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.
The issue with forcing people to buy health insurance is those premiums are very expensive, and on top of it the Obamacare doesn't actually cover that much if you have to go a hospital.
As for car insurance, being that no is forced to own a car, no one has to have car insurance.
But back to Obamacare, when the pharmaceutical industry realizes there was more coverage they simply jacked up the prices.
Canada, and all of Latin America force pharmaceutical companies to sell their drugs in those nations at very low prices. The US gives companies patents on new drugs for 20 years, and so one issue is the patent system itself (in the context of the US).
Under the Bush Admin, Congress twice denied to authorize Medicare to regulate the price of prescription medications. This was rather stunning given Medicare was expanded to include prescription meds and the oldest of the baby boom was going to begin to turn 65 in 2011. Big Pharm was pleased that Congress chose to look out for their best interests instead of the government or the people.
The ACA came in on the tail of this defeat and regulation of medication pricing was a non- starter. Hillary promised to go after Big Pharm.
When Trump won, pharmecutical stocks rallied because of a perception that his administration will not attempt to regulate pricing.
What the Trump Admin will or will not attempt to do over the next 4 years will evolve and is unknown.
Trump did promise to " replace Obamacare with something wonderful that will take care of everybody and the government will pay for it". It's unknown if this was campaign rhetoric or his intent. Regardless, it's up to Congress.
I don't think any healthcare program is a good thing when your monthly premiums are more than your monthly rent (which mine are) and the CEO of the insurance companies have salaries in the millions. I would also like to see all members of Congress with the same insurance as the rest of us AND they pay for it themselves. Obama says he is leaving his position without scandals...in my opinion this was the biggest of them all. He lied to everyone about HB-3200 and then mandated it. He involved the IRS to assess fines and collect them. Just about anything other than this out of Trump would be better. He pledge to get rid of Obamacare...let's just wait and see what he comes up with.
The majority of US people do not buy Individual Healthcare Plans. Instead they are insured by a variety of public ( VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Chip etc) plans and group plans sponsored by their employers.
Much has been written about HB 3200, most of it untrue. Regardless, it was scrapped due to lack of support within Congress and replaced with HB 3590 which was approved by Congress.
You don't really think that the drivers of Jackson Heights have the adequate insurance coverage necessary to cover the damage that their vehicles are capable of. Do you? Remember, we buy car insurance to cover the incidents created by others that do not have the necessary coverage to pay for the damages done to us.
This is generally true of auto liability insurance. Your liability insurance protects other people and their property for injuries or damage caused by your car. The minimums required by most states are very low and unlikely cover a trip to the ER for 1-2 people.
Auto liability does not cover your bodily injuries or damage to your property, regardless of who caused the accident.
If your dad was really worried about what would happen to his health insurance, he shouldn't have voted for Trump.
I am not at all concerned about what will happen to your parents' health insurance.
If they voted for Trump, and they lose their health insurance, they will be getting what they deserve (and what they voted for).
No shortage of people saw/ heard Trump PROMISE " to replace Obamacare with something wonderful that will take care of everybody and the government is going to pay for it" and it factored into their voting decision.
Every POTUS fails on many campaign promises and intentions. Sometimes Congress won't play ball and that includes when POTUS and Congress majority are aligned by party. Sometimes, POTUS makes no effort to achieve some promises and intentions.
Trump's pick for HHS suggests his promise may have been nothing more than campaign rhetoric
Also, that he will make some changes to it and tell his followers/fans that it is "repealed" when it is not or the media outlets that spin on conservative issues will do this. Trump has already conceded that he would make some changes and not entirely scrap the ACA.
I personally feel we need universal healthcare but I don't believe that conservatives are truly conservative, otherwise, they would just do a single payer, universal healthcare option to take the burden of paying for healthcare off the backs of businesses.
Only thing I see Trump doing with ACA is taking away the mandate and subsidies for lower income individuals. Everything else he will leave. Poor white people will suffer the most from losing subsidies in particular.
I was worried that he would also take away the Medicaid expansion for states that opted into it, but I doubt he will do that as it will be a huge health concern for poor people in those states like Kentucky or here in Ohio where people voted him in. I think they will be POd to lose their health insurance, and if I didn't have family members on Medicaid due to the expansion, I would hope he actually did remove it so they can suffer the consequences of their votes.
What Does Everyone Think Will Happen To Obamacare?
It will go down as the biggest blunder made by any president of the United States. Obama will be known for this big LIE! (you can keep your own doctor, it will be cheap, yadda, yadda)
It will now be TrumpCare; Kids will be able to stay under the parents insurance coverage for the same amount of time as noted in Obamacare. Those with pre-existing conditions will still be covered.
BUT.....premiums will go down, we will select our own doctors, and we will be able to purchase insurance crossing state lines, if desired.
Agreed, but note that more people would voluntarily purchase health plan coverage, if it would be truly affordable.
That is the fault of the several States which mandate coverage. Mandated coverage is not free; it costs money. For example, 44 States mandate autism coverage for health plans.
In a true Free-Market, you would be able to purchase catastrophic coverage separately, just as you'd be able to purchase Emergency Room coverage separately.
You'd also be able to purchase Office Visits, prescription drug coverage, maternity coverage, gender health issue coverage and such separately.
In a true Free-Market, there would be continuous open enrollment.
Again, there is no Free-Market, because in a true Free-Market, all doctors/hospitals would be covered.
There's no such thing as "Out-of-Network" for auto insurance or home-owner insurance, or business insurance, casualty, fire or any other insurance.
" Affordable" means different things to different people.
States have and continue to regulate insurance and no two states have the same regulations. While all states have to offer Essential Services, they are not precluded from going beyond. As you mention, 44 states mandate specialized coverage for Autism. Most states mandate certain medications be covered. Sucks to be you if you need medication X and your state does not require it be covered. Some states do not require outpatient surgery be covered. Some states require insurers cover adult children through age 30.
Continuous Open Enrollment only works when the insurer is allowed to discriminate against preexisting conditions.
In versus out of network began in the 70's when the federal government mandated employers who offer a health insurance benefit to offer at least one HMO option. Non HMO insurers created the concept of in vs out of network to compete with HMOs. That was a free market reaction to HMOs.
Auto, home etc insurance pays claims based on an adjuster's estimate of damage and the average cost of local repair. Most auto repair shops will honor the payout and may challenge it if damages exceed the estimate.
Many people go their entires lives without submitting a claim against an auto or property insurer. Not the case with health insurance. Sooner or later most everyone seeks healthcare. In the middle of a heart attack or stroke, people are not concerned with costs.
I agree. It really is not easy to repeal and replace the whole thing. You cannot just go back to the old system eithier, that would throw the system into disorder and tens of millions would lose insurance. Donald trump is a negotiator, he will bargain with dems and reform the system IMO. Democrats only have enough clout to fillibuster so if trump allows the popular parts of the law to remain like no pre-existing conditions and kids on a plan till age 26 I believe dems will give in on the mandates. Still it will be tough to fix it as our health system has no easy fix and it's been messed up for a very long time.
Requiring health insurers to cover all conditions, including preexisting is joined at the hip with a mandate.
The risk pool must be balanced with sick and healthy people.
Pre ACA, most states did a lousy job as it related to preexisting conditions, begining with a definition of condition. Many states left it to the insurer's discretion.
Pre ACA, some states operated high risk insurance pools most of which were designed to exclude people. Strategies used to exclude included but we're not limited to excluding certain conditions, heart disease, Cancers, HIV/ AIDS and so on, capping enrollment, capping annual claims, charging premiums most but wealthy could not afford and so on.
At peak, only 200,000 US people were covered to some extent by state high risk pools, remarkable given some states allowed insurers to discriminate against diabetes.
Requiring health insurers to cover all conditions, including preexisting is joined at the hip with a mandate.
The risk pool must be balanced with sick and healthy people.
Pre ACA, most states did a lousy job as it related to preexisting conditions, begining with a definition of condition. Many states left it to the insurer's discretion.
Pre ACA, some states operated high risk insurance pools most of which were designed to exclude people. Strategies used to exclude included but we're not limited to excluding certain conditions, heart disease, Cancers, HIV/ AIDS and so on, capping enrollment, capping annual claims, charging premiums most but wealthy could not afford and so on.
At peak, only 200,000 US people were covered to some extent by state high risk pools, remarkable given some states allowed insurers to discriminate against diabetes.
Re the bold above, no matter how many times you say it, there are still people who simply don't get it. The ACA is a three-legged stool--mandates, coverage for preexisting conditions and subsidies. If you take away any one of those the stool collapses. Trump cannot keep the most popular part of the ACA--covering preexisting conditions--while getting rid of mandates and/or subsidies.
But no matter how often you say it, those who want desperately to believe otherwise refuse to acknowledge it.
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.
