ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[DangerBoy]

I love how Player just casually twists 34 states to 34 private insurers

[PLAYER57832]

I love how Player just casually twists 34 states to 34 private insurers

Also, the number of "child only" policies even offered in ANY state is pretty small, by my experience. Usually is "family" coverage. CHIP is a state-run program, but is funded federally.

Regardless, my point stands... only some insurance was cancelled. And it represents some very crass "gamesmanship".

Just think about it. If merely requiring insurers to cover children with pre-existing conditions means they cannot do business any longer, then they cannot have been doing very much anyway. (which is my basic argument) NO BIG LOSS

[saxitoxin]

You used 150 words to essentially say you don't care about the fact that child health insurance has just been canceled in 34 states, the Obama Corporate Welfare Bill is "just good" and no facts to the contrary are going to change your mind.

[SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] Child health care child only health insurance [SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] has not "been cancelled in 34 states". A few insurers are attempting to cancel child policies in those states. Whether they are allowed to do that or not is up in question.

If you repeat something loudly enough that doesn't make it a fact.

Exactly! yet, you persist in trying. 34 private insurers do not constitute ALL insurers. Furthermore, CHIP exists, CHIP is actually a better deal for most parents anyway. It covers more and is cheaper.

At this point I'm not certain if it's worthwhile responding with an additional source discounting this as false and incorrect.

I provide source after source and each is replied to with "no that's wrong - trust me", "well I don't listen to him so he doesn't count", "[insert racist anti-Arab slur]", etc. Once again, loudly screaming - at the top of your lungs - that things are "wrong" or "inaccurate" is a futile exercise in the presence of your proven inability to support any of your claims with references.

I really do need to locate the "Best of Player" graphic. That was a hoot and easier to do an image paste than retype this each time you go into this mode of simply drowning everyone out with as many words you can string together that sound like they could present a reasonable counter-point, regardless as to whether or not it is situationally true.

(Regrettably 90% of Player's arguments aren't those anyone at all (!) is fronting; even the corporate Democrats. It just kind of makes-up whatever is needed to suit this weird social exercise in which it is engaged; realizing some cartoonish Green Goblin-vs-Spiderman worldview. It's unsettling in a way.)

END OF LINE

I love how Player just casually twists 34 states to 34 private insurers

This is a trend of basic reading comprehension across all of its posts. It does mean well but has a chronic cognitive error that impacts that ability of it to deliver a convincing message. Many adults (even those with insurance) have not been tested for A.D. and trends in posting by Player indicate it may have it at a functional level so I have tread a fine line and tried to couch my replies softly.

[DangerBoy]

Regardless, my point stands... only some insurance was cancelled. And it represents some very crass "gamesmanship".

Yes, child-only insurance....in more than half of the states of the country, or if you like - 34

I thought Democrats wanted to help children?

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless, my point stands... only some insurance was cancelled. And it represents some very crass "gamesmanship".

Yes, child-only insurance....in more than half of the states of the country, or if you like - 34

I thought Democrats wanted to help children?

It wasn't Democrats that did this. It was the insurers. Insurers who were not offering coverage anyway. They cancelled because the Democrats told them they had to actually cover kids.

As I said from the start. If insurers cannot actually cover people and still make a profit, then they don't need to be in business.

[saxitoxin]

Regardless, my point stands... only some insurance was cancelled. And it represents some very crass "gamesmanship".

Yes, child-only insurance....in more than half of the states of the country, or if you like - 34

I thought Democrats wanted to help children?

It wasn't Democrats that did this. It was the insurers. Insurers who were not offering coverage anyway. They cancelled because the Democrats told them they had to actually cover kids.

You missed it. The blame game wasn't the point.

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

Intentions or goodwill are not the issue when you can no longer take your baby to the doctor and it now has to sit crying in the corner bleeding out of its eyeballs and with puss oozing from its ears.

[DangerBoy]

It wasn't Democrats that did this.It was the insurers.

It was Democrats that did this. They did it on a party-line vote. It's a matter of historical record.

Insurers who were not offering coverage anyway. They cancelled because the Democrats told them they had to actually cover kids.

Your reasoning baffles the mind. What do you think a cancellation of child-only insurance is? In order for the carriers to cancel the coverage it had to have existed in the first place! How do you cancel or stop providing something which never existed?

[Phatscotty]

The left is indeed on the attack against free market capitalism, not just health insurance. This can be seen by their constant rhetoric against the insurance companies, bankers, wall street, and big corporations.

If you haven’t noticed the news lately, they have even begun to blame the ‘town hall’ outcries that are all over the nation on nothing more than insurance company operatives that are purposely planted in the town hall meetings to cause a ruckus. – Unbelievable. For some reason, they can’t seem to accept the fact that the American people want to maintain their freedom in health care, and do not want government bureaucrats to decided their ongoing health decisions.

http://www.patriotsmind.com/2009/08/05/ ... insurance/

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless, my point stands... only some insurance was cancelled. And it represents some very crass "gamesmanship".

Yes, child-only insurance....in more than half of the states of the country, or if you like - 34

I thought Democrats wanted to help children?

It wasn't Democrats that did this. It was the insurers. Insurers who were not offering coverage anyway. They cancelled because the Democrats told them they had to actually cover kids.

You missed it. The blame game wasn't the point.

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

Intentions or goodwill are not the issue when you can no longer take your baby to the doctor and it now has to sit crying in the corner bleeding out of its eyeballs and with puss oozing from its ears.

No, your point is garbage. Its predictable that insurers will try to do what they have done all along, refuse to cover more than a handful of people who truly need insurance. Sadly, instead of turning your anger against the insurance companies and perhaps fighting to move us closer to a real solution, you decide to just attack the progress made and claim it made no benefit.

Like I said earlier, you are the worst of conservatives.

[DangerBoy]

I was actually hoping for that title

Foiled again by Saxi!

[saxitoxin]

I was actually hoping for that title

Foiled again by Saxi!

Sadly, instead of turning your anger against the insurance companies and perhaps fighting to move us blah blah blah ...

I did turn my anger against the insurance companies. Obama is the insurance industry's spokesman.

You, and the corporate Democrats, have chosen to support the insurance industry's bought-and-paid-for pitch man.

I, and the progressive left, have chosen not to do that.

"He has no fixed principles. He's a con-man. I have no use for him."
- Ralph Nader on his former employee, Barack Obama (12/10/2010)
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/10/ralph ... a-con-man/

END OF LINE

[PLAYER57832]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

[PLAYER57832]

Sadly, instead of turning your anger against the insurance companies and perhaps fighting to move us blah blah blah ...

I did turn my anger against the insurance companies. Obama is the insurance industry's spokesman.

You, and the corporate Democrats, have chosen to support the insurance industry's bought-and-paid-for pitch man.[/quote]

Like I said.. you blame the Democrats (and Obama) instead of the REAL culprits. Keep on pretending otherwise, though.

[BigBallinStalin]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

When talking about public policies, one must be aware that with every intention (good or bad), there are intended and unintended consequences.

When a law forces insurers to behave a certain way, they'll look at their costs and say, "well, we can't do that or we all go under;" therefore, they have to take certain cuts (like dropping child coverage).

This is similar to a law dictating that all bread should be sold for $1.50 and no more than $1.50. It sounds noble, but the unintended consequences are great. It just forces more businesses to make tremendous cuts or all together forces them out of business because hardly any business can really compete with such a restriction.

[Phatscotty]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that....

Oh, but people like Player are going to change this BS "Free will" stuff, right Player?

[BigBallinStalin]

Now I'm speculating (regarding the above with insurers cutting coverage to childs), but the main intention of a few in the government is that by forcing insurers to take these drastic cuts, they further annoy the American public, who in turn look towards a government-provided healthcare service. Why did that happen? Because certain members of the government were pushing laws to restrict their future competition and turn the public against them. (That's what I'd do if I wanted the government more in control of health care services to guarantee future votes).

[Phatscotty]

Now I'm speculating (regarding the above with insurers cutting coverage to childs), but the main intention of a few in the government is that by forcing insurers to take these drastic cuts, they further annoy the American public, who in turn look towards a government-provided healthcare service. Why did that happen? Because certain members of the government were pushing laws to restrict their future competition and turn the public against them. (That's what I'd do if I wanted the government more in control of health care services to guarantee future votes).

BULLSEYE! OOPS oh shit please don't report my incivility. DEAD ON BALLS accurate. OH, shucks...um....Correct!

[PLAYER57832]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

When talking about public policies, one must be aware that with every intention (good or bad), there are intended and unintended consequences.

When a law forces insurers to behave a certain way, they'll look at their costs and say, "well, we can't do that or we all go under;" therefore, they have to take certain cuts (like dropping child coverage).

This is similar to a law dictating that all bread should be sold for $1.50 and no more than $1.50. It sounds noble, but the unintended consequences are great. It just forces more businesses to make tremendous cuts or all together forces them out of business because hardly any business can really compete with such a restriction.

Yeah, right, by your logic why bother with any laws. Why even require worker safety, why eliminate slavery, why require anything.

OF COURSE there are "consequences". But, far too many of those claimed by corporate bigwigs really amounts to "we might have to give up a bit of our profit, so we're just going stomp our feet and throw a tantrum until they give us our money back".

Again, the REAL point is that these insurers cut kids becuase they actually might have to cover them. Why would that even make business sense? Because they were not really covering kids before the law. They took paren't money, offered some minimal coverage, but then left the real problems for taxpayers.

So, now that money from parents stays in the parent's pockets and the rest pretty much remains the same. Only more people are aware that there is a problem now.

[BigBallinStalin]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

When talking about public policies, one must be aware that with every intention (good or bad), there are intended and unintended consequences.

When a law forces insurers to behave a certain way, they'll look at their costs and say, "well, we can't do that or we all go under;" therefore, they have to take certain cuts (like dropping child coverage).

This is similar to a law dictating that all bread should be sold for $1.50 and no more than $1.50. It sounds noble, but the unintended consequences are great. It just forces more businesses to make tremendous cuts or all together forces them out of business because hardly any business can really compete with such a restriction.

Yeah, right, by your logic why bother with any laws. Why even require worker safety, why eliminate slavery, why require anything.

That's not going by my logic at all. I'm not arguing about the "why we have laws" question. I'm trying to point out why companies behave a certain manner. It's because some law changes their incentives.

OF COURSE there are "consequences". But, far too many of those claimed by corporate bigwigs really amounts to "we might have to give up a bit of our profit, so we're just going stomp our feet and throw a tantrum until they give us our money back".

Again, the REAL point is that these insurers cut kids becuase they actually might have to cover them. Why would that even make business sense? Because they were not really covering kids before the law. They took paren't money, offered some minimal coverage, but then left the real problems for taxpayers.

So, now that money from parents stays in the parent's pockets and the rest pretty much remains the same. Only more people are aware that there is a problem now.

...

You still fail to see why these insurers cut provisions... I suggest rereading and rewriting a more coherent response.

If they didn't provide cover for kids earlier, then prove it.

[PLAYER57832]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

When talking about public policies, one must be aware that with every intention (good or bad), there are intended and unintended consequences.

When a law forces insurers to behave a certain way, they'll look at their costs and say, "well, we can't do that or we all go under;" therefore, they have to take certain cuts (like dropping child coverage).

This is similar to a law dictating that all bread should be sold for $1.50 and no more than $1.50. It sounds noble, but the unintended consequences are great. It just forces more businesses to make tremendous cuts or all together forces them out of business because hardly any business can really compete with such a restriction.

Yeah, right, by your logic why bother with any laws. Why even require worker safety, why eliminate slavery, why require anything.

That's not going by my logic at all. I'm not arguing about the "why we have laws" question. I'm trying to point out why companies behave a certain manner. It's because some law changes their incentives.

BINGO, and business incentive for profit can either work for or against the country as a whole. In the case of healthcare insurers, they have for a long time been allowed to maintaint he illusion of offering coverage while actually just taking profits from mostly healthy people and dumping huge numbers of unhealthy people onto the taxpayers.

OF COURSE there are "consequences". But, far too many of those claimed by corporate bigwigs really amounts to "we might have to give up a bit of our profit, so we're just going stomp our feet and throw a tantrum until they give us our money back".

Again, the REAL point is that these insurers cut kids becuase they actually might have to cover them. Why would that even make business sense? Because they were not really covering kids before the law. They took paren't money, offered some minimal coverage, but then left the real problems for taxpayers.

So, now that money from parents stays in the parent's pockets and the rest pretty much remains the same. Only more people are aware that there is a problem now.

...

You still fail to see why these insurers cut provisions... I suggest rereading and rewriting a more coherent response.

No, I understand complete. You want to pretend otherwise. Listening to right wing sources (even those that masquerade as "middle of the road") will do that to you.

If they didn't provide cover for kids earlier, then prove it.

LOL.. The insurance actions speak for themselves. If they were actually covering sick kids, then why the benefit to bailing when required to suddenly offer them insurance? It would only make sense if they were not covering those kids before.

Or, for more concrete data, try looking at the huge numbers of disabled kids on Medicaid. Try reading some pre-2011 policies and just think about the implications of all the exlusions and limitations.

next time, try doing those things BEFORE claiming that you know what is going on and I am just imagining all these problems.

[PLAYER57832]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that....

Oh, but people like Player are going to change this BS "Free will" stuff, right Player?

When the rest of us are required to support your employees, yes, that "free will" stuff does go out the window.

Being wealthy, owning a business should not be an excuse to push off costs onto taxpayers, IF you truly do believe in a free market. Sadly, that "free market" stuff seems to only be trotted out when it benefits the wealthy corporations. That is why I say you and many conservatives are pure hypocrites.

[BigBallinStalin]

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.

You entirely ignore the real point, which is that insurers have not really covered any but a few people for some time. That kid you mentioned with "puss draining". Likely would be on Medicaid anyway. A few might be lucky enough to have real insurance. Others might be wealthy enough that they either would pay for the care themselves. Either way, this just puts the reality up in front of everyone instead of continuing the illusion that insurers actually cover sick people.

When talking about public policies, one must be aware that with every intention (good or bad), there are intended and unintended consequences.

When a law forces insurers to behave a certain way, they'll look at their costs and say, "well, we can't do that or we all go under;" therefore, they have to take certain cuts (like dropping child coverage).

This is similar to a law dictating that all bread should be sold for $1.50 and no more than $1.50. It sounds noble, but the unintended consequences are great. It just forces more businesses to make tremendous cuts or all together forces them out of business because hardly any business can really compete with such a restriction.

Yeah, right, by your logic why bother with any laws. Why even require worker safety, why eliminate slavery, why require anything.

That's not going by my logic at all. I'm not arguing about the "why we have laws" question. I'm trying to point out why companies behave a certain manner. It's because some law changes their incentives.

BINGO, and business incentive for profit can either work for or against the country as a whole. In the case of healthcare insurers, they have for a long time been allowed to maintaint he illusion of offering coverage while actually just taking profits from mostly healthy people and dumping huge numbers of unhealthy people onto the taxpayers.

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

The current government plan of expanding healthcare into the private sector is not good at all. There are better alternatives.



...

You still fail to see why these insurers cut provisions... I suggest rereading and rewriting a more coherent response.

No, I understand complete. You want to pretend otherwise. Listening to right wing sources (even those that masquerade as "middle of the road") will do that to you.

What right wing sources do I listen to?

Haven't your own directly personal experiences with insurance companies and with your family's/kid's inherent health problems prevent you from seeing with an unbiased (or less biased) perspective?

If they didn't provide cover for kids earlier, then prove it.

LOL.. The insurance actions speak for themselves. If they were actually covering sick kids, then why the benefit to bailing when required to suddenly offer them insurance? It would only make sense if they were not covering those kids before.

Or, for more concrete data, try looking at the huge numbers of disabled kids on Medicaid. Try reading some pre-2011 policies and just think about the implications of all the exlusions and limitations.

next time, try doing those things BEFORE claiming that you know what is going on and I am just imagining all these problems.[/quote]
That's a good point, but not all kids were not covered, not all plans were scrapped...

[saxitoxin]

I saw a great quote from Julian Assange that perfectly encapsulates the Player reality:

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.

It is troubling to me the McCarthyist hysteria Player is trying to stoke in which progressive leftists like Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, GreecePWNS and Saxi - if they don't agree with the insurance industry spokesman Obama and the corporate Democrats - must "secretly be right-wingers."

[PLAYER57832]

But privately-provided insurance is still useful... Sure, it should be profitable, and yes it does encourage them to cut benefits, but is that really a question that can be solved through legal means or should the US provide even more healthcare by directly competing with the private sector?

You make these assumptions, but never bother to even look at the systems in other countries. The bottom line is that insurance profit has not moved to lower overall health costs at all. One of the big reasons is that the people who purchase insurance are not the ones who use it. There are other reasons, too.

The current government plan of expanding healthcare into the private sector is not good at all. There are better alternatives.

LOL

Better alternatives, yes. I already said that. In fact, I said it back in the very beginning of this thread, repeatedly, long before the bill was even brought up as anything solid. However, nothing being discussed by Republicans, the healthcare insurance industry and nothing you have said is going to improve the situation at all. At least this does take some steps in the correct direction. Not nearly enough, but then, the public option was taken out to appease the insurance industry by folks who still try to keep the illusion that we actually have real health insurance in this country instead of a bunch of fraudulant companies that take profits from healthy people and then dump sick ones.

...

You still fail to see why these insurers cut provisions... I suggest rereading and rewriting a more coherent response.

No, I understand complete. You want to pretend otherwise. Listening to right wing sources (even those that masquerade as "middle of the road") will do that to you.

What right wing sources do I listen to?

Haven't your own directly personal experiences with insurance companies and with your family's/kid's inherent health problems prevent you from seeing with an unbiased (or less biased) perspective?[/quote]LOL the facts speak for themselves.

You look at any real figures on who is covered and who is not. Insurers don't truly provide healthcare. They take profits and in return cover a few people well, most people barely and many people not at all. If any other insurer acted as they do, they would not be allowed to stay in business.

If they didn't provide cover for kids earlier, then prove it.

LOL.. The insurance actions speak for themselves. If they were actually covering sick kids, then why the benefit to bailing when required to suddenly offer them insurance? It would only make sense if they were not covering those kids before.

Or, for more concrete data, try looking at the huge numbers of disabled kids on Medicaid. Try reading some pre-2011 policies and just think about the implications of all the exlusions and limitations.

next time, try doing those things BEFORE claiming that you know what is going on and I am just imagining all these problems.[/quote]

That's a good point, but not all kids were not covered, not all plans were scrapped...

I made that comment several posts back.

The point is that insurance is not and never really has been about helping sick people pay for care. It is about taking profits from healthy people and then providing a minimum amount of care to others with what is left over after they take their profit.

[BigBallinStalin]

The point was the corporate Democrats took an action, that produced a reaction - the elimination of child-only health insurance in 34 states.

The insurers were not forced to take the action they did. They did that of their own free will, because they are still allowed to do that. They decided that they could not make enough profit from insuring kids. Democrats just told them they had to cover ALL kids and not the select few they used to cover.
.

Ah, you see? That's the point I was getting at earlier. Before, insurance companies didn't cover all kids, but now they're legally bound to cover ALL kids--regardless of the cost. The government is either stupid, or they want to force insurance companies to reduce their profits, which in turn incentivizes them to take drastic actions.

It's still the government's fault on this one.