Dave Ramsey, one of the nations most popular and well-known financial advisors lays it out straight regarding Obamacare. "You’re not exempt from math if you’re a Republican, and you’re not exempt from math if you’re a Democrat. You’re not exempt from math if you’re a liberal, and you’re not exempt from math if you’re a conservative. You still have to do math." “Pull your head far enough out of your politics to have an original thought.” “January 1st, 2014 every insurance company is required to take on anyone, no matter how sick they are, and they cannot charge them more than someone who is not ill…You're 500 lbs. you have diabetes, you’ve got cancer, you’ve had three heart attacks you’re going to pay the exact same premium as a perfectly healthy person.” “I understand the motivation, and the nobility and the moral imperative behind that. I get that. But that doesn’t change the math, the math is that those people get sick more often and run up more medical bills than someone who is healthy. Duh.” “If they now have to be covered by the same company that you’re covered by and they’re required to take them… then the math kicks in. Because the amount of money that that company was paying out to the medical community is going to go way up. They’re going to pay out to the medical community per person than they ever have before… what they pay out per person is how your premium is determined – plus profit.” “Everyone is going to be charged the same. Translation you are going to pay higher premiums to keep the insurance company open, so they don’t go broke. Because they are now going to have to cover people that they didn’t have to cover before… sick people.” “It’s a nice moral imperative, but it doesn’t change the math.” “Translation. Your health insurance premiums are going to go WAY up. They HAVE to. It’s not that I’m mad about it, it’s not a political statement. It’s that I know how to do math.” “Your premium went way up, your employer paying them might affect your raise. It might even affect the stability of your job because they might not be able to pay everybody, because they have higher costs of operating now… you paid for it, it’s called a pass-through, you’re going to pay for it.” “46% of Americans pay NO income tax.” PONZI_SOCIAL_SECURITY“This is not an angry thing, it’s a math thing… we are not exempt from math. Just because you think social security is a good idea does not mean you are right, you still have to do the math.” “If I put 10% of the money that I pay into Social Security I can beat what social security administration does with the other 90%, that’s how bad it sucks, mathematically. In other words that money is not invested it is sent to Washington and promptly stolen by them.” “You don’t even get back what you pay in. Mathematically this is known as, sucks….” “We got a mess up there…” Read more at http://eaglerising.com/2254/dave-ramsey-destroys-obamacare/#39bda1PVVqyVF0rR.99 Youtube video at the link. Premiums have always been based on risk. In this scenario, and accepting that Obamacare is going to be in effect, how do we encourage people that are the highest risk to take action to reduce their risk on the collective system? Are we removing personal responsibility from yet another facet of our society?
One view, no comments. Maybe if I am lucky I can get a supporter of this atrocity to acknowledge facts...
Dave Ramsey is spot on correct. What surprises me about what he said about who will pay for those that are irresponsible, which liberals have no problem with, but yet they make sure that laws are passed for motorcyclist to have to wear a helmet so that society doesn't have to pay for their stupidity. What hypocrisy
Of course, his math is based on several important assumptions. The result is like saying that IF a dog's tail is counted as a leg, THEN a dog has five legs, because that's the math, and math doesn't lie. So once again, figures don't lie but liars figure. One important assumptioin he's making is that the the money flowing to the insurance companies won't change. But we know that this isn't true for two reasons: because the base of premium-payers will be significantly larger, and because taxpayers will chip in huge subsidies. But his math "forgets" about these. I wonder how his math would work out if he factored in a few million healthy people not currently paying premiums, and a few hundred billion in subsidies? Since this WILL happen. Another assumption is that if nearly everyone has medical insurance, the overall state of health in the US will not improve. Experiences in other nations are quite otherwise - I'm not aware of a single nation with national health care that doesn't have considerably better average health than the US. And again, his math assumes insuring preventive medicine won't improve public health. However, he did get one thing exactly right: If insurance companies are only willing to insure healthy people, and boot them out as soon as they have medical problems, they will enjoy enormous profits. This guy may not be exempt from the math, but he seems to consider himself exempt from political decisions that hugely influence his math. HIS dog has five legs, his math PROVES it.
Yep. .. but, the math doesn't lie either in the sense that, those 500 lbs people with diabetes who need to have a foot amputated, or the smokers with lung cancer who can no longer be rejected by private insurances (or the exchange) and will pay (and receive subsidies) to get their OWN insurance will no longer be at the total charge of the "charity"of the tax payers. Parents with sick kids will no longer clutter the emergency rooms on weekends in every hospital because they can't afford to go to a primary care physician for preventive care or for a antibiotic prescription. . .those visits will cost A LOT LESS when they go to their primary care physician instead of the emergency room (about 1/10th to 1/20th of the cost, I believe). So. . .sure it private insurance may not be happy. . .but they will have more paying customers. And IF private insurance's price keep going up. . .this will become an excellent reason to turn to the "public option" that was first proposed and was rejected by the Right. Yep. . ACA is far from being perfect. . .but it is a beginning, and it WILL even up the cost of health care among all.
The gov't will eventually take over the collapsed private healthcare system and the rationing and death panels will begin. This has always been the plan.
Actually, insurance companies are changing helmet laws back. Too many people survive with severe disabilities, when they wear helmets.
Begin?? Death panels will start immediately. Just cause they have to take your money doesnt mean they have to give you operations or transplants etc...
So, not only is my premiums going up because of ObamaCare, my damn taxes are going up because of ObamaCare. Conclusion, ObamaCare is costing me more money. Do the math.
*sigh* That's all I can offer here. This 'math guy' is great at creating equations that don't take in all of the factors. Of COURSE between 2 people listed, one's going to need more payouts by the insurance company. But this is assuming that the population as a whole is 50/50 in terms of completely healthy people and those with chronic illness which simply isn't the case. As well, it's ignoring the huge influx they're going to get from all of the new customers. He also wrongly points out that it's like Social Security which it's not. Social Security is solvent for 20 years or more and would be even MORE solvent if war mongers running the country didn't tip into it like petty cash to fund wars that the people don't even want. The guy is great salesman and convinces people who don't have a full skeptical view of people like him. People like me question him and his 'simplified math'. From this article, he doesn't provide any real evidence to back up what he's saying, just enough to back up his bogus scenario.
True. I think that they think that the idiots who wrote and passed this thing have all that complicated math stuff figured out, and so just think we should all trust them.
Obama lies too much to be trusted. Do you think Nancy pelosi figured all the math out before she said, we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it?
So what would you suggest we do? It's expensive enough to care for really seriously ill people that only the very wealthy could afford to pay for it out of pocket or pay the premiums insurance companies under the old system would charge them, assuming they could get insurance at all. Do you believe that people who can't pay should be denied treatment? Are you prepared to tell people that they should just go away and die? If you're not prepared to do that, then there has to be a way to pay for that care. We can't just tell doctors that they have to care for critically ill people, but if they can't pay, tough luck. Since we can't simply wish the money into existence (well, we could, via the Federal Reserve's printing press, but that would be a really bad idea) it has to come from somewhere. That means that healthier people are going to have to help pay for the care of seriously ill people, one way or another. That's actually what's currently happening. People without coverage typically get treated at emergency rooms, and when they can't pay the hospitals have to absorb the loss and then pass it on to everyone else. And don't pretend that this is some grave injustice. We're all at risk for serious illness or injury. Or do you seriously think you could never get cancer or heart disease or Alzheimer's? Yes, some people do things that increase their risks. Do you think that letting such people die of heart attacks at the door of the emergency room would change that? Denial of care is not the way to change people's behavior. And what about people who are at greater risk through no fault of their own? People with genetic factors, for example. Should they be denied care? Should they be charged an arm and a leg for coverage? If you're not willing to deny people care and watch them die, and you want to keep a private insurance company model, there's really not any good alternative to the individual mandate. The care needs to be paid for, and the only practical way to do that is to spread the expense around. That means the young healthy people need to be paying into the system too. Otherwise, the math just doesn't work. As for the idea that math simply can't lie... Let A = B A*A = A*B A^2 = AB A^2 + A^2 = A^2 + AB 2*A^2 = A^2 +AB 2*A^2 - 2*AB = A^2 + AB - 2*AB 2*A^2 - 2*AB = A^2 - AB 2*(A^2 - AB) = 1*(A^2 - AB) 2 = 1 Bonus points if you can spot why this is wrong.
What makes you think obamacare is gonna be any different? Just cause they promise to take money from people with preexisting conditions doesn't mean they're going to preform any operations and stuff. Subileus already denied one lung transplant .
What Obamacare does is that it tries to get healthy young people into the system who currently don't have insurance and therefore don't contribute. And as I said, currently people without coverage get treatment at emergency rooms, which is a lot more expensive then getting care from a GP. Making sure that everyone has coverage should change that. You'll forgive me if I take your unsubstantiated anecdote less then seriously.
I'd post a link for you but I'm on my phone. You could Google it, or wait till the morning and I'll post it for ya. Search for 'girl denied lung transplant by ghoul sebileus' .
I am shocked to hear that. I am all for the individual freedom, that's why I love Idaho. I wore a complete racing suit when I rode, I raced motocross in the 70's and 80's so I was used to having the protection.
I believe a federal research hospital system could find cures for any affliction known to us, while providing that form of recourse to means tested programs.
Awesome! So by milking taxpayers for "a few hundred billion" dollars, taxpayers will no longer have to foot the bill for other people's health decisions...Wait...something seems off here. *scratches head* This double talk amongst ACA supporters has been going on for too long now. You can't have it both ways. Forcing taxpayers to pay for other people's health care does not solve the problem of taxpayers paying for other people's health care.
He is partly right. Insurance premiums are going to go up because there are more people having insurance, but it is not because those people who are being forced on the rolls now, young and healthy person, that they are going to get sick. In fact, most "sick people" already have some sort of insurance, government like medicare or medicaid, or private insurance, or both.
