Judges Frustrated with Failure of Congress to Settle Obamacare Issues

By | July 10, 2019

  • July 10, 2019 at 10:05 am
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 6

    “Several times, Flentje seemed to almost beg the judges to resolve the impasse between the White House and Congress…”

    Just like his snowflake boss. Go whine to someone who cares. And believe me, judges do not want to be whined at.

  • July 10, 2019 at 1:13 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 1

    Just the judges are frustrated?

  • July 10, 2019 at 1:35 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 20

    “More than 20 million Americans obtained health coverage starting in 2014 through the ACA’s independent insurance exchanges, federal subsidies or expanded Medicaid.”

    Wow! Sounds awesome! (What IJ left out: most of the 20 million got the insurance for free or were forced to pay a rising annual penalty if they didn’t get insurance.)

    Genius! What compassion! (Let’s try that rule for guns: you get one for free or you have to pay a penalty, and see if gun ownership goes up.)

    • July 10, 2019 at 4:32 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 1

      Yes, we’re all frustrated with this. Too much finger pointing and too many layers in the healthcare system to try and understand where to start to control cost. We hear there’s a better plan but see no evidence of it and the current one isn’t working. The insurance companies are the easy targets because that’s who we pay but they’re not the bulk of the problem. We have a for-profit system so what should we expect? We’ve over-regulated the industry to the point where everyone is supposed to get the same level of care regardless of their ability to pay or their current stewardship of their body. Everyone’s an equal when laying in hospital bed but a for-profit system doesn’t function properly or fairly under these rules.

      • July 10, 2019 at 4:46 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 12

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • July 10, 2019 at 4:48 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 8

        Have you ever wondered why ‘for-profit’ systems work for Auto, Life, Homeowners, WC, Property, etc.? Why would you think HI is different as regards profit levels?

        • July 10, 2019 at 5:22 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 5

          Exactly right.

          Sweden expanded the private health care options to nearly every town a few years ago. They discovered that the private options kept the big, clumsy, government health care system honest. (Who’d a guessed?)

          Now where is that in Bernie’s proposal?

        • July 10, 2019 at 5:37 pm
          I Won't Hold My Breath says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 8

          There is a better plan. I promise it’s coming.

          Why didn’t republicans put forth any of the better plans when they controlled congress, senate, and white house. Trump has been promising to show us his plan “in the next couple of weeks” for nearly 4 years. If there is a better plan, let’s see it.

          Shhhhh: don’t tell anyone, but they don’t have any plan and they are stringing you along…because you believe them.

          • July 11, 2019 at 9:23 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 7

            If you REALLY want to read the existing, prior proposals, seek them out online instead of lying that they don’t exist thru use of sarcasm.

            IF you do, you will see some have the key, common components I previously listed via discussion of HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS. You will also see some elements that are NOT included in the list I provided in many past posts.

            No past plan was going to be embraced if the ACA was still intact. THAT is why the plans were never discussed in detail. Again; seek out the plans submitted by severl dozen qualified people in the insurance industry and in federal govt positions.

          • July 11, 2019 at 9:24 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 8

            Why didn’t the Republican led Congress invalidate ACA? Five words; John McCain and his pride.

        • July 10, 2019 at 5:43 pm
          Well... says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 14
          Thumb down 6

          Every driver is required to have auto or they can’t drive.

          Why shouldn’t we require every person to carry health insurance? It is the one thing everyone will need. Whether you can afford it or not, everyone will get sick, and at some point become so sick that they will die. Should your ability to survive a disease be based on the size of your bank account?

          • July 10, 2019 at 6:10 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 13

            Did you really never think those talking points through? Seriously?

            If I am wealthy enough to pay for my own health care, why should I be forced to give money to any insurance company or government entity in advance? Because you don’t believe in freedom, that’s why.

            If I am healthy and not rich, but don’t want to buy insurance, why shouldn’t you and everyone else just leave me alone if I want to take the risk?

            And driving a car is a privlege and I could hurt someone if I do it wrong, and so asking someone to carry insurance is not an imposition; they could decide not to own a car or drive and not to buy insurance either.

            Being alive is not a risk to others.

            Please try to be a fair minded person in your posts. It will make you look smarter and fair at the same time.

          • July 10, 2019 at 6:44 pm
            Well... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 12
            Thumb down 4

            Craig, I will try to address your points, even though you failed to address mine.

            If you are wealthy enough to pay for your own healthcare, just like auto insurance, you can simply provide evidence of your ability to self insure and that is fine. (I am willing to bet you can’t afford to pay out of pocket if you get cancer.)

            If you are healthy, but not rich, why should we leave you alone to take the risk? The same reason, we can’t leave you alone when you fall off the roof and break your back. The risk isn’t in the actions, its in the financials. It is fiscally irresponsible and the hospital shouldn’t have to suffer a loss because you’re stubborn.

            Being alive is not a risk to others. Not being able to afford care, clogging up emergency rooms for a simple cold, thinking that you are somehow immune to all disease and injury. These all have a direct impact on the community around you.

            Now, Mr. “I never insult someone unless they insult me” – try to think critically when you spout your drivel. It will make you seem less like an angry old coot.

          • July 10, 2019 at 7:21 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 6

            The federal government should in no way be involved in buying healthcare.

            Many of your questions are why socialism fails. Because when push comes to shove as to making someone pay, a gun ends up at the end of it. What you said, while you tried to sound sympathetic was actually psychotic. Yes, you affect communities. Now pay for your insurance, or prove you can pay your way without insurance, or go to the gulag, right?

            You are not a hero.

            Moving on:

            Some people can technically afford insurance but can’t, and these people get pushed further into poverty. Namely bad spenders who don’t meet the requirements for health insurance. Most people have very little in savings and fall into this category. All that will happen is you force them into fines.

            Requiring insurance is cruel, invades personal rights, your justification allows justification for invading anyone’s rights who lives in and affects a community, which is not ok and leads to socialism and violence, and does not work. Providing incentives works. How about insurance credits instead of subsidies, which in my case encourages my wife not to work?

            In no world should buying insurance be mandatory namely due to bad spenders you would bankrupt along the way, or fine into oblivion. Most people who don’t buy, can’t afford it. They can’t make room for another $400 a month with their spending habits, and no, the majority of them who have always worked this way since the 60’s won’t magically change. Now you’ll flip and say well they deserve it. What about the community then? Affected by the bankruptcies? Should we CONTROL AND CHECK their spending? Your idiotic comments (literally, so this isn’t just a random insult, they are literally ignorant and dangerous) about the community being affected by health bills and therefore we can mandate purchases seems to imply we can punish for purchases that make then unable to pay insurance, especially when combining that you would make an exception for those who could prove they could pay, which is also invasion of privacy. Put into practicality, you would cause absurd tyranny because you can’t let people make their own decisions.

            Grow up. Craig being mad at your garbage isn’t random insults. It’s fighting your ideology, your corrupt, tyrannical, ideology you sell with rose tinted glasses.

          • July 10, 2019 at 7:24 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 4

            And I might add, you forced them to buy more expensive insurance.

            So you’re intentionally bankrupting them, or democrats are anyway.

            A catastrophic policy would cover anything that hospitals get on random visits. Now they can’t buy those plans, which are cheap. My wife’s plan is roughly $365, but she’s young. In the case of earners who make just too much, say $111,000 her in WA, they would then need to pay more in tune with $600 per month or more if their employer didn’t cover it (and many don’t even when you get paid more for families here). So really, making $7,200 of room is nearly impossible, they then get fined and get worse off. Before, they could have maybe bought a $300 policy, but no, you won’t let them buy a cheap one, because that’s just wrong of them to the community.

            Really, you are not a hero, you’re a giant brat, controlling them, and hitting them harder when they say owie.

            I have seen many damaged by this. Why won’t you allow credits for buying insurance? Why do you support this tyranny?

          • July 10, 2019 at 7:26 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 4

            More to the point and on realism you’ve never thought of:

            What if they make room and try to buy it, and then, they have one bad spending month and it gets cancelled?

            You are aware cancellation for non pay is not a reason to be able to shop again right? You have to have insurance at all times. They would get a total annual fee, and not be able to get back into insurance, and then feed again.

            You’re not a hero.

            You’re a villain.

          • July 10, 2019 at 7:44 pm
            Andrew G. Simpson says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
            Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
            This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
            In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
            Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
            Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the firm for those who violate the terms of participation.

          • July 10, 2019 at 7:31 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            In direct order of tyranny:

            The ACA
            Public insurance
            Private insurance.

            In other words, I would accept public healthcare over the ACA, I find this absolutely unacceptable and anyone who supports the scenarios even once that I pointed out deserves to be scolded and shamed for it, and revealed for the fact that they DO NOT care about the middle class, and it’s a farce.

            I have been mad at both sides, but the left has made it absolutely clear they will not get rid of the bad parts of the aca, which are worse than public insurance. They double down, and try to use morality. This is like my brother, when I said “if sanders wins, I literally will lose over $10k per year, by his own calculator, how do you reply to this? It will bankrupt me” his reply? It’s for the middle class.

            If my $90k has become someone you should tax $10k more, and that is justice, and who cares if all those families go bankrupt, then how the heck can one claim to be a good person for the middle class? You have this same blind spot.

            I’ll ask this: What about my wife? What about the millions of families who would be hit by this?

            I already know your answer: Millions more would be getting free insurance! That can’t last, and the end doesn’t justify the means. Then pass the subsidies, which is how that happens, alone. The other millions of people don’t need to get hit in the crossfire! We don’t need to have communities scarified by the millions for the greater good, it is not a either or thing. The fact you see it as such, again, is because you are not a hero, you’re a villain.

            The end does not justify the means. Pass the subsidies on their own, in other words, the ACA has to go by default. Do you agree to allow this, or will you just make ignorant arguments with Craig whose goal is precisely that, about how you need to damage this community? It’s excuses that are not ok.

          • July 11, 2019 at 9:25 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            Why? The US Constitution prevents compelling citizens to buy anything.

          • July 11, 2019 at 2:06 pm
            Well... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            You wrote a lot there Bob. A lot of it appears to be based on assumptions you have about me. You seem to want to get pretty personal and nasty. That’s fine. Those assumptions are incorrect. Thanks though.

            I will say this. I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in buying healthcare. They should be involved in ensuring that every American has healthcare. (It falls under “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life”.) I don’t believe we should fine people for not having healthcare – we should ensure there are programs in place for those who cannot afford it. If you choose to “self-insure” you should be required to proved that you can afford the exorbitant costs of medical care.

            The issue is that the problem isn’t just in health insurance. It is in medical billing, it is rising costs of procedures, it is in the pharmaceutical companies bilking people out of hard earned cash for life-saving meds. Comprehensive reform of the medical industry, it’s practices, and healthcare are desperately needed.

            Again – my main point is that your ability to survive a disease should not be based on your ability to pay. Period. It’s really that simple. I don’t have all of the answers, but no one should die because they couldn’t afford to treat their illness. If you believe that to be an untrue statement, then there is nothing further to discuss.

          • July 11, 2019 at 2:16 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            This comment section is relatively normal, I’ve explained my position before Andrew.

            Your interventions have caused more chaos than you believe some of the commentators here did, including myself. This is not just me being mean and smack talking you.

            Has your readership declined? It will start to.

            If people here go back to the accusations of sexual assault, accusing people of murdering muslims, or being the Charlotsville shooter or Timothy McVeigh, then you have a problem.

            However, questioning if something leads to socialism, and is tyrannical, put to practice, is not. It is how debates tend to happen.

            People here come for those debates, many people that perhaps you and others here consider trolls. They are not. Agent is not the only one who would be upset by the inability to convey oneself without being talked down to, and in this scenario I don’t mean by folks here. I mean by you. I’ve left here before months at a time. I don’t need to be here. If you want to post this comment just ban me. It’s better for the people here, because your comment above, there are those here who do not at all tread lines that you have said this and it puts them on edge, that talking here is far too regulated.

            I’m fine with a ban. I don’t need this area. And I think you’ll find many people will leave, not just me.

          • July 11, 2019 at 2:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            I find it funny how the first thing someone says when I talk about a complicated issue and make it long with real world examples is: You wrote a lot.

            Yes I did.

            “it appears to be based on assumptions you have about me. You seem to want to get pretty personal and nasty. That’s fine. Those assumptions are incorrect. Thanks though. ”

            Incorrect. I went line item why

            “If you are wealthy enough to pay for your own healthcare, just like auto insurance, you can simply provide evidence of your ability to self insure and that is fine. (I am willing to bet you can’t afford to pay out of pocket if you get cancer.)”

            Leads to tyranny when put into practice. It leads to villainy. When I called you a villain several times, it is because of what I explained would occur through your actions put to law. I also explained the suffering, and how to fix it (no fine, put in place subsidies or credits)

            The key thing here is you insist on making it about the comments said against “you” instead of the “policy”. I allow people to say insults as part of an argument, and you did it.

            Seen by: “It is fiscally irresponsible and the hospital shouldn’t have to suffer a loss because you’re stubborn.”

            Idiotic and stubborn are synonymous. When you instead focus on your feelings instead of facts, as your primary argument did, you become erred.

            I said again and again you aren’t a hero, you’re a villain, because most of your post assumes you save people and are a hero. This is not some random nasty insult. It’s pointing out that the belief that you are saving people as a method of argument, while ignoring facts, is not only ignorant, it’s dangerous, as I said.

            “Now, Mr. “I never insult someone unless they insult me” – try to think critically when you spout your drivel. It will make you seem less like an angry old coot.”

            This is really ironic. Your image clearly matters most. You contradicted yourself to throw an insult justified. You’re perfectly ok with insults, so let’s focus on theory and why mine is stupid, you can say that and I won’t be offended.

            “will say this. I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in buying healthcare. They should be involved in ensuring that every American has healthcare.”

            Semiotics this is your method of trying to take how I said something in such a way you clearly know what I meant, in order to make it mean something it didn’t. I was clearly talking about how the government shouldn’t force people to buy healthcare, and you clearly said they should. The above is yet another “I’m a hero” argument. You’re not about government controlling healthcare, you’re about them saving people right? That shift isn’t acceptable, you know what I line item went over. Go over that, not how I worded one phrase.

            “It falls under “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life”.) ”

            No it doesn’t. Food would fall under it by that accord.

            ” I don’t believe we should fine people for not having healthcare – we should ensure there are programs in place for those who cannot afford it. If you choose to “self-insure” you should be required to proved that you can afford the exorbitant costs of medical care.”

            That is not what you said above.

            “If you are healthy, but not rich, why should we leave you alone to take the risk? ”

            Spoken when we were talking about mandates and while saying the only exception is someone who can prove they can self insure. This walk back is all I need to see. You’re not debating honestly. You’re debating to be a hero, and I’ve seen that now several times.

            “The issue is that the problem isn’t just in health insurance. It is in medical billing, it is rising costs of procedures, it is in the pharmaceutical companies bilking people out of hard earned cash for life-saving meds. Comprehensive reform of the medical industry, it’s practices, and healthcare are desperately needed.”

            I am well aware of this. As is Craig. Though part of what you say here is over the top “profit = bad”. Most of the time these companies take advantage of people DUE TO regulation. They all price roughly the same as the insurance company is being forced to pay. Reform isn’t needed. A return to private market is, combined with subsidies or credits. Simply removing most regulations would likely do it. We saw this in many categories in which you could not get insurance at certain points, the cost of the procedure fell, dramatically. Ben Shapiro gives direct examples of this.

            “Again – my main point is that your ability to survive a disease should not be based on your ability to pay. Period.”

            Do you know what a hero statement is without an actual plan? It isn’t wisdom or strength, or morality. It’s two things. One is literally childish. The other, is plainly dangerous. You are here lecturing people on an ideal, one for which you have no solution. I already went over mine. Subsidies and credits, remove the ACA. What is yours?

            It’s really that simple. I don’t have all of the answers, but no one should die because they couldn’t afford to treat their illness. If you believe that to be an untrue statement, then there is nothing further to discuss.”

          • July 11, 2019 at 2:40 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            It cut me off at the end:

            “It’s really that simple. I don’t have all of the answers, but no one should die because they couldn’t afford to treat their illness. If you believe that to be an untrue statement, then there is nothing further to discuss.””

            Another hero statement, I believe in real solutions, if you want to come at people because you believe they will let people die, the issue here is you.

            You assumed that about Craig, I bet, considering the statement, and me, considering you saying if I don’t agree with that there is nothing do discuss.

            The question is not: Are people dying from an inability to pay. Because the fact is, bad things happen.

            The question is how do we cover people without causing on the extreme end, a collapse of the government, socialism, and then a collapse of society. Socialists talk like you, Putin talks about the horrible aspects of the suffrage of the poor, like you. He probably genuinely believes he saves people, like you.

            This is not me saying nasty things for the sake of it. You need to reflect. I see far too many people saying cliché things, and then ignore the solutions and people helping right in front of them.

            I’m right here. The one who said I don’t want millions harmed. I said I want no negative consequences, I gave a solution.

            Again, what is yours, and what is wrong with mine? It’s the same as Craig’s. The ACA has to go by default. The republicans already said, ACA gone, subsidies approved, pre existing expanded, children on plan until 26, the thing was that people rejected it.

            All I hear from your side is how the right wants people to die and lose their healthcare. Or how the ACA may not work but it’s better than nothing, excusing horrible things. We don’t excuse that in the right. In the 2008 election, more republicans flipped parties than democrats, and since then it’s worked that way most of the time. Most people want to be democrat right now. If you pay attention it’s obvious, and if you listen to me, it’s obvious, when I said I might consider Biden. However, the left keeps on shooting itself in the foot on these issues, and it’s obvious. I cannot support the left while they support the ACA and attack the right on it. They are just wrong on it, and need to adapt, and move on.

          • July 11, 2019 at 2:51 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            Really Well, how am I supposed to take you at face value?

            You:

            “Why shouldn’t we require every person to carry health insurance? It is the one thing everyone will need. Whether you can afford it or not, everyone will get sick, and at some point become so sick that they will die. Should your ability to survive a disease be based on the size of your bank account?”

            Also you:

            “I don’t believe we should fine people for not having healthcare”

            You’re either making mistakes in getting your point across, or this is deliberate.

            I will allow you to have a few more of these mistakes, but I will explain why I’m apt to not trust your statements, so you understand.

            I don’t believe you’re making a good faith attempt to agree with or debate the specifics, and make modifications to my ideas.

            I realize some here will say the same about me, but I have in the past taken what people have said here and added it to my own.

            I tend to blend them quite a lot. I don’t think many people here, conservative wise, actually agreed to subsidies or credits before I did, and this was a step toward agreeing with the left. Surely you have to see this is new in the right, and I was one of those who jumped on with you guys. I’m not seeing the left jump on board with the right however. Almost at all, whether politically, or otherwise. The pre existing conditions, the right here now offers and agrees. Children on plans up to 26, not all of us agree, but it was offered by our politicians. I really question why you on the left cannot find something to agree with us on, in actual policy, rather than ideal. I also can’t understand why you on the left honestly believe conservatives just don’t care about what happens when people get into hospitals. Well, the study I posted recently explained it. The left tends to not understand people who disagree with their ideals, as in they think morality first, policy second.

            That study is highly flawed though. I don’t want to believe it, but the more I see things like this, the more I do.

          • July 11, 2019 at 6:18 pm
            Well... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            There you go assuming again. That I am a liberal, or that I am a socialist, or that I am a democrat. I am none of those things. I am compassionate. I am a conservative. I am fiscally conscious. People without health insurance are a drain our government, our hospitals, and our resources. It is fiscally irresponsible to go without health insurance. Both on a personal level, and as a member of a larger community.

            It is not a contradiction to state that everyone should be required to have healthcare and also that you shouldn’t be fined for not having healthcare. To argue that as a point is disingenuous and you know it.

            You clearly want to feel the righteousness of your statements. That is why you post multiple things in a row. It is a debate tactic of someone incapable of real engaging debate. Flood the conversation with such an extreme amount of information that there is no reasonable way to address your points. Keep fighting the good fight Bob. Bye Bob.

          • July 16, 2019 at 7:45 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Why not? The US Constitution, which was ignored by biased Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Roberts.

        • July 10, 2019 at 8:44 pm
          SWFL Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Polar, no one in my post do I state that I am not for a for-profit system. The point is that when people get cancer, have an atv accident, or shot, our healthcare community treats everyone egual with the a standard of care regardless of their ability to pay BUT the healthcare community expects a profit. That profit comes from those of that can pay. Either through higher insurance cost or taxes.

          • July 11, 2019 at 9:31 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            You implied a for-profit system doesn’t work. The solution is Increased Competition (not Single-Payer). This is the IFIC portion of HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS, which stands for Interstate For Increased Competition.

          • July 11, 2019 at 9:33 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            Further, CS stands for Cost Savings methods…. which has numerous approaches/ possibilities mentioned in many prior proposed replacement plans.

          • July 11, 2019 at 10:47 am
            SWFL Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Polar, the “for-profit’ system is working for the many that make a living in the health care industry but so far it hasn’t worked to contain/control medical costs. Isn’t that the big issue we’re all debating here? I love the idea of increased options, more competition, and consumer choice. But what good is consumer choice when, as a nation, we demand that hospitals & doctors treat every patient the same regardless of their ability to pay. Are we prepared to deny access because of the poor choices that some people made when they purchased their policy? So far we haven’t been able to do that. How many news stories have we seen where the big bad insurance company denies a certain treatment (that’s excluded in the policy) to someone and we’re all in an uproar. We want the insurance company to help us contain costs by scrutinizing inflated hospital & doctor bills but when it’s our loved one or neighbor that needs the best, most expensive treatment then the sentiment changes.

          • July 11, 2019 at 3:56 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            “But what good is consumer choice when, as a nation, we demand that hospitals & doctors treat every patient the same regardless of their ability to pay. ”

            What happens when we make everyone who is poor pay zero?

            That is bound to have far more consequences. It can’t work.

            Subsidies and credits for those who are poor, a bill which they then put on an installment plan when they end up beyond their means, bankruptcy when they cannot afford that, it’s the best possible method. Outside of that, everyone tries to lower their costs, which really, credits encourage more than subsidies.

            Remove regulations, move forward.

          • July 12, 2019 at 1:16 pm
            SWFL Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Bob, my issue is that choices for lower priced options may not lead to lower costs if we still provide treatment for everyone with the same level of care. Choices need to have consequences, and they do in the property lines of insurance, but if someone chooses a bare-bones health policy and doesn’t have adequate coverage our hospitals and emergency rooms are still providing service. And someone else pays for this. If we’re prepared as country to let these low cost options lead to commensurate care (I am not saying we should or shouldn’t) then we may see a lower cost like we do with other products & services.

          • July 16, 2019 at 7:51 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            People who argue about those who are poor do not want to address the larger, more important issues of costs, profits, and accountability to the public.

            Costs: there are many cost saving methods proposed, many of which will be blocked by CEOs of HI companies because it will reduce their revenue, thus their compensation. Regulators and legislators need to intervene in regard to cost savings.

            Profits: increased competition will improve affordability and reduce profits to fair market returns.

            Accountability: voters can decide which political candidates will actually ACT to start to resolve the problems created by ACA and which were untreated before ACA was enacted. The key change needed is increased competition, to spur innovative costs savings and reduce adverse selection. Accountability also applies to consumers of HI and HC, and it is only in a few proposals I’ve seen that this last issue is addresed with viable solutions.

      • July 11, 2019 at 11:23 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 11

        Commie solutions do not work either.

        • July 12, 2019 at 2:25 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 1

          Have you been watching Stranger Things 3?

          • July 12, 2019 at 3:52 pm
            SWFL Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Captain, I could be wrong but I think he meant “comic book” solutions.

  • July 11, 2019 at 9:00 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    This entrie issue would immediately self resolve if Trump would take an hour or two away from his golf game, and explain the details of his GREAT health insurance plan, which will provide GREAT benefits to EVERYONE, including those with PREEXISTING CONDITIONS at MUCH LOWER costs for everyone. He repeatedly bragged about this program prior to his election. Why can’t he provide our country the courtesy of his details?

    • July 16, 2019 at 7:53 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      Why not? Two words: John McCain.

    • July 16, 2019 at 7:55 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      …. more important…. it is NOT Trump’s responsibility to provide HI and HC to the US population. It is only his and Congress’ duty to enable private industries to solve those problems through repeal of harmful laws (e.g. ACA), and revision of regulations to increase competition.

      • July 16, 2019 at 10:30 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 1

        It may not be his responsibility, but lest we forget he told everyone: “I am going to take care of everybody, I don’t care if it costs me votes or not.”

        • July 16, 2019 at 12:08 pm
          ApPolloar 11 Bear says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          That was before McCain flip-flopped on his campaign promise to repeal ACA.

          • July 16, 2019 at 12:29 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            McCain died nearly a year ago. You can stop using that as an excuse now. There’s been PLENTY of time to try again.

          • July 16, 2019 at 1:41 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 4

            Duh, the House flipped to the Dems. in 2018, dude. What’s holding up the Dems. plan to offer a fix?

            Medicare for All! Hilarious. A dead horse if there ever was one; millions of Americans are not going to want to quit their current, private insurance. . . they like it.

            Free health care for illegals! Another winner. Open borders to go along with free health care for illegals. Now we’re talking TriFecta.

            Next up: Medicare for All in Central America!

  • July 16, 2019 at 2:04 pm
    Tocaloma says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    ApPolloar – there was only one BIG reason that McCain didn’t repeal the ACA…simply, there was no replacement. He stated many times that it should be repealed, but ONLY when there was a real program ready to replace it. Trump never came through on his promise to even offer “The best healthcare plan ever that covers everyone for a fraction of the cost!”

    • July 16, 2019 at 4:00 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      McCain knew there wasn’t a plan in place and there still isn’t. The Dems proposals are too radical to implement but it would be in their best interests (and all Americans) to listen to a Rep plan that would lower costs, lower deductibles and cover everyone. That’s what was promised.

    • July 16, 2019 at 10:52 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Exactly right, Tocaloma. But, instead, some want to use Senator McCain as a scapegoat. He did the right thing, plain and simple. I’m so old, I remember all the promises about some miracle replacement plan. All America had to do was elect Republicans. Boy, was that a lie.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*