OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

No, plenty of people have been voluntarily paying for varying levels of coverage for a long time. In fact, the vast majority were already paying for as much as or more coverage than the new law required. So there really was such a thing as health insurance before.

So what happens to the person who gets cancer and then finds out that cancer treatments are not covered by their plan?

[StrangeSox]

No, plenty of people have been voluntarily paying for varying levels of coverage for a long time. In fact, the vast majority were already paying for as much as or more coverage than the new law required. So there really was such a thing as health insurance before.

If their previous plan met or exceeded ACA minimums, then it's entirely up to the insurance company whether or not to continue offering any given plan. That's the insurer's choice, not an effect of the law.

 

Which, if that really is the case that a vast majority of the cancelled plans were ACA-compliant anyway, it leads us right back to where it absolutely makes sense to compare premiums for similarly compliant plans both before and after the 2014 transition.

[cabiness42]

If their previous plan met or exceeded ACA minimums, then it's entirely up to the insurance company whether or not to continue offering any given plan. That's the insurer's choice, not an effect of the law.

 

Which, if that really is the case that a vast majority of the cancelled plans were ACA-compliant anyway, it leads us right back to where it absolutely makes sense to compare premiums for similarly compliant plans both before and after the 2014 transition.

 

I'm still not getting my question answered: Why did there need to be ACA minimums that caused a bunch of existing plans to be non-compliant?

[StrangeSox]

I'm still not getting my question answered: Why did there need to be ACA minimums that caused a bunch of existing plans to be non-compliant?

You keep shifting all over the place. If the "vast majority" of plans were ACA-compliant, then cancellations were completely due to decisions made by insurers and not by the law itself.

 

Part of the reforms were the "Patient Protection" and an attempt to ensure that every American has, at a minimum, adequate coverage. Where exactly that line for "adequate" falls is a policy argument. Part of it was increasing the risk pools so that coverage remained affordable for everyone with the guaranteed issue and community ratings.

Edited April 16, 2015 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

You keep shifting all over the place. If the "vast majority" of plans were ACA-compliant, then cancellations were completely due to decisions made by insurers and not by the law itself.

 

Part of the reforms were the "Patient Protection" and an attempt to ensure that every American has, at a minimum, adequate coverage. Where exactly that line for "adequate" falls is a policy argument. Part of it was increasing the risk pools so that coverage remained affordable for everyone with the guaranteed issue and community ratings.

 

How is that bolded phrase not exactly what I said a long time ago that the middle class is getting stuck with the bill?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How is that bolded phrase not exactly what I said a long time ago that the middle class is getting stuck with the bill?

 

They know what you say is true but they choose to ignore it. The ends justify the means.

[StrangeSox]

How is that bolded phrase not exactly what I said a long time ago that the middle class is getting stuck with the bill?

Well that goes right back to what I said about needing to compare whether or not they're paying more for comparable plans (e.g. your old plan was cancelled, but your new and essentially identical plan costs you no more than your previous plan), and you also need to consider that the "bill" they're getting stuck with includes getting something in return i.e. health insurance (e.g. they had a useless 'catastophic' plan before that didn't really cover anything but was 'cheap;' now they are "stuck with the bill" of an actual health insurance plan).

 

Most of the middle class gets their insurance through their employers, and most of these plans were already ACA compliant or only required minor changes so it's not an impact on them at all.

[StrangeSox]

They know what you say is true but they choose to ignore it. The ends justify the means.

I know that I've yet to see HH cite a single piece of evidence in support of his claims.

[cabiness42]

Well that goes right back to what I said about needing to compare whether or not they're paying more for comparable plans (e.g. your old plan was cancelled, but your new and essentially identical plan costs you no more than your previous plan), and you also need to consider that the "bill" they're getting stuck with includes getting something in return i.e. health insurance (e.g. they had a useless 'catastophic' plan before that didn't really cover anything but was 'cheap;' now they are "stuck with the bill" of an actual health insurance plan).

 

Most of the middle class gets their insurance through their employers, and most of these plans were already ACA compliant or only required minor changes so it's not an impact on them at all.

 

Yes, I'm referring to people who had catastrophic plans, which are hardly useless to people who were getting by just fine with them. And yes, the bill they're getting stuck with is getting them increased coverage in return, but for most of them it's coverage they don't want or need. These people are being forced to pay for coverage they don't want or need in order to increase the risk pool for insurance companies.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes, I'm referring to people who had catastrophic plans, which are hardly useless to people who were getting by just fine with them. And yes, the bill they're getting stuck with is getting them increased coverage in return, but for most of them it's coverage they don't want or need. These people are being forced to pay for coverage they don't want or need in order to increase the risk pool for insurance companies.

You get by just fine with no insurance at all right until the moment you don't. Then you're largely f***ed and you're probably going to harm the rest of society as well.

 

The people hit the hardest by the individual mandate coupled with the minimum coverage requirements are mostly younger single people who might have had little or no insurance before. Yeah, these people are going to pay more than they otherwise would have before. They hardly constitute the entire "middle class."

 

edit: actually, people under 30 and with a hardship exemption can still get qualifying catastrophic plans.

 

I'd have no problems with a completely revamped alternative that provided Medicare-to-all through a mixture of removing the payroll tax cap and increasing tax rates on the top brackets, though!

Edited April 16, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I know that I've yet to see HH cite a single piece of evidence in support of his claims.

 

How is the government coming up with money to pay for an extra 30 million people when those people are paying pennies on the dollar for their plans? The money tree behind the capital building?

[Jenksismyhero]

You get by just fine with no insurance at all right until the moment you don't. Then you're largely f***ed and you're probably going to harm the rest of society as well.

 

The people hit the hardest by the individual mandate coupled with the minimum coverage requirements are mostly younger single people who might have had little or no insurance before. Yeah, these people are going to pay more than they otherwise would have before. They hardly constitute the entire "middle class."

 

edit: actually, people under 30 and with a hardship exemption can still get qualifying catastrophic plans.

 

I'd have no problems with a completely revamped alternative that provided Medicare-to-all through a mixture of removing the payroll tax cap and increasing tax rates on the top brackets, though!

 

I'm in favor of taxing the rich more, but that won't cover the costs.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, I'm referring to people who had catastrophic plans, which are hardly useless to people who were getting by just fine with them. And yes, the bill they're getting stuck with is getting them increased coverage in return, but for most of them it's coverage they don't want or need. These people are being forced to pay for coverage they don't want or need in order to increase the risk pool for insurance companies.

 

You mean you don't use birth control?

[StrangeSox]

I'm in favor of taxing the rich more, but that won't cover the costs.

I'm not sure how you can say one way or the other a completely unspecified tax increase wouldn't cover something.

[StrangeSox]

How is the government coming up with money to pay for an extra 30 million people when those people are paying pennies on the dollar for their plans? The money tree behind the capital building?

It's not like the funding mechanisms built into the law are some great mystery. Go look them up.

[StrangeSox]

You mean you don't use birth control?

And what's with plans women buy covering ball cancer??

 

Though I'd imagine that a lot of heterosexual married men with family insurance plans utilize birth control and other exclusively-women's-health provisions, anyway.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure how you can say one way or the other a completely unspecified tax increase wouldn't cover something.

 

I'm confident in the rich's ability to "evade" any laws you want to implement. I'm also confident that laws they couldn't evade would never, ever be passed in 2015, when Dems and Repubs protect the wealthy equally.

[Jenksismyhero]

And what's with plans women buy covering ball cancer??

 

Though I'd imagine that a lot of heterosexual married men with family insurance plans utilize birth control and other exclusively-women's-health provisions, anyway.

 

Equaled out by uterine cancer! But hey, when you're talking individual plans, not family plans, i'm 100% in agreement with setting up limits on what needs to be covered and what doesn't. If issues like birth control, pregnancy and specific gender diseases increase the costs, people shouldn't have to pay for it.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

So low-income men might be able to afford individual coverage, but low-income women will be screwed. No thanks.

[cabiness42]

You get by just fine with no insurance at all right until the moment you don't. Then you're largely f***ed and you're probably going to harm the rest of society as well.

 

The people hit the hardest by the individual mandate coupled with the minimum coverage requirements are mostly younger single people who might have had little or no insurance before. Yeah, these people are going to pay more than they otherwise would have before. They hardly constitute the entire "middle class."

 

edit: actually, people under 30 and with a hardship exemption can still get qualifying catastrophic plans.

 

I'd have no problems with a completely revamped alternative that provided Medicare-to-all through a mixture of removing the payroll tax cap and increasing tax rates on the top brackets, though!

 

No, it's not the entire middle class, but aside from young single people, there are a lot of middle aged self-employed people who got screwed over in this.

 

Also, no need to increase taxes on anybody (though I am in favor of some combination of a higher taxrate/closing loopholes for the top 1%). Every Senator in favor of Obamacare could have easily found enough unnecessary Executive Branch agency jobs in their home states that could have been cut in order to pay for this, but no, we have to screw over some middle class folks rather than cut the bloated government.

[Chisoxfn]

So I just want to point out, that for a normal pregnancy (2 night stay at hospital, only 1 night with baby since wife didn't deliver until morning...my bill will be in excess of $5K. My last child, obviously different plan, I paid less in insurance premiums and total bill was $100 dollars. Current plan is based upon my wife's company, which due to obama care, reduced benefits to the minimum required or otherwise standard bronze plan. I've already given examples of same situation for clients (when I worked in a different field that allowed me those insights). Obviously hard to differentiate what is driven by increased costs vs. driven by changes and companies changing what they will cover, etc.

 

Long story short...we pay much more in premiums and get far less in benefit protection (have greater out of pocket max's, etc). I literally am dumbfounded at the cost of a standard delivery. I wonder if it was a c-section how much it would have been (clearly in excess of our Out of Pocket individual max). Thankfully we have good positions (and our big time planners), etc, and stable income and have planned for this, but I think vast majority of youth who have major student loans, etc, would be even able to afford the hospital bills (and it isn't like the typical middle class person is qualifying for a bunch of benefit assistance).

[Jenksismyhero]

So low-income men might be able to afford individual coverage, but low-income women will be screwed. No thanks.

 

I suspect the numbers would equal out. The risks of men getting hurt are greater, just like with auto insurance. Pregnancy would be a big cost, but hey, a woman's body, a woman's decision. Just flush that thing out and no problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it's not the entire middle class, but aside from young single people, there are a lot of middle aged self-employed people who got screwed over in this.

 

Also, no need to increase taxes on anybody (though I am in favor of some combination of a higher taxrate/closing loopholes for the top 1%). Every Senator in favor of Obamacare could have easily found enough unnecessary Executive Branch agency jobs in their home states that could have been cut in order to pay for this, but no, we have to screw over some middle class folks rather than cut the bloated government.

 

 

'Merica.

[StrangeSox]

I suspect the numbers would equal out. The risks of men getting hurt are greater, just like with auto insurance. Pregnancy would be a big cost, but hey, a woman's body, a woman's decision. Just flush that thing out and no problem.

If it evens out, then who cares, nobody is paying any more than they would if we had gender-specific plans.

[StrangeSox]

The idea that there are tens of billions of dollars worth of unneeded federal jobs out there is pretty hilarious.