Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2014, 01:55 PM
 
Location: NYC
3,046 posts, read 2,382,702 times
Reputation: 2160

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh View Post
All at the expense of people who lost their health insurance/doctors and the people who were doing just fine and are forced to now pay higher premiums and deductibles. People who were told they wouldn't have to change a thing.
You're paying more because you're getting more. No preconditions, insure kids till they're 26, checks on rate increases, preventive care, etc, etc. You paid less before because there were a lot of conditions built into your insurance policy that only benefited the insurance companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2014, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,880,244 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I don't agree with those two provisions the way they were done, but I do agree with the spirit of them.

The problem with the pre-existing conditions thing is that it drastically raises costs for everyone. I do think it is the government's role to ensure that those with such conditions have access to healthcare. However, I would've preferred doing something that didn't impact everyone else.
But how could those with pre-existing conditions get insurance if it didn't impact your premiums in some way? The only way it wouldn't would be if they blocked out. Guess what, through the 90's and 2000's, premiums still rose even on group insurance plans like one's job offers them and their family while those with pre-existing conditions were on the outside looking in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
That's a whole different discussion. My point is that the CBO when estimating the uninsured in 2024, 30% of those uninsured are undocumented immigrants.
conservatives don't want undocumented immigrants to get insurance.
Meaning conservatives cannot claim that 31million people won't have insurance without subtracting undocumented immigrants.
But yet you include them when they shouldn't be. Dropping them from 100% of uninsured would be accurate because they do not get it through anywhere but the private marketplace which is pretty much dictated by the public rates (minus subsidies and Medicaid.) I am not sure why the CBO would include them because they only have one source, the private market. Factually it is correct but it is a bad argument to include them in data because they are not Americans and just living here undocumented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 02:21 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,501,935 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Re the ACA, the bottom line is that those of us with pre-existing conditions can now buy insurance whereas before we couldn't.

I didn't want insurance for my pre-existing condition and would have gladly waived any costs related to that. It's a fairly minimal amount anyway and I'm more than happy to pay it myself.

However, folks like me were totally locked out of the market. That ain't right.
You're a big winner under Ocare, so it's no surprise your bottom line is the law is great. For people with higher deductibles, copays, co-insurance, premiums, who lost their doctors or hospitals, etc. it's not so great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
The bottom line is we need to pay for health care. We do not need to pay for private insurance company executive salaries, managerial overhead and stockholders profit. When we, as represented by our government, finally have a say in health care costs some of the other parasites like private hospital owners and privately owned drug companies can also be put on a diet. After all a good high level government bureaucrat can run a Hospital just as well a multi million dollar per year private sector bureaucrat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:02 PM
 
32,019 posts, read 36,763,165 times
Reputation: 13290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
You're a big winner under Ocare, so it's no surprise your bottom line is the law is great. For people with higher deductibles, copays, co-insurance, premiums, who lost their doctors or hospitals, etc. it's not so great.
Well, for me the "big win" is simply being allowed to buy health insurance (at my own expense) like everybody else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:12 PM
 
32,019 posts, read 36,763,165 times
Reputation: 13290
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
So you approve of lying to get bills passed?
Of course not.

If you supported this legislation based on that statement , I am sorry.

Still, getting rid of the pre-existing condition ban should benefit everyone eventually. It's pretty hard to make it through life without experiencing some sort of illness or injury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:16 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
14,928 posts, read 12,126,747 times
Reputation: 24777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
All of your healthcare is a write off if your are a sole proprietor....most of it for S corps.

I guess if you want to be the same as a corporate employee you should work for a corporation....not yourself.

Like I posted before....we did need changes....the preexisting condition was one of the things that needed change.

We can only hope we did not though the baby out with the bathwater.
Or drown the baby in the bathwater......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:21 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
14,928 posts, read 12,126,747 times
Reputation: 24777
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh View Post
Insurance is supposed to cover 'things that might happen to you'.
Yup, like take care of my baby teeth even though I lost those decades ago...-referring to the Obamacare mandated pediatric dental care which made many healthcare policies, "non-ACA compliant" if they didn't offer this coverage....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:32 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,501,935 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Well, for me the "big win" is simply being allowed to buy health insurance (at my own expense) like everybody else.
Right, that's a big win, considering you're a high-risk cost to the risk pool and don't pay more. I've luckily been part of an employer group plan and am comfortable with members' premiums subsidizing each other. otoh, I understand the argument that people who are a guaranteed cost at the time of obtaining insurance should pay higher premiums. The word 'insurance' has pretty much lost its meaning when individual risk is unrelated to individual cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 03:46 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
14,928 posts, read 12,126,747 times
Reputation: 24777
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
LoL, more slippery slope junk. Don't elect Obama or the world will go to hell, won't pass the ACA or the economy will collapse, elect Romney/Ryan or it's the end of America, if Ryan's budget doesn't get passed it's the end...just we wait. Sure.

The GOP has had years to get their act together and get more than an outline with vague crap like calling for common sense alternatives, reforms, and modernization. Eventually they need to come up with what those actually mean...an action plan to do so. Even conservative journalists are calling out the GOP about not coming up with anything with any substance to replace the ACA. So far it's been calls for repeal, while the replacement will maybe come sometime in the future when they get to actually writing it. Just trust them.

Actually, the GOP has proposed a number of plans for healthcare reform over the years. The latest one was proposed in January 2014. Those plans have never been allowed to see the light of day in this current administration, even as the Democrats slammed the GOP for not doing so, and for about everything else under the sun...

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes

Senate Republicans Develop The Most Credible Plan Yet To 'Repeal And Replace' Obamacare - Forbes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top