(05-03-2017 07:37 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not having pre-existing condition exclusions drives up the cost a lot by itself.

yes. that's true. But you stated that the biggest advocates for Obamacare were those who did not have insurance before but now have it because it's AFFORDABLE insurance. I just showed you that it's not affordable.

Oh there are low cost premium options that can be found but here in IL with low premiums comes yearly deductibles at 8K, 10K 12K & higher and yearly max out of pockets even higher than that. some are up over 20K per year ...they might as well not have insurance at all.

The "replacement" plan that failed needed to fail. It was terrible.
I don't know what the answer is, I really don't. But what is happening now isn't working. :-(

(04-26-2017 06:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 04:25 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  Did you ever notice how the biggest advocates of Obamacare are not enrolled in Obamacare?

If Obamacare is so great, why don't Shmucky Chucky Schumer and the rest of the remaining congressional Democrats get on the plan?

The biggest advocates of Obamacare are the people that didn't have any coverage before because they couldn't afford it but have it now.

When you promise to rob Peter and pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. That is until Paul finds out that his deductible is so high, he might as well not have insurance. And when he tries to phone someone for help, he is put on perpetual hold.

(03-23-2017 10:54 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:15 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:04 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:53 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  No argument here, pathetic that this was not better thought out. Too many factions in the party right now. The good thing is that anything is better than Obamacare, so at least if anything passes, it can't be worse.

It defitinitely needs tweeking, but why do they have to repeal the whole thing? It's all politics and greed. They don't want anything that could help millions of people just because it has Obama's name attached to it. And they put in huge tax breaks for the rich into their healthcare plan and it would leave millions of people without insurance.

Because it's not sustainable. It's beginning a death spiral. Much easier to start from scratch than try and recover that. No one mans legacy is worth hurting Americans

How is giving millions of people health insurance hurting them?

theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:54 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:15 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:04 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:53 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  No argument here, pathetic that this was not better thought out. Too many factions in the party right now. The good thing is that anything is better than Obamacare, so at least if anything passes, it can't be worse.

It defitinitely needs tweeking, but why do they have to repeal the whole thing? It's all politics and greed. They don't want anything that could help millions of people just because it has Obama's name attached to it. And they put in huge tax breaks for the rich into their healthcare plan and it would leave millions of people without insurance.

Because it's not sustainable. It's beginning a death spiral. Much easier to start from scratch than try and recover that. No one mans legacy is worth hurting Americans

How is giving millions of people health insurance hurting them?

theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

Even with Obamacare, these people don't have affordable insurance anyway. Plus, "we" are subsidizing their insurance. If they need to go to the hospital, and can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, "we" are still going to pay for their not paying.

(05-05-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

Even with Obamacare, these people don't have affordable insurance anyway. Plus, "we" are subsidizing their insurance. If they need to go to the hospital, and can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, "we" are still going to pay for their not paying.

What about people that can afford insurance but don't have it?

(05-05-2017 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

Even with Obamacare, these people don't have affordable insurance anyway. Plus, "we" are subsidizing their insurance. If they need to go to the hospital, and can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, "we" are still going to pay for their not paying.

What about people that can afford insurance but don't have it?

Either society says hospitals don't have to treat them, or we accept that the hospital can go after every asset they have including their house.

If they can afford insurance, and don't buy it, why should you have to pay for their care?

(05-05-2017 09:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

Even with Obamacare, these people don't have affordable insurance anyway. Plus, "we" are subsidizing their insurance. If they need to go to the hospital, and can't afford the co-pays and deductibles, "we" are still going to pay for their not paying.

What about people that can afford insurance but don't have it?

Either society says hospitals don't have to treat them, or we accept that the hospital can go after every asset they have including their house.

If they can afford insurance, and don't buy it, why should you have to pay for their care?

I agree with that. It's just that it's precisely what we had been doing, before Obamacare tried making people get insurance.

What do you think about the pre-existing condition exclusions? Obviously, covering people with pre-existing conditions can drive up claims a lot. The insurance companies have to still make money. Who pays for it? It has to be a large part of what makes the insurance so un-affordable now.

(05-05-2017 10:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I agree with that. It's just that it's precisely what we had been doing, before Obamacare tried making people get insurance.

What do you think about the pre-existing condition exclusions? Obviously, covering people with pre-existing conditions can drive up claims a lot. The insurance companies have to still make money. Who pays for it? It has to be a large part of what makes the insurance so un-affordable now.

The thing is -- studies since Obamacare got rolling don't demonstrate that people are going to their pcp instead of the ER. It hasn't caused that shift to happen, and so, insurance costs go up, up, and up.

You are correct on pre-existing conditions. That is part of what is driving the cost up now. Why buy insurance if you can wait until you are sick?

The pre-existing conditions argument, as a whole (not on the individual level) is overblown. If you maintain coverage, which many (most?) people do through work, you don't run into this issue. However, I realize it can impact many people on the individual level.

The issue is that everyone else on insurance pays for those pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies, as a percentage, do not make a great deal of money. The only way to really make health care more affordable is on the cost side. That can't be done by controlling costs in ways such as government fixing drug prices. It has to be through efficiences like more n.p.'s, more people going to the pcp for normal malladies, etc. For instance, I believe people should pay more for going to urgent care, especially if they just don't find their pcp convenient.

There are many other things to consider as well, on the cost side, that don't require controls or more government.

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:25 PM)calvin12 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:54 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:15 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:04 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  It defitinitely needs tweeking, but why do they have to repeal the whole thing? It's all politics and greed. They don't want anything that could help millions of people just because it has Obama's name attached to it. And they put in huge tax breaks for the rich into their healthcare plan and it would leave millions of people without insurance.

Because it's not sustainable. It's beginning a death spiral. Much easier to start from scratch than try and recover that. No one mans legacy is worth hurting Americans

How is giving millions of people health insurance hurting them?

theres the important word. They are forcing people to get insurance (they should have insurance), they should not be forced to get insurance. I have no problem with forcing insurers to offer overage to everyone. and that the basic level of insurance to be mandated and even premium controlled. But no one should be forced to get any of it. If you choose not to get any, thats on you.

That's fine as long as you're okay with people with no insurance being refused by hospitals if they don't have the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their healthcare.

works for me. You choose not to have insurance, you get stabilization only.

(05-06-2017 10:25 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I agree with that. It's just that it's precisely what we had been doing, before Obamacare tried making people get insurance.

What do you think about the pre-existing condition exclusions? Obviously, covering people with pre-existing conditions can drive up claims a lot. The insurance companies have to still make money. Who pays for it? It has to be a large part of what makes the insurance so un-affordable now.

The thing is -- studies since Obamacare got rolling don't demonstrate that people are going to their pcp instead of the ER. It hasn't caused that shift to happen, and so, insurance costs go up, up, and up.

You are correct on pre-existing conditions. That is part of what is driving the cost up now. Why buy insurance if you can wait until you are sick?

The pre-existing conditions argument, as a whole (not on the individual level) is overblown. If you maintain coverage, which many (most?) people do through work, you don't run into this issue. However, I realize it can impact many people on the individual level.

The issue is that everyone else on insurance pays for those pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies, as a percentage, do not make a great deal of money. The only way to really make health care more affordable is on the cost side. That can't be done by controlling costs in ways such as government fixing drug prices. It has to be through efficiences like more n.p.'s, more people going to the pcp for normal malladies, etc. For instance, I believe people should pay more for going to urgent care, especially if they just don't find their pcp convenient.

There are many other things to consider as well, on the cost side, that don't require controls or more government.

First, you are correct about pre-existing conditions and work in most cases. However and individual(prior to ACA) could be denied insurance within a workplace policy. In fact I had a coworker at an old job(large employer too) whose newborn was denied because of a heart defect. Also there are quite a few small business employers what dont offer insurance and the self-employed(including contract workers) are screwed.

There are many other reasons costs went up that most people dont even know about...most know about kids being covered until 26, but others benefits added were dental and vision for kids under 18. No longer could an insurance company cancel a policy.

As far as profit margin, I am a firm believer that health insurance companies should be not-for- profit everywhere as they are in Illinois.

ACA did not work near as well as I had hoped, but Trumps plan is not going to help anyone in its current form.

(05-11-2017 04:19 PM)BobL Wrote:  First, you are correct about pre-existing conditions and work in most cases. However and individual(prior to ACA) could be denied insurance within a workplace policy. In fact I had a coworker at an old job(large employer too) whose newborn was denied because of a heart defect. Also there are quite a few small business employers what dont offer insurance and the self-employed(including contract workers) are screwed.

I just want to clarify. I wasn't trying to minimize the issue on an individual basis. I was just trying to say in the overall, this issue impacts very few people. If it hits you, it is a big deal.

BobL Wrote:ACA did not work near as well as I had hoped, but Trumps plan is not going to help anyone in its current form.

Trump's plan is merely ACA-lite. It doesn't address that the ACA was fundamentally flawed from conception. Until everyone really admits to that, I don't see a real solution moving forward

Even if everyone admits to that, I don't see a solution going forward.

(03-23-2017 06:12 PM)pantone1935 Wrote:  The republicans voted to can Obamacare 54 times during Obama's presidency, but now they have the executive, legislative branches and a tie in the judicial branch and why can't they overturn it now. They sure can obstruct the country but they sure cannot pass legislation.

GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who knew healthcare could be so hard #45

(03-24-2017 11:35 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:54 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:15 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:04 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:53 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  No argument here, pathetic that this was not better thought out. Too many factions in the party right now. The good thing is that anything is better than Obamacare, so at least if anything passes, it can't be worse.

It defitinitely needs tweeking, but why do they have to repeal the whole thing? It's all politics and greed. They don't want anything that could help millions of people just because it has Obama's name attached to it. And they put in huge tax breaks for the rich into their healthcare plan and it would leave millions of people without insurance.

Because it's not sustainable. It's beginning a death spiral. Much easier to start from scratch than try and recover that. No one mans legacy is worth hurting Americans

How is giving millions of people health insurance hurting them?

It didn't "give" people anything. It subsidized some people purchasing insurance. Nothing in life is free.

It is unsustainable because it is helping to drive up costs. What was the affordability of care within those exchange offered policies? How many people could afford the high deductibles? So, congrats. You have a policy, but can't afford the care under it.

Adding kids up to the age of 26 as standard on every policy drives up costs. Controlling the multiple of costs versus benefit to a maximum of 3:1 pushed costs from those who used healthcare to those who don't. And, those who don't, the young and healthy, chose to pay the penalty and not buy insurance. Have you not read about the troubles of many of the state exchanges?

Putting people with pre existing conditions in high risk pools is no solution unless you are going to subsidize them with billions and that is a cost that will go up with time.

You want to control healthcare costs you have to make big pharma price negotiation with all levels of gov't not just the VA which is something the CONS will never do

(05-16-2017 03:08 AM)Policiious Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:35 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:54 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:15 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:04 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  It defitinitely needs tweeking, but why do they have to repeal the whole thing? It's all politics and greed. They don't want anything that could help millions of people just because it has Obama's name attached to it. And they put in huge tax breaks for the rich into their healthcare plan and it would leave millions of people without insurance.

Because it's not sustainable. It's beginning a death spiral. Much easier to start from scratch than try and recover that. No one mans legacy is worth hurting Americans

How is giving millions of people health insurance hurting them?

It didn't "give" people anything. It subsidized some people purchasing insurance. Nothing in life is free.

It is unsustainable because it is helping to drive up costs. What was the affordability of care within those exchange offered policies? How many people could afford the high deductibles? So, congrats. You have a policy, but can't afford the care under it.

Adding kids up to the age of 26 as standard on every policy drives up costs. Controlling the multiple of costs versus benefit to a maximum of 3:1 pushed costs from those who used healthcare to those who don't. And, those who don't, the young and healthy, chose to pay the penalty and not buy insurance. Have you not read about the troubles of many of the state exchanges?

Putting people with pre existing conditions in high risk pools is no solution unless you are going to subsidize them with billions and that is a cost that will go up with time.

You want to control healthcare costs you have to make big pharma price negotiation with all levels of gov't not just the VA which is something the CONS will never do

Yea I'm not sure I see the point of putting them in high-risk pools. If you want them to have coverage you will have to subsidize them regardless of which pool they are in. Otherwise they will not be able to afford it, in which case there's no point in creating the separate pool. If they are in a pool with everyone else at least there is some good risk to balance out the bad risk and it might be worth it for an insurance company to try to cover the pool.