Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TrumpCare does nothing to reduce premiums or increase participation by insurers. In fact CBO says it will increase them by 30% over two years before they drop as the pre-existing condition people are priced out. What it will do, ironically, is hit states like Arizona the hardest. Why? Because 85% of Obamacare enrollees in Arizona didn't pay any of the increase. Their subsidies are income based and adjust for rates. Arizonans are among the most heavily subsidized in the country. Trump care gets rid of need based subsidies. So the high rates will stay but the means to pay them will evaporate. Estimates are that over 1/2 million would lose insurance coverage (unable to afford) in AZ. They'll either go without or become burdens on the system that everyone will pay in higher rates.
If there's no competition allowed like in AZ where we have 1 insurer(I verified that on the exchange), that's true. So it's not surprising when you have one provider, they can charge whatever they want.
Given the rep care/trump care/whatever you want to call it hasn't even passed the first of many phases, we can't know what the rep plan will be/won't be in the end at this point and speculating on this rate/that rate/this subsidy/tax credit/whatever direction they go will be higher or lower than obamacare. If/when it gets via the house, than senate, and sliced/diced many times, then we'll have an idea. Until them it's just speculation at this phase and political grandstanding/fear mongering.
If there's no competition allowed like in AZ where we have 1 insurer(I verified that on the exchange), that's true. So it's not surprising when you have one provider, they can charge whatever they want.
Given the rep care/trump care/whatever you want to call it hasn't even passed the first of many phases, we can't know what the rep plan will be/won't be at this point and speculating on this rate/that rate/this subsidy/tax credit/whatever direction they go will be higher or lower than obamacare. If/when it gets via the house, than senate, and sliced/diced many times, then we'll have an idea. Until them it's just speculation at this phase and political grandstanding/fear mongering.
Not sure what happened in Zona. The first year we had among the lowest rates in the country. I turned down my retirement insurer and went on Obamacare myself. Then the bottom (and insurers) started falling out. The problem it is said is that healthy people did not enroll and sick ones did. Obamacare never incentivized people enough. Penalties were too small and premiums on young people too high. It can be fixed. It can be fixed a lot easier than replaced. If we really want a private insured model, it is a pretty good one that we have had around long enough to know how to tweak to improve. I'm with Bernie, though - Medicare for all.
[quote=Ponderosa;47614717]Not sure what happened in Zona. The first year we had among the lowest rates in the country. I turned down my retirement insurer and went on Obamacare myself. Then the bottom (and insurers) started falling out. The problem it is said is that healthy people did not enroll and sick ones did. Obamacare never incentivized people enough. Penalties were too small and premiums on young people too high. It can be fixed. It can be fixed a lot easier than replaced. If we really want a private insured model, it is a pretty good one that we have had around long enough to know how to tweak to improve. I'm with Bernie, though - Medicare for all.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what happened in Zona. The first year we had among the lowest rates in the country. I turned down my retirement insurer and went on Obamacare myself. Then the bottom (and insurers) started falling out. The problem it is said is that healthy people did not enroll and sick ones did. Obamacare never incentivized people enough. Penalties were too small and premiums on young people too high. It can be fixed. It can be fixed a lot easier than replaced. If we really want a private insured model, it is a pretty good one that we have had around long enough to know how to tweak to improve. I'm with Bernie, though - Medicare for all.
Their projections in AZ were way off on how many sick people would be signing up, so the claims were way higher than they expected. That is why risk corridors were part of the ACA, to smooth the losses for insurers and keep them in the marketplace until those kinds of situations stabilized. BUT Republicans refused to fund them so when there were high losses and they couldn't get a lifeline they bailed from the marketplace.
If there's no competition allowed like in AZ where we have 1 insurer(I verified that on the exchange), that's true. So it's not surprising when you have one provider, they can charge whatever they want.
Given the rep care/trump care/whatever you want to call it hasn't even passed the first of many phases, we can't know what the rep plan will be/won't be in the end at this point and speculating on this rate/that rate/this subsidy/tax credit/whatever direction they go will be higher or lower than obamacare. If/when it gets via the house, than senate, and sliced/diced many times, then we'll have an idea. Until them it's just speculation at this phase and political grandstanding/fear mongering.
OH we just have to wait for some 'phases' before we get any benefits from "Trumpcare"? umm thanks but no thanks the bozos in the house want to destroy healthcare for 52 million people in phase one, I'm not to excited about seeing what they plan for phase 2
If there's no competition allowed like in AZ where we have 1 insurer(I verified that on the exchange), that's true. So it's not surprising when you have one provider, they can charge whatever they want.
Given the rep care/trump care/whatever you want to call it hasn't even passed the first of many phases, we can't know what the rep plan will be/won't be in the end at this point and speculating on this rate/that rate/this subsidy/tax credit/whatever direction they go will be higher or lower than obamacare. If/when it gets via the house, than senate, and sliced/diced many times, then we'll have an idea. Until them it's just speculation at this phase and political grandstanding/fear mongering.
After all these years, I don't think we have a plan. We're winging it.
Not sure what happened in Zona. The first year we had among the lowest rates in the country. I turned down my retirement insurer and went on Obamacare myself. Then the bottom (and insurers) started falling out. The problem it is said is that healthy people did not enroll and sick ones did. Obamacare never incentivized people enough. Penalties were too small and premiums on young people too high. It can be fixed. It can be fixed a lot easier than replaced. If we really want a private insured model, it is a pretty good one that we have had around long enough to know how to tweak to improve. I'm with Bernie, though - Medicare for all.
I think it was simply a matter that it wasn't a profitable market for insurers and they split for some of the reasons you stated. Yes, many younger people and people of all ages found it cheaper to pay the penalty and not buy insurance. And the fact that even the mid tier policies still had big deductibles so they were basically catastrophic polices. Plus I'm guessing some played the game if someone got a test(paid out of their own pocket) and got something serious they wanted to follow up on, they could probably sign up and by insurance "as needed" so there's probably lots of games going on like that the way it's set up.
Medicare type deal for everyone I would be for if we didn't have such a corrupt/bought off/inept gov to run it all. Trusting a bought off/donor owned system/inept gov to me isn't a smart move. Medicare is completely unsustainable on its current path what it's taking in and what it's paying out also.
Sander's I think is completely unrealistic to the reality the CBO brings up. And for a guy who doesn't trust washington/thinks it's bought off(I agree) yet wants to entrust it in a massive medicare type program for everyone is an irrational recommendation. bernie really needs to enjoy his karl marx books and retire. He's not rational in my book as he lives in some fantasy/idealistic world that doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
OH we just have to wait for some 'phases' before we get any benefits from "Trumpcare"? umm thanks but no thanks the bozos in the house want to destroy healthcare for 52 million people in phase one, I'm not to excited about seeing what they plan for phase 2
Or we can take the "we have to pass it to see what's in it", you can keep your own doctor, your health plan, etc., yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
After all these years, I don't think we have a plan. We're winging it.
oh, no doubt. The clown circus is still in town, donors and pols playing master and servant once again.
Cross your fingers that he saves the day and proposes Medicare for all. He'd be a hero. Any Congress critter that voted against it would have a lot of 'splainin to do when they were up for reelection.
Medicare or Medicaid?
ETA: The reason I ask is because I've heard both. Dr's are leaving both systems as they are leaving the Tricare system too. If you had to experience some of the stuff I've had to go through just to go to the Dr with Tricare, you wouldn't want something like it.
Any health plan that includes "pre-existing conditions" will NEVER be affordable
"Pre-existing conditions" drive the cost of ANY health plan, sky-high. No matter whether it's Democrats or Republicans pushing it. That's why insurance companies have never, ever, ever offered it. They would have to charge such fantastically high premiums for it, no one would want to buy it.
"Pre-existing conditions" have never been insurable anyway. Insurance is for things that haven't happened yet, but might in the future. Your house might catch fire... but it's not on fire right now. You might crash your car... but right now it's not crashed. You might get catastrophically ill or injured... but right now you're not.
Insurance, by definition, is a gambling game. You're "betting" the company that you'll get sick, and they're betting you won't. If you do, they pay you. Otherwise they get to keep the premiums you've been sending in, and you get zip... except the security of knowing that if you wind up racking up huge hospital bills, someone will pay most of them.
But "pre-existing conditions" are things that have already happened. You're already diabetic, or in a wheelchair, or with a cripplingly bad back etc. These thing don't belong in insurance policies. If you want someone else to pay for them, you need a "medical payments plan", not insurance. Something that covers ALL infirmities, including the ones you already have.
But good luck paying for it. Or even finding someone financially suicidal enough to sell it to you. His company won't last long, and then you'll be back to having no insurance (or payment plan) at all.
Instead of telling gross fibs and pretending you're setting up an "insurance plan" to cover pre-existing conditions, why not propose that state government simply set up a plan to cover the conditions people already have... and nothing else? If when your back problems are cured, the policy is over. And it's up to you to purchase your own genuine insurance for what might happen to you tomorrow an onward.
Maybe the state can make a law saying no insurance company can refuse a policy to people who have gotten paid out of the state's "pre-existing conditions fund". Different states can try this different ways. The states are supposed to be "laboratories of Democracy", after all.
Remember, the Federal govt has no authorization to run any kind of insurance plan. And all the screaming and insults from big-govt liberal fanatics cannot change that basic fact. But the states can.
But stop trying to fool us into believing that a plan that takes in "pre-existing conditions" - and has sky-high costs that such a plan must have - is any kind of "insurance plan". You want to cover "pre-existing conditions", then set up a state fund that does exactly that. Don't try to mask its huge costs by camoulflaging it behind an insurance plan.
"Pre-existing conditions" drive the cost of ANY health plan, sky-high. No matter whether it's Democrats or Republicans pushing it.
Yep, and the individual is responsible for their own needs in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any health plan that includes "pre-existing conditions" will NEVER be affordable
