MorningGlory Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 The real news about repealing and/'or replacing Obamacare........... http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/betsy-mccaughey-the-myth-of-pre-existing-conditions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobson Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 Sorry, I haven't seen evidence that Republicans have a decent plan to replace Obamacare. I want a free market, not GOP subsidies. Health Savings Accounts are subsidies from taxpayers. Forcing insurance companies to cover Pre-existing conditions are subsidies paid for by other people with insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) It may sound heartless and cold, but as a layman, I've never understood the requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. To me it would be analogous to forcing an insurance company to sell you insurance when your house was on fire, or covering your car after you've had an accident. I realize I'm comparing objects (houses, cars) to human life - that's why it may appear heartless. (and I speak as someone with a pre-existing condition myself - heart disease). The author of the article seems to provide a possible solution in the form of high risk pools. These would be specifically for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and would be subsidized by taxpayers in general - not just the premium payers. It's an intriguing proposal. I would have to see the numbers run; and the definition of who qualifies for 'high risk pool'. But at the very least it puts to bed the complaint from Obamacare supporters that there is 'no alternative plan'. Now let the debate begin! Blessings, -Ed Edited December 28, 2016 by SavedByGrace1981 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted December 28, 2016 8 hours ago, Jacobson said: Sorry, I haven't seen evidence that Republicans have a decent plan to replace Obamacare. Re-read the article. The author does present a program to deal with the pre-existing condition aspect of Obamacare I want a free market, not GOP subsidies. Health Savings Accounts are subsidies from taxpayers. Forcing insurance companies to cover Pre-existing conditions are subsidies paid for by other people with insurance. I like the free market as well, but medical care presents expense and cost challanges that are unique. Strictly free market solutions would reduce costs, but not to the point where society in general will tolerate them. The debate as to whether or not gov't should be involved in health care occurred long ago, and the free market side lost. I don't see that discussion being revisted any time soon. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 3 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: It may sound heartless and cold, but as a layman, I've never understood the requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. To me it would be analogous to forcing an insurance company to sell you insurance when your house was on fire, or covering your car after you've had an accident. I realize I'm comparing objects (houses, cars) to human life - that's why it may appear heartless. (and I speak as someone with a pre-existing condition myself - heart disease). The author of the article seems to provide a possible solution in the form of high risk pools. These would be specifically for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and would be subsidized by taxpayers in general - not just the premium payers. It's an intriguing proposal. I would have to see the numbers run; and the definition of who qualifies for 'high risk pool'. But at the very least it puts to bed the complaint from Obamacare supporters that there is 'no alternative plan'. Now let the debate begin! Blessings, -Ed The problem with not covering preexisting conditions is that once you lose your insurance, you are not covered at all. This can happen in several ways like no longer working for the same employer etc. There is someone on the forums who has a life threatening debilitating illness. The treatment is quite expensive, the equivalent of a yearly salary. Once this member loses the current insurance under this members parents plan, which will happen in a few years despite their wishes to remain on it, if its not covered as a preexisting condition this member would die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 3 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: It may sound heartless and cold, but as a layman, I've never understood the requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. To me it would be analogous to forcing an insurance company to sell you insurance when your house was on fire, or covering your car after you've had an accident. I realize I'm comparing objects (houses, cars) to human life - that's why it may appear heartless. (and I speak as someone with a pre-existing condition myself - heart disease). The author of the article seems to provide a possible solution in the form of high risk pools. These would be specifically for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and would be subsidized by taxpayers in general - not just the premium payers. It's an intriguing proposal. I would have to see the numbers run; and the definition of who qualifies for 'high risk pool'. But at the very least it puts to bed the complaint from Obamacare supporters that there is 'no alternative plan'. Now let the debate begin! Blessings, -Ed I think your post gets at the heart of the problem of healthcare in our country, we cannot decide what it is. On one hand we want to treat it like a commodity, but commodities have to adhere to the law of supply and demand. On the other hand we think it is wrong to let someone die because they cannot afford the commodity of healthcare so we tamper with the laws of supply and demand, but that is like tamper with the laws of gravity, sooner or later gravity wins! lol. We as a country need to decided if healthcare is a commodity or a service and then stick to what we choose. As long as we try and make it both, we will never solve the problem of ever rising cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 I think the article in the OP misses the whole point of insurance, which is to spread out the cost and risk among the largest possible group. Insurance companies would love to be able to insure only healthy people and for the government to pay for all the really sick, expensive people. What a racket that would be, take in money from the healthy people every month and then when they become high risk they are handed off to the government. If this plan happens, I know I will be shifting a lot of my money to insurance company stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, ayin jade said: The problem with not covering preexisting conditions is that once you lose your insurance, you are not covered at all. This can happen in several ways like no longer working for the same employer etc. There is someone on the forums who has a life threatening debilitating illness. The treatment is quite expensive, the equivalent of a yearly salary. Once this member loses the current insurance under this members parents plan, which will happen in a few years despite their wishes to remain on it, if its not covered as a preexisting condition this member would die. Exactly - I agree that is a huge problem. That's why I made the comparison earlier that even though it is called 'insurance', there is a big distinction between covering things like cars and houses and providing things like medical coverage. I'm still skeptical that Obamacare can be repealed. It's been around in some form since Obama's first term, and it's gotten its share of people it is supposedly helping. In other words, its doing EXACTLY what government programs are supposed to do when it comes to making sure they exist in perpetuity. What do you think of the 'high risk' pool the author wrote about? Blessings, -Ed Edited December 28, 2016 by SavedByGrace1981 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobson Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 28, 2016 3 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: It may sound heartless and cold, but as a layman, I've never understood the requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. To me it would be analogous to forcing an insurance company to sell you insurance when your house was on fire, or covering your car after you've had an accident. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is the true heartlessness. It allows one group of Americans to loot another group of Americans. I'll wait until I get a cancer diagnoses before I buy insurance. Obamacare addresses this by fining people who don't get insurance. Also, Obamacare only forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions around December, the open enrollment period. So, if I don't get insurance, I'll pay a fine. And, when I get my cancer diagnosis, I'll have to deal with it without insurance until around December. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the problem, not the solution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted December 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted December 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jacobson said: Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is the true heartlessness. It allows one group of Americans to loot another group of Americans. I'll wait until I get a cancer diagnoses before I buy insurance. Obamacare addresses this by fining people who don't get insurance. And from what I understand, the cost of the fine is much less than the cost of paying the insurance premium. Also, Obamacare only forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions around December, the open enrollment period. So, if I don't get insurance, I'll pay a fine. And, when I get my cancer diagnosis, I'll have to deal with it without insurance until around December. Agreed - from the perspecitive of insurance providers, it is a financially unsustainable arrangement, which brings me to . . . Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the problem, not the solution... . . . yes, and Obamacare was designed from the outset to fail. It was simply a stopgap - a stepping-stone to the promised 'nirvana' of Single-Payer. That has been the pipe-dream of statists of both parties for at least since the FDR administration. But to me, all this is just stating the obvious. We find ourselves at the point we are now, and we're likely not going back. The statists worked too hard to bring us here, they will not give up and just concede defeat. The election of Trump does perhaps provide an opportunity to make the inevitable 'Single-Payer' better than it might have been under Hillary. So there is that . . . Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts