Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

[weaver2]

If the Republicans retake the House in 2020 you will see something. Unlike 2009, there might be real debate.

They had 2 years when they owned the Senate the House and the Presidency to have a "real debate". It didn't happen then. It won't happen if Republicans retake the House. In order to have a debate one has to have ideas to debate. Republicans have proven that they have none. All they know how to do is repeal. They haven't a clue what to put in place of the repealed laws, acts, treaties.

 

[Jay59]

They had 2 years when they owned the Senate the House and the Presidency to have a "real debate". It didn't happen then. It won't happen if Republicans retake the House. In order to have a debate one has to have ideas to debate. Republicans have proven that they have none. All they know how to do is repeal. They haven't a clue what to put in place of the repealed laws, acts, treaties.

Which they did. It passed the house but McCain killed it in the Senate. Developments since then have also changed the picture.

They do have ideas, though. Medical savings plans. Health cost co-ops. Multi-state coverage. Portability. Existing condition coinsurance. There are plans for all of these. If these had been handled piecemeal in 2009-2010 we would not have the trainwreck we have now. Instead they insisted on an omnibus that had no internal design, had limits that were designed to fail, and a massive new bureaucracy. Some can be salvaged. The state exchanges--the part actually borrowed from Romney's Massachusetts' plan--can be kept. Much of the bureaucracy can be retasked.

 

[SDET]

One problem is leftists calling insurance policies that don't offer "woke" benefits such as maternity or gender reassignment surgery "junk insurance". I wan't a policy that doesn't charge premiums for such "woke" benefits.

You, me and others got to keep our insurance plans because they met the ACA requirement that the plan offers decent coverage at a fair cost, just like Obama said we would. That was one of the beauties of the ACA if you had a good plan you could keep it. Those that had junk plans revoked because they covered nothing and cost a lot were told by Rush Limbaugh, Howie Carr, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, Inforwars, WND, and other right wing media that Obama cheated them out of their plans and they believed it and hated Obamacare, but they loved the ACA that replaced their Junk Insurance.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Who woulda thunk.... Who coulda guessed... that mandatory insurance woulda led to paying monthly dues for zero service just for the bare minimum plan...

Pretty sure it was Obama that created the startup of tons of junk health insurance plans just to meet requirements of being "insured" even though people were paying for non-services at the bottom because they were mandatory and basically the cheapest plans that the poor have to get dont actually do anything except take your money.

 

[Drawdown]

Who woulda thunk.... Who coulda guessed... that mandatory insurance woulda led to paying monthly dues for zero service just for the bare minimum plan...

Pretty sure it was Obama that created the startup of tons of junk health insurance plans just to meet requirements of being "insured" even though people were paying for non-services at the bottom because they were mandatory and basically the cheapest plans that the poor have to get dont actually do anything except take your money.

the affordable care act was a conceptual disaster. They were more concerned about free birth control & mammograms than they were making sure the poor were insured. Everyone would have been better served had they just done a 100% financed medicaid expansion for as many people as they could create funding for.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Trump said in late June the WH would release its healthcare plan in a few weeks. This is September. Where is it?

The last time Republicans had an idea on healthcare, Obama adopted it and Republicans called it socialist. I think it's time to stop pretending that Republicans are a partner in healthcare-related issues.

 

[weaver2]

Which they did. It passed the house but McCain killed it in the Senate. Developments since then have also changed the picture.

They do have ideas, though. Medical savings plans. Health cost co-ops. Multi-state coverage. Portability. Existing condition coinsurance. There are plans for all of these. If these had been handled piecemeal in 2009-2010 we would not have the trainwreck we have now. Instead they insisted on an omnibus that had no internal design, had limits that were designed to fail, and a massive new bureaucracy. Some can be salvaged. The state exchanges--the part actually borrowed from Romney's Massachusetts' plan--can be kept. Much of the bureaucracy can be retasked.

So why have they just sat on their hands for two years bellyaching.

 

[Jay59]

So why have they just sat on their hands for two years bellyaching.

They haven't. Among other things, they killed the individual mandate, which is huge.

That you ask the question indicates you are dissembling. What is your goal here?

 

[Individual]

Yes put all those with pre-existing conditions in high risk pools with premiums that they cannot hope to afford. That solves everything. :lamo

Actually, that would be the most pragmatic solution to the problem.

Life is a pre-existing condition and we need to cover everyone with premiums that are affordable and yes that means EVERYONE will pay a bit more.

Life has a beginning, middle, and end. Each emancipated individuals life becomes their own responsibility, allowing for others to provide assistance by their own choosing and/or force of government laws only as a result of cause. Insurance is, and should remain, an option allowing individuals choice(s) to become a participant whereby unforeseen monetary risks can be reduced as a result of collectivization.

Lowering costs by limiting what insurers may keep or offering Govt. coverage are ways we can pay less.

Collectivizing does NOT reduce the costs, it simply redistributes the costs, allowing them to increase more greatly for some and less or not at all for others.

Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016.

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, that would be the most pragmatic solution to the problem.


Life has a beginning, middle, and end. Each emancipated individuals life becomes their own responsibility, allowing for others to provide assistance by their own choosing and/or force of government laws only as a result of cause. Insurance is, and should remain, an option allowing individuals choice(s) to become a participant whereby unforeseen monetary risks can be reduced as a result of collectivization.


Collectivizing does NOT reduce the costs, it simply redistributes the costs, allowing them to increase more greatly for some and less or not at all for others.

Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016.

LOL Allowing Medicare to bargain with Pharma will lower drug costs tremendously. Requiring that all be covered lowers per person costs for all and eliminates the need for high risk pools. We will not be going back to the old system where insurers took your money for years and then threw you off when you got sick. If you want that kind of punishment go bang your head on a wall. Life is too short to worry about medical costs bankrupting you.

 

[Individual]

LOL Allowing Medicare to bargain with Pharma will lower drug costs tremendously. Requiring that all be covered lowers per person costs for all and eliminates the need for high risk pools. We will not be going back to the old system where insurers took your money for years and then threw you off when you got sick. If you want that kind of punishment go bang your head on a wall. Life is too short to worry about medical costs bankrupting you.

"Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016."

I've yet to see government CUT the cost of anything over my lifetime.
Mandatory collectivization results in greatly increasing the spending, without need of cutting costs, by redistributing the costs to a greater number of persons many who pay nothing, while others become forced to pay something they were not paying before, and then still others who become forced to pay more. What is the benefit to society, and WHO benefits most as a result?

 

[Greenbeard]

Which they did. It passed the house but McCain killed it in the Senate. Developments since then have also changed the picture.

Nothing in that SA 667 amendment McCain dramatically torpedoed could be considered an idea, all it contained was short-sighted smashing of parts of the ACA. Very original!

They do have ideas, though. Medical savings plans. Health cost co-ops. Multi-state coverage. Portability. Existing condition coinsurance. There are plans for all of these. If these had been handled piecemeal in 2009-2010 we would not have the trainwreck we have now. Instead they insisted on an omnibus that had no internal design, had limits that were designed to fail, and a massive new bureaucracy. Some can be salvaged. The state exchanges--the part actually borrowed from Romney's Massachusetts' plan--can be kept. Much of the bureaucracy can be retasked.

Ah, their ideas are the ACA. Splendid.

Pretty sure it was Obama that created the startup of tons of junk health insurance plans just to meet requirements of being "insured" even though people were paying for non-services at the bottom because they were mandatory and basically the cheapest plans that the poor have to get dont actually do anything except take your money.

The poor tend to be in more generous plans, not less. Almost a third of enrollees (all of who are among the poorest buyers in the marketplaces) are in a plans this year that are better than platinum-level. And another 16% are in plans that are better than gold-level. So almost a full half of marketplace buyers are in gold+ coverage this year, all of whom come from the lower portion of the income distribution of buyers.

 

[Jay59]

Nothing in that SA 667 amendment McCain dramatically torpedoed could be considered an idea, all it contained was short-sighted smashing of parts of the ACA. Very original!

True. Erase the board and start over is not an original idea, but sometimes necessary.

Ah, their ideas are the ACA. Splendid.

Salvage is usually a good idea and paper pushers will push any sort of paper.

The poor tend to be in more generous plans, not less. Almost a third of enrollees (all of who are among the poorest buyers in the marketplaces) are in a plans this year that are better than platinum-level. And another 16% are in plans that are better than gold-level. So almost a full half of marketplace buyers are in gold+ coverage this year, all of whom come from the lower portion of the income distribution of buyers.

Facts I love it. Where are you going with this?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes put all those with pre-existing conditions in high risk pools with premiums that they cannot hope to afford. That solves everything. :lamo

Good HEAVENS, where did you ever get the idea that I would suggest that or that the insurance companies would do that?

The insurance companies are going to be more than willing to offer affordable insurance PROVIDED that it doesn't cover the high cost items (like whatever condition you have when you apply for the insurance).

Life is a pre-existing condition and we need to cover everyone with premiums that are affordable and yes that means EVERYONE will pay a bit more.

Which, of course, is a complete explanation of the fact that the US spends (all 2016 figures) $9,892 per capita for health care while

1. Switzerland spends $7,919
2. Luxembourg spends $7,463
3. Norway spends $6,647
4. Germany spends $5,551
5. Ireland spends $5,528
6. Sweden spends $5,488
7. Netherlands spends $5,385
8. Austria spends $5,227
9. Denmark spends $5,205
10. Belgium spends $4,840
11. Canada spends $4,753
12. Australia spends $4,708
13. France spends $4,600
14. Japan spends $4,519
15. Iceland spends $4,376
16. United Kingdom spends $4,192 and
17. Finland spends $4,033

with all 17 of those countries offering more comprehensive coverage of equivalent quality to that of the United States of America.

Lowering costs by limiting what insurers may keep or offering Govt. coverage are ways we can pay less.

Lowering costs by completely eliminating the profit factor in healthcare insurance is going to result in greater reductions that would be achieved by protecting the private profits of the healthcare insurance industry.

Lowering costs by eliminating competing bureaucracies and consolidating all of the healthcare insurance coverage under a single agency is going to result in greater reductions than would be achieved by having competing bureaucracies administering healthcare insurance coverage.

Lowering costs by eliminating competing advertising budgets whereby the private healthcare insurance companies attempt to maximize their individual profits by poaching customers away from other private healthcare insurance companies is also going to lower costs.

So that means that

"NO profits" + "a SINGLE agency" + "vastly REDUCED advertising" = "MAXIMUM REDUCTION in costs"​

doesn't it?

Does

"A Rationalized Healthcare Insurance Program That Provides All Americans With
The Health Care That They Need,
When They Need It,
At A Price That They Can Afford"​

sound less scary that

"An Unconstitutional and Godless Left-wing, Pinko, Commie, Socialist Healthcare Insurance Dictatorship
(that wasn't brought in by OUR Guys)"?​

After all, they are actually the same thing. They just have different labels attached to them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016.

The ACA didn't have anything to do with prescription medication costs. The main reason why the cost of insulin went up was because the drug companies (which didn't spend a dime to develop insulin) have an effective monopoly in the insulin market and can do what they damn well please with their own prices. Another reason why the cost of insulin went up is that the federal government is statutorily prohibited from negotiating national prices for the medications which it purchases. If, for instance, all of the Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and national government medical insurance plans were to approach suppliers on a unified basis to negotiate drug prices (and publish the prices which they are paying), the prices for prescription medications would plummet.

Of course that would mean that the profits of the pharmaceutical industry would plummet as well.

And that would mean that there wouldn't be all of those lovely dollars from the pharmaceutical industry pouring into incumbent's reelection campaign funds.

And that would mean that it simply isn't going to happen.

PS - "According to one report, the retail price of a vial of Humalog in the U.S. is $300. In Canada, the same vial costs $32.". If you think that Lilly is selling its insulin AT A LOSS in Canada, then you have a very poor grasp of what capitalism is all about.

 

[Individual]

The ACA didn't have anything to do with prescription medication costs. The main reason why the cost of insulin went up was because the drug companies (which didn't spend a dime to develop insulin) have an effective monopoly in the insulin market and can do what they damn well please with their own prices. Another reason why the cost of insulin went up is that the federal government is statutorily prohibited from negotiating national prices for the medications which it purchases. If, for instance, all of the Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and national government medical insurance plans were to approach suppliers on a unified basis to negotiate drug prices (and publish the prices which they are paying), the prices for prescription medications would plummet.

Of course that would mean that the profits of the pharmaceutical industry would plummet as well.

And that would mean that there wouldn't be all of those lovely dollars from the pharmaceutical industry pouring into incumbent's reelection campaign funds.

And that would mean that it simply isn't going to happen.

PS - "According to one report, the retail price of a vial of Humalog in the U.S. is $300. In Canada, the same vial costs $32.". If you think that Lilly is selling its insulin AT A LOSS in Canada, then you have a very poor grasp of what capitalism is all about.

That's what I said.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

LOL Allowing Medicare to bargain with Pharma will lower drug costs tremendously. Requiring that all be covered lowers per person costs for all and eliminates the need for high risk pools. We will not be going back to the old system where insurers took your money for years and then threw you off when you got sick. If you want that kind of punishment go bang your head on a wall. Life is too short to worry about medical costs bankrupting you.

You are being MUCH too hard on the insurance companies.

It was VERY seldom that an insurance company "threw someone off their coverage". Admittedly it wasn't unknown for an insurance company to exercise their contractually guaranteed right to decline to renew existing coverage based on the fact that the formerly covered person no longer qualified for the coverage that they had previously had due to some disqualifying condition that the insurance company had only become aware of during the course of the then existing contractual coverage. And it wasn't unknown for an insurance company to exercise its contractually guaranteed right to "terminate for cause" when it learned that the insured had not been in compliance with an essential condition which had to be fulfilled prior to the insurance company agreeing to issue the policy. And it also wasn't unknown for an insurance company to exercise its contractually guaranteed right not to pay for items which were not specifically included as being covered in the insurance policy.

Now, I will agree that for the insurance company to exercise its contractually guaranteed rights in those types of situation might LOOK LIKE it was "throwing someone off when they got sick", but, legally, that IS NOT what happened and only someone who spits on "The Sanctity of Contract" (which is the very basis of Capitalism [which is the very basis of the US economy {which is the very basis of the United States of America <which is what the Founding Fathers and the Patriots fought for - which actually means that they are spitting on what the Founding Fathers and the Patriots fought for ->}]) would say such an unAmerican thing.

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016."

I've yet to see government CUT the cost of anything over my lifetime.
Mandatory collectivization results in greatly increasing the spending, without need of cutting costs, by redistributing the costs to a greater number of persons many who pay nothing, while others become forced to pay something they were not paying before, and then still others who become forced to pay more. What is the benefit to society, and WHO benefits most as a result?

If you had said

"I've yet to see _an American_ government CUT the cost of anything over my lifetime.
_In America_ (m)andatory collectivization results in greatly increasing the spending, without need of cutting costs, by redistributing the costs to a greater number of persons many who pay nothing, while others become forced to pay something they were not paying before, and then still others who become forced to pay more. What is the benefit to _American_ society, and WHO benefits most as a result _of a change, and WHO benefits most from leaving the situation the way it is_?"
​

you'd have been much closer to the truth.

 

[Aberration]

Risk pools exist for a reason. Contracts exist for a reason. And Medicare for all would bankrupt us. You can’t dictate the market. It doesn’t work.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's what I said.

Not quite. What you did say was

Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016.

and in that bit you linked the ACA to drug prices and the ACA does not have anything whatsoever to do with drug prices and never did.

Now I am quite prepared to concede that you might have meant to say something other than what you did say, but I am not going to concede that you did not write what you did write.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Risk pools exist for a reason.

True.

Contracts exist for a reason.

True.

And Medicare for all would bankrupt us.

Which, of course, is a complete explanation of the fact that the US spends (all 2016 US dollar figures) $9,892 per capita for health care while

1. Switzerland spends $7,919
2. Luxembourg spends $7,463
3. Norway spends $6,647
4. Germany spends $5,551
5. Ireland spends $5,528
6. Sweden spends $5,488
7. Netherlands spends $5,385
8. Austria spends $5,227
9. Denmark spends $5,205
10. Belgium spends $4,840
11. Canada spends $4,753
12. Australia spends $4,708
13. France spends $4,600
14. Japan spends $4,519
15. Iceland spends $4,376
16. United Kingdom spends $4,192 and
17. Finland spends $4,033

with all 17 of those countries offering more comprehensive coverage of equivalent quality to that of the United States of America.

Well?

Doesn't it?

You can’t dictate the market.

Really?

It doesn’t work.

Really? See above - obviously someone has been able to "make it work".

Are you REALLY trying to tell me that YOU think that Americans are too stupid and non-inventive to be able to do what at least 17 other countries have been able to do successfully?

I don't think that Americans are that stupid. (Pigheaded - possibly, but stupid - never.)

 

[Individual]

If you had said

"I've yet to see _an American_ government CUT the cost of anything over my lifetime.
_In America_ (m)andatory collectivization results in greatly increasing the spending, without need of cutting costs, by redistributing the costs to a greater number of persons many who pay nothing, while others become forced to pay something they were not paying before, and then still others who become forced to pay more. What is the benefit to _American_ society, and WHO benefits most as a result _of a change, and WHO benefits most from leaving the situation the way it is_?"
​

you'd have been much closer to the truth.

Actually, it would only be asking a different question than what I had asked.

 

[JustHanging]

And Medicare for all would bankrupt us.

How does paying roughly 1/2 what you're paying now bankrupt you?

It doesn’t work.

It's worked far better than your system in virtually every other Western nation.

 

[Individual]

Not quite. What you did say was

​

and in that bit you linked the ACA to drug prices and the ACA does not have anything whatsoever to do with drug prices and never did.

Now I am quite prepared to concede that you might have meant to say something other than what you did say, but I am not going to concede that you did not write what you did write.

Lowering costs by limiting what insurers may keep or offering Govt. coverage are ways we can pay less.

The above is what I had responded to relative to costs, stating:
Collectivizing does NOT reduce the costs, it simply redistributes the costs, allowing them to increase more greatly for some and less or not at all for others.

Example of the 2010 ACA passage lowering of costs:
The price for one vial of Eli Lilly's Humalog surged from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015.
Insulin cost is a big reason the average annual per-patient spending on treatment for type 1 diabetes increased from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494 in 2016.

I wrote exactly what I meant to write.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Actually, it would only be asking a different question than what I had asked.

Not quite.

It's actually acknowledging that the United States of America is not the only country in the known universe rather than pretending that "If Americans don't do it, then no one else is even remotely capable of doing it."