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

[grinreaper]

 

Personal responsibility, and making insurance more portable.

 

Individuals should be encouraged to purchase insurance when they are young and healthy to lock in rates just as they do with life insurance. That insurance should be portable, so they can carry it with them, paying those same rates.

 

Those who have been irresponsible, and have not purchased when young and healthy, should not be bailed out by the tax payer as this only incentivizes the irresponsibility. They should be reliant on churches and private charity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of the person who waits to buy insurance as the driver who clearly sees the sign that says "Right lane closed ahead" but refuses to merge into the left lane until he runs out of road. If you let them get away with that schit then it only causes more issues for the drivers that they have jumped ahead of. It really doesn't much bother me when no one will let them in.

[Nanker]

Millions and millions of people got "healthcare insurance" that they couldn't use because no healthcare providers would accept that insurance, or because their out-of-pocket deductibles were so high they either never went to the Dr. or never got past their high deductible. Obamacare was a bad joke played on the American people by really stupid, calculating Democrats.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Think of the person who waits to buy insurance as the driver who clearly sees the sign that says "Right lane closed ahead" but refuses to merge into the left lane until he runs out of road. If you let them get away with that schit then it only causes more issues for the drivers that they have jumped ahead of. It really doesn't much bother me when no one will let them in.

 

You're wrong on the driving metaphor. That is the CORRECT thing to do.

[grinreaper]

 

You're wrong on the driving metaphor. That is the CORRECT thing to do.

Passing a whole line of vehicles on the right and then trying to force your way into the left lane is the CORRECT thing to do? You're either an idiot or from Ohio.

[Tiberius]

Cutting access to health care for the poor to give more money to the wealthy who are really...well...wealthy already. This is a sad spectacle of politicians working for their rich campaign donors

[boyst]

Passing a whole line of vehicles on the right and then trying to force your way into the left lane is the CORRECT thing to do? You're either an idiot or from Ohio.

its called zippering. I do this every time. Its legal. Its right and its actually proven to be better if everyone did it. I

 

I passed a 2 mile single file line of cars barely moving to get to the front and someone let me in. The area thru construction was at 8mph. But the line was at standstill because people are sheep and stupid. The cop at the merge point flashed his lights and siren at me and gave me a stern look.

 

Sorry !@#$. I'm smarter than you. I wish he'd have pulled me over. I did nothing illegal and I'd tell him to Google zippering.

 

Stupid people should be punished

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Passing a whole line of vehicles on the right and then trying to force your way into the left lane is the CORRECT thing to do? You're either an idiot or from Ohio.

 

Yes, do some research, rich.

[DC Tom]

Passing a whole line of vehicles on the right and then trying to force your way into the left lane is the CORRECT thing to do? You're either an idiot or from Ohio.

 

Traffic uses the road more efficiently and moves faster if it uses both lanes, then alternate merges at the merge. If you're moving over a mile before the merge, leaving a lane completely empty, and not allowing alternate merge, you're the problem.

[grinreaper]

If someone is controlling the merge, fine. If not, trying to force your way in causes traffic to stop and go. Have none of you witnessed a trucker straddle the centerline to prevent this? Furthermore JSP, I'm not Rich and Ohio drivers are the worst.

[Magox]

Insurance has always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people subsidizing the cost of everyone else. This isn't something that is new to the ACA, the problem with the ACA is that it further disincentivized healthier people to purchase insurance. The distribution of subsidies was all out of wack, the way they capped older people's premiums relative to younger people and the community based rating all tilted in the wrong direction which in turn created unhealthier risk pools for the insurance companies.

 

And yes, ALF was also correct in the sense that there was a pent up demand for people with medical conditions who were for the first time in years getting healthcare and without doubt that did contribute to the rate hikes.

 

I don't know how this Senate bill will play out, so far it is going in the direction that I thought it would. Not sure if will be able to get past the senate.

 

But no matter how this plays out, to the chagrin/disappointment of some of you on this board, what will remain are the subsidies/tax credits and covering people with pre existing medical conditions.

 

The question is will it have something close to what the Senate Republicans are proposing? Minor fixes to Obamacare because Republicans couldn't get a deal done? or have this slow winding death of the ACA and we get single payer within a decade?

Edited June 22, 2017 by Magox

[B-Man]

Democrats are pulling out all the stops to prevent the GOP’s effort to “repeal and replace” Obamacare from moving forward. Sen. Chris Murphy today called the GOP Senate’s health care bill “evil.” Meanwhile, the current law of the land continues to collapse:

 

 

 

 

Aetna/Coventry quits Obamacare in AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, and WV for 2018.

 

 

#ItsWorking

 

By all means keep talking about the "evil" republicans

[4merper4mer]

Insurance has always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people subsidizing the cost of everyone else. This isn't something that is new to the ACA, the problem with the ACA is that it further disincentivized healthier people to purchase insurance. The distribution of subsidies was all out of wack, the way they capped older people's premiums relative to younger people and the community based rating all tilted in the wrong direction which in turn created unhealthier risk pools for the insurance companies.

 

And yes, ALF was also correct in the sense that there was a pent up demand for people with medical conditions who were for the first time in years getting healthcare and without doubt that did contribute to the rate hikes.

 

I don't know how this Senate bill will play out, so far it is going in the direction that I thought it would. Not sure if will be able to get past the senate.

 

But no matter how this plays out, to the chagrin/disappointment of some of you on this board, what will remain are the subsidies/tax credits and covering people with pre existing medical conditions.

 

The question is will it have something close to what the Senate Republicans are proposing? Minor fixes to Obamacare because Republicans couldn't get a deal done? or have this slow winding death of the ACA and we get single payer within a decade?

 

 

Calling it the most responsible subsidizing everyone else isn't really accurate. Not everyone that gets cancer is irresponsible. Most aren't. You can bring an age thing into it sure, but it is likely that those people have been paying premiums for years by the time they are older. It is like calling someone who gets hit at a stop sign a bad driver. It might not be their fault.

 

There is a lot of blame to go around vis a vis health insurance:

 

Insurance companies desire an ever widening scope, consumers expect an all encompassing solution,drug companies want growth and have tried to achieve it via solving problems that aren't really problems, politicians want to make increasingly unrealistic promises, commies want to collapse the economy, some people want to be nasty toward others....this means the poor trying to "get even" with the rich and the rich looking down upon the poor.

 

Health care is one thing and it should be paid for our of pocket for most items. If you have a cold you may or may not want to get it checked out. If you are paranoid about every disease known to man and want an MRI every day to get a rotational clean bill of health you should pay for it.

 

If you have a disease that is catastrophic.....this is something for which you should be covered. We can afford that. You should probably have a choice about being covered but if you opt out you have to pay for the whole thing. You should not be covered for things like Viagra or changing your genitals or the world's fanciest pair of glasses and expect the government to pay under any health insurance plan....ever. If a commercial company wants to offer a policy that covers those things, then you can expect the premiums to be high if you want one.

 

The problem is clearly in the definition of need versus want....just like many other things in life. That is the core issue.

[Doc Brown]

Cutting access to health care for the poor to give more money to the wealthy who are really...well...wealthy already. This is a sad spectacle of politicians working for their rich campaign donors\

 

This bill really isn't as bad as I thought it would be given it's the Republicans who wrote it. Not touching medicaid and actually expanding it until 2021 gives working age adults who became seriously ill and can't work full time anymore (the one's who would of slipped through the cracks) short term relief. They now have time to get on disability which is an excruciating long process.

 

It also will sure up the GOP run states who now have only one and soon zero health insurance carriers (who refused to expand medicaid) cost-sharing subsidies that Trump wouldn't commit to under Obamacare.

 

Of course, here comes the Tea Party to make the plan worse.

[Tiberius]

Insurance has always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people subsidizing the cost of everyone else. This isn't something that is new to the ACA, the problem with the ACA is that it further disincentivized healthier people to purchase insurance. The distribution of subsidies was all out of wack, the way they capped older people's premiums relative to younger people and the community based rating all tilted in the wrong direction which in turn created unhealthier risk pools for the insurance companies.

 

And yes, ALF was also correct in the sense that there was a pent up demand for people with medical conditions who were for the first time in years getting healthcare and without doubt that did contribute to the rate hikes.

 

I don't know how this Senate bill will play out, so far it is going in the direction that I thought it would. Not sure if will be able to get past the senate.

 

But no matter how this plays out, to the chagrin/disappointment of some of you on this board, what will remain are the subsidies/tax credits and covering people with pre existing medical conditions.

 

The question is will it have something close to what the Senate Republicans are proposing? Minor fixes to Obamacare because Republicans couldn't get a deal done? or have this slow winding death of the ACA and we get single payer within a decade?

What do you think of them simply phasing out Medicaid? That seems to be the big target for the Republicans cause it's the most expensive part to tax payers

This bill really isn't as bad as I thought it would be given it's the Republicans who wrote it. Not touching medicaid and actually expanding it until 2021 gives working age adults who became seriously ill and can't work full time anymore (the one's who would of slipped through the cracks) short term relief. They now have time to get on disability which is an excruciating long process.

 

It also will sure up the GOP run states who now have only one and soon zero health insurance carriers (who refused to expand medicaid) cost-sharing subsidies that Trump wouldn't commit to under Obamacare.

 

Of course, here comes the Tea Party to make the plan worse.

It's still basically getting rid of the option to go on Medicaid for the poor after a certain date

[B-Large]

Millions and millions of people got "healthcare insurance" that they couldn't use because no healthcare providers would accept that insurance, or because their out-of-pocket deductibles were so high they either never went to the Dr. or never got past their high deductible. Obamacare was a bad joke played on the American people by really stupid, calculating Democrats.

 

But that's what catastrophic insurance coverage is, high deductibles. People want it every which way, they want cheap premium, almost no deductible and quality coverage. That fantasy doesn't exist unless the policy literallly covers nothing or has a lifetime maximum that renders it useless.

[ALF]

The healthcare bill is in the hands of a republican Congress and President . The Democrats have no say now.

 

Will it MAGA , time will tell.

[Magox]

 

 

Calling it the most responsible subsidizing everyone else isn't really accurate. Not everyone that gets cancer is irresponsible. Most aren't. You can bring an age thing into it sure, but it is likely that those people have been paying premiums for years by the time they are older. It is like calling someone who gets hit at a stop sign a bad driver. It might not be their fault.

 

 

That's not what I really said or at least meant. I suppose I could have communicated that a little better.

 

Insurance has always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people subsidizing the cost of everyone else

 

 

When I said that Insurance always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people, I was referring that insurance in general like auto insurance or in this case for health insurance with healthier people, that they subsidize the cost for everyone else.

What do you think of them simply phasing out Medicaid? That seems to be the big target for the Republicans cause it's the most expensive part to tax payers

 

 

 

It really depends on how the subsidies are distributed and the flexibility that will be given to the states to consider what will be QUALIFIED health plans.

 

If they can come up with high deductible plans with doctor, urgent care, ER room and lab testing copays with wellness visits, then you could conceivably see lots of people who were eventually phased out of Medicaid obtain these sort of plans for a next to nothing price with the subsidy.

 

Medicaid is too benefit rich in my opinion. Sure they have limited doctor networks but it's essentially a gold plated benefit plan, at virtually NO COST to the benificiary, whereas folks in the middle class often times have deductibles of a few thousand bucks paying hundreds of bucks a month.

 

That isn't fair. So I think the idea of taking a little away from Medicaid with the option of those folks now getting a plan not as benefit rich as their Medicaid plan at little to no cost is a lot more fair.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Magox

[Dorkington]

Democrats are pulling out all the stops to prevent the GOP’s effort to “repeal and replace” Obamacare from moving forward. Sen. Chris Murphy today called the GOP Senate’s health care bill “evil.” Meanwhile, the current law of the land continues to collapse:

 

 

 

 

Aetna/Coventry quits Obamacare in AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, and WV for 2018.

 

 

#ItsWorking

 

By all means keep talking about the "evil" republicans

I've seen op-eds claiming that the ACA is causing this, and I've seen op-eds claiming the Republicans gunning to gut the ACA is causing this.

 

By your posts, I'm guessing you believe the former, but do we have some good unbiased facts to back either of the claims up?

 

Either way, the ACA wasn't enough to fix healthcare, and the AHCA certainly isn't either, imo. Universal Healthcare or bust in the modern and developed world.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Dorkington

[Doc Brown]

I've seen op-eds claiming that the ACA is causing this, and I've seen op-eds claiming the Republicans gunning to gut the ACA is causing this.

 

By your posts, I'm guessing you believe the former, but do we have some good unbiased facts to back either of the claims up?

 

Either way, the ACA wasn't enough to fix healthcare, and the AHCA certainly isn't either, imo. Universal Healthcare or bust in the modern and developed world.

 

 

It hasn't been tried with a public option yet so I wouldn't jump right into single payer. It is strange that the states hit hardest by the ACA premiums and are losing insurance providers to one or zero are Republican run states.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Doc Brown

[boyst]

If someone is controlling the merge, fine. If not, trying to force your way in causes traffic to stop and go. Have none of you witnessed a trucker straddle the centerline to prevent this? Furthermore JSP, I'm not Rich and Ohio drivers are the worst.

ever see me go around that trucker or him about **** himself when he about hits me because he has more to lose with his cdl than I do

I've seen op-eds claiming that the ACA is causing this, and I've seen op-eds claiming the Republicans gunning to gut the ACA is causing this.

 

By your posts, I'm guessing you believe the former, but do we have some good unbiased facts to back either of the claims up?

 

Either way, the ACA wasn't enough to fix healthcare, and the AHCA certainly isn't either, imo. Universal Healthcare or bust in the modern and developed world.

the CBO had to look at it one thousand times to find a way they could claim it had support etc.

And revisionists saying the aca was only the stepping stone to move in the right direction now a days

The history of failure with it was doomed from the start as there was not support.

 

History will praise Obama for this just as history spoke highly of the new deal. And the tva and all those ridiculous bull **** things