Do you really think obamacare is that good?

[Vandalshandle]

And, according to the news a few minutes ago, the GOP is losing support for TrumpCare2, because, in spite of Trumps bogus claim that pre-existing conditions coverage is mandated, the bill allows states to exclude people with those conditions.

Trump is right, in a way. We democrats are winning so much that we are getting tired of winning!

 

[Slashsnake]

It would be great if we ALL could pick, ala carte, what insurance coverage we individually wanted, but the business model for Insurance simply does not work that way....they have to make a profit....and cover the costs of those who are sick.

We can? You ever sign up for car insurance? I pick my coverages.

So much for "non profit" status. I guess Blue Cross/Blue Shield owes quite a bit of back taxes.

 

[Slashsnake]

And, according to the news a few minutes ago, the GOP is losing support for TrumpCare2, because, in spite of Trumps bogus claim that pre-existing conditions coverage is mandated, the bill allows states to exclude people with those conditions.

Trump is right, in a way. We democrats are winning so much that we are getting tired of winning!

Your comment literally made zero sense. Trump has been on the "coverage for pre-existing conditions," train the whole time. Allowing the states to opt out of it doesn't favor the general opinion of a democrat.

 

[debbiedowner]

There are many things in the ACA regarding Patient Protections, that are good...

-pre-existing condition coverage, no annual caps where if you do end up sick, the insurance company can not cut you off and let you die or go bankrupt, children covered until 26 on parent's policies, proportion of profits put back in to better services for the customer instead of ceo/ salaries, punishments for releasing patients before they are fully healed and having to reenter the hospital a second time, Annual physicals and appropriate age related testing covered without any out of pocket expense....etc.

The problem is and always has been, before and after the ACA, is price...the price, the price, the price!

And why should a company be bound by any of that stuff?

No pre-existing conditions? Not the government's place to tell insurance companies who to do business with.
No annual caps? Not the government's place to tell a company how much they should spend on someone they do business with.
Coverage until 26? Ridiculous, that drives up prices. You're an adult at 18, pay for your own health insurance.
Annual physicals and preventative care? Also drives up prices.

One should be able to pick and choose their coverage levels like in any other insurance sector. I'm a single man - I shouldn't have to pay for pediatric dental (which should be covered under dental insurance), preventative care (I'd rather pay for my shots out of pocket), and I should be able to manually choose a deductible, coverage range for Rx medications, deductibles and co-pays for emergency room visits, co-insurance, physician co-pays, etc... I shouldn't have it forced down my throat.

Instead of paying $165/month for a catastrophic plan through Fidelis, I would be paying less than I do now. If I could choose a $50 co-pay for a non-specialist/non-urgent care, no preventative care coverage, no pediatric dental coverage, $25 co-pay for generic Rx drugs, $200 emergency room deductible, and $100,000 coverage maximum per year (including emergency room visit), all with a $600 deductible, I'm sure my premium would be reasonable.

Fidelis is either mandated my N.Y. or someone scammed you, pediatric dental is only mandated on children under 19 in the ACA.

You ask for a $200 ded er and overall $600 deductible and $50 co pay, well those low deductibles and co pay just shot your price up. I can't believe after going to their website you didn't choose your own plan.

 

[debbiedowner]

And, according to the news a few minutes ago, the GOP is losing support for TrumpCare2, because, in spite of Trumps bogus claim that pre-existing conditions coverage is mandated, the bill allows states to exclude people with those conditions.

Trump is right, in a way. We democrats are winning so much that we are getting tired of winning!

Hell it's already trumpcare, didn't you see the new rules implemented recently for the upcoming year, a couple were on the drawing board before Trump and a couple after, he could have stopped the ones that were the drawing board but it's too complicated. lol lol

 

[debbiedowner]

And, according to the news a few minutes ago, the GOP is losing support for TrumpCare2, because, in spite of Trumps bogus claim that pre-existing conditions coverage is mandated, the bill allows states to exclude people with those conditions.

Trump is right, in a way. We democrats are winning so much that we are getting tired of winning!

Your comment literally made zero sense. Trump has been on the "coverage for pre-existing conditions," train the whole time. Allowing the states to opt out of it doesn't favor the general opinion of a democrat.

Hate to tell you this but allowing states to opt out also doesn't favor most of the population.

 

[Slashsnake]

There are many things in the ACA regarding Patient Protections, that are good...

-pre-existing condition coverage, no annual caps where if you do end up sick, the insurance company can not cut you off and let you die or go bankrupt, children covered until 26 on parent's policies, proportion of profits put back in to better services for the customer instead of ceo/ salaries, punishments for releasing patients before they are fully healed and having to reenter the hospital a second time, Annual physicals and appropriate age related testing covered without any out of pocket expense....etc.

The problem is and always has been, before and after the ACA, is price...the price, the price, the price!

And why should a company be bound by any of that stuff?

No pre-existing conditions? Not the government's place to tell insurance companies who to do business with.
No annual caps? Not the government's place to tell a company how much they should spend on someone they do business with.
Coverage until 26? Ridiculous, that drives up prices. You're an adult at 18, pay for your own health insurance.
Annual physicals and preventative care? Also drives up prices.

One should be able to pick and choose their coverage levels like in any other insurance sector. I'm a single man - I shouldn't have to pay for pediatric dental (which should be covered under dental insurance), preventative care (I'd rather pay for my shots out of pocket), and I should be able to manually choose a deductible, coverage range for Rx medications, deductibles and co-pays for emergency room visits, co-insurance, physician co-pays, etc... I shouldn't have it forced down my throat.

Instead of paying $165/month for a catastrophic plan through Fidelis, I would be paying less than I do now. If I could choose a $50 co-pay for a non-specialist/non-urgent care, no preventative care coverage, no pediatric dental coverage, $25 co-pay for generic Rx drugs, $200 emergency room deductible, and $100,000 coverage maximum per year (including emergency room visit), all with a $600 deductible, I'm sure my premium would be reasonable.

Fidelis is either mandated my N.Y. or someone scammed you, pediatric dental is only mandated on children under 19 in the ACA.

You ask for a $200 ded er and overall $600 deductible and $50 co pay, well those low deductibles and co pay just shot your price up. I can't believe after going to their website you didn't choose your own plan.

Are you drunk...

 

[debbiedowner]

There are many things in the ACA regarding Patient Protections, that are good...

-pre-existing condition coverage, no annual caps where if you do end up sick, the insurance company can not cut you off and let you die or go bankrupt, children covered until 26 on parent's policies, proportion of profits put back in to better services for the customer instead of ceo/ salaries, punishments for releasing patients before they are fully healed and having to reenter the hospital a second time, Annual physicals and appropriate age related testing covered without any out of pocket expense....etc.

The problem is and always has been, before and after the ACA, is price...the price, the price, the price!

And why should a company be bound by any of that stuff?

No pre-existing conditions? Not the government's place to tell insurance companies who to do business with.
No annual caps? Not the government's place to tell a company how much they should spend on someone they do business with.
Coverage until 26? Ridiculous, that drives up prices. You're an adult at 18, pay for your own health insurance.
Annual physicals and preventative care? Also drives up prices.

One should be able to pick and choose their coverage levels like in any other insurance sector. I'm a single man - I shouldn't have to pay for pediatric dental (which should be covered under dental insurance), preventative care (I'd rather pay for my shots out of pocket), and I should be able to manually choose a deductible, coverage range for Rx medications, deductibles and co-pays for emergency room visits, co-insurance, physician co-pays, etc... I shouldn't have it forced down my throat.

Instead of paying $165/month for a catastrophic plan through Fidelis, I would be paying less than I do now. If I could choose a $50 co-pay for a non-specialist/non-urgent care, no preventative care coverage, no pediatric dental coverage, $25 co-pay for generic Rx drugs, $200 emergency room deductible, and $100,000 coverage maximum per year (including emergency room visit), all with a $600 deductible, I'm sure my premium would be reasonable.

Fidelis is either mandated my N.Y. or someone scammed you, pediatric dental is only mandated on children under 19 in the ACA.

You ask for a $200 ded er and overall $600 deductible and $50 co pay, well those low deductibles and co pay just shot your price up. I can't believe after going to their website you didn't choose your own plan.

Are you drunk...

No but I think someone who chose their own damn plan and then blames it on everyone else is either drunk or Trump himself.

 

[Slashsnake]

There are many things in the ACA regarding Patient Protections, that are good...

-pre-existing condition coverage, no annual caps where if you do end up sick, the insurance company can not cut you off and let you die or go bankrupt, children covered until 26 on parent's policies, proportion of profits put back in to better services for the customer instead of ceo/ salaries, punishments for releasing patients before they are fully healed and having to reenter the hospital a second time, Annual physicals and appropriate age related testing covered without any out of pocket expense....etc.

The problem is and always has been, before and after the ACA, is price...the price, the price, the price!

And why should a company be bound by any of that stuff?

No pre-existing conditions? Not the government's place to tell insurance companies who to do business with.
No annual caps? Not the government's place to tell a company how much they should spend on someone they do business with.
Coverage until 26? Ridiculous, that drives up prices. You're an adult at 18, pay for your own health insurance.
Annual physicals and preventative care? Also drives up prices.

One should be able to pick and choose their coverage levels like in any other insurance sector. I'm a single man - I shouldn't have to pay for pediatric dental (which should be covered under dental insurance), preventative care (I'd rather pay for my shots out of pocket), and I should be able to manually choose a deductible, coverage range for Rx medications, deductibles and co-pays for emergency room visits, co-insurance, physician co-pays, etc... I shouldn't have it forced down my throat.

Instead of paying $165/month for a catastrophic plan through Fidelis, I would be paying less than I do now. If I could choose a $50 co-pay for a non-specialist/non-urgent care, no preventative care coverage, no pediatric dental coverage, $25 co-pay for generic Rx drugs, $200 emergency room deductible, and $100,000 coverage maximum per year (including emergency room visit), all with a $600 deductible, I'm sure my premium would be reasonable.

Fidelis is either mandated my N.Y. or someone scammed you, pediatric dental is only mandated on children under 19 in the ACA.

You ask for a $200 ded er and overall $600 deductible and $50 co pay, well those low deductibles and co pay just shot your price up. I can't believe after going to their website you didn't choose your own plan.

Are you drunk...

No but I think someone who chose their own damn plan and then blames it on everyone else is either drunk or Trump himself.

Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? I was proposing a plan I would choose if the insurance companies let you decide your coverage levels.

My premium wouldn't shoot up because I wouldn't have preventative care or any of the bells and whistles, plus my maximum coverage isn't that high.

 

[debbiedowner]

There are many things in the ACA regarding Patient Protections, that are good...

-pre-existing condition coverage, no annual caps where if you do end up sick, the insurance company can not cut you off and let you die or go bankrupt, children covered until 26 on parent's policies, proportion of profits put back in to better services for the customer instead of ceo/ salaries, punishments for releasing patients before they are fully healed and having to reenter the hospital a second time, Annual physicals and appropriate age related testing covered without any out of pocket expense....etc.

The problem is and always has been, before and after the ACA, is price...the price, the price, the price!

And why should a company be bound by any of that stuff?

No pre-existing conditions? Not the government's place to tell insurance companies who to do business with.
No annual caps? Not the government's place to tell a company how much they should spend on someone they do business with.
Coverage until 26? Ridiculous, that drives up prices. You're an adult at 18, pay for your own health insurance.
Annual physicals and preventative care? Also drives up prices.

One should be able to pick and choose their coverage levels like in any other insurance sector. I'm a single man - I shouldn't have to pay for pediatric dental (which should be covered under dental insurance), preventative care (I'd rather pay for my shots out of pocket), and I should be able to manually choose a deductible, coverage range for Rx medications, deductibles and co-pays for emergency room visits, co-insurance, physician co-pays, etc... I shouldn't have it forced down my throat.

Instead of paying $165/month for a catastrophic plan through Fidelis, I would be paying less than I do now. If I could choose a $50 co-pay for a non-specialist/non-urgent care, no preventative care coverage, no pediatric dental coverage, $25 co-pay for generic Rx drugs, $200 emergency room deductible, and $100,000 coverage maximum per year (including emergency room visit), all with a $600 deductible, I'm sure my premium would be reasonable.

Fidelis is either mandated my N.Y. or someone scammed you, pediatric dental is only mandated on children under 19 in the ACA.

You ask for a $200 ded er and overall $600 deductible and $50 co pay, well those low deductibles and co pay just shot your price up. I can't believe after going to their website you didn't choose your own plan.

Are you drunk...

No but I think someone who chose their own damn plan and then blames it on everyone else is either drunk or Trump himself.

Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? I was proposing a plan I would choose if the insurance companies let you decide your coverage levels.

My premium wouldn't shoot up because I wouldn't have preventative care or any of the bells and whistles, plus my maximum coverage isn't that high.

Don't know what insurance company you've been dealing with other than what you posted a name of Fidelis then said something about Blue Cross. I do know what I'm talking about you have a choice of bronze, silver, gold and maybe platinum plans with different deductible's and co pays. If you are under 30 or can prove you have a hardship you can purchase a catastrophic plan. You cannot build your own out of all these choices. Does that make better sense?

With inflation and the costs of healthcare, not insurance, going up every year even if there was full repeal you wouldn't see your premium's come down anytime soon if at all.

 

[Care4all]

Insurance works by people who are not sick or in a car accident, paying for those who are sick or with car insurance, in an accident....

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It would be great if we ALL could pick, ala carte, what insurance coverage we individually wanted, but the business model for Insurance simply does not work that way....they have to make a profit....and cover the costs of those who are sick.

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It's what makes your employer group insurance plans cost less in premiums than any single individual plan. Sure they can write a single policy for any individual person not in a group plan, and it is DOUBLE or more, the price of the same group plan coverage, with no financial help from an employer

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

I'm waiting for you to explain why pooling people together is so gawd awful as far as th way it brings down the price?

Or are you saying, there should be no insurance at all so the pressure on the market price is controlled by the individual resistance to all the hikes in prices?

 

[debbiedowner]

Insurance works by people who are not sick or in a car accident, paying for those who are sick or with car insurance, in an accident....

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It would be great if we ALL could pick, ala carte, what insurance coverage we individually wanted, but the business model for Insurance simply does not work that way....they have to make a profit....and cover the costs of those who are sick.

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It's what makes your employer group insurance plans cost less in premiums than any single individual plan. Sure they can write a single policy for any individual person not in a group plan, and it is DOUBLE or more, the price of the same group plan coverage, with no financial help from an employer

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

I'm waiting for you to explain why pooling people together is so gawd awful as far as th way it brings down the price?

Or are you saying, there should be no insurance at all so the pressure on the market price is controlled by the individual resistance to all the hikes in prices?

This depends in what state your group insurance is located. In my state a group insurance plan rated for an employee only vs an individual plan with matching coverage is more expensive when you look at full premiums, but then of course the employer has to pay a portion of your premium and that is what quite a few employees don't understand. They see x amount of dollars coming out of their paycheck and then look at someone is paying for an individual plan and assumes the individual plan is more expensive and it is not and they are forgetting their boss is paying a portion of the full premium.

I do agree though individual plans premiums are getting very close to what group plans cost in my state since ACA.

 

[Care4all]

Insurance works by people who are not sick or in a car accident, paying for those who are sick or with car insurance, in an accident....

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It would be great if we ALL could pick, ala carte, what insurance coverage we individually wanted, but the business model for Insurance simply does not work that way....they have to make a profit....and cover the costs of those who are sick.

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It's what makes your employer group insurance plans cost less in premiums than any single individual plan. Sure they can write a single policy for any individual person not in a group plan, and it is DOUBLE or more, the price of the same group plan coverage, with no financial help from an employer

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

I'm waiting for you to explain why pooling people together is so gawd awful as far as th way it brings down the price?

Or are you saying, there should be no insurance at all so the pressure on the market price is controlled by the individual resistance to all the hikes in prices?

This depends in what state your group insurance is located. In my state a group insurance plan rated for an employee only vs an individual plan with matching coverage is more expensive when you look at full premiums, but then of course the employer has to pay a portion of your premium and that is what quite a few employees don't understand. They see x amount of dollars coming out of their paycheck and then look at someone is paying for an individual plan and assumes the individual plan is more expensive and it is not and they are forgetting their boss is paying a portion of the full premium.

I do agree though individual plans premiums are getting very close to what group plans cost in my state since ACA.

yeah, I'm talking my state of Maine....prices are and always have been, even before the ACA, out of control, thru the roof!

 

[debbiedowner]

Insurance works by people who are not sick or in a car accident, paying for those who are sick or with car insurance, in an accident....

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It would be great if we ALL could pick, ala carte, what insurance coverage we individually wanted, but the business model for Insurance simply does not work that way....they have to make a profit....and cover the costs of those who are sick.

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

Nope. That's one aspect of group insurance, and the aspect that makes it most insidious to underlying markets, but it's not an inherently part of insurance. And insurance company can write a policy for one person, without pooling anyone else in with them.

It's what makes your employer group insurance plans cost less in premiums than any single individual plan. Sure they can write a single policy for any individual person not in a group plan, and it is DOUBLE or more, the price of the same group plan coverage, with no financial help from an employer

Again, you're assuming group insurance is the only viable model for health insurance. That's the core conceit of ACA. Group insurance is the biggest problem with the health care market. More of the same isn't a sane solution.

I'm waiting for you to explain why pooling people together is so gawd awful as far as th way it brings down the price?

Or are you saying, there should be no insurance at all so the pressure on the market price is controlled by the individual resistance to all the hikes in prices?

This depends in what state your group insurance is located. In my state a group insurance plan rated for an employee only vs an individual plan with matching coverage is more expensive when you look at full premiums, but then of course the employer has to pay a portion of your premium and that is what quite a few employees don't understand. They see x amount of dollars coming out of their paycheck and then look at someone is paying for an individual plan and assumes the individual plan is more expensive and it is not and they are forgetting their boss is paying a portion of the full premium.

I do agree though individual plans premiums are getting very close to what group plans cost in my state since ACA.

yeah, I'm talking my state of Maine....prices are and always have been, even before the ACA, out of control, thru the roof!

When these people speak of high premium's, none of them know that most or all states require a certain amount of money in reserves so if something catastrophic happens an insurance company will have to fund the claims and not go under. What could happen? Possibly a pandemic.

If ACA was completely repealed and we went back to the old underwriting system if rates ever went down it would not happen until insurance companies could pay off all the high claims and catch up which may years or never. I've been with my company 30 years and they had minimal health insurance increases until the Bush years and then they started implementing once a year not only an annual rate increase and age increase incorporated at once. Therefore we have had since around 2003 double digit rate increases every year. Two years ago under ACA one of our select plans (with a select network) had a 2% decrease but last year went up 12%.

People want low deductibles, co pays for everything and expect low rates, ain't going to happen. The more co pays you put on a plan and with the cost of drugs and their co pays are driving the costs. Not to mention all the mandates which our state had 51 before ACA and just about all the ehb's, except maternity.

 

[Aries]

republicans could have just repealed the mandate and everything would have been good.

republicans can't walk without tripping over their own feet right now, don't expect much from them.

 

[Aries]

Obama has done more to kill jobs than any other president.

statistics disagree with you

 

[dblack]

I'm waiting for you to explain why pooling people together is so gawd awful as far as the way it brings down the price?

It's gawd awful because it only temporarily brings down the price of health insurance, and promotes inflation in the prices of actual health care. It turns normal consumer incentives upside down. No one cares what health care costs because no one is paying for their own health care. This eventually catches up when premiums must rise, even for group plans, when health care prices go up.

Or are you saying, there should be no insurance at all so the pressure on the market price is controlled by the individual resistance to all the hikes in prices?

Insurance has its place, but we are abusing it. It's not a social safety net. It's not a "buyer's club". For society, as well as for individuals, the prudent thing is to have as little insurance as we can afford.