New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

How much health care should those who can't pay for it get?

connieb

Senator
I'm 62 and you are wrong. I get my insurance from my employer and my premium did not increase last year or this.
Perhaps your employer is absorbing more of your cost.

PREMIUMS do change. They change every year. No matter who or what your are. They never stay exactly the same. So, one of us is wrong.. but I am quite sure it is not me.

connie
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
he's more than sick, he's as stupid as they come. I doubt even you would jeopardize the security of your family by refusing to get free insurance (ACA Medicaid) for your family of 7 while both you and your wife are unemployed and ill. send the fool some $$.
nothing in life is FREE
I realize majority of libs don't know that from birth to death
those not liberal, know that.......
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I'm 62 and you are wrong. I get my insurance from my employer and my premium did not increase last year or this.
yet as a future 'employer of fast food joint'........you refuse to post how much of your new employee's health care insurance YOU will pay__________

the best you can figure in profit nationally is 6.3%............paying no benefits.........
4% w/benefits........those would be next to nothing benefits.........

Will YOUR employee's be as well taken care of as your employer takes care of YOU?

☻ not bloody likely ☻

'a fool and money soon part'

 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Perhaps your employer is absorbing more of your cost.

PREMIUMS do change. They change every year. No matter who or what your are. They never stay exactly the same. So, one of us is wrong.. but I am quite sure it is not me.

connie
I'm quite sure that my premiums did not triple. Can you point to the section in the ACA that required that change? Nah....basically you've invented, all on your own, one more negative aspect to the ACA....I don't suppose you have a link to premiums tripling for people over 60?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I'm quite sure that my premiums did not triple. Can you point to the section in the ACA that required that change? Nah....basically you've invented, all on your own, one more negative aspect to the ACA....I don't suppose you have a link to premiums tripling for people over 60?
"quite sure"
isn't
for sure

at least other blue libs can see you hide from question of how much insurance you will cover for YOUR employee's................lmao
 

connieb

Senator
I'm quite sure that my premiums did not triple. Can you point to the section in the ACA that required that change? Nah....basically you've invented, all on your own, one more negative aspect to the ACA....I don't suppose you have a link to premiums tripling for people over 60?
Oh for the love of God.....

Do they necessarily tripple. NO. I never said they did. They do for some people under the ACA and here is why.

Previously under all group plans, there was one rate for everyone ( or for each family group) based on the average age for all the subscribers of that group. So, if you had two people and one was 25 and one was 50 they average age was 37.5. So depending on the categories for coverage, the cost of coverage for both the 25 year old would be exactly the same. If the company had 10 employers, and they were 22, 24, 26, 26, 27,27,27, 29, 31 and 57, then the 57 year old would have been really benefiting because the rate would have been calculated at the average age of 29.6 .

Not so for small employers anymore.

If a small group employer decides to offer health insurance, there are other ACA mandated provisions that may affect the cost of these plans. First, Guaranteed Issue means that no one can be denied coverage or be charged higher premiums because of their health status or because of pre-existing conditions. Second, with Rating Changes, the cost of insurance can be based only on age, where someone lives, family size, and whether or not they use tobacco.http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/reform-explained/video-SGimpact.html


For a small employer each person gets their own rate. So instead of that older employee getting the benefit of being on a group plan which used the average age of young employees to offset the costs of the older and sicker employee, now that older employee gets his own rate. And, depending on the make-up of the group, and regular premium increases - yes, the rate can be triple what he previously paid. And, if he decides to go try to get it on the exchange, his employer can't pay him for his insurance as a pre-tax deduction. So, He can't go buy his own insurance, and then get the company to pay a large portion of the bill. So, his choices are to take the higher rate he now has to pay becuase he doesn't get the benefit of the cost sharing in the group, or go buy his own insurance, which is not necessarily cheaper than what his employer is offering but may be, and then not be able to get the benefit tax free like other employees.

Which when you consider that that is 7.65 % right off the top of savings lost to the employee, that can be a very very big deal.

connie
 

Caroljo

Senator
I'm 62 and you are wrong. I get my insurance from my employer and my premium did not increase last year or this.
We're not all the same. I also get our insurance through my employer, and my premium DID go up.....along with my Dr co-pay, and Emergency room visits. Because you were lucky and didn't get an increase, it doesn't mean it's the same for all.
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
I was, essentially, wondering how much the usual conservative reaction to the ACA is a genuine difference in how much health care conservatives think people who can't afford it should be able to get, vs genuine concern about methods and/or a knee-jerk reaction to something put in place by liberals.

So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:

A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy

Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?
This posit has nothing to do with the Unaffordable/Obama Doesn't Care Act. Any person should get the medical care needed to keep them alive. The very poor should have access to care that will help them remain healthy. We do not need the massive Clusterf**k Obamcare to accomplish that. We pretty much had that available to those who need it whether they can afford it or not. Obamacare was about redistribution of wealth not health care.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
We're not all the same. I also get our insurance through my employer, and my premium DID go up.....along with my Dr co-pay, and Emergency room visits. Because you were lucky and didn't get an increase, it doesn't mean it's the same for all.
You made a claim that you cannot back up. Reread your own post about people being unable to get group rates.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Oh for the love of God.....

Do they necessarily tripple. NO. I never said they did. They do for some people under the ACA and here is why.

Previously under all group plans, there was one rate for everyone ( or for each family group) based on the average age for all the subscribers of that group. So, if you had two people and one was 25 and one was 50 they average age was 37.5. So depending on the categories for coverage, the cost of coverage for both the 25 year old would be exactly the same. If the company had 10 employers, and they were 22, 24, 26, 26, 27,27,27, 29, 31 and 57, then the 57 year old would have been really benefiting because the rate would have been calculated at the average age of 29.6 .

Not so for small employers anymore.

If a small group employer decides to offer health insurance, there are other ACA mandated provisions that may affect the cost of these plans. First, Guaranteed Issue means that no one can be denied coverage or be charged higher premiums because of their health status or because of pre-existing conditions. Second, with Rating Changes, the cost of insurance can be based only on age, where someone lives, family size, and whether or not they use tobacco.http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/reform-explained/video-SGimpact.html


For a small employer each person gets their own rate. So instead of that older employee getting the benefit of being on a group plan which used the average age of young employees to offset the costs of the older and sicker employee, now that older employee gets his own rate. And, depending on the make-up of the group, and regular premium increases - yes, the rate can be triple what he previously paid. And, if he decides to go try to get it on the exchange, his employer can't pay him for his insurance as a pre-tax deduction. So, He can't go buy his own insurance, and then get the company to pay a large portion of the bill. So, his choices are to take the higher rate he now has to pay becuase he doesn't get the benefit of the cost sharing in the group, or go buy his own insurance, which is not necessarily cheaper than what his employer is offering but may be, and then not be able to get the benefit tax free like other employees.

Which when you consider that that is 7.65 % right off the top of savings lost to the employee, that can be a very very big deal.

connie
The link you provided from AETNA does not support your claim.
 

connieb

Senator
The link you provided from AETNA does not support your claim.
Yes, it does. It was the quickest one I can find. It is how they are being applied - INDIVIDUAL rates in small group plans, as opposed to a group rate.

Whether or not YOUR rate goes up depends on what was the average age of your group. Did you seriously not know how group insurance worked? Educate yourself. for goodnessakes.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
We're not all the same. I also get our insurance through my employer, and my premium DID go up.....along with my Dr co-pay, and Emergency room visits. Because you were lucky and didn't get an increase, it doesn't mean it's the same for all.
When in the past 40 years have you gone without a premium increase? Has your insurance company changed your copay prior to 2010? Has your insurance company ever dropped a provider from their network?

You guys want to imply that all was wonderful prior to the ACA. I beg to differ. Republicans failed to provide a solution and have fought every democratic attempt. They still offer nothing except repeal.

Your Aetna link did not state that people are not getting the benefit of group rates and your statement that it is related to average employee age kind of implies that it is a group...otherwise the average of what is involved?
 

Caroljo

Senator
When in the past 40 years have you gone without a premium increase? Has your insurance company changed your copay prior to 2010? Has your insurance company ever dropped a provider from their network?

You guys want to imply that all was wonderful prior to the ACA. I beg to differ. Republicans failed to provide a solution and have fought every democratic attempt. They still offer nothing except repeal.

Your Aetna link did not state that people are not getting the benefit of group rates and your statement that it is related to average employee age kind of implies that it is a group...otherwise the average of what is involved?
I don't think I've ever made that statement....I think you're confused again.

No, it was not all wonderful before ACA.....but it sure was cheaper.
 
Top