When did Junk Plans become Junk Plans

[Listening]

Junk plan?

$6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

I had plans like these for my children. Deductible was 2,500 (the same amount Obama said he'd save me).

Such plans are now classified as junk (for other reasons...my daughters are single and don't carry maternity).

 

[Antares]

Junk plan?

$6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

The now outlawed plans were better plans than this...and for the record to date I have written 260 policies since Oct 1....only two Cat plans....because they are shit.

 

[Flopper]

Junk plan?

$6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

The now outlawed plans were better plans than this...and for the record to date I have written 260 policies since Oct 1....only two Cat plans....because they are shit.

Catastrophic plans are not popular. They never have been. People expect to be able to use the plan throughout the year to pay routine health care costs even thou they can afford to pay it out of pocket. Attitudes toward health insurance should be the same as life insurance; you never want to have to use it. Instead, the attitude of most people with little or no deductible is to use as much healthcare as you like because you're paying for it whether you use it or not.

Deductibles started rising several years ago. My son has a $2500 this year and my daughter has a $3500 deductible. JPMorgan Chase, last year narrowed its choice for most employees to two medical plans, one with a $3,000 deductible and another with a $5,000 deductible. There's no doubt that higher deductibles will reduce utilization and costs but there is a downside; people may refrain from seeking help for potentially serious healthcare problems. The ACA attempts to counteract this by requiring a number of preventive care benefits that aren't subject to deductible, copay or coinsurance. IMHO, they didn't go far enough with preventive care.

 

[Antares]

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

The now outlawed plans were better plans than this...and for the record to date I have written 260 policies since Oct 1....only two Cat plans....because they are shit.

Catastrophic plans are not popular. They never have been. People expect to be able to use the plan throughout the year to pay routine health care costs even thou they can afford to pay it out of pocket. Attitudes toward health insurance should be the same as life insurance; you never want to have to use it. Instead, the attitude of most people with little or no deductible is to use as much healthcare as you like because you're paying for it whether you use it or not.

Deductibles started rising several years ago. My son has a $2500 this year and my daughter has a $3500 deductible. JPMorgan Chase, last year narrowed its choice for most employees to two medical plans, one with a $3,000 deductible and another with a $5,000 deductible. There's no doubt that higher deductibles will reduce utilization and costs but there is a downside; people may refrain from seeking help for potentially serious healthcare problems. The ACA attempts to counteract this by requiring a number of preventive care benefits that aren't subject to deductible, copay or coinsurance. IMHO, they didn't go far enough with preventive care.

I agree, however when looking at ACA plans (bronze) one must not look at where one starts splitting with an insurance company....one must look at where their max out of pocket is.

Almost ALL end at 6350....and what this does is allow Ins Companies to charge MORE for you to pay more in Premium.

 

[Flopper]

Junk plan?

$6325 Cat plan.....pure Junk yet Bammy promotes it.

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

I had plans like these for my children. Deductible was 2,500 (the same amount Obama said he'd save me).

Such plans are now classified as junk (for other reasons...my daughters are single and don't carry maternity).

No, I doubt you bought a really junk insurance plan. I think you're a lot smarter than that.

About 2003, the number of people in the individual healthcare market began rising dramatically as more companies reduced the cost of providing healthcare benefits and then jobs. Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. They ran ads that offered insurance for your family for as little as dollar a day.

These products were aggressively marketed and often misleadingly—which was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal. For example, plans that offered up to $100,000 in drug coverage but limited the maximum per day to less than a $1,000 - so no big deal because who needs to buy more than $1,000 in drugs a day. For one, a person on chemotherapy. Landmines like these were buried in these cheap insurance plans waiting to blowup in customers face at the worst possible time, when a health disaster strikes.

The vast majority of plans that were cancelled were not junk insurance. They simply lacked some of the required benefits. Junk plans have been disappearing from the market since the ACA passed and most will be illegal on Jan 1.

The Real Story Behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal | Mother Jones

 

[Antares]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

 

[Flopper]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

 

[The Rabbi]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

Total bullshit Obama-flack article. Maternity coverage covers mothers and babies, not father. The main argument is: Maternity care is expensive so we need to spread the risk, even to people who will never ever use it.

 

[Listening]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

I don't find that argument, at all, compelling.

If you don't want women to pay a disproportionate share of materinity costs...then give them a tax credit for their actual costs.

Secondly, if you really want to get serious about making men pay, then everytime a single mother shows up at the county clinic looking for free pre-natal care, she should be required to identify the father so his ass can be back charged some painful amount for gettiing her pregnant. And he's gonna pay child support too. The state may supplement, but only after the needle has extracted a lot of blood from him. And maybe you should go after his parents. Not fair.....? What's fair about us paying for the fact that he's screwing around and walking Scott free ?

 

[Amelia]

I don't object to the idea that society should invest in good maternal health.

I do object to Obama lying about how much this was going to cost, in addition to the other lies told to get his party on board with the misbegotten legislation.

If you really believe it's such a good thing, then make the case for it honestly.

 

[Flopper]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

Total bullshit Obama-flack article. Maternity coverage covers mothers and babies, not father. The main argument is: Maternity care is expensive so we need to spread the risk, even to people who will never ever use it.

Of course it covers mothers, babies and not fathers and yes the primary purpose is to spread the cost even to people that will never use it. Obviously one of goals of the ACA is to improve the nations healthcare and the lack of prenatal and maternity healthcare is a problem.

It's surprising that conservatives with all the pro-iifers would be attacking the one part of the law that can make having a child less expensive than having an abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. A catastrophic plan with a $5,000 to $10,000 deductible is not junk. If provides what insurance should provide, payment of large healthcare costs that would financially devastate most people. Secondly, plans with high deductibles encourage people not to go the doctor with minor problems reducing cost for the company as well as your premiums. Just few days ago, there was news piece on TV about the new cancer drugs that can prolong life for decades that cost up $100,000/yr. My brother had triple bypass with 3 trips to the hospital. The bills were just over $155,000.

The now outlawed plans were better plans than this...and for the record to date I have written 260 policies since Oct 1....only two Cat plans....because they are shit.

Catastrophic plans are not popular. They never have been. People expect to be able to use the plan throughout the year to pay routine health care costs even thou they can afford to pay it out of pocket. Attitudes toward health insurance should be the same as life insurance; you never want to have to use it. Instead, the attitude of most people with little or no deductible is to use as much healthcare as you like because you're paying for it whether you use it or not.

Deductibles started rising several years ago. My son has a $2500 this year and my daughter has a $3500 deductible. JPMorgan Chase, last year narrowed its choice for most employees to two medical plans, one with a $3,000 deductible and another with a $5,000 deductible. There's no doubt that higher deductibles will reduce utilization and costs but there is a downside; people may refrain from seeking help for potentially serious healthcare problems. The ACA attempts to counteract this by requiring a number of preventive care benefits that aren't subject to deductible, copay or coinsurance. IMHO, they didn't go far enough with preventive care.

Do you really think everyone is as stupid as Obama?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

You should have said rationalization, because not a single person as actually provided a reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

I don't find that argument, at all, compelling.

If you don't want women to pay a disproportionate share of materinity costs...then give them a tax credit for their actual costs.

Secondly, if you really want to get serious about making men pay, then everytime a single mother shows up at the county clinic looking for free pre-natal care, she should be required to identify the father so his ass can be back charged some painful amount for gettiing her pregnant. And he's gonna pay child support too. The state may supplement, but only after the needle has extracted a lot of blood from him. And maybe you should go after his parents. Not fair.....? What's fair about us paying for the fact that he's screwing around and walking Scott free ?

Don't let them get away with the lies, their share is not disproportionate. A disproportionate share occurs when someone pays more for getting less, they pay more for maternity coverage because they use all of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

Total bullshit Obama-flack article. Maternity coverage covers mothers and babies, not father. The main argument is: Maternity care is expensive so we need to spread the risk, even to people who will never ever use it.

Of course it covers mothers, babies and not fathers and yes the primary purpose is to spread the cost even to people that will never use it. Obviously one of goals of the ACA is to improve the nations healthcare and the lack of prenatal and maternity healthcare is a problem.

It's surprising that conservatives with all the pro-iifers would be attacking the one part of the law that can make having a child less expensive than having an abortion.

The only lack of prenatal and maternity care comes form people not accessing it. Making people pay more is not going to fix that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

Total bullshit Obama-flack article. Maternity coverage covers mothers and babies, not father. The main argument is: Maternity care is expensive so we need to spread the risk, even to people who will never ever use it.

Of course it covers mothers, babies and not fathers and yes the primary purpose is to spread the cost even to people that will never use it. Obviously one of goals of the ACA is to improve the nations healthcare and the lack of prenatal and maternity healthcare is a problem.

It's surprising that conservatives with all the pro-iifers would be attacking the one part of the law that can make having a child less expensive than having an abortion.

And yet fathers pay for it. WHo pays for insurance coverage they will never ever need? It is a gross misuse and misunderstanding of insurance.

 

[Antares]

God please.
Mother Jones?

Look, I have 10 years in this....RARELY have I found anyone deceived by a "bad apple" insurer.

Yes, I've seen it, but RARELY.
Why would you make a single man, or folks in their 50's buy maternity?

All of this shit stupid....and do NOT assume the "electorate" doesn't see it, they do.

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

I don't need you to explain anything Flop, it is stupid and it is premium gouging by forcing people to buy shit they don't need.
I get it ,you've bought the Admin bullshit.

 

[Listening]

The reason for the maternity coverage has been explained so many times, I'm not going to waste the time repeating it now. You can read it yourself.

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why - Los Angeles Times

I don't find that argument, at all, compelling.

If you don't want women to pay a disproportionate share of materinity costs...then give them a tax credit for their actual costs.

Secondly, if you really want to get serious about making men pay, then everytime a single mother shows up at the county clinic looking for free pre-natal care, she should be required to identify the father so his ass can be back charged some painful amount for gettiing her pregnant. And he's gonna pay child support too. The state may supplement, but only after the needle has extracted a lot of blood from him. And maybe you should go after his parents. Not fair.....? What's fair about us paying for the fact that he's screwing around and walking Scott free ?

Don't let them get away with the lies, their share is not disproportionate. A disproportionate share occurs when someone pays more for getting less, they pay more for maternity coverage because they use all of it.

That I understand. However, children are an important part of our society and they need a comprehensive safety net. What that also includes in making fathers responsible.

 

[Listening]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

Republicans caring about health care.

Please prove it was Republicans yelling that.

Moron.

 

[Listening]

Folks,

It is very interesting in scrolling back through the pages of this thread that there is very little from the left. They don't seem to have the appetite for defending the BIG LIE that Obama told (and has killed his trustworthiness polling).

I think we all know the answer to the OP.

I just wanted to see if the left had the balls to step up and say stupid stuff like our favorite moron (former Speaker Of The House).

Even after BIG LIAR admits it.....

Nancy Pelosi struggles to defend Obamacare on Meet The Press