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.
Yawn. You know full well that per capita the old folks easily cost more than any demographic, if you DON'T know that you are just blowing smoke out of your arse.
I have noticed that the rabid anti-ACA posters come in two categories. The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA. The second group are those that are insured, probably under their employer's group insurance plan, and don't give a rat's ass about uninsured people, because they have their's, and resent contributing to the cost of the uninsured. It seems to me that I am seeing fewer and fewer posts from the first group, who are slowly beginning to realize that ACA is a WHOLE lot better than what the GOP wants to give them, instead.
In spite of my passionate support of universal health insurance, I find myself more and more often thinking, in times of discouragement, that it would serve that first group right, if Trumpcare becomes law.
Yawn. You know full well that per capita the old folks easily cost more than any demographic, if you DON'T know that you are just blowing smoke out of your arse.
Who do you consider old? Is over 65 old? Over 75 old? Over 85 old?
BTW: http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf
This shows the most expensive group is infants. They cost more per capita than till you reach 90 years old,
I will say you cannot purchase until Open enrollment between Nov 1 - Dec 15th for Jan 1 effective date and they say well I just went to the doctor and I need a lot of tests or they have been diagnosed with something and they need health insurance. .
BTW: http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf
This shows the most expensive group is infants. They cost more per capita than till you reach 90 years old,
You don't seem to be able to read your own chart well. It shows the cost of a New Born being high, but by age ten the realities set in and their costs are shown to be dramatically less than those of 50 and above.
I have noticed that the rabid anti-ACA posters come in two categories. The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA. The second group are those that are insured, probably under their employer's group insurance plan, and don't give a rat's ass about uninsured people, because they have their's, and resent contributing to the cost of the uninsured. It seems to me that I am seeing fewer and fewer posts from the first group, who are slowly beginning to realize that ACA is a WHOLE lot better than what the GOP wants to give them, instead.
In spite of my passionate support of universal health insurance, I find myself more and more often thinking, in times of discouragement, that it would serve that first group right, if Trumpcare becomes law.
BTW: http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf
This shows the most expensive group is infants. They cost more per capita than till you reach 90 years old,
You don't seem to be able to read your own chart well. It shows the cost of a New Born being high, but by age ten the realities set in and their costs are shown to be dramatically less than those of 50 and above.
High is an understatement. It's higher than any other group less than 90 years old,
You don't seem to be able to read your own chart well. It shows the cost of a New Born being high, but by age ten the realities set in and their costs are shown to be dramatically less than those of 50 and above.
You don't seem to be able to read your own chart well. It shows the cost of a New Born being high, but by age ten the realities set in and their costs are shown to be dramatically less than those of 50 and above.
Most expenasive age group starts at zero (infants), If you want to control insurance costs, instead of charging the elderly 5 times as much, you should charge infants 10 times as much, in order to cover their own costs,
Your source proves exactly what I said, sorry.
Your source proves exactly what I said, sorry.
Wrong, it said:
"In general, the analysis shows that health care costs increase by age with the exception of the very youngest ages.
Costs, on average, are very high in the first year or two of birth and drop significantly by age five.
The per capita cost of care for infants is higher than any other group less than 90 years old, That's just per capita, now multiply it by the greater number of newborns vs people over 90 years old, and the total cost difference is even bigger,.
So long as the senate literally does it's own bill and doesn't take this bill up, it should be okDon't worry folks GOP senate has said they will do their own plan.
GOP senators: We're doing our own healthcare bill
Doc, I spent my entire career in health insurance. As VP of underwriting, it was my job to make sure that no one's application for insurance was accepted, who was likely going to end up costing us more money than they paid us in premiums. If you think that was better than ACA, then you fall under the category of "hopelessly ignorant"I have noticed that the rabid anti-ACA posters come in two categories. The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA. The second group are those that are insured, probably under their employer's group insurance plan, and don't give a rat's ass about uninsured people, because they have their's, and resent contributing to the cost of the uninsured. It seems to me that I am seeing fewer and fewer posts from the first group, who are slowly beginning to realize that ACA is a WHOLE lot better than what the GOP wants to give them, instead.
In spite of my passionate support of universal health insurance, I find myself more and more often thinking, in times of discouragement, that it would serve that first group right, if Trumpcare becomes law.
"The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA"
There is a third group, and that group is where you fall. That group says something is better than nothing. That's pure emotion. By putting someone who is sick into a plan that has a $7150 deductible and a max of $14300 family out of pocket they might as well have nothing. They can't pay the 7150 OR the 14300. (Yes that's exactly where most of them fall, in the Bronze plans) Now the Tax payer is paying both premium AND care costs for them.
I have noticed that the rabid anti-ACA posters come in two categories. The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA. The second group are those that are insured, probably under their employer's group insurance plan, and don't give a rat's ass about uninsured people, because they have their's, and resent contributing to the cost of the uninsured. It seems to me that I am seeing fewer and fewer posts from the first group, who are slowly beginning to realize that ACA is a WHOLE lot better than what the GOP wants to give them, instead.
In spite of my passionate support of universal health insurance, I find myself more and more often thinking, in times of discouragement, that it would serve that first group right, if Trumpcare becomes law.
"The first group are those that are uninsurable under pre-ACA underwriting rules, who are, frankly, totally ignorant about health insurance, and somehow think that they got a raw deal under ACA"
There is a third group, and that group is where you fall. That group says something is better than nothing. That's pure emotion. By putting someone who is sick into a plan that has a $7150 deductible and a max of $14300 family out of pocket they might as well have nothing. They can't pay the 7150 OR the 14300. (Yes that's exactly where most of them fall, in the Bronze plans) Now the Tax payer is paying both premium AND care costs for them.
So long as the senate literally does it's own bill and doesn't take this bill up, it should be okDon't worry folks GOP senate has said they will do their own plan.
GOP senators: We're doing our own healthcare bill
It would not be good to have a senate version and this version go to committee to hammer out a compromise.So long as the senate literally does it's own bill and doesn't take this bill up, it should be okDon't worry folks GOP senate has said they will do their own plan.
GOP senators: We're doing our own healthcare bill
I kind of figured the senate would blow this one off or change it since Paul and McConnell are from Kentucky. We'll see what they come up with, it's going to be a hard sell to get the dems to sign on to anything. Hell if the dems can McCain to wake up for the vote, they'll say John just push this button and go back to sleep. We'll see what happens in the coming months. I think the senate will have house version scored by CBO first to see some figures.
