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. But I was simply addressing the factual basis of that person's statement. The general takeaway from the CBO report was that premiums would be lower but less people covered and if a state did not employ high risk pools, the sickest could go without any healthcare.
It also removes the mandated essential health benefits provided by the ACA. That means that those reduced premiums come at the cost of actual health coverage. So on paper the lower premiums look like a win for consumers, but it will end up costing them a whole lot more in the long run.
It also removes the mandated essential health benefits provided by the ACA. That means that those reduced premiums come at the cost of actual health coverage. So on paper the lower premiums look like a win for consumers, but it will end up costing them a whole lot more in the long run.
It's a FACT that the Republican proposal eliminates the AHCA taxes. It's also a fact that the overwhelming percentage of the AHCA taxes affect single filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) above $200,000 and married couples filing jointly above $250,000. Some of the taxes don’t kick in until single AGI hits $400,000 and married filing jointly AGI hits $450,000.
I didn't and don't agree with AHCA or its taxes. But let's not pretend that the goal of the Republican proposal is anything more than a repeal of the AHCA taxes. The proposal does nothing to lower costs of usable/effective coverage. Yes, the proposal allows States to waive AHCA requirements that currently prevent insurance providers from offering cheap plans that cover virtually nothing, and it allows States to waive the AHCA requirements that currently prevent insurance companies from charging older and sicker people (including pregnant women) much more for their health coverage. But the proposal does nothing at all to tackle the drivers of health care costs in this country.
It also removes the mandated essential health benefits provided by the ACA. That means that those reduced premiums come at the cost of actual health coverage. So on paper the lower premiums look like a win for consumers, but it will end up costing them a whole lot more in the long run.
Yep, if me or my 57 year old wife get pregnant we might not be covered.
I know I cut down on my doctors visits when I was uninsured.
From what I understand, the American conservative argument is that expanding access to healthcare would be a problem because if more people got help there would be more wait times. So their only solution is to make medicine and healthcare cost prohibitive to discourage sick/injured people from seeking help?
From what I understand, the American conservative argument is that expanding access to healthcare would be a problem because if more people got help there would be more wait times. So their only solution is to make medicine and healthcare cost prohibitive to discourage sick/injured people from seeking help?
Here in Alabama, our premiums went up about 223% over the last few years.....who's policies made that happen? It was NOT any conservative argument....it was dems....
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.
