Affordable Care Act access

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who will help you learn about how the ACA works, and that the Dept of Health Services has nothing to do with treating anything? That the insurance is provided by private companies, and the treatment by the same private providers you have?

Face it, Dell - you can't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

Educate me then!

As I asked before what private company did you cancel from and what private company is now insuring you (you know, accepting all your previous conditions and no co-pays for preventitive care)?

You seem to think I have the same crystal ball you have. I don't.

And I know the Department of Health Services has no part in treatment. I simply want to make sure they or for that matter ANY government agency has no part in payment of the fat bills when cost of treatment, of the less than healthy, people with pre-existing conditions (like you), exceeds the premiums collected.

This plan is similar to private insurance companies offering DUI offenders and those with multiple accidents / tickets auto insurance at the same rate as a good driver. Guess who is more prone to use their policy?

You've been suckered again!

[Danzig]

dell, years ago my brother had to get high risk insurance because of multiple accidents. i assure you, he didn't pay the same rates as a good driver.

on the other hand, you do raise a valid point. who will pay when the bills are higher than the money from premiums? oh wait...i bet i know. the same people who pay for every other govt program that doesn't quite do what it says it will.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

on the other hand, you do raise a valid point. who will pay when the bills are higher than the money from premiums? oh wait...i bet i know. the same people who pay for every other govt program that doesn't quite do what it says it will.

But strangely, insurance companies have jumped on participation in this, welcoming 30 million newly insured to their ranks. So there must be profit there, or they wouldn't want in. Normally insurance companies refuse to ever insure about 10%, decline to insure another 20% for some things, then insure the remaining 70%. And rescind every one of them they can if a hugely costly thing happens. No wonder they get a huge profit margin.

But, for every person in that 30% who has kidney failure and is on dialysis, or has uncontrolled Type II diabetes, or has had cancer cured or active, you have someone who is really rather healthy and won't have those costs (the 20%)

So they are betting the pool will break even at worse, which seems likely. The 20% will pay for the 10%. The 10%, who are uninsured and only getting expensive non-routine interventional care now, will get routine care that will bring down their costs markedly and help ameliorate the expensive disasters treated infrequently. There will be profit - not huge, but definite profit.

They will keep the very healthy 70% out of these pools, and rake in even more increased profit there.

Insurance company stocks have gone up over the past two years, and I don't expect that to change. When the pros say there will be profit there, believe them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Educate me then!

LOL - please. I've watched you ignore reality for the past two years on this board. You have no interest in it. Don't feign one. It's unseemly for you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - please. I've watched you ignore reality for the past two years on this board. You have no interest in it. Don't feign one. It's unseemly for you.

I'm trying to make this real. What company did you leave and who is insuring you now? Stop answering like the former congressman from NY.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm trying to make this real. What company did you leave and who is insuring you now? Stop answering like the former congressman from NY.

And I said, get off your lazy toush and find out yourself. It's easy. You even have the link. I refuse to do your homework. I've done it before, you just ignore it. There is no use trying to bring any facts to any debate with you regarding healthcare. You have always had zero interest in reading up on the ACA, preferring to keep repeating various nonsense about a variety of plans in discussion back during the healthcare talks.

You could debate actual provisions of the ACA, but you've always ignored them in favor of nonsensically vague right wing talking points. So your feigned interest in the reality of it is just that.

If you want to join in a discussion about the pros and cons of the ACA, I suggest you learn about it. Because your, "it sucks, prove me wrong!" is lazy beyond belief.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And I said, get off your lazy toush and find out yourself. It's easy. You even have the link. I refuse to do your homework. I've done it before, you just ignore it. There is no use trying to bring any facts to any debate with you regarding healthcare. You have always had zero interest in reading up on the ACA, preferring to keep repeating various nonsense about a variety of plans in discussion back during the healthcare talks.

You could debate actual provisions of the ACA, but you've always ignored them in favor of nonsensically vague right wing talking points. So your feigned interest in the reality of it is just that.

If you want to join in a discussion about the pros and cons of the ACA, I suggest you learn about it. Because your, "it sucks, prove me wrong!" is lazy beyond belief.

your deflecting answers regarding what company you left and who your current insurer is has demonstrated, clearly, what a fantasy this is for you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

your deflecting answers regarding what company you left and who your current insurer is has demonstrated, clearly, what a fantasy this is for you.

Not at all. It demonstrates that, once again, you are too lazy to click a link and learn what you are spouting off about.

Then, you wouldn't do something moronic, like post figures about Medicare changes, generalized costs, etc., and completely fail to mention the portion of the ACA we are discussing.

Do you even understand the difference? I don't think so. I suppose I could post a bunch of facts and figures about insurance companies in general, it would have as much context (none) as what you've introduced, in reference to the one portion of the ACA under discussion in this thread.

Yes, Dell. You copied a bunch of generalized one-sided figures about the ACA. Good for you!

Which, btw, doesn't even mention the other side (savings) - which makes it deficit neutral.

And not one thing of what you listed anything at all to do with the section of the ACA I was posting about. Which again, is the whole damn point. You have no understanding of the ACA, and have never made any real attempt to do so.

"The ACA sucks! Obama sucks!" - yeah, we get that's how you feel.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not at all. It demonstrates that, once again, you are too lazy to click a link and learn what you are spouting off about.

Then, you wouldn't do something moronic, like post figures about Medicare changes, generalized costs, etc., and completely fail to mention the portion of the ACA we are discussing.

Do you even understand the difference? I don't think so. I suppose I could post a bunch of facts and figures about insurance companies in general, it would have as much context (none) as what you've introduced, in reference to the one portion of the ACA under discussion in this thread.

Yes, Dell. You copied a bunch of generalized one-sided figures about the ACA. Good for you!

Which, btw, doesn't even mention the other side (savings) - which makes it deficit neutral.

And not one thing of what you listed anything at all to do with the section of the ACA I was posting about. Which again, is the whole damn point. You have no understanding of the ACA, and have never made any real attempt to do so.

"The ACA sucks! Obama sucks!" - yeah, we get that's how you feel.

and you still can't answer what company you left and who you went with!