Executive order on Obamacare

3aewfo6issrz.jpg
 
Huey said:
Typical prog. My Party? I voted for Clinton in the 90s.

Anyhow, I already posted and debunked your heritage foundation talking point. So, aside from your parroted line, what issue do you have with my answer? Why is the federal government mandating what each policy must contain (the alleged idea of the 90s did not do that) and mandate that each citizen must have that plan even when they no longer need those services? Could you explain why you support a couple, both in their 50s and neither of which can have kids, carrying a policy that has everything from BC to Pediatrics in it?

If you want government to mandate those things you are more than welcome to use the legislation of your state to see if you can get a state initiative passed using the democratic process.
Click to expand...

Looks like Amadeus got his ass kicked again. HA!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Bull. The GOP has not and still does not have a plan.

The GOP sold a line to the dimwits out there who bought into the lie that they have a solution to the health care problem that only a market driven competitive business solution can work that doesn’t address the free rider problem and that human health isn’t a free market commodity.

The real question here is when cost go up at a higher rate with less coverage and fewer people covered will Trump pay a political price? Given the number of morons who put this neophyte in office in the first place... there’s a good chance he won’t.

Best advice now is don’t get sick or injured.
Click to expand...

The House passed one......the Senate had two plans that all Republicans did not support......the Republicans had a plan, they just didn't have enough Republicans......
 
The Zax said:
they were denied not for a "ridiculous" reason but because they weren't profitable for the insurance company. it's that simple. If the insurance company thought that the customer would be putting more money in than taking out, they would have let them sign up.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Trump Diva said:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

why would anyone turn down free money?

no one is denied for any "ridiculous" reason. You are either profitable or you aren't. You are either healthy enough to not use an amount of insurance that would offset what you've put in, or you aren't. Your house either is in good shape, or it's burned down and you're riddled with aids and uninsurable.

Stop being a taker. How dare you carry the maga banner and want to be taker scum
 
Trump Diva said:
Expanding group coverage across state lines and approving individual plans to be sold without mandated coverages.

Not sure what to think about this.
Click to expand...
What do your bosses say? I think insurers hate it. It throws cost sharing out of balance.
 
Darth Omar said:
I think it's a sign of incompetent and ineffectual republicans in congress.

I always thought it was stupid to not allow interstate competition in the insurance market so I like it.
Click to expand...
According to trump, who we all agree knows nothing, sold this as a panacea during the election. I think it's a great idea to try it, and show that it isn't the answer.
 
tsuke said:
imo more choice and competition is always a good thing. This way people can select the best fit for them and insurance companies are required to sell competetive products.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that women won't be able to afford insurance anymore, if I can opt for a plan that doesn't cover maternity. It's basically going back to the bad old days before ACA
 
Trump Diva said:
Huh? Guess you don't understand much about insurance or this Exec order. The across state lines applies only to group policies. Ending the subsidies is the biggee.
Click to expand...
Group policies were never the problem. The individual market is going to be devastated.
 
Threedee said:
Not being able to buy across state lines was the single dumbest regulation of health insurance. It was indefensible, and that portion of the executive order, alone, will have a positive impact on coverage and premiums.
Click to expand...
In 2019, if at all
 
Trump Diva said:
By George you're a genius. Say it ain't so! :rofl2:

No shit, Sherlock. But Obama removed the underwriting part many years ago. This was the part of our insurance system which needed reform. Many people had the money to buy insurance but were denied, sometimes for ridiculous reasons. There should be SOME option.

Instead of the catastrophe called Obamacare, they could have formed some type of catastrophic pool for the uninsurable. The entirety of Obamacare was not needed to fix the most crucial pieces. Obamacare was designed with zero thought, however the response to fix it should be more thoughtful. It isn't a simplistic issue.
Click to expand...
ACA was designed by your industry. Are you saying they screwed up?
 
The Zax said:
why would anyone turn down free money?

no one is denied for any "ridiculous" reason. You are either profitable or you aren't. You are either healthy enough to not use an amount of insurance that would offset what you've put in, or you aren't. Your house either is in good shape, or it's burned down and you're riddled with aids and uninsurable.

Stop being a taker. How dare you carry the maga banner and want to be taker scum
Click to expand...

It's risk assessment. Underwriting is not black and white. People have been denied insurance for things as frivolous as a Xanax prescription.

You don't know what you're talking about like a typical ignorant redneck.
 
Trump Diva said:
It's risk assessment. Underwriting is not black and white. People have been denied insurance for things as frivolous as a Xanax prescription.

You don't know what you're talking about like a typical ignorant redneck.
Click to expand...

yeah that sounds like bullshit to me. If the person was turned down for xanax coverage it was because they were probably 65 years old, weak, fat, smoker, etc. I promise you no healthy 22 year old was ever turned down just for wanting xanax
 
The Zax said:
yeah that sounds like bullshit to me. If the person was turned down for xanax coverage it was because they were probably 65 years old, weak, fat, smoker, etc. I promise you no healthy 22 year old was ever turned down just for wanting xanax
Click to expand...
Nope, 30s.

So you thought people only got declined for insurance if they had cancer, were old and out of shape?

Wake the fuck up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top