LPSG

Republicans being paid off?

Originally Posted by lovinglife What? It is called the Affordable Healthcare Act, but it doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare (titles of act's rarely do what the title says.. see: Patriot Act... they are named

is part of a discussion in the Politics forum that includes topics on Political and government related discussions..


Go Back   LPSG > Main > Politics

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-13-2013   #16 (permalink)
Klingsor is online now


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinglife View Post
What? It is called the Affordable Healthcare Act, but it doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare (titles of act's rarely do what the title says.. see: Patriot Act... they are named to gain support). The insurance companies do not have to lower their rates. The Act does nothing to limit costs.
The healthcare law stipulates that "insurance companies must now publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more before raising your premium." It also "requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money they take in on premiums on your health care and quality improvement activities instead of administrative, overhead, and marketing costs."

How does the health care law protect me?
Klingsor is online now  
Old 10-13-2013   #17 (permalink)
Eric_8 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by egg View Post
of course its an assumption, if it was provable it would be a news story. And if it was reversed and was "assumed" that dems were being paid off, then it would be a news story-on Fox. The only news source where opinions are news.
LOL undoubtedly a non-Fox viewing, Media Matters reading perspective.

While obviously biased, Fox separates its opinion from news, unlike its inferior Liberal counterpart.

I pity da fool!
Eric_8 is offline  
Old 10-13-2013   #18 (permalink)
lovinglife is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Klingsor View Post
The healthcare law stipulates that "insurance companies must now publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more before raising your premium." It also "requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money they take in on premiums on your health care and quality improvement activities instead of administrative, overhead, and marketing costs."

How does the health care law protect me?
A 10% rate increase would be gigantic, and this is a protection against unreasonable rate increases. They can raise it 9% per year (or even per month) and not have to justify it. The second part just means they have to spend money and doesnt reduce rates. They could start advertising their preventative care benefits such as gym memberships and increase the rates within the margin to keep within the 80/20 rule (which would mean more profits, despite still staying within 80/20). Or they could go into talks with prescription drug companies and negotiate higher prescription costs. Or any number of other things.

So really, it offers no real protection against higher insurance rates. Will they be higher? Probably not, I doubt it. But they won't be cheaper because of the Act.

If you are reading this from a post in the politics forum, remind me to stop going there.
lovinglife is offline  
Old 10-13-2013   #19 (permalink)
StormfrontFL is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_8 View Post
LOL undoubtedly a non-Fox viewing, Media Matters reading perspective.

While obviously biased, Fox separates its opinion from news, unlike its inferior Liberal counterpart.


On MSNBC opinion is clearly stated as such and is backed up with facts that helped form that opinion. Meanwhile on Fox even in interviews the talking heads express their opinions which are easily refuted by facts

McCain To Fox News: No, The Shutdown Is The GOP's Fault (VIDEO)

Despite getting the story straight from someone in the middle of it those who report the "news" at Fox refuse to accept what doesn't fit their narrative



Justice isn't blind. It sees three colors....Black, White, and green
StormfrontFL is offline  
Old 10-13-2013   #20 (permalink)
FuzzyKen is offline


Insurance companies do not want AHCA simply because it means that "Uncle Sam" will be looking over their shoulder and it gives "Uncle Sam" the ability to over a period of time place private carriers under regulation an get their "hands slapped" if they are naughty.

They get tons of new customers but it comes with a price. Many of the customers they are going to get will be people considered high risk who because of previously existing medical conditions have been denied coverage. These are people who have in the past had cancer, transplant patients and a host of others that just might cost these guys a few dollars. In addition it removes policy limits in most cases. They can't take your premium money and then throw you to the wolves later.

We just had to use AHCA to get insurance for my 26-year-old Son who has been treated for cancer of the tongue twice. The only insurance he would have been able to get when he fell off my insurance was COBRA which was estimated to us at somewhere between $1,200 and $1,700 per month. Few out there can afford premiums this high.

AHCA eligibility is based on total household income instead of rates set by providers. The rich pay more the poor pay less. That right there is going to ruffle some feathers.
FuzzyKen is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #21 (permalink)
lovinglife is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyKen View Post
Insurance companies do not want AHCA simply because it means that "Uncle Sam" will be looking over their shoulder and it gives "Uncle Sam" the ability to over a period of time place private carriers under regulation an get their "hands slapped" if they are naughty.

They get tons of new customers but it comes with a price. Many of the customers they are going to get will be people considered high risk who because of previously existing medical conditions have been denied coverage. These are people who have in the past had cancer, transplant patients and a host of others that just might cost these guys a few dollars. In addition it removes policy limits in most cases. They can't take your premium money and then throw you to the wolves later.

We just had to use AHCA to get insurance for my 26-year-old Son who has been treated for cancer of the tongue twice. The only insurance he would have been able to get when he fell off my insurance was COBRA which was estimated to us at somewhere between $1,200 and $1,700 per month. Few out there can afford premiums this high.

AHCA eligibility is based on total household income instead of rates set by providers. The rich pay more the poor pay less. That right there is going to ruffle some feathers.
He could've gotten onto PCIP before they closed registrations for it because they ran out of money. I am paying ~265/month for that.

Also, the eligibility thing for rates is for tax credits. Your income wont change the actual rates that insurance companies are charging, just how much you get in tax credits to help pay for it.

The rich won't bother with insurance. They will just hire a doctor for themselves.

If you are reading this from a post in the politics forum, remind me to stop going there.
lovinglife is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #22 (permalink)
Eric_8 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by StormfrontFL View Post


On MSNBC opinion is clearly stated as such and is backed up with facts that helped form that opinion. Meanwhile on Fox even in interviews the talking heads express their opinions which are easily refuted by facts

McCain To Fox News: No, The Shutdown Is The GOP's Fault (VIDEO)

Despite getting the story straight from someone in the middle of it those who report the "news" at Fox refuse to accept what doesn't fit their narrative
Make it through MSNBC's 1-8 block PST and report back to me please.

It's already been proven that they're more biased.

While Fox certainly shits the bed at times, you picked a poor example to highlight it. There is blame to be had on both sides. I do agree that Fox spins that it's Obama's fault, but MSNBC does the exact same in regards to the GOP, while placing nothing at the feet of Senate Dems/White House, which is similarly bogus.

You're also cherry picking. O'Reilly agrees that the fault lies primarily with the GOP, and he's one of the opinion people!!

I pity da fool!

Last edited by Eric_8; 10-14-2013 at 01:42 AM..
Eric_8 is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #23 (permalink)
Eric_8 is offline


As much as I do love to argue, the debate over network bias (while empirically proven) is a pointless one. It's off topic, and facts, not "Faux" facts, are not going to change minds here. So get in the last word if you so desire Storm, but my participation about it dies here.

I pity da fool!
Eric_8 is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #24 (permalink)
lovinglife is offline


While I think general bias is pretty even between MSNBC and FOX, MSNBC by far has more opinion pieces.
Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far - Forbes

If you are reading this from a post in the politics forum, remind me to stop going there.
lovinglife is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #25 (permalink)
FuzzyKen is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinglife View Post
He could've gotten onto PCIP before they closed registrations for it because they ran out of money. I am paying ~265/month for that.

Also, the eligibility thing for rates is for tax credits. Your income wont change the actual rates that insurance companies are charging, just how much you get in tax credits to help pay for it.

The rich won't bother with insurance. They will just hire a doctor for themselves.
For my Son I am paying less than 1/4 of what you are currently paying so I still got the better deal. But, again this is all interpretive and the coverage under AHCA kept him with his present specialists and medical care providers. That was something that was badly needed with cancer. Sorry, the State I live in did this program and it is AHCA through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. According to our Insurance Agent that handled all of this for us this State is already working on models like it or not for "single payer" plans based on the future odds of this being "morphed" into "single payer" in the end. Nobody knows for certain where this will go but right now we have what we have and it works very well so we are going to leave it alone.
FuzzyKen is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #26 (permalink)
lovinglife is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyKen View Post
For my Son I am paying less than 1/4 of what you are currently paying so I still got the better deal. But, again this is all interpretive and the coverage under AHCA kept him with his present specialists and medical care providers. That was something that was badly needed with cancer. Sorry, the State I live in did this program and it is AHCA through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. According to our Insurance Agent that handled all of this for us this State is already working on models like it or not for "single payer" plans based on the future odds of this being "morphed" into "single payer" in the end. Nobody knows for certain where this will go but right now we have what we have and it works very well so we are going to leave it alone.
That is great to hear. I am still waiting for verification on the healthcare site to check what plans are going to be available for me to use and what credits I will get. I expect my rates will go down with the tax credits since I am in college and not making a ton of money. Pretty much all of my income goes to health and my car.

If you are reading this from a post in the politics forum, remind me to stop going there.
lovinglife is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #27 (permalink)
B_underguy1 is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_8 View Post
As much as I do love to argue, the debate over network bias (while empirically proven) is a pointless one. It's off topic, and facts, not "Faux" facts, are not going to change minds here. So get in the last word if you so desire Storm, but my participation about it dies here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinglife View Post
While I think general bias is pretty even between MSNBC and FOX, MSNBC by far has more opinion pieces.
Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far - Forbes
They're all propagandists. They always have been to a certain extent but they are now more concentrated than ever and worse than ever.
B_underguy1 is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #28 (permalink)
StormfrontFL is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_8 View Post
As much as I do love to argue, the debate over network bias (while empirically proven) is a pointless one. It's off topic, and facts, not "Faux" facts, are not going to change minds here. So get in the last word if you so desire Storm, but my participation about it dies here.
With each passing day you drift closer and closer to what you are accused of being. If you want to know what that is just IM me and I'll share



Justice isn't blind. It sees three colors....Black, White, and green
StormfrontFL is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #29 (permalink)
mallak is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by vince View Post
Are you offering up any proof of Republican lawmakers being paid off? I mean is the a news story you read, or is it your own conclusion/opinion?
Vince, have you ever heard of the revolving door, or Citizens United? It's all corruption, and it's totally legal now , thanks in part to the Supreme Court with theirCitizens United decision, and either Obama or the Republican congress for the continual "revolving door" of lobbyists winning government positions , then returning back to very profitable lobbying positions again, I'm not sure who's more to blame there, anyone know? Didn't Jack Lew work for Citigroup before he became Treasury Secretary? I'm sure Obama wants to keep everything "legal".


P.S. Sorry Vince, you got your response in before I finished my edit lol

Last edited by mallak; 10-14-2013 at 11:32 AM..
mallak is offline  
Old 10-14-2013   #30 (permalink)
vince is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by mallak View Post
Vince, have you ever heard of the revolving door, or Citizens United? It's all corruption, and it's totally legal now , thanks to the Supreme Court, and the Republican Congress, which wouldn't let Obama toughen up the lobbyist regulations.
Yes I have heard of the revolving door and Citizens United. I was just asking for more information to know what he was basing his assumptions about insurance companies paying off congressmen. Granted, it's totally plausible that it is going on. But don't think for a minute that Democrats are not corrupt as well. Members of both parties have long histories putting their paymasters interests ahead of those of their constituents.

"It's cunnilingus and psychiatry that's led to this" - Tony Soprano
vince is offline  

Tags
paid, republicans

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 AM.

Latest Threads
Gif ID?
18 Minutes Ago by troy68
Brent Ray Fraser
23 Minutes Ago by surf_t
Trasformations
1 Hour Ago by lud
cant' get off?
2 Hours Ago by somepe

Latest Posts

Latest Blogs

On Cam Now
abercrombie12345, Antociccio, garmer, hardon84, MAQUA, markg2000, MilkDaddy

Please read the rules.

Online: 1888 | Chatting: 36

Sponsors

Copyright 1999-2013 LPSG