• 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!

The Reverse Mandate of the Senate Bill

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Did you guys catch the little tweak they added to the Senate bill? If you have a lapse of coverage for 63 days then you are banned from buying health insurance for 6 months.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/the-senate-bills-new-health-coverage-penalty-is-a-throwback.html

Well so much for the "we want more choice" and "this bill is about responding to what patients want" bullcrap that Tom Price was shoveling. Instead of the government mandating that you buy a service they will mandate that you can't buy a service. Whoa...big ideological shift!
 
insurance companies most likely lobbied for that in order to discourage sick people from buying health insurance. this means that more uninsured will be going to emergency rooms for treatment.
 
Helix said:
insurance companies most likely lobbied for that in order to discourage sick people from buying health insurance. this means that more uninsured will be going to emergency rooms for treatment.
Click to expand...


And.....

the illnesses/injuries will be more acute, harder and more costly to treat as people will wait and wait hoping the signs pass, as they have no coverage.

As an example, diabetes is now what some call an epidemic. McDonald's and Wendy's food takes a toll as we age. Caught early, it's a matter of simply changing diet and exercise, but wait and it's $$$$$ for meds and sooner or later surgery to remove toes and legs.

The American right is so embedded in ideology they can't see the real economics
 
CriticalThought said:
Did you guys catch the little tweak they added to the Senate bill? If you have a lapse of coverage for 63 days then you are banned from buying health insurance for 6 months.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/the-senate-bills-new-health-coverage-penalty-is-a-throwback.html

Well so much for the "we want more choice" and "this bill is about responding to what patients want" bullcrap that Tom Price was shoveling. Instead of the government mandating that you buy a service they will mandate that you can't buy a service. Whoa...big ideological shift!
Click to expand...

There's a rational reason for this, unlike the initial ACA provision which requested that insurance companies pay bills even if the insured hasn't paid a premium in three months.

People have an incentive to buy insurance. If they really want young healthy people to buy insurance then they need to make it so that people at age 19 can't stay on their parent's insurance plans. You can't talk about how much you want "young healthy people" on the plans and then make it so that young healthy people don't have to buy insurance.
 
Helix said:
insurance companies most likely lobbied for that in order to discourage sick people from buying health insurance. this means that more uninsured will be going to emergency rooms for treatment.
Click to expand...

That's only if they let is lapse. It probably to prevent people from dropping their insurance because they are fine, then oops, their sick, I want my insurance back.
 
Fearandloathing said:
And.....

the illnesses/injuries will be more acute, harder and more costly to treat as people will wait and wait hoping the signs pass, as they have no coverage.

As an example, diabetes is now what some call an epidemic. McDonald's and Wendy's food takes a toll as we age. Caught early, it's a matter of simply changing diet and exercise, but wait and it's $$$$$ for meds and sooner or later surgery to remove toes and legs.

The American right is so embedded in ideology they can't see the real economics
Click to expand...

yep, regular checkups and low cost access to medical consultation can prevent all kinds of costs down the road. instead, many people wait until it's situation critical to go to the doctor. and at that point? sometimes it really is situation critical, and that is very expensive for the system.
 
holbritter said:
That's only if they let is lapse. It probably to prevent people from dropping their insurance because they are fine, then oops, their sick, I want my insurance back.
Click to expand...


either way, they'll be going to the emergency room, and you and i will be paying for it in the most inefficient way possible. it will be that way unless they repeal Reagan's law to guarantee stabilization care. i doubt they'll get rid of that particular law, though, so it looks like more emergency room primary care, especially considering what they're trying to do to Medicaid.
 
Helix said:
insurance companies most likely lobbied for that in order to discourage sick people from buying health insurance. this means that more uninsured will be going to emergency rooms for treatment.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what it is. If you can go without insurance until you get sick and then buy it just so you can get treated then the insurance company is going to lose money.
 
SocialD said:
This is exactly what it is. If you can go without insurance until you get sick and then buy it just so you can get treated then the insurance company is going to lose money.
Click to expand...

i support helping out our ailing insurance companies via single payer coverage.
 
Helix said:
i support helping out our ailing insurance companies via single payer coverage.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at reports of waiting times for treatment in countries that have single payer?
I would hope we could do better if we had it but if you look at Canada.
A month for a CT scan.. 3 months for an MRI. 5 months to get treated by a specialist
average wait time for surgery almost 3 months.
 
Last edited:
SocialD said:
Have you looked at reports of waiting times for treatment in countries that have single payer?
Click to expand...

i've heard the talking point, if that's what you mean. in reality, though :

BW - 1.jpg

if healthcare in other first world nations was as crushingly horrible as some posters on American message boards like to pretend it is, the data would look a lot different. also, there would be at least a dozen posters from those countries chiming in that they'd trade health care systems with us in a second. i have yet to come across one. if i ever do, it's going to be a fun story time thread.
 
Helix said:
i've heard the talking point, if that's what you mean. in reality, though :

View attachment 67219227

if healthcare in other first world nations was as crushingly horrible as some posters on American message boards like to pretend it is, the data would look a lot different. also, there would be at least a dozen posters from those countries chiming in that they'd trade health care systems with us in a second. i have yet to come across one. if i ever do, it's going to be a fun story time thread.
Click to expand...

There are a huuge amount of variables in life expectancy. I know that's the go-to argument but there are a lot of holes in it. The spending part of course is way to high in the usa. there are various legitimate reasons for that and a lot of reasons that aren't legit.
 
CriticalThought said:
Did you guys catch the little tweak they added to the Senate bill? If you have a lapse of coverage for 63 days then you are banned from buying health insurance for 6 months.

The Senate bill?s new health coverage penalty is a throwback

Well so much for the "we want more choice" and "this bill is about responding to what patients want" bullcrap that Tom Price was shoveling. Instead of the government mandating that you buy a service they will mandate that you can't buy a service. Whoa...big ideological shift!
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's functionally much different from the current scheme of not being able to buy insurance for almost a whole year if you miss open enrollment. The same thought is behind both.
 
Helix said:
it's legit. also, the flipside of the argument that you are relying on is addressed here :

https://www.debatepolitics.com/heal...enate-bill-post1067350445.html#post1067350445
Click to expand...

Yea that's the same threat we are in. We didn't have the ACA 7 years ago and lapses in coverage amounted to the same thing. ANd they even do now.
Health insurance is available during open enrollment period unless you have a life change situation like moving getting married etc. You cannot go on healthcare.gov right now and buy insurance unless you qualify for the special enrollment. say you dropped your insurance at the end of the year last year and now you want to sign up. if you didn't have a special enrollment condition you cant.
 
SocialD said:
Have you looked at reports of waiting times for treatment in countries that have single payer?
I would hope we could do better if we had it but if you look at Canada.
A month for a CT scan.. 3 months for an MRI. 5 months to get treated by a specialist
average wait time for surgery almost 3 months.
Click to expand...

And you don't go bankrupt from any of it and it ends costing far less for everyone. Also Canada is not the only single-payer system in the world, and many things could be improved.
 
CriticalThought said:
Did you guys catch the little tweak they added to the Senate bill? If you have a lapse of coverage for 63 days then you are banned from buying health insurance for 6 months.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/the-senate-bills-new-health-coverage-penalty-is-a-throwback.html

Well so much for the "we want more choice" and "this bill is about responding to what patients want" bullcrap that Tom Price was shoveling. Instead of the government mandating that you buy a service they will mandate that you can't buy a service. Whoa...big ideological shift!
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what made america great, serving the aristocracy.
 
Carjosse said:
And you don't go bankrupt from any of it and it ends costing far less for everyone. Also Canada is not the only single-payer system in the world, and many things could be improved.
Click to expand...

We do not want things improved, that's just who we are. And we’re so adamant about it that we like paying more for US pharma products than the Canadians do because due to their single payer system they can negotiate the pricing they will pay downward. We like our system so much that we help US pharma make up the difference. Why, that’s why we’re so exceptional.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't see how that's functionally much different from the current scheme of not being able to buy insurance for almost a whole year if you miss open enrollment. The same thought is behind both.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You can buy a short term insurance plan if you miss open enrollment. Under the Senate bill, you would be prohibited from doing so.
 
Helix said:
i've heard the talking point, if that's what you mean. in reality, though :

View attachment 67219227

if healthcare in other first world nations was as crushingly horrible as some posters on American message boards like to pretend it is, the data would look a lot different. also, there would be at least a dozen posters from those countries chiming in that they'd trade health care systems with us in a second. i have yet to come across one. if i ever do, it's going to be a fun story time thread.
Click to expand...

the data would not look different by the way.

Seriously.. you need to go check out what single payer say in Canada actually pays for.. and what it doesn't... like pharmaceuticals, outpatient therapies, durable medical goods...

Then compare it to your current insurance.

Then come back and talk about how wonderful these countries have it. When their insurance is worse than our pretty much our worst insurance (Medicaid). ,
 
CriticalThought said:
Incorrect. You can buy a short term insurance plan if you miss open enrollment. Under the Senate bill, you would be prohibited from doing so.
Click to expand...

MAYBE you can buy a short-term plan; that's not a guarantee. You can be turned down, and they're not available in every state. You can be turned down for pre-existing conditions, they're not ACA-compliant, so you still pay the tax penalty, and they're for three months only.

That six month gap doesn't look much different by comparison.
 
SocialD said:
Have you looked at reports of waiting times for treatment in countries that have single payer?
I would hope we could do better if we had it but if you look at Canada.
A month for a CT scan.. 3 months for an MRI. 5 months to get treated by a specialist
average wait time for surgery almost 3 months.
Click to expand...

I wish we had a system as good as Canadas. The Canadians seem to like too, seeing as how they are keeping it and getting rid of it does not register as political issue in Canada. In comparison, almost everyone in the US agrees that our "superior" health care system is a train wreck.

And we have plenty of wait times in the US also. When I suspected my mom had Alzheimers, it took two months to get an appt with a neurologist.
 
Harshaw said:
MAYBE you can buy a short-term plan; that's not a guarantee. You can be turned down, and they're not available in every state. You can be turned down for pre-existing conditions, they're not ACA-compliant, so you still pay the tax penalty, and they're for three months only.

That six month gap doesn't look much different by comparison.
Click to expand...

It is a huge difference. The government is prohibiting the purchase of insurance.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a huge difference. The government is prohibiting the purchase of insurance.
Click to expand...

For no longer a period of time than the ACA currently does, if indeed short-term policies are prohibited.

It's not clear from your story, nor the story it links to, that short-term policies actually are prohibited.

And again, it's all for the same reasons as the ACA's open enrollment lockout.
 
Last edited:
SocialD said:
Yea that's the same threat we are in. We didn't have the ACA 7 years ago and lapses in coverage amounted to the same thing. ANd they even do now.
Health insurance is available during open enrollment period unless you have a life change situation like moving getting married etc. You cannot go on healthcare.gov right now and buy insurance unless you qualify for the special enrollment. say you dropped your insurance at the end of the year last year and now you want to sign up. if you didn't have a special enrollment condition you cant.
Click to expand...

I think people choosing to do that is profoundly different than booting millions of people off medicare and medicaid then banning them from buying insurance (even if they could afford to do that) for 6 months. The Republicans either cobbled together a bunch of ideas without considering the consequences or they did and just don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom