• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

Then you should be asking for consumer protections instead of taking away consumer's choices.

When a person's choice impacts other people's choices, it is the government's role in our system to play umpire. Remember, it was legal to sell 'snake-oil' for much of our history. Why not now? Truth-in-advertising laws among other things.
 
I guess you are unaware of the insurance policies in Obama Care that were both costly and were not usable because of premium, co-pay and deductable cost.

Maybe you have a solution to that? How can we force private mostly for-profit insurers to offer policies that don't charge the actuarial cost of providing decent healthcare? I'd love to know that answer!

The policies in the OP have a good solution - exclude pre-existing conditions, only cover the first $5,000 of perhaps a $50,000 surgery, no drug coverage, limit ER reimbursement to less than the cost when you walk in the door and leave the insured on the hook for almost all the significant costs. That works! Death panels! YEAH!! But it's not much good as insurance.
 
The old worst case scenario what if. The chances of that are approaching the same numbers as my winning tonight's lottery. And I don't have a ticket.

If that should actually happen while I'm out in the operating room, someone else will be paying the bill, and a few bucks more.

The hospital disagrees and they have more money for lawyers than you do.

This isn't some wild ass scenario I invented. This has actually happened to people.
 
The hospital disagrees and they have more money for lawyers than you do.

This isn't some wild ass scenario I invented. This has actually happened to people.

Names? Dates? Details?
 
It should come as no surprise that the Trump administration has made enabling predatory actions by bad actors and promoting junk insurance the centerpiece of its health care agenda, such as it is. Junk plans--"short term" health plans, despite the fact that they're now available for the entire year--are on the verge of becoming a bonanza for hucksters no longer bound by consumer protection rules.

Think of these plans as the Trump University of health insurance. Beyond failing to offer the basic protections and coverage people have come to expect in the age of the ACA (pre-existing condition protections, no caps or limits, etc), short term plans on average spend an absurdly low 39 cents of every premium dollar they collect on actual medical care. By contrast, ACA-compliant plans are legally required to dedicate at least 80-85% of premiums on actual care.

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

"Grifters gonna grift" remains the guiding philosophy of policy coming out of this administration.

The 39 cents bit is pretty telling. But what that should also tell us is that we need to kill the market for these types of plans, which requires fixing the glitches with subsidy eligibility. The employee-only offer of affordable coverage should not disqualify the rest of the family for subsidies. The 400% FPL cut off needs to be eliminated too, because costs are high enough in high cost states to easily consume over 25% of gross income.

If the subsidy eligibility didn't have these trap doors, the perceived relative value of these short-term plans compared to subsidized bronze plans would be squeezed to near-zero.

Biden 2020, I guess.
 
I guess you are unaware of the insurance policies in Obama Care that were both costly and were not usable because of premium, co-pay and deductable cost.
"
You ignore the acts of Republican who fought against "single payer", and they "fought against" being able to see any doctor without regard to being restricted by "doctor's networks" (which is a big industry construct)... Republican is the reason why people "could not keep the doctor they choose". again, people "don't think" all they could see was the fact "A black man created a program that white men had tried and could not make happen"... They became so driven to destroy it, until they spent 6 yrs, filing law suits and pandering to insurance companies not to lower cost, and for doctors not to make allowance for doctors to work outside of networks.
Not one time did people stand us and demand that "Doctor's Networks" were a hindrance to people having choice.

Republican whine and cry about "Choice"... but are too ignorant to know the premise of "Doctor's Networks" takes away their Choice. It has never dawned on them to even consider that crucial factor and point.

When "Ignorance Leads" the people will ALWAYS suffer the results.... and we see what those results are today.

The provision to have "everyone sign up" was fought against, because the people were too Ignorant Again, to know the volume of number of people would mean the actuaries could use predictive % numbers to factor cost and loss and thus have means to keep premiums low.... Obama care also provided that at least 80% of premiums had to be spent on medical coverage, which helps rule out the insurance denying care to increase profits... because that 80% means if they did not spend the 80% to provide coverage they would NOT get to keep the difference, they would have to return those % BACK to the people, each year as "Premium Rebates"....

All these Republican could do was listen to Talking Head Republican who had already taken a Pledge to attack with intent to Defeat anything and everything, regardless how it might benefit the people.. And "Ignorant People" chose to defeat themselves, to uphold the Vile of Republican Congress... and now "Everyone Suffers"....
There is no need to have sympathy for fools!!! But there is much reason to detest Fools... because they have cost everyone a great loss.

Some of those if they read this, still won't understand it.... That's what American Society is dealing with... a high volume of "willful ignorance"... and everyone in the working class suffers for it.

many of the participants in various web sites can spin all the drama that they want, nitpicking for the sake of a drama spin.... all the while everything that could benefit you, you are too ingrained in the insidiousness of drama antics to learn anything different than to chase a "drama spin".... and when it done... they continue to still lose, because they made a loosing choice when they chose drama over "learning the facts".
 
There is little hope for change in the mindset of minions who lust and pander to the wealthy... they have a historical habit of doing so, and such a habit has led them to a mentality of 'extreme tribalism" and being a tribal cultist... is like any other cult... they will accept no knowledge or information outside of that "cult grooming".
 
Detractors claim that Obamacare pushed prices up. That was due to junk insurance being forced off the market. What's the point of paying less for insurance that doesn't cover you? Trump thinks you deserve the "option" of paying to not be covered.

Paying for skinny coverage isn't necessarily bad, if the premiums are low enough. How to asses for that is to look at how much revenue is spent on claims. As the OP pointed out, with some of these ST plans it's $0.39 per dollar. That should clearly indicate to consumers that the premiums (while appearing low relative to gold plans) are nonetheless still too high and the insurer is lining its pockets with that money. The skinniness of the coverage is not necessarily bad. People can roll the dice with skinny coverage in ways that are relatively rational and still relatively low risk overall, as long as they know the details and as long as the insurer is pricing its premiums appropriately relative to the coverage. If the claims spending is so low a percentage of revenue, it should be regarded as fraudulent.
 
The plan detailed in the story that was purchased by the couple was purchased during the Obama administration. How could it have been non-ACA compliant, or Trump's fault? :roll:

These things have existed for decades, they skate by because they're short-term, not insurance, and thus not regulated as such. They are obviously not ACA-compliant for all the reasons I already outlined: they're experience rated (discriminate based on pre-existing conditions), impose coverage caps, skimp on benefits, aren't subject to the same disclosure requirements as ACA plans, their rates aren't reviewed, their medical loss ratios are way below ACA minimums, and so on. They are a nuisance and the Obama administration cracked down on them a few years ago. These fraudsters were banned from selling them for longer than 3 months at a time.

The Trump administration has reversed that crackdown and instead is encouraging them, facilitating the hucksters who sell them, and made them the centerpiece of its BS affordability campaign. This is their press release announcing they've opened the floodgates on these junk plans: Trump Administration Delivers on Promise of More Affordable Health Insurance Options.

These are garbage and Trump is the reason they're flooding the market right now. Refer back to the OP.

LOL. Obamcare left people with $16,000 deductibles and out of pocket costs.

Obamacare capped potential out-of-pocket costs for the first time ever. Nobody can pay more than $7,900 out-of-pocket for in-network coverage this year under an ACA-compliant plan. (These short term junk plans Trump is promoting have no such limits--you can be left with $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, a million dollars, whatever in out-of-pocket expenses). Most people buy plans with lower caps than that, and while some plans load all of their-out-of-pocket limit into the deductible many plans do not. (And off course the ACA capped small group insurance plan deductibles at $2,000, but the GOP repealed that provision.)

Aside from Trump's garbage plans with no out-of-pocket limits, we've already seen the GOP's next best alternative to the ACA's financial protections for people: GOP Deductibles Too High to Legally Exist

ACA compliance means limiting people's out-of-pocket exposure. If you want to lower the ACA's out-of-pocket cap, let's do it!

The insurers are required to meet all of the ACA regulations on insurance whether or not they are purchased through the exchanges, or they have a waiver. Either way, that couple could not have purchased that plan in 2016 unless it met ACA minimum requirements.

Short term plans do not meet the ACA's minimum requirements. And they have never counted as minimum creditable coverage for purposes of satisfying the individual mandate.

Serious question: do you have any clue about what the ACA requires of insurance plans? (Hint: I've already explained it twice.)

If you want to ban short term plans entirely and making sure nothing that isn't ACA-compliant is ever sold anywhere, let's do it!

I guess you are unaware of the insurance policies in Obama Care that were both costly and were not usable because of premium, co-pay and deductable cost.

Which policies are those?

Names? Dates? Details?

Good lord, open a newspaper or Google "surprise billing." This is arguably the most prominent health care issue being discussed in the country right now, so serious that even the do-nothing Senate has been trying to take it up. There are dueling commercials on how to address the problem on network television. What rock are you living under?

Granted, the surprise billing problem has nothing to do with these particular junk plans but it's a pretty major topic of discussion in this country right now.

The 39 cents bit is pretty telling. But what that should also tell us is that we need to kill the market for these types of plans, which requires fixing the glitches with subsidy eligibility.

Let's do it!
 
i hope not. i have a family and bills to pay, so a depression would **** us up pretty good. i'd prefer to do it another way.

I don't want to see a depression **** up the U.S. or the world... but the wealthy elite have really taken us for a ride and this **** show is their making.
 
giphy.gif

I'm a simple man. I see a Chappelle gif and I click 'like.'
 
I don't want to see a depression **** up the U.S. or the world... but the wealthy elite have really taken us for a ride and this **** show is their making.

true. hopefully inertia and safeguards will carry us through.
 
No. We don't need 2000+ pages of legislation to tell sellers to be honest.

Regardless of how many pages it is, we apparently do need legislation to regulate against insurers scamming customers, as evidenced by the fact that insurers are scamming customers.
 
If the insurance doesn't cover the bill, you're getting care beyond the coverage you or others have paid for.
 
Regardless of how many pages it is, we apparently do need legislation to regulate against insurers scamming customers, as evidenced by the fact that insurers are scamming customers.

I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has been scammed...only that people didn't know what they were buying.
 
These things have existed for decades, they skate by because they're short-term, not insurance, and thus not regulated as such. They are obviously not ACA-compliant for all the reasons I already outlined: they're experience rated (discriminate based on pre-existing conditions), impose coverage caps, skimp on benefits, aren't subject to the same disclosure requirements as ACA plans, their rates aren't reviewed, their medical loss ratios are way below ACA minimums, and so on. They are a nuisance and the Obama administration cracked down on them a few years ago. These fraudsters were banned from selling them for longer than 3 months at a time.

The Trump administration has reversed that crackdown and instead is encouraging them, facilitating the hucksters who sell them, and made them the centerpiece of its BS affordability campaign. This is their press release announcing they've opened the floodgates on these junk plans: Trump Administration Delivers on Promise of More Affordable Health Insurance Options.

These are garbage and Trump is the reason they're flooding the market right now. Refer back to the OP.



Obamacare capped potential out-of-pocket costs for the first time ever. Nobody can pay more than $7,900 out-of-pocket for in-network coverage this year under an ACA-compliant plan. (These short term junk plans Trump is promoting have no such limits--you can be left with $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, a million dollars, whatever in out-of-pocket expenses). Most people buy plans with lower caps than that, and while some plans load all of their-out-of-pocket limit into the deductible many plans do not. (And off course the ACA capped small group insurance plan deductibles at $2,000, but the GOP repealed that provision.)

Aside from Trump's garbage plans with no out-of-pocket limits, we've already seen the GOP's next best alternative to the ACA's financial protections for people: GOP Deductibles Too High to Legally Exist

ACA compliance means limiting people's out-of-pocket exposure. If you want to lower the ACA's out-of-pocket cap, let's do it!



Short term plans do not meet the ACA's minimum requirements. And they have never counted as minimum creditable coverage for purposes of satisfying the individual mandate.

Serious question: do you have any clue about what the ACA requires of insurance plans? (Hint: I've already explained it twice.)

If you want to ban short term plans entirely and making sure nothing that isn't ACA-compliant is ever sold anywhere, let's do it!



Which policies are those?



Good lord, open a newspaper or Google "surprise billing." This is arguably the most prominent health care issue being discussed in the country right now, so serious that even the do-nothing Senate has been trying to take it up. There are dueling commercials on how to address the problem on network television. What rock are you living under?

Granted, the surprise billing problem has nothing to do with these particular junk plans but it's a pretty major topic of discussion in this country right now.



Let's do it!

That $7900 deductible is for ONE person. Face it, Obamacare sucks.
 
Not really. The private insurance companies did that. If you want lower deductibles, you have to pay higher premiums. The other alternative is plans that exclude things like cancer, hospitalization, or other care that's expensive to provide, what's called "death panels" in other contexts.

It's true the ACA didn't create a system where the private, mostly for profit healthcare insurance industry handed out free lunches to those shopping on the exchanges, but that's not something the ACA can solve. The only way around high deductibles for a plan that has the lowest monthly premiums is far more in taxpayer subsidies. I support those, but if that's what you want you need to be honest about it as well.

What nonsense is that? Do we have Obamacare or not? Do we have 16K family deductibles or not? The premiums are already too high under Obamacare, lowering the deductibles will just cost more.
 
People had huge out of pocket costs before Obamacare. That's why healthcare was a top-three topic in the 2008 election. Remember?

Before Obamacare, I had private insurance and it was a better policy than Obamacare with cheaper premiums, even with my two pre-existing conditions. After Obamacare we couldn't afford Obamacare premiums and my stay at home wife had to go out and get a job with employer insurance.
 
That $7900 deductible is for ONE person. Face it, Obamacare sucks.

The median deductible for a plan purchased in the marketplace in 2016 (the last year before the Trump administration stopped reporting on this) was $850. But if you want to lower the cap on out-of-pocket spending, let’s do it!
 
I support laws that require an insurance seller to honestly present all the details of a plan they want to sell. I support the notion of "caveat emptor".

If the details of a plan were honestly presented and the buyer agreed to buy the plan, they have nobody to blame but themselves if they didn't understand what they were buying.


What do you tell employees of companies whose bosses decided to buy policies like this and tell their employees that they have health care coverage?

That used to be a widespread practice, particularly in retail, with some of the biggest players doing it (Home Depot, Wal Mart, etc).

That went away with the Affordable Care Act.

Right wingers used the end of these junk policies to claim that people weren’t being able to “keep” their insurance (even though it was worthless), and pay lots more (for real insurance).

But Trump wanted to bring the predatory practices back. And, as we see, a whole bunch of hucksters jumped on board to cash in.

This right wing argument about “choice” is bogus anyway. Few American pick their health insurance or pay most of the premium. Their bosses do. The employee gets what the boss picks.

And if the boss changes insurers, it’s too bad of you don’t get to keep your doctor.
 
Every time I read about ACA I'm reminded of KY. When ACA rolled out, the people trying to get those people signed up couldn't call it the ACA or Obamacare, because that didn't work, but it was fine to sign people up for Kynect, which was Obamacare. And polls showed people loved Kynect, but hated the ACA. Propaganda works. It's not all the problem, obviously, but there's a big PR problem that isn't related to actual concerns about the ACA.

Yeah it was the same in lots of red states that expanded Medicaid. Reminds me of all those young looking old people with signs that said keep the government outta my healthcare....when asked they had medicare.
Propaganda works and then as human nature kicks in no ond ever wants to admit they were wrong, conned etc.
 
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has been scammed...only that people didn't know what they were buying.


Well, when it comes to the negative effects of Trump actions, you do tend to break your neck looking the other way!
 
Yeah it was the same in lots of red states that expanded Medicaid. Reminds me of all those young looking old people with signs that said keep the government outta my healthcare....when asked they had medicare.
Propaganda works and then as human nature kicks in no ond ever wants to admit they were wrong, conned etc.

Actually, most red states did not expand their Medicaid programs and did not join the ACA.

Consequently, their citizens pay more and get less.

But their leaders put ideology (and lobbyist money)ahead of the public interest, and the right wing noise machine isn’t going to tell them that they’ve been had.
 
Caveat emptor would tell you that healthcare collections is so overwhelmed that one can get by with not buying any insurance at all and not paying one's medical bills with just a little astuteness.

I support laws that require an insurance seller to honestly present all the details of a plan they want to sell. I support the notion of "caveat emptor".

If the details of a plan were honestly presented and the buyer agreed to buy the plan, they have nobody to blame but themselves if they didn't understand what they were buying.
 
Back
Top Bottom