What are Republican's plans to help uninsured Americans?

[Mustang]

The republicans believe that you should go work for it and buy your own; meaning, Pay your own hosipital bills, buy your own house, wipe your own ass, ect on down the list. Republicans believe in self achivement and hardwork and family. NO GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER YOUR LIFE.

That's what makes this country free. The right to make your own life the way you wish without big bad government in it. The right to make as much money as you please or to die on the street! Think about that for a second! True freedom!

If you're stupid enough, you may end up on the street, but that's your fault.

Interesting. Then maybe you can explain to me why so many wealthy Americans hire lobbyists to go to Washington to argue for tax breaks and gov't funding which just so happens to financially benefit them a great deal if they're so damn independent and don't think that reliance on gov't is a good thing.

 

[Conservative]

Keeping your kid on your health plan costs less than another health plan. Did that really have to be explained?

Not to you, it doesn't nimrod. Once they are 18, under the previous system, it was THEIR cost, not yours. Your costs would have gone down once they were covering their own, or their employer was covering it.

Under Obamacare, your costs stay at the higher family rate until you are forced to drop them at 25, OR until they have their own.

The ability to keep them on COSTS YOU MONEY, it does not SAVE you money.

So yours is a semantic argument.
Hardly.


There are cost savings related to a child’s ability to remain covered until they are 25 but in order to realize these savings, we need to change pronouns.
Once they are 18, they are no longer 'children'. Certainly not at 25.


Your argument is that it won’t save the original poster any money, it will in fact cost the original poster money.
My argument is that keeping a 'child' on your policy until they reach 25 costs YOU more, as you are paying for a family plan, not a single or couples plan. It does not cost you LESS.


So to fix this, the kid will pay the difference and save a ton of money for himself by not having to have his or her own insurance and its individual premium.
And that makes them self-reliant how?

My comments in red.

 

[Conservative]

BTW, as an aside...

The repeal of Obamacare was PASSED through the House in January, 2011.
H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (GovTrack.us)

It currently sits in the House Energy and Commerce, and was referred to the Subcommittee on Health... where Reid and the Dems in the Senate will sit on it until the cows come home.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Uninusred Americans can continue to do what they have been doing. Use the emergency room. It winds up being on the taxpayer dime and up top nopw, the taxpayer was OK with it...and no one was dying becuase the ER turned them away. Why? Becuase no one is ever turned away from the ER.

What do you think?? They are all given 2 aspirin and sent home??? Lots of them are admitted and stay for weeks or months in the hospital where they received emergency services. Some of them have surgery and other expensive procedures. Who in the hell do you think pays for that???

I worked for years in the government programs division for a major health insurance company. In the medicare claims area. Do you know how expensive hospital bills can be??? Well, I have been paying taxes all of my adult life and I am not okay with paying bills for people that are not insured.

Agree but that's what the GObP/pubs want and, as we've already seen, they'll lie, cheat and steal to get it.

And, it will fall to the rest of us to pay their bills.

This is something that every poster here knows - that unpaid medical bills don't just float away.

 

[Conservative]

Agree but that's what the GObP/pubs want and, as we've already seen, they'll lie, cheat and steal to get it.

After hwat the Dems did to pass Obamacare, you have the nads to say that? wow... just... wow.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, as an aside...

The repeal of Obamacare was PASSED through the House in January, 2011.
H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (GovTrack.us)

It currently sits in the House Energy and Commerce, and was referred to the Subcommittee on Health... where Reid and the Dems in the Senate will sit on it until the cows come home.

Its okay that EVERY jobs bill goes to the House to die though.

Hope the Senate is successful ...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Uninusred Americans can continue to do what they have been doing. Use the emergency room. It winds up being on the taxpayer dime and up top nopw, the taxpayer was OK with it...and no one was dying becuase the ER turned them away. Why? Becuase no one is ever turned away from the ER.

What do you think?? They are all given 2 aspirin and sent home??? Lots of them are admitted and stay for weeks or months in the hospital where they received emergency services. Some of them have surgery and other expensive procedures. Who in the hell do you think pays for that???

I worked for years in the government programs division for a major health insurance company. In the medicare claims area. Do you know how expensive hospital bills can be??? Well, I have been paying taxes all of my adult life and I am not okay with paying bills for people that are not insured.

Agree but that's what the GObP/pubs want and, as we've already seen, they'll lie, cheat and steal to get it.

And, it will fall to the rest of us to pay their bills.

This is something that every poster here knows - that unpaid medical bills don't just float away.

It is -abundantly- clear that you have nothing of value to add to this forum.

 

[Conservative]

What do you think?? They are all given 2 aspirin and sent home??? Lots of them are admitted and stay for weeks or months in the hospital where they received emergency services. Some of them have surgery and other expensive procedures. Who in the hell do you think pays for that???

I worked for years in the government programs division for a major health insurance company. In the medicare claims area. Do you know how expensive hospital bills can be??? Well, I have been paying taxes all of my adult life and I am not okay with paying bills for people that are not insured.

Agree but that's what the GObP/pubs want and, as we've already seen, they'll lie, cheat and steal to get it.

And, it will fall to the rest of us to pay their bills.

This is something that every poster here knows - that unpaid medical bills don't just float away.

It is -abundantly- clear that you have nothing of value to add to this forum.

we appear to be casting pearls before swine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Agree but that's what the GObP/pubs want and, as we've already seen, they'll lie, cheat and steal to get it.

And, it will fall to the rest of us to pay their bills.

This is something that every poster here knows - that unpaid medical bills don't just float away.

It is -abundantly- clear that you have nothing of value to add to this forum.

we appear to be casting pearls before swine.

Well, when a partisan bigot is -so- partisan and -so- bigoted that he needs to lie in order to make a point, and then think nothing of said lie, there's no reason to give him any futher consideration.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Not to you, it doesn't nimrod. Once they are 18, under the previous system, it was THEIR cost, not yours. Your costs would have gone down once they were covering their own, or their employer was covering it.

Under Obamacare, your costs stay at the higher family rate until you are forced to drop them at 25, OR until they have their own.

The ability to keep them on COSTS YOU MONEY, it does not SAVE you money.

So yours is a semantic argument.
Hardly.


There are cost savings related to a child’s ability to remain covered until they are 25 but in order to realize these savings, we need to change pronouns.
Once they are 18, they are no longer 'children'. Certainly not at 25.


Your argument is that it won’t save the original poster any money, it will in fact cost the original poster money.
My argument is that keeping a 'child' on your policy until they reach 25 costs YOU more, as you are paying for a family plan, not a single or couples plan. It does not cost you LESS.


So to fix this, the kid will pay the difference and save a ton of money for himself by not having to have his or her own insurance and its individual premium.
And that makes them self-reliant how?

My comments in red.

I was under the impression that the debate was around cost savings.

The family plan that includes the 25 year old child will be less expensive than would two policies, one for the remaining family and another for an 18 to 25 year old.

That's a cost savings, not for the head of the household paying the premium but a savings in the overall costs of healthcare for the family and its members.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So yours is a semantic argument.
Hardly.


There are cost savings related to a child’s ability to remain covered until they are 25 but in order to realize these savings, we need to change pronouns.
Once they are 18, they are no longer 'children'. Certainly not at 25.


Your argument is that it won’t save the original poster any money, it will in fact cost the original poster money.
My argument is that keeping a 'child' on your policy until they reach 25 costs YOU more, as you are paying for a family plan, not a single or couples plan. It does not cost you LESS.


So to fix this, the kid will pay the difference and save a ton of money for himself by not having to have his or her own insurance and its individual premium.
And that makes them self-reliant how?

My comments in red.

I was under the impression that the debate was around cost savings.

The family plan that includes the 25 year old child will be less expensive than would two policies, one for the remaining family and another for an 18 to 25 year old.

That's a cost savings, not for the head of the household paying the premium but a savings in the overall costs of healthcare for the family and its members.

Can I have proof that it's a savings?

Be sure to include the tax it costs to pay it, and the cost of the added debt it'll inevitably bring that our grandkids will have to pay, since both parties have proven to be incapable of not racking up debt.

 

[Avatar4321]

Get government out of our health.

 

[Conservative]

So yours is a semantic argument.
Hardly.


There are cost savings related to a child’s ability to remain covered until they are 25 but in order to realize these savings, we need to change pronouns.
Once they are 18, they are no longer 'children'. Certainly not at 25.


Your argument is that it won’t save the original poster any money, it will in fact cost the original poster money.
My argument is that keeping a 'child' on your policy until they reach 25 costs YOU more, as you are paying for a family plan, not a single or couples plan. It does not cost you LESS.


So to fix this, the kid will pay the difference and save a ton of money for himself by not having to have his or her own insurance and its individual premium.
And that makes them self-reliant how?

My comments in red.

I was under the impression that the debate was around cost savings.

The family plan that includes the 25 year old child will be less expensive than would two policies, one for the remaining family and another for an 18 to 25 year old.

That's a cost savings, not for the head of the household paying the premium but a savings in the overall costs of healthcare for the family and its members.

over 18 should be paying their own way. They are NOT 'children' anymore. They can vote, drive, and die for their country, yet some want to coddle them as long as possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So yours is a semantic argument.
Hardly.


There are cost savings related to a child’s ability to remain covered until they are 25 but in order to realize these savings, we need to change pronouns.
Once they are 18, they are no longer 'children'. Certainly not at 25.


Your argument is that it won’t save the original poster any money, it will in fact cost the original poster money.
My argument is that keeping a 'child' on your policy until they reach 25 costs YOU more, as you are paying for a family plan, not a single or couples plan. It does not cost you LESS.


So to fix this, the kid will pay the difference and save a ton of money for himself by not having to have his or her own insurance and its individual premium.
And that makes them self-reliant how?

My comments in red.

I was under the impression that the debate was around cost savings.

The debate was over a lie by a specific poster that the changes saved him money, and his failure to show that he did, indeed, save that money.

The fact that the change -might- same money in no way necessitates that it indeed saved HIM money.

 

[Mustang]

What are 'bankruptcy laws,' Alex!

 

[MeBelle]

Republicans like the SOCIALIST system we currently have and they are fighting against personal responsibility.

As it is now, people who can't or don't pay their medical bills can get care in any emergency room. The hospital can try to collect and they do but they patient does not pay, the hospital is stuck and its the rest of us who must pay the bill.

It was a REPUBLICAN who passed this law and its the Repubs who don't want to take responsibility for their own care.
<snip>

Personally, I'd like to see them forced to pay for their own insurance.

The blame game continues...YAY!
Cite the law or shut it!

How does Obamacare account for illegals who use the majority of hospital ER services? How does Obamacare make illegals accountable to purchase health insurance?

 

[MeBelle]

I've given you ignorant pubs/bags what you demanded - The FACT that ObamaCare is partially in effect and that there are ways in which it has and is saving me money.

You were wrong and you're so dishonest and petty, you can't even admit that.

I've given you all the info I intend to. It is now up to you to educate yourselves further or hold tight to your ignorance.

But, being pubs and bags, you'll hide behind more name calling.

Now that's rich!

 

[JoeB131]

And at 25, 7 years out of HS, they have ample opportunity to have a job with a health plan...

And since when do I plan on having a 'child' or 'kid' of the age of 25 (but you know they are not kids, right?) on my health plan anyway?? Unless that child is a dependent because of disability, WHICH I COULD KEEP ON MY INSURANCE ANYWAY

How awful.

Well, again, who is paying for it?

If an employer is paying 10K to keep your family on the plan, and now Jr. gets to stay on the plan until he's 26, how does that benefit the employer. Eventually, this will drive up the costs of insurance, which means, eventually, they are going to have to lose warm bodies on the payroll to make that up.

See the problem?

We can all be generous with other people's money.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if those without insurance could make small payments toward their bills every month, it would help tremendously and many hospitals would be better off.

The Republicans have talked a lot in the past about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. The government tied their hands and eliminated the chance for competition. If you look at the auto insurance companies, you see the deals getting better all the time because competition brings prices down.

Also, Obama made a deal with Big Pharms, which will keep costs high. It's been government involvement that messed things up. The experts agree that Obamacare will raise prices, not just costs of care, but premiums for health insurance will sky rocket. Obamacare is designed to put the insurance companies out of business.

It amazes me when I see insurance companies vilified. I have a family member who fell ill and had several years of surgeries and long term hospital stays. For the money he spent on his insurance for the ten years at his job, he had nearly 2 million in hospital and doctor bills paid and he made payments on his co pay, which was under $10,000. Obviously, without insurance, he'd never be able to pay the bill in his lifetime. The money insurance pays out compared to the premiums people pay in is a good investment for people. Before insurance companies existed, people were on their own.

It's not insurance companies that are the villians, though the premiums would be even lower if they could compete. We need to look at why costs are so high. I am aware that those without insurance pose a problem and the hospitals pass the costs on to those with insurance. Still, the costs of simple supplies and care are way too high to begin with.

Even low income people without insurance could pay something toward their bill. Most really low income people qualify for every government program, including Medicaid, so they usually have no worries about paying anything. Others could send something for payment each month, but they don't even try.

I know some are saying that Obamacare will solve the problems, but it'll just get worse. When they run the private insurance companies out of business and people are forced to turn to government. we'll see serious rationing of care and long waiting lists to see specialists and even doctors.

Why do people look to government to solve the problem instead of asking what each of us can do for ourselves? Government interference is often the cause of many problems and more government interference damn sure isn't the answer.

Deporting nearly 2 million illegal aliens would help, too. We can do that by not granting automatic citizenship to anchor babies, insisting on photo IDs and valid social security numbers to get a job or welfare. Cut them off all the freebies, like Obama's aunt and uncle get, and they'll deport themselves.

That’s a lot of typing just to say the republicans have no plan and millions will be left uncovered.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s a lot of typing just to say the republicans have no plan and millions will be left uncovered.

The uninsured are not the problem.

The problem is that the costs of health care are spiralling out of control, and various schemes to pay for it no longer work.

You are shooting at the wrong target.