That’s simple to fix. They remove that requirement.
That’s what I can’t understand, either. Why would anyone buy insurance in that case unless they knew for sure it was going to make financial sense?
A family’s premiums might be $1000/mo, but they likely don’t use that much service every month. If they instead had to pay cash, they likely would spend less than $1000/mo in most cases. So it makes sense for them to do without insurance until they need it and then sign up when they have a big expense. Then they pay $1300/mo with the penalty until treatment is complete and then drop insurance when they are better.
Suppose while they’re without insurance, they get into a horrific car accident? Could they regain their coverage from the hospital bed if they can’t work to pay the premiums? Seems like a rather foolish gamble to me.
I don’t understand.
- Before Obamacare individual health insurance was based on medical underwriting (resulting in pre-existing conditions not being insured…)
- With Obamacare this was dropped so pr-existing conditions were covered and replaced with mandates, although existing plans were grandfathered in–grandfathering shortly to expire. Health insurance prices have been exploding and insurance companies have been rapidly withdrawing from the Obamacare market.
- No mandate with Trumpcare. So why wouldn’t this simply increase the exodus from the market resulting in no individual health insurance being sold to anyone–except maybe at vastly higher rates than the already exorbitant current ones?
Well for this situation there is an obvious alternative, you simply declare bankruptcy. This works OK if you don’t have any assets that they could claim and don’t worry about credit ratings.
True, but then they sign up for insurance the next day and just have the first day’s worth of expenses to cover from their pocket. With no pesky pre-existing condition clause, the family can get coverage for the accident after the accident. The lengthly and expensive recovery in the hospital and physical therapy would thereafter only cost $1300/month.
The savvy family would put the $1000/mo they would have spent on premiums into an HSA or savings account. Then when they do have a sudden expense, they can pay the first day or so worth of charges before their new insurance kicks in.
Oh yes, of course. I just can’t wait to see the R’s (a) propose exempting members of Congress from that requirement and (b) explaining why they need to do that after saying how necessary it was for Obamacare.
All the focus on the prices of health insurance premiums ignores a huge part of the equation. The cost of treatment is way to high even if you have insurance. But providers have to charge too much because lots of people can’t pay. This new “plan” only exacerbates the problem.
I was expecting a stupid plan that relied on handwaving, unicorn farts and a broken calculator. What we actually get is absolute insanity. It’s a handout to the rich while the middle class get it worse than before ACA, the poor might as well be harvested for parts, AND the insurance companies get screwed too.
Trump and care. Today’s contradiction of terms.
Is it OK if I c n p this for Facebook (with linked attribution, of course)?
Is it any surprise that insurance company CEO’s will make out like bandits? These greedy bastards just sat down with Trump like a week ago at which he promised them they’d like his new plan.
From CNN Money:
"Five major insurers paid their CEO’s $73 million in 2015, the most recent year for which pay has been reported. Only $2.5 million of that was deductible under Obamacare tax laws. But more than $70 million of that would be deductible under the proposed Republican legislation. … The deductions don’t affect the executives’ individual tax bill, just the company’s. But allowing bigger deductions on executive pay could give companies an incentive to hike that pay, since some of it would be made up for by the lower taxes. "
Yeah? You think they might like a few more million dollars a year? How rich to these pricks need to be?
Richer.
There is never enough wealth for these people.
How many lives were saved by Obamacare? How many people died in 2008 that would have lived if Obamacare had been law then?
Any?
Up to 45,000, Bricker.
Want to argue the cite? Call Harvard, and the CDC, talk to the researchers, let us know what they said.
Why do you ask such a spring-loaded question? I swear, you lay more traps than a old-time fur hunter.
It may be possible, maybe!..to create a methodology and conduct the survey. But any party likely to participate likely has some notion of what they want that survey to say, a fact which experience tells us will affect how the methods are decided upon. * Très* duh, mais non?
I think you knew when you asked the question that there was no answer that couldn’t be nitpicked upon, like being nibbled to death by ducks. Any answer that you wouldn’t like that would be vulnerable. Heads, you win fer sure, tails is fifty-fifty.
No fair, Counselor.
I will wait until Bricker talks to the PhD’s who actually researched his question and reports back to us any new findings.
So, I assume that you do think that I was lying then.
I told you before that I was not going to accept your bet about Obamacare for the simple reason that thanks to a resistant to antibiotic infection I would had been a goner if I had not had Obamacare.
He has a peer-reviewed study, published by Harvard and the CDC, answering this question.
Regardless, I thought lawyers were trained not to ask Q’s to which the answer is unknown. The study was #2 on my Google search. Not difficult to find an answer.
In the few hours since this “bill” was released, the AARP is already on the warpath and has started producing commercials against it.
It actually doesn’t answer the question. You’ve assumed that all deaths due to lack of insurance per the cite would have been prevented had the ACA been in place. That’s an assumption not supported by evidence. Evidence actually suggests that even given the ACA, there would be a portion of people who do not get insurance.
In any event, I’m not sure what this line of questioning is supposed to reveal. Measuring deaths or lives saved is only a portion of the impact of healthcare. The quality of life differences must also be a heavy weight on the scale of costs vs. benefits.