“The short-term plans are likely to appeal to healthier individuals who don’t think they need full coverage, potentially drawing them out of Obamacare’s markets. Combined with earlier moves by the Trump administration — such as ending the ACA requirement that all people buy health coverage or pay a fine — the latest proposals could result in higher costs or fewer options for individuals who still want to buy the more comprehensive Obamacare plans.”
Still waiting on my $2500 a year savings promised by Obama. Wait, my increase of $5000 a year paid for the more comprehensive coverage others bought from Obamacare. Yep, what a deal.
Let’s ignore the fact that these short-term plans don’t offer any coverage worth the paper they are written on, as you’d basically be gifting money to the insurance companies (I know how it works, since I work for one).
I’m sorry that the ACA didn’t work for the limited number of people who happen to be self-employed people…that’s fine, let’s work on fixing it to help those people, instead of destroying it for most everyone else who has greatly benefited from it. No, some would prefer to just scrap it and go back to the old system…which, by the way, would probably cost still as much as you pay today (based upon the rate increases that were occurring before ACA implementation, as they were going up 100% a year compared to the 20-40% they are now), yet provide at best half the coverage.
ACA is a mess. Anything you say to the contrary is as big a lie as Obama’s multiple lies. Get real about the coverage offerings; they are the means of providing affordable coverage, not bloated coverage lists with perils that don’t expose healthy risks in order to provide social insurance subsidies against the Will of The People.
Speaking of ‘destroying’; that’s what ACA did to peoples’ health insurance affordability and jobs. Good riddance to ACA!
Also, your use of the word ‘fact’ in your first sentence, in lieu of the appropriate words ‘my opinion’, shows your arrogance and bitterness toward The People expressing their Free Will to choose what to buy or not buy.
We who ALSO work(ed) for insurance cos. ALSO know how coverages work, policy forms are written to respond to market demand, and adverse selection occurs in rate making procedures and regulatory intervention.
‘Fixing a mess’ to help a handful of people while continuing to oppress and financially harm the majority makes no sense to anyone but liberal Socialists.
Fixing the current mess to inject more competition, choice, and innovation that will lower underlying costs will benefit EVERYONE. Adverse selection, eventual market collapse, and chaos benefits ONLY Socialist politicians seeking to install Single Slayer, er, Single Delayer, er, Single Payer, Socialistic Health Care systems that failed in all prior instances.
Democrats are freaking out because they know this is the death of Obamacare. If young, healthy people aren’t subsidizing older, sicker people, Obamacare collapse. (Democrats: We can’t let Americans buy what they want! We have to tell them what they want!)
So, the Dems. had a chance to contribute to a Repeal and Replace plan. But because of the far-left Resist! crowd, Democrats can’t compromise on ANYTHING now. Not a single idea on compromise on health care from Nancy and Chuck. Not one. And an immigration proposal from Trump that would have been praised as Genius if proposed by Obama is rejected because, well, you know, RESIST!
And so Resist! has destroyed Obamacare. (Not that CNN will make the connection.)
You do know the reason they attempted to repeal and replace via reconciliation is because they never intended to consult or compromise with Democrats. Republicans still couldn’t get it done with a 50 vote threshold despite controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. Sad!
Your line of thinking is a little skewed here, Craig. Sally said they never intended to consult Democrats and you asked her to show you one thing Democrats contributed.
But, you see, if Sally really thinks the Republicans didn’t intent to consult the Democrats, then there’d be nothing to point out exactly how the Democrats contributed, because she doesn’t think they intended to consult them at all.
NO ONE CARES if the Republicans tried to consult with RESIST Democrats WHOSE PREDECESSORS SHUT OUT REPUBLICANS FROM THEIR MEETINGS ON ACA IN 2009.
It’s fortunate that the ACA repeal DOESN’T require a Senate vote because the TRA-17 repeal of the mandate is the final blow to ACA.
This announcement of options of basic coverage is another element of HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICS that I’ve mentioned several times here… It is the EC part; Essential Coverages. This increases affordability for ALL insureds.
February 22, 2018 at 8:12 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
(Regardless of Sally’s comment being right or not), we should ALL care when ANY party is intentionally not working with the other side to try and come up with bipartisan rules and laws that make the country a better place for all its citizens
February 22, 2018 at 8:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Did YOU care when Democrats shut out Republicans in 2009 by CHANGING THE LOCKS on the doors to their meeting rooms, which were previously open to ALL congressional members?! No, you didn’t.
February 22, 2018 at 8:54 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
It’s clear you have no intention of having an open and honest discussion since you’re content with asking me questions and providing my (wrong) answers to your own questions.
February 22, 2018 at 9:03 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
“Did YOU care when Democrats shut out Republicans in 2009”
Per Politifact:
“Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.”
February 22, 2018 at 9:04 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.
Cap’n, you know you are wasting your time. He has seen those same links and same factual information several times and instead chooses to repeat the same sad talking points, just like always.
The ACA went through hundreds (thousands?) of hours of open discussion. The Republicans had ample opportunity to introduce legislation, and many of their ideas were in fact implemented.
Contrast that to how our current congress went about passing the newest tax law.
February 22, 2018 at 5:24 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Cut the Bias,
I’m not trying to sway closed-minded conservatives. I’m setting the record straight for everyone else who is sick of all the lying from this administration on down to the Sean Hannity parrots.
February 22, 2018 at 5:59 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Snopes is for dopes.
February 22, 2018 at 6:01 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@Capt, Biased, Rosenblatt; all of YOU are wasting your time. Nothing will save ACA now that the mandate was removed by TRA-17.
February 23, 2018 at 1:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
“Regardless of Sally’s comment being right or not), we should ALL care when ANY party is intentionally not working with the other side to try and come up with bipartisan rules and laws that make the country a better place for all its citizens”
Which the democrats did with regards to the healthcare bill. They locked themselves out of the conversation. The republicans also inserted many line item sections which the democrats wanted. The starting point was a fresh bill though, to remove the over regulatory nature of the ACA.
The democrats said they would not start fresh, and would only change the ACA.
Also, the party which has a history of locking out the other side is the democrats.
Republicans numerous times bent over backwards to compromise on bills, ergo the new gun laws as well. You’re full of it Ron.
On another point: You are virtue signaling. Bipartisan can be directly destructive if the party you are bargaining with has harmful ideals.
February 23, 2018 at 9:07 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Quote:
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 3
Thumb down 1
Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.
This is a worthless post. Republicans WOULD NOT BOTHER TO WASTE THEIR TIME ADDING AMENDMENTS TO A BILL (ACA) THEY WOULD NEVER VOTE TO APPROVE. Straw Man Argument.
February 23, 2018 at 1:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“You do know the reason they attempted to repeal and replace via reconciliation is because they never intended to consult or compromise with Democrats.”
Wrong. It was due to the fact that the ACA was far too large, we needed to start with a simple law. They included reduced credits for affluent earners, pre existing conditions, children on plans until an older age, and subsidies in place until premiums came down, then they would lower subsidies as they did. That’s why they included the subsides for a few years. These were all compromise. Democrats from day one said they would not come to any table which started from scratch. They locked themselves out.
Republicans still couldn’t get it done with a 50 vote threshold despite controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. Sad!”
Craig — if every Democrat voted NO and every Republican voted YES, the Repeal and Replace legislation would have passed the “majority rule” reconciliation process.
I hope you eventually realize blame rests with the majority party in all three branches of government that tried to create a law that their own party couldn’t even agree was the right thing to do.
You may not agree until the roles are reversed and Dem’s are proven to be equally inept, but blaming the minority because the majority rule couldn’t all agree on what to do after bloviating about it for 7 years is pretty shortsighted.
Rosenblatt; the ‘blame’ falls on the shoulders of a few RINOs, not ‘(all) The Republicans’.
Again; its moot after TRA-17 removed the ACA mandate tax penalty.
I completely agree – blame falls on the shoulders of Republicans whose party holds the majority in all three branches of gov’t and who drafted legislation that their whole party couldn’t agree to pass using a simple majority-rule vote.
BLAME is on the DEMS who enacted the ACA without a single vote from along-standing Republican.
To try to spin the blame pointer away from the DEMS is as big a lie as any of Obama’s multiple lies; e.g. $2500 redux, keep yout Dr., keep your plan, wonderful treatment times and options, not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, it was a handful of Cinncinatti IRS agents only, etc.
February 23, 2018 at 8:52 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
No worries Yogi, there’s PLENTY of blame to pass out.
The ACA is 100% the Dem’s failure as they held all three branches of government at the time the ACA became law.
The inability to repeal and replace the ACA after talking about it for 7 years is the Repub’s failure as they hold all three branches of government when they couldn’t agree to R&R.
Both parties are at fault. Dem’s for enacting the ACA and Repub’s for being unable to repeal and replace.
February 23, 2018 at 9:20 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
But Republicans DID just, effectively, repeal it through repeal of the tax penalty via passing TRA-17.
You’re making ANOTHER Straw Man Argument on ‘repeal’ for the sake of saying something anti-Trump or anti-Republican, or anti-Conservative. But, you and your Straw Man have failed. TRA-17 negates ACA, BHO, Nancy Pelosi, and Dingy Harry Reid.
February 23, 2018 at 9:57 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
I made no Straw Man Argument — I was not arguing a point that hadn’t been discussed. Craig’s initial comment and what I replied to him were about repeal & replace.
We agree the Dem’s are at fault for enacting the ACA and the Repub’s (so far) have failed in repealing and replacing the ACA.
You already posted those two points, which I agree with, so I don’t know why you’re still arguing right now. Are you just simply arguing for the sake of arguing?
February 23, 2018 at 11:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Then both of you can travel down your rabbit hole discussion alone, without me. ACA is in it’s final life stages.
February 23, 2018 at 12:02 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Pro Tip – if you do not actually wish to participate in the topic being discussed, don’t post a reply to that conversation.
February 23, 2018 at 9:24 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Rosenblatt: Correct; I do not want to participate in a fantasy discussion about blaming REPUBLICANS for the ACA mess. The repeal failure is NOT at issue for the 2018 Election. The ACA mess is the issue, and the blame for ACA being enacted does NOT rest with Republicans.
You’re making a lame attempt to blame Republicans. Dems are at fault.
I won’t follow you any further down your blame game rabbit hole.
February 22, 2018 at 1:44 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Your rabbit hole criticism isn’t worth visiting. It’s not germane to the article.
If it wasn’t worth visiting, you wouldn’t have agreed with me in the first place and posted that “the blame falls on the shoulders of [some] of the Republicans.”
February 23, 2018 at 6:39 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
‘any long-standing’ not ‘along-standing’ digitus Typo-lar. Bear culpa.
February 23, 2018 at 9:25 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Blame for no repeal is not the issue.
Blame for ACA approval falls on Dems ONLY.
February 21, 2018 at 3:29 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
“If young, healthy people aren’t subsidizing older, sicker people, Obamacare collapse.” Correct. It also means the premiums for older, sicker people will go up, significantly.
High risk pools will be used to subsidize them separately, with the market equilibrium maintained by fair & equitable rates for other risks.
Cost controls will be enacted, to supplement competitive innovations to reduce costs. Regulatory revisions will also streamline overhead operations and reduce expense components in rates.
Your comment is a typical, do-nothing-about-costs, liberal talking point. That won’t stand unchallenged as long as knowledgeable Conservative humans and polar bears are around to read them.
Pharma, ATLA, and investors in such. Never mind the details for now. Trust me that the subsidies will primarily come from sources other than insured risks. Prepare to be surprised by the creativity of the soon to be re-introduced high risk / prexer pools. The HARPs architects are even more creative than smarter-than-average polar bears!
February 23, 2018 at 11:59 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Polar, this “secret idea” argument of yours is getting old. Heath care costs have been increasing for a long time, well before the ACA, and none of the best minds in our country have proposed meaningful solutions. Just this once, I’ll throw you into the “best mind” category just to make you feel good. Here’s the deal – we’re getting older, living longer, have more treatable ailments (treatable is the key word here), and have more drugs available than ever. Why would anyone think this is a recipe for lower cost?
February 23, 2018 at 12:26 pm
HAHAHA says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
@Polar,
“Never mind the details for now. Trust me..”
Famous republican words… I don’t have any answers or definitive proof for you. You’ll never be able to measure or calculate what I’m talking about, but in the end, it’ll be perfect. Believe me…
February 23, 2018 at 9:28 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – this old mnemonic comes back, again.
High cost risk pools are represented by the letters H CARE SP. Does anyone know what they represent? I do, and some people working in Washington on ACA Repeal & Replace do, too!
February 26, 2018 at 7:13 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@HAHAHA (laughing stock poster): ACA repeal is moot now that the tax penalty mandate is removed from IRC.
@SWFL Agent: the ‘secret idea’ is not mine, but I am aware of the details. It went to several Republican members of Congress, and to a few Dem Congressmen in the home state of the authors. It also went to several Washington ‘policy managers’. I reference the memory key I received for the outline of key aspects every time a new aspect is introduced by Congressmen/ policy managers working to R&R ACA. I am repeatedly correct about those details. What ideas have YOU contributed to this discussion? Please remind me.
February 21, 2018 at 3:09 pm
libra says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Here’s the thing with those short term limited medical plans….they don’t cover much. Why waste money paying premium for the least expensive things that can happen to you? Wouldn’t it be better to buy coverage for the most catastrophic thing, the hospital stay or disease that could add up to millions? The “young, healthy” consumer is uneducated and will fall into this low-premium trap, just as they did before Obamacare. Certainly, their attrition from Obamacare will cause the cost to go up for the remaining “older and unhealthy” and there will be mass health bankruptcy again.
Common Sense: the more you spend, the more you get.
Common Sense: some people want and need a Cadillac. Some people don’t.
Common Sense: Lying to sell something to the American people is bad strategy. “Keep your insurance. Keep your doctor. $2,500. premium reduction per family.” If you REALLY wanted national health care, you should have told Obama to stop lying.
Common Sense: No major entitlement has ever survived without large bi-partisan support. Ramming Obamacare down the throats of all Americans was just politically stupid.
Fact: Nobody knows what coverage they need because nobody has a crystal ball regarding their future health concerns
Fact: The PPACA is not an entitlement, nor health care insurance
Fact: The PPACA took 8 months to get passed, was discussed in multiple committees and Republicans were welcomed to debate and offer amendments.
FACT: med ins stats show what coverages are most often needed.
Your list of FACTS are moot.
February 23, 2018 at 5:05 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Polar,
Just because you know the most common ailments does not mean you know what you need. There are always unexpected things as well. You do know a majority of what you need, but Polar you do not know everything you will need so Ron is correct.
February 23, 2018 at 9:33 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I don’t know the most common ailments. I am stating the approach for the most economical way to cover common issues. It is akin to a HO policy that covers a limited amount of expensive property… and for fine arts, jewelry, etc. you buy an endorsement.
Too many liberals are interpreting the basic coverage as something it is not, like lemmings following the lead of some ignorant or lying Dem politician looking to block the Republicans fix of ACA.
February 22, 2018 at 11:31 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I’m all for health insurance plans that offer less coverage and are less expensive as long as they work like real insurance. In other words, get a disease the plan doesn’t cover or need drugs that the plan won’t authorize, then you’re out of luck. Your family will have to come-up with the funds or a charity or maybe a rich doctor does some pro-bono work. Or you just don’t get cured. This is a start that would begin to drive down healthcare costs and treat healthcare like the free market commodity like we “pretend” it already is.
I agree SWFL, but there’s a huge issue I see with having cheap options that won’t cover as much as other plans do … and that is ignorance and lack of knowledge.
I mean, who actually reads their auto and home insurance contract when they buy coverage (besides us in the industry :)?
For one comparison – most policyholders don’t know the difference between ACV and RC and they probably couldn’t figure out wherein the policy it states what will be paid, and not everyone has a home/renters policy. Now we expect even more people to fully comprehend what is covered and what is excluded for their medical needs?
Is routine care covered? Is it defined the same way in every plan, or do different plans have different definitions of ‘routine care’ that’s causing one to be much cheaper because there are many exclusions to that coverage?
We need consistency in terminology (just as all carriers agree what a comprehensive claim could be) and a clear breakdown of what is and is not covered in each plan to make an educated decision…and most people won’t bother because “I’m healthy, so I’ll just buy the cheapest plan” yet they won’t realize the error of their ways until it’s too late.
February 22, 2018 at 1:36 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Or you just don’t get cured.”
There it is, the “hurry up and die” mantra coming from our conservative friends. I bet you pretend you are pro-life, too, no? (pro-tip, that means all life, not just the uteri some men on the right want to control).
February 22, 2018 at 5:41 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Captain Planet, my response did come across a little mean spirited. We have a deep divide in this country on which direction we should take on healthcare with the exception that no one or no political party is willing to let people suffer. We’re always a unified group when we see babies and grandparents with terrible and treatable medical issues. But we can’t have it both ways. If we want free market principles to drive heath care costs and services, then my initial posts is probably not that far off. Drug companies and doctors will have to adapt when the “market” has to pay the freight. And let’s face it, the bulk of the market is not affluent so doctors may make less money and some people will die before others just like we have for ages. On the other hand, if we want to give everyone equal access to state of the art procedures, drugs, and services then our Gov’t will have to level the playing field. I see both sides of this and quite honestly it’s a debate that is wearing me out.
February 24, 2018 at 8:39 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@CaptPlatitude: it is known that UK and Canadian patients in Single Slayer Health Care Systems, er Single Delayer, er, Single Payer, as well as many US VA hospital patients have died while waiting for treatment.
The current Republican plan is to enable competition to exist among various medical providers in each community so that PROMPT, ADEQUATE, and EFFECTIVE treatment is available at the most efficient cost levels. Part of that plan is to enable writing of HI across state lines via regulatory changes. Other means are being considered. Interstate writing is included in the ‘HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS’ list of changes / criteria.
February 21, 2018 at 7:47 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Please read a policy offered BEFORE you theorize about what they offer and suggest it isn’t worthwhile. THE LATTER is probably the liberals talking points, currently spreading from lib website to lib website.
I agree that you need to read whatever it is you sign before you sign it, but let’s be honest for a second … what percentage of insureds do you think actually read AND properly comprehend their auto/home policy? It’s more than those who read the ‘terms and conditions’ before clicking the box online saying they agree to the T&C …. so I’d guess maybe 25% max, the majority of those being people who work in our industry.
Point is – the majority of people won’t read or won’t understand what their policy actually covers; that’s why we need the major players to agree on specific definitions used in each policy before the majority of citizens will truly grasp what they’re actually buying.
How many people read their Obamacare policy before signing the bottom line? How many people believed all the lies that were in it? It was the biggest disaster every passed by Congress. I am all for the alternatives being offered and for people to have the freedom of choice instead of the government mandating what they had to buy. Progressives are all for control of the people. We have seen what Progressives have done since 2010 and it stinks to high heaven.
Thanks for agreeing that people don’t read their policies and usually don’t know everything that’s covered or excluded, which causes headaches and frustration when people try to get insurance to cover something they thought they were insured against but weren’t.
February 22, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Rosenblatt,
I guess if everyone can read and comprehend the policy and coverage, we don’t need producers and agents anymore. Anyone who can comprehend the contract can certainly make a simple phone call when it comes time to file a claim. Also, call the underwriter direct and negotiate those terms and conditions. Heck, let’s get rid of agent licensing all together. Who needs it? Besides, that’s just a nasty regulation that gets in the way of an open marketplace for the consumer.
So if I read you correctly, Obamacare creates a one-size-fits-all health insurance program, meaning you don’t need agents anymore to explain differences because there are none.
And so we should make all insurance terms the same for all policies, including automobile insurance, life insurance, property insurance, etc.
And once that is done, according to your logic, all agents can find another line of work. Because the government will have “helped” the poor consumer to choose what is best . . .
February 23, 2018 at 8:53 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
You did not read me correctly so your straw man arguments are wrong.
February 26, 2018 at 7:39 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@Craig; no; no one can be certain to interpret Capt Platitude correctly. It’s likely due to his posting illogical talking points from lib websites.
One-size fits all policies in ACA is a veiled initial step toward a Single-Slayer, er, Single-Delayer, er, Single-Payer Health Care system.
Choice options are in line with Freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, which Obama and his minions enjoyed trampling on in their quest to move the USA toward a Socialist state. ACA removed choice, thus directly raising costs.
February 26, 2018 at 7:28 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Rosenblatt: So, you’ve shifted the discussion from ‘reading the policy is important to prove libbies are lying’ to ‘not many people read an insurance policy’. That boils down to ‘libbies are liars’ (my point) but YOU claim as more important ‘people are ignorant and irresponsible (because they were lied to by libbies in office who wrote, approved, and mandated ACA terms)’. So, what should be BOTH conclude if we are to agree on our common ground?
Now you can see, if you want to see, why so many Dems were voted out of Congress after the details of ACA were revealed piecemeal, over 2010 to 2012… and to date.
‘should WE BOTH’, not ‘should be BOTH’. bear culpa.
February 26, 2018 at 2:07 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Comment removed twice. I’m unable to respond. Now let’s see if this one gets removed too (and if you’re reading this Andrew, please don’t remove it. At least the poster will know I’m not ignoring him!)
February 23, 2018 at 6:51 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
It’s ignorant to suggest / state as if a fact, that the ‘coverage rate’ of the proposed policy offerings with basic coverage make them useless when ACA policies have hyuuuuuuge deductibles which are KNOWN to be breached infrequently.
The latter policy form approach is KNOWN to be a waste of money to any risk paying his/ her way, whereas those who receive subsidized policies ALSO get money to pay their co-pays, deductibles.
The former policy form, not fully revealed as it is a PROPOSAL, is NOT YET KNOWN to the public in general. Yet, we see lemming liberals spouting off about their coverage inadequacy, and being a waste of money.
Amazing examples of arrogance and ignorance, rolled into a single, empty, unsubstantiated claim.
Does anyone trying to discredit the PROPOSED policy forms have a link to their dec pages, terms & conditions, exclusions, limits, …. ? If so, show us how much you’ve learned about them by direct reading.
Isn’t part of the reason we’re in this mess and heath insurance cost were rising is because costs, and thus premiums, reflected subsidization for the uninsured? If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to state that a policy with limited coverage is not adequate (I won’t use the word “useless”).
I agree in part, IF there weren’t plans to cover the poor and sick. Making assumptions about the impact on the ENTIRE market is unfounded when you don’t have behind the scenes details.
Part of that problem with the rising cost is the govt is in the middle of things. Take my 6 month expedited appeal last year for example. If not for the govt being in the middle, the carrier would have taken my premium right away. 6 months later, one of these idiots finally agreed with me. If it would have been left in the hands of the carrier, the State DOI would have demanded they have it wrapped up in 30 days. Of course, if not for the poorly functioning web site not just changing my subsidy amount, I would have been fine. But the waste of money on the web site. Then there is the massive amount of paper being sent out.
I don’t know, man….the DoI has had my complaint for 7 months and they still haven’t provided a response yet.
Granted two anecdotal stories are insufficient to show a pattern, but my point is – just because the State Gov’t is working on something rather than the Fed Gov’t is no guarantee they’d do any better
February 26, 2018 at 7:48 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
In a highly competitive market, there would be fewer complaints from consumers AFTER suppliers learn to provide quality products and services or go out of business due to competitors supplying good products or services.
So, any complaints that remain after Darwinian survival of the ‘most fit producers’ would be fewer in number and more rapidly resolved by government regulatory agencies. At least that’s how it would work in theory. Polar bears cannot guarantee the real world will perfectly reflect theory.
February 26, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
In a free market, competition would only be high for preferred risks. You know, like P&C.
That is why there are residual markets and E&S for P&C that provide reduced coverage and higher premiums for sub-standard risks.
February 27, 2018 at 9:50 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Polar, the rhetoric sounds good but the “highly competitive market” doesn’t apply if we give everyone, regardless of income and/or their contribution to our economy (you know, some people just have more value than others), the same health benefits which we insist on doing. The ACA’s real failure was the attempt to level the playing field by creating standardization while allowing the health care industry to be treated as profit making, free market enterprises. A mismatch at best.
“The short-term plans are likely to appeal to healthier individuals who don’t think they need full coverage, potentially drawing them out of Obamacare’s markets. Combined with earlier moves by the Trump administration — such as ending the ACA requirement that all people buy health coverage or pay a fine — the latest proposals could result in higher costs or fewer options for individuals who still want to buy the more comprehensive Obamacare plans.”
Still waiting on my $2500 a year savings promised by Obama. Wait, my increase of $5000 a year paid for the more comprehensive coverage others bought from Obamacare. Yep, what a deal.
Let’s ignore the fact that these short-term plans don’t offer any coverage worth the paper they are written on, as you’d basically be gifting money to the insurance companies (I know how it works, since I work for one).
I’m sorry that the ACA didn’t work for the limited number of people who happen to be self-employed people…that’s fine, let’s work on fixing it to help those people, instead of destroying it for most everyone else who has greatly benefited from it. No, some would prefer to just scrap it and go back to the old system…which, by the way, would probably cost still as much as you pay today (based upon the rate increases that were occurring before ACA implementation, as they were going up 100% a year compared to the 20-40% they are now), yet provide at best half the coverage.
ACA is a mess. Anything you say to the contrary is as big a lie as Obama’s multiple lies. Get real about the coverage offerings; they are the means of providing affordable coverage, not bloated coverage lists with perils that don’t expose healthy risks in order to provide social insurance subsidies against the Will of The People.
Speaking of ‘destroying’; that’s what ACA did to peoples’ health insurance affordability and jobs. Good riddance to ACA!
Also, your use of the word ‘fact’ in your first sentence, in lieu of the appropriate words ‘my opinion’, shows your arrogance and bitterness toward The People expressing their Free Will to choose what to buy or not buy.
We who ALSO work(ed) for insurance cos. ALSO know how coverages work, policy forms are written to respond to market demand, and adverse selection occurs in rate making procedures and regulatory intervention.
‘Fixing a mess’ to help a handful of people while continuing to oppress and financially harm the majority makes no sense to anyone but liberal Socialists.
Fixing the current mess to inject more competition, choice, and innovation that will lower underlying costs will benefit EVERYONE. Adverse selection, eventual market collapse, and chaos benefits ONLY Socialist politicians seeking to install Single Slayer, er, Single Delayer, er, Single Payer, Socialistic Health Care systems that failed in all prior instances.
Quit with the whining. This happens to everybody.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You do know the reason they attempted to repeal and replace via reconciliation is because they never intended to consult or compromise with Democrats. Republicans still couldn’t get it done with a 50 vote threshold despite controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. Sad!
Prove me wrong. Show me one thing offered by Democrats to help fix Obamacare.
Goodbye Obamacare! (Not let’s all pretend nothing has changed. This will help it die quietly.)
Your line of thinking is a little skewed here, Craig. Sally said they never intended to consult Democrats and you asked her to show you one thing Democrats contributed.
But, you see, if Sally really thinks the Republicans didn’t intent to consult the Democrats, then there’d be nothing to point out exactly how the Democrats contributed, because she doesn’t think they intended to consult them at all.
NO ONE CARES if the Republicans tried to consult with RESIST Democrats WHOSE PREDECESSORS SHUT OUT REPUBLICANS FROM THEIR MEETINGS ON ACA IN 2009.
It’s fortunate that the ACA repeal DOESN’T require a Senate vote because the TRA-17 repeal of the mandate is the final blow to ACA.
This announcement of options of basic coverage is another element of HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICS that I’ve mentioned several times here… It is the EC part; Essential Coverages. This increases affordability for ALL insureds.
(Regardless of Sally’s comment being right or not), we should ALL care when ANY party is intentionally not working with the other side to try and come up with bipartisan rules and laws that make the country a better place for all its citizens
Did YOU care when Democrats shut out Republicans in 2009 by CHANGING THE LOCKS on the doors to their meeting rooms, which were previously open to ALL congressional members?! No, you didn’t.
It’s clear you have no intention of having an open and honest discussion since you’re content with asking me questions and providing my (wrong) answers to your own questions.
“Did YOU care when Democrats shut out Republicans in 2009”
https://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141557/dems-ram-obamacare-congress-no-debate-lets-consult-calendar-oh-look-republicans-lying
Per Politifact:
“Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.”
Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.
https://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141557/dems-ram-obamacare-congress-no-debate-lets-consult-calendar-oh-look-republicans-lying
Cap’n, you know you are wasting your time. He has seen those same links and same factual information several times and instead chooses to repeat the same sad talking points, just like always.
The ACA went through hundreds (thousands?) of hours of open discussion. The Republicans had ample opportunity to introduce legislation, and many of their ideas were in fact implemented.
Contrast that to how our current congress went about passing the newest tax law.
Cut the Bias,
I’m not trying to sway closed-minded conservatives. I’m setting the record straight for everyone else who is sick of all the lying from this administration on down to the Sean Hannity parrots.
Snopes is for dopes.
@Capt, Biased, Rosenblatt; all of YOU are wasting your time. Nothing will save ACA now that the mandate was removed by TRA-17.
“Regardless of Sally’s comment being right or not), we should ALL care when ANY party is intentionally not working with the other side to try and come up with bipartisan rules and laws that make the country a better place for all its citizens”
Which the democrats did with regards to the healthcare bill. They locked themselves out of the conversation. The republicans also inserted many line item sections which the democrats wanted. The starting point was a fresh bill though, to remove the over regulatory nature of the ACA.
The democrats said they would not start fresh, and would only change the ACA.
Also, the party which has a history of locking out the other side is the democrats.
Republicans numerous times bent over backwards to compromise on bills, ergo the new gun laws as well. You’re full of it Ron.
On another point: You are virtue signaling. Bipartisan can be directly destructive if the party you are bargaining with has harmful ideals.
Quote:
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 3
Thumb down 1
Republicans had several opportunities to introduce amendments to the Affordable Care Act, in both the Senate and House bills. Ultimately, for procedural reasons tied to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate version was the only one that moved forward. But Republicans offered changes in the committees that considered the bills before the whole chambers voted on them.
For example, 788 amendments were submitted during the ACA’s markup in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP). Three quarters of them were filed by the committee’s Republican members, according to John McDonough in his book Inside National Health Reform. Of those, 161 were adopted in whole or revised form.
This is a worthless post. Republicans WOULD NOT BOTHER TO WASTE THEIR TIME ADDING AMENDMENTS TO A BILL (ACA) THEY WOULD NEVER VOTE TO APPROVE. Straw Man Argument.
“You do know the reason they attempted to repeal and replace via reconciliation is because they never intended to consult or compromise with Democrats.”
Wrong. It was due to the fact that the ACA was far too large, we needed to start with a simple law. They included reduced credits for affluent earners, pre existing conditions, children on plans until an older age, and subsidies in place until premiums came down, then they would lower subsidies as they did. That’s why they included the subsides for a few years. These were all compromise. Democrats from day one said they would not come to any table which started from scratch. They locked themselves out.
Republicans still couldn’t get it done with a 50 vote threshold despite controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. Sad!”
Craig — if every Democrat voted NO and every Republican voted YES, the Repeal and Replace legislation would have passed the “majority rule” reconciliation process.
I hope you eventually realize blame rests with the majority party in all three branches of government that tried to create a law that their own party couldn’t even agree was the right thing to do.
You may not agree until the roles are reversed and Dem’s are proven to be equally inept, but blaming the minority because the majority rule couldn’t all agree on what to do after bloviating about it for 7 years is pretty shortsighted.
TRA-17 is the beginning of the end of ACA via repeal of the mandate.
Everything else you said is moot.
Rosenblatt; the ‘blame’ falls on the shoulders of a few RINOs, not ‘(all) The Republicans’.
Again; its moot after TRA-17 removed the ACA mandate tax penalty.
I completely agree – blame falls on the shoulders of Republicans whose party holds the majority in all three branches of gov’t and who drafted legislation that their whole party couldn’t agree to pass using a simple majority-rule vote.
BLAME is on the DEMS who enacted the ACA without a single vote from along-standing Republican.
To try to spin the blame pointer away from the DEMS is as big a lie as any of Obama’s multiple lies; e.g. $2500 redux, keep yout Dr., keep your plan, wonderful treatment times and options, not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, it was a handful of Cinncinatti IRS agents only, etc.
No worries Yogi, there’s PLENTY of blame to pass out.
The ACA is 100% the Dem’s failure as they held all three branches of government at the time the ACA became law.
The inability to repeal and replace the ACA after talking about it for 7 years is the Repub’s failure as they hold all three branches of government when they couldn’t agree to R&R.
Both parties are at fault. Dem’s for enacting the ACA and Repub’s for being unable to repeal and replace.
But Republicans DID just, effectively, repeal it through repeal of the tax penalty via passing TRA-17.
You’re making ANOTHER Straw Man Argument on ‘repeal’ for the sake of saying something anti-Trump or anti-Republican, or anti-Conservative. But, you and your Straw Man have failed. TRA-17 negates ACA, BHO, Nancy Pelosi, and Dingy Harry Reid.
I made no Straw Man Argument — I was not arguing a point that hadn’t been discussed. Craig’s initial comment and what I replied to him were about repeal & replace.
We agree the Dem’s are at fault for enacting the ACA and the Repub’s (so far) have failed in repealing and replacing the ACA.
You already posted those two points, which I agree with, so I don’t know why you’re still arguing right now. Are you just simply arguing for the sake of arguing?
Then both of you can travel down your rabbit hole discussion alone, without me. ACA is in it’s final life stages.
Pro Tip – if you do not actually wish to participate in the topic being discussed, don’t post a reply to that conversation.
@Rosenblatt: Correct; I do not want to participate in a fantasy discussion about blaming REPUBLICANS for the ACA mess. The repeal failure is NOT at issue for the 2018 Election. The ACA mess is the issue, and the blame for ACA being enacted does NOT rest with Republicans.
You’re making a lame attempt to blame Republicans. Dems are at fault.
I won’t follow you any further down your blame game rabbit hole.
Your rabbit hole criticism isn’t worth visiting. It’s not germane to the article.
If it wasn’t worth visiting, you wouldn’t have agreed with me in the first place and posted that “the blame falls on the shoulders of [some] of the Republicans.”
‘any long-standing’ not ‘along-standing’ digitus Typo-lar. Bear culpa.
Blame for no repeal is not the issue.
Blame for ACA approval falls on Dems ONLY.
“If young, healthy people aren’t subsidizing older, sicker people, Obamacare collapse.” Correct. It also means the premiums for older, sicker people will go up, significantly.
can’t wait for you to get old and sick
High risk pools will be used to subsidize them separately, with the market equilibrium maintained by fair & equitable rates for other risks.
Cost controls will be enacted, to supplement competitive innovations to reduce costs. Regulatory revisions will also streamline overhead operations and reduce expense components in rates.
Your comment is a typical, do-nothing-about-costs, liberal talking point. That won’t stand unchallenged as long as knowledgeable Conservative humans and polar bears are around to read them.
Who will be subsidizing said pools?
Pharma, ATLA, and investors in such. Never mind the details for now. Trust me that the subsidies will primarily come from sources other than insured risks. Prepare to be surprised by the creativity of the soon to be re-introduced high risk / prexer pools. The HARPs architects are even more creative than smarter-than-average polar bears!
Polar, this “secret idea” argument of yours is getting old. Heath care costs have been increasing for a long time, well before the ACA, and none of the best minds in our country have proposed meaningful solutions. Just this once, I’ll throw you into the “best mind” category just to make you feel good. Here’s the deal – we’re getting older, living longer, have more treatable ailments (treatable is the key word here), and have more drugs available than ever. Why would anyone think this is a recipe for lower cost?
@Polar,
“Never mind the details for now. Trust me..”
Famous republican words… I don’t have any answers or definitive proof for you. You’ll never be able to measure or calculate what I’m talking about, but in the end, it’ll be perfect. Believe me…
HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – this old mnemonic comes back, again.
High cost risk pools are represented by the letters H CARE SP. Does anyone know what they represent? I do, and some people working in Washington on ACA Repeal & Replace do, too!
@HAHAHA (laughing stock poster): ACA repeal is moot now that the tax penalty mandate is removed from IRC.
@SWFL Agent: the ‘secret idea’ is not mine, but I am aware of the details. It went to several Republican members of Congress, and to a few Dem Congressmen in the home state of the authors. It also went to several Washington ‘policy managers’. I reference the memory key I received for the outline of key aspects every time a new aspect is introduced by Congressmen/ policy managers working to R&R ACA. I am repeatedly correct about those details. What ideas have YOU contributed to this discussion? Please remind me.
Here’s the thing with those short term limited medical plans….they don’t cover much. Why waste money paying premium for the least expensive things that can happen to you? Wouldn’t it be better to buy coverage for the most catastrophic thing, the hospital stay or disease that could add up to millions? The “young, healthy” consumer is uneducated and will fall into this low-premium trap, just as they did before Obamacare. Certainly, their attrition from Obamacare will cause the cost to go up for the remaining “older and unhealthy” and there will be mass health bankruptcy again.
They cover a lot more than not having the policy at all. Young people never bought into Obamacare and paying for the chronically ill’s claims. FACT!
Libra, are you using common sense? Sad!
Common Sense: the more you spend, the more you get.
Common Sense: some people want and need a Cadillac. Some people don’t.
Common Sense: Lying to sell something to the American people is bad strategy. “Keep your insurance. Keep your doctor. $2,500. premium reduction per family.” If you REALLY wanted national health care, you should have told Obama to stop lying.
Common Sense: No major entitlement has ever survived without large bi-partisan support. Ramming Obamacare down the throats of all Americans was just politically stupid.
Fact: Nobody knows what coverage they need because nobody has a crystal ball regarding their future health concerns
Fact: The PPACA is not an entitlement, nor health care insurance
Fact: The PPACA took 8 months to get passed, was discussed in multiple committees and Republicans were welcomed to debate and offer amendments.
FACT: med ins stats show what coverages are most often needed.
Your list of FACTS are moot.
Polar,
Just because you know the most common ailments does not mean you know what you need. There are always unexpected things as well. You do know a majority of what you need, but Polar you do not know everything you will need so Ron is correct.
I don’t know the most common ailments. I am stating the approach for the most economical way to cover common issues. It is akin to a HO policy that covers a limited amount of expensive property… and for fine arts, jewelry, etc. you buy an endorsement.
Too many liberals are interpreting the basic coverage as something it is not, like lemmings following the lead of some ignorant or lying Dem politician looking to block the Republicans fix of ACA.
I’m all for health insurance plans that offer less coverage and are less expensive as long as they work like real insurance. In other words, get a disease the plan doesn’t cover or need drugs that the plan won’t authorize, then you’re out of luck. Your family will have to come-up with the funds or a charity or maybe a rich doctor does some pro-bono work. Or you just don’t get cured. This is a start that would begin to drive down healthcare costs and treat healthcare like the free market commodity like we “pretend” it already is.
I agree SWFL, but there’s a huge issue I see with having cheap options that won’t cover as much as other plans do … and that is ignorance and lack of knowledge.
I mean, who actually reads their auto and home insurance contract when they buy coverage (besides us in the industry :)?
For one comparison – most policyholders don’t know the difference between ACV and RC and they probably couldn’t figure out wherein the policy it states what will be paid, and not everyone has a home/renters policy. Now we expect even more people to fully comprehend what is covered and what is excluded for their medical needs?
Is routine care covered? Is it defined the same way in every plan, or do different plans have different definitions of ‘routine care’ that’s causing one to be much cheaper because there are many exclusions to that coverage?
We need consistency in terminology (just as all carriers agree what a comprehensive claim could be) and a clear breakdown of what is and is not covered in each plan to make an educated decision…and most people won’t bother because “I’m healthy, so I’ll just buy the cheapest plan” yet they won’t realize the error of their ways until it’s too late.
“Or you just don’t get cured.”
There it is, the “hurry up and die” mantra coming from our conservative friends. I bet you pretend you are pro-life, too, no? (pro-tip, that means all life, not just the uteri some men on the right want to control).
Captain Planet, my response did come across a little mean spirited. We have a deep divide in this country on which direction we should take on healthcare with the exception that no one or no political party is willing to let people suffer. We’re always a unified group when we see babies and grandparents with terrible and treatable medical issues. But we can’t have it both ways. If we want free market principles to drive heath care costs and services, then my initial posts is probably not that far off. Drug companies and doctors will have to adapt when the “market” has to pay the freight. And let’s face it, the bulk of the market is not affluent so doctors may make less money and some people will die before others just like we have for ages. On the other hand, if we want to give everyone equal access to state of the art procedures, drugs, and services then our Gov’t will have to level the playing field. I see both sides of this and quite honestly it’s a debate that is wearing me out.
@CaptPlatitude: it is known that UK and Canadian patients in Single Slayer Health Care Systems, er Single Delayer, er, Single Payer, as well as many US VA hospital patients have died while waiting for treatment.
The current Republican plan is to enable competition to exist among various medical providers in each community so that PROMPT, ADEQUATE, and EFFECTIVE treatment is available at the most efficient cost levels. Part of that plan is to enable writing of HI across state lines via regulatory changes. Other means are being considered. Interstate writing is included in the ‘HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS’ list of changes / criteria.
Please read a policy offered BEFORE you theorize about what they offer and suggest it isn’t worthwhile. THE LATTER is probably the liberals talking points, currently spreading from lib website to lib website.
I agree that you need to read whatever it is you sign before you sign it, but let’s be honest for a second … what percentage of insureds do you think actually read AND properly comprehend their auto/home policy? It’s more than those who read the ‘terms and conditions’ before clicking the box online saying they agree to the T&C …. so I’d guess maybe 25% max, the majority of those being people who work in our industry.
Point is – the majority of people won’t read or won’t understand what their policy actually covers; that’s why we need the major players to agree on specific definitions used in each policy before the majority of citizens will truly grasp what they’re actually buying.
How many people read their Obamacare policy before signing the bottom line? How many people believed all the lies that were in it? It was the biggest disaster every passed by Congress. I am all for the alternatives being offered and for people to have the freedom of choice instead of the government mandating what they had to buy. Progressives are all for control of the people. We have seen what Progressives have done since 2010 and it stinks to high heaven.
Thanks for agreeing that people don’t read their policies and usually don’t know everything that’s covered or excluded, which causes headaches and frustration when people try to get insurance to cover something they thought they were insured against but weren’t.
Rosenblatt,
I guess if everyone can read and comprehend the policy and coverage, we don’t need producers and agents anymore. Anyone who can comprehend the contract can certainly make a simple phone call when it comes time to file a claim. Also, call the underwriter direct and negotiate those terms and conditions. Heck, let’s get rid of agent licensing all together. Who needs it? Besides, that’s just a nasty regulation that gets in the way of an open marketplace for the consumer.
So if I read you correctly, Obamacare creates a one-size-fits-all health insurance program, meaning you don’t need agents anymore to explain differences because there are none.
And so we should make all insurance terms the same for all policies, including automobile insurance, life insurance, property insurance, etc.
And once that is done, according to your logic, all agents can find another line of work. Because the government will have “helped” the poor consumer to choose what is best . . .
You did not read me correctly so your straw man arguments are wrong.
@Craig; no; no one can be certain to interpret Capt Platitude correctly. It’s likely due to his posting illogical talking points from lib websites.
One-size fits all policies in ACA is a veiled initial step toward a Single-Slayer, er, Single-Delayer, er, Single-Payer Health Care system.
Choice options are in line with Freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, which Obama and his minions enjoyed trampling on in their quest to move the USA toward a Socialist state. ACA removed choice, thus directly raising costs.
Rosenblatt: So, you’ve shifted the discussion from ‘reading the policy is important to prove libbies are lying’ to ‘not many people read an insurance policy’. That boils down to ‘libbies are liars’ (my point) but YOU claim as more important ‘people are ignorant and irresponsible (because they were lied to by libbies in office who wrote, approved, and mandated ACA terms)’. So, what should be BOTH conclude if we are to agree on our common ground?
Now you can see, if you want to see, why so many Dems were voted out of Congress after the details of ACA were revealed piecemeal, over 2010 to 2012… and to date.
‘should WE BOTH’, not ‘should be BOTH’. bear culpa.
Comment removed twice. I’m unable to respond. Now let’s see if this one gets removed too (and if you’re reading this Andrew, please don’t remove it. At least the poster will know I’m not ignoring him!)
It’s ignorant to suggest / state as if a fact, that the ‘coverage rate’ of the proposed policy offerings with basic coverage make them useless when ACA policies have hyuuuuuuge deductibles which are KNOWN to be breached infrequently.
The latter policy form approach is KNOWN to be a waste of money to any risk paying his/ her way, whereas those who receive subsidized policies ALSO get money to pay their co-pays, deductibles.
The former policy form, not fully revealed as it is a PROPOSAL, is NOT YET KNOWN to the public in general. Yet, we see lemming liberals spouting off about their coverage inadequacy, and being a waste of money.
Amazing examples of arrogance and ignorance, rolled into a single, empty, unsubstantiated claim.
Does anyone trying to discredit the PROPOSED policy forms have a link to their dec pages, terms & conditions, exclusions, limits, …. ? If so, show us how much you’ve learned about them by direct reading.
Isn’t part of the reason we’re in this mess and heath insurance cost were rising is because costs, and thus premiums, reflected subsidization for the uninsured? If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to state that a policy with limited coverage is not adequate (I won’t use the word “useless”).
I agree in part, IF there weren’t plans to cover the poor and sick. Making assumptions about the impact on the ENTIRE market is unfounded when you don’t have behind the scenes details.
Part of that problem with the rising cost is the govt is in the middle of things. Take my 6 month expedited appeal last year for example. If not for the govt being in the middle, the carrier would have taken my premium right away. 6 months later, one of these idiots finally agreed with me. If it would have been left in the hands of the carrier, the State DOI would have demanded they have it wrapped up in 30 days. Of course, if not for the poorly functioning web site not just changing my subsidy amount, I would have been fine. But the waste of money on the web site. Then there is the massive amount of paper being sent out.
I don’t know, man….the DoI has had my complaint for 7 months and they still haven’t provided a response yet.
Granted two anecdotal stories are insufficient to show a pattern, but my point is – just because the State Gov’t is working on something rather than the Fed Gov’t is no guarantee they’d do any better
In a highly competitive market, there would be fewer complaints from consumers AFTER suppliers learn to provide quality products and services or go out of business due to competitors supplying good products or services.
So, any complaints that remain after Darwinian survival of the ‘most fit producers’ would be fewer in number and more rapidly resolved by government regulatory agencies. At least that’s how it would work in theory. Polar bears cannot guarantee the real world will perfectly reflect theory.
In a free market, competition would only be high for preferred risks. You know, like P&C.
That is why there are residual markets and E&S for P&C that provide reduced coverage and higher premiums for sub-standard risks.
Polar, the rhetoric sounds good but the “highly competitive market” doesn’t apply if we give everyone, regardless of income and/or their contribution to our economy (you know, some people just have more value than others), the same health benefits which we insist on doing. The ACA’s real failure was the attempt to level the playing field by creating standardization while allowing the health care industry to be treated as profit making, free market enterprises. A mismatch at best.