- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:54 pm to cahoots
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:54 pm to cahoots
YES not in the same way as redistributing the cost to otherwise healthy non users of insurance. That’s why it was so important for ACA to have young healthy people paying obscure amounts in premiums. The problem was never pre existing it was pre existing actually paying their fair proportion of usage. That’s the problem with it. The healthy get stuck holding the bag for unhealthy, and a lot of times self inflicted, people. ACA completely changed the formulas on How much each individual paid into the pool. Also for years, a woman of child bearing age could get much lower premium if child birth was removed from the policy. Would you consider having a child a choice just like say breast implants which are not covered?
0
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:56 pm to cahoots
The individual mandate did nothing to curb this. The “fine” was far less than they would have had to pay in premiums and the fine didn’t go back to companies to offset their increased costs of this.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:58 pm to cahoots
quote:
I get that distinction, but the question is where do Republicans stand? Where does Trump stand?
I only attempted to answer for me.
Personally, I think that if we've decided as a nation that the Federal government should cover people with pre-existing conditions, then that's what we should do.
We should NOT mask it by putting those people into the insurance pool thereby forcing insurers to increase rates on everyone else.
Make no mistake, this was done for ONE reason and ONE reason only. To channel public anger away from the govt.
You see, if the govt said, "hey, you're ALL going to get stuck for $X0000 extra in taxes per year".........the people probably say "frick you".
So, instead, the govt said, 'hey, we're going to make insurers cover everyone"..............knowing full well that the same $XOOOO was about to come out of people's pockets............but THEN, the people would be mad at insurers.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 3:59 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Again, you simply don't understand how insurance works and what it is and what it is not supposed to cover. Ideally there should be another market and product availability for unhealthy people at the next renewal period that is not "health insurance."
Ideally? It didn't exist before Obamacare and never has. What makes you think it will ever exist? Call it whatever you want. People aren't going to magically get coverage for pre-existing conditions in an Obamacare-less system. You don't have to go very far back to see that in action.
quote:
And don't kid yourself, it is 100% about expense and Obamacare, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, drove it up for the majority of Americans. Insurance companies are not charities; they are able to cover losses because they are for profit.
I have acknowledged that Obamacare drove up costs through the pre-existing conditions provisions. It's literally in the OP and it's the whole point of this thread.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:00 pm to cahoots
“ Push them off the cliff”........
Oh sorry that’s what the Dems say...
Oh sorry that’s what the Dems say...
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:00 pm to cahoots
quote:The penalty for not insuring is a fraction of what actual insurance would cost.
As it stands, it doesn't. That's why the individual mandate was invented.
So, the same people who tended to not buy insurance before even if they could afford it, predictably, continued the behavior.
They were already risking having no insurance..........NOW.......they can take the same risk and if they happen to come down with a long term illness, they merely hold out till open enrollment......problem solved
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:01 pm to Wtodd
Can you point is to any legislation? Or is it in the same drawer as the new middle class tax
Cut?
Cut?
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Personally, I think that if we've decided as a nation that the Federal government should cover people with pre-existing conditions, then that's what we should do.
If the Dems had their way, we'd have single payer and the government would decide how to pay. And private insurers could be left alone. We are where we are because Dems slipped PECs into the private market and Republicans won't take it away now.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:02 pm to cahoots
quote:
People with "pre-existing" conditions (I'm using that term loosely) were/are being outright denied coverage for certain things by their own insurers.
This hasn't stopped with the HCA, and in my experience and the experiences of friends and relatives that have shared with me, has only gotten worse.
A few years ago I went to see a specialist after having some pretty alarming symptoms persist for more than a few days. Doctor looks at my symptoms, looks at my family history and orders a few labs. Insurance pre-authorizes them, everything is run and results come back eliminating my biggest fears but without really any resolution. A more invasive approach is taken and I get a few answers, thankfully nothing major. A few weeks later I get a bill for the labs for over $3000 because they were "investigative and exploratory" Well no shite they were investigative, these weren't the kind of tests you take for the fun of it. Thankfully the doctors office reduced the payment to a cash price of $600. Pre-HCA the labs may or may not have been covered, but the follow up procedure would have cost me $100 out the door rather than a $800 deductible that I had to pay for it, and probably would have been run first, eliminating the need for the lab.
Also that there is a 500% markup between cash and insurance price is insane to me.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:02 pm to cahoots
quote:What Obamacare did was to legally force insurers to reach into your pockets for a federally mandated wealth redistribution scheme.
I have acknowledged that Obamacare drove up costs through the pre-existing conditions provisions. It's literally in the OP and it's the whole point of this thread.
All, so the Fed could avoid the blame of having ITS hands in your pockets.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:04 pm to cahoots
quote:That's equally stupid.
If the Dems had their way, we'd have single payer and the government would decide how to pay.
That's the entire problem with the left. It takes a fricking liberal to KNOW that the vast majority of people are HAPPY with their medical insurance/care..........and to know a subset are not...........so.......the liberal wants a plan that rolls up EVERYONE.
That's SOLELY about power. Nothing else. If the goal is to insure 30+ million uninsured, then insure 30+ million uninsured.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:04 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
What Obamacare did was to legally force insurers to reach into your pockets for a federally mandated wealth redistribution scheme.
All, so the Fed could avoid the blame of having ITS hands in your pockets.
It was clever. Republicans "won" because we didn't get single payer or socialized care, and Dems "won" because a lot more Americans could afford insurance and/or get subsidized.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:07 pm to cahoots
quote:Honestly, it was a classic case of the compromise when two parents want custody of the one child.......so they cut him in half.
It was clever. Republicans "won" because we didn't get single payer or socialized care, and Dems "won" because a lot more Americans could afford insurance and/or get subsidized.
NOBODY won.
As for a lot more Americans being able to "afford" insurance............no. A lot more Americans got their neighbors to pay for their insurance via a 2nd hand tax routed through insurance companies.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:10 pm to cahoots
quote:
Ideally? It didn't exist before Obamacare and never has. What makes you think it will ever exist? Call it whatever you want.
Please refer to my above comment that you just simply don't understand how insurance works, and what purpose it is intended to serve. Insurance is not welfare. It is also not intended to cover expected losses (i.e., PEC). In other types of insurance, when you make a claim for a loss when you expected that loss, that is what's called fraud.
quote:
People aren't going to magically get coverage for pre-existing conditions in an Obamacare-less system. You don't have to go very far back to see that in action.
Those are actually precisely the ones who ran to Obamacare because it made coverage for your unhealthy cheaper at the expense of your healthy. As I said earlier, there needs to be another option for people with PECs who know they will have higher medical costs that is taken out of the insurance world.
Why should a healthy person pay more for coverage against the unexpected so someone can pay less for coverage for their expected costs? It defies logic.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:12 pm to ibldprplgld
Bottom line is, if the goal is to insure those who can't afford insurance or who have PECs, the solution is a need based welfare program that does this.
There is no logical reason other than the desire for government power to roll EVERYONE into the govt controlled system.
There is no logical reason other than the desire for government power to roll EVERYONE into the govt controlled system.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:13 pm to cahoots
quote:
People aren't going to magically get coverage for pre-existing conditions in an Obamacare-less system
That's because there is no such thing as "coverage" for pre-existing conditions.
That's just something known as welfare.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Bottom line is, if the goal is to insure those who can't afford insurance or who have PECs, the solution is a need based welfare program that does this.
There is no logical reason other than the desire for government power to roll EVERYONE into the govt controlled system.
Agreed. Let the insurers offer insurance coverage for the unexpected, and if the people want another program to cover people with PECs, let Congress do it, but don't force the private sector to frick everyone over.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:18 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Agreed. Let the insurers offer insurance coverage for the unexpected, and if the people want another program to cover people with PECs, let Congress do it, but don't force the private sector to frick everyone over.
NOW........let me let the thread in on the dirty secret.
PECs aren't important to Democrats.
What Democrats wanted was a system that subsidized people who ACTUALLY can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to buy it because it wasn't cheap enough. People who made CHOICES to spend that money on other things. Such people are rampant
THAT is where the votes to be bought were.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:19 pm to ShortyRob
Of course. It wasn't an act of concern or altruism. It all goes back to power.
Posted on 11/2/18 at 4:28 pm to cahoots
Plans are now being offered without that coverage.
1. Its not the definition of insurance to force companies to cover known expense.
If congress supports caring for the sick, just charge the treasury.
2. Big questions. What about your Neighbors?
Are we Jesus or accountants?
Democrats are in partnership with Jesus.
1. Its not the definition of insurance to force companies to cover known expense.
If congress supports caring for the sick, just charge the treasury.
2. Big questions. What about your Neighbors?
Are we Jesus or accountants?
Democrats are in partnership with Jesus.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News