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.
Stop and look at the insurance market. My employer plan costs less than a comparable exchange plan (that is including both employer and my costs). Why? Because they are a very large company and negotiate directly with the insurance company. The federal government is also a very large employer, if they can get lower costs by directly negotiation then why would they pay more on the exchange?
Too bad the government didn't do any of this negotiating on lower prices when they wrote Obamacare. Why shouldn't I also be able to keep my negotiated policy if I prefer it?
Too bad the government didn't do any of this negotiating on lower prices when they wrote Obamacare. Why shouldn't I also be able to keep my negotiated policy if I prefer it?
Every policy has mandated minimum standards, just like many other things in our daily lives. If your policy meets those standards you can keep it, just like my policy exceeded the requirements and I kept it.
What other minimum standards do you not like? Clean drinking water standards? Safe building standards? What about the standard that I can not burn tires on my property, or open a pig farm in my back yard in a residential neighborhood? There are minimum standards for just about every business transaction.
Every policy has mandated minimum standards, just like many other things in our daily lives. If your policy meets those standards you can keep it, just like my policy exceeded the requirements and I kept it.
What other minimum standards do you not like? Clean drinking water standards? Safe building standards? What about the standard that I can not burn tires on my property, or open a pig farm in my back yard in a residential neighborhood? There are minimum standards for just about every business transaction.
A policy should meet your needs. Not the needs of someone else. It's wonderful that Harry Reid can include everything under the sun in their insurance policies because the government doesn't actually pay for any of it, they demand others pay for it. Unfortunately that doesn't wash in the real world.
Perhaps it would make sense to force you to purchase an 8 passenger vehicle even though you have no need for a 8 passenger vehicle? After all, it would bring the costs down for those who do want an 8 passenger vehicle.
Stop and look at the insurance market. My employer plan costs less than a comparable exchange plan (that is including both employer and my costs). Why? Because they are a very large company and negotiate directly with the insurance company. The federal government is also a very large employer, if they can get lower costs by directly negotiation then why would they pay more on the exchange?
However, what did harry say?
Quote:
In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."
SO, play the spin game, as you and the left are used to, but when you say something, to the people of the Uited States, it should mean something...evidently, you and harry do not agree with that statement..
I pay taxes, and I'm not forced to buy on the exchange. Any taxpayer has the ability to get insurance from their job, or directly from the insurance company. Not one person or employer is FORCED to purchase insurance through the exchange.
Nope, but you WILL buy the insurance the government specifies, not what you want or need.
A policy should meet your needs. Not the needs of someone else. It's wonderful that Harry Reid can include everything under the sun in their insurance policies because the government doesn't actually pay for any of it, they demand others pay for it. Unfortunately that doesn't wash in the real world.
Perhaps it would make sense to force you to purchase an 8 passenger vehicle even though you have no need for a 8 passenger vehicle? After all, it would bring the costs down for those who do want an 8 passenger vehicle.
The difference is, if I find myself needing an 8 person vehicle, I can go buy one after the fact. If I have insurance that doesn't cover a medical issue, I can not purchase that after the fact and have it cover the issue. That is the whole pre-existing condition thing.
Why should congressional staffers be required to use the insurance exchanges? Why should they not get coverage through their employer like other American citizens, or buy if from their insurance agent? I'm not required to use healthcare.gov, why should some low-level staffer from Nevada have to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
The difference is, if I find myself needing an 8 person vehicle, I can go buy one after the fact. If I have insurance that doesn't cover a medical issue, I can not purchase that after the fact and have it cover the issue. That is the whole pre-existing condition thing.
Bingo. What's the point of having health insurance if it doesn't cover things that you have not foreseen?
Nope, but you WILL buy the insurance the government specifies, not what you want or need.
I don't know what medical condition I will need covered until it happens. At that point it would be a pre-existing condition, and before the ACA I would be denied coverage for that condition.
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.