Making more money doesn't work that way. Raising the rate of pay costs unskilled workers even more.
Jeb Bush op-ed: My plan to replace Obamacare
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Making more money doesn't work that way. Raising the rate of pay costs unskilled workers even more.
I was listening to NPR yesterday afternoon and there was a story about yet another protest demanding a $15 an hour minimum wage. They played a clip of some woman who claimed to have nine kids and has to work two jobs. I'm sorry, but your poor choices do not require that the $1 Menu has to become the $5 Menu.
Two words: Pre-existing conditions.
The ACA legally forbids insurers from excluding buyers based on ANY pre-existing conditions.
Insurers don't like taking on diabetics, people with a recent (<5 years) cancer diagnosis (even something completely curable, like a Stage 1 melanoma), or hepatitis (especially now with the '$90,000 cure' medication).
In the past, insurers could reject people based on any pre-existing condition, particularly if it was not disclosed when they signed up.
We could have passed a law like that without 17,000 pages of other crap.
Anyway, in the current era, you can buy such a policy right now.
....because of the ACA....overturning it would enable insurers to go back to picking/choosing who they wanted to insure
And if you started costing them money, they would go back through your medical records looking for some triviality from years before that wasn't disclosed so they could drop you.
Again, we could do something for people with pre-existing conditions without all the other crap that came with this crap sandwich.
All that other "crap" is what makes this much improved system work. And working quite well, it is.
Not really. You NEED to have 'healthy' people signing up and paying premiums, so that when ONE of them does develop diabetes, there is a pool of money there for them.
If we did NOT have a mandate for EVERYONE to contribute money for coverage, then people would just wait until they were actually sick, sign up and drain the insurer's accounts. And those who were signing up for plans would pay WAY MORE for covering those that decided NOT to pay ANYTHING, but just sponged off of them when they got sick.
It does all tie together, and you absolutely have to have people paying in starting when they are healthy, so when they DO need coverage, they have paid in enough to cover their cost of care.
Would you allow people to buy car insurance only AFTER they got into accidents? How would THAT work out?
Actually, preexisting coverage was required under law predating the ACA, but you weren't allowed to have a gap in coverage greater than 62 days. COBRA required group health insurance to cover preexisting conditions. This "gap rule" was to avoid the adverse selection problem that Joes Place is alluding to above. It wouldn't have cost very much to plug the holes in that.
No....it would cost a TON to force insurers to take on ANYONE w/ pre-existing conditions, no questions asked, if those people can just wait until they get sick to start coverage.
That's why some element of mandated coverage is absolutely necessary. And we have that for car insurance; it is ILLEGAL to drive your car w/o basic insurance coverage.
My body isn't a car. Your car insurance covers damage you cause to others. You only have to cover damage to your own car if the bank owns it.
There were other incentives for people to not have coverage gaps. Waiting periods was typical.
What you could do is go is go back to the waiting period thing, and if you're subject to the waiting period and paying for your coverage, any preexisting need could be subsidized through Medicaid for those who can't afford to pay the penalty on their own.
Put some damn personal responsibility into the equation.
