• filter:
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
My ACA plan monthly premium for next year has gone up by 1/3rd more than it was last year (which, in turn, was actually double the cost that it was in the first year).

However, it is still so much better than I could ever have gotten as an individual open-market customer in my particular state and in my situation, so I'm not complaining and I'm very grateful for it.

However, I have unwillingly acquired some significant health "conditions" in the last few years (which means that they are "pre-existing" now, I suppose), and I am wondering what is going to happen at the end of January 2017 -- I don't understand what the new president has pledged to do, and what he legally and practically will be able to do, especially in the first part of 2017....

Can someone explain to me -- what realistically might happen to Obamacare at the end of January?

Or, say, in the first quarter of 2017?
In the first half of 2017?
In the whole of 2017?

If it's very likely that the entire marketplace insurance scheme will be totally cancelled at the end of January 2017 and immediately closed down, then I shouldn't even pay my January 1st installment, which is a lot.

[I couldn't get any doctor appts for January anyway (I've already got my "expected" appointments scheduled for the first six months of the next year, since my health providers are so swamped with patients now).]

I know that VP-elect Mike Pence has been VERY against Obamacare, even bringing a case about it to the Supreme Court....

=========
"...the signature legislative achievement of the Obama years – the Affordable Care Act – is now certain to come under attack from the incoming Trump administration. The president-elect has made it a mantra of his 18 months on the campaign trail that on day one in the White House he would ask Congress to repeal the legislation.
Trump has been less energetic in setting out how he would provide for the almost 13 million people who are currently in receipt of health insurance through Obamacare.
He has also promised to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions, without saying how he would pay for that.
But given the Trump campaign’s assault on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s key piece of legislation must now be seen to be mortally threatened."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/president-donald-trump-barack-obama-legacy 

"If he successfully repeals the law, which is unlikely, it would disproportionately affect low-income people, according to multiple analyses. The number of uninsured individuals would increase by 16m to 25m, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a research group. It would also increase the federal deficit, according to the same analysis, because the end of Obamacare means the end of taxes the health reform law brings in – adding about $33bn more to the deficit in the first year.
There is also the question of what replaces Obamacare. The closest thing the Republicans have to a substitute is a blueprint created by the House speaker, Paul Ryan, who has a rocky relationship with the president-elect.
For these reasons and more, it is unlikely Trump would get the congressional approval needed to actually repeal the law, though he and the Republican-dominated Congress could tear away at some of its key provisions. The rest of his health proposals are similarly chaotic.
Trump’s seven-point plan for healthcare includes allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines (allowing for greater variation in insurance regulations), deduct health insurance premiums from their tax returns and use health savings accounts.
He also aims to require price transparency from healthcare providers, allow more drugs to be imported from overseas and give block grants for Medicaid to states. And his plan would reduce access to abortion, contraception and preventative care.
Trump’s ideas “bewilder” establishment GOP health experts such as Robert Laszewski, who told the New York Times in April that the proposals were “a jumbled hodgepodge of old Republican ideas, randomly selected, that don’t fit together”. "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-president-policy-immigration-agenda-healthcare 

Moderator Comment: Thank you for your participation. Please note that there is a similar discussion about this topic Here. — Nov. 11, 2016 @ 7:09am
Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Strictly going off his plan on his website (yes I know it won't plan out like that). We have at least a direction at wha... (more)

InFlamed (Dec. 05, 2016 @ 11:57a) |

Except when you have a car warranty and you don't do the maintenance then you don't get your engine replaced.  

With medi... (more)

RedWolfe01 (Dec. 05, 2016 @ 2:18p) |

You have to think about things a bit more realistically from an insurance perspective though.

Can I go without car insura... (more)

justignoredem (Dec. 05, 2016 @ 2:24p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
No one knows, realistically, nothing CAN much happen until 2018, per the regulatory talking heads I heard.

rated:
I'll tell you the most likely scenario. GOP will repeal ACA with a 2 year time delay before it goes into effect (some time after the 2018 mid-term elections to minimize the political fallout). The time delay will be worded so that it gives Congress time to pass another healthcare law but nothing will end up getting done in those 2 years. We will revert to what it was like before ACA in late 2018.

rated:
Don't worry, whatever he replaces it with is going to be fantastic. If it isn't, lots of people will start complaining and it won't pass. You're probably safe for at least a year, it takes a while to pass a bill and for it to become law. It's going to be one year at a time at this stage because the plan you sign up for is good for the year.

rated:
henry33 said:   Don't worry, whatever he replaces it with is going to be fantastic. 
  
I don't see how Congress is going to agree on a replacement. They will definitely repeal but not replace. Obama had a hard enough time getting ACA passed even though the democrats had greater majorities than the GOP does now.  

rated:
For 2017? Very likely nothing, especially because insurance is a contract for the year.

Following that? There are a variety of things, but a lot of the features of the bill are going to be hard to cancel. There are a few Republican senators who have particular pet issues within the bill that have voted for repeals in the past, knowing that they'd be vetoed. As it is, repealing parts of it is more likely to be piecemeal and to take an extended period of time.

rated:
oppidum said:   For these reasons and more, it is unlikely Trump would get the congressional approval needed to actually repeal the law, though he and the Republican-dominated Congress could tear away at some of its key provisions.
Trump does not need to get the law repealed; he and Congress will simply defund it.

rated:
Some parts of the law will get repealed, while others (probably the majority) will remain. After you gave 20 million people insurance, you simply can't take it away from them anymore. Here are my personal preditions:

- Individual mandate will be repealed. Overall effect will be disastrous. More people need to participate, especially healthy ones
- Requirement to cover pre-existing conditions will remain, too much public support
- Premiums will be tax deductive - this will put non-employer plans and plans through your employer on equal footing
- Probably some limitation to medical malpractice and liability will be introduced
- HSAs will play a bigger role in health spending
- Hopefully some transparency will be introduced around pricing and consumers will be encouraged to shop around
- Buying insurance across state lines, or perhaps if they are bold enough, maybe allow the same plans to be sold at a national level, instead of at a state level. This should also give insurance companies more negotiating powers with hospitals and drug companies
- Some regulation at the FDA could be removed to encourage companies to develop medical devices, drugs, etc

rated:
nasheedb said:   - HSAs will play a bigger role in health spending

 

  How can i play bigger role, deductibles are already high? Where is the money coming from? How are people who (suposedly) can't afford the premiums supposed to fund their HSA? 

rated:
I know that we've all just been through a long, nasty and painful election cycle with a rather unexpected election result and have gotten accustomed to seeing the two parties' ideas as very black and white. We certainly don't know exactly what's going to happen, but for what it's worth the R's have had detailed ACA replacement plans for quite some time that take a different path than the ACA, but ultimately get you to the same destination.

If you look at Paul Ryan's detailed healthcare proposal on his website (http://paulryan.house.gov/healthcare/), for instance, it contains a ton of things that have been on both parties' wishlists for quite some time. For instance, under his proposal, all people would have the same standard health benefits as Members of Congress. His proposal also removes the tax deduction for employer provided healthcare and, instead, provides an advanceable and refundable tax credit of $2,300 per individual or $5,700 per family, which can only be used towards healthcare. This would go a long way towards disentangling healthcare from the employers to provide people a lot more flexibility, and would also benefit a lot of lower and middle class people who do not currently benefit as much from the tax advantaged nature of the employer provided healthcare. 

Please note that we've been discussing this topic in the following thread (just scroll down to the 11/10 and later posts): https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/topic_view.php?catid=52&threadid=1537507&start=100 

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
nasheedb said:   - HSAs will play a bigger role in health spending

 

  How can i play bigger role, deductibles are already high? Where is the money coming from? How are people who (suposedly) can't afford the premiums supposed to fund their HSA? 

  
With the combination of additional transparency, consumers will hopefully have greater knowledge and greater control over their healthcare spending. 

rated:
The Washington Examiner would be considered, I think, a more right-leaning source.  However, in the wake of Tuesday's election surprise, do not discount such sources of news.  They now oftentimes will have far better insights than the mainstream media, simply because our American mainstream media does not have on staff many people able even to understand conservative viewpoints:

Five things that can happen right away to the ACA 

I mean, let's face fact, not too long prior to Tuesday, at least one mainstream source was predicting a Clinton victory by TWELVE points!!  Looking back, just how credible was THAT!!   

rated:
Another twist to this is that Ryan wants to privatize Medicare as part of the repeal of ACA. That should be interesting -- well over 50M people on Medicare, including 45M 65+.

rated:
nasheedb said:   Some parts of the law will get repealed, while others (probably the majority) will remain. After you gave 20 million people insurance, you simply can't take it away from them anymore. Here are my personal preditions:

- Individual mandate will be repealed. Overall effect will be disastrous. More people need to participate, especially healthy ones
- Requirement to cover pre-existing conditions will remain, too much public support
- Premiums will be tax deductive - this will put non-employer plans and plans through your employer on equal footing
- Probably some limitation to medical malpractice and liability will be introduced
- HSAs will play a bigger role in health spending
- Hopefully some transparency will be introduced around pricing and consumers will be encouraged to shop around
- Buying insurance across state lines, or perhaps if they are bold enough, maybe allow the same plans to be sold at a national level, instead of at a state level. This should also give insurance companies more negotiating powers with hospitals and drug companies
- Some regulation at the FDA could be removed to encourage companies to develop medical devices, drugs, etc

  Splitting hairs here but there is no individual mandate - remember?  SCOTUS said it's a tax if you don't participate.  Your "Individual Responsibility" tax.  What a crock of crap, hope they defund this garbage ASAP!

rated:
It's quite unfortunate that so many important issues out there, including healthcare, have become so politicized, which has caused all battle lines to be drawn based on people's political leanings as opposed to policy fundamentals. In all honesty, I think that if most people read the particulars of Paul Ryan's healthcare proposal that I linked above (and I'm only mentioning him because his proposal is fairly well known and is specifically detailed on his website; there are other proposals out there that tweak the implementation, but ultimately have the same goals in mind) without knowing whose proposal it was, they'd be hard pressed to figure out whether the person was a R or a D.

In particular, large parts of his healthcare proposal are modeled after the Swiss and Dutch health systems (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2009/jan/the-swiss-and-dutch-health-insurance-systems--universal-coverage-and-regulated-competitive-insurance ), which have universal coverage but regulated competitive insurance markets.

The bottom line is that for all the hysteria out there that surrounds the ACA, the ACA and the Ryan proposals have way more in common than the rhetoric out there would have you believe.

rated:
oppidum said:   My ACA plan monthly premium for next year has gone up by 1/3rd more than it was last year (which, in turn, was actually double the cost that it was in the first year).

However, it is still so much better than I could ever have gotten as an individual open-market customer in my particular state and in my situation, so I'm not complaining and I'm very grateful for it.

However, I have unwillingly acquired some significant health "conditions" in the last few years (which means that they are "pre-existing" now, I suppose), and I am wondering what is going to happen at the end of January 2017 -- I don't understand what the new president has pledged to do, and what he legally and practically will be able to do, especially in the first part of 2017....

Can someone explain to me -- what realistically might happen to Obamacare at the end of January?

Or, say, in the first quarter of 2017?
In the first half of 2017?
In the whole of 2017?

If it's very likely that the entire marketplace insurance scheme will be totally cancelled at the end of January 2017 and immediately closed down, then I shouldn't even pay my January 1st installment, which is a lot.

[I couldn't get any doctor appts for January anyway (I've already got my "expected" appointments scheduled for the first six months of the next year, since my health providers are so swamped with patients now).]

I know that VP-elect Mike Pence has been VERY against Obamacare, even bringing a case about it to the Supreme Court....

=========
"...the signature legislative achievement of the Obama years – the Affordable Care Act – is now certain to come under attack from the incoming Trump administration. The president-elect has made it a mantra of his 18 months on the campaign trail that on day one in the White House he would ask Congress to repeal the legislation.
Trump has been less energetic in setting out how he would provide for the almost 13 million people who are currently in receipt of health insurance through Obamacare.
He has also promised to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions, without saying how he would pay for that.
But given the Trump campaign’s assault on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s key piece of legislation must now be seen to be mortally threatened."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/president-donald-trump-barack-obama-legacy 

"If he successfully repeals the law, which is unlikely, it would disproportionately affect low-income people, according to multiple analyses. The number of uninsured individuals would increase by 16m to 25m, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a research group. It would also increase the federal deficit, according to the same analysis, because the end of Obamacare means the end of taxes the health reform law brings in – adding about $33bn more to the deficit in the first year.
There is also the question of what replaces Obamacare. The closest thing the Republicans have to a substitute is a blueprint created by the House speaker, Paul Ryan, who has a rocky relationship with the president-elect.
For these reasons and more, it is unlikely Trump would get the congressional approval needed to actually repeal the law, though he and the Republican-dominated Congress could tear away at some of its key provisions. The rest of his health proposals are similarly chaotic.
Trump’s seven-point plan for healthcare includes allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines (allowing for greater variation in insurance regulations), deduct health insurance premiums from their tax returns and use health savings accounts.
He also aims to require price transparency from healthcare providers, allow more drugs to be imported from overseas and give block grants for Medicaid to states. And his plan would reduce access to abortion, contraception and preventative care.
Trump’s ideas “bewilder” establishment GOP health experts such as Robert Laszewski, who told the New York Times in April that the proposals were “a jumbled hodgepodge of old Republican ideas, randomly selected, that don’t fit together”. "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-president-policy-immigration-agenda-healthcare
 

  
Even under the most favorable conditions, nothing will be effective in 2017. Or more specifically, they are not going to shut down exchanges in 2017, because there is nothing to replace them and it will take years to come up with an alternative.  It would be insane to forcefully cancel millions of insurance policies on such a short notice.

rated:
geo123 said:   It's quite unfortunate that so many important issues out there, including healthcare, have become so politicized, which has caused all battle lines to be drawn based on people's political leanings as opposed to policy fundamentals. In all honesty, I think that if most people read the particulars of Paul Ryan's healthcare proposal that I linked above (and I'm only mentioning him because his proposal is fairly well known and is specifically detailed on his website; there are other proposals out there that tweak the implementation, but ultimately have the same goals in mind) without knowing whose proposal it was, they'd be hard pressed to figure out whether the person was a R or a D.

In particular, large parts of his healthcare proposal are modeled after the Swiss and Dutch health systems (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2009/jan/the-swiss-and-dutch-health-insurance-systems--universal-coverage-and-regulated-competitive-insurance ), which have universal coverage but regulated competitive insurance markets.

The bottom line is that for all the hysteria out there that surrounds the ACA, the ACA and the Ryan proposals have way more in common than the rhetoric out there would have you believe.

  
Ryan's plan is missing the most critical part of the Swiss and Dutch health system. Universal coverage attained through a mandate that every individual purchase a basic insurance plan.   It does not matter that the rest of it was modeled after the Swiss and Dutch systems and looks like ACA.  Without the individual mandate, it is vapoware.  It is like proposing a tax that you don' thave to pay, but are encouraged to do it.

rated:
~~UncaMikey;19687739 said:
Another twist to this is that Ryan wants to privatize Medicare as part of the repeal of ACA. That should be interesting -- well over 50M people on Medicare, including 45M 65+.

 - This will cost a lot. During the implementation of the ACA, studies said that for Medicaid it costs private insurers 13% more to run/manage those plans than if the Govt ran them themselves.

rated:
I love how so many people HATE the individual mandate, but are in favor of covering pre-existing conditions.

Without mandating coverage, the moral hazard created by covering pre-existing conditions makes almost every scheme with those features doomed to failure.

rated:
xoneinax said:   
oppidum said:   For these reasons and more, it is unlikely Trump would get the congressional approval needed to actually repeal the law, though he and the Republican-dominated Congress could tear away at some of its key provisions.
Trump does not need to get the law repealed; he and Congress will simply defund it.

  
Not if they want to be re-elected.  PErsonally I don't think Trump will run for a second term, his motivators are not the same as most Presidents.  He thumbed his nose at the Establishment, including the New York Elite who mostly ignore him (and some still will after he is out of office) proven he can do it, and marked THAT one off the list.

The SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES know they need to show action or get replaced.  There is going to be a massive backlash (to the backlash) in midterms so they really need to make their own side happy enough to vote them back in.  So I think they will certainly repeal ACA even if they replace it with something really similar.  Nothing I have heard about except interstate insurance will bring DOWN the costs.  Most of the things mentioned are more likely to drive prices UP.  True nationally available insurance that does not let STATE insurance boards interfere would help a LOT however.

rated:
Geokuk77 said:   ~~UncaMikey;19687739 said:
Another twist to this is that Ryan wants to privatize Medicare as part of the repeal of ACA. That should be interesting -- well over 50M people on Medicare, including 45M 65+.

 - This will cost a lot. During the implementation of the ACA, studies said that for Medicaid it costs private insurers 13% more to run/manage those plans than if the Govt ran them themselves.

  
Medicare and Medicaid are very different in what they cover and how much price control the fed can apply.  Medicaid is closer to what universal health will look like than Medicare, I suspect.

rated:
RedWolfe01 said:   
Geokuk77 said:   ~~UncaMikey;19687739 said:
Another twist to this is that Ryan wants to privatize Medicare as part of the repeal of ACA. That should be interesting -- well over 50M people on Medicare, including 45M 65+.

 - This will cost a lot. During the implementation of the ACA, studies said that for Medicaid it costs private insurers 13% more to run/manage those plans than if the Govt ran them themselves.

  
Medicare and Medicaid are very different in what they cover and how much price control the fed can apply.  Medicaid is closer to what universal health will look like than Medicare, I suspect.

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are very different, and they are for very different groups. States play a crucial role in (and pay money for) Medicaid, but have no role (or money) involved in Medicare. No one seems to be very sympathetic towards the poor, who get Medicaid, but tampering with seniors' Medicare has always been seen as political suicide. The original point of Medicare was because private insurance was not affordable for older people. We shall see.

rated:

rated:
LOOPHOLE said:   https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care/

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/HCReformPaper.pdf

  Hmm. No mention of Medicare in either one. So, it will be interesting to see if Ryan persuades Trump to go along with his plan.

rated:
As dumb as I think Obamacare is you have to assume that it will continue.

Anything else is pure speculation. If there are changes it is likely they will be phased in over time.

rated:
aleck said:   Ryan's plan is missing the most critical part of the Swiss and Dutch health system. Universal coverage attained through a mandate that every individual purchase a basic insurance plan.   It does not matter that the rest of it was modeled after the Swiss and Dutch systems and looks like ACA.  Without the individual mandate, it is vapoware.  It is like proposing a tax that you don' thave to pay, but are encouraged to do it.The Dutch system has only had a mandate for the last 10 years. Also keep in mind that we are dealing with politicians, so there are a number of ways of implementing a mandate without calling it that (Ryan's auto-enroll feature is part of that).
  

rated:
Geokuk77 said:   ~~UncaMikey;19687739 said:
Another twist to this is that Ryan wants to privatize Medicare as part of the repeal of ACA. That should be interesting -- well over 50M people on Medicare, including 45M 65+.

 - This will cost a lot. During the implementation of the ACA, studies said that for Medicaid it costs private insurers 13% more to run/manage those plans than if the Govt ran them themselves.

  
Well that will be lovely.  Medicare privatization will mess with lots of old white people that voted for Trump!  Awesome. 

The bottom line is that a bunch of deplorables that depend of government handouts voted for Trump, go let them have it. 

madicare is one of the biggest handout programs and it goes to the middle states:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-fed...
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/05/Slide3...

This is going to be poetic justice.  I am living in one of those progressive states that continually vote for handouts to the poor (and I don't mind sharing with the poor, even if I'd rather keep my money myself), but what';s upsetting is that those who scream loudest about welfare programs and how the poor are undeserving get are those that take the most. -- The middle states. 

Cool, looking forward to it!
 

rated:

rated:
UncaMikey said:   Not so fast!  Trump might just amend parts of Obamacare...

Donald Trump, in Exclusive Interview, Tells WSJ He Is Willing to Keep Parts of Obama Health Law

  too bad it's behind a paywall

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
UncaMikey said:   Not so fast!  Trump might just amend parts of Obamacare...

Donald Trump, in Exclusive Interview, Tells WSJ He Is Willing to Keep Parts of Obama Health Law

  too bad it's behind a paywall

  he wants to keep preconditions and under 26 coverage

rated:
Would suggest you start searching. Your condition ( pre-existing problems ) is one of the main reasons premiums are Sky high. People who avoided health insurance in the past now are required to have it. If you were an insurance company would YOU want to NOW insure all these people who have never paid a dime for insurance. That is why rates are going higher. Everyone is paying for all the lifetime non-insured. If you would have had insurance before you were required you wouldn't have to worry about any pre-existing condition. Like the large amount of non-insured drivers who cost everyone else higher premiums. You had plenty of time in your life to have insurance. You seem educated since your asking questions on here. So with that being said why did you think you could go through life without being sick. Wish you luck in getting the insurance but your part of the problem for the high rates..

rated:
A national rather than state by state risk pool would help. Although it wouldn't solve the problem of adverse selection due to preexistimg conditions.

rated:
Yes, adverse selection is the nightmare with any type of insurance. Nobody wants to buy it until they have to and then it is usually to late. The problem with the pool is that a large group will wait until they need it and then it will be too late. If oppidum would have been insured he would not have gotten the affordable insurance and wouldn't have this problem now. Hopefully the uninsured who are reading this will see that they are properly insured.

rated:
chuck1948 said:   Would suggest you start searching. Your condition ( pre-existing problems ) is one of the main reasons premiums are Sky high. People who avoided health insurance in the past now are required to have it. If you were an insurance company would YOU want to NOW insure all these people who have never paid a dime for insurance. That is why rates are going higher. Everyone is paying for all the lifetime non-insured. If you would have had insurance before you were required you wouldn't have to worry about any pre-existing condition. Like the large amount of non-insured drivers who cost everyone else higher premiums. You had plenty of time in your life to have insurance. You seem educated since your asking questions on here. So with that being said why did you think you could go through life without being sick. Wish you luck in getting the insurance but your part of the problem for the high rates..
  wow

rated:
RedWolfe01 said:   The SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES know they need to show action or get replaced.  
  
I don't know that there is really that much pressure.    90% of them get reelected as is and its not as if they've been accomplishing diddly squat for the past 10 or 15  years or so.

 

rated:
chuck1948 said:   Would suggest you start searching. Your condition ( pre-existing problems ) is one of the main reasons premiums are Sky high. People who avoided health insurance in the past now are required to have it. If you were an insurance company would YOU want to NOW insure all these people who have never paid a dime for insurance. That is why rates are going higher. Everyone is paying for all the lifetime non-insured. If you would have had insurance before you were required you wouldn't have to worry about any pre-existing condition. Like the large amount of non-insured drivers who cost everyone else higher premiums. You had plenty of time in your life to have insurance. You seem educated since your asking questions on here. So with that being said why did you think you could go through life without being sick. Wish you luck in getting the insurance but your part of the problem for the high rates..
  
OP is currently insured.

Are you reading somewhere that they haven't been insured their whole life that I missed?

 

rated:
If he would have had private insurance and not waited till he had to get insurance he wouldn't be worried about a pre-existing condition. I may be wrong and he just came his parents coverage. But wait..... that would be contractual regardless of health.

rated:
jerosen said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   The SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES know they need to show action or get replaced.  
  
I don't know that there is really that much pressure.    90% of them get reelected as is and its not as if they've been accomplishing diddly squat for the past 10 or 15  years or so.

 

  
90%?  You think last Tuesday was 90% re-election rate?  US politics is a pendulum and the farther it swings one way the more counterforce when it swings back the other.  Look at the last 30 years in the White House-- every Election the president is from the opposite party.  One reason that the competition is so fierce in the opposition party, If Hillary had gotten the nomination against Obama she would have likely won against McCain- while 8 years later she loses to a far less qualified opponent.  That was why she fought on so long -- it was as close to a guaranteed election as it gets.  Bush was unpopular even in his own party. 

The Pendulum only *passes* the middle on its way to an extreme, unfortunately.

rated:
In any rational and sane first world country, the citizenry has figured out that pooling their health care expenses and covering EVERYONE saves the most money and has the best health outcomes. Yes, they pay more "taxes" but they pay ZERO for their doctor visits and medicine. Whereas, we pay taxes to the coercive "free market" and some pay lower taxes overall (but not enough to make up for the health care losses).

I'm constantly in awe of the brilliantly effective B.S. spouted by American spin doctors. They manage to bamboozle enough people with silly appeals to the "free market" and fears of the Soviet hordes invading if we don't keep paying so much more to get so little for so few from the for-profit private insurance gatekeepers. 4000% profits on medicines, $12,000/year premiums, $100 copays here... while the insurance execs take home millions a year. One insurance CEO literally pulled a Billion (with a 'B') and god knows about the stockholders. That's our money as much as all those nasty "taxes" everyone screams about.

Obamacare, beholden to the for-profit medical cabal and advised by the Heritage Foundation, insisted that the most reasonable solutions were eliminated from consideration as it was being designed. Garbage in- Garbage out. The Government (We The People) now pay for the elderly and disabled, who are expensive to care for- and the "for profiteers" skim off the healthier people who will still have to pay ridiculously high premiums just to have government-mandated purchases paying into private hands.

Obamacare II: Just expand Medicare to everyone, then tweak it as time goes on. Raise our taxes, it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying these $500-$1,000/month premiums for garbage plans we hardly even use, everyone's covered, and it'll be cheaper. Preventing cancer is a hell of a lot cheaper than treating it, etc. And all the paper-pushers employed that might lose employment because the country chose to take care of itself instead of do all it could to deny coverage? Plenty of opportunities to retrain people to actually HELP- with a pool of new "customers" to Medicare, they'll need many more employees to keep up with the volume. (You want a Cadillac/Tesla concierge plan? Don't worry, the "free market" is relentless in wanting your cash... the other ~90% of the country just wants to get through life in peace and not spend all their time in sickness navigating huge contracts and begging the insurance company to pay the bills they agreed to pay.)

Why does America seem to always screw up and complicate straightforward things just to accommodate a company making a buck off the citizenry? Where has our most basic sense of right and wrong gone to?

Skipping 54 Messages...
rated:
rufflesinc said:   
One of the things it mentioned was that Price is big on requiring people to carry insurance continuously/constantly, and one of the things he might introduce is --
for people who do not have insurance coverage for any period of time, after they get a new insurance policy, they would receive no treatment of pre-existing conditions for the subsequent 18 months on their new plan.

This is a joke right? How is that any different than the individual mandate? And after 18 months they can get treatment , it will just cost more because the condition has gotten worse

  
You have to think about things a bit more realistically from an insurance perspective though.

Can I go without car insurance for 5 years, get in a wreck at 4.9 years - sign up for car insurance, and then put in a claim and get my car repaired for the cost of the deductible? Absolutely not. So how is this any different?

The answer is we need to do away with the insurance model to begin with. It's an unnecessary man in the middle whom provides coverage based on what THEIR best interest is - not their patients best interest.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2016