House Republicans unveil Obamacare replacement bill

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well their bankruptcy doesn't sound related to medical bills though so yeah, some people do that, and live like that, I'm not sure in the particular case you mentioned how they are allowed to or are able and willing to keep doing it and living like that but they must not be making it hard enough for them. Like I said I don't know all the details obviously, but bankruptcy should not be so easy, and should only be done when someone truly can't afford their bills. If they are being let off the hook too easily then that's a problem, regardless of whether or not it's because they like to spend and not pay or a medical issue. My wife has actually gone bankrupt once before we were together so I kind of know what it takes. I also looked into it myself about a decade ago and decided against it because I didn't want the issues that come with it. My issue with making insurance a requirement is where the libertarian in me comes in. I just don't believe in forcing something like that down someone's throat who doesn't want it. We're already forced to pay too much out of our hard earned money as it is.

It is inevitable that everyone will need to use health insurance at some time in their lives, being able to cherry pick those times is unfair to everyone else that pays into the system regularly. Instilling waiting periods for people who chose not to have insurance and then hop on when they need it, really doesn't solve any of the problems. Those people are obviously waiting until their situation is dire enough to require treatment. In the US no one can be refused treatment required to save one's life, so they will get the treatment without insurance anyway.

[OriZ 3,165]

7 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

It is inevitable that everyone will need to use health insurance at some time in their lives, being able to cherry pick those times is unfair to everyone else that pays into the system regularly. Instilling waiting periods for people who chose not to have insurance and then hop on when they need it, really doesn't solve any of the problems. Those people are obviously waiting until their situation is dire enough to require treatment. In the US no one can be refused treatment required to save one's life, so they will get the treatment without insurance anyway.

We're not just talking about life saving treatment though. There will be different waiting periods for different treatments. If you think you might need surgery(say you'e 90% sure but nothing yet "official" with your doctor) for something but it's not a life saving surgery, and you want to get insurance just for that that will prevent that from happening. Think implants, transplants(provided it's not to the point where your life is at risk yet), dental, prosthetics, etc. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by OriZ

[Teddy B 17,252]

Just now, OriZ said:

We're not just talking about life saving treatment though. There will be different waiting periods for different treatments. If you think you might need surgery(say you'e 90% sure but nothing yet "official" with your doctor) for something but it's not a life saving surgery, and you want to get insurance just for that that will prevent that from happening. Think implants, transplants, dental, etc. 

But why complicate things ten fold when you can just make health insurance a requirement for everyone and be done with it? it's not like every person will not reap the benefits of it sooner or later, everyone will use it eventually.

[OriZ 3,165]

Just now, Teddy B said:

But why complicate things ten fold when you can just make health insurance a requirement for everyone and be done with it? it's not like every person will not reap the benefits of it sooner or later, everyone will use it eventually.

Different approaches man  Maybe because I actually lived in a place where it was a requirement most of my life and didn't find it to be as great as it sounds on paper. First they take taxes, then they take this, then they take that, they take the equivalence of social security basically, then on top of that they decide how much to take from you for your health insurance that at point of your life you might not want or need, maybe you don't have the money for it and are healthy enough, maybe you want to wait a few years to get it and are counting on nothing catastrophic happening during these years, should be your right to do so. Yeah eventually chances are you will need it, and I'm not saying wait till you do, but I see nothing wrong with someone healthy waiting till they are in their 30's or 40's, then getting it, waiting their waiting period out, and being fully insured, and they saved that money in their 20's or early 30's when they really needed it. Government does not have the right to decide what to take away from us for "our own good".

[Boiler 47,522]

Interesting story on Obamacare:

 

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/06/what-if-theres-no-affordable-insurance-to-buy/

 

Leslie Kurtz needed three plates, eight screws and a big assist from her insurer after breaking every bone in her ankle while white water rafting.

Coverage she purchased through a public insurance exchange established by the federal health care law paid $65,000 toward surgery and the care she needed after the 2015 accident. But that protection may not exist next year because insurers have abandoned the Knoxville, Tennessee resident’s exchange. As of now, Kurtz has no future coverage options, and she is worried.

“I can’t afford to have everything I’ve worked for taken away because I fell down the steps,” Kurtz said.

Her county is one of 16 in Tennessee that lack even a single insurance company committed to offering coverage for 2018 on the exchange, after Humana announced last month plans to exit.

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Different approaches man  Maybe because I actually lived in a place where it was a requirement most of my life and didn't find it to be as great as it sounds on paper. First they take taxes, then they take this, then they take that, they take the equivalence of social security basically, then on top of that they decide how much to take from you for your health insurance that at point of your life you might not want or need, maybe you don't have the money for it and are healthy enough, maybe you want to wait a few years to get it and are counting on nothing catastrophic happening during these years, should be your right to do so. Yeah eventually chances are you will need it, and I'm not saying wait till you do, but I see nothing wrong with someone healthy waiting till they are in their 30's or 40's, then getting it, waiting their waiting period out, and being fully insured, and they saved that money in their 20's or early 30's when they really needed it. Government does not have the right to decide what to take away from us for "our own good".

You're fairly new to this country I see.

 

j/k Ori, in a perfect world you would be right, but we are far from perfect.

[OriZ 3,165]

Just now, Teddy B said:

You're fairly new to this country I see.

 

j/k Ori, in a perfect world you would be right, but we are far from perfect.

Yeah we are far from perfect but I'm going based off the principles this country was actually founded on. And based on my experience with a government that is just as intrusive, if not more in some ways. BTW don't get me wrong, I have also expressed in the past my opinion that when it comes to your own physical wellbeing, I do think it is the government's job to take care of you, just like having police or fire stations. I'm not totally opposed to some other form of healthcare where we won't need insurance companies(although I am hesitant to call it universal healthcare, or single payer).But that's not what they did here so under current conditions and circumstances(as well as those likely in the near future) I was just pointing out I think a much better way would be waiting times, as opposed to this silly 30% premium hike if you come back into the market that they are proposing.

[OriZ 3,165]

And to clarify my last post, as long as there are health insurance companies and premiums are as high as they are I don't think you should be forced to pay for it. You then might argue that if government was in charge of all healthcare and there were no insurance companies then you would just pay it in the form of taxes. Maybe, but again it is the specifics that will matter then. How much more will you be paying and what will you be getting for it. Or maybe you won't be paying more and they can slash spending elsewhere. Eventually and if it ever does happen that will determine whether or not I support it.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

35 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Like I told Teddy I don't know the specifics of the particular situations you both mentioned. All I know is bankruptcy usually isn't, and shouldn't be a cakewalk. Or everybody would do it all the time. The fact you know some people who do it but not everybody you know does it means it's not always so easy. My wife's bankruptcy didn't get removed from her credit score till just recently, so if those people kept getting more credit then whoever gave them that credit deserved to not get paid back I guess. 

How did bankruptcy enter into the picture? I bankruptcy now considered a health plan option.

 

I thought the point of the ACA was to get regular doctor visits preventing major illnesses from compounding into a crisis.

 

You cannot declare bankruptcy every time you take your child in for a checkup.

 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Yeah we are far from perfect but I'm going based off the principles this country was actually founded on. And based on my experience with a government that is just as intrusive, if not more in some ways. BTW don't get me wrong, I have also expressed in the past my opinion that when it comes to your own physical wellbeing, I do think it is the government's job to take care of you, just like having police or fire stations. I'm not totally opposed to some other form of healthcare where we won't need insurance companies(although I am hesitant to call it universal healthcare, or single payer).But that's not what they did here so under current conditions and circumstances(as well as those likely in the near future) I was just pointing out I think a much better way would be waiting times, as opposed to this silly 30% premium hike if you come back into the market that they are proposing.

I agree there are better ways than the 30% penalty, I think making it too expensive for one to opt out in the first place would be better because it would keep the cash flow coming and it would be much less paperwork in the long run.

 

The ACA is far from perfect, but it in my opinion it was a step in the right direction. I don't know why the Feds don't take a closer look at the health plan (Romney care) that we have in Mass. Premiums aren't ridiculous and most everyone is covered. My wife and I both pay around $52 per week for single coverage plans at our places of employment and our employer picks up the rest. It's about $200 cheaper for us per month doing it that way over a family plan. We both have $2,000 deductables on procedures and $1,000 on prescriptions. Most procedures are at least partly covered, but once you hit the 2K mark, it's all covered. We are also allowed one free physical per year and a free eye exam every two years.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Teddy B said:

I agree there are better ways than the 30% penalty, I think making it too expensive for one to opt out in the first place would be better because it would keep the cash flow coming and it would be much less paperwork in the long run.

 

The ACA is far from perfect, but it in my opinion it was a step in the right direction. I don't know why the Feds don't take a closer look at the health plan (Romney care) that we have in Mass. Premiums aren't ridiculous and most everyone is covered. My wife and I both pay around $52 per week for single coverage plans at our places of employment and our employer picks up the rest. It's about $200 cheaper for us per month doing it that way over a family plan. We both have $2,000 deductables on procedures and $1,000 on prescriptions. Most procedures are at least partly covered, but once you hit the 2K mark, it's all covered. We are also allowed one free physical per year and a free eye exam every two years.

Here is the joke...the ACA was based on Rombeycare.  

[Teddy B 17,252]

Just now, ccneat said:

How did bankruptcy enter into the picture? I bankruptcy now considered a health plan option.

 

I thought the point of the ACA was to get regular doctor visits preventing major illnesses from compounding into a crisis.

 

You cannot declare bankruptcy every time you take your child in for a checkup.

 

No one said you could. I introduced bankruptcy to the thread here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/627884-house-republicans-unveil-obamacare-replacement-bill/?do=findComment&comment=8508231

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Here is the joke...the ACA was based on Rombeycare.  

In the beginning yes. Once the republicans gutted it, it was nothing like Romney care.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

No one said you could. I introduced bankruptcy to the thread here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/627884-house-republicans-unveil-obamacare-replacement-bill/?do=findComment&comment=8508231

Okay I will take a chil ?.  It is the only medicine I will be able to afford.

[Teddy B 17,252]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Okay I will take a chil ?.  It is the only medicine I will be able to afford.

Chill pills have been discontinued under the new bigger, better and beautiful Trump healthcare plan. It's the best, many people are saying this.