Rand Paul's Healthcare Proposal

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by RedDirtWalker, Jul 13, 2017.

?

Would you be in favor of Rand Paul's Medical Bill..and why?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feel free to post any evidence. True Concierge care is only for the wealthy who are willing to pay a premium to have first access to a primary care physician. But go ahead and post you evidence of bidding .
     
  2. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. Prices have come down to the point that an average middle class family can afford it.
     
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I'm not making it up, but since you prefer the current system, I'm not sure why it would matter to you.
     
  4. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except of course that the American healthcare system was a disaster before the ACA. Both parties agreed it needed to change it was however only the Democrats who tried to do something about it. The republicans had six years to come up with a better idea and came up empty.

    If you have doubts look up the figures about the percentage of GDP the US spends on healthcare versus other developed nations and then look at the results versus other nations. The data is easily available online for the statebof American healthcarebprior to the ACA.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I don't prefer the current system. America has arguably the worst system in the developed world. I just don't think your proposal will make a significant difference. And the fact that you obviously make things up to support your position and then duck when challenged is telling.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2017
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "challenge" was to provide documentation on health insurance policies which no longer exist, when you've already made pretty clear that you oppose the policy anyway. I've long since learned that lesson that it's a waste of time to research that information because that's not your problem in the first place. You don't oppose this way to cover pre-existing conditions because you don't know if health insurance companies used to sell plans that wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions years ago, you just oppose it, as you've made clear throughout this thread.

    I'm curious why you think it's so important for that information anyway? The gist of my plan is using Medicaid as a secondary payer for pre-existing conditions. That doesn't have anything do with how health insurance was sold pre Obamacare.

    I suspect this is just another way for you say "single payer or bust."
     
  7. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason I challenged your statement that the two year hiatus followed by insurance companies covering all pre-existing conditions without charging more has been tried and proven to work is because your claim is not true. That is the basis upon which your entire claim of having a workable solution rests.

    And your plan not using Medicaid as a secondary payer for Pre-existing conditions. You pan is to do that for two years and then make it mandatory for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without charging more for those conditions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2017
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ahh... so you are saying that you already have proof that insurance companies never had policies in which they wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions for a set time period? Well why didn't you say so? I would be curious to see that.

    The current plan that we have, Obamacare, is just to make it mandatory for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without charging more for those conditions. Which makes more financial sense?
     
  9. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice try but it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the proof. But as you stated one of the main changes the ACA made was to require insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. A change that obviously would not have been necessary if insurance companies were already doing so.

    And I was a person with one of those conditions and no insurance company would cover me at any price although I grant that personal anecdotes are not proof.

    And in your second paragraph what which makes more financial sense. You didn't post any choices.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2017
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sigh, there ya big baby...I link you to something you claim was impossible.

    http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/memo1.pdf

    From 2007 through 2009, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint refused to pay 212,800 claims for medical treatment due to pre-existing conditions. In some cases, the companies offered health insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions, but used medical riders to exclude coverage or increase deductibles for the pre-existing conditions. In the case of one of the companies, nearly 15% of the company’s customers in the individual market in 2010 had policies with riders limiting coverage or increasing deductibles for certain medical conditions

    That's why I regarded your personal anecdote as irrelevant.

    Now what difference will it make to your argument that I was telling the truth on this issue and you weren't? We both know: none at all.

    As far as what plan makes more financial sense...seriously? A plan that subsidizes pre-existing conditions for a set time compared to one that doesn't subsidize them at all?
     
  11. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes so that proves my point. Nowhere does that say that companies covered pre-existing conditions.at the same rates as other people were covered. In fact nowhere does it say pre existing conditiobs were covered at all without riders limiting coversge or increased deductables.

    why would you post an article thst proves my point. But thsnks.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, you actually lied about the content of what I posted, even though I actually copied the text to prevent that but...heh you did it anyway. I gave you the proof that you sought, and then you made up stuff about the content.

    Time and time again I try to have a real discussion with a leftist but it always breaks down with their inherent dishonesty.
     
  13. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And how did I lie. You claimed that insurance companies giving people with pre exising conditions and a two year hiatus of coverage for those conditions following acceptance of all pre existing conditions at the same cost as everyone else has been tried and that it worked. Your source demonstrated nothing of the kind and you know it. In fact it demonstrates conclusively the fact that coverage for pre existing conditions has either been denied, or charged more, or incurred higher deductibles.

    Your intellectual dishonesty is not my fault. The fact that your link actually proves my point is just icing on my cake. What part of this do you actually not understand

    " From 2007 through 2009, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint refused to pay 212,800 claims for medical treatment due to pre-existing conditions. In some cases, the companies offered health insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions, but used medical riders to exclude coverage or increase deductibles for the pre-existing conditions."

    Somehow I miraculously fail to read in the quote you posted where they actually provided coverage at the same cost as insurance for people without those conditions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2017
  14. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that is NOT what insurance companies are for. Insurance is sold to reduce the cost of the unexpected by paying a reasonable amount based on the risk.

    Insurance companies were not formed as charitable organizations.

    If an insurance company should be forced to insure those with pre-existing conditions the cost of such policies should be slightly higher than the known cost of the pre-existing condition, which would then provide additional care for the unexpected.

    Perhaps we need a 28th Amendment to our Constitution preventing government from redistributing any monies acquired to individuals or corporations, allowing success or failure to be a result solely of their own making?
     
  15. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Asked, answered. You said:

    I demonstrated that multiple insurance companies did in fact have plans that they sold that wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions for periods of time. Your insistence, based on your personal anecdote that they didn't exist notwithstanding.

    You of course, didn't understand what was written. Try again:

    " From 2007 through 2009, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint refused to pay 212,800 claims for medical treatment due to pre-existing conditions. In some cases, the companies offered health insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions, but used medical riders to exclude coverage or increase deductibles for the pre-existing conditions."

    Which is what I said.

    As I said, you were dishonest from the beginning and have been trolling, the entire time.
     
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but you have a comprehension defecit. Your post shows that insurance companies denied coverage for illness that were pre existing which means that thebpurchaser of the policy did not disclose them when purchasing the policy and so were denied payment.

    The other part says that policies used riders to exclude coverage or raised deductables for some people with pre existing conditions. It does not say that the insurance company covered all preexisting conditions or that they even covered any pre-existing conditions at the same cost as other policies

    Your claim was that insurance companies after a hiatus covered all pre existing conditions at the same cost as charged people with no preexisting conditions. You have not proved that. And moronic highlighting of " pre- existing condition" proves nothing except the article actuslly used the words.

    Just be honest and admit you lied, you have no proof of your claim, and then try again to come up with a plan thst might work.

    Oh, and here is your actusl quote from your post #69.

    " As far as cost comparisons, no I don't have the numbers. I'm going by it actually being used and workingby health insurance companies, so it's already a proven concept. But the insurance companies just didn't reimburse for that two year period, so if you had their insurance and a pre-existing condition, you were SOL. "

    So far you have failed to find one single shread of evidence of your plan actually being used.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  17. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thst would be silly since that is exactly what insurance does. Not to mention taxes, tax exemptions, Socisl Security, Medicare, etc, etc.
     
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, and Lil Mike you might want to read the conclusion of the article you so kindly linked to where it says that in 2007, 2008 and 2009 the four largest insurance companies denied insurance to 651,000 people because they had pre-existing conditions. Note it didn't say provided insurance with riders, or higher deductable or a two year hiatus. It said denied. If you are insure what " denied" actually means try a dictionary.

    Guess my experience was real after all. You can apologise anytime now!
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Still being dishonest huh?
     
  20. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're jesting of course.
     
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. That should not be too complicated to understsnd. All those reallocate money from the payer to the reciever and usually from someone with more money to someone with less.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  22. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope and you know that the dishonesty is yours. . You just are not intellectually honest enough to admit you are wrong. It is OK. You know you are wrong and I know you are wrong and anyone else who reads your posts know you are wrong so it is cool.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  23. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problems: This will basically more separate sick people into high-risk pools, and will reduce preventative care.

    What if someone was long-term unemployed or was homeless or was poor and couldn't afford healthcare for a long period of time? What if you miss the window? Are you basically screwed for the rest of your life? Most of the time people will get healthcare within this window so why have a window at all?

    Sounds good.

    I like this but the health saving account is just you stashing money away to pay for healthcare later which really doesn't actually address the cost and affordability of healthcare which are the real problems.

    Sounds good to me, although I hate it when politicians keep adding new loopholes in our taxes and decades of this has greatly over-complicated them.

    This will separate the sick from the healthy forming high-risk pools.

    This doesn't actually help them that much and they tend not to do it that often even when it is available in some states already.

    How will this help? Aren't they already able to do this?
     
  24. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for the fact that they do not.
    Perhaps you should take your own advice, as you gave Lil Mike, and consult a dictionary on the definition of Insurance, tax, exemption, and charity, along with reading the law regarding Social Security, and Medicare.
     
  25. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Suggest you actually follow your own advice and look up the definition of redistribution which is what you were suggesting we need a law forbidding the government from doing. Never mind I did it for you knowing you probably would not actually bother to educate yourself.

    Redistribution | Define Redistribution at Dictionary.com
    Dictionary.com › browse › redistribution
    redistribution definition. Any process, such as inflation or taxation or the provision of social services, that reallocates household income. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

    And If you do not understand how SS and Medicare are actually funded you should do the research. Hint: when you use both you are not actually using your own money nor is the amount you recieve actually determined by the amount you contributed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017

Share This Page