The AHCA will prove the Trojan Horse for the GOP

[nat4900]

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

I've always found it interesting that right wingers bitch and moans that people should be more responsible, work and pay taxes, etc.......

BUT, when it comes to the responsibility of having to pay for your health insurance EVEN when you're young and healthy (the mandate)...then all bets are off......

I have no doubt ...NONE......that had the ACA been idealized and enacted by GWB or Reagan, right wingers would LOVE IT !!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong again

Abortion coverage has been banned for decades. Birth control is very important to our society and helps keep down those abortions you hate

Answer

Women's health services like contraception and abortions are covered under ObamaCare, however due to Hyde Amendment rules you'll need to pick the plan that costs $1 more a month to get these services.

Technically buried somewhere in the documentation of the plan is the part about abortion and contraception, however you'll be hard-pressed to find this without digging. So make sure when you have the choice between two very similar plans you pick the one that costs $1 more if you want these services and the one that costs $1 less if you don't.

When i doubt ask your insurer.

Also keep in mind this is covered under the plans cost sharing and networks, it's not necessarily free or without out-of-pocket cost.

Does ObamaCare Cover Abortions and Contraception? - Obamacare Facts

So you say birth control is very important to society, more important than providing life sustaining medication for people, but it's certainly not vote buying.

You know, if you ever have a use for a bridge, I have one for sale in your area.

Complete nonsense generated for the gullible

No, Obamacare does not cover abortion...EVER

My goodness. It's from the ObamaCare facts site, and you still won't admit you were wrong.

"Alternative facts" compliments of a rightwing blog

Right wing blog??? Well there are dozens of other articles on it and even video's of DumBama saying it himself when he was trying to sell it to the people. Which one would you like????

Let me give you a hint on how to pick out an alternative fact rightwing site......if it calls itself "Obamacare" fact sheet

It has nothing to do with facts

Obamacare does not cover abortion

 

[Zoom-boing]

this new bill I doubt had very little input from insurers or hospital associations, it hurts them.

Oh, you can rest assured that the big money earners bribed congressional republicans enough to do their bidding.......Take a look at the TAX CUTS given to the 2%ers...screw those kids without insurance; after all, we are a country of Christian evangelicals, correct?

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

 

[rightwinger]

this new bill I doubt had very little input from insurers or hospital associations, it hurts them.

Oh, you can rest assured that the big money earners bribed congressional republicans enough to do their bidding.......Take a look at the TAX CUTS given to the 2%ers...screw those kids without insurance; after all, we are a country of Christian evangelicals, correct?

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Ridiculous and downright cruel to punish someone for having the temerity to get a serious disease

 

[Reasonable]

Senate finally unveiled health care bill. Three people drop dead just reading it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

I've always found it interesting that right wingers bitch and moans that people should be more responsible, work and pay taxes, etc.......

BUT, when it comes to the responsibility of having to pay for your health insurance EVEN when you're young and healthy (the mandate)...then all bets are off......

I have no doubt ...NONE......that had the ACA been idealized and enacted by GWB or Reagan, right wingers would LOVE IT !!!!

We object to government forcing us to purchase a product via a mandate.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

I've always found it interesting that right wingers bitch and moans that people should be more responsible, work and pay taxes, etc.......

BUT, when it comes to the responsibility of having to pay for your health insurance EVEN when you're young and healthy (the mandate)...then all bets are off......

I have no doubt ...NONE......that had the ACA been idealized and enacted by GWB or Reagan, right wingers would LOVE IT !!!!

We object to government forcing us to purchase a product via a mandate.

Were you considering dropping your insurance coverage or is this just a hypothetical question?

 

[Zoom-boing]

this new bill I doubt had very little input from insurers or hospital associations, it hurts them.

Oh, you can rest assured that the big money earners bribed congressional republicans enough to do their bidding.......Take a look at the TAX CUTS given to the 2%ers...screw those kids without insurance; after all, we are a country of Christian evangelicals, correct?

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Ridiculous and downright cruel to punish someone for having the temerity to get a serious disease

Having someone pay more because they cost more to cover isn't punishment.

Try again.

Nice dodge of the whole 'p/es weren't covered prior to obama' bs.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

I've always found it interesting that right wingers bitch and moans that people should be more responsible, work and pay taxes, etc.......

BUT, when it comes to the responsibility of having to pay for your health insurance EVEN when you're young and healthy (the mandate)...then all bets are off......

I have no doubt ...NONE......that had the ACA been idealized and enacted by GWB or Reagan, right wingers would LOVE IT !!!!

We object to government forcing us to purchase a product via a mandate.

Were you considering dropping your insurance coverage or is this just a hypothetical question?

It's not a question at all. Derrrr

smh

 

[nat4900]

We object to government forcing us to purchase a product via a mandate.

Right on target.......

So, from now on ONLY purchase car insurance after you've had an accident...
Buy home insurance ONLY when the firemen are putting out the blaze in your home.
....AND ONLY buy health insurance when you're in a gurney in an ambulance.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, you can rest assured that the big money earners bribed congressional republicans enough to do their bidding.......Take a look at the TAX CUTS given to the 2%ers...screw those kids without insurance; after all, we are a country of Christian evangelicals, correct?

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Ridiculous and downright cruel to punish someone for having the temerity to get a serious disease

Having someone pay more because they cost more to cover isn't punishment.

Try again.

Nice dodge of the whole 'p/es weren't covered prior to obama' bs.

Someone with cancer is already being punished. Ruining them financially to stay alive is downright cruelty

Who would you rather be...

The healthy person who has to pay more to cover those with pre-existing condition or the person with cancer who gets to pay the same rate as everyone else?

 

[debbiedowner]

this new bill I doubt had very little input from insurers or hospital associations, it hurts them.

Oh, you can rest assured that the big money earners bribed congressional republicans enough to do their bidding.......Take a look at the TAX CUTS given to the 2%ers...screw those kids without insurance; after all, we are a country of Christian evangelicals, correct?

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Who dat made snense. Tank u four shcooling me.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I can't be sure of anything, except hospitals will lose billions in reimbursements and health insurers in premiums if there is no mandate. Then there are the insurers who deal only in Medicaid. Even though the insurers paid a tax on each policy put through the exchange I am pretty confident that savings will not offset loss in premiums. But again I am not an actuary.

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Ridiculous and downright cruel to punish someone for having the temerity to get a serious disease

Having someone pay more because they cost more to cover isn't punishment.

Try again.

Nice dodge of the whole 'p/es weren't covered prior to obama' bs.

Someone with cancer is already being punished. Ruining them financially to stay alive is downright cruelty

Who would you rather be...

The healthy person who has to pay more to cover those with pre-existing condition or the person with cancer who gets to pay the same rate as everyone else?

Where did I say 'ruin them financially'? Project much?

They should pay more because they cost more to insure. Just like new drivers pay more than experienced drivers, bigger house requires more insurance, etc.

 

[Zoom-boing]

We object to government forcing us to purchase a product via a mandate.

Right on target.......

So, from now on ONLY purchase car insurance after you've had an accident...
Buy home insurance ONLY when the firemen are putting out the blaze in your home.
....AND ONLY buy health insurance when you're in a gurney in an ambulance.

If I have a car I buy insurance. Otherwise I do not need it. I can choose whether to have it or not.

Do I have that option for h/c if gov't forces me to purchase?

Oh I see, when I'm dead I get that choice.

smh

 

[nat4900]

They should pay more because they cost more to insure. Just like new drivers pay more than experienced drivers, bigger house requires more insurance, etc

You're a moron....(but you must have heard that often).......

Someone that is fighting cancer does NOT need insurance any longer....That someone NEEDS CARE......to turn around and ask that individual "well, you pay more...and if you don't have the money..........please DIE quickly !!!!" ...Now THAT is fucked up......

 

[nat4900]

Do I have that option for h/c if gov't forces me to purchase?

Oh I see, when I'm dead I get that choice.

I'll ask my parakeet if the above makes sense......Maybe you're writing his language.......

 

[Zoom-boing]

They should pay more because they cost more to insure. Just like new drivers pay more than experienced drivers, bigger house requires more insurance, etc

You're a moron....(but you must have heard that often).......

Someone that is fighting cancer does NOT need insurance any longer....That someone NEEDS CARE......to turn around and ask that individual "well, you pay more...and if you don;t have it......DIE !!!!" is fucked up......

The left just loves to project their idiocy onto everyone else.

Go quote where I said they should die or pay so much that they are financially ruined.

How about smokers? Should they pay more for life insurance? For health insurance? How about new drivers, let's let them pay the same as a 25+ year, clean record, experienced driver shall we? Sound good?

You. Moron.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no way to pay for covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The numbers just don't add up

P/e's were mostly covered prior to the unaca. If you got insurance yourself (as opposed to through an employer) you were more likely to get turned down. It's isn't true that they weren't covered though. The unaca made it so those with p/e's didn't have to pay a higher premium, they got to pay the same as those without p/e's ... dem's moronic idea of 'fairness' or something. That's total bullshit, those with p/e's should pay more they are a higher risk to insure.

Ridiculous and downright cruel to punish someone for having the temerity to get a serious disease

Having someone pay more because they cost more to cover isn't punishment.

Try again.

Nice dodge of the whole 'p/es weren't covered prior to obama' bs.

Someone with cancer is already being punished. Ruining them financially to stay alive is downright cruelty

Who would you rather be...

The healthy person who has to pay more to cover those with pre-existing condition or the person with cancer who gets to pay the same rate as everyone else?

Where did I say 'ruin them financially'? Project much?

They should pay more because they cost more to insure. Just like new drivers pay more than experienced drivers, bigger house requires more insurance, etc.

OK....so you are willing for them to not have to pay what the market demands but are offended they would pay the same rate as you

Someone with cancer or MS or severe heart disease already has enough problems in their life without being saddled with additional insurance costs

 

[nat4900]

Go quote where I said they should die or pay so much that they are financially ruined.

Sure.....do you want someone with pancreatic cancer to pay $10 more a month, OR do you want (as insurers want) to pay $5,000 more a month.......or, simply take an aspirin?

 

[whitehall]

"Trojan Horse" is an interesting political expression to use in a modern political sense. Does it mean there will be things hidden in the republican health care bill? You almost gotta laugh since almost nobody in the democrat party read or was able to comment about the health care bill they passed. Obamacare is dying and ruining families less than eight years after it was passed. "You will find out what's in the bill after it is passed"......Speaker Pelosi.