• 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!

Biggest Flash Points In The Graham-Cassidy Health Care Bill

OK, then explain why using the pre-existing conditions of age and tobacco use are allowed to raise premiums by up to 300%?
I don't know where you got 300%. I found this on WebMD:

Aug. 27, 2013 -- The Affordable Care Act has ended some age-old health insurance practices such as denying people with pre-existing conditions. But it does allow insurance companies to charge people who use tobacco 50% more for their premiums.

So, let's recap. Smokers used to be denied coverage entirely. Under the ACA, smokers can't be denied but can be charged 50% more but states can decide to make that p% lower.

Is it fair? That's a judgement. Smoking is one of those areas that the individual can control. (e.g. quit and save 50% on your insurance.) Smoking certainly is a cost risk.
 
I don't know where you got 300%. I found this on WebMD:



So, let's recap. Smokers used to be denied coverage entirely. Under the ACA, smokers can't be denied but can be charged 50% more but states can decide to make that p% lower.

Is it fair? That's a judgement. Smoking is one of those areas that the individual can control. (e.g. quit and save 50% on your insurance.) Smoking certainly is a cost risk.

This, among other sources, explains the age surcharge allowed under PPACA.

Fair Health Insurance Premiums
According to section 2701 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, insurance carriers may vary premium rates for the following reasons:

Whether the plan or coverage applies to an individual or family
Rating area (as established by each state)
Age, as long as it does not vary more than 3:1 for adults
Tobacco use, as long as it does not vary more than 1.5:1

http://www.imctr.com/Content.aspx?id=2754

Many things, including obesity, are cost risks yet PPACA decided to keep only age and tobacco use.
 
OK, then explain why using the pre-existing conditions of age and tobacco use are allowed to raise premiums by up to 300%?

Your corporate insurance industry demands it.
 
That's how industry lobbying works, some win, some lose, and it ain't about nothing but the bottom line.

OK, but simply drop the BS that PPACA did away with pre-existing conditions - it simply limited them and still allows premiums for adults to vary up to 300%.
 
OK, but simply drop the BS that PPACA did away with pre-existing conditions - it simply limited them and still allows premiums for adults to vary up to 300%.

Never did, did I. No one in your political arena has an intention of serving the people on this healthcare issue, get over that for starters.
 
This, among other sources, explains the age surcharge allowed under PPACA.



http://www.imctr.com/Content.aspx?id=2754

Many things, including obesity, are cost risks yet PPACA decided to keep only age and tobacco use.
As previously posted, that's what the insurance lobby wanted. But what wasn't stated was one of the other legs of the three-legged stool, subsidies. Those older Americans and smokers would get bigger subsidies to help them pay for their premiums -- presuming those Americans are within 400% of the poverty line. That's a feature no GOP alternative contains.
 
As previously posted, that's what the insurance lobby wanted. But what wasn't stated was one of the other legs of the three-legged stool, subsidies. Those older Americans and smokers would get bigger subsidies to help them pay for their premiums -- presuming those Americans are within 400% of the poverty line. That's a feature no GOP alternative contains.

Hmm... the bright side is that if you are old and/or a tobacco user and poor then others (instead of you) get to pay more subsidies because of that. Brilliant. ;)
 
Hmm... the bright side is that if you are old and/or a tobacco user and poor then others (instead of you) get to pay more subsidies because of that. Brilliant. ;)
The ACA isn’t magic -- it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people -- the healthy and wealthy -- to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.

That's what the ACA was designed to do. The GOP alternative bills all throw millions off insurance or making it so unaffordable they can't realistically buy it. But they do give tax-cuts to rich people, which will make you happy.
 
The ACA isn’t magic -- it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people -- the healthy and wealthy -- to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.

That's what the ACA was designed to do. The GOP alternative bills all throw millions off insurance or making it so unaffordable they can't realistically buy it. But they do give tax-cuts to rich people, which will make you happy.

Are you kidding me? The healthy and wealthy should pay more to subsidize insurance for those that are poor and use tobacco so that they do not have to?
 
The GOP is more than willing to inflict misery on tens of millions of Americans simply in order to claim their ACA "repeal and replace" promise to the base was kept.

What the base fails to realize/appreciate is that the GOP is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're ALL screwed if this monstrosity passes.

I don't like this bill I prefer a straight repeal. I would like to be able to buy catastrophic insurance coverage again. The crap on the market sucks, I wouldn't even call it insurance. 4 digit payments, larger 4 digit deductibles and oh by the way you still get stuck with 40 to 20 percent of the bill. That's not insurance, that's crap.
 
Are you kidding me? The healthy and wealthy should pay more to subsidize insurance for those that are poor and use tobacco so that they do not have to?
That's mainly how insurance works. Premiums from people who don't get into accidents are paying for those that do get into accidents. With health care, if we didn't mandate that everyone have coverage, a group of healthy people would drop out, leaving a pool of only sick people. If we didn't have subsidies, those people couldn't afford insurance. If you don't want a dysfunctional system, that's what needs to be done.
 
I don't like this bill I prefer a straight repeal. I would like to be able to buy catastrophic insurance coverage again. The crap on the market sucks, I wouldn't even call it insurance. 4 digit payments, larger 4 digit deductibles and oh by the way you still get stuck with 40 to 20 percent of the bill. That's not insurance, that's crap.

So, you preferred the system that we had before, where insurance companies could refuse to write a policy to you and you had a lifetime cap? Regarding price, nobody is telling you to by a cheap Bronze plan that has high deductibles.
 
So, you preferred the system that we had before, where insurance companies could refuse to write a policy to you and you had a lifetime cap? Regarding price, nobody is telling you to by a cheap Bronze plan that has high deductibles.

Actually yes I did prefer pre-obama care it was far better period. The "cheap" plan is not insurance, its crap with a capital "C". So I spend 20,000 dollars a year on ****ing "insurance" that covers jack ****? I don't think so.
 
it's a truly awful bill. i have a preexisting condition and live in a red state, so i would be turbo ****ed by this. it sucks having to bite my nails and hope for just one more Republican to vote this piece of **** into the sewer.

I am all for state's rights, but certain issues should be national. Preexisting conditions being the first and foremost. None of us know when we may fall into that category.
We shouldn't have to worry.
 
Actually yes I did prefer pre-obama care it was far better period. The "cheap" plan is not insurance, its crap with a capital "C". So I spend 20,000 dollars a year on ****ing "insurance" that covers jack ****? I don't think so.
I am sure you would have felt differently had you a chronic illness, like cancer, that required continuous expensive treatments that would run up against your lifetime caps.

I don't know what policy that you have that costs $20K and "covers jack". My employer plan costs $18,000 and covers everything, including drugs and dental. The copays are $20 and there is no deductible for in-plan doctors.

In any case, most Americans weren't happy with the old system that allowed preexisting discrimination, shut-out 30 million of Americans, had lifetime caps, and rose twice the rate of inflation.
 
That's mainly how insurance works. Premiums from people who don't get into accidents are paying for those that do get into accidents. With health care, if we didn't mandate that everyone have coverage, a group of healthy people would drop out, leaving a pool of only sick people. If we didn't have subsidies, those people couldn't afford insurance. If you don't want a dysfunctional system, that's what needs to be done.

What sense does it make to charge a flat rate to the poor and not to others? You either have folks paying higher premiums based on their actuarial risk or you don't. You seem to be equating two things that have nothing to do with each other - subsidies and variable premium costs based on actuarial risk. The moronic part of PPACA subsidies is that they are not a percentage discount based on an individual's policy cost they establish a flat out of pocket cost regardless of the actuarial risk based actual policy cost. I guess the logic works like this - since you are poor and spend about $2K/year on cigarettes then you deserve to pay the same for your PPACA insurance as those that are poor and do not smoke cigarettes but others must pay a larger subsidy to help the poor smoker.
 
i agree that employer specific coverage is one of the poorest ways that we could provide access to health care, and i support eliminating it in favor of single payer. however, since that is exceptionally unlikely to happen anytime soon, getting rid of it without having anything to take its place could potentially ruin a lot of us financially.

Employers were covering employees before the ACA. The employer mandate was put on hold until 2016. for the vast vast majority of people..the mandate has little effect on getting people healthcare insurance.
 
I don't like this bill I prefer a straight repeal. I would like to be able to buy catastrophic insurance coverage again. The crap on the market sucks, I wouldn't even call it insurance. 4 digit payments, larger 4 digit deductibles and oh by the way you still get stuck with 40 to 20 percent of the bill. That's not insurance, that's crap.

Yeah.. your post makes no sense.

if you get a catastrophic insurance coverage... your coverage will be much worse than you have now. That's the point of a catastrophic coverage.
 
Actually yes I did prefer pre-obama care it was far better period. The "cheap" plan is not insurance, its crap with a capital "C". So I spend 20,000 dollars a year on ****ing "insurance" that covers jack ****? I don't think so.

I call BS.
 
Yeah.. your post makes no sense.

if you get a catastrophic insurance coverage... your coverage will be much worse than you have now. That's the point of a catastrophic coverage.

My catastrophic plan covered 100% after a $5000 dollar deductible including prescriptions for about $150 a month. That's insurance. Not what this Obamacare **** is.
 
My catastrophic plan covered 100% after a $5000 dollar deductible including prescriptions for about $150 a month. That's insurance. Not what this Obamacare **** is.

In other words.. it only covered catatstrophic care. Like getting into a four wheeler accident and needed brain surgery or emergency care.

It did not cover if your knee went bad and you needed a total knee, or a meniscal surgery.. or if you hurt your shoulder and needed rotator cuff repair , or if you needed diabetic care.. or heart care and testing. Basically anything done on an outpatient basis.

Your catastrophic plan didn;t cover crap.

You current insurance covers far far far more than your catastrophic plan did. Its why it was called a catastrophic plan. it only covers things that are catastrophic.. that are done in an inpatient hospital setting. Heck.. It probably would not have even covered you if you needed a stent or an angioplasty for your heart.
 
I am all for state's rights, but certain issues should be national. Preexisting conditions being the first and foremost. None of us know when we may fall into that category.
We shouldn't have to worry.

given enough time, the vast majority of us fall into that category.
 
Employers were covering employees before the ACA. The employer mandate was put on hold until 2016. for the vast vast majority of people..the mandate has little effect on getting people healthcare insurance.

if it makes little difference, then there should be no problem with leaving the employer mandate in place until we adopt a more first world approach to providing health care access.

but i think that we both know that's not the case.
 
if it makes little difference, then there should be no problem with leaving the employer mandate in place until we adopt a more first world approach to providing health care access.

but i think that we both know that's not the case.

Actually I would agree with that. There probably is no problem with the employer mandate in place for now.

ultimately we need to get away from employer sponsored healthcare plans (without single payer which you really won't like), but we aren't there with the solution yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom