Skip to main content

View Diary: Latest republican outrage: PPACA cancels "junk insurance" plans (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, what you are saying is that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tofumagoo, VClib, Victor Ward

    if you were young, healthy, no major health issues, and you had a catastrophic health care plan where -- when you did the math -- you came out financially better (for many young people, catastrophic plans made more financial sense) you were too stupid to know that you really didn't like it and you really didn't want to keep it?  

    Or are you saying that you know better than they do what is good for them?

    Either argument is kind of offensive, it seems to me.  

    The facts are that for some young healthy people, very low premium, catastrophic only plans made economic sense because they did not use much health care on a regular basis and the chance of a catastrophic problem for them was very very very low.  However,  the ACA had to eliminate that option for young people because insurers needed the young and healthy or those who did not use much health care to subsidize those of us who use more health care.  

    Prior to the ACA, comprehensive policies did not always make economic sense for everyone.  It's kind of arrogant to say that people couldn't figure out for themselves whether they wanted a comprehensive plan.  

    I understand exactly why these very low premium catastrophic plans were eliminated under the ACA, as I said above.  The administration should have been honest with people and say, "If you have a comprehensive plan that meets the standards of the ACA, you'll be able to keep it.  We're going to eliminate those very very low premium, catastrophic only plans.  

    •  It's not that people were stupid... (3+ / 0-)

      ...it's that the insurance companies had no incentive to reveal their desire to deny reimbursements, cancel coverage, etc, once the healthy young person in question needed to use the plan.  So of course it was cheap, seemed to cover most things, and they "liked" it, but it didn't really work for most people.

      Surely there were a few inexpensive plans out there that really were fair, honest and not in the least bit likely to cancel if the bills got too high, but realistically, given the complete lack of regulation, how many of these could there have been?

    •  I'll say it again! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      Catastrophic plans are STILL available for those under 30.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:06:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People were playing the percentages. (4+ / 0-)

      That makes sense individually but societally it's a mess, not only because it defeats the risk-spreading purpose of insurance, but because it left those young people unable to pay for their care if they suffered actual catastrophic health events because they deductibles are so high.  Those policies socialized the cost of care for nominally insured people onto society and the government so I have no problem with the government in effect banning them, although I recognize the political problem it creates, not to mention the real economic problem it creates for people previously content with their ersatz insurance.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the issue. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward, VClib

        It was good for the individual, because let's say they were 30, earned $45,000, didn't own a house or had other assets, and had a plan that kicked in after $5000 out of pocket, and had a cap of $250,000, but the premiums were $100 a month, as opposed to $400 a month for a comprehensive plan.  You probably had a 1 in 20 chance or less of even getting to that $5000 threshold (and if happened, it would take him a few years to pay off $5000, but it would not bankrupt him).  You probably have a 1 in 100 or less chance he'd reach the $250,000 cap, and in that situation, bankruptcy for him would not be horrible.

        But I completely agree it's bad for society.  We as a society need these healthy people who don't use much health care to get more insurance coverage than they want or need to help subsidize others and keep premiums down for others who need a lot o health care or who have pre-existing conditions.  It's just that when they were promised -- repeatedly -- that they could keep their plans, they aren't going to be happy about being forced to buy more insurance than they necessarily might want.  

        •  "In that situation, bankruptcy would not be (0+ / 0-)

          horrible?"

          Huh? How do you figure that?

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:24:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For a young person with not a lot of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, nextstep

            assets, bankruptcy is not a horrible thing.  There are not a lot of assets to be taken from you, and you get out from a bunch of debt. Your credit will not be good for several years -- that's about the worst of it. It's not great, but if you are talking about a very very very rare occurrence -- like, for example a young healthy person needing more than $250,000 in health care in a few years -- you might take that risk if it saved you $1000 or more a year immediately.  

            Sometimes bankruptcy is a strategic decision.  It's the reason that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy -- because if they were, a lot of students would amass huge debt during college and immediately declare bankruptcy and get out from all that debt.  They wouldn't be able to buy a house for a few years -- that's about the worst of it.

            Bankruptcy is much more difficult for people who have amassed a lifetime of assets.

    •  Yes. They were too stupid to know they were (0+ / 0-)

      being ripped off.

      I'm sorry you find the truth to be offensive.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Arrogant as shit (0+ / 0-)

        Run your own life as you see fit.  But there is no need to be such a dick to millions of other people.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:49:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gullible people get ripped off all the time by (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Theodore J Pickle

          deceptive operators. The entire body of law associated with "consumer protection" exists precisely because this is true. Denying it may make you feel noble, but it isn't a favor to the gullible victims of the deceptive operators.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:00:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (40)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Spam (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site