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.
So small businesses that either consist of one FTE, or those that have fewer than 50 FTE's but may not be able to afford insuring people, should just close their doors?
You realize the impact that would have, right?
No, why would they do that? I would not apply to work at one since I am 58, the wife 56 and I have a heart condition and she has diabetes.
The solution is too spend most of your non-working and sleeping hours looking for or getting credentials so you can join the majority of Americans who get their insurance thru their employer.
Ya know, that's wonderful advice, but I bet you would really miss all those people who do all those jobs that don't provide health insurance, should you one day not have them do do the stuff you don't want to do yourself.
I have never been personally for the Mandate, but went along with it since it did seem like the insurance plans thought it would work.
The age 26 benefited my daughter enormously. The pre-existing my daughter, myself and wife. So I am definitely a fan.
My only point is that covering pre-existing conditions is only possible if there is a mandate or a Medicare for all type of system in which everyone pays in something. We can't go out and suddenly get an insurance policy the day after we are diagnosed with cancer. That is not sustainable for insurance companies nor for a public system.
No.....we are allowing drug companies, insurance companies and hospitals to amass huge profits on the back of peoples health issues.
If anyone should profit from health issues, it is doctors who spend massive amounts of time and money to educate themselves to be doctors. And yet, most of them are relegated to seeing 8-10 patients an hour just to maintain a middle to lower upper middle class lifestyle.
The system is broken.
I agree with some of what you wrote. However, when Paul Ryan is out to kill Medicare, we have to come to grips with how to best use Medicare dollars. Part of that is coming to grips that grandma will die regardless of her two week heroic and costly stay in an intensive care on a ventilator with medical care that does not cure but delays dying.
Quote:
According to one study (Banarto, McClellan, Kagy and Garber, 2004), 30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life. I know there are other studies out there that say slightly different things, but the reality is simple: we spend an incredible amount of money on that last year and month.
My only point is that covering pre-existing conditions is only possible if there is a mandate or a Medicare for all type of system in which everyone pays in something. We can't go out and suddenly get an insurance policy the day after we are diagnosed with cancer. That is not sustainable for insurance companies nor for a public system.
Sure it can be done without a mandate. It can be done even with slackers avoiding any mandate.
It takes money. And that money does not have to come from a mandate/slackers.
The money can come from taxes and/or deficit spending. Of course the more slackers we have, the more we would have to depend on these moneys. I prefer to lower taxes on the middle class and provide them the care.
I agree with some of what you wrote. However, when Paul Ryan is out to kill Medicare, we have to come to grips with how to best use Medicare dollars. Part of that is coming to grips that grandma will die regardless of her two week heroic and costly stay in an intensive care on a ventilator with medical care that does not cure but delays dying.
End of life care remains a big nut to crack. We have living wills and hospice. And those along with a primary care doc weed out most of the really stupid spending. Most elderly do not want all stops pulled if they are going to be veggies the last few days of their lives. When the primary doc is not involved at the terminal stage of patients care, much more gets spent medically, and many times not in coherence with the living will.
My only point is that covering pre-existing conditions is only possible if there is a mandate or a Medicare for all type of system in which everyone pays in something. We can't go out and suddenly get an insurance policy the day after we are diagnosed with cancer. That is not sustainable for insurance companies nor for a public system.
Public system is basically a mandate for everyone to pitch in from day one. That is how they can afford it. Young people pay in, even if they don't use the services.
Sure it can be done without a mandate. It can be done even with slackers avoiding any mandate.
It takes money. And that money does not have to come from a mandate/slackers.
The money can come from taxes and/or deficit spending. Of course the more slackers we have, the more we would have to depend on these moneys. I prefer to lower taxes on the middle class and provide them the care.
I have my own health insurance. If I am paying my premiums and being responsible for the cost of my and my family's health care, why should my tax dollars contribute to a ACA (or similar) that has no mandate? You are not mandating that the irresponsible pay into the system. Yet you expect those of us that are responsible to fit the bill for those slackers? Good luck with that.
You cannot have all three
* lower premiums
* pre-existing conditions clause
* no mandate
You can only have two. You want it done without a mandate? Then you must either drop pre-existing conditions clause or we accept higher premiums.
In NJ, automotive insurance is very very expensive... highest in the country. A large portion of that comes from the extra fees attached to our policies to cover "uninsured motorists". So the responsible is again fitting the bill for the irresponsible. This system of offsetting the cost of uninsured motorists is the reason why we have high insurance rates and many insurance companies opt out of offering services in NJ (sound familiar?)
Health insurance rates will drop if there is higher participation from the healthy AND lower the cost of health care services itself.
To those who oppose the ACA how would you deal with people with pre-existing conditions with your health plan?
simple...
a ONE PAGE law
"it is against the law, subject to fines and/or imprisonment, to reject a persons application for health insurance based on a pre-existing condition"
the problem with the ACA was not the pre-existing clause, but the 2000 pages plus of other garbage that the democrats put in it
why not have ala-cart, for health insurance.......does a couple who are both 55 really need prenatal or pregnancy coverage??
oh and MANDATING that you have to BUY health insurance.....bad choice, I am sure these subject matter experts could have come up with a better plan
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.
