U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Did you lose your HC?
Yes 13 18.31%
No 54 76.06%
I never had HC 4 5.63%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2014, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,202 posts, read 18,275,225 times
Reputation: 8032

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I hope you are paying your child's insurance rather than sticking them with the bill just because you didn't want your own insurance to go up.
First of all, YOU are paying for their insurance.

Second, it has nothing to do with what we wanted or didn't want. It's simple economics. The cost to insure the four of us would be roughly TWICE what we're paying in rent. Despite the name of the law which is requiring us to purchase something we don't want, it is not even remotely close to "affordable," and paying for their coverage would have been a financial impossibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Sorry that this process has been so hard for you and your child, there isn't anything I can do to help over the internet, but I hope you all get it worked out.
Gosh, urban, thanks! Actually, you can TOTALLY help, even just over the internet. Why don't you paypal me $1,100 every month to cover the cost of this monstrosity which you insisted become law?

While you're here and already responding, why don't you finally answer the question - do you think that completing a 65 page insurance application - twice - is "easy" for an 18 year old who's never had to complete anything more complex than his selective service registration? It's a yes or no question - I don't want or need a story, or a deflection, or a tangent. "Yes" or "No".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,567,055 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
First of all, YOU are paying for their insurance.

Second, it has nothing to do with what we wanted or didn't want. It's simple economics. The cost to insure the four of us would be roughly TWICE what we're paying in rent. Despite the name of the law which is requiring us to purchase something we don't want, it is not even remotely close to "affordable," and paying for their coverage would have been a financial impossibility.


Gosh, urban, thanks! Actually, you can TOTALLY help, even just over the internet. Why don't you paypal me $1,100 every month to cover the cost of this monstrosity which you insisted become law?

While you're here and already responding, why don't you finally answer the question - do you think that completing a 65 page insurance application - twice - is "easy" for an 18 year old who's never had to complete anything more complex than his selective service registration? It's a yes or no question - I don't want or need a story, or a deflection, or a tangent. "Yes" or "No".
I can only speak from personal experience, it was easy for me to sign up, the number of pages wasn't an issue for me.

And no, I will not be wiring a complete stranger money for any reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 12:54 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,553,776 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
So an old woman shouldn't pay more than a younger woman? Because we shouldn't discriminate? Right?

You see the point is if everyone should be treated equally, than old/young/man/woman/pre existing/no pre existing condition should all be rolled up and treated the same.

All premiums should be the same. Yes or no? So do you support the ACA's continued discrimination based on age?

Seems like you support the ACA's stance on getting rid of gender discrimination.

I want to know when left wing kooks are going to suggest men shouldnt pay more for life insurance, or that it should be subsidized by the government.. or even better, that we shouldnt be allowed junk policies that leave money to our estate because we cant benefit from it..

Wonder how long before they suggest those funds should be taxed, and we should no longer subsidize those who dont have life insurance by allowing most of the funds to be paid out tax free.

Last edited by CaseyB; 03-27-2014 at 01:04 PM.. Reason: discuss the topic, not others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 01:58 PM
 
Location: NYC
1,860 posts, read 1,708,311 times
Reputation: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Yeah, it was catastrophic coverage. It didn't cover things like a yearly physical, maternity or contraception. I don't need any of those things because I pay for my doctor visits out of pocket and I prefer it that way. I needed a catastrophic plan. That worked for me and my family. The new law took that option away and gave me things that I do not need and in the process made the new plans unaffordable and out of reach.
In name only. Your copays will probably bankrupt you before you are ever cured of whatever disease you have. Either that or you'll just end up one of their death panels and end up being dropped from their company. Try getting insurance after that from another company.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:07 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,735,711 times
Reputation: 2482
Quote:
Originally Posted by abnheel View Post
If you voted Dem and lost it, I have no sympathy. I actually laugh at you. You made this bed and forced it on every American out there. If you didn't lose it, but pay more, I still laugh at you. You deserve it.

So about 50-60% have insurance through employers. Very few of these people were impacted . . .most employers kept on chugging.

30% are then covered by state / federal programs

maybe 10% left are individual?



So . . .where is these huge numbers coming from? From what I'm reading uninsured rates are falling, that means people are getting the federal minimums of healthcare.

So sorry, see no doom and gloom here. Uninsured Q1 2014 is lowest since 2009


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...guarvptywa.png

Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-27-2014 at 03:06 PM.. Reason: edited for copyright
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:13 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,735,711 times
Reputation: 2482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
That's what they said about the USSR. Yet that country remained under a destructive, debilitating socialist system for 70 YEARS.
.
I don't believe in Socialism. I'm big believer in capitalism, though. . .I would say Healthcare remains tricky (as its something everyone uses, needs limitless resources, and people hate paying until they are sick).


With that being said, the above is so Naive, I have to comment. USSR was a dictatorship where the means of production were ran by the single party in charge of said dictatorship. The primary issue with this was not allow people with different abilities to maximize their return/benefit within an economy.


Comparing that to healthcare systems (and govt provided safety systems) is a bit of a reach. i mean seriously, Europe has had these systems for almost as long without significant issue.


And the funny thing is that the US healthcare system is far less "socialistic" than any European or Russian system. Encouraging privately owned insurance providers, doctors, etc. Only setting rules and frameworks to ensure all those using the system (or will use it) pay into it.


its a real reach really . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:45 PM
 
10,340 posts, read 10,368,175 times
Reputation: 4014
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Your word is not proof, just as my word was not proof. How many lost coverage? How many will lose coverage when the ACA is fully implemented. Why all the delays if it is so great?
Any program as big as the ACA will have some problems to solve in the beginning. I read Medicare had glitches as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Texas
43,577 posts, read 52,749,647 times
Reputation: 70897
I lost my health plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:54 PM
 
379 posts, read 484,290 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
You laugh at people who lose their health care coverage??

That's pretty messed up of you. I don't laugh when anyone loses their coverage, even when righties lose it I don't think it's funny, but to each his own.
I absolutely do. If you voted Dem and lost it, yep, I'm pulling the bully from The Simpson's move. HA-HA!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:54 PM
 
3,576 posts, read 6,070,208 times
Reputation: 1432
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
So about 50-60% have insurance through employers. Very few of these people were impacted . . .most employers kept on chugging.

30% are then covered by state / federal programs

maybe 10% left are individual?



So . . .where is these huge numbers coming from? From what I'm reading uninsured rates are falling, that means people are getting the federal minimums of healthcare.

So sorry, see no doom and gloom here. Uninsured Q1 2014 is lowest since 2009


U.S. Uninsured Rate Continues to Fall
Look at your own graph. You shouldn't be comparing 2009. That's when people lost jobs. You should be comparing 2013. So in 2014. You barely have a drop from 2013 numbers. And most of it has to do with Medicaid expansion.

The democrats are very careful not to say its another entitlement social program. Because they want to include the middle class. But the facts are simply 80% of "new" insured are just getting the free stuff Medicaid.

They aren't doing jack to contributing to health care costs.

Obama wanted to control health care costs? He's not doing a good job. Those on the exchanges like me paying full price are getting hit hard. It's just redistribution of wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top