Implications of a repeal of the ACA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

I hate to say this but shouldn't the private premiums go down now that the health insurers aren't forced to cover every tom, dick, and jane with expensive pre-existing conditions or who have been abstaining from getting needed medical attention until now?

They should. But the greedy insurance companies won't. There is a new floor for pricing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

I hate to say this but shouldn't the private premiums go down now that the health insurers aren't forced to cover every tom, dick, and jane with expensive pre-existing conditions or who have been abstaining from getting needed medical attention until now?

Maybe, maybe not. One of the reasons rates went up was because companies were required to cover more in some cases. Most people that complained that they lost their insurance had their coverage dropped because it wasn't good so it didn't meet ACA standards. Once ACA is rolled back, those bad but cheap policies will return.

Anonymous wrote:As I recall--could be wrong--coverage of pre-existing conditions and extending parents' insurance to children under 26 were the two features of ACA conservatives liked.

Yes those were added with the ACA and yes the Republican's CLAIMED to like them BUT and this is the key thing here - it's not possible to have those, especially the pre-existing conditions requirement, without mandiatory coverage. Without mandatory coverage for everyone, insurance companies cannot afford to do pre-existing conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I recall--could be wrong--coverage of pre-existing conditions and extending parents' insurance to children under 26 were the two features of ACA conservatives liked.

Yes, and they were happy to ignore the reality of paying for it. Trump, who sometimes has business-sense, is talking about scrapping coverage of pre-exisiting conditions. Since it's expensive and hurts insurance companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

I hate to say this but shouldn't the private premiums go down now that the health insurers aren't forced to cover every tom, dick, and jane with expensive pre-existing conditions or who have been abstaining from getting needed medical attention until now?

I had private insurance prior to ACA. Premiums went up at least 20% every year, while coverage went down. Oh, and I have a pre-existing condition and am self employed. The possibility of a repeal of ACA will impact my ability to be self employed.

And to the PP who stated that the conservatives like the two parts of ACA - preexisting condition and adult children being able to stay on parents' policy till 26 - part of the reason why costs went up is exactly what PP stated... more sick people are allowed to be covered, ie, pre existing conditions, and that's partly why costs are going up. So, if they keep this part of the ACA, then I don't see how prices will go down much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

I hate to say this but shouldn't the private premiums go down now that the health insurers aren't forced to cover every tom, dick, and jane with expensive pre-existing conditions or who have been abstaining from getting needed medical attention until now?

I had private insurance prior to ACA. Premiums went up at least 20% every year, while coverage went down. Oh, and I have a pre-existing condition and am self employed. The possibility of a repeal of ACA will impact my ability to be self employed.

And to the PP who stated that the conservatives like the two parts of ACA - preexisting condition and adult children being able to stay on parents' policy till 26 - part of the reason why costs went up is exactly what PP stated... more sick people are allowed to be covered, ie, pre existing conditions, and that's partly why costs are going up. So, if they keep this part of the ACA, then I don't see how prices will go down much.

Agreed, in fact prices would go up even faster - much faster. Without the young and healthy to subsidize the old and sick, prices will skyrocket. They simply won't be able to keep the pre-existing conditions clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/09/501203831/trump-can-kill-obamacare-with-or-without-help-from-congress

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

From the npr article:

During his campaign, Trump proposed a series of measures that he said will allow people to buy affordable health insurance policies outside of the Obamacare exchanges.

I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

Those measures include promoting tax-free health savings accounts that might help individuals save money to pay for health care costs and allowing people to deduct the cost of their premiums on their personal income tax returns. Trump has said he also wants to allow insurers to sell policies across state lines to boost competition."

I already have a high deductible plan with an HSA, and again, premiums went up 50% with a high deductible. Others have complained about this too.

Health insurance companies already sell across state lines, no? I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield when I lived in another state. I have it now in MD. What's the difference between what he's stating about sellers selling across state lines and what we have now?

I already deduct the premium I pay; so do most others who get insurance through employers. It's a before tax deduction on your gross income.

I also read his stance on his website. The only thing I saw that we don't have now and that I 100% agree with is accessing cheaper imported drugs. But, other than that, I really don't see anything else that's different to what we already have now.

To this point, insurance companies currently sell across state lines by forming individual sub-corporations in each state that only sell in that state in compliance with that state's laws, which can vary significantly, particularly when it comes to coverage requirements and consumer protections. So BCBS may sell in multiple states, but it's through different branches of BCBS selling different policies depending on state law. Under the Republican proposal to sell across state lines, BCBS and other insurers would no longer need to do this, they could just have one company selling one set of policies in the state that is most friendly to insurers and has the weakest consumer protection laws, and that would be your only option, regardless of what requirements are provided by your state's law. They claim it will lower prices, but to the extent it does so, it will be through the gutting of your protections as an insured. Your coverage will most likely become weaker, and if your insurer fails to provide the contracted-for coverage, your recourse will be to the insurance commissioner of another state who's not really going to care about your problems because you're not one of their constituents.

And, yes, ACA was a conservative idea in that it gave each state the choice to set up its own exchange, thus regulating all of the policies on that exchange, or allowing the Feds to do it, thus allowing Washington to regulate it. This ACA compromise was pro-state rights and pro-conservative. So, the obvious solution of allowing insurers to sell across state lines means that Washington has to regulate them. Insurance companies historically have been regulated by states, not Feds. Hypocritical Republicans, once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/09/501203831/trump-can-kill-obamacare-with-or-without-help-from-congress

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

From the npr article:

During his campaign, Trump proposed a series of measures that he said will allow people to buy affordable health insurance policies outside of the Obamacare exchanges.

I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

Those measures include promoting tax-free health savings accounts that might help individuals save money to pay for health care costs and allowing people to deduct the cost of their premiums on their personal income tax returns. Trump has said he also wants to allow insurers to sell policies across state lines to boost competition."

I already have a high deductible plan with an HSA, and again, premiums went up 50% with a high deductible. Others have complained about this too.

Health insurance companies already sell across state lines, no? I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield when I lived in another state. I have it now in MD. What's the difference between what he's stating about sellers selling across state lines and what we have now?

I already deduct the premium I pay; so do most others who get insurance through employers. It's a before tax deduction on your gross income.

I also read his stance on his website. The only thing I saw that we don't have now and that I 100% agree with is accessing cheaper imported drugs. But, other than that, I really don't see anything else that's different to what we already have now.

To this point, insurance companies currently sell across state lines by forming individual sub-corporations in each state that only sell in that state in compliance with that state's laws, which can vary significantly, particularly when it comes to coverage requirements and consumer protections. So BCBS may sell in multiple states, but it's through different branches of BCBS selling different policies depending on state law. Under the Republican proposal to sell across state lines, BCBS and other insurers would no longer need to do this, they could just have one company selling one set of policies in the state that is most friendly to insurers and has the weakest consumer protection laws, and that would be your only option, regardless of what requirements are provided by your state's law. They claim it will lower prices, but to the extent it does so, it will be through the gutting of your protections as an insured. Your coverage will most likely become weaker, and if your insurer fails to provide the contracted-for coverage, your recourse will be to the insurance commissioner of another state who's not really going to care about your problems because you're not one of their constituents.

And, yes, ACA was a conservative idea in that it gave each state the choice to set up its own exchange, thus regulating all of the policies on that exchange, or allowing the Feds to do it, thus allowing Washington to regulate it. This ACA compromise was pro-state rights and pro-conservative. So, the obvious solution of allowing insurers to sell across state lines means that Washington has to regulate them. Insurance companies historically have been regulated by states, not Feds. Hypocritical Republicans, once again.

But with all the insurance companies being allowed to pull out of states when they want and doctors not required to take it, it still leaves a lot of us in the lurch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I already buy outside the exchange, and the premium still went up 50%. This is a fallacy.

I hate to say this but shouldn't the private premiums go down now that the health insurers aren't forced to cover every tom, dick, and jane with expensive pre-existing conditions or who have been abstaining from getting needed medical attention until now?

Not an expert on this but they were going up before Obamacare. The issue is whether they would go up less or more with the advent of Obamacare but they were going to go up anyway.