• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Obama care collapsing.....

camille70

Newbie
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2007
4,053
3,902
Ohio
Visit site
✟741,089.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
We were not told it would SLOW the rise of insurance costs. We were told it would lower our costs. We were told other things too that didn't happen.

I had coffee with a guy the other day who used the ACA because he didnt have insurance. His family needed it. He discovered it was garbage and didn't pay for anything. But the insurance company sure made money.

My insurance sure climbed. So, I don't know if I really believe the studies.

That doesn't make sense unless your friend had a plan that was grandfathered, one of the short term plans that didn't have to meet requirements or had a waiver. One of the issues the ACA addressed were junk plans that didn't cover care when you needed it. They either wouldn't cover things or had a max cap they would pay before they cancelled your insurance.

The ACA has a minimum set of standards all plans had to meet but there were some loop holes that Biden attempted to address.

 
Upvote 0

camille70

Newbie
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2007
4,053
3,902
Ohio
Visit site
✟741,089.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That doesn't make sense unless your friend had a plan that was grandfathered, one of the short term plans that didn't have to meet requirements or had a waiver. One of the issues the ACA addressed were junk plans that didn't cover care when you needed it. They either wouldn't cover things or had a max cap they would pay before they cancelled your insurance.

The ACA has a minimum set of standards all plans had to meet but there were some loop holes that Biden attempted to address.

Fact sheet for the above:

_______


Apparently Trump decided not to enforce the rules.


_______

The cheap health insurance promoted by Trump officials has this catch

Some states have banned “short-term” insurance plans with limited coverage, and consumer advocates have warned of the drawbacks.



__________

Avoiding junk plans:

 
Upvote 0

camille70

Newbie
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2007
4,053
3,902
Ohio
Visit site
✟741,089.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The cheap health insurance promoted by Trump officials has this catch



The loophole for short-term plans


Short-term plans, which were previously limited to a duration of four months, were vastly expanded in 2018 by the Trump administration, which saw them as an alternative to ACA plans, which they opposed. To make the short-term plans more accessible, the Trump administration ruled that a short-term policy could last as long as three years.

“President Trump is bringing more affordable insurance options back to the market,” Health Secretary Alex Azar said at the time. “These plans aren’t for everyone, but they can provide a much more affordable option for millions of the forgotten men and women left out by the current system.”

Even some insurance companies wondered whether this relaxation of regulations was a good idea. Cigna executives raised objections to the proposed rule, worrying that consumers would end up with a cheaper short-term plan but “find themselves in need of certain benefits or protections.” Aetna suggested adding more consumer protections to the short-term plans. The largest health insurance company, UnitedHealth Group, however, recommended approval of the proposed rule “as quickly as possible.”

In the year after the rule was loosened in 2018, another 600,000 consumers turned to the policies, according to a 2020 study by congressional Democrats. While solid estimates of the total number of annual enrollees are hard to come by, they put the figure at 3 million.

Problems quickly emerged, their study said. Incentivized by larger sales bonuses, brokers were using deceptive marketing materials to sell short-term policies, the report said. It “is unclear what kind of value consumers are getting for their premium dollars,” it said, “other than a false sense of security.”

Last year, debate erupted again when the Biden administration reversed the Trump rule and restored the four-month limit on the policies. This year, though, the Trump administration announced it was again coming up with its own definition of “short-term” and would not prioritize enforcement of the Biden-era rule.

In comments for this article, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a statement that the short-term plans can play “a crucial role in offering stopgap coverage solutions ... and can be significantly cheaper than ACA coverage.” The agency also noted that the administration has sought to expand access to “catastrophic” health plans, a form of ACA coverage with high deductibles but lower premiums that had been limited by age and income. In 2025, 54,000 people enrolled in them, according to researchers.

In a statement for this article, UnitedHealthcare said, “Short-term plans are designed to meet consumer demand for more flexible, low-cost options, but they are not for everyone. We encourage people to make informed decisions about their health insurance coverage and compare different types of plans.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
24,683
4,639
48
PA
✟215,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I know, arithmetic makes my head spin sometimes, too.

You seem to be struggling with basic math concepts. Allow me to help below.

Let's say that, hypothetically, 10 years ago, your premiums were $100/mo and, if the trends at the time had continued unabated, then after 10 years (i.e. today), your premiums would have increased to $1000/mo.

Now let's say there was a piece of legislation (call it IluvaCare) that cause your premiums today to only be $500/mo.

Did that legislation lower your costs?

The mathematical principle we are dealing with here is less than and greater than,. Since $500 is greater than $100, no, your costs are not lower.

It really is that simple.

The counterfactual of what woulda, coulda, shoulda, mighta happened over 10 years is speculative and anyone's guess. But the reality is that you are now paying 5x as much as you were before, because 500 > 100, and therefore your costs are not lower.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
9,582
4,867
82
Goldsboro NC
✟277,275.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yeah. that's all pretty hypothetical. I can see that a person could agree to some of his hard-earned tax dollars going to provide insurance for people he didn't think deserved it as long as he got some benefit out of it himself, but not if the promised benefit did not meet his expectations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
30,305
30,095
Baltimore
✟832,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You seem to be struggling with basic math concepts. Allow me to help below.



The mathematical principle we are dealing with here is less than and greater than,. Since $500 is greater than $100, no, your costs are not lower.

It really is that simple.

The counterfactual of what woulda, coulda, shoulda, mighta happened over 10 years is speculative and anyone's guess. But the reality is that you are now paying 5x as much as you were before, because 500 > 100, and therefore your costs are not lower.

The details of the counterfactual may be speculative, but the fact that prices increase over time is not. About the only things that decrease in nominal dollar prices over time are those things which can be manufactured in large quantities, like shoes and televisions. Health insurance is not that, er go, it was virtually guaranteed to get more expensive over time. Reducing the rate of that increase is reducing folks' costs.

If you want to argue that the magnitude of that savings was oversold, go for it. I have no contention with that claim.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
24,683
4,639
48
PA
✟215,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The details of the counterfactual may be speculative, but the fact that prices increase over time is not. About the only things that decrease in nominal dollar prices over time are those things which can be manufactured in large quantities, like shoes and televisions. Health insurance is not that, er go, it was virtually guaranteed to get more expensive over time. Reducing the rate of that increase is reducing folks' costs.

If it takes you a paragraph to attempt to explain why 500 < 100, you may be spinning away simple mathematical truths.

I have no idea what anyone else's anecdotal experience has been, but my health care costs have skyrocketed since the advent of the ACA. Not only do I now pay almost $300 every two weeks for my premiums, I also have an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000. Practically speaking, that means I pay for almost 100% of my family's health care expenses. Of course, I would be protected from catastrophic circumstances, but thankfully that hasn't happened.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
9,582
4,867
82
Goldsboro NC
✟277,275.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If it takes you a paragraph to attempt to explain why 500 < 100, you may be spinning away simple mathematical truths.

I have no idea what anyone else's anecdotal experience has been, but my health care costs have skyrocketed since the advent of the ACA. Not only do I now pay almost $300 every two weeks for my premiums, I also have an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000. Practically speaking, that means I pay for almost 100% of my family's health care expenses. Of course, I would be protected from catastrophic circumstances, but thankfully that hasn't happened.
Why aren't you getting health care from your employer like you're supposed to?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
30,305
30,095
Baltimore
✟832,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If it takes you a paragraph to attempt to explain why 500 < 100, you may be spinning away simple mathematical truths.

I recall one instance, a while ago, where I spent pages explaining to one individual (not you, but someone still very active here) the difference between median and mean, and they still didn't get it. They kept repeating the same misunderstanding over and over again.

So, no, the fact at I have to take some time to explain something to somebody is not necessarily indicative of any "spin" on my part. The other person could very well just be thick.
 
Upvote 0