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... back in the good ole days when everything was cheaper and you didn't need two incomes to cover basic necessities.
As I remind my mother often, today I make the same exact salary as she made in the early 80's yet my car costs 4 times the amount, and my housing is 6 times the cost of the comparable home she bought in 1985.
Back in the good old days when my dad earned $450 a month and the mortgage was only $215/month and he only had 4 kids a wife to feed, clothe and shelter? Yeah, those good old days. And medical bills still burdened their budget.
But you keep telling yourself that everyone else has it easy and are lucky. Only you are the victim, right?
I have made my needs know for years, and my local social services office has been the only "charity" to step up and meet my needs over the years.
I do not have a religious bone in my body. I think religion is a nasty cult and the bible is a fictional piece wrote by a crazy man thousands of years ago .
Maybe your religion is government. You don't seem to mind the government forcing those evil cultists to pay for your social services. Typical.
If an administration can implement ACA, they can implement pre-existing coverage.
Yes the unapproved insurance does. Why must everyone have the same coverage? I'm well beyond childbearing, why do I need maternity and birth control coverage. What if I just need catastrophic insurance coverage? A co-worker and her husband have private family health coverage tailored to fit their needs but for whatever it is not approved by OBC so they not only pay monthly premiums but about $1,000 fine yearly. How is it you or anyone else can make a decision on what someone else insurance covers or what is right for them.
Why do we need a system and why should healthy people who don't need or want coverage they offered pay into the system to cover other peoples health care for free? We already had programs to assist the poor with health coverage.
Well the problems is some of those young healthy people at some point become old and sick, there isn't a health plan on the market that could survive without young people, the ACA is no different. Already been asked, how will the GOP plan insure those with preexisting conditions, where does that funding come from?
Most plans are very broad and include maternity coverage and other items, trying to adapt to each person complicates the system. There needs to be some basic standard for national health care insurance, people need to be covered when they become sick.
If an administration can implement ACA, they can implement pre-existing coverage.
Yes the unapproved insurance does. Why must everyone have the same coverage? I'm well beyond childbearing, why do I need maternity and birth control coverage. What if I just need catastrophic insurance coverage? A co-worker and her husband have private family health coverage tailored to fit their needs but for whatever it is not approved by OBC so they not only pay monthly premiums but about $1,000 fine yearly. How is it you or anyone else can make a decision on what someone else insurance covers or what is right for them.
Why do we need a system and why should healthy people who don't need or want coverage they offered pay into the system to cover other peoples health care for free? We already had programs to assist the poor with health coverage.
Not the best example, but : So, I'm a pretty good driver and in many years and hundreds of thousands of miles I never caused an accident. Why do I need liability coverage? Can I go without? I guess I could, if I wanted to lose my license.
The healthy people will get sick eventually. Having them pay earlier just distributes expenses over lifetime.
Also what about other stuff - somebody is young/healthy/no insurance goes rock climbing, breaks spine. Who would pay for that? And in terms of tailoring, could be done to a certain extent, but what if a young person decides that cancer is unlikely at this age and seeks no coverage for that, but it happens, who will pay then?
But yes, the coverage cost should depend on age. On general healthiness? That's a though one, plenty of things can happen even if somebody is in great shape.
About maternity /birth control. Well, if insurance companies know what they are doing, this coverage even if included should have essentially zero contribution to your premium. Considering that their risk that you would actually ever use it is very low.
Yes, they just walk into ER and have others pick up the bill.
This is false. It's the propaganda point the left has been promoting, which is dutifully regurgitated by the mouthpieces of the left.
If I am uninsured and walk into an ER for treatment, I will get treatment under EMTALA, assuming I meet the criteria of the statute. After I am discharged home, the hospital will send ME a bill for the services rendered. The bill will not go to the federal government, it will not go to the state government, it will not go to any other taxpayer. If I do not pay the bill, the hospital has lawyers that will try to collect the bill. If and only if I have no job and no collectable assets will the hospital be forced to write off the bill.
If THAT situation happens, then the hospital has to absorb the cost of the bills, which is perhaps absorbed in the rates negotiated with federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but also absorbed by private pay clients (insurers and individuals alike).
But no, the bills of the uninsured are not "paid for" by the government. There are higher costs when people do not pay their medical bills, but the bills remain collectible until the individual who received the services that were billed for either declares bankruptcy, dies, or the statute of limitations runs out. In sum, there is still a theoretical assumption under the pre-ACA system that individuals incurring medical bills are responsible for paying them.
As with every other aspect of life, the left wants to remove accountability and personal responsibility from the equation, thus we get half-baked schemes like the Affordable Care Act, which serve as the left's mechanism of controlling people who they believe are incapable of running their own lives. It's more of the cradle to grave nanny state mentality that makes liberalism so disgustingly paternalistic.
Well the problems is some of those young healthy people at some point become old and sick, there isn't a health plan on the market that could survive without young people, the ACA is no different. Already been asked, how will the GOP plan insure those with preexisting conditions, where does that funding come from?
The problem is the idea of national health care system.
Things were working before the current ACA.
Where does any funding come from. Taxes. We are being taxed now to cover health care for those with low income. Extend that funding to cover those with pre-existing conditions. That is what our state medical program does. Before my small company offered health insurance coverage we had two employees, one with diabetes and the other diagnosed with some bipolar disorder. Neither could get private coverage because their conditions were considered preexisting, therefore they qualified for coverage under TNcare. Due to their income they still paid a monthly premium but could not be denied coverage.
Quote:
Most plans are very broad and include maternity coverage and other items, trying to adapt to each person complicates the system. There needs to be some basic standard for national health care insurance, people need to be covered when they become sick.
Not so. Most plans have choices of coverage and companies decide on the best fit for their employees. Maternity was once considered a rider not a requirement. If you have no employees of childbearing age why are you required to cover maternity. If no employee has children why are you required to cover pediatrics. If you are young and healthy why cant you choose catastrophic coverage.
Insurance coverage should be an individuals choice not something dictated by the government.
Ah, So it gets back to the taxpayers anyway. A victory for socialized medicine.
There are walk in clinics all over the place which cost much less than going into an ER
Some very good things came from Obamacare and this is one of them
My question is whether they will still be funded though they save taxpayers a ton of money
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.
.
