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 those of us with preexisting conditions not covered before by companies, and who recieve more than the state limit (here SS exceeds it) for medicade will be out of luck. These zelots don't have to worry about that sort of thing. For the first time I can get medical insurence. Those who don't have this situation should remember that you never know what's waiting aroung the corner, and tomorrow it may be you.
I wouldnt have had an issue with laws being written to benefit those with pre-existing conditions, but ACA does far more than that, and its over reaching and harmful to everyone else...
Not a good bill.
You need to look at EVERYONE who has to comply with the law, not just segments of society in order to get a complete picture.
What Obamacare did do was eliminate junk policies -- policies that were sold to people who thought they were getting good but cheap coverage but actually didn't provide much coverage at all.
If so, why didn't the law just apply to those people who clearly are incapable of even wiping their own azzes without the government's help, while leaving the rest of us alone? I and many others were much better off BEFORE Obamacare. And more and more people are catching on every day.
High risk insurance pools were often unaffordable to many, so I think using them as a justification to oppose ACA, when the pre-existing condition was a valid point to be made, isnt fair.
I just think this distracts from the rest of the bill which is a POS, and allows the left to justify ACA over one benefit, while ignoring the downfalls which will cause the whole thing to collapse and not meet promises that could never have been true.
Dont let them justify ACA by using a small segment of society that benefited from it, thereby ignoring the tens of millions who were harmed.
So, what Obamacare did was newly insure only 4.1 million people on plans for which they pay (with many of them getting subsidies), while removing 6.1 million from paid insurance plans and placing them on Medicaid (for which they don't pay). It's a net LOSS of those paying into the system to spread the expense and make insurance more affordable for all. That's why those who have it are complaining they can't afford to use it. Read the CNN and NY Times links I posted.
What that doesn't tell you about those who were previously "insured" was what their previous insurance covered. Those people were likely poor (since they now can get expanded Medicaid) and therefore weren't buying Cadillac plans. They were likely getting junk insurance, which technically is insurance but provides little coverage.
Regarding deductibles, it's no different than pre-Obamacare. If one wants lower deductibles, you get a more expensive plan that has lower deductibles. If you want cheaper premiums, you get a high deductible plan.
What Obamacare did do was eliminate junk policies -- policies that were sold to people who thought they were getting good but cheap coverage but actually didn't provide much coverage at all. It also provided subsidies to those who couldn't afford high premiums. Do state risk pools subsidize the insurance?
Actually no.. What ACA did was create many more junk policies with high deductibles that people cant afford, while being subsidized by others who could barely afford their policies to begin with..
People ALWAYS had a choice to get more expensive plans with lower deductibles, so you arent pointing out anything worth while.
I don't know if its number 56, but there had been over 30 last year this time, so its close enough.
Since Obama has only signed about six presidential vetoes over the past seven years, then he must have signed the other 50 repeals to the ACA, that you claim have been sent to him, eh?
What that doesn't tell you about those who were previously "insured" was what their previous insurance covered. Those people were likely poor (since they now can get expanded Medicaid) and therefore weren't buying Cadillac plans. They were likely getting junk insurance, which technically is insurance but provides little coverage.
Thats just a nonsensical talking point.. They had PRIVATE insurance, paid for PRIVATELY, and now its paid by the taxpayer, and thus the babble that removing this would increase welfare recipients is ridiculous given these subsidies are welfare and increase the cost of policies for others, thus making them less affordable, and increasing the need to have higher deductibles at higher costs, with less benefits for the rest of society.
You can continue to ignore this but its mathematically impossible to have it any other way.
There is no doubt that many people on Obamacare are facing a high deductible on one end, although with lower monthly premium costs.
Premium subsidies? Great. High deductibles that people can't afford to pay = no medical care for them. Period.
There are only two winners here...
1) Insurance companies. They collect premiums and subsidies from the insured and the government, but pay out less because so many people can't afford to access medical care due to the high Obamacare deductibles.
2) The 12.6 million Americans newly enrolled in Medicaid. They pay not one thin dime. That cost is passed on to those who now can't afford the deductible on their Obamacare plan and so don't receive needed medical care.
High risk insurance pools were often unaffordable to many, so I think using them as a justification to oppose ACA, when the pre-existing condition was a valid point to be made, isnt fair.
I disagree. Obamacare plans with their just as high deductibles are equally unaffordable for those with pre-existing conditions.
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.
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.
Read the CNN and NY Times links I posted.
