Your Job Is At Risk Of Elimination (Medicare-For-All)......

[somarco]

Prior to


health insurance was limited only to the healthy, or really shitty.

Perhaps you mean ACA, AKA Obamacare

And most people could qualify AND afford insurance.

But like most insurance products, you had to buy it before you needed it.

Oh, and there were about 25 carriers offering health insurance in GA before Obamacrap. Now there are 2 statewide, 3 if you count KP which is only in Atlanta.

QUOTE="Travis Price, post: 1300762, member: 90180"]Now healthcare is more available, but much more expensive because the government subsidized it.[/QUOTE]

Actually LESS available than before and the premium is completely unaffordable for most (except deadbeats) but the taxpayer funded handouts has nothing to do with higher premiums.

When Obamacrap stripped away underwriting premiums tripled.

You are entitled to your own views, but not your own "facts"

 

[Travis Price]

I did mean ACA. I don't know why I typed AMA.

Not to get into too many personal details, but there was a segment of pre-existing conditions that required constant care that were uninsurable from their entry into adulthood. I happened to go from high school to Army to hospital in a matter of 6 months without eligibility to health insurance. I got to ride two years of in and out hospitalizations and two major surgeries on an indemnity plan.

I do agree for a large segment of people health insurance was much more affordable. However, for some of us, we were just ***ed.

I did misstate that premiums rose due to government subsidy. I actually meant that they would have rose higher without subsidy. That's on me.

All of that being said, the ACA was clearly going to implode after it was passed. I fully believe the plan was to fix it and the Midtems happened, Congress flipped and Washington spent the next 6 years fighting each other.

However, health insurance certainly wasn't perfect before either.

Getting coverage and excluding a pre-existing condition where you need treatment was ludicrous. It's paying for insurance for everything everything except the reason you need insurance. I can't think of another product that gets away with that.

Also, as a person that works in the Human Services field, I've learned that you don't know anything about what's going on with those people you call "deadbeats."

You don't really quantify the term, so I'll try not to assume too much, but some people that "look perfectly able" from the outside are truly messed up and unable to work.

Just speaking on the Disability front, the bar is pretty high to be approved. While judges used to go a bit rogue and approve people they shouldn't have, that hasn't been the case in quite awhile; as in over a decade.

I definitely don't agree the current Medicare 4 All bill fixes the problem. It simple creates new ones. I think, realistically, it has a very unlikely chance of passing. Sanders is prostrating to score points for election.

I will say I firmly believe you will see some form of nationalized healthcare within the next 4 years. Ultimately though, I think it will be a similar role that private insurance has now, where Medicare sets the standard and private insurance admins, like Medicare now.

I do think that using the current system could work. Which would actually be great for us as it would expand the marketplace.

I apologize for the confusion that my initial post caused. I was thinking while I was typing and thought I was saying one thing and it came out as another.

I do, however, appreciate your insights on the health insurance market, as you were working in it. I happen to know the flip side of being uninsurable and not having an actual chance to have health insurance at the time as it was pretty much impossible for me to hold down a job because of my health issues.

 

[somarco]

I did run into a few folks that were uninsurable. Most could have purchased insurance when they were healthy but they didn't.

Not my fault.

I also had some, usually type 1 diabetics, that were uninsurable and their only option was group insurance. Most states had a risk pool. Georgia did not.

We did have a conversion plan for those who lost group insurance. It was fairly decent. The one nag was that it did not have a network. No repricing. Just straight indemnity like the old policies. But better than nothing.

I put quite a few folks on that plan. No commission. When Obamacare kicked in, and before premiums skyrocketed, I rewrote most of them on the GI plans.

That lasted about a year before the premiums started rising at 40% plus on renewal. The folks I wrote made too much money to qualify for a subsidy so they got screwed.

I have former clients that are now in their late 40's to early 50's paying $2500 per month and higher for plans with $14,000 family deductibles.

Those same people were paying $400 per month before 2014 on a plan with a $5k deductible, limit 2 per family.

Some love Obamacare, some don't. It depends on whose ox is being gored.

If DC really wanted to help the uninsurable they did not need to crash the current system. It would have been less expensive, and less disruptive to create a national risk pool. That idea was discussed by Republicans but never entertained on the other side of the aisle.

So now we have a stinking pile of crap where only a small percentage benefit and most everyone else got screwed.

YMMV

 

[Travis Price]

Some love Obamacare, some don't. It depends on whose ox is being gored.

If DC really wanted to help the uninsurable they did not need to crash the current system. It would have been less expensive, and less disruptive to create a national risk pool. That idea was discussed by Republicans but never entertained on the other side of the aisle.

So now we have a stinking pile of crap where only a small percentage benefit and most everyone else got screwed.

YMMV

I definitely agree with your thoughts on the ACA. I don't think Republican's plan to straight repeal without a cohesive, passable replacement plan was a good fix.

I do agree that a national risk pool could be part of a solution.

Personally, I think Congress has gotten away from it's purpose. It should be ideas come together on national interests and parties negotiate a compromise that works. No one is 100% happy most of the time, but that means the system worked.

Instead, over the last 20 years it seems that we've moved so far to a 0 sum game that they get almost nothing accomplished and spend the majority of their time yelling at each other.

I'm largely independent. If a Republican can come up with an idea and plan that I think works, I'm in; same for a Democrat.

I think a national healthcare program is a good idea. I don't think it should be 100% coverage and the government/taxpayer foots the entire bill.

I would like to see a catastrophic plan that's admined by private insurance companies and offers an attached HSA where people can contribute and get supplemental insurance for routine care and Rx.

I just want to be clear that anything that I say in this post isn't meant as a dig. I use a general you meaning anyone and not You, as in a specific person.

 

[vic120]

I definitely agree with your thoughts on the ACA. I don't think Republican's plan to straight repeal without a cohesive, passable replacement plan was a good fix.

I have seen the Video of Obama Speaking to Union Before he was elected Where he outlined a plan to create a trojan horse to force a one payer system Shaid he needed to do it this way because no one would back it if they knew

Said this would be a healthcare bill that cannot be repealed it would be designed that way

I also seen and read much material early on that showed the way it will be implemented If it was a Direct appeal it would crash the system It was created like cancer in that way

When Trump Said he would repeal It I already knew it could not be done, And it is still here, Regardless of all the talk about repealing

 

[Travis Price]

When Trump Said he would repeal It I already knew it could not be done, And it is still here, Regardless of all the talk about repealing

The problem with the Republican repeal effort was the Republican Party. They had a really long time to get a workable plan ironed out.

6 years of the Obama Admin, just to start. They attempted to slam it through with a shoddy replacement that members of their own party couldn't support. It failed.

The ACA is not good, however Republicans didn't set themselves up for success. That's on them.

 

[vic120]

The problem with the Republican repeal effort was the Republican Party. They had a really long time to get a workable plan ironed out.

6 years of the Obama Admin, just to start. They attempted to slam it through with a shoddy replacement that members of their own party couldn't support. It failed.

The ACA is not good, however Republicans didn't set themselves up for success. That's on them.

Because it was designed that way That's what I already said they failed before they started because they and no one else could just repeal it It would implode That is the way it was designed as much as it was designed to fail

Obama Explained that in his Union speech few years before he was elected

He never wanted it to work only for it to put stress on the system so it would create an opportunity for one payer stem and more govt control

Rahm Emanuel's father designed it you should see him speaking on the value of a life in healthcare

0-5 almost no value then it rises till age 30 or so then it steadily declines

What do you think when Obama said in a speech in a story about grandma getting knee replacement 6 months before she died and how that is not an efficient use of healthcare funds

It's not what most p[eople think all the info is out there it's just not really reported on but its there if you don't drink the kool-aid and do the research

 

[Travis Price]

I think it's convenient to push responsibility on an opposition party than take responsibility for a party's own shortcomings.

I think it's a huge excuse to say that it's still Obama's fault. You're trying to sell in the 6 years that Republicans knew they couldn't repeal because of the veto they couldn't work out a system to phase out the ACA and replace it with a better market based program.

So it's either they can't get experts in the field to work together towards a solution, they're short sighted, or lazy and stupid.

They then had another 2-3 months before Trump took office to get a plan started. They could have waited until they had a good structure, since the Republican Party held all three branches for two years.

Instead, they slammed through mutiple plans without a consensus, which failed because of their own party. Then they slammed through a straight repeal, which was the absolute worst thing to attempt.

C'mon man, I mean this with as much respect as I can.. you can't believe what you're attempting to sell.

 

[vic120]

I think it's convenient to push responsibility on an opposition party than take responsibility for a party's own shortcomings.

I think it's a huge excuse to say that it's still Obama's fault. You're trying to sell in the 6 years that Republicans knew they couldn't repeal because of the veto they couldn't work out a system to phase out the ACA and replace it with a better market based program.

I'm sorry, that's really lazy thinking.

I am not just saying it's so and so fault I am talking about real events real theology of them really speaking on it laying out the plans This is NOT an opinion

Wow

Next You tell me its been sunny all day after it stops raining and then say we just have a dif of opinion

Also I am sorry I misquoted it was not Emanuel's father it was his brother Ezekiel Emanuel

 

[Travis Price]

Theology? What are you talking about?

Secondly, I agree.. you couldn't simply repeal it.. it had to be a repeal and replace. The Republicans couldn't come up with a replace they could pass...

They failed due to lack of a cohesive plan. That's the reality. Whatever you're talking about with Theology doesn't make any sense to me.

God and religious study has nothing to do with this.