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.
I hear ya But I think that problem is small as compared to the rapidly rising cost of healthcare, from drugs, to treatment, to liability. No-one is addressing the real problem which is cost, we're just fighting over how we pay for it. Why is it almost all other countries have gotten a handle on their costs, but we haven't? I think you'll find the answer is, follow the money, corruption in government. Top 20 healthcare lobbyists by spending
This implicates BOTH parties. What are we to do about it?
Do you think you'll be better off under the GOP plan? Isn't insurance just a way to distribute the expense of health care over a larger number? Nothing is being done to control or limit health care costs, insurance is just a way to pay those costs, it's all just moving the furniture around the same size room. So, what happens to the cost when young people opt out, but they still contract cancer, they will at that point be prevented from buying in. Of course they won't have access to the same level of care as a well insured patient, but who pays for the care they receive as they lay there waiting to die? Those costs will still be paid and passed on as business overhead through higher fees and ultimately insurance premiums, thus it will be upon those who pay. Doubtful you will do any better under this plan either.
Apparently the Senate bill is going to give insurance companies 44 billion to 'bribe' them into staying in the marketplace after there is no individual mandate, I don't see anything in the bill that would prevent people from signing up for insurance once they get sick, so I'm not really sure why anyone would bother buying insurance until they break a leg or get cancer (think: call Geico and buy a policy after you have an accident)
And it's odd that in spite of the Republican whining for 7 years about how the out of pocket costs under the ACA are too high the "better plan" (as they call it) only has to cover 58% of your medical expenses vs 70% with the ACA
I've been pointing this out for years. For voters, yes this is a problem. Granted, someone like Trump will acknowledge the problem but do nothing but (D)'s refuse to even admit there is a problem here.
....
The cleanup is going on daily. I've seen the large federal sign in windows of places that were closed and for people to not enter the premises. I can tell from some of statements (I'm not on Medicare) from providers who've been visited when the billing amount drops by hundreds of dollars. There is a website that lists people and providers who are banned for life from doing any business related to Medicare/ Medicaid. It's a pretty large problem and there are simply not enough investigators to find them all.
Apparently the Senate bill is going to give insurance companies 44 billion to 'bribe' them into staying in the marketplace after there is no individual mandate, I don't see anything in the bill that would prevent people from signing up for insurance once they get sick, so I'm not really sure why anyone would bother buying insurance until they break a leg or get cancer (think: call Geico and buy a policy after you have an accident)
And it's odd that in spite of the Republican whining for 7 years about how the out of pocket costs under the ACA are too high the "better plan" (as they call it) only has to cover 58% of your medical expenses vs 70% with the ACA
But as I understand it, there's also nothing preventing the insurance companies from charging according to the risk. You can see where this can go, a woman at 35 y. o. gets breast cancer, with about $100K-$300K in treatment her prognosis for another 20 years or more are good, but still at risk. A young man develops a chronic cardiac disease, high risk, therefore ................................. The federal government shouldn't be meddling with the industries involved, health care providers, insurance, or big pharma. The government should be looking at regulations that do little and add cost, and limiting liability.
I've seen the large federal sign in windows of places that were closed and for people to not enter the premises. I can tell from some of statements (I'm not on Medicare) from providers who've been visited when the billing amount drops by hundreds of dollars. There is a website that lists people and providers who are banned for life from doing any business related to Medicare/ Medicaid. It's a pretty large problem and there are simply not enough investigators to find them all.
We can address it. To argue it is too big of a problem is to argue that the government CAN NOT do things like UHC in a on corrupt manner. I dismiss that.
We can address it. To argue it is too big of a problem is to argue that the government CAN NOT do things like UHC in a on corrupt manner. I dismiss that.
But that will truly require that we drain the swamp. Trump is not the guy to do it, but it will take an outsider.
But that will truly require that we drain the swamp. Trump is not the guy to do it, but it will take an outsider.
STOP IT!!! My god, stop with TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
I want to know who it will be. I have never supported Trump. As I've pointed out many times the DNC is still arguing that those of us that want UHC simply need to get over it.
No. Does that mean Trump wins again? It might. How is it that the DNC does not understand this?
But as I understand it, there's also nothing preventing the insurance companies from charging according to the risk. You can see where this can go, a woman at 35 y. o. gets breast cancer, with about $100K-$300K in treatment her prognosis for another 20 years or more are good, but still at risk. A young man develops a chronic cardiac disease, high risk, therefore ................................. The federal government shouldn't be meddling with the industries involved, health care providers, insurance, or big pharma. The government should be looking at regulations that do little and add cost, and limiting liability.
No, they changed that, now they can't set premiums according to risk or pre-existing conditions. The only thing they can charge higher premiums for is age, they can charge 5X as much for an older person as they do for a younger one.
So..it's actually quite insane. Who will buy this $hit insurance that barely covers half of your medical expenses BEFORE they need it?
So has anyone in this thread actually approved of this bill? Are massive tax cuts to the rich while killing off the poor and middle class a positive thing for Conservatives here?
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.
But I think that problem is small as compared to the rapidly rising cost of healthcare, from drugs, to treatment, to liability. No-one is addressing the real problem which is cost, we're just fighting over how we pay for it. Why is it almost all other countries have gotten a handle on their costs, but we haven't? I think you'll find the answer is, follow the money, corruption in government. 
