Millions of Americans probably praying that the ACA penalty will end immediately.

[Doc1]

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

Well I have been paying into SS and Medicare for many years and I had no choice, so get use to it. I feel the younger people are way too spoiled now days. I don't care if your a redneck or a liberal, or gay or trans, everyone needs to pay for health insurance if they can.

The point being don't try and tell what I think or why I do a thing

The point is then you get a fine, deal with it.

LOL, what did what you post have to do with what I said?

 

[WillReadmore]

Healthcare in this nation has to be fixed. And this bullcrap of having multiple policies in order to cover things like your eyes, and your dental when they are a vital part of your health is just a complete travisty. It all needs to be in one policy just like we do with car insurance. You can add on to the policy, but it's all with the same company of choice.

If you want health insurance like car insurance you have to accept that your car insurance does not pay for tires, or windshield wipers. It doesn't recharge your air conditioner or replace batteries.

Similar health insurance would not pay for flu shots, or a doctor's visit for a cold. It would certainly bring down the cost of medical care.

what if that doctor visit for a cold happened to be pneumonia?

If they went to he doc, they had insurance or money.....what the fuck business is it if mine?

False. Before the ACA, we pushed those who can't pay into our ERs.

Then, we paid for that through taxes and through increased costs of insurance and direct charges.

If we dump millions off insurance, we'll need to start shipping tax dollars to hospitals again.

Since 85% of Obamacare enrollees get a subsidy to buy insurance, we already pay. And guess what? We aren't just paying for medical care, but the premiums. So, which is cheaper? A few ER visits or millions of premium payments?

Mark

I think that % does not include insurance through employment.

There may be other exclusions, too, since it refers to a "marketpkace" that claims only 11m total enrollees.

You'd have to take that up with HHS and Obama's appointee. I'd also point out that since competition is actually dying in the marketplace the rate increases have not been large enough to sustain the business.
Before you go off on that know this, the ACA is performing exactly as it was designed to do. It was designed to implode the system, the companies are bailing because they cannot make enough to sustain their business models.
Even the non-profits are pulling out. Obama had one goal in mind and that is single payer. He knew he couldn't get it all at once, but he will get it.

Nonsense.

Let's remember that there was a full compliment of Republicans on the bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate that designed the ACA.

There was no way for there to be some secret agenda. And, Obama had almost nothing to do with the design.

That's all true, I don't care whether you believe it or not.

"Let's remember that there was a full compliment of Republicans on the bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate that designed the ACA."

Then why didn't any Repubs vote for it?

Boehner and McConnell stated that opposition to the ACA would be used as a demonstration of continuing partisan power following their catastrophic election.

They failed, of course, kicking off their years long partisan hate fest.

Two things.
1) Show us where the Pubs IN Committee helped design the ACA
2) Source their quotes.

If he does, will you accept it?

 

[WillReadmore]

I'm one of those people.

I know plenty of people that are having to pay this penalty, and not because they choose to, but because they have to. They land right in between the not being able to qualify for a decent plan or to afford one, so they go without insurance, and pay the dam fine through a levy of their taxes.

60% of America believes that it is a responsibility of the government to ensure that all Americans have health care coverage.

We fail at that.

More should be done.

If that's true then 60 percent of Americans are stupid. It's not the governments place, in this country, to provide for the people.

Everybody needs health care. Many view it as a human right.

Also,all other industrialized countries use some single payer varient. And, they all pay LESS than we do.

So, one might ask why US citizens should have it worse than all other countries.

No, one must ask why people don't understand what it means to be an American. The free market should be ran properly so that gov stays out and people are free to do as they like or as they can, with opportunities abounding. Not everyone is guaranteed a big slice of the pie. The nanny state only leads to more gov control.

That is what I am asking.

Why isn't it at least as good to be an American?

 

[WillReadmore]

All plans in all States have at least the 10 minimum benefits. Companies are free to ADD benefits , but not subtract them. The portability issue is moot and a red herring still being used by those against the ACA.

That doesn't address anything I posted.

You responded to a post that points out that the several states have allowed selling insurance across state lines.

And, insurance companies are not showing interest in that.

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

We don't have to kill the health care plans of every American family to offer more levels of policies.

That doesn't address anything I posted.

You responded to a post that points out that the several states have allowed selling insurance across state lines.

And, insurance companies are not showing interest in that.

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

 

[Doc1]

That doesn't address anything I posted.

You responded to a post that points out that the several states have allowed selling insurance across state lines.

And, insurance companies are not showing interest in that.

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

We don't have to kill the health care plans of every American family to offer more levels of policies.

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

Take it to the Bank, Trump will be slapped by the realities on the ground.
Just my opinion but Medicare for all is coming.

 

[Johann]

I don't have a problem not forcing people to have health insurance.

But if they get seriously ill or get cancer, the taxpayer isn't going to foot the bill. Let them die for their stupidity. Oh, and companies should be allowed to charge more to the elderly who've never had insurance before. So that it can keep the payments lower for the responsible amongst us.

 

[WillReadmore]

That doesn't address anything I posted.

You responded to a post that points out that the several states have allowed selling insurance across state lines.

And, insurance companies are not showing interest in that.

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

I don't believe your "worse coverage" item.

The mandate is there for a reason. Without that, insurance companies can not handle people buying insurance when they get sick and then bailing when they get well.

 

[Doc1]

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

I don't believe your "worse coverage" item.

The mandate is there for a reason. Without that, insurance companies can not handle people buying insurance when they get sick and then bailing when they get well.

No, I understand the mandate, well at least the concept for it, it didn't work though.
Trust me when you take and force coverages on companies and those companies then have to charge what they did...
The pricing forced MOST people into the Bronze Pans, inferior plans at best.

 

[WillReadmore]

That's because they don't have to. The plans are minimally standardized, a minimum of the same 10 standards no matter what. States can allow insurance to put plans out with MORE benefits, but never less than the 10 required benefits. Companies can sell plans from Bronze to Gold.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

We don't have to kill the health care plans of every American family to offer more levels of policies.

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

Take it to the Bank, Trump will be slapped by the realities on the ground.
Just my opinion but Medicare for all is coming.

I agree.

I think Trump's seneitivity to public opinion could have behind his tweet about covering 100% of Americans.

It was walked back. But, ...

 

[Doc1]

You aren't being consistent. Companies did not want to sell across state lines.

The coverage requirements are a different issue.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

We don't have to kill the health care plans of every American family to offer more levels of policies.

The problem with portability prior to the ACA was coverages. Coverages were not the same across State lines. Now they pretty much are. Portability is no the issue. I'm being entirely consistent.Think about it, why do you think that they promoted FEDERAL Exchanges?
People from ANY state can call the Fed exchange and buy insurance now.

The Pubs will repeal that and allow different levels of insurance plans, the ACA made them have min. coverage in all plans in all states, which the Pubs hated.

I am a Conservative, what we hated was the mandate and the fact that the plans diminished choice and gave them worse benefits.

Take it to the Bank, Trump will be slapped by the realities on the ground.
Just my opinion but Medicare for all is coming.

I agree.

I think Trump's seneitivity to public opinion could have behind his tweet about covering 100% of Americans.

It was walked back. But, ...

I'm not for it all going away, I've seen too much good from it. I've also seen all the bad.
Fact, the good for those who need it (in my opinion) outweighs the bad for those that can.

 

[Cowman]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

 

[Doc1]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

One problem is this, I was shown a demographic in 13....Knee Replacement charges varied between 26000 and 56000 depending on where you lived.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

the question is, why should these people cost me or you anything? their health concerns are not my problem. As long as my health is taken care of, I am doing my part not to be a drain on society.
And I have paid my own way since 1978, before that my parents took care of it.
I have no pity for those to lazy or too ignorant to provide for themselves.

 

[Cowman]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

the question is, why should these people cost me or you anything? their health concerns are not my problem. As long as my health is taken care of, I am doing my part not to be a drain on society.
And I have paid my own way since 1978, before that my parents took care of it.
I have no pity for those to lazy or too ignorant to provide for themselves.

Because we're a humane society? Because if someone comes in for treatment to a hospital in an emergency, they will receive treatment?

What are you going to say to Jesus when he confronts you about your views here?

"I just wanted them to die Jesus. I didn't give a fuck about your children. They should all rot in a hole if they don't have the money to pay."

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

the question is, why should these people cost me or you anything? their health concerns are not my problem. As long as my health is taken care of, I am doing my part not to be a drain on society.
And I have paid my own way since 1978, before that my parents took care of it.
I have no pity for those to lazy or too ignorant to provide for themselves.

Because we're a humane society? Because if someone comes in for treatment to a hospital in an emergency, they will receive treatment?

and when that cost to others becomes detrimental to their own finances?
If those leaches conducted their life in a "humane" way, they would have more concern over the strain they are putting on others, but they have no problem at all hurting someone else as long as they can live like a bum off of the work of others.

 

[Doc1]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

the question is, why should these people cost me or you anything? their health concerns are not my problem. As long as my health is taken care of, I am doing my part not to be a drain on society.
And I have paid my own way since 1978, before that my parents took care of it.
I have no pity for those to lazy or too ignorant to provide for themselves.

As have I, but there are some that truly need the help and it has nothing to with being lazy or ignorant. There are also those who ARE lazy and ignorant but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

So you can be a loafer and go without insurance.

If someone chooses not to have health insurance that is none of your business.

It is when the costs of treating a condition or health issue that has ballooned out of control are WAY higher than preventative care that they could have been undertaking with health insurance.

Those people who refuse to get treatment early and regularly, cost you and me more in the long run. WAY more.

the question is, why should these people cost me or you anything? their health concerns are not my problem. As long as my health is taken care of, I am doing my part not to be a drain on society.
And I have paid my own way since 1978, before that my parents took care of it.
I have no pity for those to lazy or too ignorant to provide for themselves.

As have I, but there are some that truly need the help and it has nothing to with being lazy or ignorant. There are also those who ARE lazy and ignorant but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

it wouldn't be that hard to separate the two. Those that could work but dont should get nothing at all. no food stamps, no housing, no health care, nothing.

 

[beagle9]

. Why would they have to raise rates ? Do they have customers who aren't paying the rates they ask for now ? So what you are you saying, that the government is paying for people to be covered by them, and that they are ripping the government a new butt hole ? How bout the government now doing what it said it was going to do, and that is to bring on the open borders across state lines ? You know where companies can compete for your business now ? It's time to repeal and replace, and to go after any company caught gouging their customers.

Insurance companies can not afford letting people buy insurance whe they get sick and then drop out when they are not.

That is why there is a mandate.

If that is removed, insurance companies will have to find ways to get more money from customers.

. If the rates were right, then people would pay their insurance bill just like any other bill they pay. The reason they do what you speak, is because they feel that they are getting screwed over bad on the rate verses what they are getting as a product for the rate being paid.

Analysts show that the total cost of health care did not jump with the switch to the ACA, and in fact a chart of total cost per year shows less increase year over year now.

The ACA tends to push toward paying for outcomes rather than procedures, which is a cost saving direction. That is given sone of the credit. Maybe the fact the low income folks have choices other than the ER is a help.

I think the big change is in the way costs are distributed. Also in the past, insurance companies could save money by dumping sick people, refusing to sell to those with a health history, having a lower age limit on kids covered on the parent's policy, etc.

. Well Trump is going to be looking at it all, so let's just pray that we get better plans and better results real soon.

Trump is tweeting once in a while. And, his own people roll his tweets back. So, no, he is not doing it - which is fine.

Right now, we do not know who is designing HC.

The ACA was designed in bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate.

The one thing we know today is that Dems are totally cut out.

. The Dems are cutting their own selves out, so that shows what the hell they think of the people.

 

[SmokeALib]

I'm sure it's too late in the tax season for Trump to halt the penalties.
Maybe he could refund taxpayers for this theft later in the year.

 

[Doc1]

Insurance companies can not afford letting people buy insurance whe they get sick and then drop out when they are not.

That is why there is a mandate.

If that is removed, insurance companies will have to find ways to get more money from customers.

. If the rates were right, then people would pay their insurance bill just like any other bill they pay. The reason they do what you speak, is because they feel that they are getting screwed over bad on the rate verses what they are getting as a product for the rate being paid.

Analysts show that the total cost of health care did not jump with the switch to the ACA, and in fact a chart of total cost per year shows less increase year over year now.

The ACA tends to push toward paying for outcomes rather than procedures, which is a cost saving direction. That is given sone of the credit. Maybe the fact the low income folks have choices other than the ER is a help.

I think the big change is in the way costs are distributed. Also in the past, insurance companies could save money by dumping sick people, refusing to sell to those with a health history, having a lower age limit on kids covered on the parent's policy, etc.

. Well Trump is going to be looking at it all, so let's just pray that we get better plans and better results real soon.

Trump is tweeting once in a while. And, his own people roll his tweets back. So, no, he is not doing it - which is fine.

Right now, we do not know who is designing HC.

The ACA was designed in bi-partisan committees in the House and Senate.

The one thing we know today is that Dems are totally cut out.

. The Dems are cutting their own selves out, so that shows what the hell they think of the people.

They are doubling down on far left policy. It will cost them.