Trump snookered the rubes. Now they are just figuring it out. (Virginia, treatment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And make sure that women don't have to pay for prostrate cancer.
Ok, if men don't have to pay for BREAST CANCER-LOL.
Not really an apt comparison. Prostate cancer is INVOLUNTARY. Pregnancy is VOLUNTARY and preventable. Those without children should not have to subsidize those who do. Those who wish to become pregnant should purchase it on their own as an additional RIDER to their policy.
Ok, if men don't have to pay for BREAST CANCER-LOL.
Not really an apt comparison. Prostate cancer is INVOLUNTARY. Pregnancy is VOLUNTARY and preventable. Those without children should not have to subsidize those who do. Those who wish to become pregnant should purchase it on their own as an additional RIDER to their policy.
Uh, men get breast cancer, too, and it can be particularly deadly.
Ok, if men don't have to pay for BREAST CANCER-LOL.
Not really an apt comparison. Prostate cancer is INVOLUNTARY. Pregnancy is VOLUNTARY and preventable. Those without children should not have to subsidize those who do. Those who wish to become pregnant should purchase it on their own as an additional RIDER to their policy.
Men get breast cancer Many of them die from it since most men to do not receive regular breast cancer screenings and many of them do not realize that men get breast cancer, so diagnosis may be delayed.
Pregnancy is not always voluntary. Tens of thousands of women become pregnant through rape per year.
I had good insurance at lower cost. Whenever I used it I paid little out of pocket.
Older should pay mort. People with costly conditions should pay more. Young people should pay next to nothing. I say this as not the healthiest person in my 60's.
1. Older people do pay more under ACA plans, but the "more" is limited to 3X what the youngest customers are paying. Current proposals want to expand that to 5X That's a good way to guarantee that many people in the 55-65 age bracket can't afford health insurance.
2. People with preexisting conditions should only pay more in a punitive, draconian world that believes in punishing people for being born with diseases and conditions that healthy people are not born with. The basic question here is whether health insurance/health care is a right or whether its something that ought to be bought and sold in the market place like televisions and automobiles. I would say the centerpiece of the ACA is a guarantee that those with preexisting conditions cannot be denied insurance. You can preach free market economics at me until you are blue in the face. The minute you or a loved one has some expensive preexisting condition and cannot afford medical care, you will sing a different tune.
3. Young people should pay more simply because insurance is insurance. Young people will not always be healthy. The day will come when they need significant medical care. That is why they should be paying more into the system now. Additionally, young people do sometimes get badly injured in accidents, develop cancer, and have health crises.
Your ideas only work if one assumes its o.k. to feed the sick and aged to the wolves or leave them on an iceberg to die once we decide they have some unusual medical problem.
The problem is the young were not buying into individual plans. Their premiums were too high relative to risk and penalties for not fulfilling the individual mandate were too low.
The new bills are trying to reverse this by lowering the price young people pay to help get younger people into the pools to help lower premiums. The mandate will be changed to being unable to get coverage for a period of time which is a more aggressive stance on making sure people maintain coverage than the fine under ACA.
Biggest problem with ACA is it did not bring in significant enough numbers of business' employees into the individual system via vouchers so the individual system still acts like a small high risk pool.
Just think, if the Fed govt forced their employees into it, it might have saved the ACA due to the huge number of healthier people added to the pools.
Don't think the new bills will pass, but there is some rationale behind them.
Last edited by NSHL10; 07-02-2017 at 09:27 PM..
Reason: Added
Ok, if men don't have to pay for BREAST CANCER-LOL.
Not really an apt comparison. Prostate cancer is INVOLUNTARY. Pregnancy is VOLUNTARY and preventable. Those without children should not have to subsidize those who do. Those who wish to become pregnant should purchase it on their own as an additional RIDER to their policy.
I guess you've never heard the term "adverse selection" because that's exactly why "pregnancy" insurance will never be available as a separate rider.
I guess you've never heard the term "adverse selection" because that's exactly why "pregnancy" insurance will never be available as a separate rider.
It WAS a separate rider for individual policies in Texas for many years. Of course, many breeders didn't like it because it didn't cover a whole lot unless it was an emergency pregnancy due to complications.
It WAS a separate rider for individual policies in Texas for many years. Of course, many breeders didn't like it because it didn't cover a whole lot unless it was an emergency pregnancy due to complications.
That is true, however, covering pregnancy is a very small portion of what insurance companies pay each year for care. That coverage adds very, very little to your overall premium.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.