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.
Yup. Lose your job, or have something that causes you to not be able to pay for insurance for a couple months? No insurance for you for 6 months.
I understand the desired purpose, however the results will kill people. Sick people often have a hard time keeping their employment. This change will kill many of those.
Ok, so my option right now is go to the ObamaCare marketplace.
But wait, there's only one provider and it will cost me $800/mo with a $7,000 deductible. Is THAT the answer, liberals?
This is a sad state of affairs for people for sure. I am not rich but realize my choices are MINE and do not expect others to foot any bill for me.
I realize the choices are mine as well, but I also realize that for a society to survive, we must be concerned for our fellow citizens as well. People have footed the bill for me (public school) and other people since the beginning of time! When did we become a society that embraces the "hooray for me and the h*ll with you mentality"? That's the Ayn Rand philosophy personified! She died living on her social security that she despised! Karma ...at its best!
I realize the choices are mine as well, but I also realize that for a society to survive, we must be concerned for our fellow citizens as well. People have footed the bill for me (public school) and other people since the beginning of time! When did we become a society that embraces the "hooray for me and the h*ll with you mentality"? That's the Ayn Rand philosophy personified! She died living on her social security that she despised! Karma ...at its best!
Why is it that there is only one extreme or the other? Is it too much to expect a middle ground where most of the population lives within their means and supports themselves while also contributing to society?
Why should I pay for healthcare for someone else who does not make sound financial choices?
well the easy answer is because that is the moral choice. If you have a god that god already told you to. So clearly you are not religious in anyway at all. (which is absolutely fine)
Other reasons are, that requiring 100% of people to have coverage means your cost DROPS overall. Yes for some time you pay more, but you later pay LESS. It is really easy to understand, so if you don't understand it at this point, you are simply entering the land of willful ignorance.
by ensuring the poor have access to healthcare coverage, and importantly good preventative coverage we reduce the cost of covering those folk long term. a stitch in time save nine etc...
And by the way you pay for people who do not make sound choices everyday of your life. If you have good care insurance half of it is made up coverage for people too stupid to have enough coverage. If you have a unlimited cell plan you are either making out on it and someone else is paying your overage, or you are paying someone elses.
i used to be a manufacturer we made money on some customers and lost on others. If we did not have the costly customers YOUR price would have been lower.
Insurance is cheaper when everyone is on it. this should not be so hard for you to understand. YOUR bill goes down when mr dumbassy is forced to have insurance by law. And it goes down when mr poorassy gets free preventative coverage etc , because you don't end up having him in the emergency room 38 times...
doubt it? look at how much most other advanced nations pay per person and they have good systems for all and super duper systems for those who want that level of coverage ..
well the easy answer is because that is the moral choice. If you have a god that god already told you to. So clearly you are not religious in anyway at all. (which is absolutely fine)
Other reasons are, that requiring 100% of people to have coverage means your cost DROPS overall. Yes for some time you pay more, but you later pay LESS. It is really easy to understand, so if you don't understand it at this point, you are simply entering the land of willful ignorance.
Do not assume anything about me because I am fully for helping the poor and truly unable.
And please tell the bolded to people who currently have Obamacare. Other nations may have ok healthcare but why do those that can afford it come here for services instead?
The fact is I do not trust our government to handle anything of this magnitude properly or efficiently.
well the easy answer is because that is the moral choice. If you have a god that god already told you to. So clearly you are not religious in anyway at all. (which is absolutely fine)
Other reasons are, that requiring 100% of people to have coverage means your cost DROPS overall. Yes for some time you pay more, but you later pay LESS. It is really easy to understand, so if you don't understand it at this point, you are simply entering the land of willful ignorance.
by ensuring the poor have access to healthcare coverage, and importantly good preventative coverage we reduce the cost of covering those folk long term. a stitch in time save nine etc...
And by the way you pay for people who do not make sound choices everyday of your life. If you have good care insurance half of it is made up coverage for people too stupid to have enough coverage. If you have a unlimited cell plan you are either making out on it and someone else is paying your overage, or you are paying someone elses.
i used to be a manufacturer we made money on some customers and lost on others. If we did not have the costly customers YOUR price would have been lower.
Insurance is cheaper when everyone is on it. this should not be so hard for you to understand. YOUR bill goes down when mr dumbassy is forced to have insurance by law. And it goes down when mr poorassy gets free preventative coverage etc , because you don't end up having him in the emergency room 38 times...
doubt it? look at how much most other advanced nations pay per person and they have good systems for all and super duper systems for those who want that level of coverage ..
I'm with you on the moral choice, but not on the cost drop argument. You mention 'other advanced nations', and I can tell you (born and raised in Europe) the horrors of European Health Care.
But moral choice: a lot of liberals are defending the poor. How about me, the middle class? I don't get any subsidies and if I would need to shop for ACA I would get an insurance with a 5 figure or close to deductible, and a 4 figure or close to monthly premium. Before ACA I had a lot more options.
THAT is the reason why the majority of Americans reject ACA, threw Dems out of the Congress/Senate and elected President Trump.
Is the AHCA the solution? No, it's a compromise. But it's a million times better than ACA.
People on breadlines are qualifying for Medicaid so your post is disingenuous. Of course COBRA is not free. Neither is health care.
perhaps "breadline" is a poor choice of words, but you knew dam well i meant working poor who DO NOT qualify for medicaid and you know dman well that millions of people who lose their jobs don't get medicaid.
The post you wrote that i responded to pretended that everyone could simply buy COBRA and solve the problem, ie you were being extremely "disingenuous" , maybe that is why you assumed i was???
Why are these people not buying COBRA once they leave an employer until they are firmly set into another job? These are not the people who are qualifying for Medicaid obviously. Savings are meant for situations just like that. If you have medical issues already you should be proactive in your own situation and not expect the government to bail you out.
Well, I will tell you why not.
My husband makes a very good salary, but when he was laid off for six months last year, we went on COBRA because he was told there was a good chance he would be recalled. (He was, thankfully.) BUT, for the months that he was on unemployment, his income was reduced by more than half plus our COBRA payments were about twice as much as what had been deducted from his paycheck for our health insurance. So, in essence, we almost 3/4 of our income.
Now, thankfully, I was able to get a job (I had retired early), and I started my Social Security earlier than what we planned, so that made up the difference in our lost income (and, btw, we also have considerable savings) -- but what about those people who are younger, who do NOT have savings and are laid off?
As people say, there but for the grace of God -- [or Providence or fate or luck] -- go I.
Do not assume anything about me because I am fully for helping the poor and truly unable.
And please tell the bolded to people who currently have Obamacare.
This is definitely a legitimate criticism of ACA and something that needs to be fixed. Theoretically, it's absolutely true that the bigger a risk pool is, the less expensive it should be for each person. But in actuality, when you have pockets of the country where there's a really high number of unhealthy people, the healthy ones in that pool are absorbing a lot of costs they wouldn't otherwise.
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.
