Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (748699)	10/22/2013 3:46:36 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585773

>> It was illegal but they did it. There is no evidence of that at all; and if they did they would be subject to massive lawsuits. It was a propaganda device, nothing more. >> And if you had a medical problem they'd deny you coverage...legally. Yes, and I support the idea of dealing with this problem. But Obamacare simply wasn't necessary to do that. Many, if not most, states had a sort of "assigned risk" pool that did an adequate job. But legislation that created an assigned risk pool would have worked fine, subsidized by taxpayers, which would have been far more cost-effective than what we ended up with.

To: Alighieri who wrote (748699)	10/22/2013 4:18:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585773

>> It was illegal but they did it. Perhaps some did. But it isn't any MORE illegal now than it was before. The ACA did NOTHING to change the rules for rescission. So, what exactly is the point? Suppose I'm a smoker and when enrolling under the exchange I lie about it. Then what? healthblog.ncpa.org Anyone whose policy was rescinded after 1997 for other than legitimate reasons would have been able to sue and collect, a lot. There is absolutely no reason for this provision in the ACA statute; it was already illegal.