jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (28 posts)

What Will Rs in Congress Do When Millions Lose Their Insurance?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 4 months ago

    As the GOP told us many, many times that hundreds, if not thousands of counties in America will have no insurers providing coverage in 2018.  Well, so long as they, and Trump, keep saying Obamacare will fail, it probably WILL become a self-fulling prophecy as insurers get despondent and leave the exchanges.

    But this will probably become a "be careful of what you ask for" moment.  Why?  Because most of the counties which will be devoid of insurance, where potentially millions will lose coverage, are in the core of GOP country.  Populated areas will still have insurance, but those are Democratic strongholds, not Republican. 

    This should become apparent in late Spring or early Summer after insurance companies announce their plans. 

    If this very likely scenario comes to pass, how will the Republicans in Congress respond?  Will they simply let all of THEIR constituents go without insurance?  Should they?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The Dem's promote and install ObamaCare, an insurance law that is financially unstable and cannot endure.  But it is the GOP that is at fault because they allowed that fact to become known when the Dem's is desperately want to keep it hidden to preserve their lies. 

      This really is politics at its best.

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        There is nothing unstable about ACA if it were left to run as planned.  The GOP threw every possible obstacle in its way yet it did cut the uninsured rate by 1/2.

    2. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Come on My Esoteric, parse your comments and look for the real questions your comment poses - then consider if your last question was the important question.

      Why will all those counties no longer have healthcare insurance providers?

      If the evil BIG business  insurance providers are making money, why would they give a damn about the prophetic possibilities of  Pres. Trump's actions?

      Why are those Red counties you emphasize more susceptible to the failure of the Exchanges than  their city-dweller counterparts? Do you really think the all-important factor is their party affiliation or perspective? Couldn't it have something to do with employment availability or population concentration instead of party affiliation, or social norm perspectives?

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        It would indeed seem to be about employment availability.  At the same time, my (small) employer canceled our insurance when ObamaCare hit it's stride and the prices went through the roof.   It not only requires employment, it requires an employer large enough to negotiate lower cost premiums.  Lower costs when are then made up on the backs of small employers and the non-employed.

      2. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        You need to read REAL news once in a while, GA.  If you did you know:

        1.  The Ds understood that because the pools would be weighted with sicker people because the healthy, uninsured leaches avoided buying insurance.  Consequently, it was a given insurance companies would lose money, that is why the law set up a fund, that Congress would have to appropriate money to after the first year, to off-set some of these loses.
        2.  Problem with letting Congress do anything now a days is they won't.  It is no surprise that the didn't provide the off-set when needed thereby letting insurance companies absorb 100% of the losses.  It is no surprise that insurance companies started pulling out and raising their rates since the GOP refused to help cover some of their loses as was promised in the law.

        If you knew how insurance works, you wouldn't have asked your question about Red Counties.   But here is why, the insurance pools all smaller which makes them less profitable.  Therefore insurers have less incentive to offer insurance.  It so happens that rural areas are more Red than Blue.  That is why Trump supporters will suffer more.

        1. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          aww geez My Esoteric, I thought I did try to get the "real news."

          But, I don't remember the Democrat's promotion of the ACA saying anything about the government subsidizing the insurance company's profit margin, (although I did read enough to know it was a part of the bill, but I do think it was  for longer than 1 year)

          I am not sure I understand your criticism that Congress didn't provide that off-set for more than a year. It sounds like you are saying that of course the system would not work if we not only subsidized the enrollee's premiums, but also the insurance companies' profits. I don't remember that being promoted to the public either.

          Contrary to your assertion, I do know how insurance works. That is why I did not buy the administration's glorious ACA pronouncements, or your attribution to the Red States as being the problem.

          From the beginning, in my opinion, the ACA was doomed to fail, as is being witnessed now. I am sure that if you were to cast a non-partisan eye on the concept, you would agree that nothing short of a single-payer system could accomplish what the democrats proclaimed the ACA would.

          I am surprised that with the flaws of the ACA so readily apparent in 2017, you would resort to criticizing my understanding of the concept of insurance, when the very structure of the ACA is such a blatant misrepresentation of health insurance coverage.

          I don't see any basis for you to defend the act - beyond partisan support of the concept of healthcare as a Right to be guaranteed by the government.

          So, rather than attack my understanding of the concept, why don't you answer the questions posed!

          ps. would your "leeches" description apply to young folks that had no need, nor had ever used, the system - just because they didn't pay to support the use by others?

          I am sorry if my original response appeared to warrant such a negative reply from you. I did not intend it that way. The effect on "Red States" has nothing to do with their partisan ideology, or their support of Trump. Surely your understanding of how insurance works- regarding smaller pools of enrollees and such, would tell you that party affiliation had nothing to do with it.

          GA

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Healthy, uninsured leaches?  Leaches!?  Only a liberal could ever call someone that declined to pay double so as to cover someone else a leach!  But even understanding that the wealth of everyone is theirs to spend as they wish, that's still over the top.

          Problem is, as GA points out, that insurance is not designed as just another liberal give-away program.  It is designed to share the costs among a group of similar risk individuals - not to simply cover the higher costs of higher risk groups by over-charging low risk people.

    3. MizBejabbers profile image88
      MizBejabbersposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      What will they do? Let's hope they suffer the disapproval of the newly uninsured and lose their elected jobs. GA asks why the Red counties are more in danger of losing their insurance than their democrat counterparts? Not a difficult question to answer. Because they are mostly Trump supporters and the majority will stand behind him, until they find themselves in a hot spot needing insurance, that is. Our Republican governor who took over the reins of a former well-managed Democrat administration with a stable healthcare program, has just asked the feds if he can drop around 1,000,000 people from  state-managed healthcare. (Frankly, even as a state employee, I didn't know that he needed permission.) Many of the Republicans who didn't support the ACA now actually enjoy its benefits and are going to sorely miss it when (if) it's gone.  The Blue counties have more middle-class Democrats who have real jobs and private insurance, and they will use their influence to keep what they can. (Of course, there are some unemployed, disabled, or welfare hangers-on, too. There always will be.)  But I smell some Blue states in the remaking after the reality sets in.
      As far as it taking larger employers to negotiate better premiums, our state government health insurance went out of sight after the ACA. The premiums stayed within their old range, but the deductible went from $100 to $2,500 or so they tell me. After I suffering an illness and a $500 deductible, I dropped them and went on Medicare + supplement plan. Some of my fellow employees wish they were old enough to.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Liberals need to think about this ;

        Why is it that the there  are NO Obama's on the insurance  rolls   listed under Obama Care ,  Same reason there were no Clintons  How come there are no Clintons listed under  Hilary Care - ever think about that ?          Because the planners  at the congressional level  apparently still have a better plan than Obama Care  ?

        1. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Of course they all do, but it is no reason to punish the common man. Have you found any of the Bushes, the Ryans, the Cruzes, etc., on Obama care? And what about Trumps?  If not, why have you brought this up?

          1. ahorseback profile image46
            ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Because its one more falsely progressive government program in a government that provably cannot effectively run any thing !     I heard on a radio program  The difference between Obama-Care and  Ryan  - Care is  a net coverage  difference of two million people by  2030  ?   I'm impressed ......................Not!

            1. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Bet the 24 million people (less those who want others to pay for their injuries by not having insurance) don't think ACA is "falsely progressive".

              1. ahorseback profile image46
                ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Lets face it , entitlement children  didn't begin  down this road intellectually ,   intellectually speaking ,  who to pay , how to pay , even why to pay doesn't  ever even enter into the picture .

                I just deserve it.

                1. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Boy, that is bigoted (not the racial kind, btw) as I have heard in many years ... entitlement children indeed.

                  You do know the vast majority of these "lesser humans" work full-time, don't you?

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                But those that demand someone else pay not only for their care but a share of insurance company profits is different somehow?  Or do we just not mention that part of it, as a "progressive" goal that is to remain hidden?

                1. ahorseback profile image46
                  ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  England is just announcing on Sky News  " they will be seeing longer and longer wait times " in their  system .    Interesting ?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Interesting, but not surprising.  There is a perpetual claim that American health care is so far inferior, but experience does not bear that out.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Why then does my wife have to wait weeks to get a dermatologist appointment, she's not on ACA.  Why am I still waiting for a neurooptimologist appointment after two months.

            2. MizBejabbers profile image88
              MizBejabbersposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Ahorseback, how can it be a difference of only 2,000,000 people when, as I stated, my state's governor is asking to drop 1,000,000 people. There are 50 states, and if that holds true in every state, it should be a minimum of 50,000,000 people. Who comes up with these figures anyway?

              1. ahorseback profile image46
                ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Well good question !     Wouldn't it be nice if all the underwriters from failed Obama Care states ,that ARE leaving these mandated systems , tell us why  they are losing money .I think I know.

                Pay cash for an MRI                                 $ 750
                Insured Hospital  charge                          $3,500
                Pay cash for  Cataract surgery                $2,000
                Insurance Hospital charge                       $7,000 per eye
                Aspirin in store                                         $ .10c
                Hospital Charge                                        $ 18.00
                Band-Aid  store                                        $.08 c
                Band-aid Hospital                                    $ 40.00

                Ask for an itemized hospital bill someday !

                1. MizBejabbers profile image88
                  MizBejabbersposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Ahorseback, I always demand an itemized bill. That looks about average to me even before the "Affordable" Care Act. At one time, we could all afford medical care out of our own salaries. We had no insurance when our children were born longer ago than I care to remember, and neither child cost over $1,000, including doctor and hospital bills. I blame the powerful insurance lobby for unaffordable health care costs.

    4. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      We should become more socialist. Like Venezuela.
      http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56ab9d3a58c32319008b6562-480/venezuela.jpg

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Too bad vans. Is terrible example, a failed socialism reality

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          More like a typical example. Government social programs always fail.

  2. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    And a dumb assed congress that supports them .  I had  company insurance all through  the  70's ,80's , 90's hardly ever used it  , rarely .    Premiums up , deductible up  , coverage down ,  hospital costs' up , premiums up again , deductible up again ............

    The insurance company shuffle ! The doctor shuffle , the hospital shuffle ,    But Obama Care changed all that didn't it ?....................Didn't it ?

  3. Will Apse profile image87
    Will Apseposted 4 months ago

    A study published recently shows that if you are born with cystic fibrosis in the US your life expectancy is ten years less than if you are born with the disease in Canada.

    Americans die younger than people in almost any other advanced country, but ten years...

    Bit extreme.

    http://annals.org/aim/article/2609289/s … tion-based

    Something long known: US patients with private insurance have a similar life expectancy as their Canadian counterparts, whereas Canadians have a 44% lower death rate than Americans on Medicaid. The uninsured fare the worst - Canadians have a 77% lower death rate than Americans who have no insurance at all.

    So bottom line. allowing Obamacare to wither away with no replacement will kill a lot of people unnecessarily.

 
working