Affordable Care Act threatened as Trump administration, GOP states fight U.S. House, Democratic stat

[jonny5]

You are bit late to the party. The federal government has been regulating (e.g. interfering) with the health insurance industry for over 100 years. Did you ever wonder why every employee, regardless of age or condition, pays the same rate in your company's health insurance plan? It's because the federal regulations say that such plans can't discriminate.

Exactly.

 

[jonny5]

What people think is common sense, often isn't.

Please provide your studies and evidence that letting people with preexisting conditions fend for themselves and likely die on the streets, is more efficient and more affordable. Beyond the immorality of just letting people die, society has found is that it is neither more affordable nor efficient to let otherwise productive people just die. Back in the 1970s, people who needed dialysis but couldn't afford it just were allowed to die. Richard Nixon put a stop to that, changing the Social Security Act to give medical coverage to virtually anyone diagnosed with kidney failure.

Its immoral to forcibly take my property to pay for others natural or negligent behavior.

 

[j brown's body]

Ok but im not defending their proposal. The only thing i suggested is that we should not nationalize healthcare and should.do it stste by state.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It becomes a race to the bottom.

 

[j brown's body]

Good, wipe it all out. The federal govt has no business interfering in the healthcare industry. Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions was one of the dumbest things ever and all its done is INCREASE the cost of insurance to those of us who actually pay taxes and pay for our own healthcare.

I would like to see the GOP run hard on this.

 

[jonny5]

I would like to see the GOP run hard on this.

Me too. But given they care more about winning than law and order, morality, fiscal responsibility, small govt, or liberty...

 

[manofknowledge]

There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The problem with that approach is that the Federal government pays 28.1% of all health care expenditures. They are not "out of it" ever.

What is the advantage of having a different approach to health care in every state? States have virtually no say in administering Medicare the biggest payer in every state.

 

[manofknowledge]

I would like to see the GOP run hard on this.

The federal government pays 28.1% of all health care expenditures. Health insurance is only less expensive not covering pre-existing conditions if the covered parties are healthy. As soon as a covered person has a major medical issue the cost soars. The insurance company drops them or increases premiums beyond affordable cost.

Virtually every employer group health insurance policy covers pre-existing conditions. How is it that those policies are affordable and indivudual policies are not?

 

[MTAtech]

Its immoral to forcibly take my property to pay for others natural or negligent behavior.

That train has left the station with the advent of taxation and representative government. Everyone's tax dollars are used for items they don't personally approve. Pacifists disapprove of their taxes being used for war. I disapprove of my tax dollars subsidizing oil and coal.

We provide highway subsidies for large states, like Montana and Wyoming, that have lots of area but few people to pay for those highways. This is what a country does.

 

[yankintx]

Agriculture is also heavily dependent on subsidies...

You mean those farmers who got increased hand outs to offset Trumps trade war? The same farmers who make up Trumps base? Na say its not true.

 

[manofknowledge]

Putting people with pre-existing conditions on insurance plans makes as much sense as putting a wrecked car on an insurance plan.

The point of insurance is to be paying before something happens, not after. The ACA doesnt work, scrap it, what we had before was fine.

Personally I get my insurance through my employer because Im not a loser.

So your position is that any loser who has a pre-existing condition should not be able to get health insurance?

 

[Sheepdog]

So your position is that any loser who has a pre-existing condition should not be able to get health insurance?

Yes because its INSURANCE. I would be happy to have those people be on a program to help them out, or even start some charities, but insurance isnt for preexisting conditions. I cant wreck my uninsured car today, get insurance tomorrow, then get a new car Wednesday.

 

[Sheepdog]

I am glad for you that you are in a position that if you got cancer, you would be able to pay out-of-pocket for any bills once you met your lifetime cap. Most people, regardless of how hard the work, aren't in a position to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for such treatments.

But I do note your, "I got mine, so 7uck everyone else," attitude.

My attitude is "I got mine so you should too".

 

[manofknowledge]

Yes because its INSURANCE. I would be happy to have those people be on a program to help them out, or even start some charities, but insurance isnt for preexisting conditions. I cant wreck my uninsured car today, get insurance tomorrow, then get a new car Wednesday.

I'll bet your health insurance covers pre-existing conditions. Most employer group policies do. Why is that?

As it happens you must have health insurance prior to filing any insurance claims. If you don't have insurance and you break a leg you cannot go out and get health insurance to get it set. You can only purchase health insurance during the sign up period once a year.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Should have worked harder to put themselves and their families in a better position. They failed are parents but Im supposed to want to bail them out? No.

Maybe those that are self employed and whom don't report to the plantation consider you a loser.

 

[Sheepdog]

Maybe those that are self employed and whom don't report to the plantation consider you a loser.

They should. Owning your own business is the way to go. Wish I would have got into a trade when I was young instead of wasting my time in university fighting off the liberal indoctrination.

 

[Greenbeard]

Putting people with pre-existing conditions on insurance plans makes as much sense as putting a wrecked car on an insurance plan.

The point of insurance is to be paying before something happens, not after. The ACA doesnt work, scrap it, what we had before was fine.

Personally I get my insurance through my employer because Im not a loser.

Employer-based insurance has had protections for people with pre-existing conditions for decades. Regardless, health insurance is how we finance most care in this country. We use that model because health spending is concentrated on a small portion of the population in any given year and those people wouldn't be able to obtain care if they had to finance it by themselves. The cost of care began to outpace the means of individual families back in the 1920s and '30s. Attempting to wriggle out of paying for care defeats the purpose.

Good, wipe it all out. The federal govt has no business interfering in the healthcare industry.

Sure it does, making laws is a pretty core function of the government.

Yes because its INSURANCE. I would be happy to have those people be on a program to help them out, or even start some charities, but insurance isnt for preexisting conditions.

A program where our resources are pooled to pay their medical bills, but without any of the market elements functioning today? What would be the point of the added inefficiency?

I cant wreck my uninsured car today, get insurance tomorrow, then get a new car Wednesday.

Yeah, well you can't buy health insurance tomorrow either.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I'll bet your health insurance covers pre-existing conditions. Most employer group policies do. Why is that?

As it happens you must have health insurance prior to filing any insurance claims. If you don't have insurance and you break a leg you cannot go out and get health insurance to get it set. You can only purchase health insurance during the sign up period once a year.

I think your missing the point. Suppose you have health insurance at your job and you get laid off, downsized or whatever and you have a heart murmur since birth doesn't cause any problems but it's considered a pre existing condition. That person has to immediately go find another job they don't get to make a simple decision of whether or not they even need another full time gig.
We are all worker bees that's it.

 

[manofknowledge]

I think your missing the point. Suppose you have health insurance at your job and you get laid off, downsized or whatever and you have a heart murmur since birth doesn't cause any problems but it's considered a pre existing condition. That person has to immediately go find another job they don't get to make a simple decision of whether or not they even need another full time gig.
We are all worker bees that's it.

That is my point. Depending on employers for health care is a bad policy. Under the ACA, the scenario you describe no longer exists, nor would it exist under Medicare for All. If Republicans get their way, if you have a pre-existing condition you will not be able to get comprehensive health insurance without an employer providing it.

 

[jonny5]

Sure it does, making laws is a pretty core function of the government.

It can only make laws related to its constitutional powers, of which healthcare is not one.

 

[jonny5]

That train has left the station with the advent of taxation and representative government. Everyone's tax dollars are used for items they don't personally approve. Pacifists disapprove of their taxes being used for war. I disapprove of my tax dollars subsidizing oil and coal.

We provide highway subsidies for large states, like Montana and Wyoming, that have lots of area but few people to pay for those highways. This is what a country does.

Whether the train has left or not, its still wrong. The purpose of the federal govt is to protect the states from invasion, and secure my rights, to live and be free. Thats what THIS country is supposed to do. It doesnt matter what people approve or dissaprove of, only what they authorize in the law. We authorized war and roads, we did not authorize healthcare spending or oil and coal spending.

 

[bongsaway]

There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Uh huh, I feel sorry for the states the republicans control. Maybe the republican controlled states should be concerned if and when that happens. It could be the loss of their seats if they take away people's healthcare.

 

[Torus34]

This is all a tempest in a teapot. We have the assurances of none other than President of the United States of America Donald Trump that all will be well.

"Obamacare. We're going to repeal it, we're going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!"

"If you can't take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it's all over. I mean, it's no good. So I'm very liberal when it comes to healthcare. I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better."

"There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private'… I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."

So I ask you; with someone like that in the corner of the American people, why worry? [Italics mine.]

 

[bongsaway]

Tell me again how it's the dreaded liberals that are a threat to america. This is the GOP and has been the same GOP I've known for years. The only difference, their cruelty is now on open display.

 

[manofknowledge]

It can only make laws related to its constitutional powers, of which healthcare is not one.

Is health care commerce?

 

[Middle_Ground]

That is my point. Depending on employers for health care is a bad policy. Under the ACA, the scenario you describe no longer exists, nor would it exist under Medicare for All. If Republicans get their way, if you have a pre-existing condition you will not be able to get comprehensive health insurance without an employer providing it.

I meant to quote the person saying basically employer insurance is the way to go.

The problem we have (in my opinion) in this country is there are too many people that have been brainwashed by insurance companies. I can not believe millions of people are defending and fighting to keep for profit companies in healthcare.
It's one or the other you believe healthcare (not insurance) is a right or you don't.
Keep fighting for companies that profit from you living or dying. That's the way to go.