EdwinWillers
Well-Known Member
- Jan 13, 2010
- 19,443
- 5,258
- Country
- Niue
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
How is a 2,200% increase in the cost of a colonoscopy "better coverage?"
Better yet, how is that a "good thing?"
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is a 2,200% increase in the cost of a colonoscopy "better coverage?"-- A2SG, isn't better coverage a good thing?
One very good thing ACA has done is put the onus on opponents to come up with alternatives. Republicans are now offering proposals to cover high risk persons with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting lifetime benefit caps, and extending coverage for young people under their parent's policies. Health insurance will never go back to the way it was. ACA has permanently changed the paradigm. And that's progress.
Unbelievable!
The Democrats, against the expressed will of the American people, with total control of all 3 branches of government, shove through one of the worst bills ever concocted, a bill that only they voted for, one that they have demonstrated utter incompetence in implementing, one that they have since in open disregard for the constitution and judicial process have unlawfully modified, exempted, put off, and ignored now on numerous occasions - and that purely for the sake of mitigating the political fall out of their own ineptitude, sheer arrogance, and corruption...
...and now its unwavering supporters are saying they did all that to "put the onus on Republicans" to come up with a plan that works??? That getting to this point has been "a good thing," "has changed the paradigm," and "progress?"
There are no words that adequately express the chagrine, the sadness, the anger over the sheer political hubris of Democrats in this shameless boondoggle they've inflicted on the American people.
When the paradigm used to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but has now degenerated into one "of democrats, by democrats, and for democrats, but not because of Democrats," - one that Democrats are now distancing themselves from an unmitigated disaster purely of their own making, and excusing it as "a good thing" that puts the onus on their opponents to fix DEMOCRAT mistakes, is hubris on an order and magnitude that simply defies measure.
The Democrats, against the expressed will of the American people, with total control of all 3 branches of government,
Not apoplectic, just totally chagrined that anyone would characterize obamacare as "progress," as a "step in the right direction."Calm down. No need to get apoplectic. You see a donkey icon by my user name? I have little regard for either Dems or Repubs. And I have no fondness for ACA. I want to see it replaced with single-payer. My point is that ACA has made some necessary changes in the health insurance landscape, that even its most vehement opponents must acknowledge. Changes that will have to be adopted in any subsequent reform. That's a step in the right direction.
If you're 62 you were born around 1952 which means you were 9 years old when you got laid off in 1961. I have trouble believing thatI signed up for Obamacare. My policy is so much better than the $900+ a month policy I was quoted before Obamacare (I'm 62). My premiums are $339.00 per month, which is substantially more than the 'nothing' I was paying before while taking my chances not to get sick enough to see a doctor, but it's affordable and I appreciate having it because I'm no longer young.
There are people who are upset they loss their old policies with doctor attached to them that they liked. And the President did say they could keep their policies, which I think he believed, as did his fierce opponents who would've been all over this potential loss if they knew the insurance companies would cancel the policies. Yet self-interest wins out for me, because I haven't had health insurance since being laid off in 1961. And now I do. And those who loss policies should stop complaining and get on the marketplace.
They need to drop coverage of young people to 24 that is IT any older than that get it yourself. Keep in mind that gives me LESS than 1.5 years remaining on my father's plan and I UNDERSTAND that.One very good thing ACA has done is put the onus on opponents to come up with alternatives. Republicans are now offering proposals to cover high risk persons with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting lifetime benefit caps, and extending coverage for young people under their parent's policies. Health insurance will never go back to the way it was. ACA has permanently changed the paradigm. And that's progress.
LOL. I suppose she might have been 10, depending. The important thing is that the sales pitch worked.If you're 62 you were born around 1952 which means you were 9 years old when you got laid off in 1961. I have trouble believing that
I signed up for Obamacare. My policy is so much better than the $900+ a month policy I was quoted before Obamacare (I'm 62). My premiums are $339.00 per month, which is substantially more than the 'nothing' I was paying before while taking my chances not to get sick enough to see a doctor, but it's affordable and I appreciate having it because I'm no longer young.
There are people who are upset they loss their old policies with doctor attached to them that they liked. And the President did say they could keep their policies, which I think he believed, as did his fierce opponents who would've been all over this potential loss if they knew the insurance companies would cancel the policies. Yet self-interest wins out for me, because I haven't had health insurance since being laid off in 1961. And now I do. And those who loss policies should stop complaining and get on the marketplace.
Either that or a joke.You got laid off when you were 9 years old (what?!) and haven't found work in the following 51 years?
I'm hoping this is a series of typos.
1961 probably is a typo, but being employed, even full-time, is not the same as having insurance if you work for a small business or if you're self-employed or a contractor.You got laid off when you were 9 years old (what?!) and haven't found work in the following 51 years?
I'm hoping this is a series of typos.
Why do they need to drop that?They need to drop coverage of young people to 24 that is IT any older than that get it yourself. Keep in mind that gives me LESS than 1.5 years remaining on my father's plan and I UNDERSTAND that.
They need to drop coverage of young people to 24 that is IT any older than that get it yourself. Keep in mind that gives me LESS than 1.5 years remaining on my father's plan and I UNDERSTAND that.
Cute. Nowhere in the law, tmk, does obamacare specify that companies that charged $50 for colonoscopies must now charge $1,100 for them. Frankly, I doubt there are any provisions in the law for specific rates for anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?