|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
04-10-2011, 10:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Guaranteed issue and community rating will be implemented nationally so that insurers must offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age, sex, and geographical location regardless of pre-existing conditions. Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level. Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will pay a "shared responsibility payment" if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually mandated by law.  Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4). $600/yr for a family policy. Guess who picks up the tab? Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange. Additional support is provided for medical research and the National Institutes of Health. The law will introduce minimum standards for health insurance policies and remove all annual and lifetime coverage caps. The law mandates that some health care insurance benefits will be "essential" coverage for which there will be no co-pays. To a fiscal conservative this is a NIGHTMARE! How in the heck will anything in this save money? When a healthy person goes in and is forced to pay the same amount as an unhealthy individual it's not hard to figure out they are splitting the cost. In much the same way a male teen pays more in auto insurance than a middle aged woman an unhealthy person should pay more than a healthy one. IMO. and after all it is no fault of the male teen driver but in many cases health issues can be blamed directly on the actions of the unhealthy patient
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson 
|
|
#2
04-10-2011, 12:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#3
04-11-2011, 07:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's not designed to save money. It's designed to control you and keep you in your place. This is why the (self-proclaimed) elites wrote it and exempted themselves. They even had to "pass it so you can see what's in it."
And, surprise surprise -- all the "elites" in this case were Democrats.
|
|
#4
04-11-2011, 09:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Mostly the PPACA is a big giveaway to private insurance companies (you might note how their stocks all rose upon it's passage) If we want to put away the fear away for a while, and dabble in reality, you could check out the CBO scoring on it regarding saving money. But considering your next sentence, ... No, it is not "designed to control you and keep you in your place". Geeshus, that's seriously paranoid.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
Hybrid Mode
