Obamacare Survives SCOTUS

#426
#426
Sea Ray said:
I'm trying to be patient with you but I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I said Trump changed this from 2010.



Non-ACA-Compliant Health Plans | Commonwealth Fund

This is one of the very positive things Trump did. It's not 2010 anymore
Click to expand...
And I’m replying back to you that what you are saying conflicts with the current law. Below is from HHS. What you are claiming is insurers can exclude pre existing conditions from their customer pool to provide lower rates. That simply conflicts with the stated law. I don’t know how to reconcile that for you in what you keep saying.

Pre-Existing Conditions
 
#427
#427
Sea Ray said:
ACA basically killed our previous plan and forced us into an ACA compliant plan. We were stuck with that until Trump changed it. For that I'm thankful. It's a little bit of a hassle to have my wife and I on separate plans but if it saves me $800-900/mo it's well worth it
Click to expand...
I’m glad your current position is better. But honestly I can’t reconcile it with what HHS says the law is. That’s all 🤷‍♂️
 
#428
#428
NorthDallas40 said:
You’ve offered zero to this discussion other than bitch, moan, and complain everything we’ve done and paid more for isn’t good enough. When pressed you projected the issue back on people pressing you while offering nothing on your own. When presented with improvements you simply reply not good enough. Your sum contribution is bitching and virtue signaling while offering nothing. Congrats.
Click to expand...

I mean, you've misrepresented my point from the beginning - why stop making sh*t up now?

You haven't pressed me because there's nothing to press - from the start I've overtly stated I didn't have a solution to the problem. But that doesn't keep me from recognizing that the problem still exists. Once you realize the "do nothing" approach and personal anecdotes weren't convincing you pivoted to foisting a nonsensical legislative solution to a completely different problem than what's being discussed.

Since this has escaped you time and time again, the current system sucks as did the former - read that slowly and ask a friend to help you understand that that sentiment doesn't offer support for the ACA.

Now, are you prepared to admit that you simply don't care about the millions of uninsured American's?
 
#429
#429
Sea Ray said:
I'm trying to be patient with you but I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Click to expand...

Good luck. I think he's having an episode - he's usually much more lucid than he's been in this thread.
 
#430
#430
Septic said:
I mean, you've misrepresented my point from the beginning - why stop making sh*t up now?

You haven't pressed me because there's nothing to press - from the start I've overtly stated I didn't have a solution to the problem. But that doesn't keep me from recognizing that the problem still exists. Once you realize the "do nothing" approach and personal anecdotes weren't convincing you pivoted to foisting a nonsensical legislative solution to a completely different problem than what's being discussed.

Since this has escaped you time and time again, the current system sucks as did the former - read that slowly and ask a friend to help you understand that that sentiment doesn't offer support for the ACA.

Now, are you prepared to admit that you simply don't care about the millions of uninsured American's?
Click to expand...
Offer something or substance or STFU.

A fractional percentage over 9 in 10 Americans are insured today. They cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Starting next year they are protected from balance billing.

I’m prepared to admit what I’ve said all along. I’m not willing to destroy healthcare for the rest of us to meet your arbitrary goal. Especially when you offer no solutions.

So start offering solutions or STFU
 
#432
#432
NorthDallas40 said:
And I’m replying back to you that what you are saying conflicts with the current law. Below is from HHS. What you are claiming is insurers can exclude pre existing conditions from their customer pool to provide lower rates. That simply conflicts with the stated law. I don’t know how to reconcile that for you in what you keep saying.

Pre-Existing Conditions
Click to expand...

Don't believe everything your gov't tells you. I've provided you with evidence that these plans are out there. I'm sorry the gov't website is so misleading. Google short term healthplans and you'll find a myriad of choices. Mine is through United Healthcare. Short term is one year. It was renewed last yr so this is my second year on it.

Is my health plan ACA-compliant?
 
#433
#433
Sea Ray said:
Don't believe everything your gov't tells you. I've provided you with evidence that these plans are out there. I'm sorry the gov't website is so misleading. Google short term healthplans and you'll find a myriad of choices. Mine is through United Healthcare. Short term is one year. It was renewed last yr so this is my second year on it.
Click to expand...
Ok I really don’t know what to say then. Our company is self insured however UHC administers our plans also. Our benefits plan explicitly restates what is stated on the HHS website. Regardless I’m glad your current healthcare is more affordable.
 
#434
#434
ACA is such a convoluted mess that in reality it was never meant to insure everyone. It’s entire design was for other to pay a lot more in order to cover the ones uninsured. It would have been much simpler for the govt to subsidize a pool of people who were unable to get insurance and require all insurers to participate. This would have left 90% of the plans alone and we would have only seen slight increases in premiums. Instead, premiums went up and deductibles skyrocketed. Even if this had happened they way I stated, as long as Emergency rooms are required to attend to the uninsured, there would be no reason for a majority of those uninsured to ever pay for insurance. They don’t care about medical bills and have no assets to lose
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#435
#435
Sea Ray said:
Don't believe everything your gov't tells you. I've provided you with evidence that these plans are out there. I'm sorry the gov't website is so misleading. Google short term healthplans and you'll find a myriad of choices. Mine is through United Healthcare. Short term is one year. It was renewed last yr so this is my second year on it.

Is my health plan ACA-compliant?
Click to expand...
So I did Google it as you recommended. I looked up a UHC plan for Texas and you’re right it explicitly excludes preexisting conditions. It only covers out of network costs for emergency care too. It also clearly states that it is not compliant with the ACA minimums. All I can say is I’m glad I don’t have to have it. I don’t blame you for being pissed.

So isn’t there some punitive action for not having the ACA minimum coverage or are you saying that was the change Trump initiated? Basically removing the mandate removed the required coverage limits? If so then you finally got thru my thick skull, I get it. I just didn’t think insurers were even allowed to offer these products anymore. Either buy a plan with ACA minimums or have no coverage, never considered these products were even available.
 
Last edited:
#436
#436
Septic said:
The issue we're faced with is how to get all American's covered, not "many/most."

If you're fine with that, just say so - but stop trying to sell "good enough" as the best America can do for its citizens. This is a giant chink the armor of clucking about American exceptionalism with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Not sure when I clucked about exceptionalism. American or otherwise. Especially since I am wanting to see changes, ACA or otherwise.

I want fair. For me that's choice. Government mandated takes that away. And I dont see the argument for fair in making things worse for 9/10 americans so that 1/10 have it better. The math doesnt work out. And that falls on both the insurance companies, as well as government mandated stuff. But right now those two are so in bed with each other you cant say bad on one without saying bad on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray and NorthDallas40
#438
#438
OHvol40 said:
He’d probably go see someone about it, but it’s too expensive.
Click to expand...
Your shade is weak. Since I prioritized healthcare I’ve got all kinds of affordable options. Now twist that around to some unrelated point so you can keep the bull **** flowing 🤡
 
#441
#441
NorthDallas40 said:
So I did Google it as you recommended. I looked up a UHC plan for Texas and you’re right it explicitly excludes preexisting conditions. It only covers out of network costs for emergency care too. It also clearly states that it is not compliant with the ACA minimums. All I can say is I’m glad I don’t have to have it. I don’t blame you for being pissed.

So isn’t there some punitive action for not having the ACA minimum coverage or are you saying that was the change Trump initiated? Basically removing the mandate removed the required coverage limits? If so then you finally got thru my thick skull, I get it. I just didn’t think insurers were even allowed to offer these products anymore. Either buy a plan with ACA minimums or have no coverage, never considered these products were even available.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm not 100% sure how Trump pulled it off but I think by removing the penalties he essentially ended the mandate. With no enforcement mechanism there really is no longer a mandate. I think this also played a role in the SCOTUS decision

I much prefer my plan to my wife's because the deductible is lower and because it works in other states. 6 mos from now my wife will be on Medicare so that rigmarole will be done

Glad you were able to learn something new on VN today. I learn all sorts of stuff here.. Next time you can teach me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#442
#442
Sea Ray said:
Honestly I'm not 100% sure how Trump pulled it off but I think by removing the penalties he essentially ended the mandate. With no enforcement mechanism there really is no longer a mandate. I think this also played a role in the SCOTUS decision

I much prefer my plan to my wife's because the deductible is lower and because it works in other states. 6 mos from now my wife will be on Medicare so that rigmarole will be done

Glad you were able to learn something new on VN today. I learn all sorts of stuff here.. Next time you can teach me!
Click to expand...
I’ll admit I was shocked that insurers were able to now offer products like that I didn’t think the law allowed it. I did indeed learn something. I’m glad it’s working out for your family and here’s to getting your wife onto more affordable healthcare care! We will all be on Medicare eventually if you live long enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#443
#443
On the topic of reducing costs while maintaining private options I’ve thought about this some in the middle of all the bickering.

The only way to lower costs on private insurance is to lower their maximum risk exposure at any given time. Right now your insurance is on the hook for everything that might happen to you. If that were capped at some maximum on a yearly basis then private insurers could lower their risk estimates. Even Medicare has provisions for this today on a maximum number of lifetime hospital days after you cross so many days per event you enter that pool of days.

The only insurer of last resort here would sadly be the federal government. Basically private insurers are on the hook for only $XXk dollars a year per individual. Then for the rest of the year or that event period the federal government picks up the cost. Medicare is already setup this way, on an event basis. And we all pay for Medicare every year while not getting to use it till 65. Basically modify Medicare to become an insurer of last resort for massive cost individual situations.

I’m not advocating for it. I’m throwing it against the wall to see what sticks. It would clearly enable lowering private insurance cost to the individual while utilizing a risk plan we’re all already paying into that we still can’t use. Obviously Medicare costs would increase for everyone as a result of this. But I’d have to believe when you spread these relatively small number of high cost cases over the whole national risk pool it wouldn’t be a huge hit. Purely a guess on my part.
 
#444
#444
Velo Vol said:
This is how true insurance works.
Click to expand...
Been over this before, it makes decisions based on the individual user. Now thanks to the government/ACA this, shared costs, is the way insurance works.

I am not pro-insurance. My proposal only leaves insurance as an option.
 
#445
#445
LouderVol said:
Been over this before, it makes decisions based on the individual user. Now thanks to the government/ACA this, shared costs, is the way insurance works.

I am not pro-insurance. My proposal only leaves insurance as an option.
Click to expand...
Scroll up one post and let me know what you think.
 
#447
#447
NorthDallas40 said:
Scroll up one post and let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

I like that you're thinking about solutions. There's too much bickering on social media these days and not enough problem solving

I think it could be a part of the solution. I guess it all depends on where that maximum is set. If it's set at a million bucks it'd likely be a significant savings. If it's set at $6mill, not so much. Politically it'd come across as a bailout/corporate welfare for the health insurance companies
 
#448
#448
LouderVol said:
I think medicare rates would go up. It would be interesting to see how that would work out with some health care providers basing costs on Medicare price fixing.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly they would go up. On my last paycheck I paid about $100 bucks for healthcare and $114 bucks in Medicare. Bi-weekly pay. It would be interesting to turn the two knobs and see what would happen. For me I’d guess it isn’t a huge hit frankly maybe a few bucks up. But there is clearly a group that would see huge cost benefit.

Hey @Sea Ray scroll up and read and tell me what you think. You too @volinbham Id like to hear your take. But not you @Septic dont you dare scroll up and read it!!!
 
#449
#449
Sea Ray said:
I like that you're thinking about solutions. There's too much bickering on social media these days and not enough problem solving

I think it could be a part of the solution. I guess it all depends on where that maximum is set. If it's set at a million bucks it'd likely be a significant savings. If it's set at $6mill, not so much. Politically it'd come across as a bailout/corporate welfare for the health insurance companies
Click to expand...
So those are the knobs to turn and see. I can’t see how $1M is even a real number but I don’t know. I postulated a yearly window on an event basis (say the event crosses calendar year boundary) for this so $1M sounds really high even. I’d guess it would be in $XXXk kinda max limits.
 
#450
#450
NorthDallas40 said:
Undoubtedly they would go up. On my last paycheck I paid about $100 bucks for healthcare and $114 bucks in Medicare. Bi-weekly pay. It would be interesting to turn the two knobs and see what would happen. For me I’d guess it isn’t a huge hit frankly maybe a few bucks up. But there is clearly a group that would see huge cost benefit.

Hey @Sea Ray scroll up and read and tell me what you think. You too @volinbham Id like to hear your take. But not you @Septic dont you dare scroll up and read it!!!
Click to expand...

Why? You afraid I'll catch you trying to strawman an argument you think applies to the conversation, but doesn't? Again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top