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.
That's utter bull crap. My mom already pays at least $7,000.00 and that's before deductibles. Besides, the health care bill being proposed is part of a series, it'll be evolving.
That's another lie, which was exposed by the very conservative Senator Tom Cotton. He revealed that there were no other sections of this piece of crap bill. That was just another Ryan lie.
The reason the premiums are so high for the elderly is because it's basically a foregone conclusion they will have claims. It's not really INSURANCE if there is a near 100% chance that there will be expensive claims, as is the case with the elderly. Covering the pre-existing conditions people is absolutely NOT insurance for the same reason.
Better to carve the pre-existing conditions people out of the healthcare insurance scheme altogether because covering them is completely antithetical to the concept of insurance. Might need to phase in people to Medicare too. Better to establish a separate program for them and let the market dictate healthcare for younger people.
Those who are old today spent a lifetime subsidizing others, so why do you want to pull the rug from underneath them now?
That rug has only been underneath them since 2009.
I, age 58, personally was going to go into self-employment at 60 if the ACA had remained in place. I would probably make less money but have a more leisurely life at the expense of my son and grandchildren's generation. I will have to suck it up for 3.5 more years. Tired of where I am at so time to go job hunting. It is called self reliance.
Those who are old today did not subsidize 59-64 year olds when they were in there twenties.
That's utter bull crap. My mom already pays at least $7,000.00 and that's before deductibles. Besides, the health care bill being proposed is part of a series, it'll be evolving.
Well, now she'll pay $14,000 instead! She's helping to make America great again and giving tax cuts for the wealthy! By the time the bill evolves further, she'll be paying $21,000! Tell mom to cough it up!
The young healthy generations are compelled to subsidize the elderly under the current mandate system. Thats what insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick. Just like the drivers with no accidents subsidize the ones who do get into accidents.
The thing is, older people should be paying more than younger people. Otherwise you get a bunch of old, sick people signing up and few young, healthy people, which leads to death spiral. But this is too much of a disparity, and not taking into account that health insurance costs different amounts in different areas is a big problem. Do they really think Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will vote for a bill that makes health insurance more expensive in their states?
Go back to the drawing board. Or better yet, do something else like tax cuts first and wait until next year to do healthcare. People forget that Obamacare didn't pass until year two of Obama's presidency. They shouldn't rush through this massively flawed bill just so they can say they did something.
Drivers with accidents and tickets pay more based upon risk.At least in NY.
That's the core principle behind insurance. High risk means high costs. The business model isn't to let everyone in and have the low risk subsidize the high risk. The business model is for the high risk to pay more to cover their higher risk. That's why there are underwriters and actuaries.
I'm not saying a 64 year old should have to pay $15k for insurance. What I am saying is what we are discussing isn't even insurance anymore.
This is real freedom right there for the elderly. According to the CBO, headed by a republican, a 64-year old has to pay $14 600 for insurance under Trumpcare. Today, he or she pays $1700 on average. The young healthy generations are compelled to subsidize the elderly under the current mandate system. Thats what insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick. Just like the drivers with no accidents subsidize the ones who do get into accidents.
Trumpcare would devastate rural, elderly America. Thats freedom right there.
1. That is NOT what insurance is. Under insurance you pay your share of your contribution to the risk. I think the words you are looking for are "Social Program".
2. The young are NOT compelled to overpay for their insurance. They can pay a penalty which until recently was tiny. This was why the rates were shooting up for everyone else and the exchanges were failing....the democrats didn't want to anger young voters so they made the phase it of penalties wayyyyy too slow.
3. Since you clearly don't work in insurance, no...the drivers with no accidents do not subsidize the drivers that have accidents. I'd go into the math behind it but it'd take wayyy too long and people would fall asleep.
So, tell me what solution you would prefer. Mandatory participation with high rates on the young to subsidize the sick and poor. Or a tax to fund the subsidy with fairer rates for the young?
Lastly, the example is a worst case scenario. A poor person just before medicare eligibility. I think if you were to look at rates for a healthy non-smoking 24 year old guy they're likely lower.
I have to agree with this. The left has jumped on "Trumpcare", but unless this passes and is signed into law by Trump, you can't really call it that. Trump himself actually doesn't seem to be 100% sold on this specific plan. For now it is indeed Ryancare.
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.