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.
You said you didn't know any of the factors. So how do you know what changes were made. What was her co pay....her deductible. What did her policy cover. If you don't know then we can't have an informed discussion. I can only speculate which I really don't want to do.
I know there were no changes in it. I don't know all the details about what her insurance consisted of besides it didn't change and before it was 500 and after it was 1500.
It does not matter what her policy covered if it didn't change.
It went up because young, healthy people did not sign up because it was cheaper to pay the fine than the premiums. Because they did not sign up, they were not paying premiums. Therefore, the risk pool was much smaller and disproportionately insured those who were less healthy. The insurance companies were spending a lot more money than anticipated because of this sickly risk pool. Therefore, the premiums increased for all who carried health insurance.
The only way insurance works is if it is mandatory for everyone. Loss rates are what determine insurance premiums whether it be homeowners, auto, life. A risk pool that covers all spreads the risk and lowers premiums.
This is why we need a universal health system financed either by a VAT and/or payroll taxes.
EVERYONE is enrolled. A VAT might work better because there are many who do not work - but everyone spends money. I haven't thought the VAT concept through, but throw it out there as one option. Those who want more luxuries in their health care can purchase supplemental policies for that. Other countries operate this way. The US is an anomaly - and citizens of other countries elsewhere are laughing at us. None prefer our system to theirs. Many posts to that effect on this board.
That's exactly what I said on here before, it should be the same as Social Security..it just comes out of peoples paychecks at the federal level. Then even 16 year olds working at McDonald's are helping to fund it.
and on top of that they should add a small VAT to gasoline, cigarettes, and alcohol.
Anyone that isn't a mental midget can figure it out easily but the corporate shills and insurance company shills are holding everything up.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 04-02-2017 at 12:01 AM..
^^^^^ The linked article was written by Jake Tapper.
Despite the misleading title (Obama promised that premiums would go down $2,500 per year for a typical family if the ACA was enacted, not that the premium increase would be $2,500 less), to Tapper's credit he includes a number of direct quotes from Obama during the 2008 Campaign where Obama makes the direct reference to premiums going down $2,500, rather than going up $2,500 less.
Insurance, in the absence of government intervention, does not force persons with low risk factors to subsidize those with high risk factors. Nor are the poor subsidized. Nor do people who do not insure have to pay higher taxes because of their decision.
If everyone had insurance it would lower the cost for all of us because we would all be paying into it. And there is no low risk factor. One day you are healthy, the next you are hit by car or get a diagnosis of a terminal disease. You just don't know what the future holds for you. I am not talking about taxes. I am talking about how much the insured pay for those of you who don't have it.
^^^^^ The linked article was written by Jake Tapper.
Despite the misleading title (Obama promised that premiums would go down $2,500 per year for a typical family if the ACA was enacted, not that the premium increase would be $2,500 less), to Tapper's credit he includes a number of direct quotes from Obama during the 2008 Campaign where Obama makes the direct reference to premiums going down $2,500, rather than going up $2,500 less.
I don't like the ACA. We should have a single payer system.
The ACA is not perfect by any means. Even democrats admit that. They wanted single payer. Republicans didn't.
The ACA passed with without a single Republican vote.
Can you illustrate why we don't have single payer then if Democrats wanted it? I'll bet you either can't or won't illustrate why. Either you have no idea why, or you do...but won't illustrate why because of the particular light it will shine on Democrats.
The ACA passed with without a single Republican vote.
Can you illustrate why we don't have single payer then if Democrats wanted it? I'll bet you either can't or won't illustrate why. Either you have no idea why, or you do...but won't illustrate why because of the particular light it will shine on Democrats.
The Democrats don't want single player they're just like the Republicans. The Freedom Caucus and the Democrats are all in cahoots.
Sanders is one of the only Democrats that truly wants it.
I know there were no changes in it. I don't know all the details about what her insurance consisted of besides it didn't change and before it was 500 and after it was 1500.
It does not matter what her policy covered if it didn't change.
I don't like the ACA. We should have a single payer system.
But you supported it, didn't you?
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.
