Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

OBAMACARE

My question is i since when a Federal Judge can actually strike down a law that was already set in the Supreme court?
Isn't the Supreme Court the last resort for  any Law.

IN my view only ans a.hole in Texas can actually have the nerve to try to overrule the Supreme Court.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

Darcy, I wish I could offer a good suggestion, but I can't. Trump World does NOT care about people and their number one priority, health care. But who knows? Maybe the Supreme Court will surprise everyone and keep Obamacare.

0 Kudos
437 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@DarcyFarrow  As the author of this thread, I  have always wantedto see a National Health Care system for the US  and when Obamacare was adopted, I saw it as the step to have this country be able to institute a National Health Care system. 
Now that will never be. not only Obamacare for pre conditions and all the evils that we know will happen.
I am extremely disappointed to see many citizens not understanding what the future of this country is going to be. with Trump for 4 more years, But I guess that perhaps country needs to really see what can happen when your Democracy goes down the drain and you vote for a President of the kind that we all know Trump happen to be.
Sometimes I get angry and say that we deserve Trump and other times I realize the horrible thing that it will entail. 
I am one of the few Republicans that post in this message board that is not a Trump Follower  I despise his tactics, I despise his morality, and I will cry for all the damage that he had done and will do to this country. The only option that we all have is to make sure that he doesn't win the elections and that the Senate falls back into the hands of the Democrats. if not. May the Lord help us

no name
0 Kudos
415 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I'd like to hear from anyone on this message board who depends on Obamacare:  what are your plans for paying for healthcare now that it's certain the ACA will be struck down?

 

I'm 63, having retired early because of my medical conditions, and I'm scared. I don't have enough income to pay the premiums that Obamacare is now picking up for me, along with insulin and the 8 other prescriptions I have to take daily.   I'm  hoping someone out there has ideas.

0 Kudos
444 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@DarcyFarrow wrote:

I'd like to hear from anyone on this message board who depends on Obamacare:  what are your plans for paying for healthcare now that it's certain the ACA will be struck down?

 

I'm 63, having retired early because of my medical conditions, and I'm scared. I don't have enough income to pay the premiums that Obamacare is now picking up for me, along with insulin and the 8 other prescriptions I have to take daily.   I'm  hoping someone out there has ideas.


Darcy, I understand your plight, and so do many Americans across this country. The ONLY way to preserve and/or expand health care for all citizens is to vote Republicans out of office this November. We have to get people to the polls and vote these people out of office or millions will lose their health care except for emergency room care, far inadequate for  most anyone.

 

BLUE WAVE IN NOVEMBER !!!!


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

Despite its flaws, Obamacare changed the manner in which American Health Care is handled in several positive ways. We could never return to the old, harsh health insurance policies.

Honored Social Butterfly

I think Gail is wrong. Prior to the ACA, if someone could afford health insurance, but decided to avoid it, here's what would happen. If they had a health emergency, they would not have insurance to pay for a huge ER and/or hospital bill. Then the taxpayer had to subsidize the freeloader. 

 

I don't remember the exact number, but I think the above cost the federal government around $100 billion a year. 

 

The Affordable Care Act tried to instill accountability and responsbility. If you could afford health insurance but refused to buy it, you would have to pay a penalty to the IRS. It wasn't the best solution, but at least the individual mandate tried to do something about the problem. But the Republicans foolishly did away with the individual mandate, proving they do not believe in accountability and responsibilitiy.

Honored Social Butterfly

Many have forgotten how it was before Obamacare.  Not only pre conditions but an array of horrible things that could happen to anyone without insurance.

I remember that I was working with the Cancer Society and guess what too many people would appeal to the foundation because they couldn't find the necessary resources to deal with their cancer  My job was to find resources for these people that were not indigents or welfare people but people that didn't have the money to pay for the necessary medicines or treatments.

And because of pre condiditon would not have health insurance.

Please, the rich in this message board, the ones that have health insurance being Tricare, or any retirement health insurance have been many of them quite vocal about Medicaid. well, many simply don't qualify for Medicaid. 

This country needs to wake up, and demand the right to have health insurance and stop the  manipulation of many stating that a single payer is socialize medicine.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

As usual, RK had it dead wrong. It was the ACA and the Individual Mandate where accountability and responsibility would finally come into play. Under the ACA, those who could afford to pay for health insurance, but refused to do it, would have to pay a fine on the federal income tax.  No more freeloading, thanks to Obamacare.

 

However, the Trump Administration did away with the Individual Mandate. And you thought Republicans stood for accountability and responsibility?

Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

It was the ACA and the Individual Mandate where accountability and responsibility would finally come into play. Under the ACA, those who could afford to pay for health insurance, but refused to do it, would have to pay a fine on the federal income tax.  No more freeloading, thanks to Obamacare.

 

 


Those really were not the what you call "free-loaders" and they aren't now for the most part - they are just getting their healthcare coverage off the exchange. 

 

Many people especially the self-employed had good healthcare coverage before the ACA but now since many of them do not get a subsidy - they are paying more and more in premiums and with increasing deductibles on exchange plans.  Now they are just looking elsewhere - doing what they can to alleviate their risk.

 

Bloomberg Law News 12/14/2018 - Want a Better Obamacare Deal? Look Beyond HealthCare.gov

 

The drop in unsubsidized enrollees “is likely a contributing factor” to the drop in ACA enrollment, Chris Sloan, a director with Washington-based health-care policy consulting firm Avalere Health, told Bloomberg Law.

 

Between 2016 and 2017, marketplace enrollment of people who didn’t receive subsidies declined 20 percent, according to the CMS. And enrollment data for 2018 suggest the downward spiral among the unsubsidized may be accelerating, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in November.

 

“This is still a really expensive market,” especially for people who don’t receive subsidies, Sloan said. “I would not be surprised by the end of open enrollment that the number of people who are subsidized remains relatively flat and the unsubsidized number drops.”

 

read more at the above link ~

 

Wonder how they are gonna determine who is and who is not insured now so that they issue all the various stats on this individual marketplace?

 

 

0 Kudos
665 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

It was the ACA and the Individual Mandate where accountability and responsibility would finally come into play. Under the ACA, those who could afford to pay for health insurance, but refused to do it, would have to pay a fine on the federal income tax.  No more freeloading, thanks to Obamacare.

 

 


Those really were not the what you call "free-loaders" and they aren't now for the most part - they are just getting their healthcare coverage off the exchange. 

 

Many people especially the self-employed had good healthcare coverage before the ACA but now since many of them do not get a subsidy - they are paying more and more in premiums and with increasing deductibles on exchange plans.  Now they are just looking elsewhere - doing what they can to alleviate their risk.

 

Bloomberg Law News 12/14/2018 - Want a Better Obamacare Deal? Look Beyond HealthCare.gov

 

The drop in unsubsidized enrollees “is likely a contributing factor” to the drop in ACA enrollment, Chris Sloan, a director with Washington-based health-care policy consulting firm Avalere Health, told Bloomberg Law.

 

Between 2016 and 2017, marketplace enrollment of people who didn’t receive subsidies declined 20 percent, according to the CMS. And enrollment data for 2018 suggest the downward spiral among the unsubsidized may be accelerating, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in November.

 

“This is still a really expensive market,” especially for people who don’t receive subsidies, Sloan said. “I would not be surprised by the end of open enrollment that the number of people who are subsidized remains relatively flat and the unsubsidized number drops.”

 

read more at the above link ~

 

Wonder how they are gonna determine who is and who is not insured now so that they issue all the various stats on this individual marketplace?

 

 


The reason for the drop in Insureds is simple. Trump and the far right have been taking apart the ACA for 2 years now and it is starting to show. The ACA was designed with many parts and all parts must work for the ACA to work. The material you post covers small parts and you try and make people think it covers the entire law. It does not. Trump and his supporters are killing the ACA little by little, and you have people who do not understand health care giving what the problem is and how to fix it. If people follow what the uninformed tell them then the ACA ends and you have high total cost of health care. You seem to dwell on the insurance end only, and not the costs paid for by other Taxes and fees, and that is a diversion used by Trump all the time. You want to solve the problem? Step one: Restore the ACA to the way it was designed to work, then improve it. See how simple that is. A first step would be make all States expand Medicaid. Do you support GA doing that?

Honored Social Butterfly

As is often repeated here, other countries have universal health care and not all of them are of the single payer type - some are hybrids of public/private systems.  These other countries have various ways of forcing their citizens to get covered and stay covered without relying on a tax penalty.

 

Let's take Australia - they use a premium surcharge - similar to what our Medicare does with late sign ups for Medicare Part B and/or Part D - an amount added on to the monthly premium for signing up after a stated deadline.

 

Australian Private Health.gov.au.- Lifetime Health Cover"

 

To explain it this ABC.net Austrailian site simplifies it for these young people being affected:

ABC.net.au 04/05/2017 - What to make of private health insurance if you're about to hit your 30s

 

from the link - a little out of order since I am putting the explanation of the policy 1st -

p.s. "Medicare" is what they call their public system.  - Austrailia has both a public system and a private system.

 

What's the point of the Lifetime Health Cover initiative?

 

The basic idea is that the more people who have private health insurance, the less reliance there is on the government-funded Medicare system. Currently, about half of all Australians have private health insurance.

 

But there's another reason the Federal Government wants younger people to have private health insurance: this makes it cheaper for everyone else.

 

That's because younger people are effectively subsidising the cost for older people, who pay the same amount for private health insurance but are more likely to be using it.

 

"Your young self is subsidising your older self, because in 50 years time you'll be wanting younger people to be subsidising your insurance," said Stephen Duckett, a health policy expert at the Grattan Institute.

 

Isn't there also a Medicare levy surcharge?

Yes.

Dr Duckett says this is actually the main thing you should consider when looking at whether private health insurance is worth it to you.

The surcharge kicks in at $90,000 income for singles and $180,000 for families. It starts at 1 per cent of your income and rises to 1.5 per cent for the highest earners.

So if you’re single and your taxable income is $90,000, that's an extra $900 that you have to pay in tax.

But you don't have to pay this surcharge if you have private health insurance.

 

If you're about to hit your 30s and you haven't yet got private health insurance, we've got bad news: either you get it now, or it'll become increasingly more expensive if you ever do decide to get it down the track.

 

You can blame the "Lifetime Health Cover" initiative for that. Basically, the Federal Government is trying to force your hand.. . . .

 

When do I need to decide by?

 

If you want to avoid paying more in the future for private health insurance, you'll need to decide by July 1 following your 31st birthday.

 

How much more will private health insurance cost in the future if I don't get it now?

If you decide to get health insurance later, you'll need to pay an extra 2 per cent for each year you didn't have hospital cover over the age of 30.

It adds up. By the time you're 40, that's an additional 20 per cent.

The cost of top family hospital cover averages about $4,500 annually, while for singles it's $1,250. So a 20 per cent loading means you'd be paying an additional $900 and $250, respectively.

 

read more at the above link ~

 

Honored Social Butterfly

As a proponent of a Single National Health Care system I will not say, that I agree with Medicare for all is the way to go.

 I have said this over and over again,  during the past few years. that we in this country need to really understand that we need to develop a National Health care  system that is not a copy of other countries but a system that is the system that this country needs to implement.

But there are many in this message board that continuously taint such a notion and call it "socialized medicine "  in order not only to confuse but to discourage any kind of thought regarding this issue.

This country needs a national health care system and until then, we will be speaking and fighting over this whole issue and getting nowhere in this country. 

We will blame the Democrats and we will blame the Republican, but in the end, nothing will be done.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

As is often repeated here, other countries have universal health care and not all of them are of the single payer type - some are hybrids of public/private systems.  These other countries have various ways of forcing their citizens to get covered and stay covered without relying on a tax penalty.

 

Let's take Australia - they use a premium surcharge - similar to what our Medicare does with late sign ups for Medicare Part B and/or Part D - an amount added on to the monthly premium for signing up after a stated deadline.

 

Australian Private Health.gov.au.- Lifetime Health Cover"

 

To explain it this ABC.net Austrailian site simplifies it for these young people being affected:

ABC.net.au 04/05/2017 - What to make of private health insurance if you're about to hit your 30s

 

from the link - a little out of order since I am putting the explanation of the policy 1st -

p.s. "Medicare" is what they call their public system.  - Austrailia has both a public system and a private system.

 

What's the point of the Lifetime Health Cover initiative?

 

The basic idea is that the more people who have private health insurance, the less reliance there is on the government-funded Medicare system. Currently, about half of all Australians have private health insurance.

 

But there's another reason the Federal Government wants younger people to have private health insurance: this makes it cheaper for everyone else.

 

That's because younger people are effectively subsidising the cost for older people, who pay the same amount for private health insurance but are more likely to be using it.

 

"Your young self is subsidising your older self, because in 50 years time you'll be wanting younger people to be subsidising your insurance," said Stephen Duckett, a health policy expert at the Grattan Institute.

 

Isn't there also a Medicare levy surcharge?

Yes.

Dr Duckett says this is actually the main thing you should consider when looking at whether private health insurance is worth it to you.

The surcharge kicks in at $90,000 income for singles and $180,000 for families. It starts at 1 per cent of your income and rises to 1.5 per cent for the highest earners.

So if you’re single and your taxable income is $90,000, that's an extra $900 that you have to pay in tax.

But you don't have to pay this surcharge if you have private health insurance.

 

If you're about to hit your 30s and you haven't yet got private health insurance, we've got bad news: either you get it now, or it'll become increasingly more expensive if you ever do decide to get it down the track.

 

You can blame the "Lifetime Health Cover" initiative for that. Basically, the Federal Government is trying to force your hand.. . . .

 

When do I need to decide by?

 

If you want to avoid paying more in the future for private health insurance, you'll need to decide by July 1 following your 31st birthday.

 

How much more will private health insurance cost in the future if I don't get it now?

If you decide to get health insurance later, you'll need to pay an extra 2 per cent for each year you didn't have hospital cover over the age of 30.

It adds up. By the time you're 40, that's an additional 20 per cent.

The cost of top family hospital cover averages about $4,500 annually, while for singles it's $1,250. So a 20 per cent loading means you'd be paying an additional $900 and $250, respectively.

 

read more at the above link ~

 


Here is the fact Australia requires all to have health Insurance. You are either in the Govt. Program or in a Private Program. They want more in the private program early in life so they surcharge for age which is no difference in this country. If you buy medical insurance as an Indv. your age effects the rate you pay. In group Insurance the age can be a factor also only it is the average age of the group. Medical costs are higher for people as they age since they use it more. Your support also tells all that if you are not in the govt. paid for (Taxes) program it is cheaper to the entire system. They want to reduce the number in what I call our ER Care system. In both countries everyone has access to medical help. What you leave out is how they regulate their private Carriers. We do a poor job as there is a lot of fat like high executive salaries etc. Now we do require an 80% loss ratio, which used to be around 60% on average before the ACA, and is about 95% in Medicare. In this country we have a program that works Medicare. Now that is where our starting point should be. If someone can come up with a cheaper approach great, if not move to what works. Medicare for all approach.

0 Kudos
553 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@GailL1

You are dancing all around the healthcare issue. This only adds to the confusion. What are you proposing and how would we make it work. I am for single payer or Medicare for all...I’m sure that we could make it work, if our legislators would be serious in finding a solution for healthcare, free market will not work. What’s the plan?

 

@rk9152

I’m concerned...you are referring to yourself in the third person a lot, kinda like trump does! Please be careful. 

 

Never Forget

0 Kudos
562 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

 

 

@rk9152

I’m concerned...you are referring to yourself in the third person a lot, kinda like trump does! Please be careful. 

 

Never Forget


You'll have to be more specific.

0 Kudos
505 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

@GailL1

You are dancing all around the healthcare issue. This only adds to the confusion. What are you proposing and how would we make it work. I am for single payer or Medicare for all...I’m sure that we could make it work, if our legislators would be serious in finding a solution for healthcare, free market will not work. What’s the plan?

 

 


 

Why do you think I am dancing around the healthcare issue - I am just giving an alternative as it exist in another country - Australia - they have universal coverage.  A hybrid system of both a public and private system.

 

There are other type systems that work too.  In Australia, about half the population is on the public system and the other half is in the private system.

They are mandated to have coverage or face these surcharges.  

 

In Australia, everybody gets the same basic healthcare benefits.  They pays taxes to support the public healthcare system.  If they want something a little different or covers a bit more, they buy private coverage which covers somethings a little better - like a private room in a hospital rather than a ward or semi-private room which you get in under the public system.  

 

Germany has a hybrid system too as well as many other industrialized OECD countries.

 

The only thing that has been ruled on in this ruling is the tax penalty supporting the mandate - there are other ways to penalize a person for not getting coverage other than a tax penalty.  We already have them in our Medicare - a premium surcharge that last forever if a person fails to sign up for Medicare Parts B and Part D in a timely matter.

 

But there is lots wrong with Obamacare - because premiums have escalated so much, because deductibles have gotten so high, people who don't get a subsidy are dropping out of the ACA plans.  They are opting for other type coverage - MediShare type plans, now short term plans or perhaps nothing at all.  Young people weren't signing up either.  

 

Much of of the law has been postponed and not just by the Republicans either.

 

We need to take this time to reevaluate and make changes to make the (whatever) public/private system that we have now much more workable.  

 

I do not believe we will ever go to a single payer system - it is too far from what we have now and I do not think many, probably most, would accept the changes necessary to make it work, specifically hospitals, doctors, specialist, pharma or those who are seeking something that wouldn't possibly be covered under a basic healthcare single payer system.  

 

If we feel the need for a mandate and a penalty to go along with it - we need one that at least has some teeth to it.

 

 

0 Kudos
564 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@williamb39198 wrote:

@GailL1

You are dancing all around the healthcare issue. This only adds to the confusion. What are you proposing and how would we make it work. I am for single payer or Medicare for all...I’m sure that we could make it work, if our legislators would be serious in finding a solution for healthcare, free market will not work. What’s the plan?

 

 


 

Why do you think I am dancing around the healthcare issue - I am just giving an alternative as it exist in another country - Australia - they have universal coverage.  A hybrid system of both a public and private system.

 

There are other type systems that work too.  In Australia, about half the population is on the public system and the other half is in the private system.

They are mandated to have coverage or face these surcharges.  

 

In Australia, everybody gets the same basic healthcare benefits.  They pays taxes to support the public healthcare system.  If they want something a little different or covers a bit more, they buy private coverage which covers somethings a little better - like a private room in a hospital rather than a ward or semi-private room which you get in under the public system.  

 

Germany has a hybrid system too as well as many other industrialized OECD countries.

 

The only thing that has been ruled on in this ruling is the tax penalty supporting the mandate - there are other ways to penalize a person for not getting coverage other than a tax penalty.  We already have them in our Medicare - a premium surcharge that last forever if a person fails to sign up for Medicare Parts B and Part D in a timely matter.

 

But there is lots wrong with Obamacare - because premiums have escalated so much, because deductibles have gotten so high, people who don't get a subsidy are dropping out of the ACA plans.  They are opting for other type coverage - MediShare type plans, now short term plans or perhaps nothing at all.  Young people weren't signing up either.  

 

Much of of the law has been postponed and not just by the Republicans either.

 

We need to take this time to reevaluate and make changes to make the (whatever) public/private system that we have now much more workable.  

 

I do not believe we will ever go to a single payer system - it is too far from what we have now and I do not think many, probably most, would accept the changes necessary to make it work, specifically hospitals, doctors, specialist, pharma or those who are seeking something that wouldn't possibly be covered under a basic healthcare single payer system.  

 

If we feel the need for a mandate and a penalty to go along with it - we need one that at least has some teeth to it.

 

 


The problems with the ACA now have been caused by Trump and the far right as they have been taking apart the ACA little by little and you can not do that and have a system that works. It started when States were allowed not to expand Medicare like GA refused to do. It kept going when Co-Ops funding was changed from grants to loans so most Co-Ops went under due to not meeting state laws for capital funding due to the grants now having to be treated as liabilities. You have to understand health care to get into details and we have experts who do and they should be allowed to do their work.

Honored Social Butterfly

Repubs and trump have done all that they can to undercut and get rid of the ACA for eight years now. What if they had spent the last eight years to improve it. And why not start a commission to look into and recommend improvements

or what system might work well. Let professionals and knowledgeable people have at it!

What are trump and repubs afraid of?...

they are the biggest roadblock. 

 

Never Forget

Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

Repubs and trump have done all that they can to undercut and get rid of the ACA for eight years now. What if they had spent the last eight years to improve it. And why not start a commission to look into and recommend improvements

or what system might work well. Let professionals and knowledgeable people have at it!

What are trump and repubs afraid of?...

they are the biggest roadblock. 

 

 

Not afraid of, opposed to - Socialism.

 

One does not establish a Commission to recommend improvements to Socialism, you avoid it. Remember the "little bit pregnant"  comparison. Remember, Obama did not consider Obamacare to be the end target. It was just a way to get to Socialize medicine.


 

Honored Social Butterfly

Dismantling Obamacare will hurt hospitals, too. 

Honored Social Butterfly

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

Obamacare was far from perfect, but it changed how we pay for health insurance in a very positive manner. 

  • A significant percentage of Americans, who have pre-existing conditions, are no longer charged extra for healh insurance. 
  • All important "Preventive Care" is now FREE to patients
  • Low lifes, who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, are now penalized for living off the taxpayer. Wait a second! That was true until the Trump Administration did away with the fabulous "individual mandate".
Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

Obamacare was far from perfect, but it changed how we pay for health insurance in a very positive manner. 

  • A significant percentage of Americans, who have pre-existing conditions, are no longer charged extra for healh insurance. 
  • All important "Preventive Care" is now FREE to patients
  • Low lifes, who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, are now penalized for living off the taxpayer. Wait a second! That was true until the Trump Administration did away with the fabulous "individual mandate".

rk agrees with the last point. Since the law says that a person cannot be denied care, a person who can afford to purchase insurance should.

 

rk also feels that preexisting conditions should not be a bar to getting insurance - IF - the first point is dealt with. However, as things are, a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

0 Kudos
467 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

However, as things are, if a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

 

"Has been working and making good money". If he's not making "good money" and goes without health insurance, gets very sick and decides to scrape enough money together to buy insurance, the insurance company will deny him a health insurance policy. The insurance company becomes the "death panels".

 

With the ACA, if you become very sick, you have to wait for the next enrollment, but you won't be denied.

 

And with universal healthcarre, no death panels - at all.

 

healthcare death panels.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@gordyfl wrote:

However, as things are, if a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

 

"Has been working and making good money". If he's not making "good money" and goes without health insurance, gets very sick and decides to scrape enough money together to buy insurance, the insurance company will deny him a health insurance policy. The insurance company becomes the "death panels".

 

With the ACA, if you become very sick, you have to wait for the next enrollment, but you won't be denied.

 

And with universal healthcarre, no death panels - at all.

 

healthcare death panels.jpg

 

 

What about the guy who could afford it but opted out?  As you said, with ACA you could freeload for decades and then when you need it, somebody else pays for it.

 

 


 

0 Kudos
399 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@gordyfl wrote:

However, as things are, if a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

 

 

With the ACA, if you become very sick, you have to wait for the next enrollment, but you won't be denied.

 

 

 


No, he could just move - this creates a Special Enrollment Period where he could sign up right away - no penalty, no waiting for the next enrollment period, no denial of any sort and he gets it at the same price as anybody else in the area with only an adjustment based on his age.   So I guess it just depends on the nature of the situation and how bad he might need to sign up for a plan right away.

 

He could even be a 5-pack a day smoker, over-weight, no exercise except for going to the frig and getting a 6-pack while camped out on the couch watching TV.  

 

0 Kudos
459 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@gordyfl wrote:

However, as things are, if a 47 year old man who has been working and making good money but never bought insurance and suddenly gets a bad diagnosis should not be entitled to anything. It's like calling the insurance company as the fire department arrives at your burning house.

 

 

With the ACA, if you become very sick, you have to wait for the next enrollment, but you won't be denied.

 

 

 


No, he could just move - this creates a Special Enrollment Period where he could sign up right away - no penalty, no waiting for the next enrollment period, no denial of any sort and he gets it at the same price as anybody else in the area with only an adjustment based on his age.   So I guess it just depends on the nature of the situation and how bad he might need to sign up for a plan right away.

 

He could even be a 5-pack a day smoker, over-weight, no exercise except for going to the frig and getting a 6-pack while camped out on the couch watching TV.  

 


Suggest you read your answer. If what you say was followed the cost would increase to everyone in  the rating pool. All the people would pick up the cost of that indv. It is what was called buying a claim, and insurance is not based on that. The Pre EX was created to prevent people from waiting to they know they will need medical help and then buying Insurance. If everyone did that the cost of Insurance would be the same as if you did not have insurance. You really need to learn what Insurance is and how it works because it does not work the way you outline.

0 Kudos
461 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I remember when the Public Option had a chance of becoming a reality. During that time the health insurance stocks started sliding downward on Wall Street.

When the Public Option looked like it wasn't going to make it into the ACA, suddenly all the major health insurance stocks shot up.

 

When this week the Federal Judge in Texas struck down the ACA, health insurance stocks slid down again. 

 

Health-Care Stocks Plunge After Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional


Hospital and health insurer stocks plunged Monday after a federal judge in Texas ruled former President Barack Obama's signature health law, the Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional.


Shares of HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit U.S. hospital operator, fell 2.9 percent Monday.
Shares of insurer Cigna closed down 3.3 percent.
Health-care service company Centene slid 4.7 percent.
Managed health company Molina Healthcare plunged 8.9 percent.
Tenet Healthcare fell 6.8 percent.


The Health Care Select Sector fell 2 percent.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/17/insurer-hospital-stocks-plunge-after-obamacare-ruled-unconstitutiona...

 

As I'm posting this, I hear Sue Herrera on the Nightly Business Report say...since the Federal Judge struck down the ACA "investors are not sure what to do" about their healthcare stocks.

 

The ACA is a bonanza for the health insurance companies - but they still want more.

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

RK said, "It would be nice if ct would offer his views of the the topic, not other posters'

 

I just did, but since RK ignored it, I'll repeat what I said earlier.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

Obamacare was far from perfect, but it changed how we pay for health insurance in a very positive manner. 

  • The large percentage of Americans who have pre-existing conditions, are no longer charged extra for healh insurance. 
  • All important "Preventive Care" is now FREE to patients
  • Low lifes, who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, are now penalized for living off the taxpayer. Wait a second! That was true until the Trump Administration did away with the fabulous "individual mandate".
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png