Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
A good chunk of that is the higher min insurance Obamacare mandates.
Walmart dropped their lowest plans because they didn't meet Obamacare mandates.
Those on the lowest plans either have to pay more or drop their insurance.
|
I can explain that. Obamacare prohibits stratified plans in the name of "equality."
In other words, there is now only one plan for all employees, rather than different plans for different employees.
The result is that (for example) salaried and managerial employees must either suffer reduced benefits and take the low cost plans offered to hourly employees, or hourly employees must cough up more money to pay for the more expensive plans that the salaries and managerial employees have.
That's nothing more than Soviet-style Command Economics with coerced consumer transactions, forcing people to pay for things that they either don't need or don't want (or cannot afford).
Chunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Obamacare is nothing but a bailout for the insurance companies and more corporate welfare.
|
Prove it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Why would "insurance companies" want to ensure pre-existing conditions?
Do you even understand the concept of insurance?
Whenever you have a consumer transaction involving a contract, the issue of moral hazard arises if there is a potential for one party to the contract to alter their behavior to such an extent that it has an adverse [economic] impact on the other party.
That's one of the [many] reasons insurers do not accept people with pre-existing conditions.....that would be like issuing an auto insurance policy to a known alcoholic, or an homeowner's insurance policy to a known pyromaniac.
For an event to be insurable, it must meet a 5-prong test, and one of the tests is future occurrences, and the timing or severity cannot be precisely known or controllable.
That means a pre-existing conditions is completely contrary to an insurable event, since it is known in advance that there will definitely be future occurrences.
So your claim fails.
Insurance involves paying a fixed premium in exchange for a fixed amount of damages. This is insurance...
21 days of hospitalization for $6
This is not insurance...
Infinite days of hospitalization for $6
Why would insurance companies want unlimited infinite payouts per year? Can you explain that? No, of course you cannot.
Health plan providers would cut you off after spending $300,000 on you in one year. Some would spend $500,000 on you for the year, and still others would spend $1.2 Million on you, but it was their choice in keeping with their economic resources.
Now, Obamacare says you cannot limit annual payments. Obamacare says if an insurance company must spend $7 Million on one person in one year, then that is what they must do.
Doubt it? The annual limit is currently $2 Million per year, but goes to $INFINITY on January 1, 2014.
Why? Because insurance companies got on their knees and begged and pleaded. It was supposed $INFINITY annual coverage starting in 2010, but the insurance companies were able to get the legislation changed so it is incremented over a period of several years.
So your claim fails a second time.
And life-time limits?
Those are banned under Obamacare. It used to be after an insurance company spent $15 Million on you they would cut you off for life, but no longer.
So your claim fails a 3rd time.
There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare that is of any benefit to insurance companies --- it is all harmful to insurance companies.
But it does benefit the American Hospital Association....one of Obama's largest campaign donors in the 2008 Election....and the AHA wrote nearly all of Obamacare that the IRS didn't write.
Debunked....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
That is compared to the 49.9 million with no health insurance, and no access to health insurance, in 2012.
|
That's nonsense.
6.5 Million of those are insured under Medicaid/SCHIP. About 4.5 Million are eligible for Medicaid/SCHIP but aren't rolled for one reason or another, more often than not because they've had no need for medical care. Another 9.5 Million are illegals. About 10 Million could afford insurance, have access to insurance, but don't want it.
At the end of the day, there's only about 15.5 Million who don't have insurance, but actually want, but cannot access it because they don't work or cannot afford it.
Fact-checking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by KStreetQB
The report notes the 7 million in reduced employer-sponsored insurance on page 60. The link below goes to the CBO break-out by year.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ageEffects.pdf
It's important to note that the number represents net flow out of employer-sponsored insurance, not a net flow from insurance sponsored insurance to uninsured. It also includes net change in anticipated future offers of employer sponsored health insurance, not just people currently insured by their employer.
The increase of 4 million (previous estimate) to 7 million is attributed to the reduction of marginal tax rates in the American Taxpayer Relief Act, making the tax-deduction to provide insurance less of an incentive.
|
Good call. That's pretty much what I see as well.
Commending...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
Do you live in an anarchist state?
|
I'm starting to wish I did.
I like the anarchy in African tribal groups in the Niger and Congo River Basins.
If you have an issue, you tip the Town Crier who runs around and tells everyone that you have an issue you would like discussed and the date, time and location of the meeting.
You host the meeting, and explain the issue, then people speak for or against, a vote is held, majority rules, end of story.
I'm guessing that's way too freaking democratic for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
That already happened a long time ago.
|
What, so everyone should just roll over and play dead?
Not quitting...
Mircea