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.
1. There was no national high risk pool. Some states had high risk pools, and some didn't.
2. Prior to the ACA, single adults basically couldn't qualify for medicaid no matter how little they earned.
3. Charity hospital systems? Are you serious? What charity hospital system provided prescription medications or regular, routine procedures at no charge? Let's say a person has diabetes. That local ER will take care of them when they go into a diabetic crisis, but they won't provide ongoing care. The same goes for county hospitals.
You clearly know nothing about pre-existing conditions prior to Obamacare.
Your problem, Wittgenstein's Ghost, is that those four types of relief were so effective when the patient ran out of savings, that the left's only argument for Obamacare is fear of "bankruptcy."
How is that relevant to health insurance? The two are fundamentally not analogous because sick people can't decide to move down the street and not be sick any longer. Health insurance is a necessity, but flood insurance is not.
Insurance is insurance. And many people CHOOSE to ruin their health via overeating their way to obesity, smoking, etc. Why should the results of their self-destructive lifestyles be subsidized by others?
Your problem, Wittgenstein's Ghost, is that those four types of relief were so effective when the patient ran out of savings, that the left's only argument for Obamacare is fear of "bankruptcy."
Your fear of bankruptcy isn't my problem.
Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. You may think that's not your concern, but it really is if you care about a thriving middle class and a thriving economy in general.
Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. You may think that's not your concern, but it really is if you care about a thriving middle class and a thriving economy in general.
Medical bankruptcies make up what PERCENT of the population exactly?
That's a percentage that will derail a thriving economy? Says who?
1. Universal healthcare would be even less popular than Obamacare. Don't be delusional.
2. What we had before left sick people with no coverage and no way of getting coverage. Obamacare's solution to that problem outweighs its negatives.
Trump hasn't once said how he plans to cover pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate. Removing state boundaries has nothing to do with this issue. You keep repeating the vague line of "some protections," but I'm asking you specifically: what sort of protection can you imagine that would cover pre-existing conditions but not require everyone to have coverage?
This is a crock of bull. Before, people with serious conditions could not buy health insurance. A person with diabetes could be flat-out rejected by insurance companies. What is that person supposed to do? Wait until the disease progresses so much that they have to go to the ER? Die sooner? Get real. That issue alone makes the ACA better than what we had before.
On 60 Minutes Trump promised " to replace Obamacare with something wonderful that will take care of everybody and the government is going to pay for it".
His position as posted on his website is does not support this. Instead, the cornerstone is creating the ability to sell insurance across state lines. That alone tells us what he and his campaign staff don't know about health insurance.
There is no federal law that prevents insurance from being sold across state lines. Should an insurer and state agree to do so, it does not mean the relatively low premiums in NH and MA will be the premiums charged in Alaska ( currently the highest premiums)
It ignores insurers set premiums based on very local conditions, demographics and utilization of healthcare, carrier competition, state insurance regulations ( no two states have the same regulations) and ratio of healthcare providers to residents.
Currently, about 8% of insured people buy their insurance via an exchange and more than 88% of them recieve subsidies. I swear the remaining 12% who do not qualify for subsidy all post on this forum.
In contrast, Hillary's intent is to fix it. Her web site is weak in terms of detail, too.
Regardless, it's up to Congress, most of whom do not know beans about insurance.
I don't think there is one person to blame for the AHA. It was taken apart and reconstructed by both Parties. I really do believe and sad never got passed was anot Act that both sides actually supported, The Healthy American Act.
We need a system that creates a purchasing monopoly to counter the price gouging by the health care and insurance industry's oligopoly. I prefer a system where care and pharmaceuticals are paid for by a government sponsored system paid for by removing the caps on Social Security taxable income that negotiates pricing and enforces the pro market parts of the Patent System.
Health care is NOT a place where the private sector is capable of supplying a functioning and affordable system for all of us.
On 60 Minutes Trump promised " to replace Obamacare with something wonderful that will take care of everybody and the government is going to pay for it".
His position as posted on his website is does not support this. Instead, the cornerstone is creating the ability to sell insurance across state lines. That alone tells us what he and his campaign staff don't know about health insurance.
There is no federal law that prevents insurance from being sold across state lines. Should an insurer and state agree to do so, it does not mean the relatively low premiums in NH and MA will be the premiums charged in Alaska ( currently the highest premiums)
It ignores insurers set premiums based on very local conditions, demographics and utilization of healthcare, carrier competition, state insurance regulations ( no two states have the same regulations) and ratio of healthcare providers to residents.
Currently, about 8% of insured people buy their insurance via an exchange and more than 88% of them recieve subsidies. I swear the remaining 12% who do not qualify for subsidy all post on this forum.
In contrast, Hillary's intent is to fix it. Her web site is weak in terms of detail, too.
Regardless, it's up to Congress, most of whom do not know beans about insurance.
Are they saying Federal government or just government?
The state regulations are what holds us up. A "regional" insurance is the result.
I wonder what is so different and egregious that state A won't allow an insurance company in state B to sell in their state?
It would transition away from employer-provided health insurance, to employer-subsidized insurance, having instead individuals choose their health care plan from state-approved private insurers. It sought to make the cost of health insurance more transparent to consumers, with the expectation being that this would increase market pressures to drive health insurance costs down. The proposal created a system that would be paid for by both public and private contributions. It would establish Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans (HAPIs) and require those who do not already have health insurance coverage, and who do not oppose health insurance on religious grounds, to enroll themselves and their children in a HAPI. According to its sponsors, it would guarantee universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality, private health coverage that is as good or better than Members of Congress have today https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act
This is a great point. Healthcare does not meet the definition of something that should be covered by insurance.
Republicans need to realize we will not tolerate going back to the old system. Come up with a plan, stop the lame excuses, and fix the problems that do exist with Obamacare. But we aren't going back to the old system of "profits over people" with lifetime caps and denial for pre-existing conditions.
Yeah yeah yeah and conservatives won't tolerate going to a single payer system, especially under the current social conditions. We can puff our chests and draw our lines in the sand all we want but the reality is unless you're threatening some sort of illegal and possibly violent action, your side and mine will tolerate whatever the voters end up giving us, albeit with plenty of complaining.
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.
