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.
Is this something trump can use and tweak to take out prexisting conditions? I know that's the only thing he likes about Obamacare. I'll read it when I get a chance. Good job Rand, nice seeing a senator try to fix a problem instead of talk (McCain)
It'll take a lot more than just "tweaking".
As was noted above, in order to mandate that insurance companies accept people with pre-existing conditions, there needs to be a lot more money in the system. That money HAS to come from increased premium rates, the gov, and/or greatly increasing the customer base (hence the individual mandate).
I'm not defending insurance companies here, the world would be a lot closer to perfect if they disappeared.
But the simple fact is that insurance companies bar people with pre-existing conditions in order to keep premiums affordable.
As was noted above, in order to mandate that insurance companies accept people with pre-existing conditions, there needs to be a lot more money in the system. That money HAS to come from increased premium rates, the gov, and/or greatly increasing the customer base (hence the individual mandate).
I'm not defending insurance companies here, the world would be a lot closer to perfect if they disappeared.
But the simple fact is that insurance companies bar people with pre-existing conditions in order to keep premiums affordable.
The bold is the truth. I don't hate insurance companies, they are a business and their business is risky if they take people with "pre-existing conditions." They might be paying out more than they are taking in and they will run at a loss of profits, which is never good.
That is why the mandate was put into place. I think people don't understand that. You cannot have a provision to provide coverage, at an affordable rate, to people with medical conditions without having a huge pool to ensure the insurance company won't be running in the red.
Everyone who is "for" this happening - taking away the mandate, I don't think you realize that nearly everyone has a "pre-existing condition." Therefore, you going to buy insurance, you will be like many of my family and co-workers were before ACA passed - paying $800-$2000 a month for coverage just for yourself! I actually know someone who said they could not find a plan less than $1200 a month who was self-employed prior to ACA, just to cover them as an individual. They have kidney disease. So basically, they you all think that these people need to die.
It is crazy IMO.
FYI - if you take a med for pain, for high blood pressure, for cholesterol, for diabetes, for anything at all - you have a pre-existing condition. If you have eczema - you have a pre-existing condition. If you or your spouse is pregnant, that is a pre-existing condition.
Also, I asked earlier, what is going to happen to the Medicaid expansion where adults making less than $20K were covered - people who cannot afford to buy any health insurance and many of whom work part time so their employers don't offer them health coverage?
There will be block grants to the states, and they can offer subsidies for the low income people.
Or they can funnel that money into other projects like what happened with TANF block grants.
Quote:
Some of the freed-up funds were channeled to child care and welfare-to-work programs to further welfare reform efforts, particularly in TANF’s early years. But over time, states redirected a substantial portion of their TANF and MOE finds to other purposes, with some funds being used to substitute for (or “supplantâ€) existing state spending and thereby help plug holes in state budgets or free up funds for purposes unrelated to low-income families or children.
The democrats controlled congress, they could have pushed through whatever they wanted.
The democrats chose, completely on their own not to do UHC.
Democrats worked tirelessly with Republicans to develop a bill that would receive bipartisan support. Definitely no Republican support for Universal Health Care.
As it turned out, it was pointless as Republicans had no intention of working with the Democrats on this. They had other interests besides the American people.
I agree that in retrospect Democrats should have passed UHC and just got on with it.
Despite Republican attempts to undermine ACA at every turn, it has changed public perception on access to health care.
There's a yearning to go back to the good old days, but I doubt that returning to the days of poor sick people being just SOL is probably not going to work well for Republicans.
Democrats worked tirelessly with Republicans to develop a bill that would receive bipartisan support. Definitely no Republican support for Universal Health Care.
As it turned out, it was pointless as Republicans had no intention of working with the Democrats on this. They had other interests besides the American people.
I agree that in retrospect Democrats should have passed UHC and just got on with it.
Despite Republican attempts to undermine ACA at every turn, it has changed public perception on access to health care.
There's a yearning to go back to the good old days, but I doubt that returning to the days of poor sick people being just SOL is probably not going to work well for Republicans.
We'll see, won't we?
Not just the poor. Plenty of middle-income people have been beggared by the cost of, for instance, cancer. Even though they thought their insurance was good.
Not just the poor. Plenty of middle-income people have been beggared by the cost of, for instance, cancer. Even though they thought their insurance was good.
ITA with this. Middle income Americans, not even my own family, can afford cancer treatment out of pocket if they buy a crappy plan and find out it has a "lifetime limit" of only $100k. Cancer treatment, hell even diabetes complications within a year can cost over $100k.
I think people also are not considering that ACA provides an "unlimited lifetime limit" meaning that you have not cut off dollar figure where your insurance company won't pay for your medical care anymore.
Its sad how ignorant people are about insurance and how it used to be before ACA to even think that they can just keep "pre-existing conditions" without an unlimited lifetime maximum is silly. Someone with kidney disease, heart disease, diabetes, or even if they get in a bad car accident can lose coverage for the rest of their life even with an employer plan that has a lifetime limit of $100k-$1 million.
Rand Paul has released a plan to replace Obamacare. Looks pretty good to me, but I think it will be a tough sell to the Democrats by removing the pre-existing conditions. Besides that I don't see anything controversial and I would support it. Republican Health-Care Plan: Rand Paul Makes a Good Start | National Review
Just for fun I will make this a public poll to see who supports it and who doesn't.
The issue of pre-existing conditions is a tough one.
On the one hand, we need to see people who are sick, receive health care treatment.
But on the other hand, we don't want the leeches of society to take advantage of all the rest of us. If they avoid paying for coverage, and then demand health care coverage when they are sick, only to dump paying for coverage again when they well, rinse - repeat.
In my opinion, people are in one of three medical states all our lives. Either:
The issue of pre-existing conditions is a tough one.
On the one hand, we need to see people who are sick, receive health care treatment.
But on the other hand, we don't want the leeches of society to take advantage of all the rest of us. If they avoid paying for coverage, and then demand health care coverage when they are sick, only to dump paying for coverage again when they well, rinse - repeat.
In my opinion, people are in one of three medical states all our lives. Either:
We are sick now
We were sick in the past
Or we will be sick one day in the future
How can we deny care for 2/3 of the time?
No ones really denying care for them. Well except for the VA. Hows that working out?
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.
