Catastrophic Medical Insurance

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Supposn, Jul 8, 2017.

  1. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +66
    Catastrophic Medical Insurance:


    Excerpted from Congressman Paul Ryan’s web site. He forwarded a transcript concerning his positions of regarding USA’s healthcare policies; Racine [, WIS] Journal News, Mark Schaaf, July 7, 20217.
    “Republicans have proposed the federal and state governments subsidize the cost of care for people in the individual market with catastrophic illnesses, Ryan said. He believes that will make it easier to insure people in those high-risk pools at a more affordable price”.


    Paul Ryan’s economic positions but federal funding of catastrophic medical costs for the catastrophys’ duration of times and extents of their costs is a concept that both sides of the political ailse could agree upon. Our federal government should accept fiscal responsibility for catastrophic medical condition regardless if patients were or were not previously insured. That federal responsibility should continue until the catastrophic financial condition no longer exists.


    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,309
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,098
    Ted Cruz proposed that insurance companies be free to offer any number or range of plans.
    SO LONG AS THEY INCLUDE ONE option that is like the Obamacare level.
    And the Republicans in his own base struck that down.

    I have a suggestion: why not let all parties propose plans
    and let taxpayers CHOOSE on our tax forms which plan to fund?

    Then the best plans would get the most support
    and BE PAID FOR BY THAT BASE TO SERVE THAT BASE.

    Wouldn't that solve the problem?

    Mike Lee said what the bill needs is an option to OPT OUT.

    Sen. Mike Lee lays out what GOP healthcare bill needs to get his vote

    Sen. Lee Comments on Delayed Healthcare Vote

    What I'm saying is taxpayers should be required to OPT IN and PAY FOR whatever platform matches their BELIEFS, and work with their affiliated group or company of their choice to democratically determine the terms and "rules of exemptions" NOT THE GOVT -- Because the exemptions are basically "regulating on the basis of BELIEF or religion." (not just if you BELIEVE in limited govt or you BELIEVE in single payer health care being federal duty of govt, but if you look at the current federal exemptions, you have to be a PAID MEMBER of QUALIFYING RELIGIOUS organizations in order not to be under the mandates at all -- THAT'S regulating taxes on the basis of someone's BELIEFS and RELIGIOUS faith-based affiliation and PAYMENT to such a group!)

    These terms of paying for health care and public charity should belong to the PEOPLE
    and the States if they represent the people, but not federal govt UNLESS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
    IS P ASSED BY THE STATES FIRST GIVING THEM THAT POWER OVER INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE DECISIONS
    AND FREE CHOICE/CIVIL LIBERTIES TO BEGIN WITH.)

    Either revert the responsibility to the STATE level, or if people can't agree by state,
    give people the choice to opt in or out of plans through their PARTY of choice.

    And list these on their tax forms:
    I want to pay and be covered for health care under:
    * my state plan
    * my party plan - State
    * my party plan - Federal
    * my party plan - local or other
    * federal plan A (original Obamacare) as revised by supporters who opt into this plan
    * federal plan B (revised Trump plan) as revised by supporters who pay for this plan
    * federal plan C (other option to be revised by voters and supporters choosing this plan)

    Each plan/track is then funded and voted on/revised by the voters/supporters
    who opt into and vote for THAT plan....
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  3. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    A law with an opt-out provision makes no sense.
     
  4. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +66
    Emilynghiem, the Affordable Care Act’s purpose is to increase the aggregate possibility or probability of USA citizens and legal residents finding some affordable and adequate medical expense insurance. Cruz’s proposal would exacerbate our problems.

    Currently ACA acceptable insurance plans must meet ACA’s minimal adequacy requirements. The requirements may differentiate for gender or other patients’ statuses, but the insurer may not differentiate their pricing due to those statuses. (I believe that some less than market value differentiations may be permitted for age).

    Due to those prohibited pricing practices, ACA approved insurance is a far greater bargain for some individuals and are somewhat overpriced for some others.
    Permit those pricing practices, we’re back to the same situations that requires a federal policy of mandated medical insurance.

    If the tax upon those that choose not to be adequately insured is eliminated, that increases the costs and thus the prices of adequate insurance sold by ACA qualified insurers; that severely reduces if not effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act.

    If the pricing prohibitions are eliminated or Ted Cruz’s proposal is adopted, many more millions of USA citizens will not be adequately insured unless they can qualify for the extremely low maximum income caps of Medicaid participants. Medicaid is entirely funded by federal and state taxpayers.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. debbiedowner
    Offline

    debbiedowner Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,151
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,602

    You're right, but when have they ever made sense?
     
  6. debbiedowner
    Offline

    debbiedowner Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,151
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,602
    You also cannot tailor make a plan for each individual. Can you imagine each person picking and choosing what they want to be covered or not?

    I can see sitting down with a woman and her saying I want my right boob covered because I had a scare a few years back. How about your left, well is that extra, yep, no I never had a problem with that one.
     
  7. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    Sure. Why not?
     
  8. debbiedowner
    Offline

    debbiedowner Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,151
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,602
    How would an actuary determine the risk for one particular person? In my scenario of the boob right vs left, that left boob she doesn't want to be covered probably has a good chance of developing breast cancer if she had it in the right.
     
  9. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    By estimating their odds of getting sick based on their health records, lifestyle etc.... how else would they do it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  10. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,853
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,693
    Well we're gonna have to do something cuz Medicare and Medicaid are not sustainable as they are now. There's no easy or cheap answer here, so the best option I can see is a federal catastrophic illness/accident insurance program that is paid for by a consumption tax. The states can augment that with their own insurance programs and insurance could be purchased across state lines. If you've got a pre-existing condition that falls under the federal program then you're covered by that, otherwise you better find yourself insurance that is affordable.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content