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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:04 AM
 
8,073 posts, read 4,403,944 times
Reputation: 3067

Advertisements

Here is the fix, not necessarily in order of importance.

a) repeal it

b) allow competition across state lines and portability of policies

c) serious lifestyle changes by the citizenry, encouraged with incentives for target changes

d) tort reforms

e) commonsense, but not restrictive regulation of the health insurance industry

f) provide some kind of incentive(s) for employers and or individuals to for premium share

g) no mandates, carrots only

h) limit the government's control

i) limited previously existing coverage (a kid who has juvenile diabetes should not be penalized, a drug addict or alcoholic who will not kick the habit and has health issues as a result does not get the free pass the kid does)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,535,620 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Here is the fix, not necessarily in order of importance.

a) repeal it

b) allow competition across state lines and portability of policies

c) serious lifestyle changes by the citizenry, encouraged with incentives for target changes

d) tort reforms

e) commonsense, but not restrictive regulation of the health insurance industry

f) provide some kind of incentive(s) for employers and or individuals to for premium share

g) no mandates, carrots only

h) limit the government's control

i) limited previously existing coverage (a kid who has juvenile diabetes should not be penalized, a drug addict or alcoholic who will not kick the habit and has health issues as a result does not get the free pass the kid does)
a) I don't see how repealing the ACA provides more coverage.
b) Insurance companies already exist across state lines. Empire of NY is the same company as Empire of NJ.
c) are conservatives now really going to pass laws mandating "lifestyle changes?"
d) Tort reform has no impact on health insurance costs.
e) what, specifically, are "commonsense" regulations? If you are going to repeal a regulation, at least have the guts to name it.
f) What does "premium share" have to do with those who had no access to health insurance?
g) No mandates? Then everyone would not buy insurance until they need it and then buy insurance ONLY when they get sick or need to go to a hospital. Sorry, no insurance can work under that condition.
h) what does limit the government's control mean? I think that is so broad it is meaningless.
i) cutting people out of coverage who you think are undesirable really doesn't drop the cost of coverage much.

I don't see anything specific in that vague list that cold be turned into legislation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:24 AM
 
36,617 posts, read 16,012,418 times
Reputation: 8309
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
Did you actually read the article? 33% in 2014 is up from 32% in 2012, 30% in 2013, while the margin of error is +/- 4%. So "highest percentage in history" is a gross exaggeration.

Gallup also found that over 70% of insureds, and over 70% of newly insureds, were satisfied with their health care coverage. 61% overall, but 75% of newly insureds, are satisfied with the cost of their health care.


I have to say, with a BIL who has a chronic medical condition and would've aged out of his parents' plan without Obamacare, I'm a bit offended by your callousness. Lots of people graduate college and don't move immediately into a corporate job with benefits, and those people with conditions would've been uninsurable under the old system, while even healthy college grads would've been one severe accident away from serious financial hardship.
"I'm a bit offended by your callousness"

I am offended by your inaccurate interpretation of what I think.

I NEVER said those in need should NOT get coverage.

To ASSUME that is what I think only shows your LACK of reading comprehension.

"Lots of people graduate college...." That does NOT make them "children" as the poster I responded to claimed.

Again I did NOT say that they should NOT get coverage.

Slow down, take a breathe and ACTUALLY READ what people say quit trying to jump on people by accusing them of saying things they did NOT.

It will STOP you from looking so foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:24 AM
 
39,186 posts, read 20,288,666 times
Reputation: 12715
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
a) I don't see how repealing the ACA provides more coverage.
b) Insurance companies already exist across state lines. Empire of NY is the same company as Empire of NJ.
c) are conservatives now really going to pass laws mandating "lifestyle changes?"
d) Tort reform has no impact on health insurance costs.
e) what, specifically, are "commonsense" regulations? If you are going to repeal a regulation, at least have the guts to name it.
f) What does "premium share" have to do with those who had no access to health insurance?
g) No mandates? Then everyone would not buy insurance until they need it and then buy insurance ONLY when they get sick or need to go to a hospital. Sorry, no insurance can work under that condition.
h) what does limit the government's control mean? I think that is so broad it is meaningless.

I don't see anything specific in that vague list that cold be turned into legislation.
Being able to pick a policy that meets my needs will provide more coverage for me. After all I pay full price, I should get what I need and not be forced to pay for a breeders birthing.

urban there is no way in HELL you're going to convince me or other people who are paying full price and out the ass that Obamacare is good. You may as well give it a rest. OBAMACARE SUCKS! PERIOD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:32 AM
 
36,617 posts, read 16,012,418 times
Reputation: 8309
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I don't know what you mean that [the ACA] "passed without 1 single vote in either chamber of Congress." The ACA passed by majority vote in both chambers.

What do you SPECIFICALLY mean by "fixing" Obamacare? What is wrong and what do YOU propose to address that problem?

If you think the cost is too high, how do you mandate that private companies charge less? Or, do you propose a bigger subsidy?
"I don't know what you mean that [the ACA] "passed without 1 single vote in either chamber of Congress"

I meant to say "Not 1 single vote from the repubs and I think you know that.


"On December 23, the Senate voted 6039 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 6039, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote"

"The House passed the Senate bill with a 219212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patien...dable_Care_Act
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 10:44 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 2,360,210 times
Reputation: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama kept changing the ACA rules and deadlines, remember? Employers weren't kept in the loop. They did what they needed to do to avoid penalties.
The ACA bill included a 2018 start date for the cadillac tax; Obama did not change it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 11:10 AM
 
66,328 posts, read 30,210,361 times
Reputation: 8626
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
The ACA bill included a 2018 start date for the cadillac tax; Obama did not change it.
They had to change their plans to be Obamacare-compliant, which were more expensive to both employers AND their employees (despite Obama's promise that premiums would cost $2,500 less per family - but we all know Obama's word is worth jack sh*t ). As such, Cadillac plan benefits were lost. People have told you that here on city-data many times.

I'm still waiting for my 3,000% reduction in premiums...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U68UKtf8lAU


And the useful idiots clapped and cheered, having all failed basic math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
30,915 posts, read 13,482,034 times
Reputation: 22044
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Here is the fix, not necessarily in order of importance.
a) repeal it
b) allow competition across state lines and portability of policies
c) serious lifestyle changes by the citizenry, encouraged with incentives for target changes
d) tort reforms
e) commonsense, but not restrictive regulation of the health insurance industry
f) provide some kind of incentive(s) for employers and or individuals to for premium share
g) no mandates, carrots only
h) limit the government's control
i) limited previously existing coverage (a kid who has juvenile diabetes should not be penalized, a drug addict or alcoholic who will not kick the habit and has health issues as a result does not get the free pass the kid does)
a) repeal it- that's been tried over 50 times now, didn't work and won't work in the future.

b) any insurer can get a state license in any state or states they choose, insurance companies are pimping the idea of an insurer being able to sell across state lines with a license in only one state because they want to operate out of a state with the least regulation and consumer protection and -just like the credit card industry does.

c) lifestyle changes? How are you going to do that, make sugar fat cigarettes and alcohol illegal?

d)tort reforms are already in effect in most states, the estimated reduction in medical costs if malpractice lawsuits were capped in all states is calculated at a savings of about 1/2 of 1%

e) commonsense regulation? lol what is that supposed to mean, that we can go back to allowing insurance companies to cancel policies when a person files a claim?

f) Incentive for premium share? sorry I have no idea what that means

g) no mandates? Right..only the sickest, oldest people will buy insurance no sense making young healthy people buy into the system..not only would rates skyrocket but someone will have to foot the bill when those healthy youngsters get in a motorcycle accident and run up a 500K hospital bill.

h) limit government control? too vague to even address..

i)limit coverage- ok so we will have a panel who will do a background investigation on everyone who applies for insurance? You used cocaine once 30 years ago and now you just had a heart attack, no insurance for you! You drink wine with your dinner, and now you have a damaged liver, could have been from drinking- so no insurance for you!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 11:30 AM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,299,380 times
Reputation: 7449
The obstructionist leftists continue to say "no" to ANY attempts to change a badly flawed bill.

Why am I not surprised?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2015, 11:32 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,781,411 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Appently ypi only get your news from the LSM.

Repubs have been putting forth ideas EVER INCE O Care was passed.
Like what?
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 11:06 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