The problem is, right now, this is a bit of reality that the left wants to erase from the discussion. They want everyone to believe that the majority want this new healthcare crap.
Of course, the right ignores polls as well.
But why would any politician ever actually care what the people want or think? They got theirs.
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation? I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.
hey, I just read in another thread that justabubba wants to spend billions on bullet trains to nowhere, so why not??
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation? I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.
Sick Fred with no job moves?Fred loses his job and goes on state aid (in Texas). Suddenly he gets sick, but since he doesn't have a job, he doesn't have health insurance. He goes to the state, but they tell him that they're not accepting any new Medicaid patients. Fred and his wife have to leave Texas and move to Arkansas where he CAN get Medicaid. Not only doesn't Texas end up paying for the Medicaid bill, but once Fred and his wife leave Texas they don't pay for his welfare either.
Sick Fred with no job moves?
How does Sick Fred pay for his moving expenses?
How does Sick Fred cover his deposit on his new place to live?
Sick Fred stays in place w/o the wherewithal to leave his current situation.
The "freebies", is that what you mean?
I don't think we give residency to people in motels. I could be wrong though.He's moving into a motel or something of that sort. ... However, he knows that if he can get to Arkansas and establish some form of residence...
His motivation is assumed. But I don't think he has the wherewithal despite his motivation.that he can likely get Medicaid coverage for both him and his wife; whereas if they stay in Texas all they get is the Emergency Room "Patch em up and kick em out" system, which may not work for his or his wife's ailments.
Sick Fred isn't moving into a new apartment. He's moving into a motel or something of that sort. He doesn't have much to move. He's had to sell/pawn most of it to pay their expenses for the six months he's already been out of work. However, he knows that if he can get to Arkansas and establish some form of residence, that he can likely get Medicaid coverage for both him and his wife; whereas if they stay in Texas all they get is the Emergency Room "Patch em up and kick em out" system, which may not work for his or his wife's ailments.
No.
Extended coverage of college students on their parents' plan.
No more denied coverage due to preecisting conditions.
Only 20% of premium payments going to administrative costs.
Closing of the donut hole for seniors.
Just to name a few.
Exactly! You are quoting the "freebies". How many people favor the parts that "pay" for the goodies? That is precisely why the package is so unpopular.
Extended coverage of college students on their parents' plan.
No more denied coverage due to preecisting conditions.
Only 20% of premium payments going to administrative costs.
Rasmussen has been polling on this every 1-2 weeks since the scheme was enacted. Their results have been remarkably consistant over time and with other surveys:
Health Care Law
53% Want Health Care Law Repealed
Monday, July 9, 2012
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™
Most voters still aren’t convinced: They want President Obama’s national health care law repealed as they have said consistently since the measure was passed by Congress over two years ago.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor the repeal of the health care law, while 41% are opposed. These findings include 43% who Strongly Favor repeal and 31% who Strongly Oppose it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 7-8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
Of course, it's racism! As always.
.
Exactly! You are quoting the "freebies". How many people favor the parts that "pay" for the goodies? That is precisely why the package is so unpopular.
You mean to say that forcing them to buy the health coverage that they can't afford is going to improve their situation?
I think making this a federal issue was a dumb idea in the first place, states and municipalities could come up with far better systems for themselves.
The states have had 200+ years to do so, and they have utterly failed.
Just a thought:
Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.
So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?
I think you have it a little mixed up.
The law says that no more than 20% of payments from consumers can be used to pay for administrative costs. So it puts a cap on what insurance companies can pay in regards to salaries from revenue brought in by premiums.
So in a bad year, an insurance company can, for instance, go 90/10 in regards to how much of its premiums are used to pay for administrative costs in order to pay for coverage. What the law limits, however, is, during good years, an insurance company using 70/30 of premium payments to be used to pay for administrative costs.
So the 80/20 ratio is a cap, not a constant, and insurance companies can use more of the money from premiums to pay out for coverage but not less.
No.
People will pay for it themselves since there is an individual mandate.
So because people will pay for their own health insurance, there are no "freebies."
All which raise rates. Funny thing reality is, the more you cover, and the more that is covered, the higher the rates, as the 'risk' is higher.
Unrealistic. What other industries has the government set limits on administrative costs on? When most of that industry is pushing paperwork?
Just a thought:
Don't most insurance companies work on a reserves system? If one year is particularly "good" because claims are down, they have a reserve for the next year that's "bad" because claims shoot up.
So let's say this 80/20 plan kills that year-to-year reserve...
what happens in a "bad" year? What if they need to spend more than 80% on medical pay outs? What if they have to spend more than is paid in for some reason? What happens at that point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?