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.

 

Trump may not enforce individual health insurance mandate

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

My body, my choice.



So we should leave you to die in the streets if you make the choice to not be insured but then get sick?

Lots of people make bad choices, society is built on the idea that people can see wisdom in their bad choices and later change them though. With health you can't really do that.


So. . . . my body, but government gets to choose, not me.




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: xuenchen

it will NOT be affordable without this mandate

Why are people ok with mandatory car insurance but not health insurance?

Why aren't people taking care of themselves?

the answer... Idiocracy


It's not affordable WITH the mandate as it stands.

30 million with no insurance is part of the failure.

They can't afford the deductibles.

And guess what?

Most uninsured people live in states with expanded Medicaid.

So that's not the problem either.


edit on Jan-23-2017 by xuenchen because: trumptriggersyndrome



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Car insurance is not mandatory, because owning a car is not mandatory.

And as far as I know, the only car insurance that is mandatory in most states is liability.
That is because if you hit someone else, they want to make sure that the other person gets taken care of.
If you don't have optional comprehensive, then you are out of luck if you have an accident, and have to pay for it yourself.

So, you can't really compare it to health insurance.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: veracity

Car insurance is not mandatory, because owning a car is not mandatory.

And as far as I know, the only car insurance that is mandatory in most states is liability.
That is because if you hit someone else, they want to make sure that the other person gets taken care of.
If you don't have optional comprehensive, then you are out of luck if you have an accident, and have to pay for it yourself.

So, you can't really compare it to health insurance.



so if you don't have insurance, get sick then get someone else sick bc you did not take care of yourself that is different than liability?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: xuenchen

it will NOT be affordable without this mandate

Why are people ok with mandatory car insurance but not health insurance?

Why aren't people taking care of themselves?

the answer... Idiocracy


It's not affordable WITH the mandate as it stands.

30 million with no insurance is part of the failure.

They can't afford the deductibles.

And guess what?

Most uninsured people live in states with expanded Medicaid.

So that's not the problem either.



The red states did not expand medicaid, the republican govs are at fault of that. All Don has to do is force them to go along with the ACA plan as intended then it will work!!!

GO DON!

and to correct you, this is NOT happening in the blue states, if people do not have insurance there its bc they opted out of it to pay the fine
edit on 23-1-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

huh??
Are you saying that MY medical insurance covers someone else if they get too close and catch my cold?




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: veracity

huh??
Are you saying that MY medical insurance covers someone else if they get too close and catch my cold?





lol, yes, if you do not take care of yourself bc you refuse insurance (not specifically you, I'm sure your smart enough to insure yourself), then you can get someone else sick...in the workplace...at school...just walking around town.

If you were to go to the doctor and get a remedy, cure yourself, they you are not a walking risk to others, understand?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: xuenchen

it will NOT be affordable without this mandate

Why are people ok with mandatory car insurance but not health insurance?

Why aren't people taking care of themselves?

the answer... Idiocracy


I'm not okay with mandatory auto insurance.

But that's not like health insurance. With auto, you can get liability. With health, if someone injures you, you don't say, "I need your policy information."

That being said, insurance is a scam. It does not benefit you. It benefits the sloths that claim they are working. It's not work to collect money for free without providing a service. That's called stealing.

Since we teach ourselves how to drive and look for potential dangers, we don't get into accidents. In my opinion, even if you're not legally at fault, you are mindlessly at fault. No assumptions should be made when driving, ever.

As for health, there is a lot of fear. There are people who actually get sick and there are people who are insane thinking a doctor is the reason they or their children live another year.

Insurance companies win because people are fearful and anxious about too many things.

Doctors are hypochondriacs-by-proxy.

And even more nurses who think their education is complete...

It's a scam.

Wish more people preferred to live and die with honor and dignity and intelligence. It would cost me a lot less.
edit on 1/23/2017 by TarzanBeta because: Let bygoes be bygoes...



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

I see what you are getting at.
But, I don't think that there is a direct correlation to having insurance and taking care of yourself.

Sure, you might go to the doctor if you have insurance, but the copays and deductibles are so insane with ACA that many people still avoid going to the doctor.
The monthly premiums are so high, they can't afford to go to the doctor.

Maybe when rates are lower, and deductibles are lower, because there is more competition, then people can afford to go to the doctor.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: xuenchen

it will NOT be affordable without this mandate

Why are people ok with mandatory car insurance but not health insurance?

Why aren't people taking care of themselves?

the answer... Idiocracy


I'm not okay with mandatory auto insurance.

But that's not like health insurance. With auto, you can get liability. With health, if someone injures you, you don't say, "I need your policy information."

That being said, insurance is a scam. It does not benefit you. It benefits the sloths that claim they are working. It's not work to collect money for free without providing a service. That's called stealing.

Since we teach ourselves how to drive and look for potential dangers, we don't get into accidents. In my opinion, even if you're not legally at fault, you are mindlessly at fault. No assumptions should be made when driving, ever.

As for health goes, there is a lot of fear. There are people who actually get sick and there are people who are insane thinking a doctor is the reason they or their children live another year.

Insurance companies win because people are fearful and anxious about too many things.

Doctors are hypochondriacs-by-proxy.

And even more nurses who think their education is complete...

It's a scam.

Wish more people preferred to live and die with honor and dignity and intelligence. It would cost me a lot less.


YES, the insurance companies before the ACA were just big scams, but taking care of yourself is not a scam.

If you want to understand more why I compare it to car liability insurance please read my posts above.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: rickymouse

That's not the expensive care. In the 60s and 70s cancer rates were lower, there was no AIDS treatment, and many diseases which were fatal back then, are less fatal today... your life can be extended another 20 years.

Your final 5 years of life involve something like 90% of your total health care costs.

In response to increasing life spans it has become necessary to take advantage of more preventative care, which means moving some of that end of life care forward increasing those costs.


The people I know who are taking Statins to increase their life span are sicker than a dog and are dying off. The people I know who are going to the doctor a lot are taking mega pills, my old pinnacle partner was up to sixty four pills a day and he was falling apart. He went to Mayo clinic and they cut him down to eight pills a day and he is getting better. He has instructions to not take any meds other doctors try to convince him to take now.

I go to the doctor when I need to go, who wants to go sit in the waiting room full of people coughing and spreading disease. I was put on meds for my epilepsy a while back and was severely intolerant to them. I can control the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy with diet with little side effects. But if I eat wrong it is like not taking the meds for a few days, I still have that epilepsy. I just do not have all the side effects that were killing me.

I am sixty one and know a lot of older people, I can see what is happening to them. Quality of life is important, the lifespan may be longer because there are a lot of people in nursing homes all doped up. Quality of life is considered in Europe when judging meds, some medicines used here in the US cause quality of life to rapidly decline. Treat one thing and a worse thing happens because of the treatment. I study this kind of stuff and see people having side effects all the time. The literature given with the meds is correct for side effect but the way they portray the evidence in them makes it look like the side effects are way less than they are. After reading hundreds of articles on how to properly read this literature it is easy to determine what they mean. Two percent times twenty different side effects means fourty percent of people will get one of these side effects.

You either be believing this deception or your promoting it. Go into the old cemetaries and look at the dates on the tombstones. A lot of people died during the flu pandemic around nineteen eighteen and lots of people died during the wars and around the great depression at younger ages. If there was a local event such as a mine accident there were lower lifespans, The average person buried in the cemetaries around here if you get rid of those local and major death times was between sixty five and eighty five here. The big increase in the longlivity comes from kids not dying shortly after they are born. That is what brought up the life expectancy, along with better working conditions. Medicine actually did not have much more to do with it.

The increase of highly prepared foods and unnatural food chemistry is lowering the quality of life life expectancy. The USA has a bad rating for quality of life. That information is easily found on comparison charts. Our type of medicine here in the USA is way too expensive and is poor compared to many other countries with socialized medicine. Europe is now going through and banning known chemistry that is causing health problems, here in the USA they say it is ok. After all everything in the state of California is a known carcinogen. They must have made a lot of money in research there with not interpretting evidence right, cherry picking things to make everything worse. Companion food chemistry can cancel out the negative effects as can ways to prepare things. Old cookbooks contain lots of this companion chemistry.

We are ignoring thousands of years of what was passed down from our ancestors and believing in science that is being misinterpreted by those who profit by it.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Getting health insurance doesn't equate to taking care of yourself.

Taking care of yourself means living well, but know that you are going to die and no insurance company and no doctor will ever prevent that.

I read. I simply disagree.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: veracity

I see what you are getting at.
But, I don't think that there is a direct correlation to having insurance and taking care of yourself.

Sure, you might go to the doctor if you have insurance, but the copays and deductibles are so insane with ACA that many people still avoid going to the doctor.
The monthly premiums are so high, they can't afford to go to the doctor.

Maybe when rates are lower, and deductibles are lower, because there is more competition, then people can afford to go to the doctor.




Do you live in a red state? I ask bc many of the republican Govs did not expand medicaid and that threw the actual costs out of whack.
I live in a state that was supposed to have the cheapest healthcare premiums however bc of my gov, costs for me and my family are almost $600/mo.

Deductables are ridiculous, however, the co-pays are just fine. Its free if its general up-keep, maintenance.

edit on 23-1-2017 by veracity because: to add



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
My final statement on the matter -

A society which bases its living on fear is dead. But a society which acknowledges death lives free.
edit on 1/23/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Opening up competition isn't going to really change much. The big names (BCBS, Aetna, Cigna, UHC, Caremark) are already competing in all 50 states. The only difference you might see is prices going up in states where insurance is cheaper and prices going down in states where insurance is more expensive as prices become normalized across state lines.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: veracity

Getting health insurance doesn't equate to taking care of yourself.

Taking care of yourself means living well, but know that you are going to die and no insurance company and no doctor will ever prevent that.

I read. I simply disagree.


I sure hope you never get cancer or any other disease that general living well cannot cure.

Good luck to you



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BlueAjah

Opening up competition isn't going to really change much. The big names (BCBS, Aetna, Cigna, UHC, Caremark) are already competing in all 50 states. The only difference you might see is prices going up in states where insurance is cheaper and prices going down in states where insurance is more expensive as prices become normalized across state lines.


The ACA (Obamacare) did not take business from these insurance companies as many assume. They are running and competing as they always have. There are just laws to not allow pre-existing conditions and free maintenance check-ups which takes some of the $$ away from lining their pockets, thats all.

And the owners of these deep pockets are paying the republicans in office lots of $ to repeal Obamacare bc of this.
edit on 23-1-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: rickymouse

I think the biggest issue with socialized medicine is that the government runs it.
Why should the government have their hands in my health care - at all?
The federal government needs to stay out of my everyday life.



They do a decent job with medicare. If we want type D coverage it is affordable. If they did a medicare basic plan and people could buy supplements like the D coverage, it might be ok. Right now, nobody can stop the runaway train. Insurance companies are allowed to pass all expenses on to their customers and they can only charge a certain percent to cover their overhead and profit. This is not the way it used to work even ten years ago. It is beneficial for the insurance companies to allow more testing, they get around five percent of all they get paid out as profit and overhead. Five percent of ten billion paid out is a lot more than five percent of three billion paid out. Do you see where I am coming from, the more they pay out the more they make.

This newer practice of reimbursement actually gave the medical trades more ability to expand and this results in unneeded tests to be run. The doctor has the choice of investigating more than one cause, it is more beneficial to take the wrong cause first for the local medical community. If I didn't see this happening on a regular basis around here I would never have believed it is happening. People remain sick longer because of this, the orders are coming down from the hospital heirchy, the doctors are required to try to utilize their facilities.

I understand that they need to pay for the technology and wages of people doing this testing, but I see big problems and it is not just here, it is happening everywhere. I understand that hospitals need the people to run tests and the equipment, so I do not condone them for their actions, I am trying to promote a possible better way to doing things so the hospital management wouldn't be having to promote deception and actually have a less stressful life
edit on 23-1-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Reading response's it seems most concentrate on secondary issue of insurance never questioning why it's needed in first place.

Tackling cost of service, supplies and devices would obviate the need for insurance coverage on routine care, maintenance drugs and supplies.

Making insurance for catastrophic care the only need.

Not only would private individuals be able to afford regular care but the taxpayers could then well afford idiginant and elderly care.

How ? You ask!

Uphold long existing US and state laws regarding monopolistic practices, price collusion, price fixing, price disclosure and general consumer law.

None of the for profit nor non-profit hospital, doctors groups, pharmaceutical or device distribution, manufacturer or insurance companies are exempt from these laws.

They would like and have led you to believe falsely that they are.

The insurance issue is a shiny thing thrown in front of you as you are systematically suffering economic rape.

We're the laws applied costs are estimated to drop up to 85%

I do not view single payer as an option as it would continue economic rape at point of a gun and makes entire system further open to cronyism on a grand scale.

Ya really want solution - look in different direction.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

There's more people without insurance in Blue States.

I'll give you your own dose of medicine here and tell you to look it up and do the arithmetic.

How did this failure get through the ACA ?




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join