Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Aetna Ditching 70% Obamacare Business

178101213

Comments

  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    2001400ex said:

    You didn't answer my questions. But I'll ask you this additional question. What is your proposed solution then?
    I've probably known a person who's lost their insurance after getting sick. I know people who have been dropped from their car insurance after getting in a wreck, too. It's really the same concept.

    It costs a lot of money to fix cars and people. If we force insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of any ailments, those costs will be felt by everyone, not just the insurance companies.

  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,326 Founders Club
    Swaye said:

    In this thread:

    image

    image
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    OZONE said:

    So then, maybe we should do something about corporate lobbying and the round robin between corporations and regulating agencies.

    It is fucking hilarious how people want to blame the gov't while ignoring the corporate lobbying that controls the gov't.
    Lobbying is a problem with government, not corporations. Every single person who's ever assumed real authority, control, and power over others has had people who try and bribe them in some way. It's a completely natural response to having your freedoms stripped.

  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter

    Lobbying is a problem with government, not corporations. Every single person who's ever assumed real authority, control, and power over others has had people who try and bribe them in some way. It's a completely natural response to having your freedoms stripped.

    It's not even bribery, as something illicit. Lobbying is a protected right, as in "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." With a growing government bootprint, more and more economic activities are subject to influence. The simple but very difficult answer to the influence of in government is to take the money out of government to begin with. Politicians and bureaucrats with little discretionary spending are going to find very few invites to St. Kits.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    I've probably known a person who's lost their insurance after getting sick. I know people who have been dropped from their car insurance after getting in a wreck, too. It's really the same concept.

    It costs a lot of money to fix cars and people. If we force insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of any ailments, those costs will be felt by everyone, not just the insurance companies.

    Yes, that's the point. The more people you spread the costs over, the cheaper it is for everyone. How much do you think hospitals and doctors pay for collection agencies?

    But back to the question. What's your proposed solution?
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,926 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    Yes, that's the point. The more people you spread the costs over, the cheaper it is for everyone. How much do you think hospitals and doctors pay for collection agencies?

    But back to the question. What's your proposed solution?
    Yeah its worked great under ObaMao Care! Only a 13% increase in premiums this year.......
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,896

    This is very true

    I wish they would pass legislation that prevents people using food stamps to buy fast food and other junk food. Food stamps should only be used for meat, cheese, milk, water, veggies, bread, etc. The fact that someone can use taxpayer dollars to buy bags of Doritios, 24 pack Mountain Dew, fast food combo meals, etc. is disgusting to me. This country gives these people money to make themselves even more sick, so we have to spend even more money paying for their more expensive medical bills later in life.

    I understand that people should have freedom to spend their money. But they didn't earn that money, we gave them that money. And thus, we should be able to control how that money is spent. When they get a job and earn actual wages then they can buy all the crap they want.

    Social security obviously doesn't count, because most of that money was earned from years of employment.

    This obviously won't pass because every fast food and junk food lobbyist in the country would prevent this from happening.

    This is very true

    I wish they would pass legislation that prevents people using food stamps to buy fast food and other junk food. Food stamps should only be used for meat, cheese, milk, water, veggies, bread, etc. The fact that someone can use taxpayer dollars to buy bags of Doritios, 24 pack Mountain Dew, fast food combo meals, etc. is disgusting to me. This country gives these people money to make themselves even more sick, so we have to spend even more money paying for their more expensive medical bills later in life.

    I understand that people should have freedom to spend their money. But they didn't earn that money, we gave them that money. And thus, we should be able to control how that money is spent. When they get a job and earn actual wages then they can buy all the crap they want.

    Social security obviously doesn't count, because most of that money was earned from years of employment.

    This obviously won't pass because every fast food and junk food lobbyist in the country would prevent this from happening.
    Great! The next thing you'll want is for those poor down trodden folks that are just way too stressed out about having to get up in the morning and groom themselves, is for them to submit to a drug test to keep their benefits.

    This is Merica. We have Freedom damn it!
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,896
    OZONE said:

    Actually, no, you don't get it. At. All.
    Code my new Lifelock App Mutt!!!!
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Sledog said:



    Yeah its worked great under ObaMao Care! Only a 13% increase in premiums this year.......

    Not sure where you're getting 13% for this year, but premium increases have slowed since Obamacare. They've always grown every year, Obamacare or not.

    image
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,999 Standard Supporter
    edited August 2016


    Medicare is working just fine

    image

    Doctors refuse to accept medicare patients

    Medicare 2015: More doctors rejecting medicare patients

    Curious how that works. Price controls reduce supply. Who woulda guessed?

    Somebody gets it. This is why my doctor friend switched from maxillary work to boobs and noses. Better pay. He was struggling trying to heal people. And is now a hero to many on these boreds.
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,896

    Not sure where you're getting 13% for this year, but premium increases have slowed since Obamacare. They've always grown every year, Obamacare or not.

    image
    *-Premium change is statistically different from previous period shown.


    Nothings change here.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,926 Standard Supporter

    Not sure where you're getting 13% for this year, but premium increases have slowed since Obamacare. They've always grown every year, Obamacare or not.

    image
    From my fucking bill is where I get the info! Company says it's due to ObaMao Care costs being higher.
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    edited August 2016
    Average premium increases more than halved from 1999-2004 - 2004-2009, but then only dropped by 24% from 2004-2009 - 2009-2014.

    When you consider the trend, the numbers in that chart suggest that the ACA has indeed increased the cost of premiums, which in my mind has no doubt happened. I mean, we're covering more people, and we're covering people who are extremely costly to cover...obviously that's going to impact the price of premiums.
  • dfleadflea Member Posts: 7,276
    Sledog said:

    From my fucking bill is where I get the info! Company says it's due to ObaMao Care costs being higher.
    That's settles it then.

    Did your company get off the gold standard in 1933, too?

    Your insurer probably needed that 13% to cover the costs of your full blown AIDS.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Sledog said:

    From my fucking bill is where I get the info! Company says it's due to ObaMao Care costs being higher.
    I'm sure your anecdotal evidence is more accurate than an aggregate industrial-wide measurement.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    salemcoog said:

    *-Premium change is statistically different from previous period shown.


    Nothings change here.
    That's fine, just compare '04-'08 to '09-14.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 35,926 Standard Supporter
    edited August 2016
    dflea said:

    That's settles it then.

    Did your company get off the gold standard in 1933, too?

    Your insurer probably needed that 13% to cover the costs of your full blown AIDS.
    No they said your proctologist bills were so high everyone had to get an increase. Something about the purchase of miners hats and trying to locate 7 monkeys on a moped trying to make a u-turn. I'm sure they had room......
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989

    That's fine, just compare '04-'08 to '09-14.


    Average premium increases more than halved from 1999-2004 - 2004-2009, but then only dropped by 24% from 2004-2009 - 2009-2014.

    When you consider the trend, the numbers in that chart suggest that the ACA has indeed increased the cost of premiums, which in my mind has no doubt happened. I mean, we're covering more people, and we're covering people who are extremely costly to cover...obviously that's going to impact the price of premiums.

Sign In or Register to comment.