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.
Right..like maternity care and pediatric care even if you don't need them.
Here's a good article that might help you understand why.
"Without the cross-subsidies inherent in a large pool of insured people, no single coverage is affordable to those who specifically need it. Once you start segmenting the market so that only those vulnerable to a specific condition can buy coverage for that condition, the cost of that coverage soars into outer space."
If you have a family history of cancer or heart disease, you also receive the benefit of that large pool should you develop one of those conditions--a pool that others who don't have a family history of those conditions and are less vulnerable to them, and therefore have no need of that coverage, have contributed to for your benefit. That's how insurance works.
It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. Assuming you have any real interest in grasping it.
I bought a Humana PPO Gold plan in Georgia for 2014. It was pretty good. I had to have surgery and there was a $2000 deductable but I think 80% was covered after that. I also received very good prices for medicine and doctors visits. It was a little over $200 a month
This year I bought a platinum EPO Blue Select plan in Florida because I needed to have some endoscopy work done and I didn't know what the bills were going to be like. It served me very well until my employer insurance kicked in. I had no deductible and 90% of bills were paid. This one was more expensive though, a little over $300 a month.
I am in my late 20s and don't smoke. The Obamacare plans have been a lifesaver for me. I honestly don't know what would have happened if my health problems struck even one year prior to the exchanges going live.
This is why people are not knowledgeable. Almost any younger person under age 30 could have gotten a high quality HSA tax advantage with a max (and I mean max) out of pocket expense of around $2000-2500 a year.
And premiums are closer to $100-150/'month pre ACA for younger people.
And the beauty of those rates I quote is they didn't involve any subsidy! Pre ACA.
Here's a good article that might help you understand why.
"Without the cross-subsidies inherent in a large pool of insured people, no single coverage is affordable to those who specifically need it. Once you start segmenting the market so that only those vulnerable to a specific condition can buy coverage for that condition, the cost of that coverage soars into outer space."
If you have a family history of cancer or heart disease, you also receive the benefit of that large pool should you develop one of those conditions--a pool that others who don't have a family history of those conditions and are less vulnerable to them, and therefore have no need of that coverage, have contributed to for your benefit. That's how insurance works.
It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. Assuming you have any real interest in grasping it.
I paid a separate rider for maternity coverage for my wife in the individual market.
People just too cheap to pay the extra $150-200 a month for maternity rider. It was available almost everywhere until the ACA law was signed in March 2010.
And libs say women were discriminated because of pre existing pregnancy ? Bs. Because those women chose not to carry the maternity rider BEFORE they were pregnant.
Why aren't we attacking auto insurance companies for over charging men for insurance? Especially younger men? Not all younger men engage in high risk driving behavior to warrant higher premiums
So no denying you are indeed a "leech" living off someone else's money?
Yes it did give a lot of people access to insurance who otherwise would have none. That in itself is worth it. Now, does it need to be modified to make it a more workable option? Absolutely.
But what did he say? I posted this link before and people such as you and other obama lovers failed to either read or just don't care to talk about because you know the actual truth:
Quote:
"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is that the amount of money you will spend on premiums will be less," Obama said. "If you are one of 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will after this plan becomes law."
Well, this thread is just about 4 pages....so for some it maybe hard to to read and comprehend all 40 posts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
If the Republicans would stop with these tantrums they're throwing over it maybe they could come up with something that's better.
This is why people are not knowledgeable. Almost any younger person under age 30 could have gotten a high quality HSA tax advantage with a max (and I mean max) out of pocket expense of around $2000-2500 a year.
And premiums are closer to $100-150/'month pre ACA for younger people.
And the beauty of those rates I quote is they didn't involve any subsidy! Pre ACA.
But those plans would have come with a pre existing condition clause and none of the healthcare needs I required would have been covered. I had to have surgery two months after I enrolled with Humana in 2014. No health insurance plan would have covered that prior to 2014.
I paid a separate rider for maternity coverage for my wife in the individual market.
People just too cheap to pay the extra $150-200 a month for maternity rider. It was available almost everywhere until the ACA law was signed in March 2010.
And libs say women were discriminated because of pre existing pregnancy ? Bs. Because those women chose not to carry the maternity rider BEFORE they were pregnant.
Why aren't we attacking auto insurance companies for over charging men for insurance? Especially younger men? Not all younger men engage in high risk driving behavior to warrant higher premiums
So if you have a family history of cancer that makes you more vulnerable to cancer, should you be required to buy an extra cancer rider in case you develop the disease? Should we have a separate rider for everything that someone could possibly contract or develop? Kind of ridiculous that we single out maternity costs but don't require the same kind of upfront payment for something like cancer, which is potentially even more expensive.
Here's why everyone should contribute to maternity coverage:
1. It takes two to tango. It's true, no man has ever given birth to a baby. It's also true that no baby has ever been born without a man being involved somewhere along the line. Limit maternity coverage only to women of childbearing age, and you're giving many of these guys a free pass.
2. Society has a vested interest in healthy babies and mothers. And that's all society, because unhealthy babies and mothers impose a cost on everybody -- in the expense of caring for them as wards of the public, and in the waste of social resources that comes from children unable to reach their full potential as members of society because of injuries or illnesses caused by poor prenatal and postnatal health.
3. Universal coverage is the only way to make maternity coverage affordable.
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.
