I dont see how that plan is so terrible? I guess it depends on what all it covers and what it does not.
I did not make a comparison with any private plans. Even if a private plan was more, it doesn't make the exchange plan really affordable for a young adult making in the low $30s. She'd be looking at potentially paying almost 1/2 of her take home pay for the year if she had to max out of pocket expenses. Who can afford that?
I did not make a comparison with any private plans. Even if a private plan was more, it doesn't make the exchange plan really affordable for a young adult making in the low $30s. She'd be looking at potentially paying almost 1/2 of her take home pay for the year if she had to max out of pocket expenses. Who can afford that?
Right wing extremism sure doesn't allow for much in the way of offering facts. Lets take a gander shall we:
1) The insurance exchange is not government plans. It is private insurance on an exchange marketplace created for the purpose of hoping that competition among similar plans will keep prices down.
When one compares plans on the exchange to those in the private market, they are comparing apples and apples.
2) Obamacare is in actuality, the opposite of national healthcare, which would be government run. Obamacare may be government regulated in terms of the mandate, but it is not at all government run.
3) You have offered, again, no facts to support any of your propositions. Don't worry, though. Right wing extremists don't have to.
Right wing extremism sure doesn't allow for much in the way of offering facts. Lets take a gander shall we:
1) The insurance exchange is not government plans. It is private insurance on an exchange marketplace created for the purpose of hoping that competition among similar plans will keep prices down.
When one compares plans on the exchange to those in the private market, they are comparing apples and apples.
2) Obamacare is in actuality, the opposite of national healthcare, which would be government run. Obamacare may be government regulated in terms of the mandate, but it is not at all government run.
3) You have offered, again, no facts to support any of your propositions. Don't worry, though. Right wing extremists don't have to.
You complain about Obamacare being socialist, but yet want to take the profit out of the industry?
That might be the most ironic statement ever in the history of right wing extremists arguments. Don't worry, Lordspoint will come along and tell you how great you are.
Oh, and limit profits. That will attract people to the field.
To address your other post, how will private plans be forced out? They are being mandated to be bought. I mean, can't you at least come up with some argument that is supported and grounded in facts. Some? Any?
There are a zillion things wrong with ObamaCare, including the opt-out options which allow for people to continue uninsured, yet allow for "coverage' under EMTALA (you should google it so you can appear to be knowledgeable at your next extremists meeting).
Perhaps you would be better off discussing those that are grounded in facts.
You complain about Obamacare being socialist, but yet want to take the profit out of the industry?
That might be the most ironic statement ever in the history of right wing extremists arguments. Don't worry, Lordspoint will come along and tell you how great you are.
Oh, and limit profits. That will attract people to the field.
To address your other post, how will private plans be forced out? They are being mandated to be bought. I mean, can't you at least come up with some argument that is supported and grounded in facts. Some? Any?
There are a zillion things wrong with ObamaCare, including the opt-out options which allow for people to continue uninsured, yet allow for "coverage' under EMTALA (you should google it so you can appear to be knowledgeable at your next extremists meeting).
Perhaps you would be better off discussing those that are grounded in facts.
Yes it helps if you develop cancer, etc. whereby the previous option was the hospital eating the cost and passing them on to everyone else.
But it doesn't help in emergency care. Is it worth the risk of losing your assets, house, bankruptcy, etc.
Yes it helps if you develop cancer, etc. whereby the previous option was the hospital eating the cost and passing them on to everyone else.
But it doesn't help in emergency care. Is it worth the risk of losing your assets, house, bankruptcy, etc.
You complain about Obamacare being socialist, but yet want to take the profit out of the industry?
That might be the most ironic statement ever in the history of right wing extremists arguments. Don't worry, Lordspoint will come along and tell you how great you are.
Oh, and limit profits. That will attract people to the field.
To address your other post, how will private plans be forced out? They are being mandated to be bought. I mean, can't you at least come up with some argument that is supported and grounded in facts. Some? Any?
There are a zillion things wrong with ObamaCare, including the opt-out options which allow for people to continue uninsured, yet allow for "coverage' under EMTALA (you should google it so you can appear to be knowledgeable at your next extremists meeting).
Perhaps you would be better off discussing those that are grounded in facts.
My response is to Wall's non private sector approach. Go back and research Dr J's feedback on this subject. He remarked, since he is a practicing MD, that eventually their would be a 2 tiered style of healthcare, 1 for the haves and 1 for the have nots. if you got money you can buy the best care, if not. gonna have to go to a centralized facility
I see to keep costs and liability to a minimum, there will be one day government facilities, ideally someway, somehow, competing with each other to provide the best, most efficient service. I envision facilities that handle high volume of that particular service....orthapedics, women centers, geriatrics.........oncology... and so on.. You must build in some incentives to entice folks to do this necessary work most efficiently It is not going away anytime soon....
There is a great opportunity to create the greatest healthcare system anywhere in the world. Might even make America "exceptional" again
Oh wait, you guys chased off some of the greaters posters(like Dr J) away from this site
Covers knows
You complain about Obamacare being socialist, but yet want to take the profit out of the industry?
That might be the most ironic statement ever in the history of right wing extremists arguments. Don't worry, Lordspoint will come along and tell you how great you are.
Oh, and limit profits. That will attract people to the field.
To address your other post, how will private plans be forced out? They are being mandated to be bought. I mean, can't you at least come up with some argument that is supported and grounded in facts. Some? Any?
There are a zillion things wrong with ObamaCare, including the opt-out options which allow for people to continue uninsured, yet allow for "coverage' under EMTALA (you should google it so you can appear to be knowledgeable at your next extremists meeting).
Perhaps you would be better off discussing those that are grounded in facts.
My response is to Wall's non private sector approach. Go back and research Dr J's feedback on this subject. He remarked, since he is a practicing MD, that eventually their would be a 2 tiered style of healthcare, 1 for the haves and 1 for the have nots. if you got money you can buy the best care, if not. gonna have to go to a centralized facility
I see to keep costs and liability to a minimum, there will be one day government facilities, ideally someway, somehow, competing with each other to provide the best, most efficient service. I envision facilities that handle high volume of that particular service....orthapedics, women centers, geriatrics.........oncology... and so on.. You must build in some incentives to entice folks to do this necessary work most efficiently It is not going away anytime soon....
There is a great opportunity to create the greatest healthcare system anywhere in the world. Might even make America "exceptional" again
Oh wait, you guys chased off some of the greaters posters(like Dr J) away from this site
Covers knows
My response is to Wall's non private sector approach. Go back and research Dr J's feedback on this subject. He remarked, since he is a practicing MD, that eventually their would be a 2 tiered style of healthcare, 1 for the haves and 1 for the have nots. if you got money you can buy the best care, if not. gonna have to go to a centralized facility
I see to keep costs and liability to a minimum, there will be one day government facilities, ideally someway, somehow, competing with each other to provide the best, most efficient service. I envision facilities that handle high volume of that particular service....orthapedics, women centers, geriatrics.........oncology... and so on.. You must build in some incentives to entice folks to do this necessary work most efficiently It is not going away anytime soon....
There is a great opportunity to create the greatest healthcare system anywhere in the world. Might even make America "exceptional" again
Oh wait, you guys chased off some of the greaters posters(like Dr J) away from this site
Covers knows
"Dr. J" was a doctor like you are a rocket scientist.
There is an actual doctor who posts on this board whom I personally know. He is certainly not a liberal and generally points out the potential positives and negatives of the ObamaCare proposals.
In other words, he is a poster grounded in facts, not mass generalizations and hysteria you see in your fellow extremists.
The funny thing is your first statement already exists. Let's look at some facts, shall we:
Before Obama, the US had the highest income to costs ratio for healthcare/health insurance in the WORLD. The highest. Not the worst care, not the best care, but the most expensive compared to income.
Why is that? Perhaps the central reason is that due to EMTALA, nearly 50% of medical costs are never collected, thus passed on to everyone else through medical costs and insurance. So how do we address that? What is the solution?
And to top that, people who currently cannot afford health insurance lack preventative care making the chances of expensive major health issues (that are never paid) that much more likely.
Our system was a mess before Obama took over. Funny how right wingers just seem to ignore that.
I'm sure, however, that your response to this post will be how bad ObamaCare is rather than actually addressing the issues in the system. How sad. How apropos!
My response is to Wall's non private sector approach. Go back and research Dr J's feedback on this subject. He remarked, since he is a practicing MD, that eventually their would be a 2 tiered style of healthcare, 1 for the haves and 1 for the have nots. if you got money you can buy the best care, if not. gonna have to go to a centralized facility
I see to keep costs and liability to a minimum, there will be one day government facilities, ideally someway, somehow, competing with each other to provide the best, most efficient service. I envision facilities that handle high volume of that particular service....orthapedics, women centers, geriatrics.........oncology... and so on.. You must build in some incentives to entice folks to do this necessary work most efficiently It is not going away anytime soon....
There is a great opportunity to create the greatest healthcare system anywhere in the world. Might even make America "exceptional" again
Oh wait, you guys chased off some of the greaters posters(like Dr J) away from this site
Covers knows
"Dr. J" was a doctor like you are a rocket scientist.
There is an actual doctor who posts on this board whom I personally know. He is certainly not a liberal and generally points out the potential positives and negatives of the ObamaCare proposals.
In other words, he is a poster grounded in facts, not mass generalizations and hysteria you see in your fellow extremists.
The funny thing is your first statement already exists. Let's look at some facts, shall we:
Before Obama, the US had the highest income to costs ratio for healthcare/health insurance in the WORLD. The highest. Not the worst care, not the best care, but the most expensive compared to income.
Why is that? Perhaps the central reason is that due to EMTALA, nearly 50% of medical costs are never collected, thus passed on to everyone else through medical costs and insurance. So how do we address that? What is the solution?
And to top that, people who currently cannot afford health insurance lack preventative care making the chances of expensive major health issues (that are never paid) that much more likely.
Our system was a mess before Obama took over. Funny how right wingers just seem to ignore that.
I'm sure, however, that your response to this post will be how bad ObamaCare is rather than actually addressing the issues in the system. How sad. How apropos!
Right wing extremism sure doesn't allow for much in the way of offering facts. Lets take a gander shall we:
1) The insurance exchange is not government plans. It is private insurance on an exchange marketplace created for the purpose of hoping that competition among similar plans will keep prices down.
When one compares plans on the exchange to those in the private market, they are comparing apples and apples.
2) Obamacare is in actuality, the opposite of national healthcare, which would be government run. Obamacare may be government regulated in terms of the mandate, but it is not at all government run.
3) You have offered, again, no facts to support any of your propositions. Don't worry, though. Right wing extremists don't have to.
Right wing extremism sure doesn't allow for much in the way of offering facts. Lets take a gander shall we:
1) The insurance exchange is not government plans. It is private insurance on an exchange marketplace created for the purpose of hoping that competition among similar plans will keep prices down.
When one compares plans on the exchange to those in the private market, they are comparing apples and apples.
2) Obamacare is in actuality, the opposite of national healthcare, which would be government run. Obamacare may be government regulated in terms of the mandate, but it is not at all government run.
3) You have offered, again, no facts to support any of your propositions. Don't worry, though. Right wing extremists don't have to.
The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make. And keep in mind that the cost for medical services will decrease if 75% of bills are paid rather than 50% as they won't have to recomp as many losses.
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
Now, if I were a healthy 28 year old, just out of college, struggling to get by earning 35k per year, I'm pissed that I have to pay about 5k per year for a catastrophic plan. I agree with their anger. But in the long run, the system is designed to prevent that same person from paying 10k years later because it addresses the unpaid medical costs that are crushing the system.
The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make. And keep in mind that the cost for medical services will decrease if 75% of bills are paid rather than 50% as they won't have to recomp as many losses.
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
Now, if I were a healthy 28 year old, just out of college, struggling to get by earning 35k per year, I'm pissed that I have to pay about 5k per year for a catastrophic plan. I agree with their anger. But in the long run, the system is designed to prevent that same person from paying 10k years later because it addresses the unpaid medical costs that are crushing the system.
The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make. And keep in mind that the cost for medical services will decrease if 75% of bills are paid rather than 50% as they won't have to recomp as many losses.
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
Now, if I were a healthy 28 year old, just out of college, struggling to get by earning 35k per year, I'm pissed that I have to pay about 5k per year for a catastrophic plan. I agree with their anger. But in the long run, the system is designed to prevent that same person from paying 10k years later because it addresses the unpaid medical costs that are crushing the system.
Right there is a big problem with the ACA. Someone as you just described most likely won't sign up for a plan that they have to pay on their own, they can't afford it. Paying the $100 fine (only if they get a tax refund) is a a much more palatable choice. This system obviously needs these young healthy people to sign up and I really don't think that will happen, they can't afford it. Even if they get a job that offers insurance and pays a large portion of it, it will be tough to pay for. My employer picks up about 70% of my premium and that 25% is still very expensive. Can't imagine someone making under $40k to pay what do for insurance.
Will be fascinating to see what happens.
The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make. And keep in mind that the cost for medical services will decrease if 75% of bills are paid rather than 50% as they won't have to recomp as many losses.
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
Now, if I were a healthy 28 year old, just out of college, struggling to get by earning 35k per year, I'm pissed that I have to pay about 5k per year for a catastrophic plan. I agree with their anger. But in the long run, the system is designed to prevent that same person from paying 10k years later because it addresses the unpaid medical costs that are crushing the system.
Right there is a big problem with the ACA. Someone as you just described most likely won't sign up for a plan that they have to pay on their own, they can't afford it. Paying the $100 fine (only if they get a tax refund) is a a much more palatable choice. This system obviously needs these young healthy people to sign up and I really don't think that will happen, they can't afford it. Even if they get a job that offers insurance and pays a large portion of it, it will be tough to pay for. My employer picks up about 70% of my premium and that 25% is still very expensive. Can't imagine someone making under $40k to pay what do for insurance.
Will be fascinating to see what happens.
any word yet Club??
any word yet Club??
i signed up for some private exchange to see if i could get cheaper insurance. some guy called me back the same day and said the private exchange should be up in a week or two and he'd email me with the info once it is. we'll see.
Don't be surprised if the- some guy- sends you back a Nigerian return e-mail address wanting more of your personal info..........lol
i signed up for some private exchange to see if i could get cheaper insurance. some guy called me back the same day and said the private exchange should be up in a week or two and he'd email me with the info once it is. we'll see.
Don't be surprised if the- some guy- sends you back a Nigerian return e-mail address wanting more of your personal info..........lol
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.