RE: Bloomberg Memo: Told Ya So Way Back When
John
Sorry, having trouble with the 'quote' function
Thanks and fair... It happens to me all the time... apologize if I came off poorly
Bloomberg has been lying about Trump taking away the PEC clause of the ACA... and it's important to note that in many of the countries listed as 'models' for the US to follow, people with challenging PECs (actually their insurers) are given stipends to compensate the insurer for the additional costs. this lowers costs for healthy people and those who make good life choices... something the ACA functionally discourages by essentially taxing the working healthy to pay for the unhealthy (even the wealthy unhealthy)
As I suspect you know, insurance is math, not magic... I can't/won't speak to anyone's specific proposal for a number of reasons...1) they're not running 2) none of them ever became a complete bill. Remember that Bloomberg supported the ACA until it became a bill, and then it was a problem.
We have decided that the average person should have a Bronze policy. The generic description of this is an HMO with preventative services covered, a +/- 6k deductible and a 12k OOP max. While this keeps those rare people who need 100K in services from declaring bankruptcy, we now have vastly more people who would be JUST as 'broke', but at 6-12k per year.
Let's say this policy costs $12,000 and the average low income person get's that subsidized, but owes another #200 per month... so $14,400... and the state and feds subsidize that for people who don't earn much.... So without the subsidies, it's not really that different from the situation you described with employer plans and COBrA, except of course you probably had lower OOPs if it cost more. This is just a question of whom is paying how much of the bill
For those who want Medicare for all, I'd note that Medicare doesn't cover childhood vaccines, anything to do with reproduction, including abortions... and only covers 80% (with no limit) on hospitalizations... so a 100,000 hospitalization leaves you with a 20k bill.... and a 200k one with a 40k bill.... etc
We either need to pay even more for the care that people want (most of the proposals from the far left) OR we need to find any of thousands of ways to limit services.... which is what Republicans want. Seriously, there are so many possibilities and none of them will satisfy everyone... something we learned from the ACA... WHY run on any specifics? Get control and then get a consensus and move on it. The difference between the left and right here is that the left courted voters who wanted 'free' healthcare... so they were willing to run on it... and paint any objections as racists, rich, whatever it took. The right doesn't have that luxury.
Owl numbers has proposed a relatively basic insurance with the ability to supplement.... and more importantly, a different way to fund it.... but it's all still the same principle. I've done the same... lowering the deductibles and shifting the burden of illnesses/injury of choice by having variable copays based on that. Like car insurance, 'at fault' injuries or negligence cost you more. get COPD from smoking, you pay more than if you get it through no fault of your own. lower copays for BMI under 20, greater for over 40... etc etc etc
|
/
Bloomberg Memo: Told Ya So Way Back When
