Democrats Voted To Remove Healthcare Options That Are Actually Affordable
https://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2018/10/15/draft-n2528645
Don't let these people lie and say they want everyone to have access to affordable health care, they don't and they proved it with this vote.
Comments
-
@reformed said:
https://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2018/10/15/draft-n2528645Don't let these people lie and say they want everyone to have access to affordable health care, they don't and they proved it with this vote.
Because facts matter:
The central objection Democrats raise about Trump's short term insurance plans is that they don't require coverage of pre-existing conditions (remember that phrase and what it likely means). Here's how the author of the Townhall article responds to that objection:
"And they claimed the Trump rule undermines protections for pre-existing conditions, even though allowing renewal guarantees lets people keep the plans they like after they get sick, without paying more, and prevents them from ending up in Obamacare and drawing huge subsidies from taxpayers."
The phrase was "pre-existing conditions," wasn't it? Is there ANYTHING in that paragraph about pre-existing conditions? No. There's something about renewal guarantees - which apparently, according to the article, are "allowed," but perhaps not required - but importantly, the author says renewal guarantees allow people to keep plans they like "after they get sick, which sure doesn't sound like protection for people with pre-existing conditions.
Let's go to an insurance company to find out whether Trump requires short-term plans to cover pre-existing conditions:
ACA health plans are guaranteed issue, meaning you cannot be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. Also, ACA health plans are required to cover 10 essential health benefits:
Doctor visits for illness and injury and other outpatient care (ambulatory services)
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services
Prescription drug coverage
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (relearning to walk after a stroke and improving ability to speak without an impediment)
Laboratory tests and services
Preventive and wellness care
Pediatric services (including both oral care and vision care)Affordable Care Act Mandated Coverage
In contrast, Short Term health insurance is not required to cover all these benefits, so plans can vary in what they cover. Also, Short Term insurance plans typically do not cover preexisting medical conditions. You must apply and answer a series of medical questions to determine your eligibility for these plans.
Is it any wonder that Susan Collins joined 49 Democrats in supporting Sen Baldwin's legislation that would have cut back on insurance plans that aren't required to cover pre-existing conditions and fail to cover a host of other important services.
This was a no-brainer. Anyone with no brain at all could figure out how wrong the Townhall article got pre-existing conditions. If the writer missed pre-existing that badly, goodness knows what else he missed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
https://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2018/10/15/draft-n2528645Don't let these people lie and say they want everyone to have access to affordable health care, they don't and they proved it with this vote.
Because facts matter:
The central objection Democrats raise about Trump's short term insurance plans is that they don't require coverage of pre-existing conditions (remember that phrase and what it likely means). Here's how the author of the Townhall article responds to that objection:
Yes, facts matter, these plans have never covered pre-existing conditions. They are not for people with pre-existing conditions. They are for people who don't have pre-existing conditions and would like a cheaper solution because they don't need everything that is "minimum" essential coverage.
"And they claimed the Trump rule undermines protections for pre-existing conditions, even though allowing renewal guarantees lets people keep the plans they like after they get sick, without paying more, and prevents them from ending up in Obamacare and drawing huge subsidies from taxpayers."
It's clarifying the purpose of these plans. It is misleading for the Democrats to talk about pre-existing conditions on these plans. That's not what these plans are for.
The phrase was "pre-existing conditions," wasn't it? Is there ANYTHING in that paragraph about pre-existing conditions? No. There's something about renewal guarantees - which apparently, according to the article, are "allowed," but perhaps not required - but importantly, the author says renewal guarantees allow people to keep plans they like "after they get sick, which sure doesn't sound like protection for people with pre-existing conditions.
Pre-existing conditions in this case are a red herring. They aren't applicable.
Let's go to an insurance company to find out whether Trump requires short-term plans to cover pre-existing conditions:
Red Herring.
ACA health plans are guaranteed issue, meaning you cannot be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. Also, ACA health plans are required to cover 10 essential health benefits:
Doctor visits for illness and injury and other outpatient care (ambulatory services)
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services
Prescription drug coverage
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (relearning to walk after a stroke and improving ability to speak without an impediment)
Laboratory tests and services
Preventive and wellness care
Pediatric services (including both oral care and vision care)Affordable Care Act Mandated Coverage
Yes, and people with pre-existing conditions CAN STILL GET those plans so why all the fuss from Democrats? (There is an answer to that by the way)
In contrast, Short Term health insurance is not required to cover all these benefits, so plans can vary in what they cover. Also, Short Term insurance plans typically do not cover preexisting medical conditions. You must apply and answer a series of medical questions to determine your eligibility for these plans.
And the problem with that is?
Is it any wonder that Susan Collins joined 49 Democrats in supporting Sen Baldwin's legislation that would have cut back on insurance plans that aren't required to cover pre-existing conditions and fail to cover a host of other important services.
What is the need to cut back on these plans? What is the real need to eliminate these plans? Why limit choice?
This was a no-brainer. Anyone with no brain at all could figure out how wrong the Townhall article got pre-existing conditions. If the writer missed pre-existing that badly, goodness knows what else he missed.
They didn't miss it. They are pointing out the stupidity of the argument.
-
@reformed said:
Don't let these people lie and say they want everyone to have access to affordable health care, they don't and they proved it with this vote.Democrats want everyone to have access to quality affordable healthcare, not junk plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions or a host of other important services.
It's clarifying the purpose of these plans. It is misleading for the Democrats to talk about pre-existing conditions on these plans. That's not what these plans are for.
How does the paragraph I quoted in my previous post clarify the purpose of these plans which you say aren't for people with pre-exisiting conditions, when it specifically references pre-existing conditions, and does so without reference to the point you make? (emphasis added)
"And they claimed the Trump rule undermines protections for pre-existing conditions, even though allowing renewal guarantees lets people keep the plans they like after they get sick, without paying more, and prevents them from ending up in Obamacare and drawing huge subsidies from taxpayers."
To me, that reads as if he thinks the plans affect people with pre-exisiting conditions in a positive way.
Pre-existing conditions in this case are a red herring. They aren't applicable.
Where in the article does the author say that pre-existing conditions aren't applicable?
Yes, and people with pre-existing conditions CAN STILL GET those plans so why all the fuss from Democrats? (There is an answer to that by the way)
As I'm sure you know, health insurance markets need people who pay premiums. If people don't pay premiums, there can be no insurance coverage. If we make short term, minimalist coverage plans available, some/many people will flock to them to save money, in effect, starving the market of premium payers for quality coverage plans such as are mandated by the ACA. It seems reasonable to conclude the reason for the Trump rule to extend the length of short term plans is to reduce participation in ACA plans - that is, to kill the ACA even though the Congress refused to do so.
What is the need to cut back on these plans? What is the real need to eliminate these plans? Why limit choice?
See above.
They didn't miss it. They are pointing out the stupidity of the argument.
You're more skilled - or at least practiced - at identifying - or at least name calling - stupidity than I am.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Don't let these people lie and say they want everyone to have access to affordable health care, they don't and they proved it with this vote.Democrats want everyone to have access to quality affordable healthcare, not junk plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions or a host of other important services.
What important services do they not offer? Why exactly are they "junk" other than pre-existing conditions (which really means it isn't insurance at that point. Do you wreck your car then go buy an insurance policy?).
It's clarifying the purpose of these plans. It is misleading for the Democrats to talk about pre-existing conditions on these plans. That's not what these plans are for.
How does the paragraph I quoted in my previous post clarify the purpose of these plans which you say aren't for people with pre-exisiting conditions, when it specifically references pre-existing conditions, and does so without reference to the point you make? (emphasis added)
"And they claimed the Trump rule undermines protections for pre-existing conditions, even though allowing renewal guarantees lets people keep the plans they like after they get sick, without paying more, and prevents them from ending up in Obamacare and drawing huge subsidies from taxpayers."
To me, that reads as if he thinks the plans affect people with pre-exisiting conditions in a positive way.
Pre-existing condition for the renewal. Yes, they can keep that plan and the condition will continue to be covered.
Pre-existing conditions in this case are a red herring. They aren't applicable.
Where in the article does the author say that pre-existing conditions aren't applicable?
No the argument isn't applicable Bill. Pre-existing conditions can already be covered on other plans. These plans do not impact that whatsoever.
Yes, and people with pre-existing conditions CAN STILL GET those plans so why all the fuss from Democrats? (There is an answer to that by the way)
As I'm sure you know, health insurance markets need people who pay premiums. If people don't pay premiums, there can be no insurance coverage. If we make short term, minimalist coverage plans available, some/many people will flock to them to save money, in effect, starving the market of premium payers for quality coverage plans such as are mandated by the ACA. It seems reasonable to conclude the reason for the Trump rule to extend the length of short term plans is to reduce participation in ACA plans - that is, to kill the ACA even though the Congress refused to do so.
That's why pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered by insurance in the first place. That's not insurance. That being said, people with pre-existing should not feed off of the healthy people. That's not fair. That being said, ACA plans are RIDICULOUSLY expensive even with premium payers. STM plans give an actually affordable option to people.
What is the need to cut back on these plans? What is the real need to eliminate these plans? Why limit choice?
See above.
Exactly, the other plans can't stand on their own because THEY AREN'T INSURANCE. They are something else labeled as insurance.
They didn't miss it. They are pointing out the stupidity of the argument.
You're more skilled - or at least practiced - at identifying - or at least name calling - stupidity than I am.
Yeah I'm reading it right now.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
You're more skilled - or at least practiced - at identifying - or at least name calling - stupidity than I am.Some people provide a great deal of opportunity for both practice and identification.
