theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 And the Republicans have been using theirs to oppose it as seen in all the people still crying about death panels or how you had been crying that they want government out of their medicare.Hell, you guys can't even create a functioning website to get all the stupid voters signed up! And you expect educated Americans to believe that the government can manage health care? Let's ask all the veterans dealing with the VA how that story ends. Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Hell, you guys can't even create a functioning website to get all the stupid voters signed up! And you expect educated Americans to believe that the government can manage health care? Let's ask all the veterans dealing with the VA how that story ends. Haha Works pretty well in every other western country, but then they don't have people sabotaging their efforts. Now I'm gonna ask again, what is your alternative to the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Hell, you guys can't even create a functioning website to get all the stupid voters signed up! And you expect educated Americans to believe that the government can manage health care? Let's ask all the veterans dealing with the VA how that story ends. Haha How about you see how popular Medicare is with seniors to see what they think about government run healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Do you guys think that the Republican party is using the ACA to string along people like the prince, continue to win elections, and then eventually, similar to what Tracker Neil is explaining, claim that there's nothing they can do about it? At which point they'll move on to the next hot topic which they can use to continue to string along their supporters? That's what I've assumed would happen, yeah. I mean, they'll never repeal at this point, so that's really the only viable option for them. Besides, it seems to have worked wonders so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Works pretty well in every other western country, but then they don't have people sabotaging their efforts. Now I'm gonna ask again, what is your alternative to the ACA?The elderly have medicare, the poor have medicaid. Obamacare hasn't and will not lower premiums. IMO, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre existing conditions. They may have to pay higher premiums but they will be covered. Why should I pay a higher premium for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Because Obamacare was the only way to address that issue. Careful you're gonna box yourself into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The elderly have medicare, the poor have medicaid. So government run healthcare? IMO, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre existing conditions. They may have to pay higher premiums but they will be covered. Yeah, that isn't going to happen. As no way will insurance companies agree to such a risky investment without something balancing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The elderly have medicare, the poor have medicaid. Obamacare hasn't and will not lower premiums. IMO, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre existing conditions. They may have to pay higher premiums but they will be covered. Why should I pay a higher premium for them? So force insurance companies to be become charities? How capitalist of you. If insurance companies could sell profitable plans that people with pre-existing conditions actually wanted to buy they would have already been doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The elderly have medicare, the poor have medicaid. Obamacare hasn't and will not lower premiums. Weren't you just talking about how educated Americans wouldn't believe that government can run healthcare? And now the first thing you come up with... is government healthcare. All right fine just do that, expand Medicare and Medicaid so it covers everyone. IMO, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre existing conditions. So Obamacare? It does that, though it also does several other things. Like subsidizing people and attempting to increase the insurance base so the burden is more spread out. I'm a little confused here, earlier you said Obamacare isn't the only way to address the pre-existing condition problem, then your first solution to the pre-existing condition problem is that same solution Obamacare came up with. Well except for the extra's that make such a thing feasible. They may have to pay higher premiums but they will be covered. Why should I pay a higher premium for them? Cause that's what insurance is? By it's very nature the low risk are subsidizing the high risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 So government run healthcare? Yeah, that isn't going to happen. As no way will insurance companies agree to such a risky investment without something balancing it out.Existing programs.And higher premiums paid by those with pre existing conditions would be the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Existing programs.And higher premiums paid by those with pre existing conditions would be the balance. Well the ACA is an existing program so it should be okay, or does it require a couple more years? Premiums would be higher for everyone, while those with pre existing conditions would pushed out of the market based on what premiums the companies would charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Well the ACA is an existing program so it should be okay, or does it require a couple more years? Premiums would be higher for everyone, while those with pre existing conditions would pushed out of the market based on what premiums the companies would charge.Hardly an existing program. Who has actually had signed up for this?Probably the 37% that approve of it. Wow congrats.That's my point, democrats want me to pay the premiums so these people can be covered. Another redistribution policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 So like all to many republicans, the 'prince-who-wasn't-promised' wants to toss out the ACA...and replace it with the ACA? Doesn't he realize that his ideas are mostly already part of the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 That's my point, democrats want me to pay the premiums so these people can be covered. Another redistribution policy. THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS! For the record yes I just yelled as my screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS! For the record yes I just yelled as my screen.Yes but the government doesn't have to be in the middle of it... That's the problem we have with it! Health care reform does not equal government run healthcare. Obamacare could be repealed and all these problems addressed without the government. That's the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Obamacare could be repealed and all these problems addressed without the government. That's the point If those problems could be resolved without the government then why did they exist in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Yes but the government doesn't have to be in the middle of it... That's the problem we have with it! Health care reform does not equal government run healthcare. Obamacare could be repealed and all these problems addressed without the government. That's the point ... then your really shit at making points because your only suggestion so far, aside from being already implemented, is to have the government right in the middle of it by mandating a criteria which insurance companies have to follow. Is to have the government address it. So I guess you've got to try again with the "what's your alternative to the ACA" question since your first and only suggestion can be thrown out by the criteria you just laid out. Oh and by the way, your idea of having people with pre-existing conditions pay more while your bill stays the same will never happen. Cause once again that how health insurance works. Those who are healthy pay more so that those who aren't healthy can pay less than they otherwise would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 ... then your really shit at making points because your only suggestion so far, aside from being already implemented, is to have the government right in the middle of it by mandating a criteria which insurance companies have to follow. Is to have the government address it. So I guess you've got to try again with the "what's your alternative to the ACA" question since your first and only suggestion can be thrown out by the criteria you just laid out. Oh and by the way, your idea of having people with pre-existing conditions pay more while your bill stays the same will never happen. Cause once again that how health insurance works. Those who are healthy pay more so that those who aren't healthy can pay less than they otherwise would.If you pooled the high risk with high risk, low risk with low risk, you could charge the high risk higher premiums without raising premiums for the low risk policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 If you pooled the high risk with high risk, low risk with low risk, you could charge the high risk higher premiums without raising premiums for the low risk policies. Yep, but that's not how it works. Because if insurance companies did that many high risk customers wouldn't be able to afford insurance and the insurance company would lose money. After all that's why they didn't insure pre-existing conditions before the ACA the insurance companies couldn't make money off them. Now you feel like responding to the first paragraph and your inconsistency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Jesus Christ, this is like watching people try and get a tantruming toddler to calm down. Congratulations, Prince of Teahads, you've officially deployed the "keep yer gubmint hands off'n my Medicare" derp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.