• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

I think all Americans should have adequate healthcare. I think we should have a UHC system and hope ACA is a step along the way.

I agree completely.
 
I think all Americans should have adequate healthcare. I think we should have a UHC system and hope ACA is a step along the way.

The majority of Americans oppose a single payer system.
 
You'll need to provide more information on what you are talking about.

If other countries pay less, why would we do better paying more? No matter how their financial state is, they still spend less. So,what is the logic in using paying more?
 
If other countries pay less, why would we do better paying more? No matter how their financial state is, they still spend less. So,what is the logic in using paying more?

Too simplistic...Are all countries the same?
 
Only in some cases, but not in all cases. Generics are far cheaper in the US.

I think people downplay the effect of having the US economy as the early adopters for medical technology, but if we went UHC we would cease to play that role.

moving to UHC doesn't mean innovation is going to halt or that the industry is not going to make money. it does mean, however, that costs will be forced down, which is exactly what needs to happen.

either way, the PPACA is still a lousy, haphazard way to deliver universal coverage. the only less efficient system i can think of is the UHC we have had since 1986 when Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. that law basically gave us UHC, which is currently delivered in emergency rooms and is paid for by all of us via our premiums. why anyone would support either this or the employer-specific delivery system is simply stunning. innovation? imagine how many businesses are not created because the entrepreneur does not want to lose his or her coverage while the business starts up, and doesn't have the funds to buy health insurance for employees. i'd say the number is probably staggering. you're currently speaking to one of them. i'd like to take my biotech skills independent, but there's no way i'm going to give up my good coverage for some ****ty safe auto PLPD plan while putting all of my other assets on the line, as well. we're the only first world country where this is even an issue.
 
moving to UHC doesn't mean innovation is going to halt or that the industry is not going to make money. it does mean, however, that costs will be forced down, which is exactly what needs to happen.

either way, the PPACA is still a lousy, haphazard way to deliver universal coverage. the only less efficient system i can think of is the UHC we have had since 1986 when Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. that law basically gave us UHC, which is currently delivered in emergency rooms and is paid for by all of us via our premiums. why anyone would support either this or the employer-specific delivery system is simply stunning. innovation? imagine how many businesses are not created because the entrepreneur does not want to lose his or her coverage while the business starts up, and doesn't have the funds to buy health insurance for employees. i'd say the number is probably staggering. you're currently speaking to one of them. i'd like to take my biotech skills independent, but there's no way i'm going to give up my good coverage for some ****ty safe auto PLPD plan while putting all of my other assets on the line, as well. we're the only first world country where this is even an issue.

And the others are broke.
 
A lot of these policies were cheap, but they didn't have full coverage, and that's one of the things decided in the law, is that policies had to meet minimum, essential benefits,” said McClanahan.

It sounds like not only forcing everyone to buy a car but also requiring that every car has air conditioning, cruise control, power windows, etc. even if the person doesn't want a car and if they did, they wouldn't want all those extra features. For example, why would a single, healthy male want health insurance that has maternity care and mental health coverage?
 
It would be interesting to know how many of these "cheap" policies that no longer meet Obamacare standards are lacking because they don't cover things such as contraceptives, morning after pills, and abortions, etc. Obama and the administration "claimed" that insurers would be providing these "free of charge" as a "claim" that these requirements do not/did not impact religious institutions that provided their employees healthcare insurance coverage. Any person with even half a brain, liberals excepted, would understand that no business provides any service free of charge, particularly one that is ongoing and virtually constant for the duration of most female's lives. As a result, it wouldn't surprise me if these insurers are telling their clients in a round about way that they cannot provide them with increased coverage at the rates they were paying previously, and therefore they are cancelling their coverage.

Abortions are not covered by the AHC act. Are you that thick? As far as contraception being covered, pregnancy is covered too. Which do you think cost the ins. company more, pills or pregnancy and delivery? Supplying contraception cost less than not covering it.
 
Because those cheap policies might not exist any longer for many. Not everyone can just "start paying more for better coverage", so it's likely a large portion of those 300k being dropped are now SOL.

The thing that will piss me off the most in all of this is the democrats will eventually just blame the free market instead of the ACA itself, then use that as another reason to grab more power.

What if those cancelled find that they can get better coverage at cheaper prices on the exchange? That they now qualify for subsidies too? What will you say then?
 
What if those cancelled find that they can get better coverage at cheaper prices on the exchange? That they now qualify for subsidies too? What will you say then?

When the question begins with "What if...", the argument is an exercise in mental masturbation...
 
Yeah, like Cruz, who gets his health insurance from Goldman Sachs.

Ted Cruz gets his health care plan from Goldman Sachs | MSNBC

Since single payer has some of the best health outcomes in the world, certainly better than our for-profit system, I'll take single payer any day -- especially to stop paying my provider inflated rates that rise about 15% a year for inferior and unintelligible coverage.

LOL. You liberals can't make your mind up.. First off one of the elected idiots from Illinois, Durbin, tried to corner and embarrass Sen Cruz because he had government health insurance. As usual Durbin ended up looking just like the idiot that he is because Cruz doesn't use the government insurance. Now your kind wants to hold it against Cruz because he has his own insurance. Flip flop is an understatement. Nothing more than a lame, very lame personal attack against Sen Cruz as usual.

Carry on with the comedy show though, it's funny.
 
Too simplistic...Are all countries the same?

No. But we can look at per capita and make some reasonable assumptions. It's logical if next to all pay less than us, we too would likely pay less. And we can design it to do so as well, once we quit with the demonizing and mindless ideas that accompany these debates.
 
Abortions are not covered by the AHC act. Are you that thick? As far as contraception being covered, pregnancy is covered too. Which do you think cost the ins. company more, pills or pregnancy and delivery? Supplying contraception cost less than not covering it.

I don't know if I'm "thick" or not, but I've read several accounts, some from liberal based outlets, that abortions are covered in the ACA. Here's an example in which it indicates that the exchanges provide coverage plans with abortion and the exception is that they must provide at least one that doesn't cover abortions but you have to specifically ask for it:

Obamacare 'Abortion Surcharge': The Facts Behind The Rumor

Seems like a fairly comprehensive review to me - do you dispute the finds contained in the article?
 
When the question begins with "What if...", the argument is an exercise in mental masturbation...

My policy is being canceled dec 31. The new policy that covers the same by the same company is about half as much
 
Is that what everyone here is doing then? Because no one KNOWS the answer.

The fact is that individuals have lost their current insurance. Every post not addressing that fact is basically irrelevant and just speculative...
 
Digging ourselves deeper in the debt hole because of Obamadon'tcare isn't a positive.

the PPACA is a POS compromise. if you'll take a look at my earlier posts, you'll see that i offered several potential proposals to pay for real UHC.
 
I don't know if I'm "thick" or not, but I've read several accounts, some from liberal based outlets, that abortions are covered in the ACA. Here's an example in which it indicates that the exchanges provide coverage plans with abortion and the exception is that they must provide at least one that doesn't cover abortions but you have to specifically ask for it:

Obamacare 'Abortion Surcharge': The Facts Behind The Rumor

Seems like a fairly comprehensive review to me - do you dispute the finds contained in the article?

From your link. Any abortion coverage is separate from and does not affect rates in the plans as you claimed.
If a state decides it does want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services.
 
My policy is being canceled dec 31. The new policy that covers the same by the same company is about half as much

What are your deductibles on your new policy versus the old one, and if what you're posting is accurate, why would your current provider cancel the policy?
 
What are your deductibles on your new policy versus the old one, and if what you're posting is accurate, why would your current provider cancel the policy?

They are canceling because the high risk pool is closing.
 
From your link.

Now who's "thick"? How does that one snippet from the article prove in any way your strong contention that the ACA does not provide for coverage of abortions?

You might consider apologizing for the gratuitous slag of my comments, but I won't hold my breath waiting.
 
Back
Top Bottom