It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Takes First Step Toward Repeal Of Obamacare

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

2000% where was that? The highest increase I could find was 50% in private and 25% for obamacare. They were increasing before 2014 by about 15-20% and the deductible. That did not include the pre existing waiver and a free yearly doctor visit, of course.




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

ThIs one happened last night as title says.
edit on 12-1-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: havok

The thing with the individual mandate is that it was required to cover the preexisting condition clause. As for the affordability, there are plenty of people saying that premiums went up less with the ACA than they would have without it.

Is the thing perfect? No. But it's definitely better than what we had.


I offer you a math question, Pre ACA, mid grade Health insurance for middle age man, no issues $180 a mo. (roughly), POST ACA, same guy, same coverage with a higher deductible, $420 (roughly)

Better than what we had? only if you are an insurance company looking for profits.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I've got a mid-grade plan with a very reasonable deductible and I pay $270/mo. And I have a preexisting condition. So if we're using anecdotes as proof for the ACA's quality, then yes it is better than what we had before.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Listen up: This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: jjkenobi

2000% where was that? The highest increase I could find was 50% in private and 25% for obamacare. They were increasing before 2014 by about 15-20% and the deductible. That did not include the pre existing waiver and a free yearly doctor visit, of course.



Tell that to the people in Arizona that work and can't afford insurance because they have to subsidize everyone else's.




PHOENIX — Arizona was shaping up to be one of the more unlikely battlegrounds of the 2016 campaign when a political bombshell appeared to explode last week: The Obama administration revealed that the cost of midlevel plans on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace here would increase next year by 116 percent on average.


NYTimes



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I read that and all the insurance carriers are leaving Arizona. Washington State still has about 11 carriers to choose from. I wonder why they are leaving Arizona, too many elderly?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

i would like to see the whole damn thing go away, but it will never happen. what will happen is the loophole i found and been useing to get out of paying for not haveing insurance will go away. other than that im guessing we will se no change at cost unless its just going up



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: angeldoll

Hey..how about folks go get a job and pay for their own #?


Many Americans work for large companies or corporations who are simply too greedy to provide affordable health insurance to the lowly employees. Too greedy to pick up enough of the premiums to provide quality healthcare options to the expendable employee.

Since corporate greed isn't going away anytime soon, maybe we do everything we can to put an end to for profit health insurance.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

I've got a mid-grade plan with a very reasonable deductible and I pay $270/mo. And I have a preexisting condition. So if we're using anecdotes as proof for the ACA's quality, then yes it is better than what we had before.


You are welcome. At least I know my pain and suffering is being re-distributed to someone real. Socialism as described. Works super for some, not so much for others.

I am honestly happy for you in this case, but I hope you can understand my frustration, knowing that myself and millions of others are picking up the tab for people in your position.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: jjkenobi

2000% where was that? The highest increase I could find was 50% in private and 25% for obamacare. They were increasing before 2014 by about 15-20% and the deductible. That did not include the pre existing waiver and a free yearly doctor visit, of course.



Tell that to the people in Arizona that work and can't afford insurance because they have to subsidize everyone else's.




PHOENIX — Arizona was shaping up to be one of the more unlikely battlegrounds of the 2016 campaign when a political bombshell appeared to explode last week: The Obama administration revealed that the cost of midlevel plans on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace here would increase next year by 116 percent on average.


NYTimes



You were supposed to get subsidized too, through payment to the insurers that would cover the costs of their increased risk management until the markets stabilized and enough people had bought into the ACA to make it work - but CONGRESS SCREWED YOU OVER by NOT funding this subsidy, to the tune of only giving 12% of what was required. See, if they had funded this, YOUR PREMIUMS WOULD BE LOWER RIGHT NOW.

They did this because they wanted people like you to be angry and insurance companies to bail. They wanted it to fail. So don't blame the law, blame those who destroyed it every chance they got. You would NOT be in the situation you are in IF THEY HAD DONE WHAT THE LAW NEEDED TO WORK.

They do this for the freaking oil industry, for food and for dozens of other "subsidized corporate" interests that in turn are supposed to keep our out of pocket costs down.

Ask yourself why they wouldn't do it this time. Ask why THEY wanted you to suffer.

It's simple. They wanted to use it to win the Presidency -- they wanted to take money out of your pocket and destroy the ACA so it would not function correctly towards that end, so they could campaign on it and justify killing it.

It is beyond petty. It is Machiavellian and people are and will be hurt.

- AB
edit on 12-1-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: havok

The thing with the individual mandate is that it was required to cover the preexisting condition clause. As for the affordability, there are plenty of people saying that premiums went up less with the ACA than they would have without it.

Is the thing perfect? No. But it's definitely better than what we had.


They say that, but do they have proof?

Our premiums were gooing up without it, but they were going up less. And there was a doubling of the premium the year it went into effect which happened BEFORE we had our son, so that was not the reason for it.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

They did want the bill to fail because this was never what they wanted. The idea was always to use it to destroy the system to force people to call for Socialized care so they could actually control it all, not just pull strings from the shadows.

This was always their plan from the start. They just had to create enough of a disaster to force people to come crawling to them. Thankfully, they screwed it up and we have a chance to retain some control over our bodiesand lives.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: havok
My entire problem with the ACA is the lack of affordability and the "tax" that it is.
It's not "affordable" by any means, and to mandate it as a tax is abhorrent.


It's unaffordable in states like Texas where the governor declared that "nope, no way" was he going to participate or allow federal money (which would have subsidized people like a number of friends who are scraping by on minimum wage jobs because that's all there is.)

Friends in states where the government subsidies were accepted tell a different story.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

And some of us are still fortunate enough that we have excellent care even though the ACA has caused our plans to double in premium, go up more than they were previously, and double the dductible and that's even working for a "greedy corporate master." If our greedy corporate master dropped our coverage, we'd be too rich to get subsidy and too poor to afford the ACA bill which would be just shy of paying another mortgage every month.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: havok
My entire problem with the ACA is the lack of affordability and the "tax" that it is.
It's not "affordable" by any means, and to mandate it as a tax is abhorrent.


It's unaffordable in states like Texas where the governor declared that "nope, no way" was he going to participate or allow federal money (which would have subsidized people like a number of friends who are scraping by on minimum wage jobs because that's all there is.)

Friends in states where the government subsidies were accepted tell a different story.


You do understand that the extra Federal Money was only going to last for about 3 years and then the amount was going to be cut back gradually leaving the state hanging to pick up the tab for a gradually increasing amount? If you are a state who takes your fiscal responsibility seriously, then you don't buy into that trap.

Those states were teh smart ones.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I disagree with Rand on this one. He voted 'no' apparently because he expects the insurance industry will come crying to DC asking for a $10 Trillion bailout after Obamacare is nuked... to Paul I say "and?" Just because an industry comes crying, doesn't mean they should leave with a single cent of taxpayer dollars in their hand. Screw 'em if they can't survive under the old system. Capitalism is a machine of opportunity that runs on supply and demand. If the current insurers go belly up, demand will dictate that new insurance companies will rise up, complete with competitive rates and efficiencies current providers clearly lack.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It might not seem like it, but if the insurance companies go belly up, it might end up being a good thing.

It might force providers to price back into the pockets of the patients again instead of billing the middle men which is really why no one can afford even basic care now.

I still think insurance should exist as a catastrophic model with rider for pre-existing/chronic care. And the rest of our routine stuff should be dealt with out of pocket, taken care of before we leave the GP's office.

And I say that even now when I am quite likely facing shoulder surgery.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
We wouldn`t be in this situation now if the democrats would have compromised and gained bi partisan support for obamacare before jamming it down our throats.
now obamacare will be repealed and we will be back where we were 8 years ago.
I hope the new healthcare plan the senate comes up with has bi partisan support or we might be right back where we are now, in 8 years.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join