• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is U.S. Sen. Baldwin right that more Americans are without health insurance?

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by tulc, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +13,366
    Christian
    Married
    Baldwin says more Americans are uninsured today
    tulc(thought this was interesting) :wave:
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi tulc,

    I imagine that's because the mandate was removed. Healthy young people and the poor, generally won't buy insurance if given a choice. The same thing would likely be found true in automobile insurance. There's a reason that there's a law that automobile drivers must carry PIP and liability insurance to protect others on the road. It is also true in homeowner's insurance. A lot of folks, when their home mortgage is paid off, don't continue their insurance coverage. South Florida experienced a lot of that in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. A lot of folks in south Miami-Dade county, who didn't have a mortgage, where the mortgagor required that they have homeowner's insurance as a part of their mortgage agreement, allowed it to lapse.

    So yes, I'm not surprised that the number of people without health insurance has risen. There was a reason that the ACA had the mandate that health insurance was required for everyone. First, because the people without it, if they did get injured or sick would generally run to the ER for care and rack up high bills and then just not pay them. There's a reason that doctor's offices require that you have health insurance or pay upfront for medical care. They know that once you're out of the building, if you don't have insurance, the chances of them recovering their fees drops precipitously.

    Secondly, requiring that everyone be insured lowers the cost, overall, for insuring those who are sick. That's the way that insurance works. All people in an insured class pay into the system whether they have any claims or not. One of the reasons that those with pre-existing conditions had such a hard time getting health insurance is because insurers, not having the healthy paying premiums, couldn't afford to take the risk that their coffers would be bled dry by just insuring the known sick.

    So, the ACA was a balancing act to try and provide insurance for everyone at the most reasonable cost. However, a nationalized health care program would reduce a lot of the costs of medical insurance. According to 2017 data, there were over 900 health insurance companies operating in the U.S. That's over 900 CEO's, CFO's and other highly paid professionals. That's over 900 actuarial and claims departments. Each one operating individually, but doing the same things. By nationalizing the system, just the costs reduced by not duplicating certain jobs within each separate company runs into the billions of dollars.

    Of course, health insurance companies don't want to just agree to put themselves pretty much out of business. Although, in Great Britain, private insurance does still operate within the NHS system. In fact, for high earners, the 'insurance tax' is actually bumped up a percentage or two in order to 'push' them out into the private market. I think that there are workable solutions to our health insurance problems and, just as President Obama said, the ACA was a starting point. Now, we can either improve that, which will likely be through some sort of nationalized system, or go back to where we came from. I believe that most Americans do not want to go back to where we came from. I think polling has shown that to be a fact. I also think that the difficulty that President Trump has had in tearing down the ACA also shows that such a plan isn't really very popular, even among those who are against the current system, but nothing better has been offered and so the ACA still stands.

    If we want to get rid of the ACA and make it something that the American people want, overall, then all we have to do is come up with a better plan.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  3. JIMINZ

    JIMINZ Well-Known Member

    +1,452
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    The problem I see with the ACA is, with all of the so called regulating that were supposed to happen in order for this thing to fly, the wings were clipped when the Medical Profession was not include, by lowering the Health Care Costs to the consumer.

    The Medical Professionals saw a way for them to make more money by raising their costs mainly because, Good Ole Uncle Sam was footing the Bill.

    The ACA is falling apart as we speak, but Medical Prices and Pharmaceuticals just keep on getting higher and higher.

    I am on a fixed income, which is way below the poverty line, thank God I am not sick, and have not had to go to a Doctor of any kind for any reason for over 40 years......And just like miamited said I can't afford it, soooooo I ain't goin to buy it, it's that simple.

    When it's Insurance or Food, I will opt for Food every time.
     
  4. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,228
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    There is a problem of the voters requesting more coverage, up to infinity.
    For example in California voters have voted that they can write laws themselves to vote on.

    For example...don't we all deserve helicopter rides to the hospital?
    It saves lives.
    Don't we all deserve stomach bypass operations? It saves lives.
    Don't we all have a right to complete dna sequencing for every person?
     
  5. Redwingfan9

    Redwingfan9 Member

    168
    +136
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    The problem with Obamacare is that it over regulated insurance policies which has created astronomical prices such that no one wants to buy in. There are people out there would be willing to pay $2k a year for coverage but aren't willing to pay $10k a year with a $10k deductible. It used to be that high deductible plans were easy to come by and relatively cheap. Obamacare has turned that market upside down by making those policies illegal unless they include all the bloat and government control of an Obamacare plan.
     
  6. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi jiminz,

    Understood. Those on low fixed incomes often suffer the worst. First, they are usually older and therefore in the group that generally has the most medical needs. You are certainly blessed to have not needed medical attention, but you're the exception to the rule in the older age group. I'm assuming your comment of not seeing a doctor in over 40 years must make you at least 60. Sixty isn't quite yet in the 'most' need age. I'm 64 and I too, haven't had need for any regular medical attention, although I have had issues here and there.

    I'm fortunate that my insurance is still very, very affordable, but the deductible does keep going up. I'll actually be paying more for health insurance next year when I go on Medicare. Personally, I don't have a problem with a nationalized system. I don't consider medical care something that only the gods can do for me. I'm pretty much a guy who will see about any doctor. I don't have any allegiance to any particular one. So, I'm not much down with this idea that a nationalized system will somehow be of lower quality than what we have and have not yet seen any regular evidence that wait times under the systems in place in other nations creates particularly greater wait times.

    I kind of like the idea that I can just get up and go to the doctor without all the hassle of filling out insurance forms and paying my deductible and wondering how much my out of pocket is going to be. That, much like our Canadian and European neighbors, I never have to concern myself that some dire medical emergency or condition might bankrupt my standard of living. I wouldn't ever have to worry through receiving dunning letters that I owe some medical bill that I can't pay. I'm perfectly willing to trade off the 'Oh, I must see the very best specialist', or 'I have to have my own personal doctor that I've always had all my life', for the freedom from such worries as many do suffer under our current system.

    I also look to all the many nations that have some form of nationalized system, and they honestly seem to be doing quite well. Many of them actually have greater life expectancy than we do. Not, I will add, that such a fact necessarily is correlative of the type of health care system one nation might have over another.

    Anyway, that's my feelings regarding the issue. I'm sure that others have different feelings and understandings and it is these differences that are what our legislators have to work out.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  7. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi sky,

    You wrote, in response to my post:
    I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here about voters voting that they can write laws themselves to vote on. If you mean that now any Tom, Dick and Harry can send up a bill to be hashed out and voted on in your state legislator, I think that would likely be a terrible waste of a lot of valuable time, but CA has, for quite a while, been the state that pushes the line in supposed 'individual rights' actions.

    These are issues that are getting hashed out today and will still be getting hashed out under any other plan of healthcare. Under a nationalized system I would expect that everyone in the nation gets the same coverage and if the CA government wants to give more, than they'd have to foot that part of the expenses out of their own state coffers.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  8. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi redwingfan,

    Yes, but let's understand the realities of what is. You can't provide health insurance for people for $2,000/year. Only if a plan's costs are shared by an employer would that be possible, and certainly never for someone buying a plan on their own. However, I contend that it isn't the ACA regulations that are the primary driver of rising insurance costs. Medical care, just the cost of getting all the tests and seeing all the doctors and buying all of the prescription drugs that, as a nation, seems to be handed out like candy, and the costs of operating the insurance company that underwrites a person's bills, is the primary driver of rising insurance costs. This nation, long before the ACA ever came into existence, has been paying more, per capita, for health insurance than pretty much any other nation on the face of the earth. Health insurance premiums have been climbing ever since we began turning away from employer sponsored and provided health insurance. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent today on medical advertising and all of that is also incorporated into what our medical care costs.

    It's a fact, that generic brand goods are cheaper in most grocery stores, because they don't have the advertising budgets that the name brand has. They are generally just set out on the grocery shelves and if you want to buy the generic product to save money then you do. Similarly, with all the advertising today, especially for drugs, somebody has to pay that bill for us to know that there is some arthritis remedy or drug out that runs on our television screens 15 times a day all across the nation. It's not like those are free public service announcements.

    So, understand that getting health insurance costs down will probably be a matter of cutting out some of the commercialism of medical care and some of the duplicated expenses of running 900 health insurance companies. That will likely lower premiums a lot more than getting rid of the ACA. I'm curious, do you really believe that if we took out the ACA today that health insurance premiums would drop much? Of course, I'm intending that for those who do keep buying health insurance and not for those who would just stop buying it altogether.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  9. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,383
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    IMHO, there would be some budget caveat emptor options made available. Policies like used to pop up in small employers in the late 70s and 80s that would have fine print of the things it did NOT cover like pre-natal and gynocology, diabetes, cancer etc.
    It would be fine for the flu, just don't get really sick.
     
  10. Redwingfan9

    Redwingfan9 Member

    168
    +136
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    We have high costs, this is true. We also have the best healthcare in the world. The US produces more medical research than any other country in the world, it isn't even close. That costs money. The pharmaceutical industries pour billions into drug research, no other nation has private corporations spending like American companies on drug research.

    The problem isn't that we have 900 insurance companies, the problem is that there isn't insurance or healthcare competition. We don't have competition in large part because of the government, which restricts policies and places onerous regulations on medical providers. Obamacare alone has created reporting requirements that cost hospitals and doctors offices billions. We literally have half million dollar a year doctors typing out their own medical records because it's now illegal for them to dictate and have someone else type for them. That's a waste of resources caused by Obamacare and the government.

    The broader problem is that people don't view themselves as health consumers. They don't question bills, they don't question treatment. They don't ask if products or services would be cheaper elsewhere, they aren't shopping prices. All of that has allowed hospitals and doctors to charge more than they would under a true market system. As it stands now, most folks don't care how much anything costs because insurance picks it up.
     
  11. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,383
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    agree.
    That may have been true in the past. We no longer have the best, just the most expensive.

    A large portion of which is paid for by taxpayers, not the companies.
    Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e.g., the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc.).
    That's what you think, really??
    imho The problem isn't a lack of competition, it's too many fingers in the pie all expecting record profit margins for themselves and their share-holders.

    That's because normal, capitalistic, consumer principles do NOT apply in healthcare. If you break an arm, you get treatment for a broken arm, nearby, in a timely fashion. You don't wait, comparison shop, wait for a sale, or look at an optional treatment that would cost less.
    ie, yes I broke my arm but I decided to get a flu shot instead. Or, I hear there's a clinic in Puerto Rico that'll set an arm half-price... we'll just order that through Amazon. If we wait until after football season, they'll put the setting of broken bones on sale.
    Don't have a stroke, heart disease is cheaper.
    [/sarcasm] Good grief.

    Only after the ever increasing deductibles are met.
     
  12. Redwingfan9

    Redwingfan9 Member

    168
    +136
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Most people don't treat for emergencies, they treat for long term problems. People with back pain go to see the same orthopedist, they don't shop around. Pregnant women don't shop around, they pick one ob and stick with him regardless of price. Interestingly one of the practice fields with the most competition is emergency medicine, with many hospitals advertising short waiting periods.
     
  13. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi fender,

    Right. That's what was happening with the health insurance industry before the ACA. A lot of companies were offering 'cheap' policies, but they didn't cover much and if someone were to really get sick, they'd still be left with a lot of bills that their insurance didn't cover that they'd be on the hook for. The ACA came about because there was a real problem in the medical care issue of Americans.

    It used to be that it was a general part of one's employment that they would be covered for medical costs through an employer provided health plan. They were generally fully paid by the employer as just a part of the cost of having employees, just like employers paying half of one's SS taxes.

    However, beginning in the 80's many employers stopped offering fully paid medical insurance as a part of one's employment. They did this because the premiums were becoming heavy for them to carry. Gone were the days when a company could provide health insurance for an employee, and likely his family, for just a couple of hundred dollars/month. They were feeling the pressure, just as we do today, of having premium increases year upon year. Some of the larger companies would offer buy in policies that got group rates because of their employment, but the employee was getting stuck with paying most, if not all, of the premiums.

    What this led to was more and more people just opting not to have health insurance. Great...until someone got sick. Then they would often opt to go to the ER where they knew they had to be seen without any out of pocket cost. Hospitals began to cry out that they were now having to foot huge losses because of all the uninsured that they were having to pay for. Naturally, this created a domino effect to the cost of medical care for the rest of us. In order to cover their losses, they had to increase the prices of care for those who did pay. So, we were not only seeing price increases just because medical care was becoming more and more expensive due to our 'modern technological improvements', but also because somebody has to pay for losses.

    Retailers tell us the same thing. Because of theft, what's called 'shrinkage', the cost of goods is higher than it really needs to be. Losses suffered by retailers have to be made up somewhere if they're going to stay in business and be able to pay their employees to be there when you get in your car to go out and buy something. Medical care is no different. Losses suffered in one area, have to be made up somewhere. It isn't like there's a 'loss fairy' that just goes around throwing money in the tills of businesses that are suffering losses.

    All of this hue and cry went up to Washington and it was decided by the powers that be at that time, that this was as much a crisis in that day as immigration is said to be today. So, President Obama encouraged the legislature to take up the cause and cobble together a comprehensive medical care law that would, in the best way possible for all concerned, get everyone to carry insurance and make it as affordable as possible. Now, I think we need to understand that 'affordable as possible' isn't likely to ever mean that we're ever going to see the days when medical insurance is only a couple of hundred dollars/month. Those days are gone. We've built, what we believe to be, a 'gold standard' medical system in the U.S. that isn't going to paid for by everyone just throwing in a couple of hundred dollars here and there to pay for it.

    So, as I understand it, and I did quite a bit of research at the time, that's why we wound up with the ACA. Now, a lot of people are covered that weren't covered before. Yes, the premiums did adjust, but I'd be willing to bet that if we just completely did away with the ACA, medical insurance premiums aren't going to go back to what people want them to be. The days of free medical insurance because you have a job are just gone for the majority of Americans and that's not coming back.

    So, once again, I think most Americans are fairly reasonable people. If someone would offer up a bill in the legislature that handled the issue of having most Americans covered by some sort of quality medical insurance, that is better than what we have now, I believe it would pass and we could all go merrily along our way. Or, the law could be changed and ER's not required to see everyone, but they too, could be like private doctor's practices and turn away those who don't have the ability to pay up front, either with an insurance plan or cash. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of the American people are willing to go there. We'd be like ye olde England, with people just dying in the streets because any medical care was outside of their reach (that is, of course, before the NHS).

    However, I'll also make this prophecy. No matter how we decide to handle medical care insurance, there will always be complainers. There will always be those who aren't happy with whatever the current plan is. Those same people will be unhappy when they start getting huge medical bills because they chose not to carry medical insurance, if we go back to the old system. It's just the way a society of over 300 million people is always going to be. So the legislature just needs to come up with a plan that suits the majority of people that offers reasonable health care of reasonable quality. Make it law and be done with it. Which is exactly what they did when the ACA was voted into law by our legislature.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  14. JIMINZ

    JIMINZ Well-Known Member

    +1,452
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    JIMINZ
    Well-Known Member
    Male, 74, from Southern Ga.
     
  15. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,326
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi jiminz,

    Oh well, we're right in the same neighborhood. I'm in Seneca SC. I go through GA 3 or 4 times a year going to FL for vacations. Got a friend down in Cairo GA. You're not near there are you?

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  16. JIMINZ

    JIMINZ Well-Known Member

    +1,452
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    No not really
     
  17. sdowney717

    sdowney717 Newbie

    +1,733
    Christian
    Some people want everything 'free', but its still being paid for, just not them they think.
    You get what you pay for is a long known truth.
    Its going to be like all the other free health systems, long wait times for more expensive procedures or you just wont be treated with a goal of being healed, just maintained or worse yet, like in England put on the Liverpool pathway, actually sedated to death which was abused. Things like worn out doctors seeing unknown older patients who had minor ailments, their condition was considered to have a poor quality of life and were terminated..
     
Loading...