• 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!

Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?


  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

You *can* get catastrophic coverage under Obamacare, but it's limited, and from what I have heard, discouraged.
Is An Obamacare Catastrophic Plan For You? | Bankrate.com

Quote from link:
Slim coverage, fat deductibles

"Primarily reserved for people younger than 30, the Affordable Care Act's catastrophic plans cover three annual primary care visits and preventive services at no cost, including disease screenings and vaccinations. Beyond that, the patient pays all medical expenses out of pocket up to a steep deductible, generally $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families.

People older than 30 who shop for health insurance in the Obamacare exchanges are usually required to choose a more comprehensive plan but may buy a catastrophic plan under one of the law's many exemptions."
 
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

You *can* get catastrophic coverage under Obamacare, but it's limited, and from what I have heard, discouraged.
If the mandate is removed (it will be if the GOP are to be believed), the citizens should be able to buy whatever free-market solution they prefer, which without a mandate could even be "none".

But in my personal opinion, they should use their votes to buy politicians that will install a quality single-payer system.
 
If the mandate is removed (it will be if the GOP are to be believed), the citizens should be able to buy whatever free-market solution they prefer, which without a mandate could even be "none".

But in my personal opinion, they should use their votes to buy politicians that will install a quality single-payer system.

I am truly amazed there are people who actually believe the government could administer "quality health care". Wow.
 
If the mandate is removed (it will be if the GOP are to be believed), the citizens should be able to buy whatever free-market solution they prefer, which without a mandate could even be "none".

But in my personal opinion, they should use their votes to buy politicians that will install a quality single-payer system.
Without the mandate, though, I would think the whole thing falls apart. (Not counting a single payer-type replacement.)
 
I guess that people like to think in binary terms. I suspect that all countries with universal health care have considerable limits on what they cover. Hard to believe that German public health care covers sex changes or that India covers open heart surgery. I would support universal health care for all routine issues, perhaps through Medicare/Medicaid. And private insurance covering catastrophic care for some, as they chose, and more coverage for others. People should not be required to buy more than they reasonably want or feel they need. Within limits.
 
I guess that people like to think in binary terms. I suspect that all countries with universal health care have considerable limits on what they cover. Hard to believe that German public health care covers sex changes or that India covers open heart surgery. I would support universal health care for all routine issues, perhaps through Medicare/Medicaid. And private insurance covering catastrophic care for some, as they chose, and more coverage for others. People should not be required to buy more than they reasonably want or feel they need. Within limits.

Well most hybrid systems like the Dutch system have the reverse, you are required to buy a minimum plan (defined and subsidized by the government for those who cannot afford it) for small things like routine visits and the like but major things like cancer treatments and surgeries are covered by the government directly. Here in Canada the public system does cover almost everything except things like dentistry and eye care. You can get additional coverage privately or through your employer for those things. If someone needs it, the government will cover it, even pay for you to leave to get the treatment, but if it is elective and is not necessary like circumcision for example they will not cover it.
 
I want to see an actual plan from the Trump Administration/ GOP.

I will probably dislike it as much as the ACA, but to be honest I almost dislike repealing something for the sake of repealing it just as much. There is no contingency plan.
 
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

You *can* get catastrophic coverage under Obamacare, but it's limited, and from what I have heard, discouraged.

I voted yes but am not crazy about it. The trouble with having only catastrophic coverage is people will be less likely to take care of the little things. They can then turn into catastrophic illness. In addition they are more likely to infect others if they have that type of illness. I like the discouraging part. Single payer even better.
 
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?
Of course. People should be free to purchase the policy that best fits their needs and their budgets without interference or mandates from the Ministry of Health.
 
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

You *can* get catastrophic coverage under Obamacare, but it's limited, and from what I have heard, discouraged.

"Catastrophic" here just means the insurers pays less than 60% of the expenses (for covered benefits) of their enrollees, and the enrollees pay the rest out of pocket.

Insurers pay less, you pay more out-of-pocket. I haven't at all gotten the sense in recent years that most people are clamoring to move further in that direction.
 
"Catastrophic" here just means the insurers pays less than 60% of the expenses (for covered benefits) of their enrollees, and the enrollees pay the rest out of pocket.

Insurers pay less, you pay more out-of-pocket. I haven't at all gotten the sense in recent years that most people are clamoring to move further in that direction.
I agree there probably wouldn't be a huge demand for it, but for some it would help. Especially if the person is in good health and not likely to go to the doctor much, and also low-income.
 
Trumpcare: Should people be allowed to have catastrophic coverage only?

You *can* get catastrophic coverage under Obamacare, but it's limited, and from what I have heard, discouraged.

The reason catastrophic coverage is discouraged is that it is generally the choice of those younger, healthier, and less likely to use the system for minor health problems, and those who can pay a 5 figure deductible with pocket change. Without the young, healthy, and wealthy to feed the system, the system starves.

Same goes for preexisting. As long as one can avoid out of pocket payments then sign up the day before a million dollar operation, there is no incentive to pay up earlier.
 
Back
Top Bottom