Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[tytlyf]

I'd like to know too.

Its not any secret that a lot of people still regard the mandate as unconstitutional in spite of the supreme court's determination on the grounds that the mandate is a tax. I'd still to this day would like to know how they came up with that conclusion.

I dunno exact numbers but it's shady and an egregious usurping of the constitution itself that deprives people of personal choices as to weither to have coverage or not, without penalty, and further saddles a perpetual debt that cannot ever be paid in full. Ever. That dosent sound like something a free society should have to endure.

It sets a presidence for further abuse involving things that go beyond insurance and healthcare issues.

It seems right now more are concerned with affordability and ease of access with legality taking second stage it seems since its enactment by Obama as this is far from affordable.

There was a gallop poll putting it at 72 percent, but it's been awhile since then.


Gallup poll: 72 percent of Americans call individual mandate ‘unconstitutional’

The conservative SCOTUS felt otherwise

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tons of republicans voted for it and it was ruled constitutional. Why are you a corporate apologist? You'd be angry knowing some of the things you pay taxes for, healthcare shouldn't be one of them.

Ok let me put it this way, why in the world are Republicans so adamant on destroying their very own idea? You would think it would have been a bipartisan gumbia lovefest. Truth be told, It isn't.

Republicans created and embraced ACA first but somehow hate it now?

Explain that one to me.

Please.

 

[tytlyf]

Ok let me put it this way, why in the world are Republicans so adamant on destroying their very own idea? You would think it would have been a bipartisan gumbia lovefest. Truth be told, It isn't.

Republicans created and embraced ACA first but somehow hate it now?

Explain that one to me.

Please.

The ACA isn't their idea. Rmoneycare was and still is being used in Massachusettes. Sure the legislation is similar, the ACA used Rmoneycare as a 'model' for what to accomplish. I'm pretty sure Rmoneycare doesn't force insurance co's to cover pre-existing conditions. That's why republicans hate the ACA. Remember, the insurance co's lobby republicans in congress to do what they're doing. The insurance co's don't like covering pre-existing conditions because they hurt profits.
Republicans are doing their bidding in the hopes of repealing the ACA and replacing it with nothing. This way the insurance co's can make more money.

It's a pretty simple thing to understand.

In a capitalistic model, profit is king. People are just $ signs. People with pre-existing conditions are viewed as problematic to that model, due to cost reasons. In this model, it's a preference to have a person die quickly to lower costs. Or better yet, not have to cover them at all.

 

[Curious George]

Ok let me put it this way, why in the world are Republicans so adamant on destroying their very own idea? You would think it would have been a bipartisan gumbia lovefest. Truth be told, It isn't.

Republicans created and embraced ACA first but somehow hate it now?

Explain that one to me.

Please.

Sure,

Obamacare is a cry on both sides that is political. It is all political sleight of hand. People for Obamacare care didn't get what they wanted, people against Obamacare didn't get what they wanted. But it is used as a tool by some to wage a rally against the others. The Healthcare system was broken, both Republicans and Democrats tried to "fix" it. Some super worried about government overreach opposed it vocally and vehemently, they were "triggered," if you will. Now, Obamacare is used as an example of what many believe was the whole of the Obama administration agenda. It is a symbol, so people, even those that helped introduce and write the bill, now oppose it.

Ask yourself, on what grounds do you oppose Obamacare? Is it the idea that the government is forcing you to pay? The government forces you to pay other taxes. Is this unreasonable? Is it that health costs have increased? The health costs were on the rise already. Is it unreasonable that they continued to rise? Is it that the plans are inaccessible? The idea that the majority is helping finance the less fortunate? What is your real beef with the bill?

 

[Curious George]

The ACA isn't their idea. Rmoneycare was and still is being used in Massachusettes. Sure the legislation is similar, the ACA used Rmoneycare as a 'model' for what to accomplish. I'm pretty sure Rmoneycare doesn't force insurance co's to cover pre-existing conditions. That's why republicans hate the ACA. Remember, the insurance co's lobby republicans in congress to do what they're doing. The insurance co's don't like covering pre-existing conditions because they hurt profits.
Republicans are doing their bidding in the hopes of repealing the ACA and replacing it with nothing. This way the insurance co's can make more money.

It's a pretty simple thing to understand.

In a capitalistic model, profit is king. People are just $ signs. People with pre-existing conditions are viewed as problematic to that model, due to cost reasons. In this model, it's a preference to have a person die quickly to lower costs.

I'm not so sure. With everyone accessing the system Obamacare has created an opportunity for insurance companies to access a previously unaccessible market. Whatever the costs of preexisting conditions are simply past on. I haven't seen a bunch of insurance companies going out of business, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm not so sure. With everyone accessing the system Obamacare has created an opportunity for insurance companies to access a previously unaccessible market. Whatever the costs of preexisting conditions are simply past on. I haven't seen a bunch of insurance companies going out of business, but maybe I am wrong.

It all depends on the cost of pre existing conditions. There's no other reason the insurance co's wouldn't want the ACA. It's not the equal pay for women, it's not the keep kids on parent plans. It's not the individual mandate. So what is it? It's the one obvious thing.
Sure the market on 'pre-existing' conditions opened up for insurance companies, I'm sure that's something they don't welcome.

 

[Curious George]

It all depends on the cost of pre existing conditions. There's no other reason the insurance co's wouldn't want the ACA. It's not the equal pay for women, it's not the keep kids on parent plans. It's not the individual mandate. So what is it? It's the one obvious thing.
Sure the market on 'pre-existing' conditions opened up for insurance companies, I'm sure that's something they don't welcome.

OR its another sit down at the negotiation table to make a sweet deal even sweeter.

 

[tytlyf]

OR its another sit down at the negotiation table to make a sweet deal even sweeter.

How would it be sweeter? The cost of covering someone with pre-existing conditions is probably 1000x that of a healthy person.

 

[Curious George]

How would it be sweeter? The cost of covering someone with pre-existing conditions is probably 1000x that of a healthy person.

I am not sure about those figures but if the cost of insuring a healthy person was 1$ and the cost of insuring a preexisting condition was 1k $ and covering the preexisting condition allowed me to charge 1k individuals 10$ I would surely take the deal. Sweeter still? Up the money, reduce the costs....simply put, take out some of the loopholes, no condoms or birth control for instance, allow more people to purchase catastrophic insurance...etc. don't worry, I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to make the deal sweeter.

 

[tytlyf]

I am not sure about those figures but if the cost of insuring a healthy person was 1$ and the cost of insuring a preexisting condition was 1k $ and covering the preexisting condition allowed me to charge 1k individuals 10$ I would surely take the deal. Sweeter still? Up the money, reduce the costs....simply put, take out some of the loopholes, no condoms or birth control for instance, allow more people to purchase catastrophic insurance...etc. don't worry, I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to make the deal sweeter.

The people can't afford $10

 

[Curious George]

The people can't afford $10

Which is what some people are suggesting is the reason they don't like Obamacare. Truth is a whole lot of those 1k people can afford 10$. And the people who actually cannot can afford perhaps 5 or 1$. And then the very, very few that cannot even afford that are paid for by those who can. Are insurance companies going out of business since they have been forced to cover preexisting conditions? Are insurance companies producing smaller gains? I am not sure. I haven't heard such is the case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How Trump's health care plan may cover Americans with pre-existing conditions

Yet Trump, even according to that, has not laid out a plan and it brings up concerns of high-risk pools and the number of uninsured increasing. And a "lapse in coverage" penalty? How is that fundamentally any different than the tax penalty from the ACA individual mandate?

This needs to be put to rest imv.

Except many Republicans did support it, and this "RINO" nonsense is no different than trying to say "no true Christian would do this" or "no true Muslim would do that."

 

[tytlyf]

Which is what some people are suggesting is the reason they don't like Obamacare. Truth is a whole lot of those 1k people can afford 10$. And the people who actually cannot can afford perhaps 5 or 1$. And then the very, very few that cannot even afford that are paid for by those who can. Are insurance companies going out of business since they have been forced to cover preexisting conditions? Are insurance companies producing smaller gains? I am not sure. I haven't heard such is the case.

Ya, but Obamacare already does that. So you just want people with pre-existing conditions to pay more right? So if the cost is 1000x, should the monthly payment be the same compared to healthy individuals? So if you have a pre-existing condition, you should pay 1k+ a month to cover it right?

Let's do math. Normal plan $300 a month. Pre-existing plan $1500. Yearly costs 3600/18000 comparison.

Affording 1,500 per month for healthcare is one thing, but even at that level, only 18k per year doesn't cover the costs. Not even close.

How about charging them 3k per month? That's 36k per year. You think that's even close to the costs? Does it make sense now why insurance co's have historically not covered PE conditions?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Except many Republicans did support it, and this "RINO" nonsense is no different than trying to say "no true Christian would do this" or "no true Muslim would do that."

Oh it's RINO all right. It screams RINO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh it's RINO all right. It screams RINO.

So you'd rather just make an illogical argument than accept reality?

 

[Curious George]

Ya, but Obamacare already does that. So you just want people with pre-existing conditions to pay more right? So if the cost is 1000x, should the monthly payment be the same compared to healthy individuals? So if you have a pre-existing condition, you should pay 1k+ a month to cover it right?

Let's do math. Normal plan $300 a month. Pre-existing plan $1500. Yearly costs 3600/18000 comparison.

Affording 1,500 per month for healthcare is one thing, but even at that level, only 18k per year doesn't cover the costs. Not even close.

How about charging them 3k per month? That's 36k per year. You think that's even close to the costs? Does it make sense now why insurance co's have historically not covered PE conditions?

No, I don't want it. I am telling you that is why insurance is happy to go back to the table. To make what is a sweet deal for them already sweeter. They don't even have to raise prices, though I am sure they will try. They could just lower costs by making less requirements as far as costs. They could certainly do this by excluding preexisting conditions, but they wouldn't even have to do that. They could say that they will no longer be forced to cover condoms or cannulas or something. My point is only that we cannot assume that the reason is to get rid of preexisting conditions, especially when because of its popularity that provision is likely to stick. There are much more subtler ways for the companies to make boatloads of money.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you'd rather just make an illogical argument than accept reality?

Reality is Republicans are going to put this law where it belongs. In the garbage can.

 

[Curious George]

Reality is Republicans are going to put this law where it belongs. In the garbage can.

Though, hopefully not the country in the same place.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Though, hopefully not the country in the same place.

You know, it's not the idea of healthcare itself. Its the way it's structured.

 

[Curious George]

You just don't like paying?