Sebelius Tries To Blame GOP For Coming ObamaCare Failures

[KJ.]

link.

link.

link.

link.

link.

link.

link.

 

i might have misspoke, but what i was getting at is that employees were motivated not to pay on claims. human health should not be for profit.

Holy link bomb. I'll read up on your 523 pages of information later, but I'm late for the baseball game. But your bolded is the wrongest thing ever, unless you care to expand on what you mean. Insurance companies are not in business to make people healthier, they are in business to make money. They have shareholders, stakeholders, investors, etc just like every other company does.

 

I fully agree that this money shouldn't come from denying claims which deserve to be processed, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be turning a profit.

your bold is the wrongest thing ever. and i stand by my assertion that human health should not be monetized. we are far too advanced a society.

 

Insurance companies are not in business to make people healthier, they are in business to make money.

this is the best argument for a single-payer system i have ever heard.

 

also, enjoy the baseball game.

It's not about being uncivilized or whatever you want to call it, it's simply necessary for insurance to exist in the first place. If insurers only charged enough to cover their losses, what's the point of taking the deal in the first place if they're on average just going to break even? This is the exact definition of risk aversion, and if they're not allowed to take profit they'd just not exist because they'll be making the same amount of money (nothing) with no risk.

 

In an individual context, people don't buy insurance to cover their "expected losses" which you can fund yourself (since it's even less than what your premium is). People buy insurance for protection against large losses which can naturally occur due to random chance. They're not comfortable taking the distribution of losses and would rather pay a known amount, even though they are on average the same thing. Why shouldn't the insurance company be compensated for taking that risk? What gives someone the right to free risk reduction? Giving up risk is like anything else in the world. If you want it, you're going to have to pay for it.

 

That said, if you understand my point but still want a single-payer system then that is purely a political opinion which I don't really care to get in to. My purpose in this thread is just to explain why profit is important and necessary in the current system.

[Husker_x]

Obamacare in its current form only exists because of intractable Republican opposition to any plan that would allow America to join the rest of the civilized world. The Republican 'plan' is to allow rapacious insurance companies to continue to do what is in their interest: deny coverage wherever and whenever possible. Our healthcare 'system' is a disgrace.

[carlfense]

Also, remember the bill was passed with Zero Repub support and last minute deals were made to get the final dem votes need to pass. That can cut both ways - No repub support means they just are political hacks who would not have supported anything that O tried to present to the congress or it means, that the repubs had a sincerely held belief that there were better options that should have been a part of any health care plan - believing OC was a budget buster.

Obamacare at the most basic level is the Republican plan. If it doesn't work we'll be on the road to single payer (should have been done already fwiw). The GOP should be doing everything possible to make sure that their idea does work. If not . . . actual socialized medicine here we come.

Very true - in the original form since this evolved from the 1990s So what do you think is at the heart of the repub opposition - Too much money, Too much govt control or not wanting to give credit to O (if it were to work)? My thoughts are it costs too much and places a huge burden on the states.

I think that in some respects they've become a post-policy party. Their coalition isn't motivated by a set of beliefs or policies so much as they are motivated by opposing Barack Obama.

 

In many issues I think that's it's impossible to predict what the GOP will believe without first checking to see what the Democratic Party (and more specifically Barack Obama) believes.