- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I know it happened to my daughters friend when she moved to her own place.
She thought she could stay her on her dad's insurance but once the insurance found out she moved out she is being billed retroactively for all the bills from the time she moved out.
I know it happened to my daughters friend when she moved to her own place.
She thought she could stay her on her dad's insurance but once the insurance found out she moved out she is being billed retroactively for all the bills from the time she moved out.
What is the alternative?
There is no alternative to footing the bill, that much we agree on. The question is how far we should be willing to go, and whether we actually demand empirical evidence that a given policy works.
Have you read the ACA ? Are you a Ted Cruz,supporter ?
All government regulations are a form of "infringement" whether the activity regulated is optional or not. The issue isIt's an infringement on personal liberty, period. It is unlike auto insurance because driving is optional.
That cannot now be achieved without a tax increaseNo, we need a govt forced to operate within budget and within statutory limits on taxation.
ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE RELIES ON THE HEALTHY TO FUND THE UNHEALTHY.It is ponzi because it relies on healthy subscribers to fund the unhealthy subscribers.
I previously drew attention to this.The difference is that under obamacare, insurers are required to offer insurance to those that are sick right now. There is no period of premium payment with no payout for the company to invest.
According to the Health and Human Services Department up to 50 million people under the age of 65 may have high-risk conditions making insurance prohibitive or impossible. See link:The number of truly uninsurable persons is statistically insignificant.
The numbers are not low, and Medicare is already under progressive, continuing strain.The numbers are very low, and they'd have been better served by an expansion of medicare than they are under obamacare.
Studies are conflicting on that point. The thing about preventive medicine is that you're paying a small amount, but you're paying for everyone, whereas with emergencies you're only paying for the few who have emergencies.
and, with preventative medicine, there are a lot fewer emergencies.
Moreover, if the individual has insurance that allows him to visit a doctor's office or clinic, then non emergencies don't have to be treated at the emergency room.
All government regulations are a form of "infringement" whether the activity regulated is optional or not. The issue is
whether or not the "infringement" serves an overriding social need.
That cannot now be achieved without a tax increase
ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE RELIES ON THE HEALTHY TO FUND THE UNHEALTHY.
Also, you do not understand what a ponzi scheme even is. Look it up.
I previously drew attention to this.
According to the Health and Human Services Department up to 50 million people under the age of 65 may have high-risk conditions making insurance prohibitive or impossible. See link:
A pre-existing health-conditions study says half the country is uninsurable.
Note the study gives a range of 19-50% vulnerable under the age of 65, so even if the figures are exaggerated by several factors they still are a significant percentage.
The numbers are not low, and Medicare is already under progressive, continuing strain.
The deficit would still be in the $100s billion even if several entire cabinet departments were abolished.Far from true. There's a lot of excess that can be cut and inefficiencies that can be eliminated.
Which makes it conceptually identical to all other insurance.Which makes Obamacare inefficient (bad law)
Now that you’ve looked it up.I'm well aware of what it is.
What do you mean ignored? I said it might cause a train wreck.and ignored it's impact on this particular law.
Apprx. 50 million has been the estimate for years now.Hmm, a number in excess of the entirety of the uninsured in America...according to the commonly used emotional language meant to drive passage of the law. Curious.
12%, 15%- Either number is scandalous, and if you can’t get on board with that then I don’t think it is any use discussing it further.The numbers are statistically low (the number of total uninsured Americans for any reason was merely 12-15%), and not all persons with "pre-existing conditions" were uninsured to begin with.
and, with preventative medicine, there are a lot fewer emergencies.
Moreover, if the individual has insurance that allows him to visit a doctor's office or clinic, then non emergencies don't have to be treated at the emergency room.
The deficit would still be in the $100s billion even if several entire cabinet departments were abolished.
Which makes it conceptually identical to all other insurance.
Now that you’ve looked it up.
What do you mean ignored? I said it might cause a train wreck.
Apprx. 50 million has been the estimate for years now.
12%, 15%- Either number is scandalous, and if you can’t get on board with that then I don’t think it is any use discussing it further.
Not necessarily. Like I said, the studies are conflicting. Especially since the US health care system is often criticized for overtesting.
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?