|
|
Maintenance health care cost reimbursement can be insurance, but it has to be based on actuarial science as it applies to health care. Obamacare never did that since the law was to cover pre-existing conditions. The best example is for a person to be able to purchase fire insurance for their house after it burns or auto insurance after the wreck.Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Special pools to cover the uninsurable are the answer, not forcing the healthy to pay for the sick.
This has been my fear my entire adult life. It was preached to me by my mother from the day I was diagnosed. "You will always have to have a job that provides you insurance." Coverage for pre-existing conditions is absolutely critical.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
No they won't pay more because of that. The cost is not based on actuarial tables. You'll hear that as an excuse for the price going up, but with more and more people supposedly buying it each year the cost has been going up each year.
You can't apply logic to Obamacare.
I have health insurance through my work. Whatever you want to call it, they call it insurance. You can argue semantics that it's health coverage or health benefits or whatever, but my workplace provides me with health insurance. I'm not covered by the ACA.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
My mistake. I thought when we had this discussion before you said you had Obamacare and no longer had coverage through work. Out of curiosity, have you priced an Obamacare policy for you and your family?
like i said, it has nothing to do with actuarial tables. it's a simple balance of dollars. healthcare has a cost. right now that cost is being payed by a combination of the insured, the taxpayers, and new debt. if you reduce the number of people in the "insured" category without significantly decreasing the overall total cost of healthcare being provided, you have to replace the money those people were paying in. so there's three options:
1. increase the cost per insured person
2. increase taxes
3. increase debt (not significantly different from option 2)
Obamacare costs ARE NOT calculated this way.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that costs are not going to go up when the mandate goes away?
It seems that can only be true if you do not believe that the mandate actually compelled people to buy insurance (or whatever you prefer to call it).
Is that your belief?
Neither of these things are things that an individual can provide for himself. We can't all have our own individual road system or armed forces. An individual healthcare plan is different. These plans come in all forms, and an individual has the right to choose how much of his income he wants to dedicate to his own individual healthcare. Obamacare is just another welfare/wealth redistribution program that the Democrat Party intended to use stay in power. It won't work any better than has any other welfare program they've started.
Tell me, do you believe that anything about the current welfare system in this nation has made any part of our society better? Is it EVER reasonable to hold an adult responsible for ANYTHING anymore? Welfare programs have turned our inner cities into war zones. These inner cities are now slums that are full of grown adults that are no more able to take care of themselves than children are. Welfare did nothing "for" these people, it did it "to" these people. To support universal healthcare is to support destroying our healthcare system just like welfare has destroyed the inner cities in this nation.
The FREE market shall set you free!!!
i don't know why you keep referring to calculations. are you saying the doctors or the insurance companies are just going to eat the loss? it's got to get paid for somehow.
Y'all are assuming there is a large sum of money that goes into some Obamacare kittie from the fines. There is not.
There is no "loss" due to no more fines. There will be a few more who choose not to buy because they no longer have to, but most of those on Obamacare now are either sick or getting a government subsidy to be on the plan.
This is NOT a program that relies on normal calculations for premiums.
So, if people can’t practically provide something for themselves and the government steps in it is not socialism? How did humans exist for tens of thousand years without roads or armies?
It is wrong to assume I am for welfare.
the only assumption i am making is that there are people now who buy insurance and don't use it (or don't use it much) and will stop buying it once they are no longer required to.
I knew that was your assumption, but is is not a sound assumption. What the liberal talking heads say does not apply. People are not buying what costs THOUSANDS each year to avoid a few hundred in fines. Only a few may stop buying now but not enough to cause the price to go up more. The price was going up anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
