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.
Wasn't it Nixon who actually was in support of a universal-like healthcare plan?
I believe certain things should be non-profit. Healthcare and education are two of them.
I remember Nixon supporting HMOs. I believe the idea was floated to him from Keiser in which he was on board with the idea. My first taste of this lousy coverage was in the very early 80s.
I do understand the general distaste of expanding government to handle a citizen's health care. However when access to health care by insurance companies is denied because of a preexisting condition, and the costs of paying for treatments and hospital stays by an individual is prohibitive, what's the alternative?
A "pre-existing" condition is not insurable. Insurance is for the purpose of covering the unforeseen, or future illness or condition. To require an insurance company to pay for already existing conditions would be like getting into an accident in your car, without any insurance, and then shopping for insurance after the fact, and having the government force the insurance company to pay the bills for the accident you had last week. It doesn't work. What it does is drive up the costs for everyone, which is exactly what we see happening. Premiums have been skyrocketing, as have deductibles.
ObamaCare must be repealed. It cannot work, and will bankrupt the country, and is bankrupting many families without even having any accident or illnesses. It's consuming a huge portion of the family income for those who can pay it, and many cannot. They are going without insurance, which is defeating the whole purpose of the program.
The SCOTUS re-wrote the ACA so it could pass, which is what they HAD to do so they could pass it....if not the ACA would not be here....is the SC supposed to write laws?
Rewrote? How did you acquire that perception?
SCOTUS ruled to uphold the ACA as constitutional, including the individual mandate. At the same time SCOTUS ruled the expansion of Medicaid under the Act was constitutional except for the provision that the Federal Government could use the threat of loss of existing Medicaid funds for states that do not participate in the expansion.
That ruling caused that portion of the Act deemed unconstitutional to be struck.
SCOTUS does not write law. Rulings however, have the authority to render portions of law as unconstitutional.
I guess we need to know who are "reasonable people" to you? And can you back up your claim about those reasonable people?
What's your point? "well to do" cannot have the same thing happen?
Stop intermixing those who cannot afford insurance and those who don't want insurance because they cannot pay cash for anything that happens to the, even those nasty accident victims, violent crime victims, those that get diagnosed with a serious potentiality life threatening illness....there are people out there that can do that, there are also those that had catastrophic insurance....and paid for the regular stuff....
When you finance a car or home purchase , the lender requires insurance which protects the insurer from loss. Those who pay cash for their car or home are not required to insure their property in which case loss risk is limited to the property owner.
In healthcare, those who choose to not insure their risks, have a right to be stabilized in an ER, regardless of insurance or ability to pay. The healthcare provider is required to absorb the cost of the individual's choice to be uninsured, assuming the uninsured has no income or assets. That unrecoverable loss becomes the a part of the provider's cost of doing business, a factor of the fees they charge.
The healthcare provider can however pursue a court order to garnish your wage and/ or lien your assets if the bill is high enough to warrant such action and the patient is employed and/ or has assets.
Government shares in the provider's loss associated with an individual's choice to be uninsured and unable to pay for service.
I have no issue with people who choose to be uninsured, provided they do not seek to impose the consequences of that decision on the healthcare provider and government.
Since the Affordable Care Act was modeled after a proposal developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Massachusetts plan enacted by Gov. Mitt Romney, I don't understand the question.
SCOTUS ruled to uphold the ACA as constitutional, including the individual mandate. At the same time SCOTUS ruled the expansion of Medicaid under the Act was constitutional except for the provision that the Federal Government could use the threat of loss of existing Medicaid funds for states that do not participate in the expansion.
That ruling caused that portion of the Act deemed unconstitutional to be struck.
SCOTUS does not write law. Rulings however, have the authority to render portions of law as unconstitutional.
No, you need to read up...
Quote:
saving construction," the chief justice rewrote the mandate as a "tax" and upheld the law.
Since the Affordable Care Act was modeled after a proposal developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Massachusetts plan enacted by Gov. Mitt Romney, I don't understand the question.
Here is your polotifact that so many lefties like to use...
Quote:
Short answer -- sort of. There was a Republican bill in the Senate that looked a whole lot like Obamacare, but it wasn’t the only GOP bill on Capitol Hill, it never came to a vote and from what we can tell, plenty of conservative Republicans didn’t like it.
"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."
A "pre-existing" condition is not insurable. Insurance is for the purpose of covering the unforeseen, or future illness or condition. To require an insurance company to pay for already existing conditions would be like getting into an accident in your car, without any insurance, and then shopping for insurance after the fact, and having the government force the insurance company to pay the bills for the accident you had last week. It doesn't work. What it does is drive up the costs for everyone, which is exactly what we see happening. Premiums have been skyrocketing, as have deductibles.
ObamaCare must be repealed. It cannot work, and will bankrupt the country, and is bankrupting many families without even having any accident or illnesses. It's consuming a huge portion of the family income for those who can pay it, and many cannot. They are going without insurance, which is defeating the whole purpose of the program.
Insurance premiums have been increasing since forever. Healthcare premiums increased an average of 100% between 2000-2010 before the ACA was passed.
Prior to the ACA, each state determined a " look back" period. If your condition existed during the " look back" window, an insurer was able to decline to insure or exclude the preexisting health risk. Some states allowed insurers an unlimited " look back" period. Some states allowed insurers to decline to renew plans due to a medical condition the previous year. 50 states- 50 different insurance regulations mostly designed to protect insurers.
It is the proverbial " till it happens to you" thing. Last year my BIL died from Cancer that had spread so far it was not possible to determine the source of the original Cancer. He had been previously denied healthcare insurance due to a prior preexisting condition unrelated to the Cancer that subsequently took his life. He appealed the decision and lost. As a result he despised insurance companies.
He did not understand that the ACA no longer allowed insurers to discriminate against preexisting conditions. Instead, he allowed his prior experience, politicians and media to persuade him Obamacare was bad news and a death panel. So he chose to be uninsured and avoided incurring healthcare expenses until he was eligible for Medicare which has never excluded preexisting conditions.
One day he awoke unable to walk. Wifey called 911. His organs were in the process of shutting down. He died a few days later. The cost of that uninsured hospital admission wiped out his savings and then some.
He would not have qualified for a subsidy. He was capable of paying premiums. The aggravation with being denied due to a previous unrelated condition soured him on insurance and the political noise associated with Obamacare validated his perceptions. He might have had a fighting chance had he had insurance and recieved routine Cancer Screening.
On another note, private Cancer Treatment providers typically require the uninsured seeking treatment to pay in full before acceptance. If they cannot, they are denied treatment.
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.
