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

[jmotivator]

Factually incorrect.

You are wrong. The couple in the story purchased there plan during the Obama administration. It had to meet minimum ACA standards under policy as set by the Obama administration.

 

[Lucky 1]

Oh, stop lying. You just want to convince the Americans that they shouldn't pay for anyone else's health care.

I was already convinced. ....why the hell should I have to pay for someone else's health care!

Take care of yourselves. .....no one else owes you a living!

 

[Mr Person]

I was already convinced. ....why the hell should I have to pay for someone else's health care!

Take care of yourselves. .....no one else owes you a living!

That would be a terribly interesting point if libertarianism was anything other than an extremely naive form of closeted anarchism. No matter what principled-sounding words you might try to type to make it sound like this is a well thought-out position, we both know perfectly well that if you had to choose between starving and getting food stamps, you'd take the food stamps. Just as similarly, if you were broke but broke a leg, you'd still go to the ER and accept treatment.

And guess what: a fair weather principle is no principle at all.



That's why even Ayn Rand ended up going on assistance programs. Her so-called principles didn't matter a damn in the end and neither would yours, so stop pretending you're standing up for some kind of rugged individualism.

 

[Deuce]

So, people need nanny government to protect them from their own stupidity. Yeah...no doubt that's true, but I say screw those idiots if they buy something without knowing what it is. Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to fix their mistakes.

They didn't necessarily make a mistake. Insurance companies will just find reasons to deny claims, or make them up. Those insurance agreements are deliberately written to let them do this. Reading the entire document yourself doesn't make you immune to this behavior.

 

[JasperL]

Then, if the plan you want for me doesn't meet my expectations, I'd go elsewhere.

With thousands of insurance plans available, do you think I cannot find a plan that fits my wants?

I have no interest in a plan that fits you or the government thinks fits my needs.

I thought you might be open to actual discussion but I guess not.

My own position is there's no reason to allow junk plans to be sold, at all, same way we don't allow defective appliances to be sold "caveat emptor" or defective cars and we have rules for mutual funds, stock issuances, and lots of other things. The alternative is if we do allow them, then at least require the prominent plain language summary of benefits. Trump's approach did neither. It's an invitation for con men to rob hundreds of thousands of Americans with crap that will fail them when they need it.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not sure the optics on this are as great as you seem to think they are. These are the same garbage plans that the Democrats were mandating that people buy under Obamacare.

So now it's bad that people have them? Huh....

I mean, this outrage just feeds the old joke: Democrats don't care what you do, so long as it is mandatory.

You weren't aware that the Trump administration made changes? Curious.

 

[chuckiechan]

I support laws that require an insurance seller to honestly present all the details of a plan they want to sell. I support the notion of "caveat emptor".

If the details of a plan were honestly presented and the buyer agreed to buy the plan, they have nobody to blame but themselves if they didn't understand what they were buying.

Not only that, but insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation.

I swear, most of the posters here seem to never have had insurance.

 

[Mycroft]

They didn't necessarily make a mistake. Insurance companies will just find reasons to deny claims, or make them up. Those insurance agreements are deliberately written to let them do this. Reading the entire document yourself doesn't make you immune to this behavior.

If you read the contract and there's something there you don't like, then don't sign it.

 

[Deuce]

If you read the contract and there's something there you don't like, then don't sign it.

So, don't ever buy health insurance. Brilliant plan.

 

[Mycroft]

So, don't ever buy health insurance. Brilliant plan.

Not all insurance is crappy insurance.

 

[Deuce]

Not all insurance is scrappy insurance.

Here's something that can happen under your plan:
You go to a hospital for surgery. You're such a smart consumer, as you've claimed, so you made sure that the hospital is in-network. You even make sure the surgeon is in-network. You get the surgery. Months later, you get a huge bill. Turns out the anesthesiologist had a last-second schedule change and while you were unconscious another one came in who was out of network. Same hospital, they just inexplicably have staff that are out of network. At no point did you consent to this, because you were unconscious.

That will be twelve thousand dollars please.

 

[JasperL]

What moving the goal posts? You are trying desparately to play both sides of the story as it suits your narrative. These garbage plans are not new, and they are well within the guidelines of the ACA.

You're wrong. I explained why. Here it is again. What part of this is wrong?

"This was your claim: "These are the same garbage plans that the Democrats were mandating that people buy under Obamacare." There was never any mandate to buy plans that were not ACA compliant and were therefore disregarded for purposes of the penalty for being uninsured. If you had this "insurance," and were required to get insurance under ACA, the ACA considered you to be UNINSURED and you would owe penalties for being uninsured."

In fact, the couple featured in that article purchased that particular plan during the Obama administration. The insurers are required to meet all of the ACA regulations on insurance whether or not they are purchased through the exchanges, or they have a waiver. Either way, that couple could not have purchased that plan in 2016 unless it met ACA minimum requirements.

They were ALLOWED to buy that plan, because the ACA did allow temporary, short term but limited insurance like that policy. ALLOWED. I think you understand the difference between being allowed to do some thing and the law REQUIRING you to do that thing, right? You claimed "mandated" when the ACA "allowed." Those different words have different meanings!! Who knew?!

Bottom line is nothing in the ACA mandated purchase of that kind of insurance, since it DID NOT QUALIFY AS INSURANCE FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACA COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

I made it bigger so maybe you're read it and address the point. I'm guessing I'll be disappointed!

The article is amazingly dishonest in what it doesn't tell you. We have heard story after story about how Trump made 2 million people lose health care coverage... but what actually happened was that a lot of people, free from the mandate, drop precisely this type of garbage coverage that they had otherwise been required to. Now you want to blame Trump for these garbage plans that the Democrats allowed through ACA regulation.

The cheap plans that were touted under Obama as evidence that Obamacare was working were precisely these garbage plans that charges many times more than cheap plans pre-ACA, and had such high OOP requirements that people couldn't afford to use them.

LOL, see above.

 

[Lucky 1]

That would be a terribly interesting point if libertarianism was anything other than an extremely naive form of closeted anarchism. No matter what principled-sounding words you might try to type to make it sound like this is a well thought-out position, we both know perfectly well that if you had to choose between starving and getting food stamps, you'd take the food stamps. Just as similarly, if you were broke but broke a leg, you'd still go to the ER and accept treatment.

And guess what: a fair weather principle is no principle at all.



That's why even Ayn Rand ended up going on assistance programs. Her so-called principles didn't matter a damn in the end and neither would yours, so stop pretending you're standing up for some kind of rugged individualism.

There is a big difference between helping someone who is down and out or unable to help themselves....and providing FREE stuff for able bodied people who should be taking care of themselves

 

[JasperL]

You are wrong. The couple in the story purchased there plan during the Obama administration. It had to meet minimum ACA standards under policy as set by the Obama administration.

No, that's wrong.

It's like you're desperately trying to prove you're nearly completely ignorant about really anything about the ACA. If that's your goal, excellent work! The ACA had an exception to the minimum coverage stuff for these limited benefit, short term plans that under Obama rules could not be in place for more than three months.

 

[JasperL]

That would be a terribly interesting point if libertarianism was anything other than an extremely naive form of closeted anarchism. No matter what principled-sounding words you might try to type to make it sound like this is a well thought-out position, we both know perfectly well that if you had to choose between starving and getting food stamps, you'd take the food stamps. Just as similarly, if you were broke but broke a leg, you'd still go to the ER and accept treatment.

And guess what: a fair weather principle is no principle at all.

That's why even Ayn Rand ended up going on assistance programs. Her so-called principles didn't matter a damn in the end and neither would yours, so stop pretending you're standing up for some kind of rugged individualism.

Just have to say that's a very convincing argument. Not sure I've heard it stated quite that way but...excellent. eace

 

[jimbo]

They didn't necessarily make a mistake. Insurance companies will just find reasons to deny claims, or make them up. Those insurance agreements are deliberately written to let them do this. Reading the entire document yourself doesn't make you immune to this behavior.

I've done a little court work, and tons of appraisal work, so I'm possibly more adept at reading contracts than most. But I've never seen an insurance contract that is deliberately written to allow the company to find reasons to deny claims.

The problem is most people don't bother to read the document. Then when they find that they lack certain coverage, they scream foul.

 

[jimbo]

So, don't ever buy health insurance. Brilliant plan.

The last time I checked there were 6000 insurance companies in the nation. There's something for everybody.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The last time I checked there were 6000 insurance companies in the nation. There's something for everybody.

As you said, not everyone is as adept as you, how could they be sure they were not wasting their money buying a dud policy unless the insurance companies were somehow prevented from selling them? Thanks Trump!

 

[mrjurrs]

Or...it's a stupid person buying insurance.

Tell me...why do you want to blame the insurance company when a customer buys something from them that they turn out not to like?

It isn't about liking the product. It is about consumer protection. If the coverage falls short, the public pays the difference.

 

[Mycroft]

It isn't about liking the product. It is about consumer protection. If the coverage falls short, the public pays the difference.

Then you should be asking for consumer protections instead of taking away consumer's choices.

 

[RealityNow]

Reply to Post # 46

You missed a very important part... " the loss of MILLIONS of people who were once covered by 'UNION SPONSORED MEDICAL", this volume of people kept the coverage cost lower and the user of those plans provided a predictable and steady stream of patients, whom actuaries could factor the profit loss based on those predictable % numbers.
When that was destroyed by the destruction of Unions... then came higher job related Co-Pay, and Higher Non Job related Premiums.

People blindly ignore the reverberating impact that results from the destruction of Unions and the Benefit Packages it provided. This means defined Pension Plans as well,which impacted the financial industry, and coupled with industrial loss, the existing pension's can't earn a return at the rate that keeps them solvent.

PEOPLE make dumb choices, every time they destroy something that is structured to benefit the citizens and general working population. i.e. UNION'S and the programs that Unions fought decades to get and provide.
Because
they don't think things through, they listen to "talking heads" who are paid handsomely by the wealthy, to lead the people who fall for it, to fight against themselves.

All they could think of is fighting against paying a few dollars in due... because they did not think deep enough to understand what those dues supported and backed.

Now, they have no job protections, no progressive pay, no job sponsored medical, no job sponsored dental, and no job sponsored Pension Plans, and no Job sponsored collective bargaining on their behalf. The have no Union advocating for Job Safety, and they have no Union that offer and provide Scholarship Programs... and they have no "corporate jobs" that are stable, and they have nothing to stand to fight against a company "outsourcing" and destroying families lives, communities, cities, states and the economics of this nation... All behind crying and whining about paying a few dollars a month in Union Dues.... while screaming how the wealthy company has to make a profit...

Now ... Companies makes Profits in the $100's of MILLION's and $ BILLIONS... and all these whiner got was something they created which amounts to screaming and whining about how high Medical cost are... when their ignorance of whining about a few dollars in Union dues ... has placed them in a position where they lose across the board!!!!

I do my best to stay as far from "generally ignorant people as I can", because ... they are not willing to learn. and their ignorance... cost everyone !!!!

Government now, especially under the Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 is the only Entity that is helping fight to get and keep cost low. ( Sadly, Republicans have done all they can to destroy as much as they can regarding affordable care for people and Republicans continue to do all they can to ensure that cost rise and coverage declines and people are strapped with unreasonable cost and low access to the care they actually need).

Most of these people who fought against it, IGNORED that it is about Health Care and Education Reconciliation

 

[RealityNow]

Democratic Government Policies are the ONLY thing that is designed and continues to fight to help "American People"....

Government now, is the only things that helps people ....especially under the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,- 7 days after he had signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law.

This provided for what people call "ACA" or "Obama Care" - but the main thrust was to give the people "Patient Protection and Affordable Care"

 

[Integrityrespec]

It should come as no surprise that the Trump administration has made enabling predatory actions by bad actors and promoting junk insurance the centerpiece of its health care agenda, such as it is. Junk plans--"short term" health plans, despite the fact that they're now available for the entire year--are on the verge of becoming a bonanza for hucksters no longer bound by consumer protection rules.

Think of these plans as the Trump University of health insurance. Beyond failing to offer the basic protections and coverage people have come to expect in the age of the ACA (pre-existing condition protections, no caps or limits, etc), short term plans on average spend an absurdly low 39 cents of every premium dollar they collect on actual medical care. By contrast, ACA-compliant plans are legally required to dedicate at least 80-85% of premiums on actual care.

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




"Grifters gonna grift" remains the guiding philosophy of policy coming out of this administration.

I guess you are unaware of the insurance policies in Obama Care that were both costly and were not usable because of premium, co-pay and deductable cost.

 

[jimbo]

As you said, not everyone is as adept as you, how could they be sure they were not wasting their money buying a dud policy unless the insurance companies were somehow prevented from selling them? Thanks Trump!

If I wasn't adept at reading a particular contract. I'd hire an adept person to read it for me.

Your dud policy is quite possibly exactly what I'm looking for. For instance I don't need pregnancy insurance. One size fits all often includes that. I can handle the first $10,000 and don't need $50 dollar deductible. So I don't need that. Prescription medicine? Don't take them. I'm 81. I'll take my chances.

 

[jimbo]

Here's something that can happen under your plan:
You go to a hospital for surgery. You're such a smart consumer, as you've claimed, so you made sure that the hospital is in-network. You even make sure the surgeon is in-network. You get the surgery. Months later, you get a huge bill. Turns out the anesthesiologist had a last-second schedule change and while you were unconscious another one came in who was out of network. Same hospital, they just inexplicably have staff that are out of network. At no point did you consent to this, because you were unconscious.

That will be twelve thousand dollars please.

The old worst case scenario what if. The chances of that are approaching the same numbers as my winning tonight's lottery. And I don't have a ticket.

If that should actually happen while I'm out in the operating room, someone else will be paying the bill, and a few bucks more.