LogFAQs > #878471332

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Because of Obamacare, Iowa might no longer have any individual health insurance
meingott 05/04/17 3:34:04 PM #23:	Balrog0 posted... meingott posted... All three sources literally talk about the cost of doing business, and how the uncertainty is related to the profitability of the market and the risk of too few healthy people signing up. You literally cannot exaggerate how dishonest some of you are. Yes, but this plan wouldn't help with any of that except by kicking off people who are less healthy and cost more. The high risk pool funding is very inadequate. It would ever cause employer sponsored insurance to be more costly by potentially allowing large employers to opt out of lifetime caps and yearly out of pocket limits It would make things better for a few people, but many more would lose coverage. The people who benefit are primarily rich. We'll see what happens. I don't disagree that it's a stupid approach all around, but there's a certain amount of hypocrisy coming in from people who are bashing it this much without pausing at all to think about their own dog food. --- meingott <cite>meingott posted [p:878471332] in Because of... [t:75311293]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>meingott posted...</cite> <quote>All three sources literally talk about the cost of doing business, and how the uncertainty is related to the profitability of the market and the risk of too few healthy people signing up. You literally cannot exaggerate how dishonest some of you are.</quote> Yes, but this plan wouldn't help with any of that except by kicking off people who are less healthy and cost more. The high risk pool funding is very inadequate. It would ever cause employer sponsored insurance to be more costly by potentially allowing large employers to opt out of lifetime caps and yearly out of pocket limits It would make things better for a few people, but many more would lose coverage. The people who benefit are primarily rich.</quote> We'll see what happens. I don't disagree that it's a stupid approach all around, but there's a certain amount of hypocrisy coming in from people who are bashing it this much without pausing at all to think about their own dog food. --- meingott</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1