Serious Question for Trump voters/supporters. Are you embarrassed by anything yet?

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2017, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, I'm not an expert in the industry, and I won't even remotely claim to be.  But, from a citizen's point of view, customers not being able to purchase health coverage over State lines seems to be a big issue in restriction of free market solution.  Since the Federal Government feels compelled to be involved, why not do something to help the matter?  Why not make every company that wishes to provide health coverage in the US, be Federally Licensed to do so, in the entire US?

I'm not an expert in health care policy or the industry, either, I am just a student of public policy working towards becoming an analyst. So I approach it from that perspective. What you suggest is good, and actually what a lot of people would like to see if insurance become something that can not only be purchased across state lines, but also be much more portable between jobs because of the increased emergence of the gig economy. But, there are serious issues to consider for the idea of selling insurance across state lines. There is a concern that it would create what policy wonks call a "race to the bottom" where the competition among states to attract business would cause a reduction in available coverage from insurance as requirements for minimum coverage would be stripped. Also, regional variations would make it very difficult for an interstate insurance marketplace to exist effectively in the free market.

There is a lot more to it all, and this is just a surface level thing based upon some of my reading on the issues, but this is the reason why it can be complicated to come up with a solution. There are some good thoughts out there on what can be done, but in today's political climate they just aren't feasible.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-01-2017, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not an expert in health care policy or the industry, either, I am just a student of public policy working towards becoming an analyst. So I approach it from that perspective. What you suggest is good, and actually what a lot of people would like to see if insurance become something that can not only be purchased across state lines, but also be much more portable between jobs because of the increased emergence of the gig economy. But, there are serious issues to consider for the idea of selling insurance across state lines. There is a concern that it would create what policy wonks call a "race to the bottom" where the competition among states to attract business would cause a reduction in available coverage from insurance as requirements for minimum coverage would be stripped. Also, regional variations would make it very difficult for an interstate insurance marketplace to exist effectively in the free market.

There is a lot more to it all, and this is just a surface level thing based upon some of my reading on the issues, but this is the reason why it can be complicated to come up with a solution. There are some good thoughts out there on what can be done, but in today's political climate they just aren't feasible.

Those are very legitimate questions.  Hence my suggestion for Federal Licensing to any company wishing to be a health care provider in the US.  That way the companies that only wish to cater to specific markets get weeded out, ensuring by Federal License that any interested customer is getting a qualified provider.

[Goalpost]

(08-01-2017, 12:02 PM)Dill Wrote: How have Democrats not accepted election results?

Well we already know the MSM reports at a 10-1 negative rate.  CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, etc.    Have you ever seen a candidate take office where a national commercial was made urging Republican delegates to be patriotic and not certify him?  I'm referring to the Hollywood clan.  And off course there has been some violence permeating...cut off heads, blow up the White House speeches, and idiotic extremes of rifle baseball field target practice.  And also there have been impeachment speeches on the floor.

And finally Russia is 24/7.  There actually are people on the other side looking at the situation also.

 GOP Rep. Pete King of New York, who's on the House Intelligence Committee, said after the Kushner interview that the committee investigation into Russian meddling is a "sham."

"To me there is nothing to this from the beginning," he said of his committee's own probe. "There is no collusion ... it's the phoniest investigation ever."

[*jason*]

So it seems safe to say that those who voted for Trump are unwavering in their support. To them he's done ok with what he's had to work with. If the media, and Congress would just fall in line, he'd be totally kicking ass. Those who didn't vote for him or just plain don't like him are seeing things unfold the way they thought they would... There is obviously a disconnect somewhere.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-01-2017, 06:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So then, why are providers drying up in some markets?  We're not talking about the bulk of working Americans that have employer sponsored health coverage, or the Seniors on Medicare, or even the indigents on Medicade, but that small percentage that must purchase their individual policies on the exchanges.

There are many reasons. The main reason would be money. If the companies aren't making a profit they will leave. Same applies to any state insurance market. Since these are new markets they made an educated guess what to charge. If they made a bad guess prices went up. If they made a good guess prices may have went down. You had a business so you probably know better than I that prices vary based upon lots of factors.

Another reason is market instability. The Republicans have been trying to repeal Obamacare every year. Plus Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop paying the government subsidies. They government subsidies are basically what your employer pays towards your health insurance. If the government stops paying what they agreed to pay, the insurance companies are up a creek without a paddle. Would you keep doing tile for a customer who repeatedly threatened not to pay? I doubt it. You didn't stay in the tile business when the housing market crashed, why would the insurance companies stay in the Obamacare exchanges when the Republicans are trying to crash the markets by repealing the markets?


There is more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Also, the majority of patients I've seen with Medicaid aren't indigent, but poor.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-01-2017, 09:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There are many reasons.  The main reason would be money. If the companies aren't making a profit they will leave. Same applies to any state insurance market. Since these are new markets they made an educated guess what to charge. If they made a bad guess prices went up. If they made a good guess prices may have went down. You had a business so you probably know better than I that prices vary based upon lots of factors.

Another reason is market instability. The Republicans have been trying to repeal Obamacare every year. Plus Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop paying the government subsidies. They government subsidies are basically what your employer pays towards your health insurance. If the government stops paying what they agreed to pay, the insurance companies are up a creek without a paddle. Would you keep doing tile for a customer who repeatedly threatened not to pay? I doubt it. You didn't stay in the tile business when the housing market crashed, why would the insurance companies stay in the Obamacare exchanges when the Republicans are trying to crash the markets by repealing the markets?


There is more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Also, the majority of patients I've seen with Medicaid aren't indigent, but poor.

in·di·gent

ˈindəjənt/
adjective
adjective: indigent

1. 1.
   poor; needy.
   synonyms:
   poor, impecunious, destitute, penniless, impoverished, insolvent, poverty-stricken; More
   needy, in need, hard up, disadvantaged, badly off;
   informal(flat) broke, strapped (for cash), on skid row, down-and-out;
   formalpenurious
   "indigent families"
   
   
   antonyms:
   rich
   

noun
noun: indigent; plural noun: indigents

1. 1.
   a needy person.
   synonyms:
   vagrant, homeless person, down-and-out, beggar, pauper, derelict, have-not;
   informalbum
   "a shelter for the city's indigents"
   
   

1. I'd say that the 1st definition applies to most of what we're talking about.  Anyway, my real point of responding was to say that by removing the interstate restrictions on health care providers, more free market competition can happen.  Customers get the option to choose between companies.

[NATI BENGALS]

I was going to make a new thread about kathy griffen shaving her head.

But its almost like nobody gives a flying shit.

No broflake feelings were harmed in the treatment of that head and all of a sudden nobody gives two shits about this clown? Wtf i thought she was uber important?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-01-2017, 10:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: in·di·gent

ˈindəjənt/
adjective
adjective: indigent

1. 1.
   poor; needy.
   synonyms:
   poor, impecunious, destitute, penniless, impoverished, insolvent, poverty-stricken; More
   needy, in need, hard up, disadvantaged, badly off;
   informal(flat) broke, strapped (for cash), on skid row, down-and-out;
   formalpenurious
   "indigent families"
   
   
   antonyms:
   rich
   

noun
noun: indigent; plural noun: indigents

1. 1.
   a needy person.
   synonyms:
   vagrant, homeless person, down-and-out, beggar, pauper, derelict, have-not;
   informalbum
   "a shelter for the city's indigents"
   
   

1. I'd say that the 1st definition applies to most of what we're talking about.  Anyway, my real point of responding was to say that by removing the interstate restrictions on health care providers, more free market competition can happen.  Customers get the option to choose between companies.

If a person has a job and a place to live I don't consider them indigent. If a person qualifies for Medicaid they are too rich to qualify for indigent care programs.

I agree removing state lines as a restriction to insurance coverage access would be beneficial to the middle class seeking the best bang for their buck, but the politicians aren't trying to fix that issue; which is an issue you and I agree needs fixing. They are arguing about things that have been fixed (pre-existing conditions) and trying to "fix" it by going back to the old broken system. It's ridiculous. There are issues with Obamacare which genuinely need to be fixed, but they aren't trying to fix them. And what they have proposed to replace Obamacare is pure shit.

[*Nately120*]

Meh, even if this country were to magically luck into a great healthcare system the next election would feature a slew of politicians declaring it a gigantic failure and whipping up support to have it dismantled.

[Dill]

(08-01-2017, 09:23 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Well we already know the MSM reports at a 10-1 negative rate.  CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, etc.    Have you ever seen a candidate take office where a national commercial was made urging Republican delegates to be patriotic and not certify him?  I'm referring to the Hollywood clan.  And off course there has been some violence permeating...cut off heads, blow up the White House speeches, and idiotic extremes of rifle baseball field target practice.  And also there have been impeachment speeches on the floor.

And finally Russia is 24/7.  There actually are people on the other side looking at the situation also.

 GOP Rep. Pete King of New York, who's on the House Intelligence Committee, said after the Kushner interview that the committee investigation into Russian meddling is a "sham."

"To me there is nothing to this from the beginning," he said of his committee's own probe. "There is no collusion ... it's the phoniest investigation ever."

If Democrats did not accept election results, they would be asking for a recall.

None of your points counts as not accepting election results.

Yes, Trump has generated much resistance. You don't appear to recognize how Trump himself is responsible for that. Just this week, Police and law enforcement organizations across the country are angry at his "joke" urging police to disrespect suspect rights. He was rebuked by the Boy Scouts last week. First time ever for a president. Do you think all that is because they don't accept the election results? And so it goes, week after week.

Name one previous president who is as vulgar and knows so little about how government works.  You cannot.  Do you think the media should NOT report on his character flaws and incompetence so the reporting will be more "fair"-- 50-50?  That appears to be what you are demanding. The media should change, not Trump.

There is a Russia investigation because 1) they interfered with our election, 2) because Trump is unable to criticize Russia (i.e., defend the US against this foreign threat, 3) because so many of Trumps campaign staff met with Russian operatives (including Don jr, seeking to collude), and because Trump fired the FBI director for continuing to investigate.

When you quote one highly partisan Republican who claims the investigation is a sham, you are ignoring the CIA and FBI intel, just as Trump does, the man in charge of national security. Are CIA/FBI personnel "leftists" who don't accept election results? 

Along with King and Trump, there is Fox News, now facing a scandal and lawsuit for creating and promoting a fake news story to distract from the Russian investigation.

A president so bad that a right wing news organization had to allegedly create fake news for "balance." The claim that Russia is "fake news" is itself fake news, generated by the right wing media to defend the worst president in history.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-01-2017, 05:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, an investigation with bi-partisan support is not accepting the election results? I mean, I know a lot of us ***** about the electoral college, but I've only ever seen Trump and his base try to claim the vote numbers were wrong.

How would bi-partisanship negate Democrats not accepting election results?

[Dill]

(08-01-2017, 10:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:

1. I'd say that the 1st definition applies to most of what we're talking about.  Anyway, my real point of responding was to say that by removing the interstate restrictions on health care providers, more free market competition can happen.  Customers get the option to choose between companies.

Is there any reason to believe that free market competition among insurers would improve the quality and affordability of health healthcare in the US?

Has it worked that way anywhere else in the world? 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-02-2017, 07:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Is there any reason to believe that free market competition among insurers would improve the quality and affordability of health healthcare in the US?

Has it worked that way anywhere else in the world? 

To first part.  I absolutely believe that free market competition forces competing companies to put out a quality product at an affordable price.  If they don't, their company fails, and they go out of business.  If companies A and B are both Federally licensed to sell health coverage in the US, and carry relatively similar products, and are both allowed to market the same population, the company with the better rate is going to win 10/10 times.

As to second part.  I really don't care what works in the rest of the world.  We don't live in the rest of the world, we live in the US.  The US is unique.  We have a government of the people, for the people, by the people.  By and large, even our lower class citizens enjoy a more prosperous existence than the majority of the world.  Why is the US so wealthy that even our poor have luxuries like cell phones, tattoos, tricked out cars?  Because we are a Capitalist Economy, we make more money than we need...

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-02-2017, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To first part.  I absolutely believe that free market competition forces competing companies to put out a quality product at an affordable price.  If they don't, their company fails, and they go out of business.  If companies A and B are both Federally licensed to sell health coverage in the US, and carry relatively similar products, and are both allowed to market the same population, the company with the better rate is going to win 10/10 times.

As to second part.  I really don't care what works in the rest of the world.  We don't live in the rest of the world, we live in the US.  The US is unique.  We have a government of the people, for the people, by the people.  By and large, even our lower class citizens enjoy a more prosperous existence than the majority of the world.  Why is the US so wealthy that even our poor have luxuries like cell phones, tattoos, tricked out cars?  Because we are a Capitalist Economy, we make more money than we need...

More for less isnt always good. Have you ever had burger king chicken nuggets? Little ceasers put me in the hospital. 

A walmart style health insurance plan doesnt sound good to me. 

I like competition benefiting the consumer. But ive also seen it get out of hand. A couple juggernauts would prevail after awhile buying everybody else up. It would be good at first but we would probably be buying health insurance from amazon or walmart soon.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-02-2017, 07:58 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: More for less isnt always good. Have you ever had burger king chicken nuggets? Little ceasers put me in the hospital. 

A walmart style health insurance plan doesnt sound good to me. 

I like competition benefiting the consumer. But ive also seen it get out of hand. A couple juggernauts would prevail after awhile buying everybody else up. It would be good at first but we would probably be buying health insurance from amazon or walmart soon.

I guess you missed the part about having to be Federally Licensed to sell health coverage in the US?

[Belsnickel]

(08-02-2017, 08:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess you missed the part about having to be Federally Licensed to sell health coverage in the US?

My question would be what does being licensed mean? Does it mean they have to cover certain things? Does it put restrictions on premiums and deductibles? Does it require coverage for dependents up to a certain age or not denying based on pre-existing conditions?

The issue is that without things like this you will still see a situation of crappy plans, and if you try to put those regulations in place you will lose conservative support.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-02-2017, 08:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My question would be what does being licensed mean? Does it mean they have to cover certain things? Does it put restrictions on premiums and deductibles? Does it require coverage for dependents up to a certain age or not denying based on pre-existing conditions?

The issue is that without things like this you will still see a situation of crappy plans, and if you try to put those regulations in place you will lose conservative support.

Well, of course it would mean a lot of things.  For example (I would imagine) that licensure would ensure that the company is not only financially stable enough to last, but certain minimum parameters would be established for the minimum level plans, to ensure that every American is at least guaranteed a specified level of coverage.  I would think that a rate bureau would have to be established to study risk and set rates for specific markets, similar to auto insurance industry.  Keep in mind, this is all just an idea.  Cloud talk, if you will.

[*Nately120*]

(08-02-2017, 08:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, of course it would mean a lot of things.  For example (I would imagine) that licensure would ensure that the company is not only financially stable enough to last, but certain minimum parameters would be established for the minimum level plans, to ensure that every American is at least guaranteed a specified level of coverage.  I would think that a rate bureau would have to be established to study risk and set rates for specific markets, similar to auto insurance industry.  Keep in mind, this is all just an idea.  Cloud talk, if you will.

Your plan sounds lousy.  If I'm elected I'll tell you my super secret awesome plan that will replace yours!  Trust me, it's awesome.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-02-2017, 08:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I guess you missed the part about having to be Federally Licensed to sell health coverage in the US?

That wouldnt stop a company with a leg up on the competition and a foot print in many states from buying up a lot of their competion.

It would be nice at first. But it wouldnt take long to have burger king chicken nugget level insurance that will really let you down. Especially if ted cruz gets his way.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-02-2017, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To first part.  I absolutely believe that free market competition forces competing companies to put out a quality product at an affordable price.  If they don't, their company fails, and they go out of business.  If companies A and B are both Federally licensed to sell health coverage in the US, and carry relatively similar products, and are both allowed to market the same population, the company with the better rate is going to win 10/10 times.

As to second part.  I really don't care what works in the rest of the world.  We don't live in the rest of the world, we live in the US.  The US is unique.  We have a government of the people, for the people, by the people.  By and large, even our lower class citizens enjoy a more prosperous existence than the majority of the world.  Why is the US so wealthy that even our poor have luxuries like cell phones, tattoos, tricked out cars?  Because we are a Capitalist Economy, we make more money than we need...

Just look at the OTC herbal and supplement industry. In one study of major brands only 10% of the supplements had exactly what was listed on the label in the amounts listed while 10% didn't have any of the listed ingredient. The remaining 80% had some, but not all, of the listed ingredients, but not in the amounts listed. Meaning a full 90% of supplements contain fillers such as rice.

Products like Airborne and homeopathic remedies are completely ineffective.

Just because there is competition doesn't mean they offer quality products. Many of the supplement companies knowing sell crap that doesn't work, yet they don't care as long as they make money.

Obamacare requires health insurance policies to cover a minimum amount of services. The Republican are trying to do away with that.