2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

[Rustic]

Republicans are as dishonest as they are ridiculous concerning the ACA:

Republican candidates trying to have it both ways on Obamacare

Obamacare was made for progressives by progressives

 

[Rustic]

2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

This Tuesday we’ll learn to what extent voters’ perceptions of the Affordable Care Act have already changed. Republican candidates are fearful and they’re promising to “protect” the prohibition of ACA insurers to increase prices of applicants due to their pre-existing medical conditions. This is occurring while Republican attorney generals are opposing the federal governments right to enforce those same prohibitions.

Additionally, Republicans are trying to enable cheaper and inadequate medical insurance to qualify as purchasable within Affordable-Care market sites. Those cheaper plans all enable increased prices for pre-existing medical conditions. Prohibiting increased prices for pre-existing conditions may already be, or I’m confident in the future they will be, both USA’s consumers’ and voters’ normal expectations. Such insurance at non-drastic prices cannot be sustained unless the young and the healthy proportion of our population are fully reflected within the adequately medically insured segment of our population.

If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Let's extrapolate for a moment. Let's say Obama said everybody who drives needs to be insured, in fact had Congress pass a law about it.

The law reads that regardless of DUI's, accidents, dangerous driving that accumulated points, insurance companies have to give the same price to them as safe motorists.

What do you think would happen to your auto insurance rates under AutoBama?

The very same holds true with medical care. And trust me, I've had preexisting conditions since I was 23 years old; I'm now 58, and until Commie Care came along, was insured through my employers all of my adult life.

The solution: We need to meet half way on this problem. Allow people like myself to buy into Medicare just like people who are on disability. The rates are reasonable, and it removes all high risk patients from the insurance pool. This way we can keep our private insurance and give Democrats a little of what they want.

It's a half-way point I think everybody can get something, but not everything, and it would work out better for the entire country instead of what Commie Care did, and work out for likely Democrat voters.

Driving is not a necessity . Health care is . People don’t choose to have cancer .

Cons fail to address the fact that people NEED healthcare .

Obama care is not healthcare... shit for brains

 

[Supposn]

So again I ask, what did people do before our medical technology today? If you die, then you die. You're going to die anyway, it's just a matter of when. Medical advancements only prolongs life. It's not a mandate that you must prolong yours.

Ray From Cleveland, technology doesn't mandate. Other may disagree but I won't argue that (regardless if you are, or aren't a sane rational person), you shouldn't be prohibited from refusing treatment and dying sooner.

You want to prevent me from living a healthier, and physically less handicapped and longer lifetime? I would respect your altruistic wishes not to be a burden upon our nation, please respect my selfish preferences. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

Driving is not a necessity . Health care is . People don’t choose to have cancer .

Cons fail to address the fact that people NEED healthcare .

People NEED food and shelter too...Shall we have "universal groceries" and "universal houses"?

 

[Maxdeath]

Why is it Democrats always talk about single payer or Medicare for all yet never seem to understand the cost? Is math really that hard?

It would be very easy to have single payer but you are going to have to pay for it in an income tax of 50%. Do you really think you are going to find any one that is going to pay that when you have so many crying that they did not get a big enough tax cut, that are upset that SALT is not high enough?

I know, far cheaper letting people die

No you just have to be smart enough to understand that there is a cost. Nothing is free though too many Democrats seem to think that it is.

 

[Claudette]

2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

This Tuesday we’ll learn to what extent voters’ perceptions of the Affordable Care Act have already changed. Republican candidates are fearful and they’re promising to “protect” the prohibition of ACA insurers to increase prices of applicants due to their pre-existing medical conditions. This is occurring while Republican attorney generals are opposing the federal governments right to enforce those same prohibitions.

Additionally, Republicans are trying to enable cheaper and inadequate medical insurance to qualify as purchasable within Affordable-Care market sites. Those cheaper plans all enable increased prices for pre-existing medical conditions. Prohibiting increased prices for pre-existing conditions may already be, or I’m confident in the future they will be, both USA’s consumers’ and voters’ normal expectations. Such insurance at non-drastic prices cannot be sustained unless the young and the healthy proportion of our population are fully reflected within the adequately medically insured segment of our population.

If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

You want to be covered for pre-existing conditions, then don't call it insurance, because it's not.

Insurance, properly defined, is to provide financial relief for unforeseeable or untimely expenses...Pre-existing conditions are neither.

If you want honest debate and discussion, you would be best served by first using honest language.

Yup and I don't know anyone who wants to pay more for their HC coverage so those with pre existing conditions can get coverage.

 

[Supposn]

No you just have to be smart enough to understand that there is a cost. Nothing is free though too many Democrats seem to think that it is.

Maxdeath, it would be of less aggregate net costs and superior to what we had or now have. Respectfully, Supposn

... Prohibiting increased prices for pre-existing conditions may already be, or I’m confident in the future they will be, both USA’s consumers’ and voters’ normal expectations. ... If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance.

... It would in aggregate be of greater economic benefit at lesser cost to our nation. ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

... Let's say Obama said everybody who drives needs to be insured, in fact had Congress pass a law about it.... It's a half-way point I think everybody can get something, but not everything, and it would work out better for the entire country instead of what Commie Care did, and work out for likely Democrat voters.

Ray From Cleveland, many Americans believe otherwise, but In the United States, driving is a privilege rather than an inalienable right. Civilizations, USA’s society, has been evolving to somewhat protect individuals well-being. It's argued that’s a proper federal task and is within the scope of the general welfare clause within the U.S. Constitution ’s preamble.

I’m among the proponents of basic medical insurance being an entitlement paid by all USA taxpayers through our general federal budget. It would in aggregate be of greater economic benefit at lesser cost to our nation. The United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and it's of serious cost to our economy, but other nations healthcare policies produce more satisfactory results. Their populations are healthier and more pleased with their nation’s healthcare policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

Show me one perfect healthcare system with no problems.

If we want government healthcare, it has to be paid for evenly The problem with healthcare is it becomes political. The Democrats would want the wealthy to pay for most of it and the lower income to pay nothing.

I say if we are going to have it, healthcare should be funded by a national sales tax. This way everybody pays equally.

 

[Maxdeath]

No you just have to be smart enough to understand that there is a cost. Nothing is free though too many Democrats seem to think that it is.

Maxdeath, it would be of less aggregate net costs and superior to what we had or now have. Respectfully, Supposn

... Prohibiting increased prices for pre-existing conditions may already be, or I’m confident in the future they will be, both USA’s consumers’ and voters’ normal expectations. ... If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance.

... It would in aggregate be of greater economic benefit at lesser cost to our nation. ...

The actual cost for single payer is estimated at 3.2 Trillion dollars yearly. The total amount taken in by the government this year in income tax was 3.2 Trillion. Tell me how that is lesser cost. It would take every penny of what we take in.

 

[Polishprince]

2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

This Tuesday we’ll learn to what extent voters’ perceptions of the Affordable Care Act have already changed. Republican candidates are fearful and they’re promising to “protect” the prohibition of ACA insurers to increase prices of applicants due to their pre-existing medical conditions. This is occurring while Republican attorney generals are opposing the federal governments right to enforce those same prohibitions.

Additionally, Republicans are trying to enable cheaper and inadequate medical insurance to qualify as purchasable within Affordable-Care market sites. Those cheaper plans all enable increased prices for pre-existing medical conditions. Prohibiting increased prices for pre-existing conditions may already be, or I’m confident in the future they will be, both USA’s consumers’ and voters’ normal expectations. Such insurance at non-drastic prices cannot be sustained unless the young and the healthy proportion of our population are fully reflected within the adequately medically insured segment of our population.

If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

President Trump has succeeded in reforming the ACA by getting rid of the Hated individual mandate.

He's also helped the healthcare situation, by getting rid of Obama's massive payoffs from the taxpayers to billionaire insurance firms involved in the ACA.

Really, Trump is doing what he can on Health Care. However, its up to the Democrats to fix it. They broke health care with the ACA, so it is their responsibility to come up with passable, and signable fixes for it. So far from them, nothing.

 

[Supposn]

The actual cost for single payer is estimated at 3.2 Trillion dollars yearly. The total amount taken in by the government this year in income tax was 3.2 Trillion. Tell me how that is lesser cost. It would take every penny of what we take in.

Maxdeath, this $3.2 trillion figure came from who or what? the current figures, from who or what? how does who or what reconcile their differences? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Maxdeath]

Since you seem unable to google Bloomberg - Are you a robot?. There are others who also have done the math.

They take into account the fact that government would necessarily need to enlarge and the fact that there is always more government then actually needed. Most call it bloat. They take into account the so called "dead wood" which is people that can not pay their fair share for one reason or another.

If you look at every country that has single payer health care you will notice that they pay on average 45 to 50% income tax. Take into account that the average American pays only 20 to 25%. You are looking at doubling you income tax. Take into account those on government assistance pay no income tax and the increase to income tax could go higher. Before you go off on we will just tax companies and the rich keep in mind that most of those same countries tax companies at 20 to 25%. We are currently taxing companies and the rich at 35%. When you tax higher companies either fold or move. It has been that way before. Look at the billions repatriated when their taxes were dropped by Trump. The wealthy are not tied here. Their wealth can be easily sent overseas. Some have numerous houses in other countries.

No let's look at a number of things with single payer.
First off be prepared to wait six moths to see a specialist. Wait almost a year for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer medical innovations. Less research into new drugs. Since the financial incentives are not there.
Expect private and semi private rooms to disappear.
And expect doctor and nursing care and involvement to drop.

Once again tell me how we as a country benifit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since you seem unable to google Bloomberg - Are you a robot?. There are others who also have done the math.

They take into account the fact that government would necessarily need to enlarge and the fact that there is always more government then actually needed. Most call it bloat. They take into account the so called "dead wood" which is people that can not pay their fair share for one reason or another.

If you look at every country that has single payer health care you will notice that they pay on average 45 to 50% income tax. Take into account that the average American pays only 20 to 25%. You are looking at doubling you income tax. Take into account those on government assistance pay no income tax and the increase to income tax could go higher. Before you go off on we will just tax companies and the rich keep in mind that most of those same countries tax companies at 20 to 25%. We are currently taxing companies and the rich at 35%. When you tax higher companies either fold or move. It has been that way before. Look at the billions repatriated when their taxes were dropped by Trump. The wealthy are not tied here. Their wealth can be easily sent overseas. Some have numerous houses in other countries.

No let's look at a number of things with single payer.
First off be prepared to wait six moths to see a specialist. Wait almost a year for non life threatening surgery.
Fewer medical innovations. Less research into new drugs. Since the financial incentives are not there.
Expect private and semi private rooms to disappear.
And expect doctor and nursing care and involvement to drop.

Once again tell me how we as a country benifit?

Also:

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions