• 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!

Cousin's final decision on healthcare insurance

Wow. It's like you didn't even try. Feel free to point out anything I said that is actually incorrect.

I did. Yes or no, is maternity and newborn care insurance free? Remember, yes, or no. ;)
 
And don't forget the poor, who cannot afford insurance and are slapped with a big fine they can't afford either. Honestly, this blind support of this cluster is akin to a mental disorder. :roll:

Poor people were supposed to be covered under the medicaid expansion. But republicans took that to court and made sure that those poor people wouldn't get it. Not that you care about the truth :cool:
 
Health insurance cost goes by what services people of that age typically use. Younger people are cheaper because they require far fewer specialists, trips to the doctor, fewer medications etc. I'm 31 and my insurance covers hospice. I'm not very likely to need hospice at 31. So I probably pay a very small amount for it. A 60 year old is more likely to need hospice, so they pay a bit more. An 80 year old probably pays alot for it because their chances of using it are so much higher than the 30 year old. So we get charged for what someone like us will actually use. As in "Our average 25 year old female spends this much on expenses related to having a baby, so we charge the average customer that amount". If literally no 60 year is using maternity care, then they really aren't being charged for it. The insurance companies don't just tally up everything your plan covers and then charges everyone the average of what the plan pays out. If they did that then old people wouldn't have to pay such higher premiums. Look up "Actuarial science" if you want to know more. But the bottom line is that a 60 year old with health insurance that covers maternity is only paying what the average 60 year old requires in maternity coverage, which has to be nothing or virtually nothing.

So these people aren't paying high premiums because the insurance company is ****ing them over with bull**** maternity and newborn care coverage. They're paying a very high premium because it is expensive as **** to take care of the average 60 year old. I get that the system needs fixing, I get that ObamaCare isn't perfect, but when you say such obviously stupid and false **** like this then it puts all of the real problems to the side and everyone has to then make sure that we can all agree to stick to reality before we even attempt to address the actual problems.
Actually nothing you've ranted about addresses my point. The 10 "ESSENTIAL BENEFITS" aren't really so essential. If you'd like to talk about reality then start by addressing what I said and not what you wish I had said.
 
Actually nothing you've ranted about addresses my point. The 10 "ESSENTIAL BENEFITS" aren't really so essential. If you'd like to talk about reality then start by addressing what I said and not what you wish I had said.

So to clarify, you don't claim that this 60 year old woman is paying for maternity care?
 
very few suffer the enormous increases in premium. keep in mind truth isnt common on these forums.
Premiums did not spike up after aca was passed and they are not continuing to rise? Everything ive read says otherwise.

Also your response has not addressed the question i asked. I asked what great improvements it has over the old system.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
It's called, paying for those who are getting it for "free", and also paying for other's pre-existing conditions.
We were already paying for those that who received it for free. The difference is that they got bare bones treatment which kept the costs somewhat managable.

The preexisting conditions issue is a bit more complicated but that was the industries answer to mandates. As a young man i had always carried decent health coverage even though i rarely used it because i understood that if i did become ill i would not be able to insure myself after the fact. Aca removed that incentive for young people to keep coverage.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Poor people were supposed to be covered under the medicaid expansion. But republicans took that to court and made sure that those poor people wouldn't get it. Not that you care about the truth :cool:
Fair enough, the Republicans did in fact try many many things to block its implimentation. The question is did they have good reason to?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom