like a home insurance company being forced to insure people after their house catches on fire. It would be a loser of a business model, but that's what the health insurance companies are now forced to do. Small wonder that rates are going up.

It would be far better if those already sick would be left to die.

 

[Nithavela]

Nope. I would want to ensure only people who were and remained healthy so that I could keep all the money. However, that seems rather problematic if the problem you are trying to solve is how to get help for the people who are sick.

What kind of barbaric society has such a goal?

 

[The Barbarian]

When the ACA bill was written something like 100 Rep. amendments were accepted by the Dems and written into the ACA bill.

Yes, but then the ACA actually got republican votes. The republicans seem to be puzzled as to why democrats didn't vote for their bill, just because they didn't give them any say at all as to what was in it.

Go figure.

 

[Hank77]

opps

 

[Aldebaran]

If the only people who are able to get health care are those who are already healthy that would seem to indicate a rather serious issue. However I am glad you explained this since it is rather different from my own understanding of insurance. My understanding is that people are put into risk pools where they pay a premium based on how likely they are to have health issues. The accountants at the insurance agencies use statistical modeling to try to keep the risk pool spread out so that they are paying out less money then they take in. They then take the extra money as profit. So if they were going to need to worry about greater expenses because they are no longer refusing to pay for the people who have pre existing conditions they would need a pool of healthy people paying in to the system to cover the extra expense. Does that agree with your understanding?

You pretty much said the same thing as I did, using different words.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nope. I would want to ensure only people who were and remained healthy so that I could keep all the money. However, that seems rather problematic if the problem you are trying to solve is how to get help for the people who are sick.

I take it by your continued sarcasm that you as an insurer would have no problem being forced to cover a house that was already burned down so that you wouldn't be seen as someone who wanted to "keep all the money". News flash: We're talking about insurance, not charities.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, but then the ACA actually got republican votes. The republicans seem to be puzzled as to why democrats didn't vote for their bill, just because they didn't give them any say at all as to what was in it.

Go figure.

I think the Republicans should have kept everyone in the dark about what their version of the replacement plan contained. Then they could have had at least one democrat's vote (Pelosi) by simply stating that they need to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it.

 

[Belk]

What kind of barbaric society has such a goal?

A pure market driven one. One we have not had in hundreds of years.

 

[Belk]

You pretty much said the same thing as I did, using different words.

So, are we talking a fundamental change in health care or insurance? Lets be clear about what we are discussing.


Then we agree. so why would the ACA be designed to fail if the goal is to insure a bunch of young healthy people to balance out those with pre-existing conditions?

 

[Belk]

I take it by your continued sarcasm that you as an insurer would have no problem being forced to cover a house that was already burned down so that you wouldn't be seen as someone who wanted to "keep all the money". News flash: We're talking about insurance, not charities.

I am in no way being sarcastic. The goal of the insurance company is to make money. The best way for them to do that is to take money in but pay little out. However that is not the same as the goal society has which is to help sick people get well. Therefore there has to be a balance between these two goals if this is to function. So, if your claim is correct that the ACA is causing insurance to go out of business we should see that reflected in the amount of money they are making. I admit that I have not checked lately but I presume that we are not seeing lots of failing insurance agencies? This would indicate to me that the ACA is not destroying the market.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think the Republicans should have kept everyone in the dark about what their version of the replacement plan contained. Then they could have had at least one democrat's vote (Pelosi) by simply stating that they need to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it.

You do know that "quote" was actually a fake, right? It's not what she said.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Will they be laughing once Obamacare finally does implode? After all, it's not going to be Ryancare or Trumpcare anymore. It still has the former prez's name on it.

Actually if they don't improve it. It would look bad for the republicans. Since they aren't trying to work to improve it. Also the majority of people in the congress are republicans. So this is no longer just democrat problem.. A few votes to change the title and make it so bad, the even republicans voted against it. Is completely is nothing. They need to do their job and try to improve it.