New Congress

bacha29

Well-Known Member
Really? It was a good deal for the very poor. It's a good deal for those with preexisting conditions. It's not a good deal for everyone else, who saw their premiums and deductibles rise while the amount covered lessened.
Your diabetes is a preexisting condition that in the past could have given an insurer grounds for denial of coverage or increased premiums specifically due to your diabetes. The ACA ended that practice.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
Your diabetes is a preexisting condition that in the past could have given an insurer grounds for denial of coverage or increased premiums specifically due to your diabetes. The ACA ended that practice.

how is it pre existing if you developed it while covered under your existing insurance plan
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
If you were to apply for health insurance from a new carrier you cannot be denied coverage on the basis of having a medical condition that was incurred prior to applying for coverage and the carrier can no longer increase the applicants premiums due to the existence of that condition.

ahhhhhhhhh if. So if I work for UPS I would be applying for a new insurance plan with someone else because ?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Your diabetes is a preexisting condition that in the past could have given an insurer grounds for denial of coverage or increased premiums specifically due to your diabetes. The ACA ended that practice.
Oh sure, millions of diabetics were being denied coverage. Next!
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
how is it pre existing if you developed it while covered under your existing insurance plan
No This specific rule of law applied to individuals seeking to purchase an insurance product on their own on the open market which by the way was something I did for more than 20 years. In the past I could have been denied insurance or had my premiums bumped upward due to the existence of a medical condition that was incurred prior to my application. In fact when I switched carriers I had to disclose the fact that I already had mild hypertension which bumped up my premiums a bit.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
So I'm not entitled to SS and Medicare which I paid into for MANY years. How about my VA stuff that is service connected through being exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam? Should I give that up also? You can't fool me. You are just bitter because of all the talk about these programs being cut before you have a chance to use them. Jealousy will get you nowhere.
Drive In Drive Out's generation wants it both ways. They want the older workers completely out of the workforce and they don't want them collecting anything in the way of benefits so that his generation can collect from the very same benefit programs and in higher amounts.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Drive In Drive Out's generation wants it both ways. They want the older workers completely out of the workforce and they don't want them collecting anything in the way of benefits so that his generation can collect from the very same benefit programs and in higher amounts.
Got it, kill all the olds. They aren’t contributing anymore anyway. A final solution to SS.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Drive In Drive Out's generation wants it both ways. They want the older workers completely out of the workforce and they don't want them collecting anything in the way of benefits so that his generation can collect from the very same benefit programs and in higher amounts.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
But hey, if it makes you feel better about your generation's fiscal failures, more power to you.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
You mean like the Dems smearing Kavanaugh with lies before the election? Den operatives organizing Central American caravans? That sort of thing?
Or like Comey “reopening” a case on Clinton nine days before the election while staying silent on an investigation that was goin on on Trump and Russia at the time? Yeah. That.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Drive In Drive Out's generation wants it both ways. They want the older workers completely out of the workforce and they don't want them collecting anything in the way of benefits so that his generation can collect from the very same benefit programs and in higher amounts.
I don’t think he’s saying that at all. And you agree with him.

Look at the booming economy. Look how growth is spiking. Look how low taxes are.
Look how good we all feel about it.

Now look at the deficits. Who’s going to pay for all this feel good? The next generations? Why?

The responsible position is not that we are spending their inheritance that we are spending our retirement.
 
Top