General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

67. Why, so red states can hold the other 25 million people hostage too?

Reply to leftstreet (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 26, 2013, 01:35 PM

Sep 2013

No thanks.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TPM: "Premiums do not reflect the full cost of coverage." [View all] antigop Sep 2013 OP

Health "insurance" is not health "care" - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #1

+100. nt antigop Sep 2013 #3

Single payer plans are not health care either Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #6

So, enlightenment Sep 2013 #31

No, the UK specifically is *not* single payer Recursion Sep 2013 #48

Really? enlightenment Sep 2013 #117

There are not a variety of single payer methodologies. The UK is not single payer. Recursion Sep 2013 #118

Right. enlightenment Sep 2013 #119

Single payer is not for profit. Insurance's goals are profit. cui bono Sep 2013 #62

Wait. That's two separate issues. Most US insurers are not-for-profit Recursion Sep 2013 #63

In the case of single payer health care we're talking about getting insurance companies out cui bono Sep 2013 #75

A majority nationwide are not-for-profit, or were a couple of years ago Recursion Sep 2013 #83

Well as you can see there are plenty of for profit. Also, not-for-profit doesn't mean CEOs aren't cui bono Sep 2013 #86

Well, they could run it like most utilities are run Recursion Sep 2013 #87

Okay, so then the rates will be set by law, keeping them low. cui bono Sep 2013 #90

no Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #70

Single payer as discussed in the health care debate is not for profit as it would be govt run, cui bono Sep 2013 #81

So Canada doesn't have health care? Recursion Sep 2013 #28

The point is that having access to health insurance Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #51

Yes, people who are finally getting *some* insurance are getting worse plans than you have Recursion Sep 2013 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author Shivering Jemmy Sep 2013 #71

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #39

Also the doctor networks in the ACA plans are apparently smaller than those available in the same PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #2

Yes. Same as Medicaid. Some doctors have little interest in taking care of the little guy. Mass Sep 2013 #4

My wife's office quit taking medicaid joeglow3 Sep 2013 #72

76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck antigop Sep 2013 #5

This is very important. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #22

it's overlooked (or ignored) in the discussion. People are stretched now. nt antigop Sep 2013 #24

It's ignored, because that section of the population is "unimportant" Hydra Sep 2013 #57

I do think there is some truth to your post. However, 76% is a quite large population. antigop Sep 2013 #73

I was part of that gap with no insurance and no money for it Hydra Sep 2013 #100

Precisely n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #30

What I don't understand is OhioChick Sep 2013 #7

BINGO! nt antigop Sep 2013 #8

they won't n/t PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #11

$2250 versus - unlimited liability bhikkhu Sep 2013 #12

Exactly right. n/t lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #111

Cost sharing reductions -- only if you buy a silver plan (per Kaiser) antigop Sep 2013 #15

For many of them there will be an expanded Medicaid program, pnwmom Sep 2013 #17

And if there isn't an "expanded Medicaid program" in their State? n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #19

That is a problem that must be fixed -- but it's not the fault of the ACA. pnwmom Sep 2013 #21

No? Could the ACA not have been written to take care of this craven loop-hole? WinkyDink Sep 2013 #25

It's the fault of an Activist Court, not the ACA riqster Sep 2013 #26

There wasn't a loophole. It was more of a carve-out created by the Supreme Court. pnwmom Sep 2013 #27

Then the Obama Admin should have abandoned the ACA leftstreet Sep 2013 #47

Leaving 25M people without access to health care. jeff47 Sep 2013 #55

Why, so red states can hold the other 25 million people hostage too? Recursion Sep 2013 #67

Where are you guys getting the '25 million' talking point? leftstreet Sep 2013 #77

I love how people assume ACA supporters are incapable of reading each other's posts Recursion Sep 2013 #88

Oh yeah, right. Abandon the whole ACA till that part could get fixed. What a brilliant idea. pnwmom Sep 2013 #69

No, abandon the mandate leftstreet Sep 2013 #76

The experience of NY State has already proved that that won't work. pnwmom Sep 2013 #82

they can't Skittles Sep 2013 #80

If they don't get sick, they don't have to. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #110

All preventive care is free under Obamacare, whether or not you have met your deductible. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #9

In other words ... frazzled Sep 2013 #10

Yes, that's really the truth Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #42

Lower income people are going to get extremely low premiums frazzled Sep 2013 #43

Preventive medicine is just diagnosis Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #44

Not true frazzled Sep 2013 #46

you could end up paying that deductible each year nt antigop Sep 2013 #13

Cost sharing reductions -- only if you buy a silver plan (per Kaiser) antigop Sep 2013 #14

"only if they buy a silver-level plan?" OhioChick Sep 2013 #16

In the piece linked to, ProSense Sep 2013 #18

Me shocked? No. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #20

I'm TIRED of being told what I "must understand;" that is, what I must ACCEPT. We knew this would be WinkyDink Sep 2013 #23

Wouldn't a 65- year old woman be on Medicare? However, older people can be charged more antigop Sep 2013 #29

How about the median age? enlightenment Sep 2013 #36

yes, enlightenment, I do think the news coverage could be better. Older people can be charged up antigop Sep 2013 #38

Take the numbers in the coverage and multiply by 3. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #60

The point is...premiums are not listed in the news coverage for older people. antigop Sep 2013 #68

The premiums for younger people are driven by the premiums for older people jeff47 Sep 2013 #93

you are missing the point. The premiums that are being released in the press antigop Sep 2013 #94

So you're arguing multiplying by 3 is beyond the ability of readers? jeff47 Sep 2013 #95

no, the press coverage doesn't state that older people can be charged up to three times antigop Sep 2013 #96

Because the ACA poofed into existence yesterday. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #98

That's all you got? Then I'm done. Have a great afternoon. nt antigop Sep 2013 #99

I'm surprised. I expected you to call the general public idiots jeff47 Sep 2013 #103

Because that would be even less helpful jeff47 Sep 2013 #59

Well of course. enlightenment Sep 2013 #114

Because multiplying by 3 is beyond most people's ability? jeff47 Sep 2013 #115

Because enlightenment Sep 2013 #116

OOPS! I should have just used my age of 63! WinkyDink Sep 2013 #106

The ACA makes man vs. woman irrelevant. jeff47 Sep 2013 #56

Last August the Obama administration decided to delay the cap AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #32

Whaat? n/t OhioChick Sep 2013 #35

That delay is not for the plans on the exchanges. subterranean Sep 2013 #66

It is for out of pocket expenses AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #105

Yes, but only for certain types of group plans. subterranean Sep 2013 #108

People above 200% of poverty but not of the well healed cul de sac liberal variety Dragonfli Sep 2013 #33

as I have stated repeatedly....it doesn't do you much good if you have insurance but can't afford to antigop Sep 2013 #34

Anybody that has had to use insurance to fight serious illness knows that truth Dragonfli Sep 2013 #40

so sorry, Dragonfli. So very sorry...it doesn't have to be this way. nt antigop Sep 2013 #41

That deserves a standing ovation! Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #74

+1 leftstreet Sep 2013 #79

I would suspect many of them are invested in health care & pharmaceuticals. raouldukelives Sep 2013 #107

Any increase in costs the ACA incurs on existing policy holders seveneyes Sep 2013 #37

The low premium-high deductible scheme has pervaded employer based Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #45

yes, you are correct...there has been a shift toward HSAs and high-deductible plans. antigop Sep 2013 #49

I need to clear this up about the single payer system, too, because I tire of the Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #50

oh, good grief. Who is saying people get free health care under single-payer? antigop Sep 2013 #52

It just seems that people think Obamacare is horrible because people Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #54

I've not seen anyone say health care should be completely free. cui bono Sep 2013 #65

O.K., fair enough. However, a start: 80-85% has to be directed to health care Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #84

The issue is - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #58

But I think Obamacare tries to correct at least some of the co-pay nonsense for some Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #61

Preventative care - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #89

Yes! Yes! Yes! We agree on that. This culture needs to change. We agree! Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #97

This is a ridiculous misdirection; a textbook strawman argument. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #91

Another concern is if you can't get an appointment you may be forced to go out of network... dkf Sep 2013 #53

people forget these are the "introductory" prices Skittles Sep 2013 #78

that is a very good point. nt antigop Sep 2013 #85

Mandatory, for-profit health insurance: what could go wrong? nt Romulox Sep 2013 #92

Maybe we should defund it. Call Ted Cruz now. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #101

I think that support for the law actually suffers from overselling despite terrible promotion. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #102

Put that on the list... kentuck Sep 2013 #104

We never passed or even tried to pas a health care law, we passed a law to mandate insurance Dragonfli Sep 2013 #112

word for the day: disintermediation antigop Sep 2013 #113

Gold, Silver and Bronze refer to actuarial benefit rate. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #109