The Senate tax bill eliminates the ACA individual mandate.

+1

Basically a good post. The purpose of the mandate was to get more low risk people into the risk pool. Adding more people who are already sick would not bring the premium price down. The high risk policyholder does not need to be encouraged. The high risk policy holder or someone who is already sick will buy the insurance because they know that the health insurance will be cheaper than paying out of pocket. You are right being "self insured" only works if you don't get really sick. Unfortunately there are many who post on here who just don't understand that. Originally Posted by flghtr65

I just want to point out that flghtr65 who refreshingly seems like he is educated which is a rarity here, recognized the value of my post. When educated meets educated there is a understanding of substance. Those that are the uneducated deplorables (Lexus Lover) need to spend more time soaking up Information and learning and less time being so defensive and ignorant!
You have had the individual mandate explained to you multiple times now but you are unable to let it actually soak into your brains, it goes right over your heads and you revert to anger and name calling.
Do you realize I can teach rabbits to respond and learn easier than some humans, usually uneducated deplorables (Lexus Lover). I am not being critical, I am just trying to alert you to your Neanderthal current states of mind.

Maybe he knows better! They can't be forced to buy it, any more than you can be FORCED to buy liability insurance to drive a car. Originally Posted by LexusLover

True, you technically can't be forced to buy it, but if you drive without it, you can get severly punished.

Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, jackass?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They, according to the left, don't deserve any social justice..

True, you technically can't be forced to buy it, but if you drive without it, you can get severly punished.
Originally Posted by garhkal

Actually, many states, which includes Texas, have an alternative to insurance, which amounts to being "self-insured" to meet the "financial responsibility" requirement. "Overlay" that to the health insurance coverage "mandate" ... I was self-insured for years and at one time was an employee of an international company that was "self-insured" for its employees with claims handled by a contract with a rather well known carrier.

The bottom line is .... the original concept of ACA wasn't to get "everyone insured" it was to get a limited number of people insured who WANTED INSURANCE, but for one reason or another couldn't afford it or could not get it because of a pre-existing condition (which only means they weren't working for a company that had group insurance for its employees!) .. they were either self-employed or contract workers.

That number bounced around from about 11 million to 35 million with some people exaggerating to 50 million (which was total uninsured and didn't remove the other groups down to the lower number).

But one-payor advocates conveniently forget the HISTORY!

As for Obamacare "making it too expensive" to pay your own way:

One can still pay one's own way .... providers are providing deep discounts to adjust the original bill if someone doesn't have insurance coverage ... I've seem statements recently (within 2017) and run the numbers ... knocking off 80 to 85% of the bill for someone paying their own bills. So one can say that, but that's not the reality on the street.

...the uneducated deplorables... need to spend more time soaking up Information and learning and less time being so defensive and ignorant!

You have had the individual mandate explained to you multiple times now but you are unable to let it actually soak into your brains, it goes right over your heads... Originally Posted by StandinStraight

Soak on this, you ignorant twatwaffle:

The mandate imposed a HIGHLY REGRESSIVE TAX on people at the lowest end of the income scale. 80% of those who paid it earned less than $50,000 a year. Trump just gave the poor a much-needed tax reduction by eliminating it.

Oh, and I already pointed this out to you in post #25 but it went right over your uneducated, despicable, lib-retarded head.

Trump owns healthcare now....I wonder how many will bitch when premiums continue to rise? Originally Posted by WTF

WTFuiters GIF/MEMEs SUCK!

Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Prior to the ACA becoming the law, the health insurance companies manipulated the risk pool in the individual market to their favor. They simply did not sell a health insurance policy to some one with a medical pre-existing condition. Examples are someone with high blood sugar, high cholesterol, high triglicerides (Fat), failing kidneys, benign cell tumors, failing lungs,etc. By keeping these types of people out the risk pool, the health insurance companies(Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc) could maximize their profit and keep insurance premiums lower than they normally would be if people with pre-existing conditions were allowed to purchase a health insurance policy.

When the ACA became the law people with pre-existing conditions could not be denied the chance to purchase a health insurance policy in the individual market ( you were self employed or worked for a company that did not offer health insurance to their employees).

Now that people with pre-existing conditions or people who are already sick are being absorbed into the risk pools the health insurance companies increased the premium so that they could pay out the claims of the sick people and still maintain the same profit that they enjoyed before the ACA law was passed.

To help people in the individual market pay for this increase in premium the ACA law provides a subsidy to the middle class.

A family of 6 that makes less than $122,000
A family of 4 that makes less than $94,000
A family of 2 that makes less than $64,000

are eligible for a subsidy to help pay the increase in premium.

Where does it say that in the ACA?

Even your own post shows the fraud! If you are correct, and your're not
Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Risk-Corridiors is explained in section 1341 of the ACA. The Risk-Corridors concept allows the health insurance companies to be reimbursed for their losses (it also limits gains) for three years(2014-2016) for those companies who choose to sell health insurance in the individual market (HealthCare.gov). A link is provided. Study up.

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/...final-rule.pdf

Prior to the ACA becoming the law, the health insurance companies manipulated the risk pool in the individual market to their favor. T. Originally Posted by flghtr65

In a way they still are, cause under obama care, they kept racking up profits hand over fist..

To help people in the individual market pay for this increase in premium the ACA law provides a subsidy to the middle class.

A family of 6 that makes less than $122,000
A family of 4 that makes less than $94,000
A family of 2 that makes less than $64,000

are eligible for a subsidy to help pay the increase in premium. Originally Posted by flghtr65

A single person that makes less than $47,500 is eligible for a subsidy as well.

https://www.thebalance.com/obamacare-subsidies-3306073

LL, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Risk-Corridiors is explained in section 1341 of the ACA. The Risk-Corridors concept allows the health insurance companies to be reimbursed for their losses (it also limits gains) for three years(2014-2016) for those companies who choose to sell health insurance in the individual market (HealthCare.gov). A link is provided. Study up.

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/...final-rule.pdf Originally Posted by flghtr65

Your right again Lexus Lover has no idea what he is ever talking about. He absorbs Fox News and then works his own prejudices into the story and believes it to be true, much like Trump himself does, like with the crowd size at his events or the building of the stupid wall, Lexus Lover just makes things up and then believes them.

Blah, blah, blah ... Originally Posted by flghtr65

Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty?

Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Flighty started a thread about what to expect from the ACA in 2018. I said I expected it to be gone. With subsidies and the individual mandate gone. So too is the ACA.

Flighty started a thread about what to expect from the ACA in 2018. I said I expected it to be gone. With subsidies and the individual mandate gone. So too is the ACA. Originally Posted by bambino

No your wrong again Bambino, the ACA is here to stay, it’s Obamas legacy and going nowhere. Republicans will find public pressure to great and will have to stabilize the marketplace since it’s a election year for many.

No your wrong again Bambino, the ACA is here to stay, it’s Obamas legacy and going nowhere. Republicans will find public pressure to great and will have to stabilize the marketplace since it’s a election year for many. Originally Posted by StandinStraight

You're lying again, Standing Stupid. Congress put a stake through the heart of Odumbocare when they passed the tax bill in December, Standing Stupid.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]

You're lying again, Standing Stupid. Congress put a stake through the heart of Odumbocare when they passed the tax bill in December, Standing Stupid. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No all they did by removing the mandate was remove the mandate, everything else about the ACA is alive and well and will continue, however removing the mandate will cause premiums to increase and republicans will be at fault, they will have to stabilize the marketplace or be voted out of office.