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.
tough, allocated in the constitution.but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?when those choices have to be made because of the high cost of full premiums, then its wrong. Nobody should be forced to downsize their home or drive an undependable used car just because their money is being taken in order to cover those that refuse to take responsibility for their own livesThe poor get medicaid. We are talking about people who can afford insurance if they choose a smaller house or choose to buy a used car instead of new. I am all for expanding medicaid if necessary.
You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
healthcare is not. We need to get rid of the ACA and just go back to what it was. I was doing perfectly fine for my entire life without government programs to cater to my needs.
actually it seems smart to put it back into the hands of the energy companies.TRump is going to convene a special session of congress to finally fix healthcare....so don't worry...he actually wants to fix it...not use it as a means to control the American people........
Trump proved to me this week he is an idiot... he announced he wants to entirely cut out all funding for the search of clean energy.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-zero-out-federal-clean-energy-56cca794790#.18xuud8p4
So do I have confidence in any of his future policies on anything? Nope, but we'll have a hell of a wall!
so when those next 5 countries combine against us, we should at least be starting out on an equal footing.but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?when those choices have to be made because of the high cost of full premiums, then its wrong. Nobody should be forced to downsize their home or drive an undependable used car just because their money is being taken in order to cover those that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives
You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
The native Americans didn't want to spend their tax beads on a real military either....and they lost the continent.......I think that is a pretty strong lesson.....
Hahahaha...dumb comparison. The U.S. spends as much on military defense as the next top 5 countries...combined.
but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?when those choices have to be made because of the high cost of full premiums, then its wrong. Nobody should be forced to downsize their home or drive an undependable used car just because their money is being taken in order to cover those that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives
You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
The native Americans didn't want to spend their tax beads on a real military either....and they lost the continent.......I think that is a pretty strong lesson.....
Hahahaha...dumb comparison. The U.S. spends as much on military defense as the next top 5 countries...combined.
and while your beard is growing to your knees, see if you can come up with a reason that anyone here should be held responsible for your personal bills, as in healthcare.tough, allocated in the constitution.but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?when those choices have to be made because of the high cost of full premiums, then its wrong. Nobody should be forced to downsize their home or drive an undependable used car just because their money is being taken in order to cover those that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives
You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
healthcare is not. We need to get rid of the ACA and just go back to what it was. I was doing perfectly fine for my entire life without government programs to cater to my needs.
Sure it is allocated...but the amount is not specified. Give me a reason why we should be spending more than the next top 5 countries in the world combined? I'll wait while I let my beard grow to me knees.
TRump is going to convene a special session of congress to finally fix healthcare....so don't worry...he actually wants to fix it...not use it as a means to control the American people........
TRump is going to convene a special session of congress to finally fix healthcare....so don't worry...he actually wants to fix it...not use it as a means to control the American people........
Trump proved to me this week he is an idiot... he announced he wants to entirely cut out all funding for the search of clean energy.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-zero-out-federal-clean-energy-56cca794790#.18xuud8p4
So do I have confidence in any of his future policies on anything? Nope, but we'll have a hell of a wall!
I know I was doing much better before the ACA, and the care at the hospital was much better too.TRump is going to convene a special session of congress to finally fix healthcare....so don't worry...he actually wants to fix it...not use it as a means to control the American people........
Yes right. I doubt trump will give a hoot about anyone but the elites.
(sigh) Stop with the propaganda.
You are seriously trying to make the point that folks who were purchasing their own Healthcare were not aware how much their increases were?
Do you not know how stupid that is?
I've been in the Healthcare Business since 2002, an Agents book turned over every 18-24 months because of those increases that you claim the consumers didn't know about.
Aye caramba, PLEASE think before you post propaganda, there will always be somebody who can point out the silliness of things untrue.
Now if the actual point of your post is that the people who have the ACA plans that were never insured before said that you'd have a point. But that is NOT the majority of people who are participating in this fiasco.
Ok, were you ever required prior to the ACA to report the increases to the state and get them approved?
Prior to the ACA ALL increases had to be filed with the State by May of the preceding year of it's effective date., ALL increases, large or small. ALL approved increases HAD to be sent to the insureds at least 30 days prior to the effective date.
SINCE the ACA any increases under 10% are filed with the State, any increases OVER 10% and above are filed with the Sate AND HHS.
Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?
Historically, insurers in many states were not required to file premium increases with insurance departments in any systematic manner.
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.
The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.
The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."
Unified Rate Review
"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx
Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.
"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."
'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases
So at best the statement is misleading.
Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?
do you think that a 30 day notice for a large increase is adequate for someone to plan?Ok, were you ever required prior to the ACA to report the increases to the state and get them approved?
Prior to the ACA ALL increases had to be filed with the State by May of the preceding year of it's effective date., ALL increases, large or small. ALL approved increases HAD to be sent to the insureds at least 30 days prior to the effective date.
SINCE the ACA any increases under 10% are filed with the State, any increases OVER 10% and above are filed with the Sate AND HHS.
Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?
Historically, insurers in many states were not required to file premium increases with insurance departments in any systematic manner.
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.
The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.
The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."
Unified Rate Review
"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx
Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.
"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."
'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases
So at best the statement is misleading.
Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?
EVERYBODY is ALWAYS notified of increases at LEAST 30 days in advance. Take your partisan ego out of it.
do you think that a 30 day notice for a large increase is adequate for someone to plan?Prior to the ACA ALL increases had to be filed with the State by May of the preceding year of it's effective date., ALL increases, large or small. ALL approved increases HAD to be sent to the insureds at least 30 days prior to the effective date.
SINCE the ACA any increases under 10% are filed with the State, any increases OVER 10% and above are filed with the Sate AND HHS.
Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?
Historically, insurers in many states were not required to file premium increases with insurance departments in any systematic manner.
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.
The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.
The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."
Unified Rate Review
"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx
Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.
"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."
'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases
So at best the statement is misleading.
Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?
EVERYBODY is ALWAYS notified of increases at LEAST 30 days in advance. Take your partisan ego out of it.
maybe but, In all my years Ive never seen increases like the ACA is bringing us. How do you in 30 days plan for an out of pocket of 500 to an out of pocket of 12,000?do you think that a 30 day notice for a large increase is adequate for someone to plan?Ok, so is that just your state, or all states? Are you saying this statement in the article is a lie?
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.
The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.
The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."
Unified Rate Review
"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx
Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.
"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."
'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases
So at best the statement is misleading.
Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?
EVERYBODY is ALWAYS notified of increases at LEAST 30 days in advance. Take your partisan ego out of it.
Probably not, but that was the law prior to the ACA too.
A single petson would pat around $250/mon & A family of 3 would pay around $120.Actually... you have a point there Owebo.
The Libs seem to think that a raise of the min wage from nat $7.25 to $15/h will fix everything. That's an increase of [gross] $310 a month. They have often claimed that this will go into the economy since the min wage workers will spend more.
ACA, for the Bonze plan, has a monthly premium of $311/m according to CNN - Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class.
They also note that they expect that will be $744/m in 2017 (with a $6k deductible)
IT stands to reason that ditching AMA would put that $311 back into the economy.
*As a note, I find how close the two figures are rather ... amusing.
How can someone who makes $15/hr afford health insurance that costs $744/mo and has a deductible of 6000? The deductible would consume half his total take home pay. The premium would consume the other half. Only a brainwashed Hillary douche bag could believe this plan was economically viable.
tough, allocated in the constitution.but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?when those choices have to be made because of the high cost of full premiums, then its wrong. Nobody should be forced to downsize their home or drive an undependable used car just because their money is being taken in order to cover those that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives
You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
healthcare is not. We need to get rid of the ACA and just go back to what it was. I was doing perfectly fine for my entire life without government programs to cater to my needs.
Sure it is allocated...but the amount is not specified. Give me a reason why we should be spending more than the next top 5 countries in the world combined? I'll wait while I let my beard grow to me knees.
dont you think the family of 3 should be paying more than the single person? I mean, just based on exposure of expense for the insurance company.A single petson would pat around $250/mon & A family of 3 would pay around $120.Actually... you have a point there Owebo.
The Libs seem to think that a raise of the min wage from nat $7.25 to $15/h will fix everything. That's an increase of [gross] $310 a month. They have often claimed that this will go into the economy since the min wage workers will spend more.
ACA, for the Bonze plan, has a monthly premium of $311/m according to CNN - Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class.
They also note that they expect that will be $744/m in 2017 (with a $6k deductible)
IT stands to reason that ditching AMA would put that $311 back into the economy.
*As a note, I find how close the two figures are rather ... amusing.
How can someone who makes $15/hr afford health insurance that costs $744/mo and has a deductible of 6000? The deductible would consume half his total take home pay. The premium would consume the other half. Only a brainwashed Hillary douche bag could believe this plan was economically viable.
maybe but, In all my years Ive never seen increases like the ACA is bringing us. How do you in 30 days plan for an out of pocket of 500 to an out of pocket of 12,000?do you think that a 30 day notice for a large increase is adequate for someone to plan?"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers planning to significantly increase plan premiums submit their rates to either the state or federal government for review. The threshold for this requirement is 10%.
The rate review process is designed to improve insurer accountability and transparency. It ensures that experts evaluate whether the proposed rate increases are based on reasonable cost assumptions and solid evidence and gives consumers the chance to comment on proposed increases.
The ACA also requires that a summary of rate review justifications and results be accessible to the public in an easily understandable format. This site is designed to meet that mandate."
Unified Rate Review
"Beginning September 2011, HHS announced the nationwide implementation of state-based programs to conduct rate review. HHS worked with states to strengthen or alter their programs. As detailed in the rate review regulation finalized on May 19, 2011, states with effective rate review systems must conduct reviews of proposed rates above the applicable threshold (10% from September 2011-August 2012), but if a state lacks the resources or authority to conduct the required rate reviews, HHS will conduct them."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-rate-approval-disapproval.aspx
Prior to 2011 most states required the filings.
"Most states require insurers to submit information on the premiums and rates that they intend to charge, but beyond that, there isn't much consistency from one state to another in how regulators can react."
'Unreasonable' Insurance Rate Increases
So at best the statement is misleading.
Soooo before the ACA people of course noticed how much more was being taken out of their pay check each year for premiums, BUT it wasn't always reported so that people could complain that it wasn't fair across the board that they were getting screwed by living in New Jersey where it went up X% verses a person in Idaho where it went up only Z% for the same coverage? And it wasn't put into a national data base?
EVERYBODY is ALWAYS notified of increases at LEAST 30 days in advance. Take your partisan ego out of it.
Probably not, but that was the law prior to the ACA too.
Im not poor by any standards and I would have a hard time planning that in a 30 day period.
For every person that goes on the ACA with subsidies, there is another person that just lost their ability to use the insurance that they are now forced to purchase with the high out of pocket and deductibles.
That estimate of 20 million that now have insurance is a bit false when you consider how many people that had insurance can no longer afford to use what they have.
As if Obama care stopped the poor flooding the ER? Are you really that stupid? Do you suppose they paid their thousands in co pays to the ER & related facilities?No one should survive at public expense. It's not your money.
Leave charity with charitable organizations.
You don't get it... if people don't have insurance anymore and have to go to the ER, they will just get a huge ER bill they can't pay. Which then means they get their credit ruined, which means then they can't buy cars and houses, which means it hurts the economy, which means health care cost go up, because health care is REQUIRED to treat people that go to the ER, and won't be getting paid for it... so that means if you do have insurance? Yeah it's going to go up regardless, along with the out of pocket costs.
Yes right. I doubt trump will give a hoot about anyone but the elites.
tough, allocated in the constitution.but in a free society shouldnt people have a say in how the spend their money? what they buy?You miss my point. The takers are not just losers who refuse to work, but also those who COULD pay premiums like the rest of us but choose to live at the edge of their means then have nothing left to pay for a necessity. If those people had skin in the game like the middle class does, they would be demanding a real fix so they don't have to pay so much. One of the reasons it doesn't work is because it's all free for way too many.
If someone wants to buy a 6000 square foot home and drive a brand new corvette, then let them. If by chance those choices leave them unable to pay insurance, the tough, they dont have insurance. If they get sick and need expensive care, at that point they need to sell the car, sell the house and pay their own way.
Besides, the ACA is not going to be giving those people a subsidy just because they spent their 250,000 a year salary on homes and cars. They will still be expected to pay full price. This is where the being forced to downsize comes in to play. If they dont want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. Just dont come looking for the free care if something happens.
Do we have to go there again? Many Americans don't want to spend their tax dollars on the most expensive military budget in the world...
healthcare is not. We need to get rid of the ACA and just go back to what it was. I was doing perfectly fine for my entire life without government programs to cater to my needs.
Sure it is allocated...but the amount is not specified. Give me a reason why we should be spending more than the next top 5 countries in the world combined? I'll wait while I let my beard grow to me knees.
What are the populations of those countries?
Trump proved to me this week he is an idiot... he announced he wants to entirely cut out all funding for the search of clean energy.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-zero-out-federal-clean-energy-56cca794790#.18xuud8p4
So do I have confidence in any of his future policies on anything? Nope, but we'll have a hell of a wall!
