Executive order on Obamacare

we have to ask ourselves one thing. Why wasnt the appropriations written into law? After all the subsidies for poor people were.

The answer is

1) The Obama administration did not want it to seem like the law gave a direct subsidy to rich corporations.

2) Since there were no appropriations it got a better score in the CBO than it otherwise would have as they dont need to base their assumptions on anything.

The democrats already passed this law. They are to blame for what is not in it.
 
Trump Diva said:
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.
Click to expand...

they clearly had other issues wrong with them or poor family history.

no insurance company would turn down an otherwise completely healthy young person. it'd be burning money. the only reason an insurance company would turn someone down is because they feel they would lose money with that person. there is no way around that. You want to compel insurance companies to buy bad goods. And even if the customer were healthy, they are under no obligation to insure that person. So again, stop being a taker.
 
tsuke said:
we have to ask ourselves one thing. Why wasnt the appropriations written into law? After all the subsidies for poor people were.

The answer is

1) The Obama administration did not want it to seem like the law gave a direct subsidy to rich corporations.

2) Since there were no appropriations it got a better score in the CBO than it otherwise would have as they dont need to base their assumptions on anything.

The democrats already passed this law. They are to blame for what is not in it.
Click to expand...

This article will answer all your questions:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452674/trumps-obamacare-order-faithfully-executes-law

It was President Obama who usurped Congress’s power of the purse by directing the payment of taxpayer funds that lawmakers had not appropriated. Finally, the claim that Trump is “unraveling” the ACA would be laughable were it not so cynical.

You can’t unravel something by honoring its terms. Obamacare is unraveling because it was designed to unravel. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

 Democrats want single-payer, socialized medicine, with all the central planning and rationing that implies. The public does not want that. Oh, it is fair enough to say the public doesn’t know what exactly it wants. It insists, for example, on mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions (which is the opposite of insurance) but objects to a mandate (or other form of tax) needed to pay for it.

Still, the public has a strong sense that it does not want government-run health care. The Democrats grasp this. They know they can accomplish The Grand Plan only by inuring the public to it incrementally. That is what Obamacare is built to do. It is intended to unravel, only gradually and with the right villains taking the blame, while the government — having actually caused the problems — emerges as the savior.
Click to expand...


 
The Zax said:
it is, it's also patently obvious when you really get down to it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

Trump has surgically dismantled Obamacare over the course of his first year in office.

Over the course of his first nine months in office, he rolled back funding for a program intended to help individuals navigate the insurance marketplace, signed an executive order to allow for groups to purchase insurance across state lines and stopped federal funding for Obamacare subsidies.

Each of these actions has a significant impact on the viability of the current health care system.

Consumers are already facing double-digit premiums under Obamacare, but stopping the subsidies for insurance companies means the costs that insurers are not getting from the government will get transferred to the consumer.

When insurance providers signaled they would drop out of the Obamacare market altogether in 2017, one of their primary concerns was whether or not Trump would continue paying out these subsidies.

The federal government was slated to pay out around $7 billion in CSRs in 2017. Obamacare consumers saw their out-of-pocket costs lower by over $1,000 through these subsidies.

Congress could still act and stymie Trump’s move. If they do not, Obamacare customers are likely to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs soar in the future.

His order will create a bifurcated insurance marketplace, where healthy people and small business purchase health insurance through association plans and older, sicker individuals purchase from the Obamacare state exchanges.

One group is comprised of healthy, low-risk people and they have low premiums, while the Obamacare marketplace is left with a lot of sick folks and thus higher premiums.


https://archive.fo/OWoNW#selection-1847.17-2063.450
 
The Zax said:
they clearly had other issues wrong with them or poor family history.

no insurance company would turn down an otherwise completely healthy young person. it'd be burning money. the only reason an insurance company would turn someone down is because they feel they would lose money with that person. there is no way around that. You want to compel insurance companies to buy bad goods. And even if the customer were healthy, they are under no obligation to insure that person. So again, stop being a taker.
Click to expand...

There can be a caveat within a caveat within a caveat as to how the person could be a risk because of xyz.......

If they weren't outright denied, they could be rated up at 100% or more.

Not my job to educate an ignorant redneck. Read and learn. Denials were not limited to elderly and cancer survivors/patients, dumb fuck.
 
Trump Diva said:
There can be a caveat within a caveat within a caveat as to how the person could be a risk because of xyz.......

If they weren't outright denied, they could be rated up at 100% or more.

Not my job to educate an ignorant redneck. Read and learn. Denials were not limited to elderly and cancer survivors/patients, dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

So angry, Diva dear.

Can you cite these rating guidelines you alluded to?
 
Trump Diva said:
There can be a caveat within a caveat within a caveat as to how the person could be a risk because of xyz.......

If they weren't outright denied, they could be rated up at 100% or more.

Not my job to educate an ignorant redneck. Read and learn. Denials were not limited to elderly and cancer survivors/patients, dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

you are using a strawman, stupid. I never said denials were limited to cancer survivors. I said insurance companies only issue denials to those that aren't worth insuring. They deny takers, those that take out more than they put in. No insurance company would deny someone that would be a net benefit for them. It's turning down free money.
 
Товарищ Агент;2062588 said:
So angry, Diva dear.

Can you cite these rating guidelines you alluded to?
Click to expand...

OTHER ADVERSE UNDERWRITING ACTIONS

Beyond the declinable conditions, medications and occupations, underwriters also examined individual applications and medical records for other conditions that could generate significant “losses” (claims expenses.) Among such conditions were acne, allergies, anxiety, asthma, basal cell skin cancer, depression, ear infections, fractures, high cholesterol, hypertension, incontinence, joint injuries, kidney stones, menstrual irregularities, migraine headaches, overweight, restless leg syndrome, tonsillitis, urinary tract infections, varicose veins, and vertigo. One or more adverse medical underwriting actions could result for applicants with such conditions, including:

  • Rate-up – The applicant might be offered a policy with a surcharged premium (e.g. 150 percent of the standard rate premium that would be offered to someone in perfect health)
  • Exclusion rider – Coverage for treatment of the specified condition might be excluded under the policy; alternatively, the body part or system affected by the specified condition could be excluded under the policy. Exclusion riders might be temporary (for a period of years) or permanent
  • Increased deductible – The applicant might be offered a policy with a higher deductible than the one originally sought; the higher deductible might apply to all covered benefits or a condition-specific deductible might be applied
  • Modified benefits – The applicant might be offered a policy with certain benefits limited or excluded, for example, a policy that does not include prescription drug coverage.
In some cases, individuals with these conditions might also be declined depending on their health history and the insurer’s general underwriting approach.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/pre-existing-conditions-and-medical-underwriting-in-the-individual-insurance-market-prior-to-the-aca/
 
The Zax said:
you are using a strawman, stupid. I never said denials were limited to cancer survivors. I said insurance companies only issue denials to those that aren't worth insuring. They deny takers, those that take out more than they put in. No insurance company would deny someone that would be a net benefit for them. It's turning down free money.
Click to expand...
It's a crap shoot. They don't have a crystal ball. Anyone can get sick or injured at any time.
 
Trump Diva said:
It's a crap shoot. They don't have a crystal ball. Anyone can get sick or injured at any time.
Click to expand...

Why should an insurer be forced to lose money on someone with a pre-existing condition, Diva darling?

Why should an insurer be forced to keep losing money after someone develops a condition, Diva dear?

That makes no sense to me.
 
Trump Diva said:
It's a crap shoot. They don't have a crystal ball. Anyone can get sick or injured at any time.
Click to expand...

If I offered you 10:1 on a coinflip, would you take it?

Would you understand flipping that coin was a profitable decision even if you ended up losing?

Variance. Risk assessment. Expected value. These are things. If you can catergozie a population as x, and x generally results in y amount of profit, then you bring those people on board, even if there might be some outliers from time to time.

If someone gets denied insurance, it's because they were seen as a bad investment. Pretty damn simple.
 
Trump Diva said:
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/pre-existing-conditions-and-medical-underwriting-in-the-individual-insurance-market-prior-to-the-aca/
Click to expand...

This is "prior" to 2014 when Obamacare kicked in, delightful Diva.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is an industry shill with proven liberal leanings.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/08/01/kaiser-family-fail-n1873724

Kaiser has a history of donating mostly to DEMOCRATS and is a known cheerleader for Obamacare.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000039180&cycle=A


I asked you for actual, current rating guidelines. Maybe we misunderstood each other, divine Diva.
 
The Zax said:
If I offered you 10:1 on a coinflip, would you take it?

Would you understand flipping that coin was a profitable decision even if you ended up losing?

Variance. Risk assessment. Expected value. These are things. If you can catergozie a population as x, and x generally results in y amount of profit, then you bring those people on board, even if there might be some outliers from time to time.

If someone gets denied insurance, it's because they were seen as a bad investment. Pretty damn simple.
Click to expand...



Nobody has a right to health insurance.

Sick people are bad risks.

People with poor habits are poor risks.

Individuals prone to inherited conditions are lousy risks.

I don't feel the need to subsidize a for-profit industry that Obama and the DEMOCRATS forced to take bad risks and partially indemnified (bribed, basically) insurers with tax dollars.

Then the DEMOCRITES exempted their base from being forced to comply with the Obamacare abortion they forced on everyone else.

If a taker can't make it, let charitable makers pay for their health care - voluntarily. And don't give them a fucking tax break either, or it's not their charity they are dispensing.

Where did DEMOCRATS get the idea that makers must support takers?
 
honestly you just need to thin the herd every once and a while. happens everywhere in nature. the slow antelope gets eaten by the lions, and both sides are ultimately better for it in the long run. antelopes get faster, lions stay fed.
 
The Zax said:
honestly you just need to thin the herd every once and a while. happens everywhere in nature. the slow antelope gets eaten by the lions, and both sides are ultimately better for it in the long run. antelopes get faster, lions stay fed.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Humanity has been bettered through natural selection for millions of years.

Tough shit for the genetic losers. Why should I subsidize their propagation of more generations of genetic defectives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top