Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,150
- 160,365
Health Care Thread
- Thread starter a_skeleton_03
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
The language is a bit off for a non-lawyer, so I could be wrong, it looks like they have to offer those things though, not force you to take them.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,398
- 98,638
Well the wording of the whole ACA is that every single plan has to be exactly the same and there can be zero difference of price between man or woman regardless.
That is kind of the point of the whole thing.
Do you understand what the EHB portion is?
Those things on the list are the mandatory baseline for all plans and are allowed to be deleted or changed.
No, I don't.
I'm just saying that if I have mammograms on my policy the ins company is smart enough to not price that in.
I'm just saying that if I have mammograms on my policy the ins company is smart enough to not price that in.
Yeah everything I am reading says that doesn't matter. It's all a part of your plan because men could get breast cancer also.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastc...-men-diagnosis
Ok: The insurance company will be well aware of how much the average 26 year old man spends on mammograms and adjust the price to cover it.
It will be next to nothing.
It will be next to nothing.
Not being a dick here just to argue by the way.
They can't adjust it at all. That is the whole point of this entire affordable care. You need to know that if you get some breast cancer as a dude you aren't all of a sudden going to have to pay through the nose because your insurance skimped on that part because you are a 26 year old male.
There are certain things they will get zero choice on and that is this list of "Essential Health Benefits".
They are legally not allowed to make a woman pay more in any way which is what would happen if they cut the costs of breast screening for you the male.
It just isn't going to work well as outlined and I think it's slowly coming to the light. It might be able to be fixed easily, I have no clue. But reading the mandatory portions I and quite a few other people can see some decent size flaws in it.
I am not throwing stones here. I think it MIGHT be a path down to something actually good.
Umm forcing customers onto insurance companies at low values is not trickle down economics in the slightest. I don't think you understand what that is, at all.
Right now insurance companies can charge what they want and offer what they want and turn down who they want (there are some minor stipulations but that is the overall).
When this all goes into effect they have very little control over their policies. How can you call that trickle down?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,150
- 160,365
They really dont know what they are arguing, but the end game needs to be to score political points against Democrats and Obama
A health care system devised by a Republican think tank, pushed by Republicans for 20+ years, implemented by a Republican governor and advocated by Republicans as recently as 2007 is now being scorned with a venom that hereto been only reserved for the Nuremberg Laws.
So its pretty hilarious to watch them twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to be automatically be able to oppose everything that Obama or Democrats propose.
A health care system devised by a Republican think tank, pushed by Republicans for 20+ years, implemented by a Republican governor and advocated by Republicans as recently as 2007 is now being scorned with a venom that hereto been only reserved for the Nuremberg Laws.
So its pretty hilarious to watch them twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to be automatically be able to oppose everything that Obama or Democrats propose.
These arguments are fucking retarded. Who the fuck cares if Obamacare mandates that people get coverage for shit they will never use. If they never use it, it doesnt cost their insurance company a single penny. The only reason the laws cover such a broad stroke is that it prevents insurance companies from being able to say "sorry our policy doesnt cover this incredibly rare circumstance....get fucked". So no, 60 year olds probably dont require prenatal care, but on the off chance some 60 year old does, they dont get fucked because an insurance company saw a chance for a profit. And this logic holds true for every single one of these 'doesnt make sense' coverage mandates.
You so sure about that? Aetna here only will give them to you after you already have a prior history only.
Moving the goalposts.
Araysar there made some claim that it wasn't true that everyone got certain blanket benefits. All I did was come in and prove that in fact that it was true. Whether that is a good or bad thing I am not the person to make that call. It definitely has pros and cons.
You think insurance companies aren't profiting from ACA? Aren't you just so adorable.
Sebudai
Ssraeszha Raider
- 12,022
- 22,504
Other countries managed to do it, why can't we? You saying we're not good enough? That's pretty unamerican, bro.
Of course insurance companies are profiting from the ACA. They sell a product people are being required to buy. The question is whether or not they are still allowed to inflate their profits by begin assholes. Obamacare doesnt make it impossible to make profits from health insurance, it makes it impossible to gouge money from people selling predatory policies.