Isn't there an entire thread here called "Trump keeps winning"? So he can "win" before he's in office but people can't criticize before he's in office?

 

When Obama is President: Criticizing the President is Free Speech!


When Trump is President: Criticizing the President is UNAMERICAN!  Don't like it?  LEAVE!


Apparently we're not supposed to criticize God Emperor Trump.  He hasn't even been in office yet!  Never mind that he's had plenty of time to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.  Never mind that he's already named people to his cabinet.  Can't ACTUALLY criticize him until he's in office (and then if you do it's UNAMERICAN!"

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

When Obama is President: Criticizing the President is Free Speech!


When Trump is President: Criticizing the President is UNAMERICAN! Don't like it? LEAVE!


Apparently we're not supposed to criticize God Emperor Trump. He hasn't even been in office yet! Never mind that he's had plenty of time to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that he's already named people to his cabinet. Can't ACTUALLY criticize him until he's in office (and then if you do it's UNAMERICAN!"

Very unfair!

---

When Obama is President: Criticizing the President is Free Speech!


When Trump is President: Criticizing the President is UNAMERICAN!  Don't like it?  LEAVE!


Apparently we're not supposed to criticize God Emperor Trump.  He hasn't even been in office yet!  Never mind that he's had plenty of time to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.  Never mind that he's already named people to his cabinet.  Can't ACTUALLY criticize him until he's in office (and then if you do it's UNAMERICAN!"

Shut up you Lib.

---

When Obama is President: Criticizing the President is Free Speech!


When Trump is President: Criticizing the President is UNAMERICAN! Don't like it? LEAVE!


Apparently we're not supposed to criticize God Emperor Trump. He hasn't even been in office yet! Never mind that he's had plenty of time to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that he's already named people to his cabinet. Can't ACTUALLY criticize him until he's in office (and then if you do it's UNAMERICAN!"

Who said that?

---

RABBLE RABBLE faux outrage RABBLE RABBLE more faux outrage RABBLE RABBLE.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Rand Paul has a plan that the GOP should get behind.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-rand-paul

 

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-al...mediately/

---

Fix the O-Line!

A lot of the Trump voters didn't realize the Affordable Care Act plan they have is an ObamaCare plan. Good luck taking their plans away.

---

Of course it's going to be very difficult to replace. It wasn't intended to work in the first place. It was designed to fail and then lead to a complete single payer system. I don't know how you go about replacing it without causing a mess.

 

I think the way you do it is be brutally honest and tell them 20 million just isn't that many people out of 350 million. For 5.5% (many of whom are simply sponges and not incapable) of the population Obamacare has been a godsend. For other rest of the vast majority of the population it has been a massive money suck. 

 

Of course being honest like that would be very unpopular and be terrible optics, but hey the truth hurts. 

---

Rand Paul has a plan that the GOP should get behind.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...-rand-paul

 

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-al...mediately/

I like it. The issue I have is it taking out pre-existing conditions. People cannot help it if they have pre-existing conditions, [BLEEP] happens. But I do understand it has been pretty much the thing that has made insurance companies drop out of the exchanges. That along with the young people not signing up. 

 

If they could do something for specific issues like it said in the article then that's good, but do something for folks, don't leave them hanging. As it is if everyone who has Obamacare now has a condition that is considered pre-existing, if there is a transition from ACA to whatever comes next then there shouldn't be an issue because they're already being covered by insurance. 

---

I like it. The issue I have is it taking out pre-existing conditions. People cannot help it if they have pre-existing conditions, [BAD WORD REMOVED] happens. But I do understand it has been pretty much the thing that has made insurance companies drop out of the exchanges. That along with the young people not signing up. 

 

 

Generally, company-provided plans did not disqualify pre-existing conditions as long as the person had prior insurance when the condition developed. That would seem to be a reasonable general requirement. If someone goes for years without insurance, pocketing the money they would have paid in premiums, and then expects to be covered after they develop (say) cancer, then I disagree.


 

If someone here believes they should still be covered, then that person should reach into their own pocket to do so.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Generally, company-provided plans did not disqualify pre-existing conditions as long as the person had prior insurance when the condition developed. That would seem to be a reasonable general requirement. If someone goes for years without insurance, pocketing the money they would have paid in premiums, and then expects to be covered after they develop (say) cancer, then I disagree.


 

If someone here believes they should still be covered, then that person should reach into their own pocket to do so.

I have general and social anxiety along with depression so I have to see a doctor every month. For several years I was not able to thanks to divorce, a job that didn't provide insurance and the inability to get any on my own due to cost- this all before ACA. Should I have been unable to get on my husband's insurance (which is through his employer) because I had a lapse in coverage? Or are you talking high cost stuff like cancer?

 

As it was, even though I was accepted on his insurance they refused to pay for my anxiety and depression related visits and meds for the first year. So you can be on a plan with pre-existing conditions now but it doesn't mean they will pay for anything relating to that condition for a period of time if you have a lapse in coverage. 

---

I have general and social anxiety along with depression so I have to see a doctor every month. For several years I was not able to thanks to divorce, a job that didn't provide insurance and the inability to get any on my own due to cost- this all before ACA. Should I have been unable to get on my husband's insurance (which is through his employer) because I had a lapse in coverage? Or are you talking high cost stuff like cancer?

 

As it was, even though I was accepted on his insurance they refused to pay for my anxiety and depression related visits and meds for the first year. So you can be on a plan with pre-existing conditions now but it doesn't mean they will pay for anything relating to that condition for a period of time if you have a lapse in coverage. 

 

In your case it sounds like you survived without the doctor visits and meds for several years (between marriages?).


 

The ACA would have had you either paying for your own insurance or paying a tax penalty. With Paul's plan your premiums during your lapse period would be tax deductible, and there would be more competition between companies, so maybe you could have afforded to continue insurance.


 

There is also a provision for state governments to directly pay for health care via Medicaid. There would probably be some states that would cover lapse situations in that case, although one might have to move.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The thing that gets me about the health insurance issue is that people don't realize what it's really supposed to be.  It's NOT supposed to pay for routine care or preventive maintenance.  Just like car insurance doesn't pay for a car wash or an oil change.  It's supposed to be an aid to help you financially in the case of a catastrophic illness or injury.

 

It should NEVER be mandated that your employer provides health insurance to you.

 

Health insurance is WAY over-regulated.  There is no reason why an insurance company can't sell a policy across state lines.

 

It should NEVER be mandated what an insurance policy covers.  As an example, there is no reason why me and my wife should HAVE to carry coverage for child birth and/or birth control.  We stopped having babies 30+ years ago and the ability to conceive has been taken away.

 

It amazes me how liberals always say that government shouldn't meddle in people's private business (ie. what goes on in the bedroom) yet liberal policies like Obamacare do just that.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

In your case it sounds like you survived without the doctor visits and meds for several years (between marriages?).


 

The ACA would have had you either paying for your own insurance or paying a tax penalty. With Paul's plan your premiums during your lapse period would be tax deductible, and there would be more competition between companies, so maybe you could have afforded to continue insurance.


 

There is also a provision for state governments to directly pay for health care via Medicaid. There would probably be some states that would cover lapse situations in that case, although one might have to move.

Just barely, but that's another story. And I'm serious about just barely. 

 

I never planned to remarry but life has it's funny twists and turns. Had I stayed single, the job I had paid me too much to qualify for medicaid so that was out. After ACA came in, I may well have been able to get insurance, but I honestly don't know since I never had to explore those options. 

---

 

 

It should NEVER be mandated that your employer provides health insurance to you.

 

 

Wasn't it originally something employers added as a 'perk' to get employees to come to their companies? You know, back when there was such a thing as companies competing for employees? That's not to say it should have been mandated by law, but neither should health insurance be a law punishable by fines by the IRS. 

 

And I agree about the birth control stuff. My husband and I aren't having kids being as I don't have a uterus, so why the hell should we have to pay for a plan that requires it? 

 

We live in a jacked up world, man. 

---

The thing that gets me about the health insurance issue is that people don't realize what it's really supposed to be. It's NOT supposed to pay for routine care or preventive maintenance. Just like car insurance doesn't pay for a car wash or an oil change. It's supposed to be an aid to help you financially in the case of a catastrophic illness or injury.


It should NEVER be mandated that your employer provides health insurance to you.


Health insurance is WAY over-regulated. There is no reason why an insurance company can't sell a policy across state lines.


It should NEVER be mandated what an insurance policy covers. As an example, there is no reason why me and my wife should HAVE to carry coverage for child birth and/or birth control. We stopped having babies 30+ years ago and the ability to conceive has been taken away.


It amazes me how liberals always say that government shouldn't meddle in people's private business (ie. what goes on in the bedroom) yet liberal policies like Obamacare do just that.

Insurance pay for preventive care because it encourages regular checkups with your MD. If they stop paying for this, we could expect the people not go versus paying 180.00 for routine visits. This has risk of catastrophic issues and large bills.


Insurance fear risk more than anything else.

---

Wasn't it originally something employers added as a 'perk' to get employees to come to their companies? You know, back when there was such a thing as companies competing for employees? That's not to say it should have been mandated by law, but neither should health insurance be a law punishable by fines by the IRS. 

 

And I agree about the birth control stuff. My husband and I aren't having kids being as I don't have a uterus, so why the hell should we have to pay for a plan that requires it? 

 

We live in a jacked up world, man. 

 

Regarding the part in bold, I believe that it started back in the 1940's/early 1950's.  It was in fact an extra benefit or "perk" to go work for a company.  That's what it still should be.  An individual's health insurance policy should be up to the individual, not the employer.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Insurance pay for preventive care because it encourages regular checkups with your MD. If they stop paying for this, we could expect the people not go versus paying 180.00 for routine visits. This has risk of catastrophic issues and large bills.


Insurance fear risk more than anything else.

 

I paid for my annual physical myself ($65.00) at my doctor's office recently.  Why should I pay a premium (I currently pay well over $500.00 per pay period (every two weeks)) for the insurance company to pay the same thing?

 

Tell me what is good about paying well over $500.00 every two weeks and getting a "free" office visit that costs $65.00.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I paid for my annual physical myself ($65.00) at my doctor's office recently. Why should I pay a premium (I currently pay well over $500.00 per pay period (every two weeks)) for the insurance company to pay the same thing?


Tell me what is good about paying well over $500.00 every two weeks and getting a "free" office visit that costs $65.00.

If your paying 1000.00/month then I agree your getting screwed. You're right you would be better off with a Health Savings Account!


Also the idea of insurance itself isn't the problem. It's how do we get affordable healthcare?


Stuff is way over priced. Iron Infusion alone cost 1500.00 per treatment. Seriously?

---

Unfortunately health doesn't work very well under the free market model as people don't really have much of a choice to purchase or not.

---