• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Little-Noted Provision of GOP Health Bill Could Alter Employer Plans

We all use them. It's part of living in a civilized society.

Yet people that use them directly more pay more. Use the highways? Youre paying more through gas tax, registration fees and tolls. Use schools? Youre paying more with fees and enrollments. Maybe that's part of living in a civilized society. Some places you have to opt in for fire protection - That too would still be a civilized society. And, if this bill passes, you use more medical services? You'll be paying more premiums.
 
Yet people that use them directly more pay more. Use the highways? Youre paying more through gas tax, registration fees and tolls. Use schools? Youre paying more with fees and enrollments. Maybe that's part of living in a civilized society. Some places you have to opt in for fire protection - That too would still be a civilized society. And, if this bill passes, you use more medical services? You'll be paying more premiums.

Fees and enrollments to go to public school?
And, opt for fire protection? Do the fire fighters check to see if you've paid your fire taxes before coming?
Do you opt for police protection as well?
Where is it you live, again?
 
the real question is will the democrats allow the republicans to create a fake reality like the republicans did with the ACA
 
Fees and enrollments to go to public school?

I pay over 200 per year per kid for public school.

And, opt for fire protection? Do the fire fighters check to see if you've paid your fire taxes before coming?

Of course. It's in the news every so often.
 
I pay over 200 per year per kid for public school.



Of course. It's in the news every so often.

I had no idea there were places in the USA where people have to pay tuition for public schools, or can opt out of fire protection. I suppose you have to choose your neighbors well. If you have fire protection, but your neighbor doesn't, his house burning to the ground would put yours in danger as well.

No doubt it's impossible to get fire insurance without opting for fire protection, so there must be some people homeless as a result.
 
I had no idea there were places in the USA where people have to pay tuition for public schools, or can opt out of fire protection. I suppose you have to choose your neighbors well. If you have fire protection, but your neighbor doesn't, his house burning to the ground would put yours in danger as well.

No doubt it's impossible to get fire insurance without opting for fire protection, so there must be some people homeless as a result.

After researching it further, many places (more and more) charge fees for public schools. I assumed everywhere does, as I have just been used to it. I'm surprised there are some places that do not.

If a house on fire did not opt in, and it is next to someone that did opt in, the fire departments will ensure the opt in house is safe. They will not save the opt out house.
 
After researching it further, many places (more and more) charge fees for public schools. I assumed everywhere does, as I have just been used to it. I'm surprised there are some places that do not.

If a house on fire did not opt in, and it is next to someone that did opt in, the fire departments will ensure the opt in house is safe. They will not save the opt out house.

That sounds like a pretty inefficient system, but if that's what the local people have decided on, then so be it.
 
Yet people that use them directly more pay more. Use the highways? Youre paying more through gas tax, registration fees and tolls. Use schools? Youre paying more with fees and enrollments. Maybe that's part of living in a civilized society. Some places you have to opt in for fire protection - That too would still be a civilized society. And, if this bill passes, you use more medical services? You'll be paying more premiums.

You realize you have to pay your copays and deductibles when you use your health insurance, right? People who use services are already paying more.
 
You realize you have to pay your copays and deductibles when you use your health insurance, right? People who use services are already paying more.

It obviously wasn't enough, as evidenced by the fact that the premiums were going up as quickly as they were, the companies leaving Obamacare even before Trump's election, and many others issues.
 
Last-minute amendment would allow states to obtain waivers from certain Affordable Care Act


Many people who obtain health insurance through their employers—about half of the country—could be at risk of losing protections that limit out-of-pocket costs for catastrophic illnesses, due to a little-noticed provision of the House Republican health-care bill to be considered Thursday, health-policy experts say.

The provision, part of a last-minute amendment, lets states obtain waivers from certain Affordable Care Act insurance regulations. Insurers in states that obtain the waivers could be freed from a regulation mandating that they cover 10 particular types of health services, among them maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health treatment and hospitalization.

That could also affect plans offered by large employers, health analysts said.




The ACA prevents employer plans from putting annual limits on the amount of care they will cover, and it bars lifetime limits on the 10 essential benefits. But in 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance stating that employers aren’t bound by the benefits mandated by their state and can pick from another state’s list of required benefits. That guidance was mostly meaningless because the ACA established a national set of essential benefits.
Newsletter Sign-up

Under the House bill, large employers could choose the benefit requirements from any state—including those that are allowed to lower their benchmarks under a waiver, health analysts said. By choosing a waiver state, employers looking to lower their costs could impose lifetime limits and eliminate the out-of-pocket cost cap from their plans under the GOP legislation.................

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/little...th-bill-could-alter-employer-plans-1493890203


The Evil Cynic in me really really really hopes The GOP, their Supporters and The Country gets exactly what it Voted for. :2razz:

The question is what is to be done and can what is needed to be done get done with the current polarization and partisanship. If what I read is correct, keeping the ACA is not really a viable option. Nine states next year will be down to one insurance company offering insurance through the ACA, that's not a choice, that is a take it, take it situation since health insurance is mandatory. Then there is the case of Iowa which might not have any insurance company at all offering insurance there through the ACA. If this happens in 2018, how many states that will be down to one, have none? All the benefits in the world that must be in the ACA insurances policies are totally worthless if one can't get insurance through the ACA.

Trumpcare is nothing more than ACA lite with many of the same problems. Worthless. Without something constructive being done by both parties working together instead of fighting each other tooth and nail...The prospects don't look good either keeping the ACA or going to Trumpcare. It's a lose, lose situation for the American people.
 
It obviously wasn't enough, as evidenced by the fact that the premiums were going up as quickly as they were, the companies leaving Obamacare even before Trump's election, and many others issues.

Oh, for sure. I don't think the answer is to let them price the sick people out of being able to afford insurance though. This would be kinda like raising school fees by 250% and then just not letting children come if their parents could pay it.
 
Last edited:
Oh, for sure. I don't think the answer is to let them price the sick people out of being able to afford insurance though. This would be kinda like raising school fees by 250% and then just not letting children come if their parents could pay it.

The answer is that they should pay more. Just like if they raised the fees for the children I send to school, I would pay them. I would likely become more passionate about getting rid of the unions, but I would still say it is fair that I should pay more. We disagree. That's fine.

It doesn't make me evil, as democrats and activists want you to believe.
 
The answer is that they should pay more. Just like if they raised the fees for the children I send to school, I would pay them. I would likely become more passionate about getting rid of the unions, but I would still say it is fair that I should pay more. We disagree. That's fine.

It doesn't make me evil, as democrats and activists want you to believe.

The copays that are required of sick people are much like the fees you mentioned for sending your kids to public school. They do pay more, just not the full cost.

Very few of us could pay the full cost of a serious accident or illness.
 
The copays that are required of sick people are much like the fees you mentioned for sending your kids to public school. They do pay more, just not the full cost.

As previously indicated, it obviously wasn't enough.
 
Last edited:

Two examples: The large increases in premiums preventing healthier people from signing up, where they choose to pay the fine instead. The insurance companies leaving the exchanges due to the expenses they are facing from an unexpectedly higher claims experience.

Charge those that use less health care less premium, and those that use the most services more premium - would be a potential fix.
 
Two examples: The large increases in premiums preventing healthier people from signing up, where they choose to pay the fine instead. The insurance companies leaving the exchanges due to the expenses they are facing from an unexpectedly higher claims experience.

Charge those that use less health care less premium, and those that use the most services more premium - would be a potential fix.

and that's what is being done. It works up to a point, the point at which people with health issues can no longer pay the premiums.
 
and that's what is being done. It works up to a point, the point at which people with health issues can no longer pay the premiums.

That is not what is happening. They can't "discriminate" (read: charge more premium to those that use it more) based on health status or sex. Both of which can impact the amount spent on healthcare.
 
Back
Top Bottom