The Senate tax bill eliminates the ACA individual mandate.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by StandinStraight

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.

Even a retarded turtle knows that without the mandate Odumbocare is dead, Standing Stupid.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by StandinStraight

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.

No Bugs Bunny, Trumps earlier EO cancelled the subsidies paid to HC insurers. Now the individual mandate is gone. That’s the double whammy of death to Obamacare Bugs Bunny.

[garhkal]

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

To ME, that seems to be discriminatory, as single folks get the shaft..

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by garhkal

To ME, that seems to be discriminatory, as single folks get the shaft..

How did you do in 'rithmetic?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by bambino

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.

The individual mandate is gone. The subsidy that went directly to the health insurance companies to keep the price of the deductable and copay lower is gone (Trump removed with EO). The subsidy that goes directly to the policyholder to help pay the policy premium is still available. This subsidy was written into the law and cannot be removed by EO. It was not removed in the TAX reform bill, just the individual mandate. So, people shopping for health insurance at HealthCare.gov will still get a subsidy to help pay their policy premium based on their income.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by garhkal

To ME, that seems to be discriminatory, as single folks get the shaft..

If the cheapest policy premium in your zip code is greater than 8% of your income you qualify for the exemption and would not have to pay the tax/fine/penalty for being uninsured. Now with the individual mandate being gone for next year, you will not have to carry health insurance.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

Will make it simple for you. Before the ACA was passed EVERYONE enjoyed a lower premium at the expense of others. Those others being the people with pre-existing conditions who the health insurance companies would not sell health insurance to.

Now that the health insurance companies can not weed out people with pre-existing conditions everyone is paying what the true premium would have been.

A balanced risk pool = cheaper premiums for all.

A risk pool that is unbalanced = higher premiums for all.

The only way for a risk pool to be balanced is some low risk people have to be in it!

[StandinStraight]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The individual mandate is gone. The subsidy that went directly to the health insurance companies to keep the price of the deductable and copay lower is gone (Trump removed with EO). The subsidy that goes directly to the policyholder to help pay the policy premium is still available. This subsidy was written into the law and cannot be removed by EO. It was not removed in the TAX reform bill, just the individual mandate. So, people shopping for health insurance at HealthCare.gov will still get a subsidy to help pay their policy premium based on their income.

That’s correct so the ACA is still there and going nowhere. The only thing Trump managed to accomplish is to cause premiums to rise further, which he and the republicans will own at election time unless they stabilize the market.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Oh, if you want "pre-existing conditions" covered ..

.... go get a job with group health insurance.

So, all plumbers and general contractors who are self employed and have pre-existing conditions should stop being self employed. They should go find a company that offers its employees health insurance and work for them?

There 330 plus million people in the USA. There will always be some people in the INDIVIDUAL MARKET. Your solution is just not feasible or practical.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Will make it simple for you. Before the ACA was passed EVERYONE enjoyed a lower premium at the expense of others. Those others being the people with pre-existing conditions who the health insurance companies would not sell health insurance to.

Now that the health insurance companies can not weed out people with pre-existing conditions everyone is paying what the true premium would have been.

A balanced risk pool = cheaper premiums for all.

A risk pool that is unbalanced = higher premiums for all.

The only way for a risk pool to be balanced is some low risk people have to be in it!

Your disingenuous lib-retard ass is avoiding the question, flighty. Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your disingenuous lib-retard ass is avoiding the question, flighty. Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty?

If you can answer this question, you will answer your own question.

Where was the "social justice" for the people who had pre-existing conditions and would not be sold a health insurance policy in the individual market, prior to the ACA law being passed?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

If you can answer this question, you will answer your own question.

Where was the "social justice" for the people who had pre-existing conditions and would not be sold a health insurance policy in the individual market, prior to the ACA law being passed?

The government didn't cause those individuals their misfortune, flighty; whereas, an act of government denied "social justice" to 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?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The government didn't cause those individuals their misfortune, flighty; whereas, an act of government denied "social justice" to 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?

Oh, I read you now. If you have a pre-existing condition then too bad for you. Right? LOL. How about let's make the health insurance system work for everyone, people who get health insurance from their employer and people who get health insurance from the individual market.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Oh, I read you now. If you have a pre-existing condition then too bad for you. Right? LOL. How about let's make the health insurance system work for everyone, people who get health insurance from their employer and people who get health insurance from the individual market.

It's a superior concept to your lib-retard notion that others must be forced by the government to suffer for something they have no responsibility for, flighty. Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's a superior concept to your lib-retard notion that others must be forced by the government to suffer for something they have no responsibility for, flighty. Where's the "social justice" for those who were paying their own way until Odumbocare made it too expensive for them, flighty?

You don't want the health insurance system to work for everyone, just those who don't have a pre-existing condition. So, if the health insurance company weeds out someone with a pre-existing condition that is okay as long as you benefit from it( with a lower premium that you can afford to pay on your own). The point that I tried to make a couple of posts ago is that the people who could pay their premium on their own was because the health insurance companies discriminated against people with pre-existing conditions and kept them out of the risk pool.