Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA

[eflatminor]

How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.

You mean the education system in which we spend more per student than just about any other country in the world while producing ever shittier results for those that graduate, not to mention the phenomenal drop out rates?

THAT public education system? You want to emulate that?

Are you fucking retarded?

PROVE this claim with a citation of FACTS.

Your lying

Oh look...'ol vodka and paint chips is back and weighing with its every-so-eloquent rhetoric.

U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

USATODAY.com - U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

and

If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?

See How Much The US Spends On Education Compared To The Rest Of The Developed World - Business Insider

Now, you were saying something about "lying" you lying sack of shit?

And BTW, it's "you're". Thanks for demonstrating what we can expect from public education.

 

[AceRothstein]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. These are probably the most popular pieces of the ACA. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

 

[Edgetho]

Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA


Good idea.

We can "reform" it the way we "reformed" the 18th amendment.

Can't come too soon.

The only way your getting ACA gone is by replacing it with single payer.

live with reality

Proves how incredibly stupid you are...

All we have to do when we kick lying scum dimocrap douchebags from office is to announce that, in the year 2018, all ACA policies will be non-renewed when they come up for renewal.

Private Carriers will jump in and compete for business like you've never seen.

Well, you're too stupid to see but, trust me.

It's easy as shit to do.

And the only people who will be pissed is the low-life scum like you.

The rest of us will be just fine.

And don't bore me with pre-existing conditions bullshit. All new policies will not be underwritten if the Insured gets his new Health Plan withing 30 days of his old one being non-renewed.

moron

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship? Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?

 

[AceRothstein]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship? Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?

Then do you have a bunch of bankrupt insurance companies?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You mean the education system in which we spend more per student than just about any other country in the world while producing ever shittier results for those that graduate, not to mention the phenomenal drop out rates?

THAT public education system? You want to emulate that?

Are you fucking retarded?

PROVE this claim with a citation of FACTS.

Your lying

Oh look...'ol vodka and paint chips is back and weighing with its every-so-eloquent rhetoric.

U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

USATODAY.com - U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

and

If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?

See How Much The US Spends On Education Compared To The Rest Of The Developed World - Business Insider

Now, you were saying something about "lying" you lying sack of shit?

And BTW, it's "you're". Thanks for demonstrating what we can expect from public education.

Name one of the top ten that doesn't have government schools with government funding....

Do that and we can start real debate! I'd say we adopt one of the top 5 as ours...Sounds like a good solutions to me.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Great idea.

Obamacare doesn't suck nearly bad enough.

Let's bring in Single Payer (i.e. 100% govt-provided health insurance), and we'll soon wish we had Obamacare back!

Sounds like a plan!

For people that can't, sure. Accept republican ideas of health care saving accounts for the people that can...

give us an example of where this idea has worked in reality?

you cant because it has NEVER worked anywhere

Yes it does because I had one.

 

[dblack]

PROVE this claim with a citation of FACTS.

Your lying

Oh look...'ol vodka and paint chips is back and weighing with its every-so-eloquent rhetoric.



USATODAY.com - U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

and

If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?

See How Much The US Spends On Education Compared To The Rest Of The Developed World - Business Insider

Now, you were saying something about "lying" you lying sack of shit?

And BTW, it's "you're". Thanks for demonstrating what we can expect from public education.

Name one of the top ten that doesn't have government schools with government funding....

Do that and we can start real debate! I'd say we adopt one of the top 5 as ours...Sounds like a good solutions to me.

Why? Is the point of government, in your view, to make sure we're in the 'Top ten'?

 

[Disir]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship? Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?

Will those people be able to receive medical care without being bankrupted?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Single-payer.

More so abhorrent than obamacare.

 

[Bombur]

The 2014 penalty is tiny. It is basically a trial run year. By 2016 it is considerably more.

I think there is a real need for a public option. The problem is that the public option is harder to set up then it sounds.

The public option is a suck idea.
But the penalty is a real problem. Even a small sum falls heavily on people having trouble paying their bills.

This is mostly a problem in states that didn't increase the Medicaid threshold.

Health insurance costs money and the penalty/tax is only a fraction of the risk the system takes on for the uninsured people. I am for UHC and think the mandate is pretty ridiculous but 1% of income is not an unreasonable tax.

The public option is a great idea if done right. The devil is in the details but there are places that could use it more than others.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary

 

[dblack]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary

Some other way. The mandate is wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship? Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?

Then do you have a bunch of bankrupt insurance companies?

No, because the federal government has pledged essentially to bail them out if their return is adverse.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oh look...'ol vodka and paint chips is back and weighing with its every-so-eloquent rhetoric.



USATODAY.com - U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

and



See How Much The US Spends On Education Compared To The Rest Of The Developed World - Business Insider

Now, you were saying something about "lying" you lying sack of shit?

And BTW, it's "you're". Thanks for demonstrating what we can expect from public education.

Name one of the top ten that doesn't have government schools with government funding....

Do that and we can start real debate! I'd say we adopt one of the top 5 as ours...Sounds like a good solutions to me.

Why? Is the point of government, in your view, to make sure we're in the 'Top ten'?

Not exactly a large percentage of this country could afford private school. Not everything should be about profit...It is within our national interest to have a educated population.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies. They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered. If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it? Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.

The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship? Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?

Will those people be able to receive medical care without being bankrupted?

Probably.
Are you in favor of allowing people to opt out just by stating it would be a hardship to sign up?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary

I dont see the connection here. The rule necessitating covering pre-existing conditions went into effect before the mandate.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary

I dont see the connection here. The rule necessitating covering pre-existing conditions went into effect before the mandate.

It is all tied together.

Insurance companies cannot foot the bill for covering people with pre-existing conditions (non-healthy people) without the additional revenue from the individual mandate (healthy people)

How do you propose to pay?

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary

I dont see the connection here. The rule necessitating covering pre-existing conditions went into effect before the mandate.

It is all tied together.

Insurance companies cannot foot the bill for covering people with pre-existing conditions (non-healthy people) without the additional revenue from the individual mandate (healthy people)

How do you propose to pay?

But wouldn't it make sense to allow people who have experienced hardship getting insurance through ACA to opt out? Maybe just write a letter stating its been a hardship.

 

[Truthmatters]

The people want ACA or more.

why should you WIN in a democracy?