Vegas Free-for-All - Adios Obeymecare

Adios Obeymecare

IndyBoilerman

Nov 12, 2016
12:29am

All children should have medical insurance. All adults should pay their own way. Why is the concept of paying one's own way so odd to Liberals? Every year they demand more free shit.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
No matter what he does with it, he says he wants to keep it guaranteed issue and allow kids to stay on it until they are 26.
Trump has always stated that pre-existing conditions must be covered by health insurance. We didn't need the ACA to do that.

The reality is for-profit insurance companies don’t want to insure people with pre-existing conditions, people that live in rural areas, (because there isn’t sufficient competition among service providers) and even in urban areas where there is a lack of competition. .

You cant always get what you want

As long as Republicans are willing to take ownership of all the healthcare systems failures under the banner of Trumpcare, I am all for it. Go ahead, and try to run for reelection on cancelling the insurance of 20 million people, hospitals all across the country going bankrupt and group insurance premiums spiralling out of control. Oh, and you officially have come out of the closet as an anarchist.

alanleroyII

Nov 12, 2016
12:33am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
I've never understood how the Federal Government permitting insurance companies to operate across state lines jibed with the rights call for more power to be given to the state level.
Because then it falls under the Commerce clause. The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce...among the several States. The states could continue to regulate insurance that operates completely within their borders.

That is not how the commerce clause works. Once the Feds take over an area under the Commerce Clause, the individual states can no longer regulate in that area because any state regulation would be an undue burden on Interstate Commerce. The concept is referred to as preemption. Selling health insurance across state lines would legally speaking be the Federalization of the health insurance industry.

A state should be able to regulate a business incorporated there that does not engage in interstate commerce. The Federal Government should be able to certify and regulate insurers that freely operate across state lines. Consumers should be allowed to choose between a state licensed insurer and a national insurer. Now states put up barriers to enter their markets because it bolsters their bureaucracy and tax coffers rather than serving the people.

Just like the federal government exerts a lot of control over the banking industry, each state still has some operation that oversees state-licensed financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, industrial banks, savings associations, trust companies, foreign banking organizations, business and industrial development corporations and on and on. Banking across state lines wasn't always allowed. Just like Selling Health Insurance across state lines. I think it can be done with an act of congress that allows State and National Insurers. The constitution didn't change.

pjstroh

Nov 12, 2016
12:44am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

- Protection for pre-existing conditions will come with an UnAmerican mandate for everyone to buy insurance. Its fiscally impossible to have that protection without the mandate.
!

I'm not so sure about that. Prior to the HIPPA act, Health Insurers were not required to insure new Group Members with pre-existing conditions. When that was enacted, there wasn't a mandate to require all employers to provide Group Insurance. The group insurance market didn't collapse either.

We should have amended HIPPA to require Group Health insurers to offer individual plans without regard to pre-existing conditions. Then, the costs of the sick and infirm would be spread among all Group policies with no individual mandate. Maybe if healthy individuals who can afford it still refuse to sign up for health insurance, they can't get medical treatment without paying for it at the time of service.

Of course the whole issue of affordability and how to cover those who really can't afford insurance are different topics entirely.

Its very simple. If you tell insurance companies they must insure sick people without requiring healthy people to buy insurance - then there is no reason for any healthy person to buy insurance at all. They can just wait until they get sick and save tens of thousands of dollars in the meantime.

This is a very obvious dynamic the anti-Obamacare nuts have refused to consider. Republicans used to get it when they conceived the idea in the first place. But they've been too angry over president BlackEnstein's to be serious about policy.

Now they don't have an excuse. Lets be very clear. There will be no protection of people with pre-existing conditions without a mandate for healthy people to "buy something they don't want" as Obamacare critics would describe it. And there is going to be a lot of egg on the face of people on this board when that fact becomes clear.

Toodles!

billryan

Nov 12, 2016
12:44am

Block User

I am not saying it's unconstitutional. What I'm saying is it is against the right wings mantra of states rights.

pjstroh

Nov 12, 2016
12:45am

Block User

** nothing to see here ***

alanleroyII

Nov 12, 2016
12:47am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
No matter what he does with it, he says he wants to keep it guaranteed issue and allow kids to stay on it until they are 26.
Trump has always stated that pre-existing conditions must be covered by health insurance. We didn't need the ACA to do that.

The reality is for-profit insurance companies don’t want to insure people with pre-existing conditions, people that live in rural areas, (because there isn’t sufficient competition among service providers) and even in urban areas where there is a lack of competition. .

You cant always get what you want

Are you calling me an anarchist or the Antichrist? Ah...maybe you misunderstand my rolling stones reference. You said the For Profit Insurance Companies don't want to insure people with pre-existing conditions. I'm saying THEY can't always get what THEY want. They didn't want to cover pre-existing conditions for group policies either.

One of my biggest objections to the ACA was the way the Democrats rammed it through. They should have worked with Republicans to get something more bipartisan---Even if they didn't get every thing they wanted. This led directly to their massive 2010 midterm failures and Republican Whining for 8 years. If Republicans had any skin in the game, they would have worked with Democrats to improve it over time. They had none.

And just like you're chomping at the bit for the Republicans to use the same tactics and ram through a Republican Failure, I'd prefer they take a step back and try to do something that is a success where both sides get some agreement. Otherwise they simply make the same mistakes the Democrats did and the people suffer.

billryan

Nov 12, 2016
12:56am

Block User

Yet Trump wants a special session to repeal it and then start work on trying to replace it.
That's ass backwards. You can't take away twenty million plus people's insurance today with a vague promise to replace it tomorrow, especially when you don't have the votes to ram anything through.

pjstroh

Nov 12, 2016
1:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: billryan
I've never understood how the Federal Government permitting insurance companies to operate across state lines jibed with the rights call for more power to be given to the state level.
Because then it falls under the Commerce clause. The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce...among the several States. The states could continue to regulate insurance that operates completely within their borders.

That is not how the commerce clause works. Once the Feds take over an area under the Commerce Clause, the individual states can no longer regulate in that area because any state regulation would be an undue burden on Interstate Commerce. The concept is referred to as preemption. Selling health insurance across state lines would legally speaking be the Federalization of the health insurance industry.

You should read the 1000 page law that nobody read. There is nothing in Obamacare that prevents states from purchasing plans from other states...it leaves this decision at the state level....and there are a handful of states that allow for it. The GOP idea is to take away this discretion and force states to accept plans from other states. So if you are someone that believe in giving states more authority over their health insurance then you would be vehemently opposed to this idea.

States that allow cross-border sales of insurance

PS - there has been no evidence that states that allow for cross-border insurance sales have recognized any measurable financial saving to customers as a result.

And here's an obvious bit of information: If Cigna wants to sell insurance in Wyoming there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. If they don't have an active plan in Wyoming today its because they've made the conscious decision to not do business there

IndyBoilerman

Nov 12, 2016
1:10am

Block User

That's it. Billy argues that once you give someone free shit, you can not be taken away. That's just how Liberal policy rolls. Always more, never less.

Quote

Originally posted by: billryan
Yet Trump wants a special session to repeal it and then start work on trying to replace it.
That's ass backwards. You can't take away twenty million plus people's insurance today with a vague promise to replace it tomorrow, especially when you don't have the votes to ram anything through.

alanleroyII

Nov 12, 2016
1:11am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

- Protection for pre-existing conditions will come with an UnAmerican mandate for everyone to buy insurance. Its fiscally impossible to have that protection without the mandate.
!
I'm not so sure about that. Prior to the HIPPA act, Health Insurers were not required to insure new Group Members with pre-existing conditions. When that was enacted, there wasn't a mandate to require all employers to provide Group Insurance. The group insurance market didn't collapse either.

We should have amended HIPPA to require Group Health insurers to offer individual plans without regard to pre-existing conditions. Then, the costs of the sick and infirm would be spread among all Group policies with no individual mandate. Maybe if healthy individuals who can afford it still refuse to sign up for health insurance, they can't get medical treatment without paying for it at the time of service.

Of course the whole issue of affordability and how to cover those who really can't afford insurance are different topics entirely.

Maybe people who don't buy health insurance can't use the medical facilities that everyone else is paying for...unless they pay in full when they check in. You pays your money and you takes your choice...or not.

«‹3 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now