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.
Give Marco Rubio this: His mathematics are sound. The U.S. population is about 321 million people, which means the 23 million human beings set to lose access to basic health insurance under the GOP's Obamacare repeal plan are, indeed, only about 7 percent of all Americans.
So — in terms of pure numbers — Rubio was right on when he defended the Republican plan by noting that just "a small percentage of the overall population" would be affected by his party's mad rush to dismantle Obama's health-care plan
“It also doesn’t impact anyone that’s getting insurance from Medicare. Medicare is not being touched in all of this. So what we’re primarily focused on are two things – Medicaid and the individual market place. That is a small percentage of the overall population, but it’s a significant number of people, millions of people.
“So what are my goals? Number one is I want Florida to be treated fairly when it comes to Medicaid. I want to make sure we are not penalized because we didn’t expand. And I want to make sure what other funding formula there is for Medicaid treats Florida fairly but allows it to continue to operate in an innovative way so that we don’t just get more coverage for people but that we get people coverage that actually is better for their health, gets better outcomes.”
The McClatchy Paper (anti-Republican) is putting words in Rubio's mouth.
Nobody is losing healthcare. Some people will just choose not to buy it . Has always been this way.
If essential benefits are no longer mandated, even people with employer-provided healthcare will lose benefits. If lifetimes limits are imposed, people will lose healthcare.
“It also doesn’t impact anyone that’s getting insurance from Medicare. Medicare is not being touched in all of this. So what we’re primarily focused on are two things – Medicaid and the individual market place. That is a small percentage of the overall population, but it’s a significant number of people, millions of people.
“So what are my goals? Number one is I want Florida to be treated fairly when it comes to Medicaid. I want to make sure we are not penalized because we didn’t expand. And I want to make sure what other funding formula there is for Medicaid treats Florida fairly but allows it to continue to operate in an innovative way so that we don’t just get more coverage for people but that we get people coverage that actually is better for their health, gets better outcomes.”
The McClatchy Paper (anti-Republican) is putting words in Rubio's mouth.
Thanks for proving the point. Yep, he calls millions of Americans a "small percentage". Like my link noted, he is technically correct, that the percentage is small, but its still millions of Americans.
If essential benefits are no longer mandated, even people with employer-provided healthcare will lose benefits. If lifetimes limits are imposed, people will lose healthcare.
Incorrect. Rubio addressed that too. Also not in that article.
The second thing is what we are talking about here. We’re not talking about the commercial plans, because by and large, most Americans, including many of you, get your health insurance from the place where you work. This does not really impact you in terms of the premiums going down hopefully. But none of these things that we’re talking about impact people that are getting insurance from their job.
It's a widely embraced business concept that the 100% solution isn't cost effective. In fact, the point of diminishing returns is around 80%. At 93%, we should call the health care situation a success and focus on more important issues. Rubio is correct.
Obamacare required every health plan to cover certain essential benefits -- everything from maternity and hospital care to prescription drugs and mental health. Both the Senate and House bill would allow states to redefine what qualifies as an "essential" element of a health care plan. Before Obamacare, insurers could sell coverage that didn't cover things like mental health or prescription drugs. By stripping out these benefits, insurance premiums would in certain cases becomes cheaper. But policies would also cover fewer services.
Most Americans actually get their health insurance through an employer and not through the government or health insurance exchanges. Both the House and Senate bill would strip the Obamacare provision requiring larger employers to provide affordable coverage
Obamacare guarantees coverage even for people with pre-existing conditions and bans insurers from charging people based on their health. The House bill would allow states to opt out of the latter provision. The Senate bill does not, but -- as explained below -- insurers could provide skimpier coverage in states that get waivers for essential health benefits.
The Senate health-care bill will reportedly retain the House’s language allowing states to opt out of Obamacare’s essential-benefits requirements. This would free insurers to, among other things, sell plans that impose annual and/or lifetime limits on coverage benefits in some red states.
But it would also free America’s large employers to impose such limits on all of their workers, no matter what state they reside in. This is because, under existing regulations, employers that have operations in multiple states can chose to apply any one of those state’s insurance standards to all their businesses. In other words, if Utah allows insurers to cap lifetime benefits at $1 million — and a company has branches in Utah and California — then that company can ignore California’s ban on such limits and impose them on all their Golden State employees.
Nobody is losing healthcare. Some people will just choose not to buy it . Has always been this way.
Exactly, but to liberals heathcare is a right, not an earned benefit for working. I remember the first time I was offered such benefits, or a greater hourly wage. As a young healthy single man, I chose the high wage. I was surprised the first time I accepted a job, but the benefit package was not optional for higher wages. I was pissed because I didn't need insurace. If I got hurt on the job, I was covered. If I got hurt in an accident I was covered. The only time I was not covered was playing sports or at home. So if I got hurt during those times, I'd just pay my bill. I still came out ahead in the long run by not having insurace and making more money.
That of course all changed as I climbed the ladder and started a family.
Those without insurance (typically poor people) but want it, have always had access to healthcare via Medicaid.
Those who are indigent/homeless could get coverage at city and state run medical clinics and hospitals. Sure we taxpayers subsidized it, but no one was dragging around unset broken legs or dying due to not getting definitive care.
They just didn't get certain perks like a choice of MD's/facilities or private rooms.
Those type of benefits should be for those who work or have worked their whole lives to not only provide coverage for their families, but also paid for the poor and others to receive care via their taxes.
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.
