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.
Most realize that Obamacare compliant plans have been a disaster. Rates are rising out of control, with deductibles and out-of-pocket payments that make it nearly useless anyway. Pre-O-care we could buy "major medical" insurance quite inexpensively. It did not cover day-to-day treatment. It was there to cover severe, expensive issues, things like major trauma or disease, where the cost of treatment would frequently cause bankruptcy. Since this was actually INSURANCE, not routine maintenance, it was affordable, on the order of $100-150 a month. Unfortunately the ACA made this kind of insurance illegal to offer in the United States.
So, we have states routinely ignoring federal laws. Several states have legalized weed, in spite of the fact that it's still illegal under federal law. Many others aid and abet criminal aliens, again, in defiance of federal law.
So, the question is, should the states ignore OC and just allow insurance companies to offer whatever products customers might want to buy? Major medical if you want it. And from across state lines. Lets say you're a 60 year old man-should you be able to buy insurance that doesn't cover pregnancy? Should states do what they can to ensure that their citizens have the best chance of buying the product that fits their needs? What would the feds do? After all, states flout far more serious laws every single day. If it becomes an issue, just refers to those "non-compliant" plans as "undocumented plans".
Most realize that Obamacare compliant plans have been a disaster. Rates are rising out of control, with deductibles and out-of-pocket payments that make it nearly useless anyway. Pre-O-care we could buy "major medical" insurance quite inexpensively. It did not cover day-to-day treatment. It was there to cover severe, expensive issues, things like major trauma or disease, where the cost of treatment would frequently cause bankruptcy. Since this was actually INSURANCE, not routine maintenance, it was affordable, on the order of $100-150 a month. Unfortunately the ACA made this kind of insurance illegal to offer in the United States.
So, we have states routinely ignoring federal laws. Several states have legalized weed, in spite of the fact that it's still illegal under federal law. Many others aid and abet criminal aliens, again, in defiance of federal law.
So, the question is, should the states ignore OC and just allow insurance companies to offer whatever products customers might want to buy? Major medical if you want it. And from across state lines. Lets say you're a 60 year old man-should you be able to buy insurance that doesn't cover pregnancy? Should states do what they can to ensure that their citizens have the best chance of buying the product that fits their needs? What would the feds do? After all, states flout far more serious laws every single day. If it becomes an issue, just refers to those "non-compliant" plans as "undocumented plans".
People are not remembering this well at all. The issues that drove Obamacare were costs that eclipsed people's mortgages even ten years ago and the tendency of insurance companies to take people's money for years, then drop them when they got sick by calling everything a pre-existing condition. That's what drove the issue in the first place.
The reason a lot of insurance companies are dropping out of certain geographies is because Marco Rubio persuaded the GOP to stop covering a portion of Obamacare that was like a sort of "gap coverage". It was done to destabilize Obamacare, they thought it was genius, but the result has been in some areas the insurance companies have left areas to one or no companies. Blame the GOP for that.
As for states moving toward their own plans, I fully support it. Absolutely, positively. But I think the states NEED to have the right to impose long residency requirements. Like five or ten years. This would be so people couldn't just shop states when they get sick. I'm all for my state of Washington insuring our own citizens. I'm not good with a bunch of red state refugees moving there when they get sick and ruining our averages. Ten year residency requirements ought to work well.
If states want to allow any sort of insurance policy, that would be fine. But they have to know that ten years ago, insurance companies were quite good at taking money and canceling when people got sick. I doubt my state would allow that and I'm glad.
Lets say you're a 60 year old man-should you be able to buy insurance that doesn't cover pregnancy? .
\ I'd appreciate it, as I get rather annoyed at having to pay for pregnancy coverage for my teenage sons. Not to mention their pediatric dental coverage, which they aren't entitled to use because it doesn't actually cover anyone over age 12.
People are not remembering this well at all. The issues that drove Obamacare were costs that eclipsed people's mortgages even ten years ago and the tendency of insurance companies to take people's money for years, then drop them when they got sick by calling everything a pre-existing condition. That's what drove the issue in the first place.
The reason a lot of insurance companies are dropping out of certain geographies is because Marco Rubio persuaded the GOP to stop covering a portion of Obamacare that was like a sort of "gap coverage". It was done to destabilize Obamacare, they thought it was genius, but the result has been in some areas the insurance companies have left areas to one or no companies. Blame the GOP for that.
As for states moving toward their own plans, I fully support it. Absolutely, positively. But I think the states NEED to have the right to impose long residency requirements. Like five or ten years. This would be so people couldn't just shop states when they get sick. I'm all for my state of Washington insuring our own citizens. I'm not good with a bunch of red state refugees moving there when they get sick and ruining our averages. Ten year residency requirements ought to work well.
If states want to allow any sort of insurance policy, that would be fine. But they have to know that ten years ago, insurance companies were quite good at taking money and canceling when people got sick. I doubt my state would allow that and I'm glad.
About 9 million people move from state to state every year. If all states did as suggested in your opinion that would be 90 million people in 10 years would be without health insurance. That sounds like a problem.
About 9 million people move from state to state every year. If all states did as suggested in your opinion that would be 90 million people in 10 years would be without health insurance. That sounds like a problem.
It just has to go into the equation of deciding to move. No reason my blue state should fund red state refugees. Perhaps states that offer similar coverage could form co-ops such as California, Oregon and Washington, another in New England, etc.
Most realize that Obamacare compliant plans have been a disaster. Rates are rising out of control, with deductibles and out-of-pocket payments that make it nearly useless anyway. Pre-O-care we could buy "major medical" insurance quite inexpensively. It did not cover day-to-day treatment. It was there to cover severe, expensive issues, things like major trauma or disease, where the cost of treatment would frequently cause bankruptcy. Since this was actually INSURANCE, not routine maintenance, it was affordable, on the order of $100-150 a month. Unfortunately the ACA made this kind of insurance illegal to offer in the United States.
So, we have states routinely ignoring federal laws. Several states have legalized weed, in spite of the fact that it's still illegal under federal law. Many others aid and abet criminal aliens, again, in defiance of federal law.
So, the question is, should the states ignore OC and just allow insurance companies to offer whatever products customers might want to buy? Major medical if you want it. And from across state lines. Lets say you're a 60 year old man-should you be able to buy insurance that doesn't cover pregnancy? Should states do what they can to ensure that their citizens have the best chance of buying the product that fits their needs? What would the feds do? After all, states flout far more serious laws every single day. If it becomes an issue, just refers to those "non-compliant" plans as "undocumented plans".
"So, the question is, should the states ignore OC and just allow insurance companies to offer whatever products customers might want to buy?"
It just has to go into the equation of deciding to move. No reason my blue state should fund red state refugees. Perhaps states that offer similar coverage could form co-ops such as California, Oregon and Washington, another in New England, etc.
So all the fake outrage of the Republican plan that Dems claimed would leave 25 million without out HC was just that. Fake outrage. Most people knew that. Dems are such posers but they never seem to pose as winners.
Leaving 90 million people without coverage isn't a concern ? That's nearly 1/3 of the population while under the Repubs plan its more like 3 % on the high side. The 90 million when they get sick will be in the ER getting more expensive care and driving up cost for everyone. Addressing their concerns as an after thought is very Obamacare like. The failed experiment never stops failing. Plug a hole here and spring a leak over there.
States could open the door for out of state insurance, they then would lose a stream of revenue. They would lose their ability to regulate the coverage.
The biggest problem is the Ins. Corp. do not want to go into areas with small poor populations. You see it in every state where Corp. are selling in large population counties while rural lower population counties are being dropped.
States which have not taken the Medicaid expansion are worst off in both coverage and cost.
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.
