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.

 

"Republicans slam their own party's Obamacare repeal plans"

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

It's just him--no family.

And we have yet to see how the price of premiums will be affected by whatever the final piece of legislation is (or how broad the spectrum of available plans is), so it actually may be better for him. And from what I understand, once he has insurance for a full year, the 30% penalty will go away and his cost will be the baseline premium.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The ACA, like it or not, depends on employer mandates. Why doesn't the company that employs your building's janitor offer him health insurance through his job? Maybe he needs to find a new building to work in!

I know the ACA depends on the mandates, and it still isn't viable, even with them in place.

As for his employer, I don't know if they offer plans or not, but what I do know is that he can't afford the coverage either way at this point--whether or not it is subsidized by his employer is irrelevant in the overall truth of the matter.

And the reality is that if his employer does not offer subsidized health insurance, if they started, you can bet that he might either need to take a pay cut to pay for it (the company isn't just going to eat the cost for all of their employees' insurance) or realize that he will lose hope for a raise any time soon--or his company will start charging more for the service and at that point, they may lose business and he could just be out of the job. Yes, those are slippery-slope arguments, but ones based on the reality of what happens when added costs are pushed on or incurred by small businesses.

Who knows, maybe he can find an affordable plan if/when the PPACA is repealed and replaced, even if it's just a catastrophic plan, and at least be okay for massive emergencies.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No family, so his only problem is affordability not accessibility?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
IT SHOULD BE REPLACE-REPEAL.... Not the other way around!

First build a national high-risk pool/plan, and tell health insurers to start offering their Free Market plans.

Next , tell everyone to start abandoning U.S.S. Obamacare, because On 12/31/2017 it will be scuttled.

Those who have Existing Medical Conditions that disqualify them for a Free Market plan, go to the national High-Risk plan.

On December 31, 2017.. Repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely.

BUILD NEW ---- MIGRATE ---- DESTROY OLD.

There is one GOP Senator who is really well-grounded in common sense, who keeps saying this is the right process, but is ignored. Can't recall his name.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Not necessarily--right now, the PPACA outlaws plans that previously allowed some sort of affordable coverage, even if it was a catastrophic option, or one with a deductibles and co-pays so high that it made the premiums low enough that he could have afforded it.

Hell, he had insurance at some point prior to the PPACA usurping control over the industry. So, to answer your questions, it's a problem both of accessibility and affordability, as he no longer has access to plans (like he did before) that were affordable to him.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The problem is, congress would not fund something in duplicity (a plan to control the healthcare industry). We must repeal before we fund a replacement.

That's where a properly designed replacement comes in--it will hold off on a complete repeal and give time for the new framework to be established, then initiate the replacement and rid the books completely of the old.

But again, we cannot create an entirely new system while the old is on the books.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, it all depends then if the promise of cheaper premiums happen. Lol, don't we all.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I for one think this new healthcare plan is fantastic. It will hurt everybody (except the rich)! Costs increase, healthcare quality diminishes, jobs lost, people dying. Whats not to love, am I right my fellow righteous Conservatives? In 8 years we will all be able to look back and laugh at how we dodged a bullet with Obama's quasi-functional plan in favor of low income population control. Consider that finally we can cull all the minorities and sick people so that we finally have a true master race we can all be proud of!



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: thekaliyugathe same insurance a homeless person receives in Canada for nothing?




No such thing as something for nothing. Someone is paying.

Not a fan of this plan being put forward.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, it all depends then if the promise of cheaper premiums happen. Lol, don't we all.


If I recall, that was a selling point of Obamacare.
I am not trusting Obamacare- lite either.

I heard a Democratic representative speaking about how this new bill is going to make health insurance more expensive for millions of people..... again, that was the result of Obamacare too.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I promise to vote trump in 2020, if I am still living. If my grown kids have jobs to apply for that can help pay for home,food,2 week vacation, fund retirement and health insurance. It would be beautiful.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: butcherguy

I promise to vote trump in 2020, if I am still living. If my grown kids have jobs to apply for that can help pay for home,food,2 week vacation, fund retirement and health insurance. It would be beautiful.

I honestly hope that that promise is realized, only for the happiness and prosperity that it would mean for so many.

I am not exactly optimistic though.

The only reason that I was happy that Trump got the GOP nomination was that I thought it would send a message to the GOP establishment powerbrokers. I don't think they believed the message, if they even got it.

I am depressed with the current state of affairs, but I believe we got the better part of the bargain when Hillary lost. Sometimes I think that means that we have more time to suffer before everything totally goes to crap.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a I heard a Democratic representative speaking about how this new bill is going to make health insurance more expensive for millions of people..... again, that was the result of Obamacare too.
reply to: butcherguy

You have no reason to believe me but here is the other side. My daughter just had a lithotripsy done yesterday. She has 8 stones, one three inches long. The procedure worked and she will be able to return to work. She makes low wages and a single mother and Obamacare. But, she lives in state that took the Medicaid expansion. She has to have the other kidney done later, but I hope not before they dismantle it. Millions of people will suffer or die when they lose obamacare. I hope it makes the bottom line worth it.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters on this board are insulted that you would think it right that their dollars go to helping your sick daughter. I believe the mentality de jour is .... she should pull herself up by her bootstraps, stop wasting money on clothes and toilet paper and other luxuries and put that nose to the grindstone and work herself out of that situation! Obamacare was a failure to them because they don't love your daughter or care about her in the slightest, what they care about is the money that they make stays with them, and is only given out charitably to those they deem worthy.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I have no reason not to believe you.
I am carrying a stone now and haven't had it removed because of the deductible associated with it.
I have insurance and have had medical insurance for the last 34 years.
When I first started working, I had Blue Cross that covered everything. No copays, no deductible.... and my employer paid all of the premiums.
Now I have insurance that I pay part of the premium and can't afford to use it, due to deducibles and copays.

Same employer.
edit on b000000312017-03-09T09:03:09-06:0009America/ChicagoThu, 09 Mar 2017 09:03:09 -0600900000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Sorry.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: thekaliyugathe same insurance a homeless person receives in Canada for nothing?




No such thing as something for nothing. Someone is paying.

Not a fan of this plan being put forward.

Yes...we all pay, through our taxes, and I also pay about 300 bucks a year to the province, but that is meshed into the whole income tax system so I don't notice it. So...are we taxed to death? Is it perhaps more germane to compare standards of living? I'd say we hold up. No, it isn't perfect but it is sure as # better than what the American people are being fed.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I don't like our system, I just won't let someone say everyone gets free health care in Canada, nothing is free.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I don't like our system, I just won't let someone say everyone gets free health care in Canada, nothing is free.
No, it's not free. But even the homeless guy gets treated for no out-of-pocket expence. He buys stuff...there's sales tax, part of that funds health care. The difference is that there is no business case. Here it's regarded as a fundamental human right as a Canadian. We look out for each other that way.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

No, you and other tax payers pay for his expense. Not free.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join