The Affordable Care Act

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Look at it this way;

I don't care how "young and healthy" any of these people think they are. At anytime they can contract a disease or become injured.

So, they should be paying in. And I don't give a flying shit if they don't like it.
Fuck their "freedom". Pay or else, is the way it needs to be.

Love,
Dave

Not really the point I was making. The point was / is that the administation really needed "young and healthies" in the exchange insurance pool paying premiums. The "up to 26" provision allows them a way to be insured yet pay no additional premium for being covered. That keeps the numbers enrolling via the exchange down while robbing that pool of insured of necessary premium to cover expected claims.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, they should be paying in. And I don't give a flying shit if they don't like it.
Fuck their "freedom". Pay or else.

Love,
Dave

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

If you've never tried to do anything about it, just shut up.

Dave

The open-mindedness and tolerance of liberalism on display.

What have YOU done "about it"?

[BlueStreak]

Sorry, I'm just in one my moods tonight. Think I'll have a beer and go to bed.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Not really the point I was making. The point was / is that the administation really needed "young and healthies" in the exchange insurance pool paying premiums. The "up to 26" provision allows them a way to be insured yet pay no additional premium for being covered. That keeps the numbers enrolling via the exchange down while robbing that pool of insured of necessary premium to cover expected claims.

AFAIK, that isn't the way it works at all Mike. They are allowed to stay on but there most certainly will be an additional charge for extra people on the policy. I'm calling bullshit, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch except in the bloviating universe of Faux Noise.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

The open-mindedness and tolerance of liberalism on display.

What have YOU done "about it"?

Nothing. But, then, I don't live in that dump either.

Just tired of people and their crap, lately.

Dave

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

The open-mindedness and tolerance of liberalism on display.

How's that victimhood thingy workin' for you Whell? Y'all sure got that weepy, abused conservative meme goin' on tonight.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by whell

Not really the point I was making. The point was / is that the administation really needed "young and healthies" in the exchange insurance pool paying premiums. The "up to 26" provision allows them a way to be insured yet pay no additional premium for being covered. That keeps the numbers enrolling via the exchange down while robbing that pool of insured of necessary premium to cover expected claims.

That be a reason I wanted single payer funded through taxes like SS is. You think if SS could be waived with a fine paid until you are close to retirement would of worked? Just look no further the 401K's. Just how many of our young or old even fund their retirements enough or rob from them to pay bills now.

The reason SS has lasted for so long is due to everyone paying. But not all collecting.



Barney

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Oerets

That be a reason I wanted single payer funded through taxes like SS is. You think if SS could be waived with a fine paid until you are close to retirement would of worked? Just look no further the 401K's. Just how many of our young or old even fund their retirements enough or rob from them to pay bills now.

The reason SS has lasted for so long is due to everyone paying. But not all collecting.



Barney

Exactly.

I believe there should be a mandatory minimum and we would have to prove extreme hardship as the only way to withdraw or borrow.

I have a feeling that as the baby boom passes, all of these people who have not prepared themselves for old age at all are going to become a very serious problem.

I don't mind that we have programs to help the elderly. I don't even mind helping to pay for them. But it would be much better if more people prepare for themselves. Where my view diverges with the right, is that I have little to no faith that most people will do this unless we push them, leave them with no choice but to save. I know that sounds harsh and many will scream it's their money, but.............................

Look at the mess we already have. Make the entire system strictly voluntary and it will become a nearly apocalyptic mess.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

AFAIK, that isn't the way it works at all Mike. They are allowed to stay on but there most certainly will be an additional charge for extra people on the policy. I'm calling bullshit, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch except in the bloviating universe of Faux Noise.

Trust me, that's how it works but you can bloviate your bull shit call if you want.

Certainly in the large group market historically, and now standardized in the small group marekt, most carriers offer coverage (or most self insured plans) based on either three or four tiers, each with their own premium:

Employee Only
Employee Spouse
Employee Child(ren)
Family

Some carriers use three tiers, some four tiers, but generally the tiers are some combination of those shown above. The premiums for each of those tiers is pre-determined each plan year. There is no additional charge to a plan participant on any of the family tiers (bolded) if a participant chooses to add dependent up to age 26.

To put it another way, let's say two employees work for the same company. Both have families. The employer offers medical coverage as a large group employer (more than 50 employees), the monthly premium for family coverage is $1000, and the employer splits the cost of the premium 50/50 with employees.

Employee A elects medical insurance under the employer's group policy. He has a wife and 3 kids, all the kids are under age 18. His monthly share of the premium is $500, or 1/2 of the full $1000 monthly premium.

Employee B has a five and 4 kids, all under age 18. His monthly share of the premium is also $500, or 1/2 of the full $1000 monthly premium.

Now, lets say employee B has 4 kids, but one of them is age 22. What would his premium be? His monthly share of the premium is also $500, or 1/2 of the full $1000 monthly premium.

Things change a bit in the small group and individual markets. But as you folks like to often insist on this forum, that's not where most folks work. So, employees working in companies with 50 or more employees would not have to pay additional premium for adding either additional minor dependents (under age 19), or additional adult dependents (up to age 26).

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

How's that victimhood thingy workin' for you Whell? Y'all sure got that weepy, abused conservative meme goin' on tonight.

No victim-hood here, but Dave's post, and now yours, did give me a grin. Thanks for that.