Posted on 12/16/2018 7:37:33 AM PST by Mariner
There, I fixed it! 😄
1. A program that pays for pre- existing conditions is not insurance. It’s welfare. —- and, 2. if it is to be done, it belongs at the state not federal level. —-3. inclusion of pre- existing conditions would inevitably destroy an insurance program anyway. 4. We have in most states health care programs for poor people. Indeed, these already consume billions in state tax funds. I personally support some such efforts, I realize most FRers don’t- but at any event any such programs are a matter of state not federal jurisdiction. And yes it does matter. Our fed govt is not only inept at providing services to individuals, it’s inefficient and has grown into a huge cancer eating away at our society and liberties. Check out also the VA health care system — ridrrr through be rhrougrhbeirh orohlrms and some disasterous failures to provide needed care treatments etc Repeal the Obamacare mistake now!
Problem? If 0-care does go down and nothing is done to “replace” it, what’s the problem? Let’s the states find their own solutions. Trump can do this be letting states have more and more waivers. Let’s get back to catastrophic insurance plans with HSAs and state funding programs for uninsurable individuals. Let people pay on their own for routine expenses and then with the attendant price transparency, costs will drop (it happens all the time). It might be nice to more easily let people deduct personal health care expenses (not covered via HSAs) on income tax too.
0-care created “insurance” plan subsidies that have done little to reduce the price of healthcare. Just like student loans, when there is more money available to customers, prices go up. The lower income people get subsidies to buy more expensive insurance (or the insurance company gets more money to offer them lower rates).
Moreover, these so called “insurance” companies are really only government contracted administrators; there is no insurance “risk”. The idea of 0-care was essentially to create a Medicaid type system administered by insurance companies acting as government contractors. It was an intermediary step towards single payer socialized health care.
So the GOP failed to address this. Fine, keep failing.
BTW, the health care system since Obamacare is a mess.
I stopped reading this tripe the second I got to the “suddenly, everyone loves Obamacare” tripe.
The plans are unaffordable and suck. Many doctors who I like and want to keep don’t accept the plans. I could go on.
Where is that picture of Goebbels.
I stopped reading this tripe the second I got to the “suddenly, everyone loves Obamacare” tripe.
The plans are unaffordable and suck. Many doctors who I like and want to keep don’t accept the plans. I could go on.
Where is that picture of Goebbels.
“Obamacare is here to stay. Judge will fail with the power of the communists Democrats in control of Government.”
People Like yourself on this forum crack me up.....You treat hyperbolic cynicism as if it were a virtue.
Most people are, or we'd all be dead before we got old. Obviously. Also obviously, having the money there in the event of some earlier misfortune would be better, rather than worse. I've used medical spending accounts to pay my insurance premiums, have done so for years, but the money does indeed expire. At an earlier job, the rules were different (this was during Clinton's regime, during which time he tried to get rid of the FSA); under Obamacare up to $500 can be carried forward, but that's peanuts.
Good grief, nothing but endless pessimism here on FR anymore. My decision to greatly restrict my presence on this forum has been a wise one.
Nancycare will turn out to be as crappy as Hillarycare and Obamacare they can’t do anything right.
Yep, exactly. What’s even more furious is accepting the premise that Medicare and Madicaid is guaranteed and should be continuously federally funded.
_________________________________
It is incorrect to group Medicaid and Medicare together.
Medicare is paid for by working taxpayers—deduction comes out of every paycheck—and no income cutoff. It is not welfare.
The Democrat members of Congress would prefer to stick it to the insurance industry and the public in general through mandates -- but the House's budget rules and the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision require a tax as the basis for the individual mandate that is essential to the preferred Democrat scheme. The unpopularity of such a measure though would likely end the Democrats' House majority in the next election.
The GOP members of Congress would prefer to ignore the problem and parrot the insurance industry line that insuring pre-existing conditions is like insuring a car accident after it has happened. Yet a corporatist GOP propaganda line that insists the sick must fend for themselves without insurance has about as must appeal to the public as claiming that there is nothing that can be done if the morning corn flakes are frosted with DDT. The public soon associates DDT in corn flakes and a lack of insurance for pre-existing conditions with the GOP and places their votes with the Democrats.
In practice, of course, everyone who is sick and gets old enough gets insurance for pre-existing conditions through Medicare -- or through Medicaid if they go broke first. Unwittingly, the GOP is spurring the Left's calls to expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Of course, that accelerates the federal budget and its chronic deficit toward fiscal collapse.
In the circumstances, a compromise plan to provide insurance for pre-existing conditions is the best way for the GOP and Democratic caucuses to get through the next election. Such a plan would go down easier with Trump's support -- and it would leave amped up Trumpian economic growth as the country's best and only plan for averting financial calamity while providing Medicare and Medicaid, insurance for pre-existing conditions, and the other benefits of the welfare state.
For now, the grand equation of American politics seems to be working toward a compromise plan for insurance for pre-existing conditions and the 2020 re-election of a GOP Senate, a Democrat House -- and Donald Trump and continuation of the Trump economy.
There were so many biased and half-truth statements in Ricardo’s first paragraph than the rest wasn’t worth reading.
“The plans are unaffordable and suck”
What I need is a statement of my taxpayer cost for the various coverages. For instance, how much does the coverage for preexisting conditions add to my tax liability? “Free” abortions? Various rehibilitation programs?
I agree. Most voters don’t like it.
I agree. Most voters don’t like it.
The Washington Times runs these leftist stories from the AP because they don’t want to hire they’re own reporters. And their own reporters are mostly Trump haters.
Sad to see the Times slowly slide left. There are now two Washington Posts in Washington.
“their” not “they’re”
darn spell checker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.