Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Will ObamaCare pay to help me feed my family when this monstrosity forces private insurers out of business?
murra Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 I'm not the one that has a problem with them, or my responses. Take your complaint up with murra. Quite frankly I wont hear them anyways. I'm not fond of 3rdnlng's username. Too many weird abbreviations. Why take away the "o" in long? It's just one letter.
murra Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Will ObamaCare pay to help me feed my family when this monstrosity forces private insurers out of business? In Obamare you don't pay the government. The government pays you! ...oh wait.
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Will ObamaCare pay to help me feed my family when this monstrosity forces private insurers out of business? Of course it will. It will also pay your mortgage, your car payment and your gas.
Magox Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Will ObamaCare pay to help me feed my family when this monstrosity forces private insurers out of business? Under the PRESENT construct of the bill, it should provide a boon to your business, there will be more people buying health insurance as a result of this bill. The Health Insurance providers are the present big winners of this piece of legislation, unless the Regulators make it impossible for them, which is a distinct possibility. However, it could lead to the public option or Single Payer down the road, which of course would hurt your business.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Under the PRESENT construct of the bill, it should provide a boon to your business, there will be more people buying health insurance as a result of this bill. The Health Insurance providers are the present big winners of this piece of legislation, unless the Regulators make it impossible for them, which is a distinct possibility. However, it could lead to the public option or Single Payer down the road, which of course would hurt your business. If it's like the Massachussetts plan, then yes, it would be beneficial. But if it doesn't TRULY mandate coverage for individuals, then we're screwed because Grandma and Grandpa will skip out on it.
Adam Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 As does the high value of "helping others even if it means hurting yourself." I know. Not "perhaps", by all the whining and crying that goes on with posters on this board that helping others doesn't have any meaning to guys. Nice to see that selfishness reigns supreme! Actually helping others even at the detriment to yourself is the utmost sign that somebo? This isn't a pissing contest. Keep up the great work! Selfishness comes to the forefront both with socialism and capitalism. People just blindly defend things- and by that, I am not referring to you, Exiled, just to people in general.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 If it's like the Massachussetts plan, then yes, it would be beneficial. But if it doesn't TRULY mandate coverage for individuals, then we're screwed because Grandma and Grandpa will skip out on it. The mandate is weak: carry insurance, or pay a fine equal to about 10% of the cost of insurance. And you can buy insurance at time of need (which entirely defeats the point of "insurance"), since no one's allowed to forbid preexisting conditions anymore. Wife and I sat down last night and went over some numbers...roughly, we can save $3k a year in health care costs, with absolutely no decrease in our level of care, by dropping health insurance and picking it up on an as-needed basis. This is such a completely ridiculous piece of legislation...
Magox Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 The mandate is weak: carry insurance, or pay a fine equal to about 10% of the cost of insurance. And you can buy insurance at time of need (which entirely defeats the point of "insurance"), since no one's allowed to forbid preexisting conditions anymore. Wife and I sat down last night and went over some numbers...roughly, we can save $3k a year in health care costs, with absolutely no decrease in our level of care, by dropping health insurance and picking it up on an as-needed basis. This is such a completely ridiculous piece of legislation... You know, I believe there are going to be alot of families talking about this over the next few years. The fact that there are many state governments looking to ban this mandate will just embolden more people to drop their coverage and use it to their advantage. This is going to have to get addressed differently than as it stands.
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Quite frankly I wont hear them anyways. I'm not fond of 3rdnlng's username. Too many weird abbreviations. Why take away the "o" in long? It's just one letter. Are you picking on me? I left the "o" out because that is the way I prefer it---short and to the point. Hell will freeze over before I change it. I didn't create that username to get into a long and heated discussion. I was just throwing it out there. All you mean, insulting, greedy, Karl Rove loving neocons can gang up on me but I will never back down. You need to understand that there are different points of view and that this recent legislation is going to be good for all of us that are happy to live off your largesse. BTW, what could I get if I put the "o" in my username?
Adam Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 You know, I believe there are going to be alot of families talking about this over the next few years. The fact that there are many state governments looking to ban this mandate will just embolden more people to drop their coverage and use it to their advantage. This is going to have to get addressed differently than as it stands. It is like just about any other oversized bill. It will have some pretty ridiculous loop holes that will be exploited- possibly worse than what is taking place now.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 The mandate is weak: carry insurance, or pay a fine equal to about 10% of the cost of insurance. And you can buy insurance at time of need (which entirely defeats the point of "insurance"), since no one's allowed to forbid preexisting conditions anymore. Wife and I sat down last night and went over some numbers...roughly, we can save $3k a year in health care costs, with absolutely no decrease in our level of care, by dropping health insurance and picking it up on an as-needed basis. This is such a completely ridiculous piece of legislation... Except for one caveat; how long will it take to get coverage? I mean, if you're diagnosed with cancer, it's one thing. Go get insurance and you can get coverage for your treatment (assuming you can GET treatment). But if you get in a car wreck and end up with broken arms and legs, it's not like you can run by the ATM and pick up coverage on the way to the hospital. Unless, y'know, maybe we can start a business that chases down accidents and have insta-coverage for the uninsured. "Look, I know you're about to bleed out, but if you sign here and get your credit card, we can make this much less expensive for you."
keepthefaith Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Except for one caveat; how long will it take to get coverage? I mean, if you're diagnosed with cancer, it's one thing. Go get insurance and you can get coverage for your treatment (assuming you can GET treatment). But if you get in a car wreck and end up with broken arms and legs, it's not like you can run by the ATM and pick up coverage on the way to the hospital. Unless, y'know, maybe we can start a business that chases down accidents and have insta-coverage for the uninsured. "Look, I know you're about to bleed out, but if you sign here and get your credit card, we can make this much less expensive for you." They can't deny a pre-existing condition but I'd bet they can deny to pay for services rendered prior to your date of insurance. That and turnaround time on a new application might be very S L O W.
keepthefaith Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Except for one caveat; how long will it take to get coverage? I mean, if you're diagnosed with cancer, it's one thing. Go get insurance and you can get coverage for your treatment (assuming you can GET treatment). But if you get in a car wreck and end up with broken arms and legs, it's not like you can run by the ATM and pick up coverage on the way to the hospital. Unless, y'know, maybe we can start a business that chases down accidents and have insta-coverage for the uninsured. "Look, I know you're about to bleed out, but if you sign here and get your credit card, we can make this much less expensive for you." Let's start a new health insurance company. Here is the marketing plan: 1. Sell to employers that have younger workforces 2. Do zero advertising (don't want to attract higher risk customers) 3. No public website
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 That and turnaround time on a new application might be very S L O W. Might be?
Doc Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 It's true. If you get into an accident or need emergency surgery, the insurance co. won't cover that admission and likely any immediate follow-up. And you'll be on the hook for the bill. And I'm hearing about there possibly being a 2.5% of modified AGI tax penalty for not having coverage, which makes far more sense than the $750. If that's true, that's a far greater deterrent to buying coverage only when you need it. But it looks like the mandated coverage will go to the SC, where it will likely fail. The argument being that government can't force you to buy a private product, because they could potentially also force you to buy, say, a GM car.
/dev/null Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 But it looks like the mandated coverage will go to the SC, where it will likely fail. The argument being that government can't force you to buy a private product, because they could potentially also force you to buy, say, a GM car. And a mortgage, backed by Fannie Mae
IDBillzFan Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 It's true. If you get into an accident or need emergency surgery, the insurance co. won't cover that admission and likely any immediate follow-up. And you'll be on the hook for the bill. And I'm hearing about there possibly being a 2.5% of modified AGI tax penalty for not having coverage, which makes far more sense than the $750. If that's true, that's a far greater deterrent to buying coverage only when you need it. But it looks like the mandated coverage will go to the SC, where it will likely fail. The argument being that government can't force you to buy a private product, because they could potentially also force you to buy, say, a GM car. If you eliminate the mandated coverage, doesn't that basically screw up the whole premise of how the health care bill was supposed to "reduce costs?"
Recommended Posts