Catholics vs. Abortion vs. Obama's mandate...

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/300#post_3461548
You sound like you work for an insurance company. My premiums have consistently gone up 3% - 5% every year for the past 10 years. This was WAY before Obamacare. Since the insurance companies are vehemently against this law, they will use every excuse they can to raise premiums on the guise of "Well we had to raise rates because of Obamacare". I guarantee you if they repealed that law today, you're premiums would go up yet again next year.
My wifes premiums didn't go up from 2006 until 0bama care started getting rammed through. Her part of the premiums has nearly doubled since then.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461633
Sounds like she's got a provider who likes to screw it's customers because they have the perfect excuse to do it.
Then why hadn't they raised it at all the previous 3 years? If they were just out to stick it to their customers surely they would have been raising the rates all along and just did it by a larger amount when given a good excuse. Of course anyone capable of thinking it through realizes these changes are going to drive up costs. You can't possibly cover more people for more services without increasing the cost.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461646
Then why hadn't they raised it at all the previous 3 years? If they were just out to stick it to their customers surely they would have been raising the rates all along and just did it by a larger amount when given a good excuse. Of course anyone capable of thinking it through realizes these changes are going to drive up costs. You can't possibly cover more people for more services without increasing the cost.
The premise behind Obamacare was everyone had to pay "something" to get viable coverage. Why should providers charge more for services just because more people who do pay some amount sign up for their services? Oh wait, insurance companies only make money when the receive more premiums than what they pay out for services. So I suppose they charge more with the expectation that people who sign up for healthcare insurance will actually use something they're paying for. I've been paying over $4,000/year to provide auto insurance for 4 cars. Both my daughter's had accidents in the last year (one totaling her car) that were their fault. Now my premiums are over $5,500. Why? Because my insurance carrier had to pay out approximately $25,000 in claims to me and the individuals my daughter's had an accident with. Even though I've essentially paid that amount in the previous 10 years with no accident or claims filed, the insurance company still wants me to pay more so they can recover their losses. That's how the inurance industry works.
Everyone who hates Obamacare wants it to remain status quo. Only keep those who can afford to pay for "normal" health insurance in the program so insurance costs only go up slightly because insurance providers are insuring a smaller sector of people. They receive the same premiums, but end up making more because there are fewer people out there to file claims. Meanwhile, those who can't afford health insurance will rack up humongeous medical bills, or end up using free services that get paid for by taxpayers and these same elitist who can afford to pay for health care.
How your wife's premiums haven't gone up the previous 3 years seems unusual to me. In the 30+ years I've had health insurance coverage, I can think of only 5 or 6 years where my premiums remained the same, or actually went down from he previous years. I know that since 2000 I have seen an increae each and every year. With that, I've also seen my deductibles and Out Of Pocket maxes rise, not to mention my prescription costs.
Your wife' premiums may not have gone up, but did your deductibles and OOP max levels rise during those years?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461703
The premise behind Obamacare was everyone had to pay "something" to get viable coverage. Why should providers charge more for services just because more people who do pay some amount sign up for their services? Oh wait, insurance companies only make money when the receive more premiums than what they pay out for services. So I suppose they charge more with the expectation that people who sign up for healthcare insurance will actually use something they're paying for. I've been paying over $4,000/year to provide auto insurance for 4 cars. Both my daughter's had accidents in the last year (one totaling her car) that were their fault. Now my premiums are over $5,500. Why? Because my insurance carrier had to pay out approximately $25,000 in claims to me and the individuals my daughter's had an accident with. Even though I've essentially paid that amount in the previous 10 years with no accident or claims filed, the insurance company still wants me to pay more so they can recover their losses. That's how the inurance industry works.
Everyone who hates Obamacare wants it to remain status quo. Only keep those who can afford to pay for "normal" health insurance in the program so insurance costs only go up slightly because insurance providers are insuring a smaller sector of people. They receive the same premiums, but end up making more because there are fewer people out there to file claims. Meanwhile, those who can't afford health insurance will rack up humongeous medical bills, or end up using free services that get paid for by taxpayers and these same elitist who can afford to pay for health care.
How your wife's premiums haven't gone up the previous 3 years seems unusual to me. In the 30+ years I've had health insurance coverage, I can think of only 5 or 6 years where my premiums remained the same, or actually went down from he previous years. I know that since 2000 I have seen an increae each and every year. With that, I've also seen my deductibles and Out Of Pocket maxes rise, not to mention my prescription costs.
Your wife' premiums may not have gone up, but did your deductibles and OOP max levels rise during those years?
Pretty simple concept. Make those with pre existing conditions pay higher co pays to cover those conditions, and just like car insurance ALLOW health insurance companies to charge higher risk individuals (overweight, smokers, those with recent history of high usage) higher rates. That right there would do more to lower costs and improve people's health than anything the Democrat party has even suggested in the last 50 years. You make people put a little skin in the game based on behavior and you'll change that behavior in many cases;
The only real change to the wife's insurance was the addition of an online pharmacy, not sure when they added that. Back in the 90's when I was still working my boss was pretty good at negotiating with the insurance company to keep costs down. One cool thing she had was the dental insurance. It was a 70/30 plan accept if you went in for a check up (cleaning and X-rays) the following year your deductible dropped to 20%, then 10% then zero. Smart people will find a way to keep costs down if you can keep the idiots who work for the government out of their way.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/300#post_3461403
Umm...under the law, dads are only required to pay child support and provide health insurance until the child is 18. I don't see your point.
Well that's better then the current law that required children be covered up to age 26.
So under the new law daddy buys insurance up to 18 then the gal gets "free" insurance from that point on. So still no cost for having a child, and mom get income (welfare or child support) for the child. So my original analysis still applies. Why should a gal bother with college, job, or husband.
my .02
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Well that's better then the current law that required children be covered up to age 26.
So under the new law daddy buys insurance up to 18 then the gal gets "free" insurance from that point on.  So still no cost for having a child,  and mom get income (welfare or child support) for the child.  So my original analysis still applies.  Why should a gal bother with college, job, or husband.
my .02
no, you do not understand. child support in all forms is only required un til age 18. the new law means the parents have an option to keep their child on their insurance if they so choose. that is not forced.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461784
Well that's better then the current law that required children be covered up to age 26.
So under the new law daddy buys insurance up to 18 then the gal gets "free" insurance from that point on. So still no cost for having a child, and mom get income (welfare or child support) for the child. So my original analysis still applies. Why should a gal bother with college, job, or husband.
my .02
What an inane and stereotypical response. You and Rick Santorum would get along perfectly. Of course young women don't want jobs. They either want to live off the gubmit, or find them a rich man that can give them full-time spa treatments, platinum American Express cards, and in return, get knocked up every couple of years to keep the bloodline going. I pray you never have a daughter.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461829
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob
http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461784
Well that's better then the current law that required children be covered up to age 26.
So under the new law daddy buys insurance up to 18 then the gal gets "free" insurance from that point on. So still no cost for having a child, and mom get income (welfare or child support) for the child. So my original analysis still applies. Why should a gal bother with college, job, or husband.
my .02
What an inane and stereotypical response. You and Rick Santorum would get along perfectly. Of course young women don't want jobs. They either want to live off the gubmit, or find them a rich man that can give them full-time spa treatments, platinum American Express cards, and in return, get knocked up every couple of years to keep the bloodline going. I pray you never have a daughter.
Well, we agree on this point at least.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461806
no, you do not understand. child support in all forms is only required un til age 18. the new law means the parents have an option to keep their child on their insurance if they so choose. that is not forced.
Actually we're talking about different perspectives. I was coming from the perspective of the young gal and the rewards she gets from having a baby with no job/husband and the like. Your's is from child support of the dad.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461829
What an inane and stereotypical response. You and Rick Santorum would get along perfectly. Of course young women don't want jobs. They either want to live off the gubmit, or find them a rich man that can give them full-time spa treatments, platinum American Express cards, and in return, get knocked up every couple of years to keep the bloodline going. I pray you never have a daughter.
Sure gals wants jobs. sure gals want kids. the only thing we might disagree on is the process. My point was that gals are rewarded from having all medical costs covered by society, receive the income for child support and as a result are kept in poverty all thier life even though that was not their initial plan. And as a result you have many many families kept below the poverty line. Who would have risen above the poverty line had they completed the education, worked a full time job, and married before having children.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461883
Sure gals wants jobs. sure gals want kids. the only thing we might disagree on is the process. My point was that gals are rewarded from having all medical costs covered by society, receive the income for child support and as a result are kept in poverty all thier life even though that was not their initial plan. And as a result you have many many families kept below the poverty line. Who would have risen above the poverty line had they completed the education, worked a full time job, and married before having children.
What's degrading is you sound like this is the norm for every young woman out there. My two daughters have no desire to get 'knocked up', and prefer abstinence and obtaining a quality education before deciding to have children. Think you need to get out of that stereotypical world of yours, and look beyond boundaries of your trailer park.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461950
What's degrading is you sound like this is the norm for every young woman out there. My two daughters have no desire to get 'knocked up', and prefer abstinence and obtaining a quality education before deciding to have children. Think you need to get out of that stereotypical world of yours, and look beyond boundaries of your trailer park.
Glad it's working for you and your daughters.
FWIW your depection of me is worse then what you accuse me of.
but be that as it may, Do you agree that incentives should be for responsible, married people providing for their children with their own resources over un married gals receiving a 30-50% pay increase by having a baby and all the expensive of that baby being paid for with other peoples' money?
I think you do and I am not saying all gals are like that out there. But more are doing it because of these benefits then would be otherwise doing it. And as a result lock themselves into poverty.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/320#post_3461957
Glad it's working for you and your daughters.
FWIW your depection of my is worse then what you accuse me of.
but be that as it may, Do you agree that incentives should be for responsible, married people providing for their children with their own resources over un married gals receiving a 30-50% pay increase by having a baby and all the expensive of that baby being paid for with other peoples' money?
I think you do and I am not saying all gals are like that out there. But more are doing it because of these benefits then would be otherwise doing it. And as a result lock themselves into poverty.
I think you're drinking too much of the Rick Santorum Kool-Aide.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

I think you're drinking too much of the Rick Santorum Kool-Aide.
tastes better than obama koolaid you have been drinking for the past few years.
 

jerthunter

Active Member

I think you're drinking too much of the Rick Santorum Kool-Aide.
Yikes. I personally find the thought of drinking anything with santorum in it rather repulsive.
 
Top