Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. The end of the Medicare doughnut hole.
2. Free Medicare preventive services.
3. Free preventive services for all women.
4. No denying health insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition.
5. Insurers can't gouge people with pre-existing conditions.
6. End of pre-existing restrictions on children's access to health insurance.
7. Adult children up to age 26 can now continue to get health insurance on their parents policy.
8. The law ends lifetime limits on insurance payouts.
9. Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of their premium dollars on health care.
10. New standardized insurance coverage reports. This makes it easier to compare plans from different companies.
2000 pages and all you could cherry pick was 10 things?
My mother had a stroke and went into a coma. Seven days afterwards the amount of her insurance coverage ran out, so the hospital dumped her to a public hospital 50 miles away. She died a few days later. That could not happen now because of Obama Cares.
It was untenable because you only had sick people in them...sick people use their insurance...the costs could not be contained....so the rates skyrocketed out of control.
If you were a smoker it was just not affordable.
Which is why the GOP offered to increase funding..............and take them out of the markets to ensure lower rates...................As it is now, they will go into the exchange and drive up the costs for everyone in the exchange, unless you qualify for the subsidies.
Those not getting the subsidies are GETTING HAMMERED with increased rates and you know it.
So why do posters continue to show the rates, by CHERRY PICKING only data in the lower FPL data ranges................Why do so many posters refuse to debate those not in those ranges or even the one's in the top levels of FPL...................
Of course they'll get hammered, I am seeing it every day.
Both sides cheery pick to "prove" their side of the argument.
Nationwide on average Premiums are rising dramatically.....the pro side will point to Cali and New York to "prove" their points...what they haven't considered is that those States already had much the new requirements alreay in their existing plans.
Which is why the GOP offered to increase funding..............and take them out of the markets to ensure lower rates...................As it is now, they will go into the exchange and drive up the costs for everyone in the exchange, unless you qualify for the subsidies.
Those not getting the subsidies are GETTING HAMMERED with increased rates and you know it.
So why do posters continue to show the rates, by CHERRY PICKING only data in the lower FPL data ranges................Why do so many posters refuse to debate those not in those ranges or even the one's in the top levels of FPL...................
Of course they'll get hammered, I am seeing it every day.
Both sides cheery pick to "prove" their side of the argument.
Nationwide on average Premiums are rising dramatically.....the pro side will point to Cali and New York to "prove" their points...what they haven't considered is that those States already had much the new requirements alreay in their existing plans.
Thank you. Then you just admitted that rates are increasing to those I'm talking about to pay for those in the lower FPL rates, and to pay for pre-existing conditions...............
Which is exactly what I've been saying..................So your taking from those out of the FPL levels or in the upper FPL levels if they have Employer coverage to pay for the lower levels, and then saying LOOK IT'S CHEAPER..............
Isn't that a LIE, by cherry picking the data........
Are these comments truthful.
Of course they'll get hammered, I am seeing it every day.
Both sides cheery pick to "prove" their side of the argument.
Nationwide on average Premiums are rising dramatically.....the pro side will point to Cali and New York to "prove" their points...what they haven't considered is that those States already had much the new requirements alreay in their existing plans.
Thank you. Then you just admitted that rates are increasing to those I'm talking about to pay for those in the lower FPL rates, and to pay for pre-existing conditions...............
Which is exactly what I've been saying..................So your taking from those out of the FPL levels or in the upper FPL levels if they have Employer coverage to pay for the lower levels, and then saying LOOK IT'S CHEAPER..............
Isn't that a LIE, by cherry picking the data........
Are these comments truthful.
Yes that is true, it is always true.
It is a redistribution of assets ostensibly "for the better of the whole"....but the truth is thats what insurance is and has always been.
Thank you. Then you just admitted that rates are increasing to those I'm talking about to pay for those in the lower FPL rates, and to pay for pre-existing conditions...............
Which is exactly what I've been saying..................So your taking from those out of the FPL levels or in the upper FPL levels if they have Employer coverage to pay for the lower levels, and then saying LOOK IT'S CHEAPER..............
Isn't that a LIE, by cherry picking the data........
Are these comments truthful.
Yes that is true, it is always true.
It is a redistribution of assets ostensibly "for the better of the whole"....but the truth is thats what insurance is and has always been.
You have just admitted it's Wealth Redistribution, and another form of Welfare haven't you...........
Yes that is true, it is always true.
It is a redistribution of assets ostensibly "for the better of the whole"....but the truth is thats what insurance is and has always been.
You have just admitted it's Wealth Redistribution, and another form of Welfare haven't you...........
Let's back the truck up a bit...I never claimed it was any other way...you are asking questions and I am answering them.
I am a Conservative that happens to work in the Insurance Industry....We can call it whatever you like, but helping others isn't always a bad thing...the question is not whether any Society practices certain aspects of Socialism, the question where do we draw the line with it. How much is snough...and that is the real distinction between the Political Party's.
...and for the record I have been against the ACA from day one..go easy with the assumptions.
...and for the record I have been against the ACA from day one..go easy with the assumptions.
I'm down with that.............
And I appreciate the discussion. Sorry for my evil poster side coming out.......
LOL
It's not a question of support, its already the Law and i isn't going to go away.
It is ever the qwest of the Left to take our money and give it away...
As far as the Ded and OOP limits...I've made the point from the beginning that this Law in no way helps the poor, they still can't pay their costs.
1. The end of the Medicare doughnut hole.
2. Free Medicare preventive services.
3. Free preventive services for all women.
4. No denying health insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition.
5. Insurers can't gouge people with pre-existing conditions.
6. End of pre-existing restrictions on children's access to health insurance.
7. Adult children up to age 26 can now continue to get health insurance on their parents policy.
8. The law ends lifetime limits on insurance payouts.
9. Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of their premium dollars on health care.
10. New standardized insurance coverage reports. This makes it easier to compare plans from different companies.
I have no idea why people have such a problem with this. It looks and sounds workable.
I'd agree, and I'm certainly not in the industry. If they are already in poverty, even at lower rates through subsidies, will still not be able to pay for it as they have no income. Unless they use their bloated welfare IRS tax return to pay for the whole year before buying a new T.V.
I'd agree, and I'm certainly not in the industry. If they are already in poverty, even at lower rates through subsidies, will still not be able to pay for it as they have no income. Unless they use their bloated welfare IRS tax return to pay for the whole year before buying a new T.V.
People in poverty fall under the Medicaid discussion, not the exchange (private insurance) discussion.
It's not a question of support, its already the Law and i isn't going to go away.
It is ever the qwest of the Left to take our money and give it away...
As far as the Ded and OOP limits...I've made the point from the beginning that this Law in no way helps the poor, they still can't pay their costs.
I'd agree, and I'm certainly not in the industry. If they are already in poverty, even at lower rates through subsidies, will still not be able to pay for it as they have no income. Unless they use their bloated welfare IRS tax return to pay for the whole year before buying a new T.V.
Which is another subject. Finally, they get the insurance and have surgery with no means to pay the deductible and the Medical and insurance eat the losses again.
In this scenario, which I believe will be literally true, how have we solved anything............
1. The end of the Medicare doughnut hole.
2. Free Medicare preventive services.
3. Free preventive services for all women.
4. No denying health insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition.
5. Insurers can't gouge people with pre-existing conditions.
6. End of pre-existing restrictions on children's access to health insurance.
7. Adult children up to age 26 can now continue to get health insurance on their parents policy.
8. The law ends lifetime limits on insurance payouts.
9. Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of their premium dollars on health care.
10. New standardized insurance coverage reports. This makes it easier to compare plans from different companies.
