“Your Honor; we move for summary judgement and dismissal of this frivolous attempt to continue to violate the US Constitution. Your Honor; the record clearly shows prior payments to health insurers under the Obama Administration were not authorized by the US Congress, the latter having complete, exclusive authority over such disbursements. The People of the US need not endure such a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars to continue this legal action farce, intended to create a cause for seeking donations to Democrat politicians, rather than being a viable legal action for relief or other claimed purposes.”
That’s a political argument not a legal one, so if that’s their opening statement, it’s a bad one. The health insurers are not getting rich, they are struggling. Subsidies are not the answer. Reducing health care costs by, among other things, tort reform is the better way. The subsidies should be a temporary measure until that can be done, but no one is working on that. The more diplomatic approach would have been to order that the subsidies will discontinue in 90 days if a meaningful reform bill is not put on the floor, and will stop no matter what in 1 year.
The legal issue I have with this lawsuit is this…The federal government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an industry. Even if you argue they should, what legal standing do states have to challenge the cessation of subsidies the government is not obligated to provide? It may be “reckless” as they call it, I don’t even like how he went about it. That doesn’t give the states the right to force the government to do something they only started doing a few years ago. Their argument is even more about politics than yours is Polar.
The federal government subsidizes many different industries. You may not think they have a duty to do so for insurance, does that mean they should stop subsidizing coal miners? Or energy in general?
Dozens of energy companies have received hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the past 15 years.
Subsidies NOT APPROVED BY CONGRESS ARE ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What other lies and obfuscations are you willing to make to defend the indefensible piece of feces legislation enacted by Socialist Democrats that was DESIGNED to fail?
(reposting reply since you made the same comment twice)Careful…don’t get so caught in rhetoric that your argument looses truth. The subsidies were approved by congress under the ACA. Paying them wasn’t. It’s like congress agreed to make the payments, then Obama went and wrote the check on his own (which he was not allowed to do). The Subsidies were not found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court…the opposite in fact. A federal judge in Oklahoma said Obama writing the check without a congressional appropriation was unconstitutional and she’s right. Don’t confuse that with the subsidies themselves being illegal. They aren’t and that has been upheld.
October 16, 2017 at 4:58 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
9
Of course the subsidies were approved by DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST CONGRESSMEN in pending violation of the US Constitution.
Careful; don’t get caught up in YOUR lies about the unconstitutionality of the appropriations which I was discussing, not the illegal provisions in the ACA designed to fail. THAT was a part of the design; i.e. make subsidies that would never fly by Congress, requiring POTUS O to use an unConstitutional EO to send money from the UST to insurers.
October 17, 2017 at 9:00 am
mr opinion says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
Polar – You don’t like that Democrats had enough votes to pass the ACA…tough. It happened, get over it. Passing the ACA was in NO WAY unconstitutional as proven by the repeated unsuccessful attempts to strike it down in the supreme court. I think it’s a bad plan, but please stop regurgitating conservative propaganda. Obama violated the US constitution by dispensing the subsidies without a congressional appropriation. Nothing more.
And by the way, I never accused you of lying. I only suggested your rhetoric spoken out of frustration was exceeding the facts, not an intentional misstatement. Nothing I have said has been a misstatement, intentional or otherwise. If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain. The thing that strikes me more than anything is that you seem to be attacking someone who supports your view that the ACA is bad only because I don’t wish to be reckless in dismantling it or want to cite accurate facts about the legalities of what happened regardless of my personal opinions about the ACA or the way it was passed. You need to elevate your thinking above “Obama bad, Trump good.” The world is not so simple no matter what the liberal or conservative media would have everyone believe.
October 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Doug, I agree that Govt should stay out of the private industry. They should not be picking winner and losers just like they shouldn’t be choosing a religion to follow.
Instead of “separation of church and state” there should be a “separation of business and state”.
integrity, we are tired of Progressives picking the winners and losers in this society. Everything from the Auto industry getting bailed out to banks to Green Energy being promoted on our dime. What a disaster Progressives are and then they try to lecture us with lies.
October 16, 2017 at 8:37 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
Agent, please stop posting before you hurt yourself.
Check the dates on your bailouts, buddy.
Green Energy being promoted would be incredibly smart, but instead, the federal government has wasted literally billions of dollars propping up failed and failing coal plants and other outdated technologies. Coal is no longer profitable and green energy is. Guess where the Trump Administration has chosen to put most of its focus on for some strange reason.
Guess what type of energy powers the coal mining museum in Kentucky.
It’s like you buy every weird conspiracy angle without fact checking them yourself.
Now if you want to start calling the Bush Administration progressive, I will just die laughing.
October 19, 2017 at 1:25 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
doug, to answer your question from yesterday that don’t show in the comments section today:
So how do you help the 10%”
Subsidize them, not everyone.
How do you guarantee healthcare access to those that never had it before the ACA in ANY realm of affordability to the “10%” without forcing the “90%” to take on a bigger load?
In Il it was called ICHIP. In Wi it was called Badger Care. In Indiana it was Hoosier Care. Subsidize them.
“Who are the 90% getting screwed?”
Everyone that was told they can keep their Doctors and plans. Everyone that needs to go through an expedited appeal that takes 6 months. When I was going through, my expedited appeal for 6 months, they kept telling me that there are so many that this issue happened to that that is as quick as they can get to it. The 26 year olds that are paying the same rates as the 65 year olds. People like me that have to cover maternity again when I am done having babies after I was done paying my own way. Agents like me who has got 25 clients that the networks have their doc in, but not the hospital that the docs have privilege’s at. People like me who have to satisfy their large deductible before the ER Co Pay comes into play. People like me that got victimized by the never ending co pay even after the Out Of Pocket was satisfied. People like me that had my state DOI taken out of the picture for grievances’. People like me that have to talk to someone that can barely speak English when they screw up the policies. Everyone that now accepts blatant lies from our politicians with out being disgusted. And now, everyone getting smacked with another 30%+ rate hike.
I can go on and on. Until you work in the system, you just don’t know the full scope of the head aches. Until the web site changes things for no reason on you personally, you just don’t realize how bad it is.
*nobody is forced to be covered. Any person can opt-out and pay the tax penalty.
True on that point. But the responsible people like me always have carried Health Insurance.
So to sum it up, if you don’t work it or have one of the policies written through it, you just don’t know.
I challenge you to try and go through the certification to sell the crap. Just once. You wont get the full scope of how bad the web site truly is, just a little taste. No way you would accept that crap from any carrier.
Pre ACA, the tech worked just fine between agents and carriers. Now, the carrier cant do anything with out permission from the Market Place. Who in their right mind would have thought putting a middle man in the mx would lower premiums? Make things more efficient? Every Democrat is the right answer. Il politics at its worst.
There is no need to subsidize insurers to support a failed Act.
The Death Spiral will be accelerated, and American citizens will be free to choose again, for their benefit. Politics were brought into the issue by Democrat Socialist – seeking larger government control over freedoms previously enjoyed by US citizens – who saw it as a means to remain in power over a dependent populous. Hooray for TrumPresident taking back the US for its’ citizens!
Mr Opinion, it starts and stops with the Constitution. Congress controls the purse, not the executive branch. Obama broke the law and the courts agreed.
People are going to be hurt because of Obama breaking the law, not Trump, upholding the law.
Yes, technically speaking even though Congress approved the mechanics of the subsidies, he dispensed them without a congressional appropriation, which is illegal, and should be undone. That doesn’t mean we do so “damn the consequences.” That was Obama’s mistake. He had a good intention (fixing healthcare) but he went about it wrong with the ACA. We are in agreement on that. Why then am I so wrong in believing that it should be fixed more carefully than it was implemented? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Obama was wrong for throwing this thing together haphazardly, I cannot approve of it being dismantled haphazardly.
mr, this country cannot wait another four years to fix this gigantic mess. The process needs to begin right away. Perhaps the Congress will get off their collective butts and do the right thing since the President is taking the lead.
October 16, 2017 at 3:05 pm
mr opinion says:
Like or Dislike:
9
3
Agent – You assume that because the ACA is bad, getting rid of pieces of it will be at least a little better. That’s not necessarily true. Stripping out pieces one by one could create disaster (one I’m sure you will blame Obama for anyway). I think the ACA should be fixed or replaced, but not so desperately that I’m willing to cut off it’s nose to spite it’s face.
October 16, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
8
Right will always triumph over wrong, eventually. The Progressive element in this country will not go quietly into the night and will continue to scream, protest and resist. Good thing our President has a titanium spine to put up with this nonsense.
October 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
No, Opinion Guy; O had the sinister intention of a failed insurance market due to SPECIFIC provisions in ACA. If you read the $#%&^ ACA Bill, you’d see it clearly. Further, he had Reid and Pelosi hide all of that sabotage through their clandestine meetings where Republicans were shut out of the meeting room – which had NEW LOCKS INSTALLED on the doors per Reid’s orders.
The only intention by O, EE, VJ, HR, and NP was to set in place a social insurance program designed to be difficult to remove as filibusters were still in play then.
October 19, 2017 at 1:17 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
No matter what happens, everything PPACA is on OBama.
Subsidized premiums approaching Pre ACA levels with Higher Deds / Co Pays /Co Insurance.
Please do tell me how we are better off.
October 20, 2017 at 7:59 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@mr. opinion; it is well agreed to that the ACA wasn’t thrown together haphazardly. It is well agreed to tht it was INTENDED to fail, to lead to a Single Slayer, er, a Single Delayer, er, a Single Payer System.
The simple reason for the conclusion is the text of the law, and the interpretation of economists, accountants, actuaries, underwriters, marketing pros, and lawyers. If that isn’t enough, ask yourself why Harry Reid had new locks installed on the doors of the Congressional meeting room when ACA was being finalized and Republicans and other-than-Democrts were LITERALLY LOCKED OUT OF THOSE MEETINGS.
October 20, 2017 at 9:17 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Yogi,
you continue to buy into this nonsense narrative that the ACA was designed to fail. Please, by all means, direct us to these leading economists, underwriters, lawyers and so on who can prove the assertion.
I guarantee you 100% that this is something you heard on Conservative loud mouth radio or Fox News. It is not something based in fact, but instead intended to rile up right-wingers and plant seeds of doubt in middle-of-the-road types.
Then, you go back to evil ol’ Harry Reid changing the locks on the doors so that Democrats could discuss the terms of their intended-to-fail healthcare plan…you know…after months and months of open discussion, amendments, compromise, and so on with Republicans. The same Republicans who, when they realized they could not stop the vote from happening, turned to obstruction and pettiness.
Facts and information have never stopped your narratives. By all means, keep posting out of deliberate ignorance and obfuscation of facts.
Ready. Steady…Go!
October 25, 2017 at 5:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Yogi,
you continue to buy into this nonsense narrative that the ACA was designed to fail. Please, by all means, direct us to these leading economists, underwriters, lawyers and so on who can prove the assertion.”
He heard this from liberals here, Planet has said as such. It’s probably his fault for listening to Planet. As for whether it was intended to make the market fail, well, I think it is very well possible it was.
“I guarantee you 100% that this is something you heard on Conservative loud mouth radio or Fox News.”
Ah millennials, how they love saying “all” “100%” etc, and yet call everyone else judgmental.
“It is not something based in fact, but instead intended to rile up right-wingers and plant seeds of doubt in middle-of-the-road types.”
It has sound reason to be believed, and we should be suspect of such things with laws that can cause bad affects to the insurance industry, and have already done so.
“Then, you go back to evil ol’ Harry Reid changing the locks on the doors so that Democrats could discuss the terms of their intended-to-fail healthcare plan…you know…after months and months of open discussion, amendments, compromise, and so on with Republicans.”
This is beyond incorrect. They refused to let republicans have open doors, and factcheck even confirms they were only allowed in on select measures and sections. Obama did this to feign support. There was none on the hot topic issues. Republicans on the other hand allowed major things to stay, namely kids on the plan until the same age, less credits for affluent earners, phase out of Medicaid credits, which they did as premiums would drop from their point of view, and pre existing conditions required. They disagree in the how, but they agree on these areas. Republicans gave them every area they agreed on, and then took their simplistic approach to healthcare. The democrats refused to start from scratch, that’s on them. They weren’t locked out.
“The same Republicans who, when they realized they could not stop the vote from happening, turned to obstruction and pettiness.”
No they didn’t. They tried to stop a bad law.
“Facts and information have never stopped your narratives.”
Ah typical millennial, who thinks he is all facts and everyone else isn’t. You fit your age group well, and you may not know it yet, but you were trained well by leftists from a young age. That’s not paranoia. I had to reprogram my own mind.
“By all means, keep posting out of deliberate ignorance and obfuscation of facts.
Ready. Steady…Go!”
Yeah…You’re not worth the time to debate…
October 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
Good one integrity. Law breakers who violate of our Constitution will lose. Oblama got a pass by a complicit media for 8 years. There is a new sheriff in town.
There is no need to subsidize insurers to support a failed Act.
The Death Spiral will be accelerated, and American citizens will be free to choose again, for their benefit. Politics were brought into the issue by Democrat Socialist – seeking larger government control over freedoms previously enjoyed by US citizens – who saw it as a means to remain in power over a dependent populous. Hooray for TrumPresident taking back the US for its’ citizens!
Reply
The effort is futile, as per the title. No court with ANY degree of integrity would hear such a case for more than a few sessions for the plaintiffs to state their weak case so it can be dismissed summarily. If the suit is brought, and survives initial summary judgement, it will later fail upon ruling or appeal to a higher court.
Obamacare has many flaws, but the most glaring is the concept that individual premiums can be reduced by adding 20 million people to the system with no corresponding means of controlling the underlying costs.
Until they address items like tort reform, fraud, medical gouging ($90 for an aspirin), etc. a program like Obamacare simply cannot sustain itself — without massive taxpayer subsidies.
Careful…don’t get so caught in rhetoric that your argument looses truth. The subsidies were approved by congress under the ACA. Paying them wasn’t. It’s like congress agreed to make the payments, then Obama went and wrote the check on his own (which he was not allowed to do). The Subsidies were not found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court…the opposite in fact. A federal judge in Oklahoma said Obama writing the check without a congressional appropriation was unconstitutional and she’s right. Don’t confuse that with the subsidies themselves being illegal. They aren’t and that has been upheld.
This article is another liberal slant on what the actual truth is.
Here is another statement from the article (and apparently the CBO) that does not make sense logically.
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that erasing the subsidies would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion over the next decade because the government still would be obligated under other parts of Obamacare to help lower-income people pay for insurance premiums.”
How is “subtraction” resulting in “addition”? Those subsidies of $194BB would still be due “under other parts of Obamacare” to help lower income people pay for insurance premiums regardless of the courts actions negating the payments. Payments to pay for taxpayer premiums is different than subsidies to insurance companies to offset losses.
The Obama subsidies for insurance companies was illegal and the court agreed.
If you erase the subsidies, the cost will rest with the taxpayer. Currently, depending on people’s income, many ex-uninsured individuals are paying into the policies assisted through the use of subsidy’s.
For Example:
Joe pays $50 Monthly toward his health insurance plan.
The government subsidy pays $250 Monthly toward his insurance. The insurance policy costs $300 monthly total.
The reason Joe pays $50 is because he makes under 15K yearly.
If you take away Joe’s subsidy, Joe can’t afford to pay $300.
So Joe drops the coverage.
Now if Joe required medical care, the hospital would bill the government for the full amount. Whereas before, the insurance company would have taken Joe’s $50 Monthly and paid the hospital bill, but now the whole bill goes to the taxpayers, not the insurance company, and that is why removing the subsidies will cause an increase to the taxpayers not lessen the burden.
Not a liberal slant, just insurance mentality.
Some of us sell health insurance in addition to other products.
I strongly suggest that you stick to selling other products that do not have govt subsidies because you’re setting yourself up for a hyuuuge loss of sales commissions when The Death Spiral causes the final crash & burn early next summer, if not in April, 2018.
And, you readily admitted your bias by claiming to sell HI. I don’t sell any insurance, and have no dog in the fight as regards selling more policies with subsidies and without.
Polar, I’m so glad to hear you are not talking to people about their insurance because nothing is worse than having someone inexperienced spouting off about things they can’t possibly comprehend.
HI is a health-related policy, but has nothing to do with ACA, you are typing before you think or complete research, and it’s embarrassing. This is a website for insurance professionals, and you are not in insurance or professional. Your content is nothing more than a nuisance, and distraction from real insurance issues. The administrator of this site should block your IP address for having no valid reason for being involved in these discussions.
Your opinion is welcome here. I enjoyed reading it. I smiled, then laughed. Write all the HI you want with subsidies; you’ll be losing most of those when the rug is pulled out from under you. Your position is biased by the subsidies the Federal Govt has been giving you to write HI. It’s very similar to welfare if you think about it for more than a split second. your addicted to subsidies and the withdrawal symptoms are going to be awful.
MIAA; removal of subsidies and addressing the underlying costs will make insurance affordable again.
PS I talked to a HI UW pro recently and she said you’re FOS.
Polar, HI stands for a “Hospital Income” Policy in the insurance world. Your “PRO” should have told you that. I’m sure you can create as many “PRO’s” as you need to make your point, so it goes without saying that the only one on this site that’s FOS is you. Considering your lack of “likes” I’m sure most people scroll over your senseless dribble. I’ll continue to do so as well. LOL!
October 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Finally, if subsidies are required to sell a policy that is claimed to be ‘affordable’, then it really isn’t affordable. And the subsidy’s existence buttresses the EXCESSIVE cost.
Please allow me to poke a few holes into your “understanding subsidies”.
First, you call this individual an “ex-uninsured” person that is given a subsidy to buy insurance. This tells me that they are not eligible for Medicaid, but are “buying” coverage from the marketplace or exchange. If that person decides to drop the coverage, the government has no obligation to pay the bill to the hospital. Realistically, the hospital would just consider them “uninsured” since they are not eligible for Medicaid. If the hospital could simply bill the govt, what would prevent them from doing that for anyone who is uninsured?
Secondly, the subsidy that was being taken away was for the insurance companies (to offset losses), not subsidies to individuals to buy insurance coverage.
Joe was insured through ACA until the subsidies were dropped = Ex-Uninsured.
Integrity, do you think that the hospital gives free care when they encounter an uninsured individual? Because the hospital will bill the government or receive tax breaks based on the number of uninsured clients they take. It travels down to the taxpayer in the end.
There is a reason in car insurance you have to sign a form saying you don’t want medical coverage on your policy. The government would prefer everyone carry medical coverage on the policy so in the event in an auto injury, they don’t get the bill. Signing the form encourages the agencies to promote the medical coverage and the coverage can be forced if the insured does not sign it.
And your second argument is incorrect, I’ve written Blue Cross Blue Shield Policies using ACA, and subsidies are used to offset the cost of the policy for the customer in the example I illustrated. These are real-life examples.
Is no one else actually working in the insurance industry on this website? It’s astonishing the amount of misinformation I’m reading on a website entitled “INSURANCE JOURNAL.”
mrbob, I wonder why IJ allows Planet to continue to call our President names. Back in the day, IJ decided to delete posts when posters from Conservative & Liberals called each other names. Planet should have gotten taken off this blog a long time ago. Never a cogent post, always an insult. We are tired of it. Andrew, are you paying attention?
Agent,
It was Rex who called him this. Public figures are fair game, we aren’t supposed to be calling each other out. You of all people should know this. Countless name-calling from you of anyone on the left, including us posters. This isn’t an insult, it’s a fact. Our prez said he talked to the President of the US Virgin Islands. Doesn’t he realize that is him? And, yes, my point is our prez doesn’t know what he is doing or talking about and the EOs on healthcare he signed are just another example of his stupidity. Just like his Wharton professor William Kelly said, “Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.” I don’t doubt that.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield was negative over 300 Million after the first year ACA was released. Insurance companies are not the ones making money off of people.
I think most of us here on Insurance Journal have to deal with clients who think insurance companies have unlimited resources to pay for claims, and this is frustrating that Trump is perpetrating this assumption.
We know that insurance companies keep funds and reinsurance in reserve in the event of catastrophic events to ensure that we can pay what we promised to pay for our consumers. With health insurance companies losing money because of pre-existing conditions, and the overall unhealthy lifestyle of Americans, health insurance providers may not be able to stay in business.
We’ve seen home and auto insurers go into bankruptcy because they didn’t forecast for catastrophes. Health in America is in a catastrophe with billions being spent on conditions that are mostly preventable with a correct diet.
A person with tickets and accidents pays more for car insurance. An unhealthy person should pay more for health insurance; that’s the basis of insurance in general. However, since the government is responsible for not regulating the food industry appropriately to prevent health related issues, it makes sense that the government should also foot the bill until they can take action on preventative measures.
Stop blaming the insurance companies!
Start working on Preventative Care!
Foot the bill in the meantime or contact Coca-Cola, Nestle, and all the other companies taking advantage of people’s health through marketing, and make them foot the bill like they should have been doing all along!
Posting Again…an unhealthy food tax??? So every pizza, candy bar, Big Mac, etc will get this tax? Conceptually, it sounds like the cigarette tax, except that everyone eats all this stuff (except maybe vegans).
So basically, the individuals that actually do take care of themselves will still be paying for everyone else that doesn’t care about what they eat.
Sorry, I’m not a fan and think there are better ways. Promoting healthy eating and incentivizing employers and healthcare plans to recognize people that are proactively taking responsibility for their health, is one way.
I didn’t see anything in Posting Again’s comments about a tax. Posting was stressing preventative care and marketing efforts. Also, it’s worth noting a growing portion of the American population who is not vegan is making healthier food choices. One does not have to be vegan to make good choices. I am not a vegan and I won’t eat fast food. I try to limit sugar intake, if any at all.
Thank you, Captain Planet. I did not mention a food tax because as a country we are currently spending an upwards of 117 Billion dollars on fast food already, and I doubt an increase of a couple pennies is going to deter people from their can of Pepsi.
The issue is this: When your child watches cartoons on television and the commercials come on, they are being bombarded with candy, soda, super-sugared cereal, and fast food commercials. Children are very susceptible to marketing, and when they become adults, their brains are already wired to think that eating this kind of food is normal and acceptable for an average diet.
4.8 Billion dollars is spent on marketing yearly for fast food corporations. Fast food companies use lobbyists to prevent regulations regarding the marketing of children, and other restrictions including the research into the link between fast food and diabetes, cancer, and other known obese related diseases.
Our government is allowing corporations to harm Americans through deceptive marketing techniques, and don’t get me started on the public school lunch programs that features mostly fast food options. Give any child a choice between a soda and water and see what they’ll pick.
If someone dies because of asbestos, the company who originally manufactured the product, and swept the health risks under the rug, is liable for the death. If a child only lives one-third of their life, because they become obese and have a heart attack at the age of 32, because the government decided not to educate their citizens or conduct research into the health risks of fast food are they liable for the death of that child?
Fast food should contain the same warnings we see on other products like tanning beds and cigarettes have to acknowledge the potential link to cancer.
All they have to say is, “This product contains saturated fat and other chemicals that may be linked to heart disease, diabetes, and cancers” Then let people have the freedom to decide if they want to eat it or not, but at least inform the consumer at the time of purchase of the associated risks.
Posting said “Foot the bill in the meantime or contact Coca-Cola, Nestle, and all the other companies taking advantage of people’s health through marketing, and make them foot the bill like they should have been doing all along!
So, Posting, how do you intend to “make them foot the bill” if it’s not going to be a tax? Have the Fed Govt sue them because they are causing obesity like they did with the tobacco industry and cigarettes? Have you seen the price of cigarettes these days due in part to that action? FYI, I don’t smoke so I really don’t care about cigarette costs. But, I do eat and enjoy the occasional pizza and fast food. Do you really think those companies are simply going to absorb the cost of “paying for it” or are they going to pass it onto the consumer? It’s the same end result whether you call it a tax or not.
Secondly, this comes down to personal responsibility, not what companies advertise about. Are the parents that weak that they can’t say “no” to their kids? Who’s paying the bills?
In addition to stop blaming the insurance companies, stop blaming the food mfgrs and start blaming the people who sabotage their own bodies. My wife continues to tell me I need to make better choices in what I eat and that I need to lose weight. Guess what, that is my responsibility. Not McDonalds, Nestle, Coke or any other company. There are consequences to our choices, but the progressive left always wants to find a scapegoat to blame it on and create a new entitlement.
Your simple solution of “All they have to say is, “This product contains saturated fat and other chemicals that may be linked to heart disease, diabetes, and cancers” Then let people have the freedom to decide if they want to eat it or not, but at least inform the consumer at the time of purchase of the associated risks” is basically saying that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Don’t you think most of the population should know that already? The calories posted next to the Big Mac is not enough of a hint?
Maybe if people had to pay for it with their health care costs, it might encourage them to make better choices.
October 17, 2017 at 3:53 pm
PostingAgain says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Response to Integrity Matters, “Thank you” for your “Dots.”
About footing the bill: Considering that the fast food industry is making 117 Billion a year from our pockets anyway, and, since we are talking about subsidies, the government spends $51 Billion yearly on these additional subsidies. That means if the fast food industry were to foot the bill on the subsidies they would still make 66 Billion. It would be a benefit to society and a loss to the fast food industry to have stricter regulations, and if the fast food industries are looking to recoup their costs by charging more for their products and making them less appealing to children and parents, which will result in lives saved in the long-term, we should support the result that ends in the quality of life extended. We should be regretting the deceptive marketing that occurred in the cigarette industry and lament our inability to identify this risk for the American people and the lives we lost because of their marketing campaigns.
Secondly, personal responsibility becomes extremely difficult to define when information is not explained clearly and concisely. For instance, “Wet Floor” signs are big and yellow and show a little man slipping underneath the words “Wet Floor” so you know to be cautious. Now that all the warning has been accomplished, you have a personal responsibility to heed the warning as stated. If you are walking and you slip on a wet floor without the sign, and bust your head, it is not for lack of personal responsibility. Any person would tell you, “I didn’t know the floor was wet.”
Many people I speak too, that consume fast food on a regular basis, have no idea there is a link to cancer and other obesity related diseases. They think most cancers are hereditary, when less than 10% of cancer related illnesses are hereditary. (I live in Texas, the fast food capital of the US, and a state struggling with massive obesity problems.) Consumers are uninformed about the link between fast food, diabetes, and cancer-related illnesses.
When it comes to nutrition, where is the warning? Where is the government campaigning that informs the basic consumer in plain, simple, language that fast food should be avoided? In a calorie count? Can the average consumer define what a calorie is and how it directly affects your body? Do they show kids in public schools what healthy eating looks like so they can educate their parents or do they just stuff them full of fast food? Kids eat like what their parents eat, and the parents eat what their parents eat. It’s generational, and it stems from lack of warning and education regarding obesity, which is a public health issue, which has transformed into a public health crisis mostly due to fast food marketing.
In the end, it is your choice, and the choice of every person in America, but the government should put up a clear and simple warning sign or label on these products to inform the consumer. The educated person that decides to eat fast food, after the fact, does so at their own health risk and should absolutely pay the health costs associated with their illnesses.
October 17, 2017 at 7:46 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
“…. in the meantime, Govt must foot the bill….”
CLEARLY implies taxes will be used to redistribute wealth from larger wage earners to larger butt health insurance risks partaking of unhealthy food because they get free healthcare insurance to take care of their ailments.
Hence, you didn’t EXPLICITLY say what you implicitly wrote.
October 18, 2017 at 2:14 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Posting, thanks for your reply.
First, I believe the $117B you cite for the fast food industry is “top line” sales and not “bottom line” profit. Even if it was, do you realistically think that industry would absorb a 40+% hit to their bottom line? And not pass most of that onto the consumer? Did you think of the potential economic impact that would cause in the for of fast food companies going out of business, lost jobs, increased welfare, etc…? Easy to say “just do it” but near impossible to implement.
Second, all packaged foods have nutrition information on the labels today and have since that was put into law…in the 80’s or 90’s. Most fast food restaurants have nutrition information available on their boards and definitely in print. You are assuming that if a warning is on the label, people are going to change their habits just by reading it. There are people that don’t both to read or pay attention to the “wet floor” sign and think someone else should still be responsible for their injury.
Third, this country has been preaching nutrition since the late 90’s and early 00’s. Michelle Obama changed the school lunch program with the waive of her magic hand. The results, many kids getting school lunches ended up throwing away the “nutritious” food because they didn’t like. A waste of the taxpayers money.
I am all for putting warning labels on food. I am also realistic enough to know that they have a minimal effect on changing or curbing behavior. It comes down to the individuals personal desires, motivation, responsibility and self control. You can lead a person to a salad bar but you can’t make them eat it.
Asking anyone (food industry, govt or the tax payer) to pay for someone’s poor choices, is not fair. People who always push the blame onto to others and are enabled to get away with it, will continue that behavior. Case in point…Hilliary Clinton!
October 18, 2017 at 3:24 pm
Posting Again says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Integrity Matters: Thank you for additional incite on your thoughts.
No doubt, making consumers more informed about the effects of fast food is going to affect the company’s bottom line. No doubt, there would economic consequences from hitting their bottom line. Fast food companies do, however have many options: They can lobby the government to overturn the subsidies on meat and cheese, and ask for subsidies on fresh fruits and vegetables, so they can offer healthy options and still maintain a lower price. They can also open a healthier version of their stores that will slowly move toward the healthier option over years, and maintain the same level of employment. There are many other options they have than taking advantage of the consumer.
Also, I can’t find any research that concludes that the tobacco industry lawsuit affected the economy negatively in any way jobs or otherwise. This no doubt results from their lawsuit protection insurance or a Commercial Umbrella policy. Since we are on insurance journal, the company would only have to pay for the increase in premium and NOT the actual cost of the lawsuit, so NO real economic impact.
Second, labels on packages have been created to be deceptive. Please note that on a label, the percentage of your daily intact is listed for Protein, Saturated Fat, etc. but NOT SUGAR. Sugar is the only category where they will not tell you what your daily percentage is, and that is because most products are going to give you 300% of your daily recommended intake, and marketing companies did not want that information visible. When I’m recommending a label, I’m recommended at least a 4-5 inch stamp on the board where you order your food. Most fast food places have nutrition charts that are conveniently located behind doors or promotional banners where they are easily not visible to the general public.
Third, Michelle Obama was working on the school lunch program until she partnered with Coca-Cola, and other fast food providers who were supposed to be helping with the obesity crisis. Instead they shifted the focus to exercise, (60 minutes of play per day) which will not in any way assist in the obesity crisis or challenge the fast food industry. They opted to leave the unhealthy food as an option for “CHILDREN” to make choices knowing full well that this would fail. This was a political strategy on their part to ensure no further regulations would happen from the program.
I appreciate and understand your opinion of personal responsibility, but you are assuming every human has had the same education and lifestyle growing up, and knows fully about the risk of what they eat. Most American people have no clue what they are putting into their bodies when they eat fast food, and they are just an uninformed as they were when the tobacco industry was telling everyone that smoking actually could have health benefits. Once Americans were informed, the trend in smoking decreased dramatically. Inform the American people about these risks, and let’s see if people make different choices?
When I’m asked why I avoid fast food places in the wonderful State of Texas, that is the Fast Food paradise of the US, and I explain my reasons, people are usually shocked. I’ve had people research it, and come back even more surprised at the risks associated. The average person that I inform reduces their fast food intact by 50% after becoming fully aware of the risks. The bigger issue is why they didn’t know this before? Why are so many Americans, and Texans specifically, uneducated regarding the consequences of what they eat? The first step in solving the obesity crisis is making the public aware of the cause of the crisis and cracking down on deceptive marketing in the fast food industry.
October 16, 2017 at 8:45 pm
What Else is New says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
News flash: Democrats vote as a block against Republican legislation. They’re not being mean to you, Donald. They’re doing what the voters who elected them expect them to do. Some of them are even standing up for their principles, which I guess you may not have much experience with.
As for these Republicans: it is amazing how united they are in their apparent hatred for a health care system which was preached by the Heritage foundation for years, and implemented by a Republican governor in Massachussetts.
Fortunately, the weaknesses of this system and the Republican Party have become apparent. With any luck, the voters will bring in a new crop of legislators next year, who will pass single payer healthcare, so everyone in America can just enroll in Medicare already. Problem solved.
What else…please make sure you know all the facts about what you speak of before spreading the talking points. Wait, you’re a progressive liberal, so “what else is new”?
Single payer is not good, for anyone. The next election is not going bring the change you seek even if the Dems won every available seat. Lastly, the problems with a single payer system would not be solved, they would only be just beginning.
Defendant’s attorneys’ opening statement:
“Your Honor; we move for summary judgement and dismissal of this frivolous attempt to continue to violate the US Constitution. Your Honor; the record clearly shows prior payments to health insurers under the Obama Administration were not authorized by the US Congress, the latter having complete, exclusive authority over such disbursements. The People of the US need not endure such a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars to continue this legal action farce, intended to create a cause for seeking donations to Democrat politicians, rather than being a viable legal action for relief or other claimed purposes.”
That’s a political argument not a legal one, so if that’s their opening statement, it’s a bad one. The health insurers are not getting rich, they are struggling. Subsidies are not the answer. Reducing health care costs by, among other things, tort reform is the better way. The subsidies should be a temporary measure until that can be done, but no one is working on that. The more diplomatic approach would have been to order that the subsidies will discontinue in 90 days if a meaningful reform bill is not put on the floor, and will stop no matter what in 1 year.
The legal issue I have with this lawsuit is this…The federal government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an industry. Even if you argue they should, what legal standing do states have to challenge the cessation of subsidies the government is not obligated to provide? It may be “reckless” as they call it, I don’t even like how he went about it. That doesn’t give the states the right to force the government to do something they only started doing a few years ago. Their argument is even more about politics than yours is Polar.
The federal government subsidizes many different industries. You may not think they have a duty to do so for insurance, does that mean they should stop subsidizing coal miners? Or energy in general?
Dozens of energy companies have received hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the past 15 years.
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS>
Subsidies NOT APPROVED BY CONGRESS ARE ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What other lies and obfuscations are you willing to make to defend the indefensible piece of feces legislation enacted by Socialist Democrats that was DESIGNED to fail?
(reposting reply since you made the same comment twice)Careful…don’t get so caught in rhetoric that your argument looses truth. The subsidies were approved by congress under the ACA. Paying them wasn’t. It’s like congress agreed to make the payments, then Obama went and wrote the check on his own (which he was not allowed to do). The Subsidies were not found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court…the opposite in fact. A federal judge in Oklahoma said Obama writing the check without a congressional appropriation was unconstitutional and she’s right. Don’t confuse that with the subsidies themselves being illegal. They aren’t and that has been upheld.
Of course the subsidies were approved by DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST CONGRESSMEN in pending violation of the US Constitution.
Careful; don’t get caught up in YOUR lies about the unconstitutionality of the appropriations which I was discussing, not the illegal provisions in the ACA designed to fail. THAT was a part of the design; i.e. make subsidies that would never fly by Congress, requiring POTUS O to use an unConstitutional EO to send money from the UST to insurers.
Polar – You don’t like that Democrats had enough votes to pass the ACA…tough. It happened, get over it. Passing the ACA was in NO WAY unconstitutional as proven by the repeated unsuccessful attempts to strike it down in the supreme court. I think it’s a bad plan, but please stop regurgitating conservative propaganda. Obama violated the US constitution by dispensing the subsidies without a congressional appropriation. Nothing more.
And by the way, I never accused you of lying. I only suggested your rhetoric spoken out of frustration was exceeding the facts, not an intentional misstatement. Nothing I have said has been a misstatement, intentional or otherwise. If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain. The thing that strikes me more than anything is that you seem to be attacking someone who supports your view that the ACA is bad only because I don’t wish to be reckless in dismantling it or want to cite accurate facts about the legalities of what happened regardless of my personal opinions about the ACA or the way it was passed. You need to elevate your thinking above “Obama bad, Trump good.” The world is not so simple no matter what the liberal or conservative media would have everyone believe.
Doug, I agree that Govt should stay out of the private industry. They should not be picking winner and losers just like they shouldn’t be choosing a religion to follow.
Instead of “separation of church and state” there should be a “separation of business and state”.
integrity, we are tired of Progressives picking the winners and losers in this society. Everything from the Auto industry getting bailed out to banks to Green Energy being promoted on our dime. What a disaster Progressives are and then they try to lecture us with lies.
Agent, please stop posting before you hurt yourself.
Check the dates on your bailouts, buddy.
Green Energy being promoted would be incredibly smart, but instead, the federal government has wasted literally billions of dollars propping up failed and failing coal plants and other outdated technologies. Coal is no longer profitable and green energy is. Guess where the Trump Administration has chosen to put most of its focus on for some strange reason.
Guess what type of energy powers the coal mining museum in Kentucky.
It’s like you buy every weird conspiracy angle without fact checking them yourself.
Now if you want to start calling the Bush Administration progressive, I will just die laughing.
doug, to answer your question from yesterday that don’t show in the comments section today:
So how do you help the 10%”
Subsidize them, not everyone.
How do you guarantee healthcare access to those that never had it before the ACA in ANY realm of affordability to the “10%” without forcing the “90%” to take on a bigger load?
In Il it was called ICHIP. In Wi it was called Badger Care. In Indiana it was Hoosier Care. Subsidize them.
“Who are the 90% getting screwed?”
Everyone that was told they can keep their Doctors and plans. Everyone that needs to go through an expedited appeal that takes 6 months. When I was going through, my expedited appeal for 6 months, they kept telling me that there are so many that this issue happened to that that is as quick as they can get to it. The 26 year olds that are paying the same rates as the 65 year olds. People like me that have to cover maternity again when I am done having babies after I was done paying my own way. Agents like me who has got 25 clients that the networks have their doc in, but not the hospital that the docs have privilege’s at. People like me who have to satisfy their large deductible before the ER Co Pay comes into play. People like me that got victimized by the never ending co pay even after the Out Of Pocket was satisfied. People like me that had my state DOI taken out of the picture for grievances’. People like me that have to talk to someone that can barely speak English when they screw up the policies. Everyone that now accepts blatant lies from our politicians with out being disgusted. And now, everyone getting smacked with another 30%+ rate hike.
I can go on and on. Until you work in the system, you just don’t know the full scope of the head aches. Until the web site changes things for no reason on you personally, you just don’t realize how bad it is.
*nobody is forced to be covered. Any person can opt-out and pay the tax penalty.
True on that point. But the responsible people like me always have carried Health Insurance.
So to sum it up, if you don’t work it or have one of the policies written through it, you just don’t know.
I challenge you to try and go through the certification to sell the crap. Just once. You wont get the full scope of how bad the web site truly is, just a little taste. No way you would accept that crap from any carrier.
Pre ACA, the tech worked just fine between agents and carriers. Now, the carrier cant do anything with out permission from the Market Place. Who in their right mind would have thought putting a middle man in the mx would lower premiums? Make things more efficient? Every Democrat is the right answer. Il politics at its worst.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Mr Opinion, it starts and stops with the Constitution. Congress controls the purse, not the executive branch. Obama broke the law and the courts agreed.
People are going to be hurt because of Obama breaking the law, not Trump, upholding the law.
Obama tried to be Robin Hood and got caught.
Yes, technically speaking even though Congress approved the mechanics of the subsidies, he dispensed them without a congressional appropriation, which is illegal, and should be undone. That doesn’t mean we do so “damn the consequences.” That was Obama’s mistake. He had a good intention (fixing healthcare) but he went about it wrong with the ACA. We are in agreement on that. Why then am I so wrong in believing that it should be fixed more carefully than it was implemented? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Obama was wrong for throwing this thing together haphazardly, I cannot approve of it being dismantled haphazardly.
mr, this country cannot wait another four years to fix this gigantic mess. The process needs to begin right away. Perhaps the Congress will get off their collective butts and do the right thing since the President is taking the lead.
Agent – You assume that because the ACA is bad, getting rid of pieces of it will be at least a little better. That’s not necessarily true. Stripping out pieces one by one could create disaster (one I’m sure you will blame Obama for anyway). I think the ACA should be fixed or replaced, but not so desperately that I’m willing to cut off it’s nose to spite it’s face.
Right will always triumph over wrong, eventually. The Progressive element in this country will not go quietly into the night and will continue to scream, protest and resist. Good thing our President has a titanium spine to put up with this nonsense.
No, Opinion Guy; O had the sinister intention of a failed insurance market due to SPECIFIC provisions in ACA. If you read the $#%&^ ACA Bill, you’d see it clearly. Further, he had Reid and Pelosi hide all of that sabotage through their clandestine meetings where Republicans were shut out of the meeting room – which had NEW LOCKS INSTALLED on the doors per Reid’s orders.
The only intention by O, EE, VJ, HR, and NP was to set in place a social insurance program designed to be difficult to remove as filibusters were still in play then.
No matter what happens, everything PPACA is on OBama.
Subsidized premiums approaching Pre ACA levels with Higher Deds / Co Pays /Co Insurance.
Please do tell me how we are better off.
@mr. opinion; it is well agreed to that the ACA wasn’t thrown together haphazardly. It is well agreed to tht it was INTENDED to fail, to lead to a Single Slayer, er, a Single Delayer, er, a Single Payer System.
The simple reason for the conclusion is the text of the law, and the interpretation of economists, accountants, actuaries, underwriters, marketing pros, and lawyers. If that isn’t enough, ask yourself why Harry Reid had new locks installed on the doors of the Congressional meeting room when ACA was being finalized and Republicans and other-than-Democrts were LITERALLY LOCKED OUT OF THOSE MEETINGS.
Yogi,
you continue to buy into this nonsense narrative that the ACA was designed to fail. Please, by all means, direct us to these leading economists, underwriters, lawyers and so on who can prove the assertion.
I guarantee you 100% that this is something you heard on Conservative loud mouth radio or Fox News. It is not something based in fact, but instead intended to rile up right-wingers and plant seeds of doubt in middle-of-the-road types.
Then, you go back to evil ol’ Harry Reid changing the locks on the doors so that Democrats could discuss the terms of their intended-to-fail healthcare plan…you know…after months and months of open discussion, amendments, compromise, and so on with Republicans. The same Republicans who, when they realized they could not stop the vote from happening, turned to obstruction and pettiness.
Facts and information have never stopped your narratives. By all means, keep posting out of deliberate ignorance and obfuscation of facts.
Ready. Steady…Go!
“Yogi,
you continue to buy into this nonsense narrative that the ACA was designed to fail. Please, by all means, direct us to these leading economists, underwriters, lawyers and so on who can prove the assertion.”
He heard this from liberals here, Planet has said as such. It’s probably his fault for listening to Planet. As for whether it was intended to make the market fail, well, I think it is very well possible it was.
“I guarantee you 100% that this is something you heard on Conservative loud mouth radio or Fox News.”
Ah millennials, how they love saying “all” “100%” etc, and yet call everyone else judgmental.
“It is not something based in fact, but instead intended to rile up right-wingers and plant seeds of doubt in middle-of-the-road types.”
It has sound reason to be believed, and we should be suspect of such things with laws that can cause bad affects to the insurance industry, and have already done so.
“Then, you go back to evil ol’ Harry Reid changing the locks on the doors so that Democrats could discuss the terms of their intended-to-fail healthcare plan…you know…after months and months of open discussion, amendments, compromise, and so on with Republicans.”
This is beyond incorrect. They refused to let republicans have open doors, and factcheck even confirms they were only allowed in on select measures and sections. Obama did this to feign support. There was none on the hot topic issues. Republicans on the other hand allowed major things to stay, namely kids on the plan until the same age, less credits for affluent earners, phase out of Medicaid credits, which they did as premiums would drop from their point of view, and pre existing conditions required. They disagree in the how, but they agree on these areas. Republicans gave them every area they agreed on, and then took their simplistic approach to healthcare. The democrats refused to start from scratch, that’s on them. They weren’t locked out.
“The same Republicans who, when they realized they could not stop the vote from happening, turned to obstruction and pettiness.”
No they didn’t. They tried to stop a bad law.
“Facts and information have never stopped your narratives.”
Ah typical millennial, who thinks he is all facts and everyone else isn’t. You fit your age group well, and you may not know it yet, but you were trained well by leftists from a young age. That’s not paranoia. I had to reprogram my own mind.
“By all means, keep posting out of deliberate ignorance and obfuscation of facts.
Ready. Steady…Go!”
Yeah…You’re not worth the time to debate…
Good one integrity. Law breakers who violate of our Constitution will lose. Oblama got a pass by a complicit media for 8 years. There is a new sheriff in town.
Re-posted:
There is no need to subsidize insurers to support a failed Act.
The Death Spiral will be accelerated, and American citizens will be free to choose again, for their benefit. Politics were brought into the issue by Democrat Socialist – seeking larger government control over freedoms previously enjoyed by US citizens – who saw it as a means to remain in power over a dependent populous. Hooray for TrumPresident taking back the US for its’ citizens!
Reply
Polar, if 18 states are suing, does that mean 32 are not? Almost twice as many aren’t. Let me guess where the 18 are geographically.
The effort is futile, as per the title. No court with ANY degree of integrity would hear such a case for more than a few sessions for the plaintiffs to state their weak case so it can be dismissed summarily. If the suit is brought, and survives initial summary judgement, it will later fail upon ruling or appeal to a higher court.
Obamacare has many flaws, but the most glaring is the concept that individual premiums can be reduced by adding 20 million people to the system with no corresponding means of controlling the underlying costs.
Until they address items like tort reform, fraud, medical gouging ($90 for an aspirin), etc. a program like Obamacare simply cannot sustain itself — without massive taxpayer subsidies.
Careful…don’t get so caught in rhetoric that your argument looses truth. The subsidies were approved by congress under the ACA. Paying them wasn’t. It’s like congress agreed to make the payments, then Obama went and wrote the check on his own (which he was not allowed to do). The Subsidies were not found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court…the opposite in fact. A federal judge in Oklahoma said Obama writing the check without a congressional appropriation was unconstitutional and she’s right. Don’t confuse that with the subsidies themselves being illegal. They aren’t and that has been upheld.
This article is another liberal slant on what the actual truth is.
Here is another statement from the article (and apparently the CBO) that does not make sense logically.
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that erasing the subsidies would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion over the next decade because the government still would be obligated under other parts of Obamacare to help lower-income people pay for insurance premiums.”
How is “subtraction” resulting in “addition”? Those subsidies of $194BB would still be due “under other parts of Obamacare” to help lower income people pay for insurance premiums regardless of the courts actions negating the payments. Payments to pay for taxpayer premiums is different than subsidies to insurance companies to offset losses.
The Obama subsidies for insurance companies was illegal and the court agreed.
100% correct integrity. Good job explaining it even though some don’t get it.
If you erase the subsidies, the cost will rest with the taxpayer. Currently, depending on people’s income, many ex-uninsured individuals are paying into the policies assisted through the use of subsidy’s.
For Example:
Joe pays $50 Monthly toward his health insurance plan.
The government subsidy pays $250 Monthly toward his insurance. The insurance policy costs $300 monthly total.
The reason Joe pays $50 is because he makes under 15K yearly.
If you take away Joe’s subsidy, Joe can’t afford to pay $300.
So Joe drops the coverage.
Now if Joe required medical care, the hospital would bill the government for the full amount. Whereas before, the insurance company would have taken Joe’s $50 Monthly and paid the hospital bill, but now the whole bill goes to the taxpayers, not the insurance company, and that is why removing the subsidies will cause an increase to the taxpayers not lessen the burden.
Not a liberal slant, just insurance mentality.
Some of us sell health insurance in addition to other products.
Great explanation, Understanding.
Welcome to the website, do stick around even if things get a little non-sensical! We could always use more voices of reason in here.
Medicaid comes to aid of Joe and ACA fails miserably to make any sense in that context.
I strongly suggest that you stick to selling other products that do not have govt subsidies because you’re setting yourself up for a hyuuuge loss of sales commissions when The Death Spiral causes the final crash & burn early next summer, if not in April, 2018.
And, you readily admitted your bias by claiming to sell HI. I don’t sell any insurance, and have no dog in the fight as regards selling more policies with subsidies and without.
Polar, I’m so glad to hear you are not talking to people about their insurance because nothing is worse than having someone inexperienced spouting off about things they can’t possibly comprehend.
HI is a health-related policy, but has nothing to do with ACA, you are typing before you think or complete research, and it’s embarrassing. This is a website for insurance professionals, and you are not in insurance or professional. Your content is nothing more than a nuisance, and distraction from real insurance issues. The administrator of this site should block your IP address for having no valid reason for being involved in these discussions.
Your opinion is welcome here. I enjoyed reading it. I smiled, then laughed. Write all the HI you want with subsidies; you’ll be losing most of those when the rug is pulled out from under you. Your position is biased by the subsidies the Federal Govt has been giving you to write HI. It’s very similar to welfare if you think about it for more than a split second. your addicted to subsidies and the withdrawal symptoms are going to be awful.
MIAA; removal of subsidies and addressing the underlying costs will make insurance affordable again.
PS I talked to a HI UW pro recently and she said you’re FOS.
Polar, HI stands for a “Hospital Income” Policy in the insurance world. Your “PRO” should have told you that. I’m sure you can create as many “PRO’s” as you need to make your point, so it goes without saying that the only one on this site that’s FOS is you. Considering your lack of “likes” I’m sure most people scroll over your senseless dribble. I’ll continue to do so as well. LOL!
Finally, if subsidies are required to sell a policy that is claimed to be ‘affordable’, then it really isn’t affordable. And the subsidy’s existence buttresses the EXCESSIVE cost.
Understanding (and Doug),
Please allow me to poke a few holes into your “understanding subsidies”.
First, you call this individual an “ex-uninsured” person that is given a subsidy to buy insurance. This tells me that they are not eligible for Medicaid, but are “buying” coverage from the marketplace or exchange. If that person decides to drop the coverage, the government has no obligation to pay the bill to the hospital. Realistically, the hospital would just consider them “uninsured” since they are not eligible for Medicaid. If the hospital could simply bill the govt, what would prevent them from doing that for anyone who is uninsured?
Secondly, the subsidy that was being taken away was for the insurance companies (to offset losses), not subsidies to individuals to buy insurance coverage.
Your example appears erroneous and irrelevant.
Joe was insured through ACA until the subsidies were dropped = Ex-Uninsured.
Integrity, do you think that the hospital gives free care when they encounter an uninsured individual? Because the hospital will bill the government or receive tax breaks based on the number of uninsured clients they take. It travels down to the taxpayer in the end.
There is a reason in car insurance you have to sign a form saying you don’t want medical coverage on your policy. The government would prefer everyone carry medical coverage on the policy so in the event in an auto injury, they don’t get the bill. Signing the form encourages the agencies to promote the medical coverage and the coverage can be forced if the insured does not sign it.
And your second argument is incorrect, I’ve written Blue Cross Blue Shield Policies using ACA, and subsidies are used to offset the cost of the policy for the customer in the example I illustrated. These are real-life examples.
Is no one else actually working in the insurance industry on this website? It’s astonishing the amount of misinformation I’m reading on a website entitled “INSURANCE JOURNAL.”
Planet do you have a point you are trying to make?
mrbob, I wonder why IJ allows Planet to continue to call our President names. Back in the day, IJ decided to delete posts when posters from Conservative & Liberals called each other names. Planet should have gotten taken off this blog a long time ago. Never a cogent post, always an insult. We are tired of it. Andrew, are you paying attention?
The president is an effin’ moron.
— Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State
Fake news will not be your salvation Dr. Stephen. Are you worried you won’t be paid?
You are a purveyor of fake news, and have been duped by your sources at CNN, NBC, NPR, MSLSD, er, MSNBC, etc.
Agent,
It was Rex who called him this. Public figures are fair game, we aren’t supposed to be calling each other out. You of all people should know this. Countless name-calling from you of anyone on the left, including us posters. This isn’t an insult, it’s a fact. Our prez said he talked to the President of the US Virgin Islands. Doesn’t he realize that is him? And, yes, my point is our prez doesn’t know what he is doing or talking about and the EOs on healthcare he signed are just another example of his stupidity. Just like his Wharton professor William Kelly said, “Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.” I don’t doubt that.
Got an audio tape link?
I think you’re gonna be as upset as on 11/9/16 when you learn the truth about the fake news purveyors.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield was negative over 300 Million after the first year ACA was released. Insurance companies are not the ones making money off of people.
I think most of us here on Insurance Journal have to deal with clients who think insurance companies have unlimited resources to pay for claims, and this is frustrating that Trump is perpetrating this assumption.
We know that insurance companies keep funds and reinsurance in reserve in the event of catastrophic events to ensure that we can pay what we promised to pay for our consumers. With health insurance companies losing money because of pre-existing conditions, and the overall unhealthy lifestyle of Americans, health insurance providers may not be able to stay in business.
We’ve seen home and auto insurers go into bankruptcy because they didn’t forecast for catastrophes. Health in America is in a catastrophe with billions being spent on conditions that are mostly preventable with a correct diet.
A person with tickets and accidents pays more for car insurance. An unhealthy person should pay more for health insurance; that’s the basis of insurance in general. However, since the government is responsible for not regulating the food industry appropriately to prevent health related issues, it makes sense that the government should also foot the bill until they can take action on preventative measures.
Stop blaming the insurance companies!
Start working on Preventative Care!
Foot the bill in the meantime or contact Coca-Cola, Nestle, and all the other companies taking advantage of people’s health through marketing, and make them foot the bill like they should have been doing all along!
Posting Again…an unhealthy food tax??? So every pizza, candy bar, Big Mac, etc will get this tax? Conceptually, it sounds like the cigarette tax, except that everyone eats all this stuff (except maybe vegans).
So basically, the individuals that actually do take care of themselves will still be paying for everyone else that doesn’t care about what they eat.
Sorry, I’m not a fan and think there are better ways. Promoting healthy eating and incentivizing employers and healthcare plans to recognize people that are proactively taking responsibility for their health, is one way.
I didn’t see anything in Posting Again’s comments about a tax. Posting was stressing preventative care and marketing efforts. Also, it’s worth noting a growing portion of the American population who is not vegan is making healthier food choices. One does not have to be vegan to make good choices. I am not a vegan and I won’t eat fast food. I try to limit sugar intake, if any at all.
Thank you, Captain Planet. I did not mention a food tax because as a country we are currently spending an upwards of 117 Billion dollars on fast food already, and I doubt an increase of a couple pennies is going to deter people from their can of Pepsi.
The issue is this: When your child watches cartoons on television and the commercials come on, they are being bombarded with candy, soda, super-sugared cereal, and fast food commercials. Children are very susceptible to marketing, and when they become adults, their brains are already wired to think that eating this kind of food is normal and acceptable for an average diet.
4.8 Billion dollars is spent on marketing yearly for fast food corporations. Fast food companies use lobbyists to prevent regulations regarding the marketing of children, and other restrictions including the research into the link between fast food and diabetes, cancer, and other known obese related diseases.
Our government is allowing corporations to harm Americans through deceptive marketing techniques, and don’t get me started on the public school lunch programs that features mostly fast food options. Give any child a choice between a soda and water and see what they’ll pick.
If someone dies because of asbestos, the company who originally manufactured the product, and swept the health risks under the rug, is liable for the death. If a child only lives one-third of their life, because they become obese and have a heart attack at the age of 32, because the government decided not to educate their citizens or conduct research into the health risks of fast food are they liable for the death of that child?
Fast food should contain the same warnings we see on other products like tanning beds and cigarettes have to acknowledge the potential link to cancer.
All they have to say is, “This product contains saturated fat and other chemicals that may be linked to heart disease, diabetes, and cancers” Then let people have the freedom to decide if they want to eat it or not, but at least inform the consumer at the time of purchase of the associated risks.
Planet and Posting,
Apparently, I must “connect the dots” for you.
Posting said “Foot the bill in the meantime or contact Coca-Cola, Nestle, and all the other companies taking advantage of people’s health through marketing, and make them foot the bill like they should have been doing all along!
So, Posting, how do you intend to “make them foot the bill” if it’s not going to be a tax? Have the Fed Govt sue them because they are causing obesity like they did with the tobacco industry and cigarettes? Have you seen the price of cigarettes these days due in part to that action? FYI, I don’t smoke so I really don’t care about cigarette costs. But, I do eat and enjoy the occasional pizza and fast food. Do you really think those companies are simply going to absorb the cost of “paying for it” or are they going to pass it onto the consumer? It’s the same end result whether you call it a tax or not.
Secondly, this comes down to personal responsibility, not what companies advertise about. Are the parents that weak that they can’t say “no” to their kids? Who’s paying the bills?
In addition to stop blaming the insurance companies, stop blaming the food mfgrs and start blaming the people who sabotage their own bodies. My wife continues to tell me I need to make better choices in what I eat and that I need to lose weight. Guess what, that is my responsibility. Not McDonalds, Nestle, Coke or any other company. There are consequences to our choices, but the progressive left always wants to find a scapegoat to blame it on and create a new entitlement.
Your simple solution of “All they have to say is, “This product contains saturated fat and other chemicals that may be linked to heart disease, diabetes, and cancers” Then let people have the freedom to decide if they want to eat it or not, but at least inform the consumer at the time of purchase of the associated risks” is basically saying that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Don’t you think most of the population should know that already? The calories posted next to the Big Mac is not enough of a hint?
Maybe if people had to pay for it with their health care costs, it might encourage them to make better choices.
Response to Integrity Matters, “Thank you” for your “Dots.”
About footing the bill: Considering that the fast food industry is making 117 Billion a year from our pockets anyway, and, since we are talking about subsidies, the government spends $51 Billion yearly on these additional subsidies. That means if the fast food industry were to foot the bill on the subsidies they would still make 66 Billion. It would be a benefit to society and a loss to the fast food industry to have stricter regulations, and if the fast food industries are looking to recoup their costs by charging more for their products and making them less appealing to children and parents, which will result in lives saved in the long-term, we should support the result that ends in the quality of life extended. We should be regretting the deceptive marketing that occurred in the cigarette industry and lament our inability to identify this risk for the American people and the lives we lost because of their marketing campaigns.
Secondly, personal responsibility becomes extremely difficult to define when information is not explained clearly and concisely. For instance, “Wet Floor” signs are big and yellow and show a little man slipping underneath the words “Wet Floor” so you know to be cautious. Now that all the warning has been accomplished, you have a personal responsibility to heed the warning as stated. If you are walking and you slip on a wet floor without the sign, and bust your head, it is not for lack of personal responsibility. Any person would tell you, “I didn’t know the floor was wet.”
Many people I speak too, that consume fast food on a regular basis, have no idea there is a link to cancer and other obesity related diseases. They think most cancers are hereditary, when less than 10% of cancer related illnesses are hereditary. (I live in Texas, the fast food capital of the US, and a state struggling with massive obesity problems.) Consumers are uninformed about the link between fast food, diabetes, and cancer-related illnesses.
When it comes to nutrition, where is the warning? Where is the government campaigning that informs the basic consumer in plain, simple, language that fast food should be avoided? In a calorie count? Can the average consumer define what a calorie is and how it directly affects your body? Do they show kids in public schools what healthy eating looks like so they can educate their parents or do they just stuff them full of fast food? Kids eat like what their parents eat, and the parents eat what their parents eat. It’s generational, and it stems from lack of warning and education regarding obesity, which is a public health issue, which has transformed into a public health crisis mostly due to fast food marketing.
In the end, it is your choice, and the choice of every person in America, but the government should put up a clear and simple warning sign or label on these products to inform the consumer. The educated person that decides to eat fast food, after the fact, does so at their own health risk and should absolutely pay the health costs associated with their illnesses.
“…. in the meantime, Govt must foot the bill….”
CLEARLY implies taxes will be used to redistribute wealth from larger wage earners to larger butt health insurance risks partaking of unhealthy food because they get free healthcare insurance to take care of their ailments.
Hence, you didn’t EXPLICITLY say what you implicitly wrote.
Posting, thanks for your reply.
First, I believe the $117B you cite for the fast food industry is “top line” sales and not “bottom line” profit. Even if it was, do you realistically think that industry would absorb a 40+% hit to their bottom line? And not pass most of that onto the consumer? Did you think of the potential economic impact that would cause in the for of fast food companies going out of business, lost jobs, increased welfare, etc…? Easy to say “just do it” but near impossible to implement.
Second, all packaged foods have nutrition information on the labels today and have since that was put into law…in the 80’s or 90’s. Most fast food restaurants have nutrition information available on their boards and definitely in print. You are assuming that if a warning is on the label, people are going to change their habits just by reading it. There are people that don’t both to read or pay attention to the “wet floor” sign and think someone else should still be responsible for their injury.
Third, this country has been preaching nutrition since the late 90’s and early 00’s. Michelle Obama changed the school lunch program with the waive of her magic hand. The results, many kids getting school lunches ended up throwing away the “nutritious” food because they didn’t like. A waste of the taxpayers money.
I am all for putting warning labels on food. I am also realistic enough to know that they have a minimal effect on changing or curbing behavior. It comes down to the individuals personal desires, motivation, responsibility and self control. You can lead a person to a salad bar but you can’t make them eat it.
Asking anyone (food industry, govt or the tax payer) to pay for someone’s poor choices, is not fair. People who always push the blame onto to others and are enabled to get away with it, will continue that behavior. Case in point…Hilliary Clinton!
Integrity Matters: Thank you for additional incite on your thoughts.
No doubt, making consumers more informed about the effects of fast food is going to affect the company’s bottom line. No doubt, there would economic consequences from hitting their bottom line. Fast food companies do, however have many options: They can lobby the government to overturn the subsidies on meat and cheese, and ask for subsidies on fresh fruits and vegetables, so they can offer healthy options and still maintain a lower price. They can also open a healthier version of their stores that will slowly move toward the healthier option over years, and maintain the same level of employment. There are many other options they have than taking advantage of the consumer.
Also, I can’t find any research that concludes that the tobacco industry lawsuit affected the economy negatively in any way jobs or otherwise. This no doubt results from their lawsuit protection insurance or a Commercial Umbrella policy. Since we are on insurance journal, the company would only have to pay for the increase in premium and NOT the actual cost of the lawsuit, so NO real economic impact.
Second, labels on packages have been created to be deceptive. Please note that on a label, the percentage of your daily intact is listed for Protein, Saturated Fat, etc. but NOT SUGAR. Sugar is the only category where they will not tell you what your daily percentage is, and that is because most products are going to give you 300% of your daily recommended intake, and marketing companies did not want that information visible. When I’m recommending a label, I’m recommended at least a 4-5 inch stamp on the board where you order your food. Most fast food places have nutrition charts that are conveniently located behind doors or promotional banners where they are easily not visible to the general public.
Third, Michelle Obama was working on the school lunch program until she partnered with Coca-Cola, and other fast food providers who were supposed to be helping with the obesity crisis. Instead they shifted the focus to exercise, (60 minutes of play per day) which will not in any way assist in the obesity crisis or challenge the fast food industry. They opted to leave the unhealthy food as an option for “CHILDREN” to make choices knowing full well that this would fail. This was a political strategy on their part to ensure no further regulations would happen from the program.
I appreciate and understand your opinion of personal responsibility, but you are assuming every human has had the same education and lifestyle growing up, and knows fully about the risk of what they eat. Most American people have no clue what they are putting into their bodies when they eat fast food, and they are just an uninformed as they were when the tobacco industry was telling everyone that smoking actually could have health benefits. Once Americans were informed, the trend in smoking decreased dramatically. Inform the American people about these risks, and let’s see if people make different choices?
When I’m asked why I avoid fast food places in the wonderful State of Texas, that is the Fast Food paradise of the US, and I explain my reasons, people are usually shocked. I’ve had people research it, and come back even more surprised at the risks associated. The average person that I inform reduces their fast food intact by 50% after becoming fully aware of the risks. The bigger issue is why they didn’t know this before? Why are so many Americans, and Texans specifically, uneducated regarding the consequences of what they eat? The first step in solving the obesity crisis is making the public aware of the cause of the crisis and cracking down on deceptive marketing in the fast food industry.
News flash: Democrats vote as a block against Republican legislation. They’re not being mean to you, Donald. They’re doing what the voters who elected them expect them to do. Some of them are even standing up for their principles, which I guess you may not have much experience with.
As for these Republicans: it is amazing how united they are in their apparent hatred for a health care system which was preached by the Heritage foundation for years, and implemented by a Republican governor in Massachussetts.
Fortunately, the weaknesses of this system and the Republican Party have become apparent. With any luck, the voters will bring in a new crop of legislators next year, who will pass single payer healthcare, so everyone in America can just enroll in Medicare already. Problem solved.
What else…please make sure you know all the facts about what you speak of before spreading the talking points. Wait, you’re a progressive liberal, so “what else is new”?
Single payer is not good, for anyone. The next election is not going bring the change you seek even if the Dems won every available seat. Lastly, the problems with a single payer system would not be solved, they would only be just beginning.
Anyone else doing the Obama care training?
How is that going for you?
If you don’t work it, if not a policy holder your opinion is uninformed.