Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nimnim" data-source="post: 1215845" data-attributes="member: 28856">Could we agree that 1/4 of the number of people listed of the 108 million so 27 million, is a possible number? My point still stands to a degree depending on the numbers used. Say 27 million on welfare, there&#039;s said to be like 35 million people &quot;lacking&quot; healthcare. Which a fair number of those actively chose not to get healthcare because they were young and healthy. Would it still not benefit the country more to help those who are on welfare get gainful employment where they could then afford healthcare beyond the Medicaid they probably qualified for while unemployed than to change the whole system that people had more of an individual choice of?Most people who have a history of say heart disease or cancer in their family are more likely to choose insurance to cover that instead of more barebones plans where they&#039;d be more likely to have to pay amounts for treatment that they can&#039;t afford.Insurance by nature is all about pooling risk. If your family has a history of long lives and no major medical problems there&#039;s no real reason to purchase a plan that covers things beyond major health issues, and even then it&#039;s just a chance. With the ACA there&#039;s no option to take your family medical history into account, you&#039;re forced to pick coverage of at least a certain level or you go without insurance and pay a fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nimnim, post: 1215845, member: 28856"] Could we agree that 1/4 of the number of people listed of the 108 million so 27 million, is a possible number? My point still stands to a degree depending on the numbers used. Say 27 million on welfare, there's said to be like 35 million people "lacking" healthcare. Which a fair number of those actively chose not to get healthcare because they were young and healthy. Would it still not benefit the country more to help those who are on welfare get gainful employment where they could then afford healthcare beyond the Medicaid they probably qualified for while unemployed than to change the whole system that people had more of an individual choice of? Most people who have a history of say heart disease or cancer in their family are more likely to choose insurance to cover that instead of more barebones plans where they'd be more likely to have to pay amounts for treatment that they can't afford. Insurance by nature is all about pooling risk. If your family has a history of long lives and no major medical problems there's no real reason to purchase a plan that covers things beyond major health issues, and even then it's just a chance. With the ACA there's no option to take your family medical history into account, you're forced to pick coverage of at least a certain level or you go without insurance and pay a fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification