The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Lordy...the US has the lowest tax burden of all industrialized countries...taxes have rarely been lower...we run a deficit...I was in public office for 6 years as a school board member - I hated raising taxes....taxes are taxes to pay for stuff

 

Trotting out the old "it is our money" ....yawn.....how about being a citizen?

 

I think you're confusing citizen with subject.

 

And again, how are you not too embarrassed to show your face around here?

[Spurna]

Poor Republicans defending rich Republicans is always hilarious - you're being used by greedy billionaires and the minute you get a pre-existing condition you're going to be in debt forever

 

Good luck with that

[TakeYouToTasker]

Poor Republicans defending rich Republicans is always hilarious - you're being used by greedy billionaires and the minute you get a pre-existing condition you're going to be in debt forever

 

Good luck with that

Should home insurance cover houses that have already burned down prior to being insured?

[GG]

Pre existing conditions are the biggest red herring in the discussion. Insurance portability is a far more important item than covering pre-existing conditions, which by then not insurance, but a giveaway. If you have true portability, then it's another incentive for people to get coverage early when they're healthy and then there would be no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

[DC Tom]

Should home insurance cover houses that have already burned down prior to being insured?

 

Yes, because it's not home "insurance," it's home "care." [/progressives]

[Azalin]

Pre existing conditions are the biggest red herring in the discussion. Insurance portability is a far more important item than covering pre-existing conditions, which by then not insurance, but a giveaway. If you have true portability, then it's another incentive for people to get coverage early when they're healthy and then there would be no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

 

This touches on something I've wondered about; how can you ensure against something that's already happened? It would seem that the best way to handle coverage for a pre-existing condition would be to have a separate assistance plan for such things, instead of including it in a program where insurance companies will have to pay it. My understanding of insurance is that you pay for protection against something you hope never happens, and that the insurance company charges you for financial compensation in case it actually does. You hope you have no problem, the insurance company hopes they have to make no payment. If you look at insurance this way, it seems like it's largely not being used as insurance is intended, and that adding the burden of covering pre-existing conditions on top makes no sense at all.

[Gary M]

Poor Republicans defending rich Republicans is always hilarious - you're being used by greedy billionaires and the minute you get a pre-existing condition you're going to be in debt forever

 

Good luck with that

 

But I want to be a rich Republican, and when I get there I don't want to pay the higher taxes.

[Spurna]

 

But I want to be a rich Republican, and when I get there I don't want to pay the higher taxes.

 

And here's why we're all going to die - "f*ck you, got mine" even though most people have nothing and never will

Edited May 4, 2017 by Spurna

[Gary M]

 

Lordy...the US has the lowest tax burden of all industrialized countries...taxes have rarely been lower...we run a deficit...I was in public office for 6 years as a school board member - I hated raising taxes....taxes are taxes to pay for stuff

 

Trotting out the old "it is our money" ....yawn.....how about being a citizen?

 

 

And how many times did you raise taxes because of some dumbass rule the Dept of Education made? Something they thought would help but didn't.

 

I'm not against taxes, I'm against waste. And the DoED is nothing but. When local boards controlled the purse we had some of the best education in the world, since the DoED it has declined every year.

 

And here's why we're all going to die - "f*ck you, got mine" even though most people have nothing and never will

 

Who said that?

 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

 

Sorry no guarantees!!!

 

If you want something work for it. I have and continue to.

 

To many people feel they are owed something.

[Tiberius]

 

But I want to be a rich Republican, and when I get there I don't want to pay the higher taxes.

Don't become rich then and you won't be a "subject" enslaved into the thralldom of taxation. Poor rich people

Pre existing conditions are the biggest red herring in the discussion. Insurance portability is a far more important item than covering pre-existing conditions, which by then not insurance, but a giveaway. If you have true portability, then it's another incentive for people to get coverage early when they're healthy and then there would be no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

Red herring??? ha ha! The biggest BS of this whole thing is the Republicans calling this health care reform. Its not, its a tax cut/health care cut and their deep pocket donors are driving it for financial gain. Blood money?

[Tiberius]

“This victory today isn’t about one side of the other; it’s about delivering good quality healthcare to Americans, being able to contain premiums and allowing people to have control of their healthcare again. This is a day that we’ve sealed the deal on the promise to Americans.”

Trump ally Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) added: "The main message was to remind America we are saving healthcare, we are saving the individual exchanges, which are failing hour by hour.”

 

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/331907-gop-predicts-victory-on-obamacare-repeal-vote

They should work for Trump University

[GG]

 

This touches on something I've wondered about; how can you ensure against something that's already happened? It would seem that the best way to handle coverage for a pre-existing condition would be to have a separate assistance plan for such things, instead of including it in a program where insurance companies will have to pay it. My understanding of insurance is that you pay for protection against something you hope never happens, and that the insurance company charges you for financial compensation in case it actually does. You hope you have no problem, the insurance company hopes they have to make no payment. If you look at insurance this way, it seems like it's largely not being used as insurance is intended, and that adding the burden of covering pre-existing conditions on top makes no sense at all.

 

This is the part that burns up people who understand the difference between health insurance and healthcare. It's idiotic to mandate that insurance carriers take on somebody new with a pre existing condition. That's why insurance portability is an important feature. If you carried insurance in one place while you were healthy, then got sick and had to move, it wouldn't be fair to lose that coverage because you've been paying for that risk all along.

 

On the healthcare side of things, there's already an existing system that provides for people who are uninsured or underinsured, it's called Medicaid.

[Chef Jim]

I've said this from the beginning of this whole debate. Health insurance should be taught about, priced and marketed just as life insurance is. You are not required to have life insurance. How many people/families have been devastated by the untimely death of a bread winner however we don't require it. Same with health insurance. Life insurance is priced based on your age and health and that's essentially it. Why not do the same with health insurance. You get it when you're young and you lock in your cost for the rest of your life or the term of the policy. You need coverage until your 65 when Medicare kicks in. So a 25 year old gets a 40 year health insurance policy. He pays a fixed monthly premium just like life insurance. It contractually cannot increase. You wait until you're 40 to lock in a 25 year policy and you have high blood pressure it's more expensive. The key is educating and marketing to people. I have no idea if it would work but it's something I've thought a lot about.

[/dev/null]

I've said this from the beginning of this whole debate. Health insurance should be taught about, priced and marketed just as life insurance is. You are not required to have life insurance. How many people/families have been devastated by the untimely death of a bread winner however we don't require it. Same with health insurance. Life insurance is priced based on your age and health and that's essentially it. Why not do the same with health insurance. You get it when you're young and you lock in your cost for the rest of your life or the term of the policy. You need coverage until your 65 when Medicare kicks in. So a 25 year old gets a 40 year health insurance policy. He pays a fixed monthly premium just like life insurance. It contractually cannot increase. You wait until you're 40 to lock in a 25 year policy and you have high blood pressure it's more expensive. The key is educating and marketing to people. I have no idea if it would work but it's something I've thought a lot about.

Problem with your theory is that it requires individual responsibility and lacks free stuff.

[Chef Jim]

Problem with your theory is that it requires individual responsibility and lacks free stuff.

 

Good point. What was I thinking? Wait...thinking was what I WAS doing. My bad.

[Bray Wyatt]

Problem with your theory is that it requires individual responsibility and lacks free stuff.

 

[Meathead]

My guess is they pass it by one vote tomorrow to protect the most purple "moderate" GOP members of Congress. I still think it will die in the Senate though once the CBO score comes out on the revised bill and the enormous amount of public pressure they'll face.

this is exactly what will happen

[Tiberius]

I've said this from the beginning of this whole debate. Health insurance should be taught about, priced and marketed just as life insurance is. You are not required to have life insurance. How many people/families have been devastated by the untimely death of a bread winner however we don't require it. Same with health insurance. Life insurance is priced based on your age and health and that's essentially it. Why not do the same with health insurance. You get it when you're young and you lock in your cost for the rest of your life or the term of the policy. You need coverage until your 65 when Medicare kicks in. So a 25 year old gets a 40 year health insurance policy. He pays a fixed monthly premium just like life insurance. It contractually cannot increase. You wait until you're 40 to lock in a 25 year policy and you have high blood pressure it's more expensive. The key is educating and marketing to people. I have no idea if it would work but it's something I've thought a lot about.

Oh, so we should treat all insurance the same even though they are very different

[Meathead]

Problem with your theory is that it requires individual responsibility and lacks free stuff.

and completely ignores the occurrence of random events that frequently make ppl sick to no fault of their own whatsoever

 

bad idea by the fraud chef

[Dorkington]

I'm starting to wonder if there might be enough traction on universal healthcare to get things happening. I'm actually seeing more conservatives warm up to the idea lately.

[Meathead]

The biggest BS of this whole thing is the Republicans calling this health care reform. Its not, its a tax cut/health care cut and their deep pocket donors are driving it for financial gain. Blood money?

agreed

I'm starting to wonder if there might be enough traction on universal healthcare to get things happening. I'm actually seeing more conservatives warm up to the idea lately.

ultimately its the only permanent solution. it should have been implemented decades ago

[Dorkington]

In theory it's very practical. A healthy society makes for a more efficient and productive society. But with the amount of money flowing into congress, and everyone needing to make profit off of every step, I'm wary of it actually working in the US.

[Meathead]

Tom, you are a pre existing condition, lol

boring dickicitis

[Chef Jim]

and completely ignores the occurrence of random events that frequently make ppl sick to no fault of their own whatsoever

 

bad idea by the fraud chef

 

How does that ignore those random events? You get insurance to protect against those random events. Or you self insure with a very tax friendly HSA. Once again it's all in the education and marketing.

Oh, so we should treat all insurance the same even though they are very different

 

All insurance? No just health and life insurance.

[Bray Wyatt]

and completely ignores the occurrence of random events that frequently make ppl sick to no fault of their own whatsoever

 

bad idea by the fraud chef

 

What are you even talking about? Seeing as kids are covered on their parents insurance until 26 (I believe that is what it is now) they would be on insurance up to that point where they can make the choice to cover themselves or not. It would be up to them if they want to risk it or not. With the way medical stuff is nowadays I personally cant see someone not wanting to be on insurance but if they choose not to that is their right.

[Doc Brown]

Wow. Trump is really happy about this. Who's going to tell him it still has to pass the Senate and the House again?

 

[Meathead]

no it is not their right. by choosing to not be on insurance until you get sick you are stealing from the system

 

its like a game. random events just happen. that doesnt matter to a lot of you bc it hasnt happened to you yet. should we let you wait until it does, or until you get signs its coming before you participate?

 

or do we do what is going to happen WAAAY more often under doncare, do we let those hit with random events go bankrupt even when their random event is treatable and they could return to productive lives?

 

hell the fk no

 

everybody participates. everybody is covered

Edited May 4, 2017 by Meathead

[TakeYouToTasker]

no it is not their right. by choosing to not be on insurance until you get sick you are stealing from the system

 

its like a game. random events just happen. that doesnt matter to a lot of you bc it hasnt happened to you yet. should we let you wait until it does, or until you get signs its coming before you participate?

 

or do we do what is going to happen WAAAY more often under doncare, do we let those hit with random events go bankrupt even when their random event is treatable and they could return to productive lives?

 

hell the fk no

 

everybody participates. everybody is covered

What, other than your own personal decision making, prevents you from acquiring health insurance prior to one of these "random events"?

 

Also, spare me your "I've got a gun to your head" altruism.

Edited May 4, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

What, other than your own personal decision making, prevents you from acquiring health insurance prior to one of these "random events"?

 

Also, spare me your "I've got a gun to your head" altruism.

So your basis for arguing the merits of HC are not neceesarily actuarial theory, math, quantitative results but rather idealism.....sounds just like our GOP.

 

Not setting a set of outome goals and determing the best path to get there....but developing policy on a set of ideals and surprised when the outome is what was desired....

[Buftex]

What, other than your own personal decision making, prevents you from acquiring health insurance prior to one of these "random events"?

 

Also, spare me your "I've got a gun to your head" altruism.

Until recently, pre-existing conditions...

[TakeYouToTasker]

So your basis for arguing the merits of HC are not neceesarily actuarial theory, math, quantitative results but rather idealism.....sounds just like our GOP.

 

Not setting a set of outome goals and determing the best path to get there....but developing policy on a set of ideals and surprised when the outome is what was desired....

My basis is that individuals should be free to make whatever decisions they want, poor or otherwise, and that the government should not legitimize poor decisions by forcing other individuals to subsidize the poor outcomes created by those poor decisions.

Until recently, pre-existing conditions...

What prevents someone from making the decision to purchase insurance prior to contracting a condition?

[Tiberius]

I can't believe the GOP is this stupid...or desperate. Why do they want this bill out there being debated? Aside from libertarian cranks this is a big loser to most people.

 

On to the Senate!

[nucci]

I can't believe the GOP is this stupid...or desperate. Why do they want this bill out there being debated? Aside from libertarian cranks this is a big loser to most people.

 

On to the Senate!

They just want to say they fulfilled a campaign promise and a promise they have made daily for the past 7 years......and now they can go home for 2 weeks

[Azalin]

I'm starting to wonder if there might be enough traction on universal healthcare to get things happening. I'm actually seeing more conservatives warm up to the idea lately.

 

Then those aren't conservatives.

 

Until recently, pre-existing conditions...

 

You can't insure against a condition that already exists. That is not insurance. People need to stop regarding it as such before the problem can be properly addressed.

[PO16FFS]

I've said this from the beginning of this whole debate. Health insurance should be taught about, priced and marketed just as life insurance is. You are not required to have life insurance. How many people/families have been devastated by the untimely death of a bread winner however we don't require it. Same with health insurance. Life insurance is priced based on your age and health and that's essentially it. Why not do the same with health insurance. You get it when you're young and you lock in your cost for the rest of your life or the term of the policy. You need coverage until your 65 when Medicare kicks in. So a 25 year old gets a 40 year health insurance policy. He pays a fixed monthly premium just like life insurance. It contractually cannot increase. You wait until you're 40 to lock in a 25 year policy and you have high blood pressure it's more expensive. The key is educating and marketing to people. I have no idea if it would work but it's something I've thought a lot about.

Why are you using common sense? how are the rich gonna get richer with this theory? The "normal" people will have the same as the elite people...this can't happen.

 

BTW: One of the best posts I've seen in a long, long, long time.

[Meathead]

So your basis for arguing the merits of HC are not neceesarily actuarial theory, math, quantitative results but rather idealism.....sounds just like our GOP.

 

Not setting a set of outome goals and determing the best path to get there....but developing policy on a set of ideals and surprised when the outome is what was desired....

well said

They just want to say they fulfilled a campaign promise and a promise they have made daily for the past 7 years......and now they can go home for 2 weeks

exactly

 

they are trying to erase some of the embarrassment of the original failure with a political gesture. on to the senate where it stands no chance as it is. so this step is nothing but fluff

 

more wasted fkg time on bullѕhit

 

this crap that we consistently get from the gop on hc is disgusting

[Doc Brown]

well said

 

exactly

 

they are trying to erase some of the embarrassment of the original failure with a political gesture. on to the senate where it stands no chance as it is. so this step is nothing but fluff

 

more wasted fkg time on bullѕhit

 

this crap that we consistently get from the gop on hc is disgusting

Never underestimate the Republicans ability to screw people over. The winners of this bill are insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the rich, upper class income owners without preexisting conditions, young healthy people, and large employers. The losers are poor people, those with preexisting conditions, and older Americans who have to purchase health care as their premiums will skyrocket without the individual mandate. There is also a fine detail in the bill a lot of people are overlooking and it's if you get your insurance through work insurance companies can drop you if a catastrophic health crisis happens.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Doc Brown

[reddogblitz]

Pre existing conditions are the biggest red herring in the discussion. Insurance portability is a far more important item than covering pre-existing conditions, which by then not insurance, but a giveaway. If you have true portability, then it's another incentive for people to get coverage early when they're healthy and then there would be no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

My son got a pre existing conditions when he was 4 years old.

 

That said, I also have a pre existing condition and have had insurance through various employers for 32 years and have never been turned down and my pre existing condition has been fully covered.

[TakeYouToTasker]

well said

 

exactly

 

they are trying to erase some of the embarrassment of the original failure with a political gesture. on to the senate where it stands no chance as it is. so this step is nothing but fluff

 

more wasted fkg time on bullѕhit

 

this crap that we consistently get from the gop on hc is disgusting

Well sure, if you believe you are entitled to make slaves of others in order to fund your wish lists via barrel of a gun force, sure.

 

But, if you believe in the inherent value of freedom as the best condition for man, then your nothing but an immoral fascist, which you are.

[grinreaper]

The ACA was all smoke and mirrors. It provided so called insurance that for all practical purposes (except for the outliers) does nothing for people supposedly covered. Sky high deductibles and premiums costing ridiculous monthly amounts means they have insurance without actual health care. It obviously wasn't and isn't working for the insurers either. For people to criticize the GOP for trying to come up with a better plan just shows how partisan they are.