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.
Most of the "most vulnerable people" pretty much get free healthcare anyway. For instance, poor residents of Dallas County TX use Parkland Hospital for their needs at no cost to them at all.
But what you are saying, and that I agree with, is that for people who want cheap healthcare are able to use subsidized plans - meaning you and I are helping to pay for their healthcare. True.
Here's what the insurance industry's PR firm (America's Health Plans) is saying about the issue:
"The only reason consumers are getting notices about their current coverage changing is because the ACA (Affordable Care Act) requires all polices to cover a broad range of benefits that go beyond what many people choose to purchase today."
The most vulnerable people get emergency room care free. In most cases they get little to no preventive care, and that winds up putting them into the emergency room more often, at higher expense to the taxpayer.
Insurance = subsidy. We pay in, and hope we need to make minimal claim on it. You and I are already helping to pay for the healthcare of everyone else who is insured by the same company, and is unfortunate enough to need to make heavy claims on it. The difference with ACA is going to be that now everyone gets a chance to participate, instead of only we who are lucky enough to be able to afford it or who get it from an employer.
The most vulnerable people get emergency room care free. In most cases they get little to no preventive care, and that winds up putting them into the emergency room more often, at higher expense to the taxpayer.
Insurance = subsidy. We pay in, and hope we need to make minimal claim on it. You and I are already helping to pay for the healthcare of everyone else who is insured by the same company, and is unfortunate enough to need to make heavy claims on it. The difference with ACA is going to be that now everyone gets a chance to participate, instead of only we who are lucky enough to be able to afford it or who get it from an employer.
I think it's more accurate to say that everyone gets to participate in receiving preventive services but not all participate in paying for them. That's still left to those of us who can afford to subsidize those who can't.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding who benefits from the ACA. Those against it like to say it's just a bunch of freeloaders that "never worked". This Consumer Reports article highlights some examples of the type of regular people, not on the dole, that will benefit:
"Here’s a question for pundits and politicians outraged over people whose individual insurance plans are being canceled because they don’t meet the new health law’s standards. Have you forgotten what a nightmare this branch of health insurance was before?"
There seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding who benefits from the ACA. Those against it like to say it's just a bunch of freeloaders that "never worked". This Consumer Reports article highlights some examples of the type of regular people, not on the dole, that will benefit:
"Here’s a question for pundits and politicians outraged over people whose individual insurance plans are being canceled because they don’t meet the new health law’s standards. Have you forgotten what a nightmare this branch of health insurance was before?"
Maybe RomneyCare worked for him and ObamaCare will replace it and not work so well, hmm! That would seem to be his complaint. But then, I don't look at such things through partisan eyes. Being analytical can be a curse.
Thanks Ghostly, that's exactly what's happening.
MrWilly seems to know more about my circumstances than I do.
Thanks Ghostly, that's exactly what's happening.
MrWilly seems to know more about my circumstances than I do.
So please expound on how Romneycare was better, or worse than Obamacare for you, and the people of your state? As I've stated, the ACA has only been good for me, and my family.
So please expound on how Romneycare was better, or worse than Obamacare for you, and the people of your state? As I've stated, the ACA has only been good for me, and my family.
Ergo, you surmise it's going to be good, in its current form, for everyone? Please expound on what you had for coverage, if any, before ObamaCare and what you now have under it, as well as what it's costing you, or is it costing others to provide it for you and yours? If so, how's that being good for them?
My best guess is that if there's another lie involved and it's about those of us who have employer-based healthcare coverage and we're going to have changes under ObamaCare, it won't be to the good. At best, we'll be taxed on it. At worst, it will be cancelled or drastically changed. Either way it will involve significant costs to us.
Pardon me if I have no confidence in this administration and don't believe the President's rosy pronouncements. But I guess I fall into what's left of the middle class so I shouldn't have a lot of faith in it.
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.
