jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (61 posts)

Will Some Trump Voters Die from the Repeal of the Individual Mandate?

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges.  Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if you think the 2017 rate hike was bad, you have seen nothing yet".  As premiums increase, so will subsidies, but conservatives won't fund that.  Consequently, people, many of whom voted for Trump, can't afford coverage and will drop out.

    Statistics currently show Obamacare, along with saving money in total, saves about 24,000 lives a year   Trump's main supporters and voters are blue-collar labor.  Just one example, 80% of those without college degrees will lose coverage (with the repeal of ACA).  Nearly 60% of those voted for Trump.  Doing a little math, 48% of that cohort of Trump voters will lose insurance coverage.

    Question, how many of the that 48% who voted for Trump and Repeal will be one of the 24,000 lives lost from said repeal?

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      No. Some people will die and some will live. Trump, nor Obama, can be credited with either.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      You can't repeal the individual mandate without repealing the entire law.

      The mandate generates income that limits the increase in premiums. It also puts a stop to scam bankruptcies.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Gotta love that "generates income".  Nice poli-speak, but what it really means is that some people are paying for other people's wants - in this case the relatively young and poor are paying for someone else's insurance.  You cannot generate wealth (or income) by splitting what there is into more piles.  Or by taking from a large pile to add to a smaller one.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I'm glad I can count on you as always for a mocking and misleading reply.

          I am a small business owner with a $12,900 deductible for my wife and I plus $9,000 in annual premiums thanks entirely to age discrimination.  I have not cost my insurance companies a dime in 10 years in business because I take care of myself.

          By your thinking, I shouldn't pay anything at all instead of paying for chain smokers and obese Americans of all ages to cover their diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Funny how you just set aside the statistics of different groups of people to get additional money from those that statistically don't need as much health care. 

            Health "insurance" has gone from paying for the average cost of your group and thus sharing the cost of unusual requirements to simply grabbing money from anyone that can be found to funnel it to those with high expected costs.  Normal socialism from liberals, but this time those with low expected costs are dragging their feet at contributing far more than they should. 

            That should have been obvious, and was, from the start of this fiasco but somehow liberals never looked into the real world, preferring to pretend it wouldn't happen.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              "Funny how you just set aside the statistics... ." I didn't mention groups or statistics anywhere. I guess you are putting words into my mouth again.

              Don't you believe in individual responsibility? Isn't that the cornerstone of conservative philosophy?

              Why should I pay an enormous amount of money for someone else who is a smoker or obese? Should I not be rewarded for good behavior?

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Then why should I , a healthy smoker, be forced to pay for hereditary diseases? It's not my fault someone didn't place a life guard on the gene pool.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  It's still based on individual responsibility. I can control my weight more than I can control a hereditary disease.

                  Thanks for asking a good question and seeking to discuss the issue.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Smokers pay more - it's a part of the original package and even included in the ACA.  Obesity - IMO obesity is one of those things that fall under PC.  While it's quite acceptable, and even encouraged, to attack smokers for poor health choices obesity is to be ignored.  Because the obese are a large group and politically risky?  Maybe.

                Good behavior - yes, you should be.  Just as we are with auto insurance.  The problem is that it is next to impossible to prove that behavior; unlike information readily available on auto crashes, along with police statements of cause, people DO get sick without having unhealthy habits.  Of course, the ACA moves away from that argument with the requirement that past history not be considered in selling health insurance...

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  For the record, the ratio for smokers is 2:1 versus 3:1 for older people.

                  Smoking is a choice. Aging is not.  smile

              3. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                What you miss in Wilderness' thought process is that he is a social Darwinist who believes that individual members of society who benefit from that society existing owe no obligation to any other member of that society..

                You and I believe members of society have a moral obligation to help others in society because the whole of society is what lets us live as well as we do.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Your points are well taken. I believe we do have a moral obligation to help others who can't help themselves. We used to have more people in this country who thought that way.

                  I do volunteer work for an agency that supports people with mental illness, substance addiction and intellectual disabilities. My time with them has opened my eyes about the number of people who need help and don't choose the life that bad luck has given them (i.e., the brutal gang rape victim who descends into mental illness).

                  I understand the fear of conservatives that overdoing the help will lead to socialism. But not helping at all isn't an option either.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Esoteric is mistaken, for I agree that we have a moral obligation to help others when needed.

                    The difference is that you and Esoteric feel you have a moral right (as opposed to obligation, although that might apply as well) to force others to help the poor.  To play Robin Hood at the point of a gun.  I disagree, although will admit that some government charity is useful to the state, therefore the individual citizens and should thus be forced.

                    How is it that "not helping at all" always seems to come up as the only option to charitable total support for life?  Is there no in between for the liberal; either all or nothing?

          2. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            ObamaCare wants to trigger a Medicare cost-cutting board.  House Republicans and some Democrats voted a couple years ago to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board.  They publicly denounced it as a “death panel” that could ration care.   So, beware of what you ask for, I do care and hope that you and your wife will always have the health-care you need for quality of life as long as you need it.  Socialist health care programs do not have a good history.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Colorful One, I appreciate your comment about us getting health care. Unfortunately, killing the law will also kill the 3:1 age band ratio that limits how much insurance companies can charge older adults versus younger.

              If that ratio goes, we will have to cancel our insurance altogether because we won't be able to afford it anymore.

              I am NOT proposing that Trump and the Republicans keep the entire ACA. Just fix the parts that need fixing and keep insurance affordable for as many Americans as possible.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                In your post is what I was talking about; the insistance that medical insurance not be insurance at all, but merely a method of forcing statistically healthy people to pay for others health care.

                I'll try again.  To the young male, without obvious health problems, health insurance should only cost what the average yearly cost for similar people is plus a small profit for the insurance company.  The problem is that the ACA has grossly increased that figure so that it includes the average health care costs for older people that statistically require more, and more costly, care.  It also includes the cost for females, which is also statistically higher than for the young male.

                This, then, needs fixed...but not according to you.  You require that the young male pay for the average care needed for older people rather than the unusual costs that young males might incur.  You didn't say, but I assume you feel the same way about females - the male should pay for average care costs for females. 

                This becomes something else than normal insurance then; it becomes a method of sharing average costs for all people at once, and will inevitably cost those groups that are statistically cheaper to provide care for.

                And THAT takes us to the only solution acceptable to both you (in a more costly group) and the young (in a cheaper group): a single payer system without insurance at all.  Uncle Sam just hides the cost in the general fund and pays for everything.  The young and old alike, males and females alike, all pay the same (except, of course, that the rich will be charged far more).

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  OK, I get your points. In one way, I believe we are saying the same thing. You say the healthy young shouldn't have to pay for unhealthy others. I'm saying the healthy old shouldn't have to pay for unhealthy others, specifically those people who neglect their health.

                  We differ on group responsibility versus individual responsibility. You seem to believe that I should pay more because my group costs more. I am saying that I should not be held responsible for the people in my group who lead unhealthy lifestyles.

                  Doctors report medical information to health insurance companies. They can use an individual factor in determining premiums and not force healthy people to pay the same rates as unhealthy people in an older age group.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Right on all counts.  The only real difference is that you think an additional group, your age but healthy lifestyle, could be used and I think it is nearly impossible.

                    For instance, your doctor reports your health to your insurance company - but to all the companies in your state?  Would you want that?  In addition, insurance works on statistics; while you claim a healthy lifestyle your health could just as easily be an anomaly.  An unhealthy lifestyle that just hasn't caught up with you but could catch up tomorrow.  You would have to prove that lifestyle; this isn't a car accident we're talking about but the working of the human body.  You would also have to prove your health, which means a thorough physical with any insurance company that's going to quote a price. 

                    So while I applaud the notion of healthy people paying less, I have a problem with converting that into real life experience and doubt that it can reasonably be done.  I'll add that if it were, there would be an awful lot of people (not just those with a poor history that gets insurance under the ACA) that would be without any insurance they could afford at all.  Bad enough that you have a deductible high enough to be life changing (so do I); under what you're proposing a lot of people wouldn't get any insurance at all because they couldn't pay the $5,000 or $10,000 per month for it.

            2. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Colorfulone, are you talking about the same "death panels" all insurance companies had in the past, and to a lesser degree because of Obamacare, still has today.

          3. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Hello Promisem,
            Your response prompts the questions of what were your deductibles and annual premiums before the ACA?

            My recollection, (also as a small business owner), is that my deductibles were $1500 for an individual and $2500 for a family.  My premiums were in the neighborhood of about $6000 p/yr.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Hello, GA. My 2008 business deductible was $2,600 for a family of four. After that, I paid my premiums out of pocket because I switched to an S corporation, which would simply pass it through as income. I have used an HSA every year to the maximum amount.

              I don't have those later bills anymore, but I clearly remember strong double digit increases every year until ACA arrived. I also remember telling my wife that our premiums would exceed more than $10,000 a year in that final year before ACA.

              An insurance company rep told me the increases were the result of me going into an older age group, plus the average costs of people in my zip code and other factors. FYI, my current premiums are $843.23 a month.

              Are you still in business? Do you have employees or are you a solo entrepreneur?

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I am no longer an employer.  Maybe this Spring when I open my marijuana farm/restaurant.

                GA

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  As you probably know, having young employees lowers the average premiums. Because I am solo, I don't have that advantage.

          4. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Honestly, blaming chain smokers and obese people for our current insurance woes is unfair. When employed by others I paid $240 per month for a family plan with a$3000 deductible and a$25 co pay. My employer matched my payment. When I became self employed we paid $240 a month for the two of us with the same deductible and co pay. We stopped insurance coverage due to hard times. I decided to get coverage so we wouldn't be fined. At that time they wanted $700 per person which I couldn't afford. We ended up with a policy with a ten thousand deductible per person and no co pay for doctor visits.

            The smokers and the obese are not what happened. Corporate greed and government disinterest in the plight of the average citizen are your problem.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Can't even use corporate greed as an excuse - too many are finding out that there is no profit in offering Obamacare and backing out of the program.  If profits were there you can be assured that the company would, too.

              So that happened is just as you say - government disinterest in the plight of the average citizen.  All that matters is that the poor have useless health insurance (as opposed to health care) in order that politicians can exclaim that everyone in the country is covered for health care.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, corporate greed was far reaching, but they had a seat at the table and signed off so they must have expected to gain.

                But, it isn't our neighbor we should be chastising. I haven't used a doctor but twice, maybe, in 20 years. I had insurance through most of that time. I watched a show where they were lamenting the fact that it is our, the consumer's fault for spiraling medical costs. That we go to the doctor too much. But, they push for people to go for things as simple as the common cold. They advertise prescription medicine on tv. They've helped condition generations of Americans into believing the body must have drugs, tests and procedures. And their fees have skyrocketed, but it's our fault.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              The American Cancer Society seems to think that smoking is a major part of our health care costs.

              http://www.cancer.org/research/infograp … care-costs

              That being said, experts seem to agree that many factors go into our high health insurance premiums.

  2. profile image62
    Brandon coleposted 9 months ago
  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    Amen My Esoteric.  Therein lies the difference.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months ago

    If I don't have insurance, I AM FINED. That alone should alarm all Americans: Each And Every One!!!!
      This FINE is punitive! It s is unconstitutional! and it is illegal! and yet we put up with it!!!!! I think its abominable!
    ObamaNABLE!

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months ago

    For instance, to avoid the fine of $400.00 or more a year (for what????) I pay for catastrophic only.
    My office visits are sky high. Luckily, I keep myself safe and healthy. I pay $89.00 a month. My policy is worth more than a thousand dollars!!!!! Now who pays for the rest of my insurance??? OTHERS! Is that fair? THEY are being charged way too much because the policy covers almost NOTHING! I feel it is a SIN to expect OTHERS to pay my way. But I refuse to be FINED by the GOVERNMENT!

    So thank Feds, for making my life/(conscience) miserable!
    BHAH! mad

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months ago

    I was observing the nature of driving on the freeway the other day and I realized very clearly that I was not driving safely for the sake of other drivers. No, when I drive going 65 mph on the freeway, I am driving safe for myself first and others second. If I don't consider my safety FIRST AND FOREMOST, I will not be able to even drive.  I will not be able to concentrate on where I am going and what I am doing because I will be considering the actions of all OTHER drivers. I would cause a terrible traffic jam or WORSE! Consider the priority of your SELF-IMPORTANCE the next time you are driving along to your destination on the freeway.

    No one is colliding into anyone because everyone is very focused on THEIR OWN SAFTEY FIRST!!!!!!

  7. profile image60
    ediacaraposted 9 months ago

    What I have NEVER been able to understand is how the USA can't seem to grasp the idea of socialized medicine.  Throughout Europe it works; in Canada it works.  The costs of administering dozens of independent healthcare plans/insurance companies/etc. are absurd.  Our entire system of selecting those who represent us is fatally flawed.  I'm afraid that the only way we will succeed, as a nation of individuals, is to rebel and deal with those costs.  The men who founded this country were NOT politicians; they all had a day job.  They risked being hung if they were caught attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  I wonder if this country has any representatives who are willing to risk their lives to fix this mess.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Works really well in Canada...as Canadians cross the border to get the care they can't get in their own country.

      But perhaps the biggest difference is one of culture.  Americans consider themselves a free country.  The consider themselves adult enough to solve their own problems and make their own decisions.  They resent government interference in private affairs.  Europeans don't; they welcome the nanny state that provides for their needs without them having to. 

      (I'll add that Americans are proceeding down the same road, though, with the incessant growth of the entitlement concept in the country).

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        You keep using that Urban myth, Wilderness, about Canadians crossing the border to get service they can't get there.  While yes, a few Canadians do cross the border for some esoteric procedures, as this will tell you, that is not even close to the norm.

        Having read this, I prefer the Canadian system to ours.  http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/ … _canad.php  and
        http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-my … are-system

        And of course, your second assertion is ridiculous.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Now, now - be careful there.  I neither stated nor insinuated that it is normal (over 50% of the time) for Canadians to come to the US for health care.  Only that it happens, with the insinuation that it is not particularly rare.  And it isn't.

          Of course the very idea that Americans have a different culture than the socialistic countries of the world is ridiculous...to those that prefer the nanny state.  And I DID add that American is following the same road, with more and more Americans choosing a life of charity rather than freedom.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, the words you actually used were "Works really well in Canada...as Canadians cross the border to get the care they can't get in their own country."  There is no need to for you to put numbers in here because the meaning is clear "It is obvious the Canadian health care system sucks because 'Canadians cross the border to get care' they can't get ..."

            Words and context have real meaning.  The context here, of course, was this was responding to Ediacare saying the Canadian (and European) systems work.  Having read about each, I would say that with a few minor fixes, both the Canadian and French systems are much better for the people who it is supposed to help.

            The rest of your statement is patently false, hyperbolic, and a view into the Right's alternate reality.

  8. profile image60
    ediacaraposted 9 months ago

    Age discrimination is alive and well in the USA.

  9. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 9 months ago

    It would be interesting to know how many people have died unnecessarily in the US because they have been denied health care. Millions? Tens of millions?

 
working