Hillary Clinton

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The main parts of the act were not challenged. Opponents thought, correctly, that if they couldn't win on the individual mandate or the forced Medicaid, they didn't stand a chance with the court on other issues.

Were the anti-Obamacare people also against the requirement for insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Why do the anti-Obamacare people always say they want to repeal the whole thing? Are there not elements of the law worth keeping? Is is purely a philosophical issue?

I'm honestly asking

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Were the anti-Obamacare people also against the requirement for insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Why do the anti-Obamacare people always say they want to repeal the whole thing? Are there not elements of the law worth keeping? Is is purely a philosophical issue?

I'm honestly asking

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States about economics or this country owes health care to anyone, especially illegal aliens. No one talks about people who have no insurance that were part of the drug trade that ended up going to the emergency room only to be hospitalized costing upwards of one million dollars each, and the staggering numbers of them in all fifty states. Remember they had to pass it to find out what was in it, guess they are still hiding things that is in it besides your savings of $2500 that everyone could enjoy.

[davew]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Were the anti-Obamacare people also against the requirement for insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Why do the anti-Obamacare people always say they want to repeal the whole thing? Are there not elements of the law worth keeping? Is is purely a philosophical issue?

I'm honestly asking

It is only an insurance program, mostly paid for by the healthy. It does nothing to hold down costs related to health (drugs, hospitals, doctors, ambulance) who now can charge as much as they want and pass these fees to the insurance companies, who make all people paying for the insurance pay more - because they want to make more money themselves as well.

What exactly was it supposed to do?

Why don't people smoking 3 packs a day have to pay an extra thousand per month, to help cover their extra cancer costs a few years down the road?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Were the anti-Obamacare people also against the requirement for insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Why do the anti-Obamacare people always say they want to repeal the whole thing? Are there not elements of the law worth keeping? Is is purely a philosophical issue?

Wars have been fought over philosophical issues.

You have no issue with the government mandating that a person must buy a service from a private corporation, and that the "qualified" service is narrowly defined, allowing little choice to reflect the person's circumstances, ability to pay, or willingness to accept or avoid risk?

You have no issue with the government mandating that a person who finds himself sick or injured can then immediately buy insurance, at the same premiums others may have been paying for years, and get immediate coverage? And then drop coverage after receiving benefits? Who pays for those benefits?

You have no issue with the government saying that men and women must be charged the same, even though women are statistically proven to need more benefits than men? Or the government saying that rate differentials between younger and older people cannot fully reflect the difference in actuarial risk?

Insurance is a hedge against risk. ObamaCare turns that on its head and puts the burden on the less risky. In short, all of these government mandates result in redistribution of wealth and denial of personal freedom of choice.

ObamaCare is not insurance, it is a welfare program. It is a lie, a tax disguised as a private sector service. If that is a philosophical issue, I plead guilty. My government lying to me is a serious philosophical issue.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by davew

It is only an insurance program, mostly paid for by the healthy. It does nothing to hold down costs related to health (drugs, hospitals, doctors, ambulance) who now can charge as much as they want and pass these fees to the insurance companies, who make all people paying for the insurance pay more - because they want to make more money themselves as well.

What exactly was it supposed to do?

Why don't people smoking 3 packs a day have to pay an extra thousand per month, to help cover their extra cancer costs a few years down the road?

Where I worked if someone marked themselves as a tobacco user the premiums were higher.

The insurance system is no different than it has ever been. The ACA didn't start insurance rates going up far beyond the rate of inflation.

Still didn't answer the question. Are there any parts of the legislation worth retaining or is the only solution to kill the whole thing?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Wars have been fought over philosophical issues.

You have no issue with the government mandating that a person must buy a service from a private corporation, and that the "qualified" service is narrowly defined, allowing little choice to reflect the person's circumstances, ability to pay, or willingness to accept or avoid risk?

You have no issue with the government mandating that a person who finds himself sick or injured can then immediately buy insurance, at the same premiums others may have been paying for years, and get immediate coverage? And then drop coverage after receiving benefits? Who pays for those benefits?

You have no issue with the government saying that men and women must be charged the same, even though women are statistically proven to need more benefits than men? Or the government saying that rate differentials between younger and older people cannot fully reflect the difference in actuarial risk?

Insurance is a hedge against risk. ObamaCare turns that on its head and puts the burden on the less risky. In short, all of these government mandates result in redistribution of wealth and denial of personal freedom of choice.

ObamaCare is not insurance, it is a welfare program. It is a lie, a tax disguised as a private sector service. If that is a philosophical issue, I plead guilty. My government lying to me is a serious philosophical issue.

I can see how you might think I am a fan of Obamacare. Actually, I thought from the get go it was one of those compromises that was the proverbial horse put together by committee that became a camel. Overall, I thought there were a few problems that needed to be solved, and I've mentioned them a few times.

- Those of us with insurance shouldn't have to pay for the people who don't have insurance and get their health care at emergency rooms. That is exactly the system we had. My rates were higher than they should have been because of it. That needed fixing.
- Nobody should go bankrupt because of a health care issue.
- Insurance companies should not be able to cancel someone's policy right when they need it. I actually knew a guy who got cancelled when he got cancer because the insurance company found a picture on his Facebook of him with a cigar at a bachelor party but he marked non-smoker on his application. Sorry, that to me is not moral.
- If insurance companies don't have to cover people they don't want to cover, then there should be an exchange where they can at least get catastrophic insurance. But if you are going to allow them to get catastrophic insurance, they need to do it when they stop being covered on their parents policy. No fee ride until you get sick. Nobody in America should die because the insurance company turned them down, denied a claim, or denied life-saving treatment. I call that an unalienable right to life and I'm not changing my mind on that. Everybody who wants coverage should be able to get coverage without spending 40% of their disposable income. Yeah, it's capitalist America, yadda, yadda, yadda, but I figure in the richest country in the world no one should go broke buying their right to live (if not life), and no one should have to die because corporate made a money-saving decision. I can only say if you personally are given a serious prognosis, and the insurance company says, sorry we're not paying for the drug that the doctor says you need because you need to try some cheaper treatments first, I hope you support the decision.

I actually do have an issue with people having to buy insurance from a private corporation, as much because the current system is inefficient as philosophically. I frankly think we should have looked at other alternatives, so from that perspective Obamacare was not an answer.

I thought the point of the ACA was that everyone had to buy insurance or pay a tax. Frankly, as I said we're already paying for the uninsured. I have no issue fining someone who didn't buy insurance and tried to buy it on the way to the hospital, although if you are that sick, you may not be able to deal with the forms.

I've also said I was fine charging differential rates based on risk factors (check the thread - I did say that). That includes differential rates for age or sex, but if anyone says I said that, I'm denying it totally. I'll go all Donald Trump - you misquoted me and took it out of context.

I was really looking for a simple answer to the question, is there anything about the ACA that was good and should be preserved?

I admit I can't bring myself to have the hard line some conservatives have. The soft-hearted part of me says what I said above. But the thinking part of me realizes that the right thing to do would be for the policy makers to craft the right bill and that's not the current ACA.

Both sides deserve blame here. If Obama had been more sophisticated about having an inclusive group working on the ACA, that would have been a good thing. But the other side of that is that the ultra conservatives wouldn't have negotiated anyway.

People who grew up poor and succeeded as adults seem to go two ways. I still remember how shitty it was and I retain some empathy. Of course, others say, too bad. It's your own fault, deal with the consequences of being poor or uneducated or broke. I'm not for giveaways. I'm just for not letting everyone who didn't become successful suffer and die. Find a solution to the problem that works because it is a problem that sooner or later we all pay for one way or the other.

[incoming]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Are there any parts of the legislation worth retaining or is the only solution to kill the whole thing?

Kill it.....start from scratch. The whole thing was based on a pack of lies OUR GOVERNMENT told. Starting with the 40,000,000 Americans that didn't have access to healthcare. All they had to do was go to the emergency room. It is the law, you have to treat them. (98% of the time)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by incoming

Kill it.....start from scratch. The whole thing was based on a pack of lies OUR GOVERNMENT told. Starting with the 40,000,000 Americans that didn't have access to healthcare. All they had to do was go to the emergency room. It is the law, you have to treat them. (98% of the time)

Hospitals are required to examine or treat "emergency medical conditions" regardless of ability to pay and then to stabilize the patient. I'm not sure what percentage of people heading off to the emergency room fall into the category of emergency medical condition. Often, anything that happens after regular office hours is taken to the emergency room because it is the only place open. In most big cities there is a public hospital that they are transported to for further care after stabilization. And that was in part my point. In order for hospitals to provide that care our insurance rates go up. It's a horrible system for treating anything not a medical emergency.

My recollection is that it was 40 million people in America WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE, not without access to health care, although it wouldn't surprise me if someone conflated the two things.

[forced89]

Originally Posted by davew

They can't stop her, unless indicted - she has too many bought delegates

Obama will offer her a deal. No indictment if she withdraws for "health" reasons and a pardon on the day he leaves office. The party will then nominate Biden/Warren by acclimation.

[davew]

Shes okay, the republicans are living in a world of fantasy and hope

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...-of-her-arrest

[Tom]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Were the anti-Obamacare people also against the requirement for insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 and not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Why do the anti-Obamacare people always say they want to repeal the whole thing? Are there not elements of the law worth keeping? Is is purely a philosophical issue?

I'm honestly asking

Age 26? No. Ridiculous.
Pre-existing conditions? Should be denied. That is what insurance is, a gamble, not a health care program. Should they let you buy car insurance after your wreck your truck?

One had to be opposed the whole package at the time - remember, no one knew what was it it, so only a fool would have been in favor of it.

[reckless]

Hillary! looked her usual incompetent self the other day -- befitting her career as a lifetime serial failure -- when she tried entering a NYC subway.

Hillary! failed again because she couldn't complete the simple task of swiping the Metro Card.

What's really remarkable was that it was the very first time ever that Hillary! wasn't able to swipe something.

[redshift1]

Originally Posted by forced89

Obama will offer her a deal. No indictment if she withdraws for "health" reasons and a pardon on the day he leaves office. The party will then nominate Biden/Warren by acclimation.

Acclamation or acclimation ?


.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Tom

Age 26? No. Ridiculous.
Pre-existing conditions? Should be denied. That is what insurance is, a gamble, not a health care program. Should they let you buy car insurance after your wreck your truck?

One had to be opposed the whole package at the time - remember, no one knew what was it it, so only a fool would have been in favor of it.

As an anecdotal aside, my insurance (and most others) already covered kids to age 26 and had for years before the ACA. Mostly it codified what was the industry standard at the time.

[garyscpa]

Originally Posted by redshift1

Acclamation or acclimation ?


.

It is global warming, after all.