• 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!

Trump’s new health insurance rules expected to hurt Obamacare

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,262
Reaction score
82,620
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump’s new health insurance rules expected to hurt Obamacare

180618-donald-trump.jpg


6/19/18
Obamacare suffered another blow Tuesday when the Trump administration announced plans to make it easier for small businesses and trade groups to band together to purchase health coverage outside of the law’s insurance markets. President Donald Trump touted the expansion of so-called association health plans, which offer fewer consumer protections than Obamacare coverage, as a much-needed cheaper alternative. But critics have warned that the latest move will further drive up Obamacare premiums and weaken the law. Democrats decried the new rules as the latest act of Obamacare “sabotage” that will drive up health insurance premiums for millions in the law’s insurance markets. Critics warn the steps will further destabilize wobbly Obamacare markets by siphoning off younger and healthier customers, who are more likely to favor cheaper plans that cover less. “These plans weaken protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “No single group that represents physicians, patients, hospitals or nurses is supportive. Not one." The new regulations are likely to spark a legal challenge on the grounds that they violate federal labor law and need approval from Congress. Insurance regulators, particularly in states that have embraced Obamacare, are also likely to push back against the changes.
Click to expand...

Trump ... always working to tear down.

Related: Trump is finalizing one of his big proposals to undercut the ACA
 
Well, of course he is. They couldn't repeal it so he's been trying to hamstring it in as many ways as possible, so that he can finally back up his claim that it was "broken".
 
Mr Person said:
Well, of course he is. They couldn't repeal it so he's been trying to hamstring it in as many ways as possible, so that he can finally back up his claim that it was "broken".
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. All this is is another way to attempt to cover for his abysmal, colossal, gigantic failure to repeal the ACA, like he promised the underpants tossers at his rally he would.

The smart people see right through it. Then there are his supporters.....
 
trouble13 said:
Why are you against less expensive Healthcare options for people? Isn't Healthcare supposedly so important that it should be as cheap as possible? This offers people affordable alternatives to obamacare

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, if we're asking questions, why are you for dishonestly oversimplifying things while reframing them so as to suit the position you want to defend?




Obama won in 2008 in large part because of his health care ideas. The trouble with the "less expensive healthcare" not subject to Obamacare requirements is that it lacks all the protections designed to address the problems that caused both parties to admit in 2007-08 that insurance-based health care was broken as it was.

There's no point in getting cheap insurance if it drops you when you get sick, if it can easily claim you didn't really need a procedure and denies coverage, if it can only accept perfectly healthy young patients, etc etc etc. If the insurance is allowed to disappear when you need it, it isn't insurance.

Obamacare had plenty of faults, big ones even, but that's not where they lay and this is not designed to fix them. This is designed to break things further.
 
it's difficult to be constructive, to build but Trump ALWAYS takes the easy route to tear down .............. way to go ***** (grabber) ..........
 
Mr Person said:
Well, if we're asking questions, why are you for dishonestly oversimplifying things while reframing them so as to suit the position you want to defend?




Obama won in 2008 in large part because of his health care ideas. The trouble with the "less expensive healthcare" not subject to Obamacare requirements is that it lacks all the protections designed to address the problems that caused both parties to admit in 2007-08 that insurance-based health care was broken as it was.

There's no point in getting cheap insurance if it drops you when you get sick, if it can easily claim you didn't really need a procedure and denies coverage, if it can only accept perfectly healthy young patients, etc etc etc. If the insurance is allowed to disappear when you need it, it isn't insurance.

Obamacare had plenty of faults, big ones even, but that's not where they lay and this is not designed to fix them. This is designed to break things further.
Click to expand...
What good is insurance that is too expensive to use?

I rather have a watered down plan that I can get some benefit from rather then pay into one that is too expensive for me to use.

Trump was elected to get rid of obamacare

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
What good is insurance that is too expensive to use?

I rather have a watered down plan that I can get some benefit from rather then pay into one that is too expensive for me to use.
Click to expand...

The subsidies didn't kick in soon enough and there were no real mechanisms for affecting prices. No public option, etc.. Like I said, a number of big faults. If the GOP were interested in helping the country, they'd work to fix those things.

Getting cheaper insurance by getting rid of the protections that were good in Obamacare isn't a fix for the reasons I already stated. But that's what Trump wants to do because it's the way to *get* liberals and please people who never understood the issue in the first place.








trouble13 said:
Trump was elected to get rid of obamacare
Click to expand...

Not if you were paying attention.

Trump was elected as a **** you to "the liberals", but mainly because Hillary was a terrible candidate who ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. She still would have won if she'd only not ignored the few states that flipped to Obama on the assumption that they'd go for her just because.

Any other candidate, or if she ran a good campaign, and Trump would have lost. He won by an ass hair as it was. 3 million fewer popular votes, but enough votes in the states Hillary ignored.

:shrug:
 
Quote...

" Obamacare suffered another blow Tuesday when the Trump administration announced plans to make it easier for small businesses and trade groups to band together to purchase health coverage outside of the law’s insurance markets. "

Bit by bit President Trump is tearing down this treacherous obamascare. The audacity of this former dictator creating such a unaffordable heath care shtick. More insurance carriers will offer a decent and a true affordable coverage. Those carriers dropped out will return.
 
trouble13 said:
What good is insurance that is too expensive to use?

I rather have a watered down plan that I can get some benefit from rather then pay into one that is too expensive for me to use.

Trump was elected to get rid of obamacare

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why not just admit that you hate the way that free market insurance works, because hate to tell you, that IS how free market insurance works in health care.
You have to have the largest risk pool possible and you don't separate the sick people from the healthy people.
Because if you do, then the sick people wind up not being able to get coverage, and if you remove bans on discriminating against preexisting conditions, they can't get coverage AT ANY COST no matter how high, because they are deemed UNINSURABLE.

So in essence, you're objecting to the ideal free market model, and you want SPECIAL TREATMENT because you're healthy.
Divide and conquer, this is the Trump model, this is the Republican model.

See you in November...we're going to make single payer happen in this country. Maybe not in November, but it's coming and you can't stop what's coming.
 
Mr Person said:
The subsidies didn't kick in soon enough and there were no real mechanisms for affecting prices. No public option, etc.. Like I said, a number of big faults. If the GOP were interested in helping the country, they'd work to fix those things.

Getting cheaper insurance by getting rid of the protections that were good in Obamacare isn't a fix for the reasons I already stated. But that's what Trump wants to do because it's the way to *get* liberals and please people who never understood the issue in the first place.










Not if you were paying attention.

Trump was elected as a **** you to "the liberals", but mainly because Hillary was a terrible candidate who ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. She still would have won if she'd only not ignored the few states that flipped to Obama on the assumption that they'd go for her just because.

Any other candidate, or if she ran a good campaign, and Trump would have lost. He won by an ass hair as it was. 3 million fewer popular votes, but enough votes in the states Hillary ignored.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I voted for Trump and I can tell you I didn't cast my vote as a **** you to liberals. I generally like liberals with the exception of the ones that express utter contempt for anyone they disagree with. My vote wasn't vindictive, it was my preference.

Healthcare was one of the few things I disagreed with Trump on. He was talking about replacing obamacare with Trumpcare. I don't want that either. I am a firm believer that hmo, ppo style of insurance is the problem. Obamacare or single payer system are bigger versions of them. If people had to iay for their healthcare out of pocket prices would drop like a rock. If hospitals could garnish wages to get back unpaid bills it would bring prices down. If we got away from employer provided insurance and programs like cobra prices would come down. Those are the directions we should be working toward.

Trump latest reform is a step in that direction. Imo the people who support obamacare, trumpcare, hmo, ppo, single payer, all have it completely backwards

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Why not just admit that you hate the way that free market insurance works, because hate to tell you, that IS how free market insurance works in health care.
You have to have the largest risk pool possible and you don't separate the sick people from the healthy people.
Because if you do, then the sick people wind up not being able to get coverage, and if you remove bans on discriminating against preexisting conditions, they can't get coverage AT ANY COST no matter how high, because they are deemed UNINSURABLE.

So in essence, you're objecting to the ideal free market model, and you want SPECIAL TREATMENT because you're healthy.
Divide and conquer, this is the Trump model, this is the Republican model.

See you in November...we're going to make single payer happen in this country. Maybe not in November, but it's coming and you can't stop what's coming.
Click to expand...

Its not insurance if you guarantee it. It's an entitlement. No free market principles at play.

Read my response to Pearson post #15 I believe. That is my view of what healthcare should look like.

See you in November, I think your wrong about your opinion on healthcare but if I get out voted I will accept the results of that. I will keep voting against you but I won't this a tantrum over not getting my way.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Its not insurance if you guarantee it. It's an entitlement. No free market principles at play.

Read my response to Pearson post #15 I believe. That is my view of what healthcare should look like.

See you in November, I think your wrong about your opinion on healthcare but if I get out voted I will accept the results of that. I will keep voting against you but I won't this a tantrum over not getting my way.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How can you say that? The whole concept of insurance revolves around a practice or arrangement by which a company or even a government agency provides a guarantee of compensation in return for payment of a premium.

The very definition of insurance is a contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril.

"If people had to pay for their healthcare out of pocket prices would drop like a rock. If hospitals could garnish wages to get back unpaid bills it would bring prices down. If we got away from employer provided insurance and programs like cobra prices would come down."
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the ramifications of your statement.
My son had three open heart surgeries before the age of five, for a total of what would have amounted to a million dollars or more. At that time, Karen was subsisting on Medicare and Social Security Disability Income due to having lost the ability to walk (she had not yet received an official MS diagnosis) and I was working in a factory in Jonesboro Arkansas making wood pallets for $6.71/hr.
Now, short of committing an outrageous white collar crime of some kind on a mass scale, how do you suppose two people living in a trailer in Arkansas would be able to pay for that kind of a bill out of pocket?

BriDaryl7yrsold.jpg

Like I said, you don't seem to understand how health insurance works.
It's not car insurance, but by the way, most every state now requires you to HAVE car insurance in order to drive, for a reason.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
How can you say that? The whole concept of insurance revolves around a practice or arrangement by which a company or even a government agency provides a guarantee of compensation in return for payment of a premium.

The very definition of insurance is a contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril.



I don't think you understand the ramifications of your statement.
My son had three open heart surgeries before the age of five, for a total of what would have amounted to a million dollars or more. At that time, Karen was subsisting on Medicare and Social Security Disability Income due to having lost the ability to walk (she had not yet received an official MS diagnosis) and I was working in a factory in Jonesboro Arkansas making wood pallets for $6.71/hr.
Now, short of committing an outrageous white collar crime of some kind on a mass scale, how do you suppose two people living in a trailer in Arkansas would be able to pay for that kind of a bill out of pocket?

View attachment 67234665

Like I said, you don't seem to understand how health insurance works.
It's not car insurance, but by the way, most every state now requires you to HAVE car insurance in order to drive, for a reason.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to unpack in your post.

1. I'm very sorry for you and your family and the hardships you face.
2. I get it. I understand what your trying to do with providing healthcare for everyone who needs it in a way that they can afford it. I wish your way would work but I don't see it as a sustainable finacial model unless some miracle medical marvel breakthrough occurs that fixes everyone for pennies.
The biggest flaw that I see is the human element. There is no control in place to stop people from using services they don't need. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. My doctor charges $200 a visit but it only costs me $25 per visit. The rest is paid by insurance. Because of the med he has me on I must go see him every month to get a new script. He can't write refills because they are considered controlled substances. If he feels I need a test or prescribes me drugs I have discounts covering all of that. They get the rest from the insurance company. When I leave there I just go to the most convince pharmacy or lab available and get what I need. It makes no difference to me, it all costs the same. The thing is it does not cost my insurer all the same. Pharmacy and lab prices vary from one place to another. They don't care that I use more expensive places because it gives them justification to raise my premiums. They want us to spend more. 1% of 1 billion is more than 1% of 1 million but they just claim they are only charging 1% above operating costs. There is no incentive in place to control costs. That's why it costs so much for you kid to get an operation that he has to have. We need to break that model.
3. Car insurance isn't insurance if I can go run my car into a tree and then bo buy a policy and claim that accident. I don't know what that is but that's not insurance.
4. We mandate insurance to protect other people not us. If you own your car your only required go carry liability. If the bank owns your car they require you to carry full coverage.
5. The mandate hopes that compulsory payments into the pool will be enough to cover the expenses of the group. This I am skeptical of because of the lack of cost controls that I talked about earlier. There is however a larger problem to go with it. Not everyone can afford it. People just starting out in life have the least need for it and have the least income. They are not in a good finacial position to have that burden forced on them. It's also the antithesis of freedom to force someone to purchase something against their will.

The compromise is the preexisting clause in a policy. The insurer does not have go cover new policy holders for preexisting conditions but they also can't cut you if you become sick while bring covered. That is what motivates people to get insurance when they are healthy.

The old system had problems but obamacare didn't fix them. If anything it made them worse.



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
What good is insurance that is too expensive to use?

I rather have a watered down plan that I can get some benefit from rather then pay into one that is too expensive for me to use.
Click to expand...

trouble13 said:
The biggest flaw that I see is the human element. There is no control in place to stop people from using services they don't need. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. My doctor charges $200 a visit but it only costs me $25 per visit. The rest is paid by insurance. Because of the med he has me on I must go see him every month to get a new script. He can't write refills because they are considered controlled substances. If he feels I need a test or prescribes me drugs I have discounts covering all of that. They get the rest from the insurance company. When I leave there I just go to the most convince pharmacy or lab available and get what I need. It makes no difference to me, it all costs the same. The thing is it does not cost my insurer all the same. Pharmacy and lab prices vary from one place to another. They don't care that I use more expensive places because it gives them justification to raise my premiums. They want us to spend more. 1% of 1 billion is more than 1% of 1 million but they just claim they are only charging 1% above operating costs. There is no incentive in place to control costs. That's why it costs so much for you kid to get an operation that he has to have. We need to break that model.
Click to expand...

So, to sum up: the problem with the ACA is that it exposes people to too much of the cost when they go to buy care. Also, the solution to our cost problem is for people to pay more of the cost when they go to buy care.


Super.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom