Right Wingers Benefit from Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

Utter rubbish.

Their politics may be misguided and their attitudes rephrehensible. But they are neither exempt from law that they objected to, nor are they prohibited from enjoying the benefit of law they object to.

Pleas explain what rubbish is

that is cold-blooded legalism.

Insurance companies frequently use a lot of tricks to deny payment for your care. One is state that a treatment is "experimental", and they don't cover "experimental" treatments. The treatment could have been standard medical practice for 30 years, and fully approved by the FDA. The insurance company just uses the word "experimental" as a cover to mean that they are getting away with not paying for something.

Another common trick: drop your policy as soon as you become sick and need the coverage.

Another one: claiming that something must have been a "pre-existing condition" (no matter what it was), and they don't cover "pre-existing conditions."

The old Repugnican style, with no regulation, was the "best deal" for the health insurance industry and its shareholders.

The new system, where health insurance companies must pay for specified treatments, where they cannot drop people who become ill, where they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and where they must be fully transparent about what they will cover, will be better for consumers.

Insurance companies are certainly entitled to make a profit, but they shouldn't be permitted to get away with fraud. Hence, the need for regulations.

By the same token, if a person refuses health insurance until he becomes ill; then, while in the hospital, signs up for a plan that will cover his treatment; then, as soon as he recovers, cancels his policy: that would be very unfair not only to the insurance company, but also to the other people who hold policies with the company.

For now, I am glad that we at least have something. We can wait and see how it works, and then tweek it later.

But, they are still being hypocritical. No law against that, either.

That is actually very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A lot of people consider taxpayer-funded public education to be an abomination, and either home-school their kids or send them to private schools. Such people are not guilty of hypocrisy.

Mitt Romney considers taxpayer-funded health care to be an abomination, and he refused to accept Medicare upon becoming eligible. At least in this one instance, Mr. Romney is not guilty of hypocrisy.

Mr. Brown repeats his party's evil propaganda that taxpayer-funded health care is an abomination, and that "Obamacare" is an evil "Obamanation", but still takes advantage of the new law to keep his daughter enrolled in his own taxpayer-funded health care plan beyond the age of 22 (at which age one's child was previously discarded from even his own taxpayer-funded health care plan). That is utter hypocrisy. To prove that he is not a hypocrite, and that he does sincerely believe his party's propaganda, he should officially withdraw his daughter from his taxpayer-funded health care plan, and let her either buy her own health insurance, or do without.

Romney's health plan is law in Massachusetts. It is has a provision forcing people to buy a policy if they can afford it.

So who is and who is not a hypocrite. Mitt the Plastic Mormon is as bogus as a human being can get. He has exactly one virtue: he is not Barak Obama.

ruveyn

If the SC strikes down the entire law due to, as they suggested, the inability of the dysfunctional Congress to be able to realistically cope with the loss of the mandate, then a lot of people are suddenly going to be dropped from their insurance. Especially the 26 and under set. That's a very popular provision so it will be interesting to see what Congress and WH tries to do about it. Probably nothing.

So conservatives may not be taking advantage of it for long. Get those checkups now.

I'm pretty sure that the coverage for people 26 and under won't be dropped for members of Congress and for federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management has oversight over what insurance providers in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program must provide. I don't really know, but I suspect that members of congress won't want to cut this off for themselves. Even the Republican majority cares about itself, if no-one else.

This sounds like a challenge for a song, or some other creative endeavour.

Any takers?

I hear echos of Peter, Paul and Mary in my mind.

ruveyn

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of simply removing the offending passages while preserving the ones that genuinely do fix some problems? It's certainly within Congress' ability to do so.

Oh, wait... This is Congress we're talking about... Never mind.

Well I hate to be the contrarian, but I'm not glad in the slightest. The PPACA breaks more things than it fixes, and falls short of putting proper healthcare within the reach of those who genuinely cannot afford it for reasons which I have already explained. It was a half-assed attempt at its absolute best and a sweetheart deal for insurance companies at the absolute worst.

For example, did you know that administrative costs in the context of health insurance sometimes cover beneficial services like "telephone-a-nurse"? Not all "administrative costs" are bad and should be weighed individually. However, thanks to penny wise and pound foolish ideas like the Medical Loss Ratio provision, the PPACA could result in the slashing of administrative expenses that benefit subscribers for the sake of compliance with the 80% loss ratio mandates.

Want to impress me? Let's see both sides agree on a single payer system that doesn't compromise the quality of care and works to everyone's benefit. I'd happily pay for it in the form of increased taxes.

A single player system was not possible politically. If PPACA fails, it will become the next crusade. Democrats will have evidence that mandates can't stand.

PPACA is not perfect but would easily get more people covered. The medicaid expansion alone does that. The only questions come down to if they included enough revenue to cover the costs. That's difficult to know until it's all running. Which may not happen.

Sad but true. It's the very reason there's no public option. There was supposed to be.