• 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

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.

The pre-existing conditions deal is more tied to denial of coverage than it is to premiums. The problem with health insurance in general is it is a risk pool and there is no way to ethically penalize someone for getting sick.

You can get sick through absolutely no fault of your own; compared to other "insurance" risks are generally one the client chooses to take on; hurricane prone areas, areas prone to wildfire, etc. Clients understand that choosing to live in an area carries a risk they are willing to mitigate via insurance.

Health insurance removes the choice in most areas and penalizes people, via denials of coverage or increased premiums, due to things the client did not choose. Unless we're discussing obesity or smoking related illness, the vast majority of illness are through no choice motives.

This is why a for profit industry does not work when it comes to HC. The incentive to deny claims at all cost is too high and too great.
 
These things have existed for decades, they skate by because they're short-term, not insurance, and thus not regulated as such.

That is just plain false. The OP itself stated quite clearly that the ACA addressed this type of coverage, it exists because the ACA allowed it to exist.

The OP, and you apparently, are pissed off because this cheap, stop gap coverage has expanded availability to those who can't afford the more expensive insurance can have something.

What would the other options under the ACA? Coverage that a person between jobs can't afford?
 
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!

Unlike everyone else in both parties, I don't want to run up the national debt.
 
Health insurance removes the choice in most areas and penalizes people, via denials of coverage or increased premiums, due to things the client did not choose. Unless we're discussing obesity or smoking related illness, the vast majority of illness are through no choice motives.

The number one killer of Americans is heart disease. The top risk factors for heart disease are obesity/poor diet, smoking, and lack of exercise, all of which are personal choices.

Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Dental insurance penalizes people for things they did not choose, other than consuming large amounts of sugar and never brushing their teeth."
 
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.

Employees always have a choice...go with the group insurance policy the employer offers, contract with an insurance company for an individual policy or opt to live with no insurance. With less government regulations, even more options may be created. The more options, the more choices. But keep in mind that being able to choose requires taking responsibility for your choice. If you screw up and make the wrong choice, it's on you. The taxpayer shouldn't bail you out.

Bottom line on Obamacare...nobody has ever "forced" consumers to buy something until Obama came along. Obama eliminated choice.
 
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.

If you want to address some pretty clear points, you can. Otherwise I don't see where you have a problem with my comment.

Bottom line is [premiums plus copays] = [cost of care for the insureds plus admin costs and profits for the insurers]. I don't know what you expect to happen. The only way to bring down premiums plus copays is to jam costs down, OR not cover a bunch of expensive stuff like cancer or surgeries or hospitalization, OR, have government subsidize premiums/copays. if you have another idea, let's hear it. Be specific.
 
The pre-existing conditions deal is more tied to denial of coverage than it is to premiums. The problem with health insurance in general is it is a risk pool and there is no way to ethically penalize someone for getting sick.

You can get sick through absolutely no fault of your own; compared to other "insurance" risks are generally one the client chooses to take on; hurricane prone areas, areas prone to wildfire, etc. Clients understand that choosing to live in an area carries a risk they are willing to mitigate via insurance.

Health insurance removes the choice in most areas and penalizes people, via denials of coverage or increased premiums, due to things the client did not choose. Unless we're discussing obesity or smoking related illness, the vast majority of illness are through no choice motives.

This is why a for profit industry does not work when it comes to HC. The incentive to deny claims at all cost is too high and too great.

The left are totally and completely delusional if they think that with such a huge part of our economy linked to the health insurance for profit industry that we can just wave a magic wand and get rid of for profit healthcare. All the left do is dream, waking up thinking that they can change reality into being what they see in their dreams. I have fantasies too but I am sane enough to know that my fantasies are not going to come true.
 
The number one killer of Americans is heart disease. The top risk factors for heart disease are obesity/poor diet, smoking, and lack of exercise, all of which are personal choices.

Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Dental insurance penalizes people for things they did not choose, other than consuming large amounts of sugar and never brushing their teeth."

Well, how many subsidies are given to dump corn syrup (sugar) into everything? Do you know -why- those things are done? Do you understand -anything- about human nature?

This is the primary gripe I have with folks like you.

You deny that companies have figured out a way to get people to do things against their will, because it appeals to a carnal, survival instinct we have yet adapted to remove.

Your argument says "Person who is unlucky enough to get cancer from glyphosphate should pay for their insurance and out of pocket expenses, despite the government knowing it causes cancer, and the unlucky person was poisoned by their neighbor using it."

Your argument is trash.
 
The left are totally and completely delusional if they think that with such a huge part of our economy linked to the health insurance for profit industry that we can just wave a magic wand and get rid of for profit healthcare. All the left do is dream, waking up thinking that they can change reality into being what they see in their dreams. I have fantasies too but I am sane enough to know that my fantasies are not going to come true.

Everyone else has done it.

Tell me why we cannot.
 
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has been scammed...only that people didn't know what they were buying.

I never thought we'd see Trump supporters openly advocate for or shrug their shoulders over actual con men selling garbage to gullible people as a good thing, but here we are. The bar is in the dirt.
 
That $7900 deductible is for ONE person. Face it, Obamacare sucks.

So do you want higher taxes that can be used to bring that down through taxpayer subsidies that go further up the income scale? If not, what's your answer? It's a math problem that starts with the cost of care which is high, and then the premiums and copays have to cover those costs. There is no "free lunch" alternative here.
 
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.

That's really dumb. E.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...b23306-c807-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html

Their money problems began when the University of Virginia Health System pursued the couple with a lawsuit and a lien on their home to recoup $164,000 in charges for Waldron’s emergency surgery in 2017.

The family has lots of company: Over six years ending in June 2018, the health system and its doctors sued former patients more than 36,000 times for over $106 million, seizing wages and bank accounts, putting liens on property and homes and forcing families into bankruptcy, a Kaiser Health News analysis has found.
....
UVA sued patients for as little as $13.91 and as much as $1 million during most of that period, until July 2017, when it restricted lawsuits to those owing more than $1,000, the analysis shows.

Every year, the health system sued about 100 of its own employees who also happened to be patients. It garnished thousands of paychecks, largely from workers at lower-pay employers such as Walmart, where UVA took wages more than 800 times.
 
As I said, I support laws that require an insurance seller to honestly present all the details of a plan they want to sell.

What I don't support...and what Obamacare did...is telling insurance sellers what they were allowed and not allowed to put in their plans and telling buyers what they HAD to buy...or else.

Let the buyer choose and let the buyer live with what they choose...good or bad.

So let them die or the rest of us cover their costs.

So very American capitalism 2019.

Sounds great.

If you don't think about it.
 
That is just plain false. The OP itself stated quite clearly that the ACA addressed this type of coverage, it exists because the ACA allowed it to exist.

The OP, and you apparently, are pissed off because this cheap, stop gap coverage has expanded availability to those who can't afford the more expensive insurance can have something.

What would the other options under the ACA? Coverage that a person between jobs can't afford?

You're furiously moving the goal posts. Kind of funny. You've gone from ACA REQUIRED people to buy these plans to, well, it didn't totally outlaw them, didn't consider them "insurance" at all, and just restricted them to three months, that Trump changed to 36 months, and gutted disclosure requirements, so OBAMA!!!!!

And the reason people are 'pissed' is it's crap insurance sold with inadequate disclosures. It's a con man's plan, and the customers are their marks.
 
Last edited:
No. We don't need 2000+ pages of legislation to tell sellers to be honest.



shrug...

Why should I care about what "most people" support? I don't support the government telling insurers they have to cover pre-existing conditions. I think that should be left between the seller and the buyer.

And just hope your kid isn't born with a chronic condidtion.

So you can go bankrupt, or watch them die, or foist the costs onto the rest of us.

Why do conservative positions sound so asinine if you unpack them past the manufactured narratives?
 
Employees always have a choice...go with the group insurance policy the employer offers, contract with an insurance company for an individual policy or opt to live with no insurance. With less government regulations, even more options may be created. The more options, the more choices. But keep in mind that being able to choose requires taking responsibility for your choice. If you screw up and make the wrong choice, it's on you. The taxpayer shouldn't bail you out.

Bottom line on Obamacare...nobody has ever "forced" consumers to buy something until Obama came along. Obama eliminated choice.

And generally no one is "forced" to provide incredibly costly goods and services for free, except our healthcare system. So the reality is if you get in a bad wreck and "chose" not to have insurance, you are going to be OK because the ER has to put you back together without regard to your ability to pay them for those services. If you have a heart attack and show up in the ED, they'll take care of that too, even if you don't have a penny to your name.

So this "free market" stuff is just nonsense. A big part of the problem is the mandate to treat means the insured carry the costs of treating the uninsured. In right wing land post Obama - but not pre-Obama - the system MUST facilitate freeloading by some with you and me paying the bills through higher premiums. That's fine, I'm happy to do it because the alternative is letting people die on the side of the road for lack of money, but you at least have to recognize that's what you're advocating for.

I don't have a problem with the mandate and penalties because all it does is assign a cost to that guarantee of treatment in the ER/ED. There IS a real cost to that guarantee. If you were to buy that kind of guarantee, the premiums would be non-trivial. So why shouldn't we charge the uninsured for the costs they predictably impose on the rest of us?
 
I agree. Since the individual mandate has been repealed, people should just game Obamacare and keep quiet about it before someone ****s it up. It's fine the way it is. Don't change a thing!

You're furiously moving the goal posts. Kind of funny. You've gone from ACA REQUIRED people to buy these plans to, well, it didn't totally outlaw them, just restricted them to three months, that Trump changed to 36 months, and gutted disclosure requirements, so OBAMA!!!!!

And the reason people are 'pissed' is it's crap insurance sold with inadequate disclosures. It's a con man's plan, and the customers are their marks.
 
What would go a long way towards a free market is to make routine care cash for service WITH UNMANIPULATED prices and get third parties out of the way. Billing an individual at 10 times what an insurance company compensates is price gouging.

And generally no one is "forced" to provide incredibly costly goods and services for free, except our healthcare system. So the reality is if you get in a bad wreck and "chose" not to have insurance, you are going to be OK because the ER has to put you back together without regard to your ability to pay them for those services. If you have a heart attack and show up in the ED, they'll take care of that too, even if you don't have a penny to your name.

So this "free market" stuff is just nonsense. A big part of the problem is the mandate to treat means the insured carry the costs of treating the uninsured. In right wing land post Obama - but not pre-Obama - the system MUST facilitate freeloading by some with you and me paying the bills through higher premiums. That's fine, I'm happy to do it because the alternative is letting people die on the side of the road for lack of money, but you at least have to recognize that's what you're advocating for.
 
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.

Everyone saw this coming.
 
They weren't being very astute. Know your local laws. For example, wage garnishment is generally illegal here in Texas and homes are protected by a homestead exemption.

Good for Texas I guess. Maybe you should start a business telling everyone how to defraud the healthcare providers there, and get care for free with no worries about being forced into bankruptcy, have your credit trashed, etc. Maybe it's possible with "astute" planning, but fraud is not a solution to the healthcare problem
 
If you want to address some pretty clear points, you can. Otherwise I don't see where you have a problem with my comment.

Bottom line is [premiums plus copays] = [cost of care for the insureds plus admin costs and profits for the insurers]. I don't know what you expect to happen. The only way to bring down premiums plus copays is to jam costs down, OR not cover a bunch of expensive stuff like cancer or surgeries or hospitalization, OR, have government subsidize premiums/copays. if you have another idea, let's hear it. Be specific.

That's the problem with the left. They think the only way to control healthcare costs is to stick it to all the providers. We need to find innovative ways from the roots on up in decreasing health care costs.

Why does it cost so much for a doctor to be educated?

Why does that MRI machine cost so much to make?

Why is it so expensive for drug research and development?

Why are doctor's malpractice costs so high?

Etc
 
Everyone else has done it.

Tell me why we cannot.

Because this is 2019. Our system is already in place. It has roots that are rootbound. It would have been a lot easier for us to do it when the other countries did it but, this is 2019. Healthcare is an extremely huge part of our economy and our financial system, including being part of retirement funds. You can't just yank it up by the roots and expect it to live. Now if you want to debate that we should have done it when all the other countries did it, you might have a point but, again, this is 2019.
 
Because this is 2019. Our system is already in place. It has roots that are rootbound. It would have been a lot easier for us to do it when the other countries did it but, this is 2019. Healthcare is an extremely huge part of our economy and our financial system, including being part of retirement funds. You can't just yank it up by the roots and expect it to live.

Wrong.

Everyone else had a system too, that was a huge part of their economy.

This argument is not good enough.
 
So do you want higher taxes that can be used to bring that down through taxpayer subsidies that go further up the income scale? If not, what's your answer? It's a math problem that starts with the cost of care which is high, and then the premiums and copays have to cover those costs. There is no "free lunch" alternative here.

My answer is to attack the reasons why healthcare is so expensive, from the roots up instead of the top down approach liberals want. I gave you some examples in my other post.
 
Back
Top Bottom