• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gutting the ACA

Just to fuck with the ACA especially folk with e preexisting conditions. Lol so pathetic not much to say.
 
Thebobo said:
Just to fuck with the ACA especially folk with e preexisting conditions. Lol so pathetic not much to say.
Click to expand...

"Everybody will be taken care of" except when they aren't.

Guess who's more likely to have pre-existing conditions... It's the core of Trump's support, people 45-64 & those on medicare.

Thanks for your votes & now it's time for... cornholio, the true meaning of MAGA.
 
Jhhnn said:
"Everybody will be taken care of" except when they aren't.

Guess who's more likely to have pre-existing conditions... It's the core of Trump's support, people 45-64 & those on medicare.

Thanks for your votes & now it's time for... cornholio, the true meaning of MAGA.
Click to expand...

Yeah fancy that a policy expressly designed to exclude pre-existing conditions in order to reduce costs wouldn't be a great deal for people with pre-conditions. Amazing concept that "market segmentation" stuff.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah fancy that a policy expressly designed to exclude pre-existing conditions in order to reduce costs wouldn't be a great deal for people with pre-conditions. Amazing concept that "market segmentation" stuff.
Click to expand...

We get it, you are an idiot and can't think past the headline. No need to spam every thread now just to make sure everyone knows how dumb you are.
 
ivwshane said:
We get it, you are an idiot and can't think past the headline. No need to spam every thread now just to make sure everyone knows how dumb you are.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. Maybe your side should apply this same line of thinking to every product. "You can only afford a Yugo and not a Mercedes therefore you shouldn't own a car at all."

And I look at others paying more as a feature not a bug since they were being expressly cross-subsidized by the person who is now allowed to buy the cheaper policy not covering pre-existing conditions if they don't get an economic benefit from that policy feature (i.e. they don't have a pre-existing condition).
 
glenn1 said:
Sure thing. Maybe your side should apply this same line of thinking to every product. "You can only afford a Yugo and not a Mercedes therefore you shouldn't own a car at all."

And I look at others paying more as a feature not a bug since they were being expressly cross-subsidized by the person who is now allowed to buy the cheaper policy not covering pre-existing conditions if they don't get an economic benefit from that policy feature (i.e. they don't have a pre-existing condition).
Click to expand...

Like I said, no need to keep posting, we get it, you are an idiot. You don't understand how insurance works.

Everyone else understands that those that can't afford health care get subsidies or for short stints, they could buy these bare minimum plans before being required to buy insurance that actually covers things, specifically because a larger pool of people paying for better coverage lowers costs (or maintains prices) for everyone and ends up costing people less in the long run (as in not having to deal with medical bankruptcies in large numbers like we did pre ACA).
 
Jhhnn said:
"Everybody will be taken care of" except when they aren't.

Guess who's more likely to have pre-existing conditions... It's the core of Trump's support, people 45-64 & those on medicare.

Thanks for your votes & now it's time for... cornholio, the true meaning of MAGA.
Click to expand...

DUH! Trump said "Everyone will not be taken care of" he also said "There won't not be people dying in the streets"
 
Meh, I gots my employer coverage that covers... everything...including my pre-existing conditions.

I do think one of the stupidest things about our system is the concept of "strategizing" healthcare. The concept of "Oh shit, maybe I should see a dermatologist this year for that annoying issue that I've been lazy to see anyone about - because I've reached my deductible, might as well milk it right?"

I agree in the sense that healthcare shouldn't be something you strategize. If you have a problem, you shouldn't even say something like "Better hold off to next year so it falls under the next years deductible" or similar.
 
glenn1 said:
Sure thing. Maybe your side should apply this same line of thinking to every product. "You can only afford a Yugo and not a Mercedes therefore you shouldn't own a car at all."

And I look at others paying more as a feature not a bug since they were being expressly cross-subsidized by the person who is now allowed to buy the cheaper policy not covering pre-existing conditions if they don't get an economic benefit from that policy feature (i.e. they don't have a pre-existing condition).
Click to expand...

Standard short sightedness. If widely adopted, these plans will drive up the cost of full coverage ACA plans. So if you end up with a pre-existing condition, you won't be able to afford insurance when you need it most somewhere down the road.
 
It makes me thankful that when I was writing our ACA compliance legislation in 2013 and 2015 I left the statute limiting short duration health plans to no more than 185 days in place without revision.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Meh, I gots my employer coverage that covers... everything...including my pre-existing conditions.

I do think one of the stupidest things about our system is the concept of "strategizing" healthcare. The concept of "Oh shit, maybe I should see a dermatologist this year for that annoying issue that I've been lazy to see anyone about - because I've reached my deductible, might as well milk it right?"

I agree in the sense that healthcare shouldn't be something you strategize. If you have a problem, you shouldn't even say something like "Better hold off to next year so it falls under the next years deductible" or similar.
Click to expand...

it's almost like there are other people in the country besides you with different levels of coverage based on their employer and employment status!
 
We should focus on preventative care, I’m fine with heavily taxing food with added sugar (but those funds have to be spent on healthcare), people should be allowed to purchase catastrophic coverage, and towards the end of life medicine should be focused on providing dignity in death instead of the keep alive at all cost.
 
UglyCasanova said:
We should focus on preventative care, I’m fine with heavily taxing food with added sugar (but those funds have to be spent on healthcare), people should be allowed to purchase catastrophic coverage, and towards the end of life medicine should be focused on providing dignity in death instead of the keep alive at all cost.
Click to expand...
You mean death panels? Why do you want to kill grandma?
 
UglyCasanova said:
We should focus on preventative care, I’m fine with heavily taxing food with added sugar (but those funds have to be spent on healthcare), people should be allowed to purchase catastrophic coverage, and towards the end of life medicine should be focused on providing dignity in death instead of the keep alive at all cost.
Click to expand...

So health care should be rationed?
 
You know, I am fine with this, because liberal states will just ban these policies at state level, and conservative states will get what they voted for.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Call them whatever you want, the idea that someone should be kept alive no matter what is absurd. Be allowed to die with dignity. Spending $400k to keep grandma alive another month makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

So the cry of, "death panels" by the right during the creation of the ACA was what? Just more bullshit?
 
senseamp said:
You know, I am fine with this, because liberal states will just ban these policies at state level, and conservative states will get what they voted for.
Click to expand...


Why should those policies be banned? And what is it the Republicans would be getting other than more choices?

Also forgot a big one, insurance companies should be allowed to sell across state lines. There’s no reason to not let them.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Why should those policies be banned? And what is it the Republicans would be getting other than more choices?

Also forgot a big one, insurance companies should be allowed to sell across state lines. There’s no reason to not let them.
Click to expand...

They’ve been allowed to sell across state lines. None want to come up with 2 different state networks and compliance and tax issues.
Honestly think about it. I live in MA, let’s say I bought insurance from AZ. Would I be expected to go to AZ for all doctor visits? Is it reasonable to think AZ cost structure and rent is identical to MA?
 
They shouldn't be banned, they have uses, but they should be kept short term (<360 days) s that's what they are intended for. They're not intended to be used to circumvent other requirements.

They could very well be getting destabilized insurance markets, increased bankruptcies, and lower health outcomes.

Selling health insurance across states lines is stupid and has been shown to be such in many occasions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top