That’s true. And a good argument. “Someone got sick and now they’ll be well thanks to ACA” is not. ANY health care policy will result in some people living who otherwise wouldn’t and others dying who otherwise wouldn’t. A good health policy is one that saves more than it kills.
For all my criticism of the NHS, it meets that standard.
That’s because doctors are popular. The AMA is a very formidable lobbying organization for that reason.
Insurance companies and even drug companies are easy to demonize.
Exactly. I think one of the reasons medical costs are so high is the assumption from the medical (doctors, drugs and equipment suppliers) that deep-pocket insurance companies will foot the bill. Of course those costs are not lowered to reasonable amounts when you don’t have insurance or have to pay a significant percentage of the cost (like 40% for a guy to stare at you while you sleep).
I would deny your premise. I suspect most without insurance are the young who are just starting out and can’t afford insurance or the young that are healthy and want to save their money. In fact, this is a major issue with any sort of zero-reject insurance law (whether Obamacare or Colorado’s child-only insurance). You will have a percentage of young and healthy people that won’t pay for insurance then cough cough I need insurance now. In an extreme case, only sick people would have insurance.
So those that are not insured are skewed towards those that will tend NOT to have preventable deaths.
But we’re better than we should be, from a purely statistical analysis, for twice the price. That’s a win, right? Right?
This argument would have more traction if the Reps weren’t also going around declaring that life is so sacred that a woman must be forced to bear her rapist’s baby. Republicans like to argue that fetuses are invioliate but actual living breathing babies can drop dead if their parents don’t have medical insurance.
It’s ludicrously hypocritical.
What’s your number?
Good point.
Democrats think that Republicans’ attitude is “I’ve got mine, screw you.” Yet the story in the OP is the ultimate in “I’ve got mine, screw you.”. It is “I’ve got my millions in health care, screw all of you who have to pay for me.”
Their profits are irrelevant. It’s the cost of having insurance companies exist that drives up the cost of health care. It’s the medical loss ratio that matters. Insurers have to pay 85% of their premiums on health care- that’s a 15% cut for them. Take them out of the equation and have Medicare for all with its medical loss ratio of 98%.
False.
Anyone has the same right to millions in health care, even you - if, God forbid, you need it.
The attitude of the OP is “I’ve got a desperate situation, thank you for helping me, and you’ll get the same help from me and the rest of us if you ever need it.” You know, how insurance works. Or civilization.
It’s legitimate to question whether that help should be unlimited, but your comment goes far beyond that.
Yup, that lucky ducky 6-month-old baby girl looking forward to her third open-heart surgery and potential transplant. I’m sure as she gets wheeled in to the operating room her final thought before going under will be “screw all of you”.
If you think the help should be limited, your position, in principle, is not different from Republicans. It’s the “now we know you’re a whore, we’re just arguing about the amount” thing.
I didn’t say I think that, but I’m not talking about their position. I’m talking about your post.
My post is, you buy insurance, you accept the terms of insurance. Having ACA force certain terms on the insurance companies raises costs for all of us. So yes, they’ve got theirs and screw all of us.
No, because now you also have a claim to unlimited lifetime expenses should you have a desperate, dying child or whatever. And don’t think it can’t happen to you.
If she were still in the womb the Republicans would be all lecturing us about her right to life. Why does that change when someone besides the pregnant woman and the father have to pay for her life?
Insurance companies raise the cost for all of us. If Obama had any guts on this issue they would be driven out of business so we could cut out the middleman.
That 98% is a mirage. Private insurance companies have collection mechanisms for their premiums. Medicare outsources that collection mechanism to IRS and Social Security, transferring that cost there, and doesn’t show it for its own “administrative costs”, but that doesn’t mean it goes away. HHS also does a lot of administrative duties for Medicare, but that cost is not included in Medicare’s “administrative costs”. Medicare also has a much higher fraud problem than do private insurers- because they don’t spend money fighting it like the private insurers do. Estimates are for about $60B/year in fraud for Medicare - there’s your 12-15% right there.
Just found this: The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
Enjoy.
Which brings up the question I don’t see asked yet in this thread:
Why is health care so expensive?
Why does a surgery cost $300,000? Would it be any less if the hospital didn’t know that the insurance company could cover it easily? (How many prescription drug companies work on this principle - or do those “If you cannot afford this medication, our company may be able to help” disclaimers mean something else?) How much of that is to cover the possibility of a multi-million-dollar-plus-25%-for-the-lawyers suit if something goes wrong?
One other thing I never quite understood: if things like lifetime caps and bans on having pre-existing conditions are such a problem, then why didn’t some insurance company get rid of them already, and use it as a selling point?
So health insurance only prevents death? Just because we have 20% with no insurance does not mean that mean our preventable deaths will be 20% more. So 14% percent more is OK?