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.
Yes, and I can't buy flood insurance in the middle of a hurricane.
Of course most people with pre-existing conditions could get insurance through their employer long before Obamacare. My insurance is 250 a month for myself with a heart condition and my diabetic wife and we both pushing 60.
No, most people couldn't get insurance through an employer. That was a luxury for the few. AND employers could still place a preexisting condition clause to health insurance for the first year of coverage.
Flood insurance is not the same as health insurance. Not event remotely the same. Don't live in a flood zone. Doesn't matter where you live asthma or cancer will follow you.
Either have free universal healthcare and pay for it like other countries with a national sales tax or get rid of it and go back to what we used to have but try to push for no borders and some slight modifications to protect people more. What we have now is a complete mess for 90% of the population.
1. Universal healthcare would be even less popular than Obamacare. Don't be delusional.
2. What we had before left sick people with no coverage and no way of getting coverage. Obamacare's solution to that problem outweighs its negatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
Trump has been advocating for the second option of no borders with some protections.
Trump hasn't once said how he plans to cover pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate. Removing state boundaries has nothing to do with this issue. You keep repeating the vague line of "some protections," but I'm asking you specifically: what sort of protection can you imagine that would cover pre-existing conditions but not require everyone to have coverage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
We are better off with what we had before Obamacare. Health insurance is more expensive than property taxes for crying out loud now. Prescriptions are through the roof and how on earth would someone paying $500/month pay for their 20-30% coinsurance if they actually got sick. It's a crazy system that needs to be torn down and start from scratch. Oh and businesses now are only offering part time on many low level jobs in order to prevent having to offer health insurance. It's a horrible, broken, failed, miserable system.
This is a crock of bull. Before, people with serious conditions could not buy health insurance. A person with diabetes could be flat-out rejected by insurance companies. What is that person supposed to do? Wait until the disease progresses so much that they have to go to the ER? Die sooner? Get real. That issue alone makes the ACA better than what we had before.
Yes, and I can't buy flood insurance in the middle of a hurricane.
This is an absolutely stupid analogy. You're seriously arguing that people with terrible medical conditions shouldn't get health insurance?
Let's say your or your wife lost a job, and your heart condition and her diabetes prevented you from buying insurance at any price, which is exactly what we had before. Would you still think you shouldn't get coverage?
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 10-31-2016 at 11:50 PM..
1. Universal healthcare would be even less popular than Obamacare. Don't be delusional.
2. What we had before left sick people with no coverage and no way of getting coverage. Obamacare's solution to that problem outweighs its negatives.
Trump hasn't once said how he plans to cover pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate. Removing state boundaries has nothing to do with this issue. You keep repeating the vague line of "some protections," but I'm asking you specifically: what sort of protection can you imagine that would cover pre-existing conditions but not require everyone to have coverage?
This is a crock of bull. Before, people with serious conditions could not buy health insurance. A person with diabetes could be flat-out rejected by insurance companies. What is that person supposed to do? Wait until the disease progresses so much that they have to go to the ER? Die sooner? Get real. That issue alone makes the ACA better than what we had before.
1) WRONG, I lived in Australia where they had true universal health care and it was great. It's also not a hot issue like it is here because the vast majority love the health care system. Everyone chips in and everyone gets the benefits. You don't have a million qualifications in order to get it nor is it on the backs of only the wealthy.
2) Like I said, Obamacare has helped a tiny fraction of the population on the backs of 90% of the population. Most of us are left stuck with awful health care at premiums we can't afford.
3) Trump said nobody would be left to die without health insurance. Removing state boundaries would drive up competition. Competition is what drives prices up or down. If you can only buy ice cream from one store, that store can jack up prices. If you can buy ice cream from 50 stores, well... you will have to provide great service and/or prices to stay in business. Bottom line, health care was a lot more affordable for the vast majority before Obamacare. A bronze plan in Florida averages $350 per month, that is crazy! Bronze plans are complete garbage as is and now you have to pay $350 per month!?
4) You can easily pass a bill that takes care of people with pre-existing conditions that aren't able to get health insurance. It'd be a lot less money than the crap we have now.
1) WRONG, I lived in Australia where they had true universal health care and it was great. It's also not a hot issue like it is here because the vast majority love the health care system. Everyone chips in and everyone gets the benefits. You don't have a million qualifications in order to get it nor is it on the backs of only the wealthy.
2) Like I said, Obamacare has helped a tiny fraction of the population on the backs of 90% of the population. Most of us are left stuck with awful health care at premiums we can't afford.
3) Trump said nobody would be left to die without health insurance. Removing state boundaries would drive up competition. Competition is what drives prices up or down. If you can only buy ice cream from one store, that store can jack up prices. If you can buy ice cream from 50 stores, well... you will have to provide great service and/or prices to stay in business. Bottom line, health care was a lot more affordable for the vast majority before Obamacare. A bronze plan in Florida averages $350 per month, that is crazy! Bronze plans are complete garbage as is and now you have to pay $350 per month!?
4) You can easily pass a bill that takes care of people with pre-existing conditions that aren't able to get health insurance. It'd be a lot less money than the crap we have now.
Ice cream is a completely different market than healthcare. You NEED healthcare, so you can be gouged on the price and still forced to pay. Ice cream doesn't work that way. And lowering state boundaries won't do a thing to address that issue.
What is it with conservatives and this state boundaries nonsense? Conservatives been spouting it for years. Aetna, BCBS, UHC, etc can all already sell across state lines. It's been ten years of me hearing this talking point and I don't see anything even stopping insurance from selling across state lines.
Your 4th talking point, bahaha! If it's so easy republicans should have addressed it rather than sit on their asses for two decades. There is no easy way to address this other than forcing insurance companies to cover the conditions. That or put sick people on a government funded program. But most of us have a preexisting condition or 2 so this would affect everyone.
1) WRONG, I lived in Australia where they had true universal health care and it was great. It's also not a hot issue like it is here because the vast majority love the health care system. Everyone chips in and everyone gets the benefits. You don't have a million qualifications in order to get it nor is it on the backs of only the wealthy.
I'm not arguing that universal healthcare wouldn't be good. I'm arguing that it wouldn't be popular. Obamacare is far more market-based and Republican-friendly than a universal health plan would ever be. HRC tried to get a universal healthcare plan off the ground as first lady, and it was wildly unpopular.
Colorado has a ballot initiative coming up next week that is a universal health plan. Even in Colorado, a state where this sort of thing should have a decent chance, polls show less than 40% support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
2) Like I said, Obamacare has helped a tiny fraction of the population on the backs of 90% of the population. Most of us are left stuck with awful health care at premiums we can't afford.
It isn't a tiny fraction of the population. It's between 6 and 10% of the population, which is twenty-something million people. And many people in the additional 90% haven't seen massive premium spikes.
Don't act like sick people are freeloaders because they want to be able to have health insurance coverage. No advanced society should tell its sick people that they just have to suffer with serious conditions and no insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
3) Trump said nobody would be left to die without health insurance. Removing state boundaries would drive up competition. Competition is what drives prices up or down. If you can only buy ice cream from one store, that store can jack up prices. If you can buy ice cream from 50 stores, well... you will have to provide great service and/or prices to stay in business. Bottom line, health care was a lot more affordable for the vast majority before Obamacare. A bronze plan in Florida averages $350 per month, that is crazy! Bronze plans are complete garbage as is and now you have to pay $350 per month!?
You're dodging the issue here. Of course getting rid of state boundaries is a good thing, but that will do nothing for pre-existing conditions. The reason insurers don't want to insure people with pre-existing conditions has nothing to do with a lack of competition. It is because those people are inherently money-losing propositions for insurance companies. The only way they are palatable for the insurance companies is if they are bunched into a massive group with everyone else, thus raising the premiums for everyone. Let's say you have a group of people who have cancer, and the average person will cost $250,000 to treat over the next two years. No amount of removing state boundaries will create an incentive for an insurance company to voluntarily take on that risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
4) You can easily pass a bill that takes care of people with pre-existing conditions that aren't able to get health insurance. It'd be a lot less money than the crap we have now.
Pass what kind of bill? Seriously, even from a broad-strokes perspective, what would this bill look like? This is the sort of generality that opponents of the ACA always talk in. How exactly can you get insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without requiring everyone to have coverage?
Until someone proposes a different solution that provides care for pre-existing conditions, I am not very sympathetic to the argument that the ACA needs to be thrown out. Perhaps there need to be some changes that make it more affordable, but throwing it out will mean people with pre-existing conditions are uncovered.
The liberals created this crap sandwich, enjoy the taste. Liberals voted in a seriously flawed law. They can fix it.
Typical lunatic liberal reasoning, let someone else fix their failure.
The liberals created this crap sandwich, enjoy the taste. Liberals voted in a seriously flawed law. They can fix it.
Typical lunatic liberal reasoning, let someone else fix their failure.
When did I say or imply that someone else should fix it?
I certainly hope Democrats have a majority in Congress, and I certainly hope they try to reduce the cost of the ACA plans.
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.
