• 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!

Do any of these required insuance clauses required by ObamaCare apply to you?

Which of these required insurance policy provisions you must buy applies to you?


  • Total voters
    5
I, on the other hand, think we have some obligations for the larger good. I pay property taxes of $4,400 a year on my little house. More than half of that amount is used to educate our children. I don't have any. I don't look at that as a terrible thing. Perhaps you would.

And I consider such a view as nothing but legal thuggery.
 
other - Required free birth control.

BUT WAIT, according to an email I received from HR:




:( So the required part is really not required for certain plans. nice.

So you complain about others having to pay for extra resources while still complaining that you don't have to pay or receive those extra resources?

Make up your mind. Allowing existing plans to be grandfathered in was the only way to get ObamaCare to pass.
 
Average bear, smarter then. Simple.

Yes we know you're not as smart as an average bear which is why you brought up your employer coverage when everyone knows that has nothing to do with the problem.
 
Means there is always a way to get around things. Always.

Yep. There's always a way to get around being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Don't visit the doctor=no pre-existing conditions!
 
Yes we know you're not as smart as an average bear which is why you brought up your employer coverage when everyone knows that has nothing to do with the problem.

Not true. Our employers coverage will be impacted by Obama care, mine and my wifes. Both our company owners have said they may drop our insurances and pay the fine.
 
If you've always gotten your insurance through your job, you don't understand the problem. Group policies through one's employer don't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Your pre-existing condition might cause you not to get hired by an employer because of it. But once you're hired? You're good to go.

Nineteen million people in this country buy their health insurance individually. Those with health problems are not able to buy insurance at any price...so that figure might be twice that....?

Have diabetes? No health insurance for you. Had a heart attack? None for you either. Have high blood pressure? Maybe you'll get insurance. Had cancer? You're out of luck. Lie on your application? When you make a claim, your insurance company would investigate your application to make SURE you didn't lie on it. If you did? You'd get your premiums refunded and no claim paid. Unless a person used a false name when getting medical care, your records are out there. And you would be caught and left to pay your bills on your own.

It's worse than that

While people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage through their employer (if they can get hired) the insurance carrier can deny claims based on pre-existing conditions while maintaining your coverage (and charging you for it)

So if you lie about having diabetes, etc and then submit a claim for a health problem relating to diabetes, the insurer can just refuse to pay *and* continue to collect a premium from you
 
It seems like some of the worry is that healthy people will join special "Healthy Person" insurance plans and sick people will join Obamacare. This will result in (possibly rich) healthy people paying less for insurance than Obamacare. It will also create a vicious cycle in which Obamacare will become more and more unsustainable. Obamacare needs healthy people to pay for the sick ones, the question is how to make that happen.
 
It seems like some of the worry is that healthy people will join special "Healthy Person" insurance plans and sick people will join Obamacare. This will result in (possibly rich) healthy people paying less for insurance than Obamacare. It will also create a vicious cycle in which Obamacare will become more and more unsustainable. Obamacare needs healthy people to pay for the sick ones, the question is how to make that happen.
Tax the rich.
 
Tax the rich.

With all of the sick people going to Obamacare, perhaps the rich can save as much in "Healthy Person Insurance" as they lose in taxes.
 
So you complain about others having to pay for extra resources while still complaining that you don't have to pay or receive those extra resources?

Where exactly was I complaining about others having to pay for extra resources or complaining that I don't have to pay for those extra resources? Please quote me.

The poll asks: Which of these required insurance policy provisions you must buy applies to you?

Birth control applies to me because I use it monthly, so that is why I chose other- birth control because it applies to me. I am not complaining about that at all, I think it should be provided to all women under insurance and I don't mind paying for it. I will admit that I am complaining about not receiving those benefits under my plan that I pay for because that is what is important to me.
 
What we had before wasn't working. What don't people understand about pre-existing conditions? Without Obamacare and the mandated coverage it provides for, millions of people don't have health insurance. Can't buy it at any price.


Calling coverage for pre-existing conditions "insurance" is an oxymoron, a word game.

Wouldn't be great if they offered auto insurance for "pre-existing accident damage" that would repair accident damage that occurred before you bought the policy? If they did, why would anyone buy insurance until they had an accident?

Personally, unless it's free it would seem a person is economically incompetent to buy insurance until you need it - if by law you have to be sold the insurance at the same rate if you ever do need it. Since the being-an-American-annual-tax (penalty) for not having insurance is significantly lower than the insurance premium and given the huge premiums, deductible and co-pay requirements, why buy "insurance" until you need it?

That makes no sense to me. What would make sense is NOT buying the insurance and saving the premiums so that if you DO suffer a major medical issue you then have the money to not only buy the policy, but also have the money for the deductible and co-pay so you then actually CAN get treatment from the insurance. For millions of people, that would be the only way they would have the deductible and co-pay to be able to use the insurance anyway.

Can ANYONE give a rational reason to buy the costly insurance before you need it since you can't be turned down if you ever do?
 
I, on the other hand, think we have some obligations for the larger good. I pay property taxes of $4,400 a year on my little house. More than half of that amount is used to educate our children. I don't have any. I don't look at that as a terrible thing. Perhaps you would.


I pay more in property taxes - and 90% of our property is tax exempt.

Your example does not work. School taxes do not make me pay for irresponsible behavior nor reward it. I also see school taxes as benefiting my family and myself because of the social and economic benefits of children being educated (and kept off the street).

People keep debating ObamaCare as if it is what the president says - when it's a lie. Poor and working people do NOT have $5000 deductible. Do not have $12,700 per year deductible. Do NOT have 20, 30, 40% copay.

Just for that, all the words are just a massive lie.

Here is what ObamaCare REALLY did:

1. Previously, large employers HAD to provide medical insurance for their employees. Now they do not. ObamaCare is MASSIVE corporate welfare via the law eliminating required employer paid employee medical coverage. This was a MASSIVE change that is essentially never mentioned nor ever justified by Obama and company.

2. Most indigent healthcare WAS paid for thru property taxes (ie the "hospital district"). The wealthier in real property a person or company was, the most they paid in taxes towards indigent healthcare - in effect a "progressive" health tax. ObamaCare is to shift indigent healthcare costs from a progressive tax primarily on the upper income people to instead a flat tax against working people - in the form insurance premiums radically raised with raised deductibles to cover indigent healthcare.

3. ObamaCare took healthcare decisions away from you and gave it to the government - by dictating what will and won't be paid for - and how much for each. Personally, we often opt for alternative methods in health issues, meaning insurance won't cover it anyway even if done by a doctor. In this, ObamaCare also takes virtual total control over medical decisions from doctors and gives it to the government. People not in the medical profession in DC, not you nor your doctor, now decide how to treat your medical conditions by deciding what they will and won't pay for - while you are paying for medical treatment you wouldn't even accept via the premiums.

4. ObamaCare - via huge deductibles and copay - gives justification to deny major medical care to the poor and lower middle class - while at the same time telling the huge lie that they are getting "free" insurance. Since they don't have the deductible and copay, in fact they have no usable insurance whatsoever.

5. ObamaCare attempts to defacto nationalize the medical profession and healthcare facilities by establishing a national price structure for medical services. As more and more medical professionals and facilities are opting not to play, the result is increasing threats to require such persons to do and take whatever the government demands of them or be banned from their profession.

Virtually all the ways the ACA is being discussed and debated has little to do with the ACA and often even is exactly the opposite from reality. People are furiously debating both sides of something that doesn't exist as it is being debated.
 
Last edited:
A few months ago I went to the emergency room for "chest pains". I did that because in 2009 I had heart surgery, which ran about $130,000, so naturally chest pains might be a serious problem for me.

12 hours in the emergency room was over $16,000.00. Tests of various kinds were conducted, but no invasive procedures were performed. The diagnosis was "inflation of chest muscles and connective tissue" around ribs and the breast bone located over the heart area. Why did that happen? Nobody knows. I didn't do any activities that might have led to that occurring.

$16,000.00 is a chunk of buckitos for most folks. And especially a person who doesn't have insurances to at least pay for 80 percent...or hell...even 50 percent. But if I didn't have insurance there's a good chance no company would insure me now...well, under the system where insurance companies considered me a high risk.

I'm lucky to have a superior insurance with no current threat that would force me to relinquish it. Or surrender it for an exchange insurance. Not yet. But who knows? Anything is possible now days.
 
A few months ago I went to the emergency room for "chest pains". I did that because in 2009 I had heart surgery, which ran about $130,000, so naturally chest pains might be a serious problem for me.

12 hours in the emergency room was over $16,000.00. Tests of various kinds were conducted, but no invasive procedures were performed. The diagnosis was "inflation of chest muscles and connective tissue" around ribs and the breast bone located over the heart area. Why did that happen? Nobody knows. I didn't do any activities that might have led to that occurring.

$16,000.00 is a chunk of buckitos for most folks. And especially a person who doesn't have insurances to at least pay for 80 percent...or hell...even 50 percent. But if I didn't have insurance there's a good chance no company would insure me now...well, under the system where insurance companies considered me a high risk.

I'm lucky to have a superior insurance with no current threat that would force me to relinquish it. Or surrender it for an exchange insurance. Not yet. But who knows? Anything is possible now days.

Under the "silver" plan, for that $16,000 procedure, you would need $5,000 + $6400 co-pay. Meaning insurance would have paid $3,400 of it. Your annual insurance premium likely was higher - so even with no insurance it would have cost you LESS than with an ACA silver plan. Since the premiums go up for the gold and platinum plan, it is likely you would have spent more with ACA insurance than no insurance at all.

Besides, knowing you had chest pains you could have quickly signed up for ACA insurance at that point in them and then had the insurance anyway.
 
Under the "silver" plan, for that $16,000 procedure, you would need $5,000 + $6400 co-pay. Meaning insurance would have paid $3,400 of it. Your annual insurance premium likely was higher - so even with no insurance it would have cost you LESS than with an ACA silver plan. Since the premiums go up for the gold and platinum plan, it is likely you would have spent more with ACA insurance than no insurance at all.

Besides, knowing you had chest pains you could have quickly signed up for ACA insurance at that point in them and then had the insurance anyway.

In comparison...I would say that I have currently have a private plan that would be the equivalent of what might be called the Rhodium Plan. My out of pocket costs for services and medicines aren't that painful for me. My out of pocket for 130,000 heart surgery was less than 5 percent. Can't complain about that. Again, I'm extremely grateful and lucky to have the insurance that I have. Premiums...hmmmm...are what one might expect for such a plan.

But I do wanna say that if I had offered cash money for my heart surgery. The price would have been significantly less.

In the end, it's a pay me now or pay me later situation. I consider the cost of the plan - like everything else related to medical costs - outrageous.

It's expensive to be alive. Every year I live...gets more expensive. And it's getting pretty damn expensive to die.
 
Calling coverage for pre-existing conditions "insurance" is an oxymoron, a word game.

Wouldn't be great if they offered auto insurance for "pre-existing accident damage" that would repair accident damage that occurred before you bought the policy? If they did, why would anyone buy insurance until they had an accident?

Personally, unless it's free it would seem a person is economically incompetent to buy insurance until you need it - if by law you have to be sold the insurance at the same rate if you ever do need it. Since the being-an-American-annual-tax (penalty) for not having insurance is significantly lower than the insurance premium and given the huge premiums, deductible and co-pay requirements, why buy "insurance" until you need it?

That makes no sense to me. What would make sense is NOT buying the insurance and saving the premiums so that if you DO suffer a major medical issue you then have the money to not only buy the policy, but also have the money for the deductible and co-pay so you then actually CAN get treatment from the insurance. For millions of people, that would be the only way they would have the deductible and co-pay to be able to use the insurance anyway.

Can ANYONE give a rational reason to buy the costly insurance before you need it since you can't be turned down if you ever do?

Joko, we don't know if it can happen that way. Know why? We don't know enough about it. :rofl

I think open enrollment happens once a year. I also think (this is my logic which could be wrong, of course) that if one has NO Obamacare-compliant insurance and elects not to sign up, that when they do? I'm betting there's a pre-existing exclusion for six months. If that's not true, we're screwed. You're right.

As far as pre-existing conditions go -- the first part of your post -- group policies most often have no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. It's the individual policies that have them.
 
I pay more in property taxes - and 90% of our property is tax exempt.

Your example does not work. School taxes do not make me pay for irresponsible behavior nor reward it. I also see school taxes as benefiting my family and myself because of the social and economic benefits of children being educated (and kept off the street).

People keep debating ObamaCare as if it is what the president says - when it's a lie. Poor and working people do NOT have $5000 deductible. Do not have $12,700 per year deductible. Do NOT have 20, 30, 40% copay.

Just for that, all the words are just a massive lie.

Here is what ObamaCare REALLY did:

1. Previously, large employers HAD to provide medical insurance for their employees. Now they do not. ObamaCare is MASSIVE corporate welfare via the law eliminating required employer paid employee medical coverage. This was a MASSIVE change that is essentially never mentioned nor ever justified by Obama and company.

2. Most indigent healthcare WAS paid for thru property taxes (ie the "hospital district"). The wealthier in real property a person or company was, the most they paid in taxes towards indigent healthcare - in effect a "progressive" health tax. ObamaCare is to shift indigent healthcare costs from a progressive tax primarily on the upper income people to instead a flat tax against working people - in the form insurance premiums radically raised with raised deductibles to cover indigent healthcare.

3. ObamaCare took healthcare decisions away from you and gave it to the government - by dictating what will and won't be paid for - and how much for each. Personally, we often opt for alternative methods in health issues, meaning insurance won't cover it anyway even if done by a doctor. In this, ObamaCare also takes virtual total control over medical decisions from doctors and gives it to the government. People not in the medical profession in DC, not you nor your doctor, now decide how to treat your medical conditions by deciding what they will and won't pay for - while you are paying for medical treatment you wouldn't even accept via the premiums.

4. ObamaCare - via huge deductibles and copay - gives justification to deny major medical care to the poor and lower middle class - while at the same time telling the huge lie that they are getting "free" insurance. Since they don't have the deductible and copay, in fact they have no usable insurance whatsoever.

5. ObamaCare attempts to defacto nationalize the medical profession and healthcare facilities by establishing a national price structure for medical services. As more and more medical professionals and facilities are opting not to play, the result is increasing threats to require such persons to do and take whatever the government demands of them or be banned from their profession.

Virtually all the ways the ACA is being discussed and debated has little to do with the ACA and often even is exactly the opposite from reality. People are furiously debating both sides of something that doesn't exist as it is being debated.

Joko, I'm telling you that we don't know enough about Obamacare to make some of the statements you've made here. First of all, are you sure that those who get the health insurance subsidies pay the deductible? Or is that partly or wholly subsidized as well? Most all of us are going into this debacle blind.

The 30% co-pay you read about is, as I understand it, paid only until one reaches their deductible amount. If you can find anything contrary to that, I'd like to see it. Something else that isn't clear about Obamacare, in my opinion.

Large employers have NEVER been forced to provide healthcare insurance. Ever.

Your property taxes include "hospital district." Illinois' don't. And you say your school taxes don't reward irresponsible behavior? What about the 50% of inner-city kids who don't graduate? Who can barely read? Who can't put an intelligent sentence down on paper?

Your insurance company has almost always decided what will be paid for by your insurance. I fail to see anything that changes that in Obamacare. If you have something, I'd like to see it. If I want my doctor to do a CT scan? He'll find a way for Obamacare to pay for it if it's at all indicated. Doctors aren't going to get into malpractice waters. They'll do what they've always done -- what their patients want. Unless people stupidly sign up for HMO's.

I think many of the fears we've been led to believe aren't true. I haven't been able to get a decent description on ONE healthplan since October 1st.
 
Joko, I'm telling you that we don't know enough about Obamacare to make some of the statements you've made here. First of all, are you sure that those who get the health insurance subsidies pay the deductible? Or is that partly or wholly subsidized as well? Most all of us are going into this debacle blind.

The 30% co-pay you read about is, as I understand it, paid only until one reaches their deductible amount. If you can find anything contrary to that, I'd like to see it. Something else that isn't clear about Obamacare, in my opinion.

Large employers have NEVER been forced to provide healthcare insurance. Ever.

Your property taxes include "hospital district." Illinois' don't. And you say your school taxes don't reward irresponsible behavior? What about the 50% of inner-city kids who don't graduate? Who can barely read? Who can't put an intelligent sentence down on paper?

Your insurance company has almost always decided what will be paid for by your insurance. I fail to see anything that changes that in Obamacare. If you have something, I'd like to see it. If I want my doctor to do a CT scan? He'll find a way for Obamacare to pay for it if it's at all indicated. Doctors aren't going to get into malpractice waters. They'll do what they've always done -- what their patients want. Unless people stupidly sign up for HMO's.

I think many of the fears we've been led to believe aren't true. I haven't been able to get a decent description on ONE healthplan since October 1st.

I normally like posts that knock down hyperbole with facts, but I have a policy of not liking posts that respond to bat-crap crazy posts.

It only encourages people to respond to bat-crap crazy
 
I normally like posts that knock down hyperbole with facts, but I have a policy of not liking posts that respond to bat-crap crazy posts.

It only encourages people to respond to bat-crap crazy

So.

Which one of us posted bat-crap crazy?

:rofl
 
Means there is always a way to get around things. Always.

Well, dying is a way around I for thousands. I guess you are right.
 
hey if we are just going to exclude people, why do I pay for rich kids education?

Then lts privatize the firemen too, and police.

Wife gets murdered, "that will be $300k up front to start an investigation".................Then we can sell "crime insurance" Oh imagine the PROFITS!!!! (evil greedy grin)
 
Back
Top Bottom