Repeal and do not replace.
Government can just stay the **** out of my economic decisions in general.
1 Like
Good question. I also wonder how many will sign up, during the next sign up period, without the mandate.
Only the people that need insurance most desperately.
Which is a problem.
Lots of people have simply been paying the fine anyway and not getting the insurance.
Unfortunately that leaves us with a system that fails those that need medical attention the most.
I totally give a ■■■■ about people like them. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be paying like $125/month/person with a $450 deductible like everyone in the Netherlands does.
1 Like
Possibly true. Maybe there should be a solution just for them.
Direct payments from the general government fund for a large portion of the un-insurable condition. Certain factors and conditions would apply, including exclusions for self inflicted damage such as excessive drinking, smoking, etc.
Frankly, I would rather deal with the higher taxes, than the stupid ******* mandate.
I’m sure that’s true.
There are many problems with this type of solution. For starters, you can’t lump people into groups of needs all the help and those that need no help because its a continuum. Some people need a lot of help, some people a little. Some not at all. Making sharp demarcations of who gets what is not optimal. The system should adjust to what each individual truly needs. I have an innate distaste for adding more complexity to an already complex system. We have too many programs for too many groups. It’s incredibly inefficient.
Do you have subsidized health insurance? This would include medicare, medicaid, tri-care, employer-sponsored.
Why? Does your current insurance exclude obesity?
Prior to Obamacare, I always carried high deductible insurance and paid cash for services.
With the government’s jack boot on my throat, I have an employer health plan, but not by choice, but because the government’s knife is to my throat.
Wait, “Government can just stay the **** out of my economic decisions in general.” Why would they fund the un-insurable conditions? They need to just stay the ■■■■ out.
Good for you. I don’t. I pay a small fortune. Never thought I’d be yearning for the day that I qualify for medicare.
And Congress does seem to care. The ACA fiasco will be talked about once we get closer to the mid terms, then they will forget about it again.
Uninsurable isn’t black and white. Yes, there are some people that literally can’t get insurance. Others just have premiums they simply can’t afford and since unaffordable is a relative thing, you’re introducing more complexity and subjectivity.
Moreover, the next problem is with people who think they’re insured but it turns out their policies are garbage, which was a common issue prior to actual regulation of the insurance agency.
This Congress doesn’t seem to care. 7 years of neglect has taken its toll. I don’t see healthcare being a Republican issue in the election this year. I’m sure they’d rather not have to talk about their record on the issue.
1 Like
Yes, but the Medicaid expansion is still in place, as are the subsidies. My sense is that the markets will be wobbly, but still survive.
Actually, I disagree with this. With the exception of a few people (see Ted Cruz and the article I linked earlier), the GOP is not currently playing this up. Their hands are tied (e.g., the current math of the Senate), and all it really does is highlight their overall failure. For the midterms they’ll focus on other stuff; all in all, Democrats have the upper hand re: healthcare.
