Concerns over dumping Obamacare growing among GOP lawmakers

[Vandalshandle]

Having spent over 50 years as a health insurance and HMO executive, and can assure everyone that it is actuarially impossible to cover pre-existing conditions unless everyone is forced to sign up, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies.

Or (what should have been done in the first place) is those who absolutely could not get insurance because of preexisting conditions be allowed to go on Medicare. I don't understand that of course because I've had preexisting conditions since 1985, and until Commie Care came along, I always had coverage.

I get it. You suggest that Medicare be bankrupted so that your employer can afford to continue paying for your health insurance. Who would have thought that a Republican would have thought of that? Oh, and BTW, even your employer's group health insurance required satisfactory evidence of good health from any eligible employee or dependent who did not enroll withing 30 days of becoming eligible. AS VP of Underwriting, it was my job to reject their application for insurance when they tried to save money by no enrolling when they were well, only to try to enroll later, when they were sick.

Expanding Mediare would have been a hell of a lot better than ruining the entire healthcare industry.

An insurance company will cover you provided you had coverage before you enrolled with them. If there was any time lapse, they will still cover you just not for anything related to the preexisting condition for one year. After that year is up, they will cover you for the preexisting conditions as well.

Gee, Ray, I learn something new every day. For over 50 years, I declined individuals who could not submit a satisfactory evidence of good health if they failed to submit an application during the 30 day open enrollment period following the date that they became eligible. This included, for example, spouses of employees who had their own insurance through their employer, but then lost their job, and not having elected to be covered by us at the time the employee was hired, had then become a "late enrollee', giving me the right to tell them that they will NEVER be eligible for insurance with our plan, because of their heart disease. This was moderated, somewhat, when HMO statutes went in to effect, which gave all eligibles a 30 day window of guaranteed issue per year, if they lived until that window was open. Who would have guessed that I was violating the law throughout that 50 year period at no less than 12 insurance companies in which I was in charge of medical underwriting?

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

 

[Flash]

The party of Democrat Light could have defunded Obamacare a long time ago but didn't have the courage to do so. Shame on them! Hell, even a Republican appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice was a chickenshit.

It is not surprising that some of them will take the cowards way out because they are afraid to losing some Moon Bat's vote in the future..

The thing they don't understand is that the Libtard idiots that like Obamacare would never vote for a Republican under any circumstances.

Not only did the Democrats not learn anything from the message of the Trump triumph but some of the Republicans are also confused.

Hopefully Trump will not take that cowardice response from establishment Republicans and go directly to the American people. Obamacare is a disaster and the sooner we get rid of it the better..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or (what should have been done in the first place) is those who absolutely could not get insurance because of preexisting conditions be allowed to go on Medicare. I don't understand that of course because I've had preexisting conditions since 1985, and until Commie Care came along, I always had coverage.

I get it. You suggest that Medicare be bankrupted so that your employer can afford to continue paying for your health insurance. Who would have thought that a Republican would have thought of that? Oh, and BTW, even your employer's group health insurance required satisfactory evidence of good health from any eligible employee or dependent who did not enroll withing 30 days of becoming eligible. AS VP of Underwriting, it was my job to reject their application for insurance when they tried to save money by no enrolling when they were well, only to try to enroll later, when they were sick.

Expanding Mediare would have been a hell of a lot better than ruining the entire healthcare industry.

An insurance company will cover you provided you had coverage before you enrolled with them. If there was any time lapse, they will still cover you just not for anything related to the preexisting condition for one year. After that year is up, they will cover you for the preexisting conditions as well.

Gee, Ray, I learn something new every day. For over 50 years, I declined individuals who could not submit a satisfactory evidence of good health if they failed to submit an application during the 30 day open enrollment period following the date that they became eligible. This included, for example, spouses of employees who had their own insurance through their employer, but then lost their job, and not having elected to be covered by us at the time the employee was hired, had then become a "late enrollee', giving me the right to tell them that they will NEVER be eligible for insurance with our plan, because of their heart disease. This was moderated, somewhat, when HMO statutes went in to effect, which gave all eligibles a 30 day window of guaranteed issue per year, if they lived until that window was open. Who would have guessed that I was violating the law throughout that 50 year period at no less than 12 insurance companies in which I was in charge of medical underwriting?

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I get it. You suggest that Medicare be bankrupted so that your employer can afford to continue paying for your health insurance. Who would have thought that a Republican would have thought of that? Oh, and BTW, even your employer's group health insurance required satisfactory evidence of good health from any eligible employee or dependent who did not enroll withing 30 days of becoming eligible. AS VP of Underwriting, it was my job to reject their application for insurance when they tried to save money by no enrolling when they were well, only to try to enroll later, when they were sick.

Expanding Mediare would have been a hell of a lot better than ruining the entire healthcare industry.

An insurance company will cover you provided you had coverage before you enrolled with them. If there was any time lapse, they will still cover you just not for anything related to the preexisting condition for one year. After that year is up, they will cover you for the preexisting conditions as well.

Gee, Ray, I learn something new every day. For over 50 years, I declined individuals who could not submit a satisfactory evidence of good health if they failed to submit an application during the 30 day open enrollment period following the date that they became eligible. This included, for example, spouses of employees who had their own insurance through their employer, but then lost their job, and not having elected to be covered by us at the time the employee was hired, had then become a "late enrollee', giving me the right to tell them that they will NEVER be eligible for insurance with our plan, because of their heart disease. This was moderated, somewhat, when HMO statutes went in to effect, which gave all eligibles a 30 day window of guaranteed issue per year, if they lived until that window was open. Who would have guessed that I was violating the law throughout that 50 year period at no less than 12 insurance companies in which I was in charge of medical underwriting?

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Expanding Mediare would have been a hell of a lot better than ruining the entire healthcare industry.

An insurance company will cover you provided you had coverage before you enrolled with them. If there was any time lapse, they will still cover you just not for anything related to the preexisting condition for one year. After that year is up, they will cover you for the preexisting conditions as well.

Gee, Ray, I learn something new every day. For over 50 years, I declined individuals who could not submit a satisfactory evidence of good health if they failed to submit an application during the 30 day open enrollment period following the date that they became eligible. This included, for example, spouses of employees who had their own insurance through their employer, but then lost their job, and not having elected to be covered by us at the time the employee was hired, had then become a "late enrollee', giving me the right to tell them that they will NEVER be eligible for insurance with our plan, because of their heart disease. This was moderated, somewhat, when HMO statutes went in to effect, which gave all eligibles a 30 day window of guaranteed issue per year, if they lived until that window was open. Who would have guessed that I was violating the law throughout that 50 year period at no less than 12 insurance companies in which I was in charge of medical underwriting?

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gee, Ray, I learn something new every day. For over 50 years, I declined individuals who could not submit a satisfactory evidence of good health if they failed to submit an application during the 30 day open enrollment period following the date that they became eligible. This included, for example, spouses of employees who had their own insurance through their employer, but then lost their job, and not having elected to be covered by us at the time the employee was hired, had then become a "late enrollee', giving me the right to tell them that they will NEVER be eligible for insurance with our plan, because of their heart disease. This was moderated, somewhat, when HMO statutes went in to effect, which gave all eligibles a 30 day window of guaranteed issue per year, if they lived until that window was open. Who would have guessed that I was violating the law throughout that 50 year period at no less than 12 insurance companies in which I was in charge of medical underwriting?

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All I can tell you is what my experiences have been and my dealings with healthcare insurance companies. I've been on this job for a long time, but prior to that, I went from job to job staying with a company anywhere from less than a year to five years. Have things changed? I don't know. They probably have. When I worked in the medical field, our office staff had to have meetings once a week just to keep up with the new changes in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Those meetings were for billing purposes, but I can't imagine that covering people would be any different.

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

I see. So your stance is it's okay if you dump those people on other insured people who pay those premiums, but not on the taxpayer. What's the difference? Either way, other people have to pay for those high risk individuals.

Typical liberal solution: Sure I want to see people get help, as long as it doesn't cost ME anything.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You can take what I said about underwriting declinations to the bank. In addition to the example I mentioned about the spouse, people routinely failed to enroll their newborn infants within 30 days of birth because the child was not sick and they did not want their insurance contributions raised from "Couple" to "family" rates. Then, months later, when the child was diagnosed as having an injury or illness, they were a late enrollee, and they had to fill out a health questionnaire, which I often declined. One couple sent me a photograph of their dead child's casket, which died due to a hole in it's heart 4 months later, claiming that the child would have been saved if they had had the insurance necessary for the doctor to do open heart surgery. I did not bother to reply that if they had signed up on a guaranteed issue basis within 30 days of birth, it would have been on a guaranteed issue basis, but they had been too cheap to pay the extra monthly premium. Insurance companies are NOT charitable organizations.

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

I see. So your stance is it's okay if you dump those people on other insured people who pay those premiums, but not on the taxpayer. What's the difference? Either way, other people have to pay for those high risk individuals.

Typical liberal solution: Sure I want to see people get help, as long as it doesn't cost ME anything.

Apparently, You think that taxpayers are paying for my Medicare. Think again, Ray. I've been paying for it since I was 14 years old, and I still pay for it every month at age 72. It is exactly the same kind of risk pool which your employer's insurance company rates, based on claims experience.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Absolutely. But isn't that what Commie Care did, force insurance companies to be a charitable organization?

You are an uninsured person diagnosed with a serious illness or condition. If you can hold out until the enrollment period, you can apply for insurance to have coverage for a 250K surgery or procedure. After the procedure, you quit making payments and the insurance company takes a huge loss.

And then leftists say Commie Care isn't a failure?

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

I see. So your stance is it's okay if you dump those people on other insured people who pay those premiums, but not on the taxpayer. What's the difference? Either way, other people have to pay for those high risk individuals.

Typical liberal solution: Sure I want to see people get help, as long as it doesn't cost ME anything.

Apparently, You think that taxpayers are paying for my Medicare. Think again, Ray. I've been paying for it since I was 14 years old, and I still pay for it every month at age 72. It is exactly the same kind of risk pool which your employer's insurance company rates, based on claims experience.

Oh come on, when it comes to Medicare in most cases, you not only got all your money back but then some. One major surgery can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sorry, but yes, taxpayers fund Medicare. Always have and always will. Your contributions were a tax just like Social Security.

 

[sartre play]

Your right,IF your ill and live long you will use up way more money than put in. if your healthy and live long you may leave a some dollars in the pot. if your younger healthy with out children and die . you will leave it all in the pot.

 

[Vandalshandle]

..and I will repeat what I posted yesterday, which is that it is actuarially impossible to insure people with pre-existing health conditions unless everyone is required to enroll, or the government subsidizes the insurance companies, which is exactly what the government is going to have to do to keep insurance companies in the game if ACA is repealed.

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

I see. So your stance is it's okay if you dump those people on other insured people who pay those premiums, but not on the taxpayer. What's the difference? Either way, other people have to pay for those high risk individuals.

Typical liberal solution: Sure I want to see people get help, as long as it doesn't cost ME anything.

Apparently, You think that taxpayers are paying for my Medicare. Think again, Ray. I've been paying for it since I was 14 years old, and I still pay for it every month at age 72. It is exactly the same kind of risk pool which your employer's insurance company rates, based on claims experience.

Oh come on, when it comes to Medicare in most cases, you not only got all your money back but then some. One major surgery can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sorry, but yes, taxpayers fund Medicare. Always have and always will. Your contributions were a tax just like Social Security.

Not one dime of federal tax money has been paid out in Medicare benefits, unless you count the 3% out on my paycheck and the matching 3 % out of my employer's checkbook and the amount I pay every month for Part B benefits.. If, claims exceed those amounts, which would happen if you wanted to throw uninsurables of all ages into Medicare claims, that money would not be enough to cover the benefits paid, and the amount that I pay every month for Part B would increase. I am not interested in subsidizing people who are not even within the Medicare age group, who are essentially deadbeats because of their failure to insure themselves when they were young and healthy, but now want a ride on my back raising my Part B rates, when they are not.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is how we ended up with an Orange Gastropod as POTUS
A Trump Fan Cheering Obamacare Repeal Just Found Out He is On Obamacare. Hilarity Ensues....Read it and weep.....

WOW! This fine specimen here has taken idiocy to an entirely different dimension of stupid. Not only do they not understand that Obamacare and the ACA are the exact same program, but they have also contrived — seemingly out of nowhere — a second health care program which was created as an answer to Obamacare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And which is why I say take people who have preexisting conditions out of insurance and put them on a government program. You can't force everybody into something they don't want to buy. A young person who doesn't feel they need any kind of insurance will not pay for something they believe they will never use.

The UCA is very similar to this: Obama creates regulation that all motorists have to be insured or face a penalty. This includes people that have 4 DUI's, people that have multiple moving violations, people that have had multiple accidents, people that drive with suspended licenses. If insurance companies are forced to cover such people for the same rates as those without those problems, what do you suppose happens to your rates as a good driver under AutoBama?

This is why Commie Care is a failure.

About 15 years ago, my house caught on fire. I suspect it had something to do with one of my tenants who was hooked on drugs and didn't have a job to pay for them. Long story short, the damage was nearly the cost of the house, so my insurance company dropped my coverage, not only on the house that caught fire, but on all three of my rental houses.

Nobody would insure me and the bank was breathing down my neck to get some kind of coverage. Lucky, our state had a program setup for people like me. The state insured my houses and I paid a premium to them. Mind you, it didn't have all the bells and whistles my insurance had, but it was also cheaper in price and I didn't have to sellout because I couldn't get coverage. After three years with no major incidents, I was able to get coverage with another insurance company.

So what's wrong with doing the same thing with healthcare? If you can't get coverage for whatever reason, the government allows you to go on Medicare or something like it. After you've successfully been on the program for some time with no major claims, then be able to apply for private insurance. And Medicare (like my state insurance) is not free. You still have to pay for it.

If you want to expand Medicare to insure all Americans, I am all for it. But if you want to dump the uninsurables on to Medicare as it currently stands, which would end up passing all of their losses on to us retirees age 65 and older on a fixed income, forget it.

I see. So your stance is it's okay if you dump those people on other insured people who pay those premiums, but not on the taxpayer. What's the difference? Either way, other people have to pay for those high risk individuals.

Typical liberal solution: Sure I want to see people get help, as long as it doesn't cost ME anything.

Apparently, You think that taxpayers are paying for my Medicare. Think again, Ray. I've been paying for it since I was 14 years old, and I still pay for it every month at age 72. It is exactly the same kind of risk pool which your employer's insurance company rates, based on claims experience.

Oh come on, when it comes to Medicare in most cases, you not only got all your money back but then some. One major surgery can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sorry, but yes, taxpayers fund Medicare. Always have and always will. Your contributions were a tax just like Social Security.

Not one dime of federal tax money has been paid out in Medicare benefits, unless you count the 3% out on my paycheck and the matching 3 % out of my employer's checkbook and the amount I pay every month for Part B benefits.. If, claims exceed those amounts, which would happen if you wanted to throw uninsurables of all ages into Medicare claims, that money would not be enough to cover the benefits paid, and the amount that I pay every month for Part B would increase. I am not interested in subsidizing people who are not even within the Medicare age group, who are essentially deadbeats because of their failure to insure themselves when they were young and healthy, but now want a ride on my back raising my Part B rates, when they are not.

So how do you think you're different than the people that have to pay outrageous insurance premiums that have to absorb those costs? It's no different. I called Commie Care, and I can't afford healthcare insurance. Why is that? Because they want ME to pay those huge rates to cover those people and to give lower income people cheap insurance. Don't believe me, it's right on their cover letter "Yes, you can get health insurance policies for as little as $50.00 to $100.00 a month."

But like I said, if you supported Commie Care, then you're fine with that as long as you don't have to pay anything. I on the other hand vote Republican and was against Commie Care from the start. We knew from the beginning it was going to be a total disaster.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm not familiar with anything by the name of "Commie Care" However, since you vote republican, you should be aware of their alternate plan to ACA. Basicly, their plan is that if you can not afford insurance you won't be forced to buy it. You can die, instead.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not familiar with anything by the name of "Commie Care" However, since you vote republican, you should be aware of their alternate plan to ACA. Basicly, their plan is that if you can not afford insurance you won't be forced to buy it. You can die, instead.

So what's better? Dying instead, or dying after government keeps your income tax returns for not having insurance?