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.
Insurers must give six months notice before cancelling exchange polices, and as such many are sending out notices *now* (June/July makes that six month mark countdown), because of the uncertainty coming out of Washington, D.C.
Unless something is done within the next several weeks my guess is all insurers will begin pulling out of ACA because they just don't know what is coming down the pike.
Now this may or may not be what His Orangeness and GOP want, but if this happens they will certainly own the consequences and repercussions. DT not ever having held public office previously and or not a "politician" may not care; but senators and Congressmen who are up in 2018 or even 2020 most certainly do.
All this partisan posturing is camouflage for the real issue - the intrinsic tax that is part of the "Unaffordable" Care Act.
If they just REPEAL ObamaCare, it also wipes out that tax (which the Supremes ruled as "constitutional") and the compulsory requirement to buy insurance - or pay a tax penalty.
Of course, all insurance is gambling. They bet you won't get sick - you bet you will.
But once insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, it ceases to be gambling.
Instead, it's a SUCKER POOL where the healthy pay for the sick.
And then there's that pesky issue of "voluntary" participation in Socialist InSecurity that makes the AHCA "legal." Remember, under American law, no endowed right can be subject to a tax. Only government privileges can be taxable. So when one volunteers into FICA, it comes with a host of taxes and obligations... which now includes mandatory private insurance.
If one is NOT a taxpayer, NOT a participant in SocSec, there is no way to penalize one who does not comply. That's why the Supremes ruled the whole mess as "constitutional." He who consents cannot object. The only remedy is to withdraw consent.
You didn't read the fine print when you signed up for FICA? OOPS.
Remember this - it is NOT insurance, and you didn't pay into a trust fund. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. The benefits are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
Of course, if Americans withdrew from FICA, that would collapse the economy. But that's a whole nuther topic.
Can't read all that. But your question has a simple answer...
You can't replace a what... 20,000 page policy? that is the cornerstone of our healthcare system with nothing.
So when was a hospital room $4? I noted in one of your other posts that it was around 1930, the height of the depression. Don't you think that's disingenuous?[There was a post-war post-depression figure as well.] There are a plethora of reasons why hospital stays are what they are today, overpriced for sure, but the culprit isn't solely on government. [Who else caused inflation, legislated malpractice "remedy," allowed insurers to skim billions, and imposed taxes and bureaucratic overhead?]
Sure, medical was cheaper in the early 20th century, but lifespan was only about 60 yrs. old, doctors didn't carry $20k of malpractice insurance, nurses didn't need 6 yrs of medical school, cancer was certain death, technology was limited. [Were advances because of government or in spite of government?]
Most hospitals were run as charities through religious organizations, who ruled and regulated through the dogma of their brand of religion. [Hatred of private charity, eh? I can not recall one instance where a Catholic hospital imposed their religious beliefs on the sick they tended.]
You say, let there be a free market, OK, why hasn't that been an option by either party? The health care industry lobbyists aren't there to get rid of regulation and government intervention, so are they influencing government to regulate in their best interest? So, is our health care costs higher than the rest of the world because the government regulates, or that the lobbyists are paying for that regulation? Maybe they don't want a free market.[Actually, since government criminalized the unlicensed trade, there has been no "Free market" nor "right" to healthcare for generations.]
DEATH SENTENCE by NHS bureaucracy
Charlie Gard was born last year with encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, or MDDS. It has left him crippled and with brain damage. He depends on a ventilator to keep him alive.
The (socialist) British NHS has decided that it will not treat Charlie anymore, although his parents desperately want to save and nurture their son.
Even worse, the NHS refuses to release Charlie into the care of his parents. Charlie’s mother and father want to bring him to America for an experimental treatment that could help his body work more normally. They have even, through an appeal for charitable donations, raised enough money to bring their son here and get him treated. But the NHS has said it will not release the child, and every court has agreed. Talk about death panels, these courts are exactly that.
How dare parents try to save their child when the all-powerful bureaucracy deems otherwise !
Glorious National Health Service might get a black eye if the parents succeeded in getting better treatment for their child.
DEATH SENTENCE by NHS bureaucracy
Charlie Gard was born last year with encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, or MDDS. It has left him crippled and with brain damage. He depends on a ventilator to keep him alive.
The (socialist) British NHS has decided that it will not treat Charlie anymore, although his parents desperately want to save and nurture their son.
Even worse, the NHS refuses to release Charlie into the care of his parents. Charlie’s mother and father want to bring him to America for an experimental treatment that could help his body work more normally. They have even, through an appeal for charitable donations, raised enough money to bring their son here and get him treated. But the NHS has said it will not release the child, and every court has agreed. Talk about death panels, these courts are exactly that.
How dare parents try to save their child when the all-powerful bureaucracy deems otherwise !
Glorious National Health Service might get a black eye if the parents succeeded in getting better treatment for their child.
Sorry but that is all hogwash. It has always been that the courts will protect a child from the parents if it is in the child's best interest. To maintain life with immense pain and no potential chance of recovery is simply cruelty and the courts should not allow it.
The parent is not all powerful. They have no right to torture their children..
You mean, the people that can no longer afford insurance because the Obamacare mandates made premiums and deductibles unaffordable?
Stop trying to pretend Obamacare is what drove the price of insurance up. It's been inflating for YEARS. Since you seem to think it all started with the ACA, what was driving it up before? Or are you just regurgitating a Tea Party talking point that's been proven to be a lie?
Insurers must give six months notice before cancelling exchange polices, and as such many are sending out notices *now* (June/July makes that six month mark countdown), because of the uncertainty coming out of Washington, D.C.
Unless something is done within the next several weeks my guess is all insurers will begin pulling out of ACA because they just don't know what is coming down the pike.
Now this may or may not be what His Orangeness and GOP want, but if this happens they will certainly own the consequences and repercussions. DT not ever having held public office previously and or not a "politician" may not care; but senators and Congressmen who are up in 2018 or even 2020 most certainly do.
That's exactly what the GOP wants. No clue about Trump because who knows how much he even cares. Republicans won't come up with a better alternative, because the only better alternative is some sort of government backed universal coverage plan, so they will make the ACA collapse by not committing to the reimbursements to insurance companies. They can then blame it on "Obamacare" and pass thier awful cruel bill, or just let things get worse.
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that if his party fails to muster 50 votes for its plan to rewrite the Affordable Care Act, it will have no choice but to draft a more modest bill with Democrats to support the law’s existing insurance markets."
I would hope so. You have a structure, improve it.
I will add, I think they should jettison the 'age 26 and under' rule regarding staying on parent's insurance (unless said 'child' is in college). I see no reason why people, like my nephews when they were working at age 22 or 23, and healthy as can be, should not have health insurance. Heck, I did back in college (which was fortunate, since I developed hypertension soon afterwards).
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.
