What will right-wingers with no health insurance do now?

You posted a quote from the link I sent which showed me that I misinterpreted something you said. Because you were using the expression "universal testing" differently from how it is being used by most other people (you interpret it as "everybody being tested" and professionals as "everybody having access to tests") I switched my comments to fit your interpretation without giving it much importance because I think that, in the end, it may be necessary to test everybody (or close to everybody).

But you didn't arrive at your opinions because I posted an article, right? Your conclusions pre-date your response that prompted me to post the link, right?

So show the basis by which you arrived at your conclusions! If you say, for example, that in your area you had more than enough tests a week ago, show it! Don't wait until you are asked. If that's an important basis for your opinions (and it must be, because you repeated it at least three times), then show a statistic, link... something.... that we can verify.

That's how this works. You make a claim, you show the basis for that claim. An honest poster tries to show it before they are asked for it and on the same post they make the claim. There might be reasons why they don't, but then they would do it as soon as they are asked.

I have asked you to show evidence of your claims again and again. You produce none!

See the difference? I show you my references. That allows you to, not only verify, but point out any mistakes I might have made (and I sometimes do). I'm more than happy to give you that possibility because I strive to be considered a serious poster.

But you don't. So I won't.

I always assume at first that everybody I debate with is serious. So, when challenged by a serious poster, I take the time to go back to my references, grab links or quotes, and show them. But I don't waste my time doing all that with posters who have shown that they are not serious.

 

Are you kidding me? If I could figure out a way to lower the costs of medical care, I'd run for president - and I'd probably win! But I do have an idea that could at least make a dent: require that all providers list the cost of various services/procedures, as a percentage (above or below) the Medicare reimbursement rate. Medicare has listed out reimbursements rates for just about every imaginable thing, and it is published online. Thus, a doctor could say: cystocophy: Medicare rate +15%. A big part of the problem is that the actual price for things is hidden, and you only find out about it two months later, when the bill comes. If prices for elected services were listed out, it would have the effect of lowering prices.

At least it's an idea to start off with. All I hear from Democrats is some version of making other people pay. We need to LOWER costs.

As far as the current administration, he had a plan but we needed some Democrats, and they (along with a single RINO) blocked its passage.

 

But the networks got much, much worse under Obamacare. They got so bad, in fact, that a new term was coined: "skinny networks."

And since I'm catching on to the fact that you guys want articles, here's one from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation in which the "skinny networks" arose under Obamacare as a "cost containment measure." It is a direct consequence of Obamacare requirements.
https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/res...works-in-health-insurance-marketplace-pl.html

 

Providers already list the charges for all procedures on their web sites. Medicare also has the reimbursements for all procedures they cover on its website so the info is already out there. I know this because I work with a group at the hospital system I work at that pulls together the pricing info that gets published online. We also send what is called a Rate Book to the state each quarter with hospital prices for all procedures. So not only can one access prices online for any given hospital you could also request a file from the state.

 

Again....Obamacare has NOTHING to do with networks

 

Yes, it's true Medicare lists out their costs - as I mentioned. But it is NOT TRUE that individual doctors list out the costs for their procedures. (You are talking about hospital procedures, and I'm talking about in-office procedures and exams.) I always ask how much something will cost (since Obamacare doesn't cover anything given the high-deductible) and have never been given an answer. I'm always told it's different for everyone depending on what insurance costs. When I ask for the price, insurance not a factor, I've always been told they can't tell ahead of time because they don't know how much time they will have to spend. So......they are NOT required to disclose the price, apparently, unless they are breaking the law.

 

I just posted the article. Great piece by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation about about how insurers are using "skinny networks" as a cost-containment measure in response to the added costs they have under Obamacare. (And you told me you have an employer-based plan, so you wouldn't be a victim of any of this. But believe me, millions have been. It's frustrating: it's like a person with two working legs telling someone in a wheelchair that living in a wheelchair is comfortable and without problems.)
https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/res...works-in-health-insurance-marketplace-pl.html

 

Which again is a function of the PRIVATE insurance company and the local providers.
And the added costs have a little something to do with getting rid of the mandate

 

Private insurance companies have to follow the law...ie Obamacare....the article was written in 2015, the tax was still in place then, Trump didn't end it until years later.

Try again

 

Getting rid of the mandate has caused costs to increase. It's underwriting 101

 

What are you talking about? You claimed that limited networks were always a problem, even before Obamacare, and the article specifically shows that insurers had adopted really limited networks - called "skinny networks" - as a direct consequence of Obama's added costs on insurers. And as you say, the article was written in 2015, when Obama still had the mandate in effect. The costs were going up, and skinny networks were popping up because insurers were trying to contain costs that were on the rise because of Obamacare. You're not trying to claim that all was fine-and-dandy under Obamacare until Trump removed the mandate, are you?

 

Can you show me that? The article you are responding to was written in 2015...how where they increasing the cost then, when they had no idea what the next admin would do?

 

No me

 

Requiring insurers to cover all sorts of expenses, and absorb the high costs of those with pre-existing conditions, is what caused the premiums to rise. Seems you're pretending that everything was fine with Obamacare until Trump arrived on the scene and removed the mandate.

The costs was zooming up under Obamacare well before that, and experts predicted it: the death spiral. If insurers are required to cover those with pre-X conditions, it becomes very expensive, and premiums go up. Then because of that, healthier people drop out, and the sick remain. Costs go up and up. That's why some states saw increases of 50% in a single year and insurers were leaving the individual market in droves.

And it was by intent. Obama KNEW that costs would go up and up, and his plan was that people would eventually be so overwhelmed with Obamacare insurance costs that they would want the single-payer. His only miscalculation was that he assumed (in his arrogance) that Hillary would take the mantle and push it through.

 

I was referring to costs now, which we had been taking about all morning.

 

Sorry; thought I was replying to someone else. I'm still getting used to this forum.

 

but cost are lower now, since Trump took at the Obamacare tax

 

Never said there weren’t other causes, however when you don’t exclude for pre-x and also don’t mandate coverage now you get people gaming the system. That causes bigger increases in premiums.

 

How so?

 

There is less costs...and more options

 

How so? What you just said is quite vague.

 

We did a way with the tax and many of the restrictions that Obamacare put on the industry

 

Ah! Stumbled on something we agree upon....sorta. But the problem is IT NEVER WORKED, even with the Obama mandate. That was because the penalty was relatively low compared to the high premiums, meaning that people chose to pay $2,000 in a penalty rather than $10,000 in premiums.

The fact is, for this to have worked, people really had to be FORCED to buy, with a stiff penalty. The Catch-22 is that if the penalty was really stiff enough to force a purchase, then you are requiring people to buy a private product, which is unconstitutional. It would have been voted down by the SCOTUS.

Here's what the penalty should have been: anyone who refuses to buy health insurance (and that would only be people who are healthy, because those with a pre-X condition would need it and would have bought it) will not be allowed to buy insurance that covers any pre-X condition for a full year. Then people couldn't play games and figure, "hey, I'll buy it when I and if I need it." And something like that was proposed, but liberals shot it down, saying you can't penalize people who don't buy insurance. The fact is, Obama already penalized them with the $2000 penalty, so the real stumbling block is: "how much are we willing to penalize people who don't buy health insurance until and unless they need it"?

 

The issue was whether I should "freeload" because I am against freeloading. Since I pay taxes and the benefits are given to anyone who is eligible, I would accept the benefit. It would be stupid not to. The real issue is whether the government should be giving out handouts.

By the way, in this one, I believe the government should pay for those not able to afford it because it is better for everyone in general. And, if a test was warranted, I would pay for it if my insurance did not pay for it.

 

Right except that “tax” for not getting insurance was only a penalty to those who didn’t get insurance. So that didn’t lower costs for coverage. Getting rid of the mandate doesn’t however have an impact on premiums increasing due to those gaming the system.