• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

jmotivator said:
Well, in theory he could apply for coverage in the hospital, or his spouse. I'm sure the Hospitals would be MORE than happy to send a social worker around to your room to help you with the paper work.
Click to expand...

The actual time it takes to sign up for insurance will depend on your states exchange, since they are to be state run. Most will probably have regulations against signing up while in the hospital or right after you find that you need expensive surgery. At the very least, regardless of how fast you sign up, it's unlikely that you would be good to go and fully insured by the end of your hospital visit even if you signed up during the ambulance ride. And even then, if this is possible and becomes a big problem, it would be easy to rid the program of it by instituting a 14 day waiting period for new health insurance plans or something similar.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Good lord, didn't know you were so tenderhearted. I'll try to be more gentle next time.
Click to expand...

not tenderhearted just pointing out the vile disgusting blatant hypocrisy on the left
 
j-mac said:
Won't it be wonderful when we are in our 70s, or 80s, should we be so lucky, and need that hip replacement, only to be told that we need to tell some IRS goon what we pray?
Click to expand...

It is a wonderful thing to know the government cares so much about us, what we pray about and the like, and should we stray from the government line of thinking they will have ways to influence us... all in an effort to protect us from ourselves.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The actual time it takes to sign up for insurance will depend on your states exchange, since they are to be state run. Most will probably have regulations against signing up while in the hospital or right after you find that you need expensive surgery. At the very least, regardless of how fast you sign up, it's unlikely that you would be good to go and fully insured by the end of your hospital visit even if you signed up during the ambulance ride. And even then, if this is possible and becomes a big problem, it would be easy to rid the program of it by instituting a 14 day waiting period for new health insurance plans or something similar.
Click to expand...


So wait, a major selling point of the ACA was that it mad eit illegal to deny anyone insurance for pre-existing conditions. And now you propose that the fix to the major flaw in the penalty system is to... limit access to people with pre-existing conditions?

Hmmmmm....
 
winston53660 said:
As Jared Bernstein points out, there’s a factual problem here: a large part of the rise in the disability rolls reflects simple demographics, because aging baby boomers are a lot more likely to have real ailments than those same workers did when they were in their 20s and 30s. The Social Security Administration does a formal adjustment for this reality, and as Jared says, it looks like this:
From Welfare Queens to Disabled Deadbeats - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...
I don't know what chart Krugman is looking at, but the one he links shows that "a large part of the rise in the disability rolls" reflected "simple demographics" was true from about 2002-2008. Since 2009, however, only a very small part of rise in disability rolls "reflects simple demographics" (the difference in slope being much, much less pronounced). Someone should tell Krugman that the entirety of the "aging baby boomers" has been in the "older worker" column since 2009, and started leaving for retirement in 2011.

If you want to understand the trouble Democrats are in, all you need to do is try following the "logic" of one Paul Krugman.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
How do you know? Can you quote the pertinent line in the 3000 pages? what is your source?
Click to expand...

There isn't a line saying it's not retroactive. But it's not my job to prove that. It's your job to show me the line that says it is. And why on earth would you think that it would be? It's a stupid concept. That's how I know it's not in there. You can't just make **** up and then pretend it's in the bill. I know thats how you normally operate but that's not how it works.
 
trfjr said:
not tenderhearted just pointing out the vile disgusting blatant hypocrisy on the left
Click to expand...

Kinda like how you're willing to complain about those gaming the system, while planning out ways to game the system?

Have fun with that.
 
jmotivator said:
So wait, a major selling point of the ACA was that it mad eit illegal to deny anyone insurance for pre-existing conditions. And now you propose that the fix to the major flaw in the penalty system is to... limit access to people with pre-existing conditions?

Hmmmmm....
Click to expand...

Completely different. Please don't be intentionally thick headed about this.

The goal of the ACA was to increase access especially to those with ore-existing conditions. And it will do this. But it was not created so that people could get insurance as soon as they get admitted to the hospital. There's a difference. In order to see it you'd have to take those nifty blinders off.
 
roughdraft274 said:
There isn't a line saying it's not retroactive. But it's not my job to prove that. It's your job to show me the line that says it is. And why on earth would you think that it would be? It's a stupid concept. That's how I know it's not in there. You can't just make **** up and then pretend it's in the bill. I know thats how you normally operate but that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

No need to get snotty. You said something like you knew it for a fact so I assumed you had real world info. I honestly don't know one way or the other and I thought maybe you did, my mistake.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Kinda like how you're willing to complain about those gaming the system, while planning out ways to game the system?

Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

its not gaming the system it is buying a service when you need it and not buying when you don't.

Its not my fault the dumb ass democrats passed such a flawed law that it is cheaper to not get insurence if you dont need it and allows you to buy it when you do
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You are aware that an insurance company doesn't have to pay for pre-existing bills, right? If I wait until I get sick, the insurance might not kick in until after I get myself a big fat bill. Even if I try to be sneaky and sign up for insurance during the ride to the hospital, I'd bet insurance companies will have a "your insurance starts next week" clause.
Click to expand...

You aren't thinking about this very carefully. Let's say a 20 something year old decides not to pay for health insurance be cause it costs more than the fine. Some time later he starts feeling sick and applies for insurance and schedules a doctor's visit. After the checkup the doctor decides that he needs to see a specialist, who gives him an appointment two weeks later. The specialist finds through a battery of tests that the patient has Leukemia and immediately puts him on the path to a treatment regimen.

How much of that do you think will be covered by Health Insurance? If you say "none" then the ACA really doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. By the way the bill was sold, all of that would be covered by insurance.

Moreover, the actual rate of catastrophic illness in the young healthy population is so low that it is a fair bet that the average 20 something could go YEARS without actually needing health insurance. Out of 1000 27-45 year olds, how many will incur a medical bill exceeding, say, $2000 in that 18 years? The reason I have insurance at all is to maintain that unbroken insurance record in order to avoid getting penalized for a pre-existing condition. If I don't have to worry about that penalty then the odds are well in my favor in any given year that I will not have a catastrophic medical expense.

More over, there is already a type of insurance that covers ONLY critical illness expenses that you can buy to cover a set amount of medical bills. Mutual of Omaha has a plan that covers accidents AND illnesses like cancer for $16/month per $25,000 in pay out. A $50,000 policy would cover almost every conceivable illness I might incurr, and I can pay the every day medical bills with the money I save by NOT paying for Obamacare. A $25,000 policy would cover the majority of the illnesses I might contract, all cheaper than Obamacare.

Obamacare seems to "fix" a problem that only appears to impact those incapable of rational life planning.


Anyone who thinks Obamacare threatens the insurance industry should keep in mind that the insurance industry wrote the bill.
Click to expand...

So the Insurance industry wrote the insurance bill and then spent huge sums of money trying to defeat it?
 
roughdraft274 said:
There isn't a line saying it's not retroactive. But it's not my job to prove that. It's your job to show me the line that says it is. And why on earth would you think that it would be? It's a stupid concept. That's how I know it's not in there. You can't just make **** up and then pretend it's in the bill. I know thats how you normally operate but that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

the whole bill is one big stupid concept. so why would it not be believeable if that wasn't in there?
what stupid ass decided no businesses under 50 employees would have to provide insurance and not expect businesses to keep who they hire under 50? what idiot thought it was a good idea to not force business to provide insurance for part timers and not expect business not to make every one part time?
 
Woodman909 said:
If this law wasn't so horrible, not to mention unconstitutional, it would almost be funny. Couple this with the hoards of illegals (soon to be legal democrats) that will get health care for free, and you can watch the USA become Greece in a matter of months, if not weeks.
Click to expand...

LOL. Why are you so hung up on a 3rd world country like Greece. Nothing about Greece resembles the USA....nothing.
 
trfjr said:
the whole bill is one big stupid concept. so why would it not be believeable if that wasn't in there?
what stupid ass decided no businesses under 50 employees would have to provide insurance and not expect businesses to keep who they hire under 50? what idiot thought it was a good idea to not force business to provide insurance for part timers and not expect business not to make every one part time?
Click to expand...

They would be the same idiots who passed it before reading it.
 
jmotivator said:
For the poor the cost of the doctor's visits simply isn't a concern since the old adage remains that you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. At the higher income levels the the savings for not buying insurance are greater than the out of pocket expenses for a doctors visit.

Let's look at someone making $80,000. In the first year of the penalty she could either pay $3,800 for insurance, or $895 in penalties. If she chose to take the penalty she would have $2,905 free and clear to pay medical expenses that year. The average doctor's visit is about $300. She could see the doctor 9 times that year, pay out of pocket, and still come out even.

If people are chronically ill then obviously they would weigh their annual costs versus savings... but there in lies the critical flaw in the Obamacare system: It only makes sense to participate in the new system if you spend more on medical bills than the cost of insurance. But those people are a net loss for insurance companies to insure, so they can only afford to insure them because all the healthy people who don't go to the doctor also buy insurance, and are a net positive cash flow for the insurance companies. Under the Obama plan those people who are not chronically ill would be foolish to buy insurance.



Without a change to the cost of the penalty I give them three years. The government will shell out hundreds of billions trying to keep the insurance industry afloat, but saving them in this stupid new system would break the bank.
Click to expand...

Or you have totally underestimated the American people and they will welcome paying a bit more for the peace of mind of having coverage. Not everyone is a penny-pinching skinflint who's only aim is to cheat the govt.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Good lord, the denial is strong in you.
Click to expand...

what denial? that i have to buy insurance so your premiums will be cheaper? If you think you should have a say so if i buy insurance or not then i should have a say so that welfare moms should be forced not have any more children so my taxes will be cheaper
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Or you have totally underestimated the American people and they will welcome paying a bit more for the peace of mind of having coverage. Not everyone is a penny-pinching skinflint who's only aim is to cheat the govt.
Click to expand...

You're right! We should also change the US tax system to a voluntary program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom