Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP Plan

[iguanaman]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

A huge chunk of that "24 million" are people who choose NOT to buy health insurance because the only reason they did so was the mandate.

So people not buying a thing they don't want.

So...

Yeah. Not a problem.

Right. Millions more sick people without insurance is not a problem. The CBO said 24 million people kicked off their policies mostly because they can no longer afford them without the subsidies, not to mention the drastic cuts in Medicaid.

 

[d0gbreath]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Easily. You were talking about buying them healthcare services paid for with taxpayer dollars, and that is grossly immoral.

As far as Jesus of Nazareth is concerned, he advocated for voluntary charity, not a welfare state. :shrug:

Our entire armed forces are a welfare state. I don't think you would call them grossly immoral.

 

[Mac77]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

From a Consumers Report article:


Read more:

Pre-Existing Conditions & Health Insurance Premiums - Consumer Reports


How many people who voted for President Trump thought those persons who had pre excisting conditions were going to be able to keep affordable health care? Guess the House GOP thinks not.

Please write to your Senators and other senators if you reject this plan.

You or one of your loved ones who has a pre exsisting condition cannot afford to lose their coverage.

I think we could fix that by giving people 90 days to purchase a new policy at the lower rate before putting them into a high risk pool.

The problem is Americans who might go years before getting insurance

 

[KLATTU]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

SO shoule higher risk people pay mor or not? For xample -should women pay more since they are incur over 3 x the health care costs of men.

Should a 26 year old black man from Harlem making 30 a year subsidize a, say, an elderly white super-rich grandmother from chappaqua?

 

[sear]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

"Our entire armed forces are a welfare state." db #277

a) I deduce you are not an honorably discharged United States military veteran.

b) "Welfare" in the mode you use it here refers to government charity.

welfare (wèl´fâr´) noun
Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a welfare hotel; welfare families.

- idiom.
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.

[Middle English, from wel faren, to fare well, from Old English wel faran : wel, well. See well2 + faran, to get along. See fare.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

It is U.S. military members, faithful servants of the People that are charitable.

Their meager salaries are so scant, they are often eligible for"welfare" such as "food stamps", because their compensation is so meager.

I defy you or anyone else to name any other group that is so selfless, so brave, so dedicated to our Constitution that they VOLUNTEER to place their lives and limbs at risk for the cause.

"Our entire armed forces are a welfare state." db #277

Perhaps you have the United States military confused with congress.

Our U.S. military members earn every penny they get.
And we owe to them more than we can or shall ever repay.

There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Right. Millions more sick people without insurance is not a problem. The CBO said 24 million people kicked off their policies mostly because they can no longer afford them without the subsidies, not to mention the drastic cuts in Medicaid.

Nope, that is not true.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Our entire armed forces are a welfare state. I don't think you would call them grossly immoral.

Yeah no, this one is just ludicrously stupid. :roll:

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

I've never understood the push for demanding insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The point of insurance is to cover a risk, not to pay out for a certainty.

Requiring shared coverage for pre-existing conditions means constant demands on the funds everyone else is contributing to. That means everyone else's insurance premiums have to increase to cover them.

That defeats the entire purpose of insurance, and turns it into almost an entitlement for the already ill.

I'm already pissed about the fact I have to have car insurance, having been accident free for more than 30 years...yet having to face constant semi-annual increases to cover other people who are accident-prone.

Now you want me to have required medical coverage, so that I can pay for everyone else who is already sick?

If I have to do that, then I want single-payer, so like Medicare and Medicaid the government can regulate how much the Medical Industry can charge for treatment and medications.

The problem is that the government then determines what it will and will not pay for and you have less recourse in that system than you do in the US system. Hell, when a European or Canadian with money hits the wall they can at least come to the US.

For all of the hand wringing about the American system it still has the highest aggregated rate of cancer survival in the world and, when you remove gang violence and automotive fatalities where the health insurance plays no role in survival rates, the US also ranks #1 in life expectancy.

Most of the sales pitch for the good of government controlled health care amounts to little more than statistical parlor tricks.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

The problem is that the government then determines what it will and will not pay for and you have less recourse in that system than you do in the US system. Hell, when a European or Canadian with money hits the wall they can at least come to the US.

For all of the hand wringing about the American system it still has the highest aggregated rate of cancer survival in the world and, when you remove gang violence and automotive fatalities where the health insurance plays no role in survival rates, the US also ranks #1 in life expectancy.

Most of the sales pitch for the good of government controlled health care amounts to little more than statistical parlor tricks.

With a Medicare type coverage ,one would just need to buy a Medicare advantage or a type of supplemental care from a private insurer to get more coverage for things like prescription drugs , choice of doctors , etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

With a Medicare type coverage ,one would just need to buy a Medicare advantage or a type of supplemental care from a private insurer to get more coverage for things like prescription drugs , choice of doctors , etc.

Medicare is primarily funded by a flat tax placed on the wages of all to fund the few that make it to age 65 or become disabled. You may like the Medicare type of coverage (monthly premiums of about $150) but what would that cost the workers asked to fund it? Medical care is about 20% of GDP which means that publicly funding it would require a similar amount of taxation/premium combination.

 

[sear]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
Right. Millions more sick people without insurance is not a problem. The CBO said 24 million people kicked off their policies mostly because they can no longer afford them without the subsidies, not to mention the drastic cuts in Medicaid.

"Nope, that is not true." JD #281

The CBO may be incorrect.

BUT !!

JD is PRECISELY correct that the CBO reported that calculation.



And FOX, a "news" agency which has a notorious Republican bias corroborates it.

 

[Rexedgar]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

If I've never had a health problem, then I don't have a doctor.

It's not the same as credit.

And the insurance companies are run by rubes and you will be the first to attemp deception, Good Luck with that!

 

[minnie616]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Medicare is primarily funded by a flat tax placed on the wages of all to fund the few that make it to age 65 or become disabled. You may like the Medicare type of coverage (monthly premiums of about $150) but what would that cost the workers asked to fund it? Medical care is about 20% of GDP which means that publicly funding it would require a similar amount of taxation/premium combination.

I did say Medicare type not Medicare but I think a basic type coverage for all and then those who want a better policy with more coverage and choices can buy a private insurance to cover more.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

I did say Medicare type not Medicare but I think a basic type coverage for all and then those who want a better policy with more coverage and choices can buy a private insurance to cover more.

Yes and Medicare type coverage requires heavy subsidies to keep the premiums and deductibles down. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

Yes and Medicare type coverage requires heavy subsidies to keep the premiums and deductibles down. You cannot have one without the other.

I agree.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

SO shoule higher risk people pay mor or not? For xample -should women pay more since they are incur over 3 x the health care costs of men.

Should a 26 year old black man from Harlem making 30 a year subsidize a, say, an elderly white super-rich grandmother from chappaqua?

It seems pretty obvious when talking about insurance, that higher risk people should pay more than lower risk people. Thats literally how insurance works in the first place.

Of course, this debate for liberals isnt about insurance. They dont want insurance, they want healthcare, without any requirement to pay. Same as retirement, food, housing, education.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

...

Of course, this debate for liberals isnt about insurance. They dont want insurance, they want healthcare, without any requirement to pay. Same as retirement, food, housing, education.

I disagree.

We will all pay for healthcare through taxes anyway.

Even before ACA we still had to pay extra taxes and extra healthcare insurance costs for the uninsured who utilized the ERs for medical care.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

I di
We will all pay for healthcare through taxes anyway.

Evre.

47 % won't pay .

And the bulk of it will be paid by the top 20% of income earners.
You can see why why single payer is a very attractive concept.
It will be here soon.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

47 % won't pay .

And the bulk of it will be paid by the top 20% of income earners.
You can see why why single payer is a very attractive concept.
It will be here soon.

From the following:

The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives. Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare. Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent.


And those aren’t the only other taxes they bear. According to economic research, the corporate income tax discourages domestic investment; that depresses wages, so workers are effectively paying some of the corporate tax. More directly, many households pay federal taxes on gasoline, beer and cigarettes. And then there are state and local sales, property and income taxes — all of which are often less progressive than the federal income tax.

Putting all these together, a family of three with an income of $30,000 would owe no federal income tax (in fact, they would get money back). But they could easily pay more than $4,500, or 15 percent of their income, in taxes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bee9c66e190_story.html?utm_term=.a922c6ee1f08

 

[sear]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

"It seems pretty obvious when talking about insurance, that higher risk people should pay more than lower risk people. Thats literally how insurance works in the first place." j5 #291

amen

BUT !!

The liberal / Democrat idea differs; that the healthy should subsidize the sick.

I suspect it's the same with car insurance: the insured that costs the insurer the most may not fully pay his way. For the insurer, it's a NET gain from the entire pool of insureds.

"It seems pretty obvious when talking about insurance, that higher risk people should pay more than lower risk people. Thats literally how insurance works in the first place." j5 #291

Reductio ad absurdum: why insure anyone?

Employers ensure their employees for the benefit of the employer; they need to keep their key employees healthy.

AND !!

The employer then gets the tax write-off.

For the rest of us; why shouldn't we just stay healthy, or drop dead?

 

[jonny5]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

I disagree.

We will all pay for healthcare through taxes anyway.

Even before ACA we still had to pay extra taxes and extra healthcare insurance costs for the uninsured who utilized the ERs for medical care.

What about those who dont pay?

 

[jonny5]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

amen

BUT !!

The liberal / Democrat idea differs; that the healthy should subsidize the sick.

I suspect it's the same with car insurance: the insured that costs the insurer the most may not fully pay his way. For the insurer, it's a NET gain from the entire pool of insureds.

Reductio ad absurdum: why insure anyone?

Employers ensure their employees for the benefit of the employer; they need to keep their key employees healthy.

AND !!

The employer then gets the tax write-off.

For the rest of us; why shouldn't we just stay healthy, or drop dead?

Employers insure their employees because one, they get a tax credit, and two, its a form of compensation which is cheaper than actual compensation. I dont think its about keeping people healthy.

Why insure anyone? To make money. Why insure sick people. That would be a money loser. If an insurance company could ONLY insure people who would never use it, wouldnt they?

 

[jonny5]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

From the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bee9c66e190_story.html?utm_term=.a922c6ee1f08

"a family of three with an income of $30,000 would owe no federal income tax "

And a good chunk of that income tax they dont pay goes to healthcare. They MIGHT be paying payroll tax, but with the tax credits on income tax, they might not be.

 

[Socrates1]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

From a Consumers Report article:


Read more:

Pre-Existing Conditions & Health Insurance Premiums - Consumer Reports


How many people who voted for President Trump thought those persons who had pre excisting conditions were going to be able to keep affordable health care? Guess the House GOP thinks not.

Please write to your Senators and other senators if you reject this plan.

You or one of your loved ones who has a pre exsisting condition cannot afford to lose their coverage.

So you feel those that chose to live a healthy life style should paid MORE for their insurance to make up for those that did NOT ? If you decided to screw everything that moved regardless of gender and contracted AIDS and your meds cost thousands I should pay for them for you ? PC BS !!!!!:roll: Does that PC BS also apply to ones savings ? Life insurance ? Auto insurance ?

 

[sear]

Re: Got a Pre-exsisting Condition Your Premium Could Rise Sharply Under the New GOP

" I dont think its about keeping people healthy. " j5 #297

Your previous sentence indicates there's more than one reason. I wouldn't presume to rank them.

The health aspect benefits the employer. A sickly employee may take more sick day absences; thus be less productive.

Whether the benefit to the employer of employees that get sufficient doctoring is a major consideration or not; that may vary from one employer to another.
But figure it out. If any particular employee is expendable, not important to the day to day operation of the enterprise, then why is that particular employee still on the payroll?