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.
Um, 12.3% is not in line with January 2008 (14.8%), it's 17% lower, and that's only year one. It should be well under 12% by the end of Q2 2015.
At least you've finally acknowledged there fewer uninsured now compared to when the law passed.
Funny how Obama and liberals have taken credit for less uninsured people. The fact is most people who were previously uninsured and now "newly" insured again gained coverage through JOBs....JOBs and employer provided insurance.
Read the RAND report folks. Millions of people have gain health insurance coverage simply by obtaining gainful employment and getting access to employer sponsored healthcare. And since the employer mandate wasn't in effect in 2014, Obama and the rest of you liberals cannot piggy back on the ACA and claim it's credit.
The real question is of those 30 years you had maternity coverage. How many of those years were you on the individual insurance market. That's the million dollar question. If you policy that had maternity coverage was through employer, your whole statement becomes mute since you aren't talking about individual market.
One of ways to keep health insurance costs down on the individual market was to leave stuff out people don't need (like maternity coverage) if one doesn't want it. It was available was rider for the vast majority of policies.
And don't people find it ironic liberals claim women shouldn't be discriminated against by having to pay higher premiums just because they are women?
Yet I do not hear the liberal cry why men get charged more for auto insurance policies than women? Why is that? Because they are more likely to get into car accidents? and more likely to "use" their insurance policy?
So women are more likely to "use" their health policies as well.
Women aren't doing half the driving when men get in accidents. Men are 50% responsible for every pregnancy.
Another way to keep costs down, and make lots of money was to deny anyone who had any preexisting condition, and drop those who actually became ill, and used insurance as soon as the contact was up, and not reinsure. It was also helpful to insurers to look for any mistake on an application to deny insurance coverage once one became ill.
Either the IRS or the SC will let current subsidies stand no matter the decision through the current policy period. Then the Pubs will go along with an extension (after much brinkmanship, rhetoric and grandstanding) through 2016 knowing they would be blamed and punished in the election if millions are left without insurance they had come to rely on. Following their likely loss of the White House and Senate in 2016, it will remain to be seen whether they continue to pander to the right with the obstructionist attitude or come back to compromise and working toward improvements in Obamacare and fixes to address the unintended consequences.
Women aren't doing half the driving when men get in accidents. Men are 50% responsible for every pregnancy.
Another way to keep costs down, and make lots of money was to deny anyone who had any preexisting condition, and drop those who actually became ill, and used insurance as soon as the contact was up, and not reinsure. It was also helpful to insurers to look for any mistake on an application to deny insurance coverage once one became ill.
One of the totally misleading things liberals and ACA supporters cry about is "pre existing conditions"
1. Those on employer sponsored plans are for the most part no affected by pre existing conditions and under HIPAA, it essentially eliminated pre existing clauses for those switching jobs if people ever bothered to read what the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996
2. Those on government insurance (medicare/medicaid/VA health system) are not affected by pre existing conditions
We are talking about roughly the 5% on the individual market who MAY have been affected by "pre existing conditions". That's roughly 15 million people. But of that 15 million, maybe 1-2 million MAY have a harder time getting coverage.
Think about it. 1-2 million people out of a nation of over 300 million who may have a hard time getting coverage through "pre existing conditions".
And in reality, most of those 1-2 million qualify for health coverage. People do not get flat out denials because of "asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure". You want to know what insurers do for those on the individual market with those pre existing conditions. Because of many state laws in place already. Most of the "pre existing conditions" had "exclusion periods" of between 6-12 months.
So during 6-12 months insurance will still cover you for other disease, other catotropshic illnesses outside of those "pre existing conditions". Once those 6-12 months are up, insurers will cover you.
Why do insurers do this? Well think about this. When we signed up for maternity rider, there was a 12 month exclusion period. So don't get pregnant in 12 months. Pretty simple. BCP costs less per month than what 20/30 year old blow on entertainment each week drinking/partying/eating out.
So the pre existing conditions is completely blown out of proportion. Change the whole entire individual market to cater to the roughly 1-2 million.
The ACA is way too broad in scope. Gives HHS way too much power. HHS determines whats essential and what's not essential coverage by the way.
One of the totally misleading things liberals and ACA supporters cry about is "pre existing conditions"
1. Those on employer sponsored plans are for the most part no affected by pre existing conditions and under HIPAA, it essentially eliminated pre existing clauses for those switching jobs if people ever bothered to read what the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996
2. Those on government insurance (medicare/medicaid/VA health system) are not affected by pre existing conditions
We are talking about roughly the 5% on the individual market who MAY have been affected by "pre existing conditions". That's roughly 15 million people. But of that 15 million, maybe 1-2 million MAY have a harder time getting coverage.
Think about it. 1-2 million people out of a nation of over 300 million who may have a hard time getting coverage through "pre existing conditions".
And in reality, most of those 1-2 million qualify for health coverage. People do not get flat out denials because of "asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure". You want to know what insurers do for those on the individual market with those pre existing conditions. Because of many state laws in place already. Most of the "pre existing conditions" had "exclusion periods" of between 6-12 months.
So during 6-12 months insurance will still cover you for other disease, other catotropshic illnesses outside of those "pre existing conditions". Once those 6-12 months are up, insurers will cover you.
Why do insurers do this? Well think about this. When we signed up for maternity rider, there was a 12 month exclusion period. So don't get pregnant in 12 months. Pretty simple. BCP costs less per month than what 20/30 year old blow on entertainment each week drinking/partying/eating out.
So the pre existing conditions is completely blown out of proportion. Change the whole entire individual market to cater to the roughly 1-2 million.
The ACA is way too broad in scope. Gives HHS way too much power. HHS determines whats essential and what's not essential coverage by the way.
I've been self employed, and part of a network of self employed in my field for years, and the bolded is not true. Full denials were common in many states, often any condition where the meds were considered possibly too expensive, any previous depression, acne... High risk plans were available to some, but had up to double the premiums, and there was a waiting list for up to a year to even get a plan, and then if someone could actually afford it they were still given the 12 month exclusion. For a serious condition 2 years can easily bankrupt a person.
The ACA would never have been mine, or most people's choice, but NOTHING was offered to solve this lack of access to health insurance for many of the self employed, or those whose jobs don't cover them. Contract work with no benefits has been steadily increasing, and will only continue to increase. I knew many people wanting to start a business who were basically trapped in corporate jobs because of a health issue in their family.
I've been self employed, and part of a network of self employed in my field for years, and the bolded is not true. Full denials were common in many states, often any condition where the meds were considered possibly too expensive, any previous depression, acne... High risk plans were available to some, but had up to double the premiums, and there was a waiting list for up to a year to even get a plan, and then if someone could actually afford it they were still given the 12 month exclusion. For a serious condition 2 years can easily bankrupt a person.
The ACA would never have been mine, or most people's choice, but NOTHING was offered to solve this lack of access to health insurance for many of the self employed, or those whose jobs don't cover them. Contract work with no benefits has been steadily increasing, and will only continue to increase. I knew many people wanting to start a business who were basically trapped in corporate jobs because of a health issue in their family.
As someone who has been self-employed for many years, I concur with all of the above. I would have much preferred single payer, but absent that, it's sure better to have health insurance than to not have health insurance.
Within five years it's estimated that 40 percent of Americans will be independent contractors, because it's cheaper for employers because they don't have to provide any benefits whatsoever. That means that 40 percent of American workers won't have access to employer based insurance, a fact I've mentioned several times in this thread but which those who hope to see the ACA struck down have blatantly ignored. That's nearly half of American workers who will be without health insurance. What is the GOP's plan to address this if they are successful in killing the ACA?
I've been self employed, and part of a network of self employed in my field for years, and the bolded is not true. Full denials were common in many states, often any condition where the meds were considered possibly too expensive, any previous depression, acne... High risk plans were available to some, but had up to double the premiums, and there was a waiting list for up to a year to even get a plan, and then if someone could actually afford it they were still given the 12 month exclusion. For a serious condition 2 years can easily bankrupt a person.
The ACA would never have been mine, or most people's choice, but NOTHING was offered to solve this lack of access to health insurance for many of the self employed, or those whose jobs don't cover them. Contract work with no benefits has been steadily increasing, and will only continue to increase. I knew many people wanting to start a business who were basically trapped in corporate jobs because of a health issue in their family.
The only other was single-payer healthcare but nobody stood behind that because it would likely end the insurance industry.
As someone who has been self-employed for many years, I concur with all of the above. I would have much preferred single payer, but absent that, it's sure better to have health insurance than to not have health insurance.
Within five years it's estimated that 40 percent of Americans will be independent contractors, because it's cheaper for employers because they don't have to provide any benefits whatsoever. That means that 40 percent of American workers won't have access to employer based insurance, a fact I've mentioned several times in this thread but which those who hope to see the ACA struck down have blatantly ignored. That's nearly half of American workers who will be without health insurance. What is the GOP's plan to address this if they are successful in killing the ACA?
This is why health insurance should be completely separated from employment. The opaque nature of employment offered health insurance allows people to ignore the ever rising costs of health care, and it's bad for small businesses which are finding themselves unable to compete with large multinationals who can afford the outrageous costs.
I've been self employed, and part of a network of self employed in my field for years, and the bolded is not true. Full denials were common in many states, often any condition where the meds were considered possibly too expensive, any previous depression, acne... High risk plans were available to some, but had up to double the premiums, and there was a waiting list for up to a year to even get a plan, and then if someone could actually afford it they were still given the 12 month exclusion. For a serious condition 2 years can easily bankrupt a person.
The ACA would never have been mine, or most people's choice, but NOTHING was offered to solve this lack of access to health insurance for many of the self employed, or those whose jobs don't cover them. Contract work with no benefits has been steadily increasing, and will only continue to increase. I knew many people wanting to start a business who were basically trapped in corporate jobs because of a health issue in their family.
There are many cheaper alternatives to some expensive depression and acne medicines and even high blood pressure medicine. One does not need the latest and greatest drugs. Even socialize medicine countries don't use the latest and greatest medicine (look at that hepatitis drug that costs $80K). Countries like the UK are balking at paying for that drug and only a "select few" in the UK have even gotten approved for it.
And liberals like to point to a reflux drug called "nexium". They say it costs $240/month with insurance. Well there are $10-20/month over the counter drugs which are in nexium exact same class. And it' works the same. Americans are being brain washed with many brand name drugs.
You say it yourself and agreed with me that there are exclusion periods of say 12 months. It's not an outright denial. They will still cover (say you get in a car accident that's completely unrelated to your acne). Insurance will still cover your injuries.
I've been on the self employed market for 15 plus years. I've got asthma. Switch insurance. No issues. 12 month exclusion period. Insurance covered drugs after 12 months. Wife added maternity coverage as a rider. 12 month exclusion. Waited for it. Had kids. Canceled maternity coverage after done having kids.s
But the overall picture is it's the freaking individual market. 5% of the US population is on it. Less than 1-2 million people really may be remotely affected by pre existing conditions. For the US govt to change the entire health care is drastic.
People wanting to start business, health care is probably near the bottom of the list when they start a business. It's capital they need. Not access to health care. Another liberal myth. Capital needed to start a business is the most important thing. And these people who leave corporate jobs have access to Cobra. Sure it's expensive. But so is life. Cobra lasts 18 months. They will know how their business is doing within 12 months.
There are many cheaper alternatives to some expensive depression and acne medicines and even high blood pressure medicine. One does not need the latest and greatest drugs. Even socialize medicine countries don't use the latest and greatest medicine (look at that hepatitis drug that costs $80K). Countries like the UK are balking at paying for that drug and only a "select few" in the UK have even gotten approved for it.
And liberals like to point to a reflux drug called "nexium". They say it costs $240/month with insurance. Well there are $10-20/month over the counter drugs which are in nexium exact same class. And it' works the same. Americans are being brain washed with many brand name drugs.
You say it yourself and agreed with me that there are exclusion periods of say 12 months. It's not an outright denial. They will still cover (say you get in a car accident that's completely unrelated to your acne). Insurance will still cover your injuries.
I've been on the self employed market for 15 plus years. I've got asthma. Switch insurance. No issues. 12 month exclusion period. Insurance covered drugs after 12 months. Wife added maternity coverage as a rider. 12 month exclusion. Waited for it. Had kids. Canceled maternity coverage after done having kids.s
But the overall picture is it's the freaking individual market. 5% of the US population is on it. Less than 1-2 million people really may be remotely affected by pre existing conditions. For the US govt to change the entire health care is drastic.
People wanting to start business, health care is probably near the bottom of the list when they start a business. It's capital they need. Not access to health care. Another liberal myth. Capital needed to start a business is the most important thing. And these people who leave corporate jobs have access to Cobra. Sure it's expensive. But so is life. Cobra lasts 18 months. They will know how their business is doing within 12 months.
No, it was an outright denial in many states, they were not allowed to buy insurance AT ALL, that was my point. The costs of the medications was the reason why people were given the denial from the insurance companies for things like any previous history of taking ADs, acne, and some other non life threatening conditions. The companies feared that person could end up being too expensive. Your state offered protections, many did not.
In some states those denied people could then turn to high risk pools, but that was up to 1 year on the waiting list with no insurance, then if they were accepted they could pay double for a plan that still had a 12 month exclusion. For most those plans were impossible to afford.
Health insurance is very important to many starting a business. Responsible people insure their families, but in many states any illness in that family would have made this impossible.
Last edited by detshen; 03-06-2015 at 07:17 PM..
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.
