Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
4. This hurts the ACA, I guess, but helps people.
Mon Oct 22, 2018, 05:01 PM
Oct 2018

Particularly people who don't need coverage for a pre-existing condition (either they don't have one, or don't need ins. for one...like arthritis, which often doesn't require any medical treatment).

There is a group of people in the country, generally older and healthy, who can't get insurance or have to buy ins. from only one available company, and have trouble because it's so expensive and has a very narrow list of providers. So these people really were painted into a corner and have a real problem. In some areas, there are no ACA providers at all.

So this helps those people, and that's good. It's always good to help people be able to get health care that they want and can afford. I'm not sure of the effect on the ACA, but it's not good, I guess. OTOH, these people buying the new policies won't be using taxpayer dollars for subsidies, so the money saved from that could be used for the ACA in other ways, I would think. It would have been better if the ACA could have been fixed to help this group of people, but we don't have that option at this time.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Junk plans here we go again SHRED Oct 2018 #1
This says everything about this traitor...........where he tries to make a buck on BS turbinetree Oct 2018 #2
..."including charging higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions" - this is why we iluvtennis Oct 2018 #3
These policies they are speaking of are not ACA policies. No one has to buy them. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #5
It still is ObamaCare. Igel Oct 2018 #7
This hurts the ACA, I guess, but helps people. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #4
This is not good. Period. Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #9
I read your first sentence and stopped there. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #12
Reading what I actually wrote would be a good first step. Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #17
Respectfully, when you start out by saying that the ACA had affordable premiums... Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #23
Costs more to give you less sakabatou Oct 2018 #6
I recently priced these out. Guppy Oct 2018 #8
They're not complete junk Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #10
the issue is the 250k payout Guppy Oct 2018 #11
I'm not suggesting that these are equivalent to the ACA Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #16
I don't think the law is aimed at short term plans. I think they're aimed at regular coverage. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #14
And Trump is trying to make these short term plans Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #18
Golden Rule is short term policy coverage, I believe. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #13
The exact same thing will happen with what Trump is proposing Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #19
Golden Rule short term plans have various caps. In my area, they go up to $2M. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #15
No. The new policy (not law) Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #20
But that's a good thing...to expand coverage from a few months to several years. Honeycombe8 Oct 2018 #21
You can already do that just by stringing multiple policies together Ms. Toad Oct 2018 #22
Kick ck4829 Nov 2018 #24
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump administration loos...»Reply #4