Reply With Quote
"rate of cost increases" means that the speed at which rates have gone up slowed down from what it was previously.
Rates have always gone up, no matter the system, to adjust for all sort of things (inflation, change in demographics, etc).
Who said that? I said he specifically campaigned touting pre-existing condition coverage was not negotiable. IOW: that plans wouldn't discriminate people with pre-existing conditions. But that's exactly what those plans on the article do.
For people with pre-existing conditions those plans are not only not an option, they increase the cost of their own plan. It really isn't about more choice, it's about torpedoing Barrycare, which I get it, it's one way t put pressure on Congress. It just made sense then when he had control of Congress, not so much now.
You won't hear a single politico on either party today talking about healthcare reform that doesn't include full support for people with pre-existing conditions. It's really because before barrycare, discrimination or penalties were rampant and abusive.
"rate of cost increases" means that the speed at which rates have gone up slowed down from what it was previously.
Rates have always gone up, no matter the system, to adjust for all sort of things (inflation, change in demographics, etc).
Sounds like you're putting words into Trump's mouth. He promised people with pre-existing conditions could still get health care. That hasn't changed. But even if you think Trump 'lied', this is spotlighting the shortcoming of our system. Making me pay for someone else's medical expenses is not about efficiencies. We all pay for politics of fear.
Rates skyrocketed with the advent of Obamacare; there's no need to put a smiley face on it.
“Republicans will always protect people with pre-existing conditions,” Trump said on Saturday in Nevada. “Republicans will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions,” Trump said in Arizona on Friday. "They're trying to put a false narrative out there — and if there is a Republican out there, him or her, let me know, and we'll talk him into it."
Of course this is a shortcoming of our system. Well, it was before ACA. One of the few right things the ACA did was not discriminate people with pre-existing conditions.
You *always* pay for somebody else's health and healthcare, as part of living in our society. Sometimes directly, like an employee insurance policy (which is a *group* insurance) or through your taxes which partially subsidize hospitals to treat uninsured people, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. Sometimes indirectly, if you're a business owner, sick employees without insurance can end up being very costly for the business. Curbing costs and efficiency in general are key. That's something the ACA didn't do, which is worse than doing it horribly.
I was merely pointing out that you're talking about rates, whereas WH was talking about rate of cost increases. They're two completely different things. I didn't say you were wrong. He isn't wrong either.
As part of legislative shakedowns.
The business owner case has nothing to do with legislation, it's simply a smart business decision. If you actually think about it, that aspect also applies to employee-sponsored healthcare, you're just on the other end of the stick.
bold assumption tbh
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
As I predicted all along,
Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONS UTIONAL disaster!
Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions.
Mitch and Nancy, get it done!
8:07 PM - Dec 14, 2018
... shows how out of touch and delirious y'all's sicko President is.
Repugs will block ANYTHING that has a whiff of progress, that does anything For The People.
If a miracle occurs, anything passed For The People will pass only if it provides 10x more wealth For The Oligarchy
Bingo.
Coverage for pre-existing conditions is popular across the political spectrum in large part because the pre-ACA system was so capricious and unfair.
We also get shook down locally at the ER, when people without insurance or routine access to healthcare seek help for acute conditions.
The ER being the resource of first, last and only resort for so many people is an obvious inefficiency of the system.
That wouldn't so much be the case if insurance IE "managed healthcare" wasn't the norm. Health insurance should be catastrophe insurance, not something you need to treat a broken arm (though it could be an option like any insurance).
With the rise in rates what is catastrophic? Getting put under sedation is catastrophic for many families. Thus a broken arm that requires surgery IS catastrophic.
The Republicans saw a plan that had many bad points and some good ideas and came up with NOTHING.
Trump said they had a plan but they did NOT.
Go figure...
Financially catostrophic; I figured that went without saying.
Well guess what?
That depends on your income.
Thus my example using your broken arm.
You realize costs continue to rise.
Thanks for that news flash that a big cost is a boon to anyone in the lower class.
So there should be a different insurance mandate? A subsidy? Single payer catastrophic?
How would this work in your mind?
Do you know what a boon means ya knucklehead?
Bottomline: By your definition Catastrophic is highly variable among citizens.
I cant believe you came onto this board trying to convince me you had some sort of skill in logic.
For MOST Americans, a $3000 health bill would be CATASTROPHIC
Only 39% of Americans have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-...emergency.html
Well Spurtaculated can cover that easily so fck those people.
When did I say there should be an insurance mandate, phony conservative?
Pre-existing conditions: Does any GOP proposal match the ACA?
Democrats charged their opponents with either nixing guaranteed coverage outright or putting those with pre-existing conditions at risk.
The claims might exaggerate, but they all have had a dose of truth.
Republican proposals are not as air tight as Obamacare.
the protections in the GOP plans are not as strong as Obamacare.
One independent analysis found that
the bill left over 6 million people exposed to much higher premiums for at least one year.
We’ll get to the congressional action next, but as things stand,
the latest official move by the administration has been to agree that the guarantees in the Affordable Care Act should go.
It said that in a Texas lawsuit tied to the individual mandate.
The individual mandate is the evil twin of guaranteed coverage.
In the 2017 tax cut law, Congress zeroed out the penalty for not having coverage. A few months later, a group of 20 states looked at that change and sued to overturn the entire law.
In particular, they argued that with a toothless mandate, the judge should terminate protections for pre-existing conditions.
So, if the mandate goes, so does guaranteed-issue.
Latest Republican plan has holes
there’s an out.
The bill adds an option for companies to deny certain coverage if "it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately."
To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that’s a big loophole.
"Insurers could exclude someone’s preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy," Hoffman said.
"That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers pre-existing condition protection."
The limit here is that insurers must apply such a rule across the board to every employer and individual plan.
They couldn’t cherry pick.
But the bill also gives companies broad leeway in setting premiums.
While they can’t set rates based on health status, there’s no limit on how much premiums could vary based on other factors.
"They could charge people in less healthy communities or occupations way more than others," Hoffman said.
"Just guaranteeing that everyone can get a policy has no meaning if the premiums are unaffordable for people more likely to need medical care."
"Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims," Whitlock said.
"If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that’s probably true."
... etc.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...proposal-matc/
There’s no GOP backup plan for the anti-Obamacare lawsuit
What exactly is the GOP's health care plan?
The lawsuit aims to strike down very popular provisions of the ACA, including but not limited to
protections for pre-existing conditions,
the Medicaid expansion,
the elimination of lifetime or annual limits on most benefits,
allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26,
closing a coverage gap in Medicare prescription drug plans, and
even free flu shots.
The Trump administration said it has a backup plan
should the anti-Obamacare lawsuit prevail in court,
but has yet to specify what exactly it is.
Health officials told Politico
the administration has no contingency plan should the ruling be held in appeal.
“We have a chance, working with the Democrats, to deliver great HealthCare!
A confirming Supreme Court Decision will lead to GREAT HealthCare results for Americans!”
he tweeted on Monday.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-republi...-f57d4fe398fd/
This thread is one of the better threads I've reread lately.
BTW, another symptom health care costs are still out of control:
https://khn.org/news/to-save-money-a...eet-in-cancun/
Just another piece of ING INSANITY in hole America.
Just another example of the INSANITY resulting from inhumane, blood-sucking Capitalists obsession to amass INSANE Capital, without limit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions