AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → US Elections 2010

148 22277
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Here's a live feed to the results.

It would appear that the predictions were right, the Republicans are on track to win the House and are looking to make gains in the Senate although as of now there has only been a one seat change. Republicans winning the house means that John Boehner of Ohio will become the House majority speaker. Right now Republicans have gained a governor but according to the current results there is a very high chance that they will win more.

Looking at it from a political point of view the Republicans came into power at a very good time as in the next four years it's likely the economy will recover or at least get better which Republicans will be able to claim is there doing. Also this represents a shift in American politics meaning we could see the conservative ramifications of this for years.

So, what do you think?

  • 148 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

From what I saw, the government was trying to create an option


Options are optional. NHC isn't. Therefor, the government is creating a system that is not an option, but a requirement.

Allowing the poor to have a government run option would allow so many more people to have insurance.


And it will allow so many people who have insurance to have worse coverage. Not everyone with insurance is dropped you know.

People who were turned down due to pre-existing conditions by private insurance companies now have access to the treatments they need.


That's because the insurance companies would go into debt if they covered pre-existing conditions. Now, the government will go in debt instead.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

That's because the insurance companies would go into debt if they covered pre-existing conditions.


I've always wondered something. How do they know? The people are still paying the company aren't there?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

How do they know?


They check medical records.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Okay, that wasn't the question. I was wondering how the insurance company knows it'll go in debt if it covers a pre existing condition if the person still pays them money.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Okay, that wasn't the question. I was wondering how the insurance company knows it'll go in debt if it covers a pre existing condition if the person still pays them money.


You have to understand how insurance works in the first place. The only way insurance companies can make a profit is if they have more healthy people paying into the system than sick people. Therefore, they only accept healthy people (or they refuse to cover certain pre-existing conditions). They know some of those healthy people will become sick, but they also know a majority of them won't.

In a nutshell, when you buy insurance, you are pretty much betting that you, yourself, will get sick. They are betting you won't. If you win the bet, they pay you. If you lose the bet, you end up paying them. Sure, you may get into an accident and they will cover your medical costs, but often those costs don't add up to what you already payed them!

Insurance is basically the act of covering the costs of accidents that are unlikely to happen just in case they do happen. NHC is not insurance, because it covers everyone.

Trust me, I understand that insurance is a scam. Overall, the people as a whole pay more than the insurance company. If there was no insurance company at all, then the sum of medical costs would be cheaper for the people (as a whole).

Let's assume 10 people pay an insurance company a total of 1,000 dollars. The insurance company covers these people and in the end they only end up paying 500 for their medical costs. Without the insurance company, the 10 people would only have to pay the 500 dollars.

The reason why insurance companies can afford to fully cover people is because they drop people when they become high risk (that, or they become more expensive).

Why do people get insurance then?

If you get insurance, and you pay into the system for a long time before you get hurt, chances are you payed them so much money within that time frame that they still made a profit off of you. This is not always the case, but often is.

In a nut shell:

Insurance is good under 2 conditions.

1. When you get hurt shortly after paying for insurance, and the medical costs are more than what you already payed the insurance company the short time you have been with them.

Example: If Ted pays 10 dollars a month and gets hurt and has a 50 dollar medical bill, he will have saved money if he had gotten hurt 4 months or less after he started paying his insurance company. If he got hurt after 5 months, he will have lost money to the insurance company.

2. When you have serious medical problems that become very costly later on in life.

How can insurance companies afford to pay these people?

1. People with cheap medical costs will generally make up the loss as they stay with the insurance company.

2. Insurance companies drop people who become "high risk".

Why do people pay for health insurance in the first place? They pay for insurance because they are afraid they may get hurt shortly after paying for insurance, or they will have serious health problems later in life (before they are dropped).

I hope you understand why insurance companies don't cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Understand, that insurance is VERY corrupt. The only different between insurance and NHC is that NHC pays for everyone. The problem is, if everyone is covered, the system goes into debt.

The only way to sustain NHC is to accept the fact you are going into debt and to ration what you can squeeze with what little money you can salvage, or you raise taxes or the cost of NHC so much that everyone under NHC is paying more money to UHC than what UHC pays in medical costs. In that case, the people may as well cut out the middle man and pay their own medical bills.

The solutions seems to be that everyone should save their own money. The only problem is if:

1. You get hurt before you save enough money to cover medical costs.
2. Your medical costs are extremely expensive and eat the money you saved too quickly.

No matter what, people suffer. Why do I not support NHC? Because you have no choice. I would rather take my chances and get insurance when I'm 30 or 35 years old than start payments when I'm in my 20s.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

In a nutshell, when you buy insurance, you are pretty much betting that you, yourself, will get sick.


Please disregard the first in a nutshell.
Strongbow
offline
Strongbow
324 posts
Nomad

thank you for the link

From what I saw, it would be an OPTION for families making 100-400 of the FPL, (Federal Poverty Level). It was never stated anywhere as bieng a mandatory replacement for private insurance/health care. NOT COMMUNIST.

It states that it would allow nearly 32 million people to have healthcare, but nowhere that said 32 million would have to swear their allegence to Commie Obami.

It also states that projections indicate it would lower the deficit by 143 billion dollars the first 10 years, with a deficit reduction of 1.2 TRILLION dollars over the second 10 years. But, I didnt see any provisions about changing the color of the flag to red.

I am still absolutely convinced that this bill was seen as counter-productive for private insurance companies, who would lose quite a bit of money were people to switch over to a government sanctioned plan. This is not a case of government takeover, as it was portrayed. This was companies worried about profits, plain and simple.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The only different between insurance and NHC is that NHC pays for everyone. The problem is, if everyone is covered, the system goes into debt.


How can ever other first world nation be able to sustain such a system if it just results in debt?

Also if someone was able to get a preexisting condition taken care of wouldn't that enable them to become a more productive member of society?
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

I think NoName isn't going to be swayed. He's convinced that Obama is the new Stalin. I'm not even sure if he read the link because it actually explained what the bill was, and not that it was a secret communist agenda.

So, how about this: we stop the BS fearmongering and deal with it. Personally I like my system because I can depend on my system. You don't like it, oh well, you have it, but no one is forcing you, and even if you are it isn't this massive increase in tax. So stop disregarding everything those who are of a more liberal mind set tell you, because frankly it's ignorant.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

So, how about this: we stop the BS fearmongering and deal with it.


When you say deal with it, you mean, go ahead and stop fearing change and support NHC already. You use the "they fear change, which is bad."

I think NHC is a crappy system. I think it will only cause more problems in the country. Why would I support a system that I honestly think is going to fail?

Maybe we should stop supporting any kind of change that is thrown our direction. Just because we need change doesn't mean we need to accept anything that is different. The change must be considered and thought out.

America needs change. NHC is change. Therefore, America needs to adopt NHC? That itself is foolish.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

America needs change. NHC is change. Therefore, America needs to adopt NHC? That itself is foolish.


Well ONE seeing as it's OPTIONAL for the most part it isn't like most NHC systems out there. And TWO seeing as your current system has a whole load of fail in it, you might as well try something else to see if it works or not. You haven't let the system run and you already consider it wrong because it isn't in your ideals. Why don't you see if it works first before bashing it?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Well ONE seeing as it's OPTIONAL for the most part it isn't like most NHC systems out there.


How is NHC optional if everyone has to pay? Wait, did I miss something?

And TWO seeing as your current system has a whole load of fail in it, you might as well try something else to see if it works or not.


It's not that simple. If we try it, and it doesn't work:

1. The government won't admit that the system is failing and will merely keep feeding into the system

and

2. So many people will be dependent on the system that removing it if it fails will hurt a lot of people. Because people will be hurt, the idea of removing it would seem completely absurd, and it will never happen due to it being so "wrong to take away a person's insurance."
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Wait, did I miss something?


Yep. Mr.Walker's link.

2. So many people will be dependent on the system that removing it if it fails will hurt a lot of people. Because people will be hurt, the idea of removing it would seem completely absurd, and it will never happen due to it being so "wrong to take away a person's insurance."


If you haven't tried the system you don't know, so you're making a rather bold assumption here.
Strongbow
offline
Strongbow
324 posts
Nomad

Im still not understanding how one could possibly choose privatized insurance, where you pay out of your paychecks your hard-earned money monthly, only to have them tell you that you dont "qualify" for treatments when you need them, over a system backed by the government and treatments paid in full through taxes and there when you need them, as often as you need them?

There is no indication at all that the current reforms are failing at all. It hasn't been in action long enough to have solid results to base that on, yet Republicans have already promised that whatever reforms were passed, they will work on repealing. That sort of concern for the American people makes me absolutely certain that we will be moonwalking back to 2008 in no time.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

How can ever other first world nation be able to sustain such a system if it just results in debt?


They either cap how much money is spent on healthcare per annum, like Canada, to avoid debt, or they have very high tax rates, like Sweden. If America wants to successfully implement a UHC system then we are going to see long waits for treatment due to a fiscal cap, or we will have to substantially raise taxes.

It also states that projections indicate it would lower the deficit by 143 billion dollars the first 10 years, with a deficit reduction of 1.2 TRILLION dollars over the second 10 years.


Seriously this sounds like BS. I've spoken to several people I know who are very educated in economics and everyone I've talked to agrees that these numbers will never actually happen without a strict cap on annual healthcare spending like the Canadian system.

And again, many Canadians are coming to the US to have medical procedures done because they can't afford to wait for funding for their treatment to come through. If people under the system our new UHC plan was modeled after are coming here for treatment, what does that tell us?
Showing 91-105 of 148