Maybe a conservative can explain, the Repiblicans are going to "repeal" the ACA,

Guille said:
Not even close to true.
Click to expand...
Really? http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/21/reco...regov-for-2017-health-insurance-coverage.html
Record number of Obamacare sign-ups on HealthCare.gov for 2017 health insurance coverage

Dan Mangan | @_DanMangan
Wednesday, 21 Dec 2016 | 3:30 PM ET




Why do you believe this? Subsidizing failures is never a good idea and those companies will eventually die no matter how much help you try to give them. I also find this concept to be odious. If I have a bad year I can't go to my competitors and demand profit sharing, why should anyone else be able to?
Click to expand...
If you are starting a brand new program, and forcing insurers to cover pre existing conditions, offer pages of screenings at no extra cost, and telling them that they cannot deny anyone, you have to guarantee funding against losses for the first few years. That's what the risk corridor program did, as it has been doing for Medicare for decades.


Key funding is debatable, whatever they come up with probably will rely on grants to some extent, why anyone at all would want credit for this horrible, irresponsible piece of shit law in the first place is beyond me.
Click to expand...
See above. You cannot cite ACA as 'crumbling'...as many on the Right love to do....without mention of the removal of risk corridor funding. It was done by design, to kill the law for political purposes. It isn't a horrible law. It was a foundation that could have been built upon by now, if not for an inept Congress.



Go into this a little more please. I think you're right but I'm not sure you understand why you're right.
Click to expand...
Many on the Right only offer 'sales across state lines' as their answer to ACA. I am confused as to why they believe an insurer would enter a market with cheaper rates than local risk would require? I wasn't agreeing/disagreeing with the concept, but that was the only suggestion trump made during the entire election season. I think that's the first move they should make, and prove trump wrong.

At least they gave up on TORT reform as being the only thing necessary to lower premium costs. That was idiotic
 
GazzaQueen said:
Anyone can still pay for, and get, medical insurance. The only people who will lose it are those who are getting it for free. Hopefully drug tests will be imposed on anyone getting government services of any kind.
Click to expand...

Who is paving and maintaining the roads that you use? Your urine specimen bottle is in the mail.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
should it then become governments job to take care of us by prohibiting/banning things they deem 'bad' for us?
Click to expand...
No. But that doesn't mean we should be bombarded with advertising. The question was why we're so unhealthy. Because sickness is big business in this country.
 
"Maybe a conservative can explain, the Repiblicans are going to "repeal" the ACA,"

Republicans are on thin ice on this one.

Some Republicans want to get rid of the dreaded compulsory aspect of ACA. EXCELLENT!

Other Republicans want to make affordable healthcare available to all.

And that there is no consensus on it all is in part why Republicans are stumbling over themselves to dump ACA, but they have no ready replacement.

Face, get ready for egg.
 
domer76 said:
Right. All by your fucking lonesome. Go ahead and drive on that 1 1/2" of road you paid for, then piss in the bottle, douchebag.

Next month, you'll get another bottle for the teachers your kids use.
Click to expand...
Most of the roads I helped pay for I've never even used at all. Nor do I use them all the time. Nor do I use the entire road.

Why do you fear drug testing for government entitlements?
 
GazzaQueen said:
Anyone can still pay for, and get, medical insurance. The only people who will lose it are those who are getting it for free. Hopefully drug tests will be imposed on anyone getting government services of any kind.
Click to expand...

No, this is not true.

With the ACA gone (and without replacement legislation), insurance companies cans exclude you for any reason they want. They don't have to offer you insurance at ANY price. They will write policies that will follow their objective of maximizing profitability for the corporation.

Also, insurance companies can once again drop you if you get sick.

Also, corporations will no longer be required to follow ACA policy, obviously. So, they can drop coverage or modify their coverage. Let's remember that corporations needed significant time to create policies for employees that met ACA requirements. With those requirements gone, corporations will be free to do what they want - including NOT insuring employees.

Even before the ACA, there was a large body of health care legislation that affected the behavior of insurers. Deleting the ACA would NOT cause that legislation to come back into affect.


If the ACA is simply deleted, every citizen will see changes in their health care coverage, including many who will find it impossible to get insurance privately or through their employer.
 
WillReadmore said:
No, this is not true.

With the ACA gone (and without replacement legislation), insurance companies cans exclude you for any reason they want. They don't have to offer you insurance at ANY price. They will write policies that will follow their objective of maximizing profitability for the corporation.

Also, insurance companies can once again drop you if you get sick.

Also, corporations will no longer be required to follow ACA policy, obviously. So, they can drop coverage or modify their coverage. Let's remember that corporations needed significant time to create policies for employees that met ACA requirements. With those requirements gone, corporations will be free to do what they want - including NOT insuring employees.

Even before the ACA, there was a large body of health care legislation that affected the behavior of insurers. Deleting the ACA would NOT cause that legislation to come back into affect.


If the ACA is simply deleted, every citizen will see changes in their health care coverage, including many who will find it impossible to get insurance privately or through their employer.
Click to expand...

WITH the ACA, every American saw changes to their health insurance. Drastic changes, none of which were good. That's why it will soon be history. And you can still buy insurance. Maybe it's simply that you can't afford it. Sounds a lot like Obamacare.

Do you favor mandatory drug testing in order to receive government entitlements?
 
GazzaQueen said:
WITH the ACA, every American saw changes to their health insurance. Drastic changes, none of which were good. That's why it will soon be history. And you can still buy insurance. Maybe it's simply that you can't afford it. Sounds a lot like Obamacare.

Do you favor mandatory drug testing in order to receive government entitlements?
Click to expand...
No, it's not just that someone can't afford it.

Insurance companies would have no reason to sell insurance to those who have certain medical conditions - regardless of price.

Also, insurance companies would be free to dump you if you get sick.

If you think that sounds like the ACA it is because you haven't bothered to know squat about the topic.

Also, thinking things will get cheaper is mostly a matter of bad accounting, as there are many ways in which we WILL pay in taxes that have been made part of the ACA. For one example, ER care will be the only resort for many who can't pay (as it was before the ACA) and thus we will end up be paying support to hospitals - support that was cut, because the ACA was causing there to be few people in that category.


This is totally unrelated to the issue of testing those receiving government support.
 
GazzaQueen said:
Most of the roads I helped pay for I've never even used at all. Nor do I use them all the time. Nor do I use the entire road.

Why do you fear drug testing for government entitlements?
Click to expand...

The point went over your head. No surprise. I have to try to keep in mind to whom I am talking to on many of these posts.

You act as if you get nothing from the government, when, in fact you get a shit pot full. You pay a miniscule fraction for roads, schools, fire, police, courts, jails, clean water, public health and so on. So, piss in the bottle pal for your government services.

I fear nothing of the sort. They've done some of that testing already. Know what it turned up? Pretty much nothing. So, are willing to fork out more of your taxes for that minimal return?

"But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year." (2014)

http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/
 
domer76 said:
The point went over your head. No surprise. I have to try to keep in mind to whom I am talking to on many of these posts.

You act as if you get nothing from the government, when, in fact you get a shit pot full. You pay a miniscule fraction for roads, schools, fire, police, courts, jails, clean water, public health and so on. So, piss in the bottle pal for your government services.

I fear nothing of the sort. They've done some of that testing already. Know what it turned up? Pretty much nothing. So, are willing to fork out more of your taxes for that minimal return?

"But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year." (2014)

http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/
Click to expand...

I pay a ton in taxes and never use a single government provided service. Not a road I helped pay for, nor police nor courts nor fire department nor jail nor water nor public health.

A single drug test costs around $6.00 retail. Imagine the money saved (and the fraud prevented) from a single drug user having to choose between his drug or food.

Now what Jimmy, out of fossils?
 
GazzaQueen said:
I pay a ton in taxes and never use a single government provided service. Not a road I helped pay for, nor police nor courts nor fire department nor jail nor water nor public health.

A single drug test costs around $6.00 retail. Imagine the money saved (and the fraud prevented) from a single drug user having to choose between his drug or food.

Now what Jimmy, out of fossils?
Click to expand...

$6.00? (laughing) Where the fuck did you pull that number from? Your ass?

Look, stupid fuck. In your own defective mind, you may THINK you don't benefit from those services, but you do. I could go into detail to school you, but with your limited comprehension skills, that would be an exercise in futility.
 
domer76 said:
$6.00? (laughing) Where the fuck did you pull that number from? Your ass?

Look, stupid fuck. In your own defective mind, you may THINK you don't benefit from those services, but you do. I could go into detail to school you, but with your limited comprehension skills, that would be an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Please school me. Show us what you know.

You can get drug testing kits cheaper than $6.00 retail, that was just a ballpark figure:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=drug+test+kit&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top