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

domer76 said:
The law doesn't require that you have insurance. Everybody has the option of not purchasing it. Or, one could suck it up and purchase their own insurance if they don't likecACA.
Click to expand...
Changing the way you claim dependents on your W2 would make it impossible to penalize those who don't purchase insurance.
 
Althea said:
You lose the pre existing condition issue then. Of course,if you want to repeal Reagan's EMTALA, you might be able to repeal the mandate. Many people would purchase insurance if they were greeted at the hospital with 'cash, or credit card?'
Click to expand...

You don't lose anything other than the mandate.
 
Althea said:
Of course the ACA was unnecessary. But using Medicare for a public option would have put the private insurers out of business. Obama gave the insurance industry a chance to do the right thing. Sooner or later, we're going to see a public option.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't have put private insurers out of business because the people who could have been put on Medicare/Medicaid didn't have insurance.
 
Bigdog said:
No, the people who eat right and exercise can not afford to pay for everyone else. You have tricked the millenials and the middle class into paying other people's bills, so the democrat politicians can buy votes.
Click to expand...
If people like myself are very healthy, then it isn't expensive. The high deductibles don't matter, as the yearly preventive visit at no extra cost is the only time you'll see a doctor.
 
Guille said:
You don't lose anything other than the mandate.
Click to expand...
How do you burden ins. companies with acceptance of those with a pre existing condition, if you don't force people to buy insurance? What happens when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, and then decides to purchase insurance?
 
Guille said:
No, it wouldn't have put private insurers out of business because the people who could have been put on Medicare/Medicaid didn't have insurance.
Click to expand...
Until the ACA. So now they get a subsidy. What's the difference between giving a subsidy, or funding more people on Medicare/Caid?
 
Guille said:
No, it wouldn't have put private insurers out of business because the people who could have been put on Medicare/Medicaid didn't have insurance.
Click to expand...
Your direction sounds like it would simply devolve into Medicare for all.

After all, the 47% who don't pay income tax are highly likely to qualify - who can suggest they should have to buy insurance when they can't even pay taxes? Plus, there are those who insurance corporations dump because the insured got sick, those who can't buy insurance due to preexisting conditions, etc.

There would be improvements to Medicare, of course, to ensure the care that the massive new population of users would demand their representatives to provide.


I'm not opposed to that. We could then stop paying insurance companies. We would still probably have to pay providers a co-pay designed to limit abuse.

We could still have insurance companies offer extended coverage options to cover stuff Medicare doesn't cover - something like what Belgium and others do.
 
Althea said:
Until the ACA. So now they get a subsidy. What's the difference between giving a subsidy, or funding more people on Medicare/Caid?
Click to expand...
Giving a subsidy is not a binary decision.

Under the ACA, people get subsidies on a sliding scale based on income, etc.

Medicare is an either/or type option.


Just as a side note, let's remember that ALL insurance conforms to the ACA. So, suggesting people can buy "private" insurance is just a misunderstanding - as is the idea that corporate insurance offerings aren't ACA compliant. The ACA is not limited to those who have problems buying on their own insurance.
 
WillReadmore said:
Giving a subsidy is not a binary decision.

Under the ACA, people get subsidies on a sliding scale based on income, etc.

Medicare is an either/or type option.


Just as a side note, let's remember that ALL insurance conforms to the ACA. So, suggesting people can buy "private" insurance is just a misunderstanding - as is the idea that corporate insurance offerings aren't ACA compliant. The ACA is not limited to those who have problems buying on their own insurance.
Click to expand...
I was merely addressing the funding issue. Why would Medicare be 'better' per se, than the ACA giving a subsidy to those who cannot afford insurance?

Of course, those who can afford nothing get Medicaid.

I thought there were a few differences between ACA compliance on the exchanges, and corporate off exchange insurances. If memory serves, one can charge a higher premium for pre existing conditions?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no they don't......
Click to expand...

The main thing they need is the profound irresponsibility required to kill the ACA without having a replacement.

Sen Rand Paul is one who is pointing out the deep stupidity of doing that.


Some Repos are also noting that the "kill the ACA" direction includes defunding the dollars being used to support those who can't afford insurance. They are starting to realize that those dollars are quite likely to be required by any GOP health care proposal that would cover any significant fraction of those whose health care is subsidized today.


The GOP is just plain blindingly stupid and irresponsible on this topic.

It has NOTHING to do with "conservative" or "progressive".
 
WillReadmore said:
Your direction sounds like it would simply devolve into Medicare for all.

After all, the 47% who don't pay income tax are highly likely to qualify - who can suggest they should have to buy insurance when they can't even pay taxes? Plus, there are those who insurance corporations dump because the insured got sick, those who can't buy insurance due to preexisting conditions, etc.

There would be improvements to Medicare, of course, to ensure the care that the massive new population of users would demand their representatives to provide.


I'm not opposed to that. We could then stop paying insurance companies. We would still probably have to pay providers a co-pay designed to limit abuse.

We could still have insurance companies offer extended coverage options to cover stuff Medicare doesn't cover - something like what Belgium and others do.
Click to expand...

I'm not for Medicare for all but I think it could fill in the gaps. I'm not sure how much of a problem we had to begin with.

This is anecdotal but I wonder how many people will relate. A friend of mine has a loser son, 27 years old and always bitching about not being able to see a doctor. He claims he can't do it, even today with the ACA...until he needed a "glaucoma" diagnosis, then he found the money and a doctor no problem at all.
 
Althea said:
I was merely addressing the funding issue. Why would Medicare be 'better' per se, than the ACA giving a subsidy to those who cannot afford insurance?

Of course, those who can afford nothing get Medicaid.

I thought there were a few differences between ACA compliance on the exchanges, and corporate off exchange insurances. If memory serves, one can charge a higher premium for pre existing conditions?
Click to expand...

I still think the main difference is that putting someone on Medicaid or Medicare is a binary choice, while giving a subsidy to get standard insurance allows for a more varied level of payment by the individual. The result is that we pay less in taxes.

I know people with preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they could buy insurance at the same price as everyone. That means they could change jobs, become self employed, or whatever and still get health care coverage. Previously, they were pretty much SOL. If they found someone who would carry them it would cost huge amounts. And, insurance companies could dump those who got sick (or sicker) even if they had been health insurance customers for years.


Of course, today we have NO IDEA of what is going to happen to our health care coverage system. And, ALL of us have ACA compliant plans that WILL become history if there is any significant change - insurance companies proved what they would do when the ACA became law. Even Medicare/Medicaid would be impacted.


I can put up with a lot of change. I'm not an ACA fan.

But, killing the ACA without KNOWING what comes next is criminally IRRESPONSIBLE (and stupid).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top