All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?
11/2/2012 12:29 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
WOW.

A sudden influx of insurance-covered population would lead to a brand new problem with health care(the one you just mentioned that I inferred).  Know what would cause a sudden influx of insurance-covered population?  Obamacare.

Just wow.
30 million people are uninsured. A large percentage of them are going to stay uninsured even with Obamacare.

A huge percentage of that 30 million are young and healthy.

So, what's this sudden influx of people?

11/2/2012 12:30 PM
I better explain why it makes me sad.

You've been arguing a point, and I'm sure you feel you're right, but it's been just a tiny portion of the entire discussion.   In fact, if the health insurance world stays status quo, I don't even disagree with your point.   But, as previously mentioned, the discussion turned to the effects of Obamacare.   You missed that part.  So we've been arguing completely different points.   And that makes me sad.
11/2/2012 12:32 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
I better explain why it makes me sad.

You've been arguing a point, and I'm sure you feel you're right, but it's been just a tiny portion of the entire discussion.   In fact, if the health insurance world stays status quo, I don't even disagree with your point.   But, as previously mentioned, the discussion turned to the effects of Obamacare.   You missed that part.  So we've been arguing completely different points.   And that makes me sad.
If that's true, then that's on both of us.
11/2/2012 12:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
WOW.

A sudden influx of insurance-covered population would lead to a brand new problem with health care(the one you just mentioned that I inferred).  Know what would cause a sudden influx of insurance-covered population?  Obamacare.

Just wow.
30 million people are uninsured. A large percentage of them are going to stay uninsured even with Obamacare.

A huge percentage of that 30 million are young and healthy.

So, what's this sudden influx of people?

Ummm, if they are "young and healthy", WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING AT JOBS WITH BENEFITS?

This is the biggest problem with ObamaCare.  It's throwing trillions of dollars at a SYMPTOM.  Why not focus those dollars on job creation, training programs, or tax incentives to small businesses that hire "young and healthy" people?

Back to my original statement:  It doesn't solve a ******* thing.
11/2/2012 12:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2012 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:43:00 PM (view original):
It's part of the problem if the same hand could have been dealt with by using a $2 bottle of alcohol and a box of band-aids.   Which, if one knows the trip to the doc of coming out of pocket, is how most people would handle it.
Even if it could have been dealt with at home, that is short money. An insurance company that primarily pays out small claims for minor injuries is an incredibly profitable one with low rates. I run an insurance brokerage. Insurance companies want their insureds to use their policies to take care of small issues like this so that they don't turn in to big issues later.

Now is your chance to back out of this. Your convoluted argument is not valid.

EDIT: In other words, the companies, for the most part, want to cover preventative care with a copay so that people don't avoid the doctor until they are dying and need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care.

Don't count on that.   There was a time when men were men and they "rubbed dirt on it" when they were hurt.    They rode bicycles without helmets.   No seatbelts.   The world worked just fine.    Every tiny cut is not life-threatening.   Sometimes you can use a band-aid.  That's why they're still in business.
I'm reading this entire thing over again and I don't think I misunderstood you.

You may have decided to change your point now, but for the last couple days your argument has been pretty clear.
11/2/2012 12:36 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
WOW.

A sudden influx of insurance-covered population would lead to a brand new problem with health care(the one you just mentioned that I inferred).  Know what would cause a sudden influx of insurance-covered population?  Obamacare.

Just wow.
30 million people are uninsured. A large percentage of them are going to stay uninsured even with Obamacare.

A huge percentage of that 30 million are young and healthy.

So, what's this sudden influx of people?

Ummm, if they are "young and healthy", WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING AT JOBS WITH BENEFITS?

This is the biggest problem with ObamaCare.  It's throwing trillions of dollars at a SYMPTOM.  Why not focus those dollars on job creation, training programs, or tax incentives to small businesses that hire "young and healthy" people?

Back to my original statement:  It doesn't solve a ******* thing.
Because the economy is in the shitter and they can't get a job better than waiting tables at Denny's.

Also, I didn't realize you were such an advocate for stimulus.
11/2/2012 12:37 PM
I'll take my portion of the blame.  I really thought the discussion was about the effects of Obamacare and the people who would suddenly have insurance who've never had it.   You, obviously, were not part of that discussion.

11/2/2012 12:37 PM

But shouldn't that have been Obama's focus over the last four years, rather than pushing a healthcare plan that doesn't fix anything?

11/2/2012 12:38 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2012 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:43:00 PM (view original):
It's part of the problem if the same hand could have been dealt with by using a $2 bottle of alcohol and a box of band-aids.   Which, if one knows the trip to the doc of coming out of pocket, is how most people would handle it.
Even if it could have been dealt with at home, that is short money. An insurance company that primarily pays out small claims for minor injuries is an incredibly profitable one with low rates. I run an insurance brokerage. Insurance companies want their insureds to use their policies to take care of small issues like this so that they don't turn in to big issues later.

Now is your chance to back out of this. Your convoluted argument is not valid.

EDIT: In other words, the companies, for the most part, want to cover preventative care with a copay so that people don't avoid the doctor until they are dying and need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care.

Don't count on that.   There was a time when men were men and they "rubbed dirt on it" when they were hurt.    They rode bicycles without helmets.   No seatbelts.   The world worked just fine.    Every tiny cut is not life-threatening.   Sometimes you can use a band-aid.  That's why they're still in business.
I'm reading this entire thing over again and I don't think I misunderstood you.

You may have decided to change your point now, but for the last couple days your argument has been pretty clear.
I've never changed my point.   I was talking future with Obamacare, you were talking current without it.
11/2/2012 12:39 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I'll take my portion of the blame.  I really thought the discussion was about the effects of Obamacare and the people who would suddenly have insurance who've never had it.   You, obviously, were not part of that discussion.

You may have mentioned that on the 29th, but I didn't argue that point. I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare. My argument was more generalized and related to costs of insurance companies, how copays affect behavior, and what behavior is preferred.
11/2/2012 12:40 PM
See, I'm a Training Manager, so I advocate TRAINING PROGRAMS as the solution.

You're an insurance guy, so you advocate INSURANCE as the solution.

Obama is a socialist, so he advocates government social programs. 

We stick with what we know.
11/2/2012 12:40 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/30/2012 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/30/2012 7:43:00 PM (view original):
It's part of the problem if the same hand could have been dealt with by using a $2 bottle of alcohol and a box of band-aids.   Which, if one knows the trip to the doc of coming out of pocket, is how most people would handle it.
Even if it could have been dealt with at home, that is short money. An insurance company that primarily pays out small claims for minor injuries is an incredibly profitable one with low rates. I run an insurance brokerage. Insurance companies want their insureds to use their policies to take care of small issues like this so that they don't turn in to big issues later.

Now is your chance to back out of this. Your convoluted argument is not valid.

EDIT: In other words, the companies, for the most part, want to cover preventative care with a copay so that people don't avoid the doctor until they are dying and need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care.

Don't count on that.   There was a time when men were men and they "rubbed dirt on it" when they were hurt.    They rode bicycles without helmets.   No seatbelts.   The world worked just fine.    Every tiny cut is not life-threatening.   Sometimes you can use a band-aid.  That's why they're still in business.
I'm reading this entire thing over again and I don't think I misunderstood you.

You may have decided to change your point now, but for the last couple days your argument has been pretty clear.
I've never changed my point.   I was talking future with Obamacare, you were talking current without it.
And for the first time in the history of online forums, two people that disagree decide they just misunderstood.
11/2/2012 12:41 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
YOU ADMITTED YOU WORK FOR A ******* INSURANCE COMPANY! 

Don't you think your view might be a little skewed?
I run a brokerage. That's different. A medicare for all type bill would negatively affect revenue.
Wow, you really do filter everything through your little prism, don't you?   People in the insurance industry think EVERYONE needs insurance.  Just like when I went to a knee surgeon for a consultation for a torn meniscus.  You know what he recommended...?   SURGERY.

The fact is, insurance isn't the reason people don't get healthcare (until the last possible moment).  It's that they dont' ******* care... If they did, they wouldn't eat Big Macs and sodas and not exercise and not eat vegetables or fruits.  They wouldn't lay around watching Honey BooBoo instead of walking around the block or doing some calisthenics or getting some job training to make them employable.
yep


Most poor people won't use even a discounted $25 co-pay as incentive to visit the doctor for preventative care... they will use it to buy their next pack of smokes, a few items off the Mickey D's $1 menu, and some lottery tickets.


I'm done being taxed for everyone else.... Less Taxes, Less Government = Happy Life
11/2/2012 12:42 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):
See, I'm a Training Manager, so I advocate TRAINING PROGRAMS as the solution.

You're an insurance guy, so you advocate INSURANCE as the solution.

Obama is a socialist, so he advocates government social programs. 

We stick with what we know.
Insurance is nothing more than risk transfer. It doesn't fix anything.

And Obama is not a socialist.


11/2/2012 12:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I'll take my portion of the blame.  I really thought the discussion was about the effects of Obamacare and the people who would suddenly have insurance who've never had it.   You, obviously, were not part of that discussion.

You may have mentioned that on the 29th, but I didn't argue that point. I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare. My argument was more generalized and related to costs of insurance companies, how copays affect behavior, and what behavior is preferred.
Back on page 2 or 3, when I mentioned the cut hand requiring a stitch and how a man with insurance is likely to handle it as opposed to a man without insurance would handle it, what did you think I was talking about?

Keep in mind that Obamacare was mentioned on page 1.
of 18
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.