White House aiming to scrub medical debt from people’s credit scores, which could up ratings for mil

pro-lifers saying it's an abomination to give poor people free medical care?

 

we never got the public option due to dems compromising with repubs

"Obama, GOP's Snowe work on health care compromise"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/health.care.compromise/

"The compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by Obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by Snowe, the sources said."

 

Blues, Obamacare used all the current healthcare laws on the books with some additions to regulate the healthcare industry, set national policy goals, and increased access to medical care. The standards were there already in the statutes, just segmented. Now they are more universal. Remember, only a few states had high-risk pools. Obamacare expanded that, got rid of lifetime care limits, pre-existing condition, and so foth. Overall, it improved access, not dimish it.

 

For profit colleges do, well some do. But colleges are not in the business of financial services just as companies are not in the business of teaching.

 

Yes we have LOTS Of healthcare in this country and the cost have gone WAY up in spite of the claims that Obamacare would LOWER the cost. You keep ignoring it was put in place because it was going to save everyone $2500 that $10,000 for a family of four now trying to speciously brag that it OH LOOK IT SLOWED the cost growth and 40 million people would go on the Obamacare low income policies and save us all money when in fact those cost are THREE TIMES was they predicted as I already cited. And you keep ignoring the deductibles and high out of pocket caps. Those in the private sector made that insurance prohibitive and people stopped their insurance and self insured.

Obamacare Has Doubled the Cost of Individual Health Insurance

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Eleven years after the passage of Obamacare, Americans buying health insurance under the law are still worse off financially than before the health law was enacted.​

Obamacare more than doubled health insurance costs for workers and families, with the national average premium increasing by 129 percent from 2013 to 2019.

Recent years have shown that costs drop when states can use regulatory relief to provide options tailored to the unique needs of citizens with high health costs.


https://www.heritage.org/health-car...-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance

No, Obamacare Did Not Lower U.S. Health Costs
— Refuting Ezekiel Emanuel's claims

.....Emanuel's essay correctly notes that Obamacare reduced the ranks of the uninsured, but his claim that it reduced healthcare spending is false. Emanuel concluded that the ACA, which he helped write, "reduced healthcare spending a total of $2.3 trillion" from 2010, the year the ACA was enacted, to 2017. He went on to make an equally astonishing and erroneous claim about health insurance premiums. He alleged they fell by $1,000 per worker, and "about $4,000" for family coverage from 2010 to 2017.

The figures below reveal at a glance that Emanuel was wildly off the mark on both counts. Figure 1 shows that healthcare spending as a percent of gross domestic product continued to rise after 2010 at about the same rate it has risen for the last 50 years. Figure 2 shows that premiums for family coverage for American workers also rose after 2010 at the same rate as before 2010





https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/81275

 

Lenders do ask about child support and alimony, which is not in the credit reports, generally. They also ask about other debts as well, even giving examples. And some lenders do not consider medical debt in their debt-to-income calculations. So, you want to create regulations to force lenders to consider medical debt?

 

And Obamacare was supposed to let all those who don't get an insurance policy they could afford. FORY MILLION would get INSURANCE was the claim and it would save the taxpayer money!!! As I already cited half the number signed up and it is costing the taxpayer THREE TIMES what they said it would. So what exactly was the success versus the cost here?

 

Half signed up because so many red states didn’t expand Medicaid. That was part of the projected numbers.
Still resulted in highest insured American rate in history and reduced bankruptcy due to medical bills.

 

Covering less than half what they claimed at THREE TIMES THE COST. Stop trying to put lipstick on this pig.

 

This is about GOVERNMENT force......learn the difference.

 

Fewer insured raised costs.
Highest rate of insured Americans in history. Too bad trump replaced it with his amazing plan lol

 

It did slow cost growth, which is why all coverage today costs less, not more, than people were predicting when the ACA passed.

The average person buying in the individual market pays less for a better policy today (yes, thanks to the ACA's tax credits). It's patently obvious that they're better off financially.

This is an absurd statement. Other than a brief, transitory pandemic-induced spike, health care spending as a percentage of GDP has not risen since the ACA passed. That's a remarkable fact. And I can assure you that the average rate of the rise in health spending as a percentage of GDP over the last 50 years has not been zero. So the claim you're quoting is wildly wrong.

National health care spending, percentage of gross domestic product (2007–22), projected and actual

Except they didn't. Growth in family premiums was cut in half after the ACA passed. That author might want to try fitting two trend lines, one before the ACA and one after. Because they certainly wouldn't have the same slope.

 

And the regulation changes resulted in large employee cost increases there also, and the prattled line "it's the insurance companies overcharging you just because they can" excuse doesn't fly, especially when you look at large companies that basically self-insure and their records/costs are available. The higher usage costs and coverages for those who couldn't afford it (expanded Medicaid and subsidies) were passed on to those the government deemed "could" afford it. I recall the discussions on these boards, where many people (both those who got insurance through their job and those who bought on the exchanges) described their premiums rising as much as 50 to 100% over the first two years of the ACA, and being dismissed by those of your mindset. My husband's employer, a large public utility that self-insured, was one of them. And yes, health insurance costs had generally risen by small increments yearly....but not from $450/mo for an excellent family policy to over $900/mo in two years. Basically, the only "added benefit" over what we had before was a yearly "free" woman's wellness visit, as opposed to a small copay for the same previously. The rest of the ACA stuff was already offered.

 

Okay - how many other industrialised nations have anywhere near a significant amount people with significant amounts of medical debt?

 

Incorrect as to implied income. Incidentally, no middle class people's incomes goes anywhere near "pretty far" anymore thanks to Bidenomics. The costs for basics such as gas/groceries have increased exponentially, and the costs of everything else have risen also, while our investment portfolio is not performing as well the past two years as it had previously. We are retired and live off savings and investments, so our taxable income is whatever we choose to withdraw for the year. We have a certain fixed level of expenses, but if we wanted to do some extra traveling or have any other variable financial need or want we can withdraw more to cover that (and taxes) but we must try to figure it out ahead of time and build a cushion in to avoid any nasty surprises come tax time.

For this year, I used $120,000 as the estimated yearly income on the exchange when determining our premium costs, which is an increase over 2022's income because we decided to start my husband's social security, mainly to defray these large health care premiums until we're Medicare eligible. I may not be well versed in all of the minutia of the exchanges overall, but I spend hours and days reviewing and modeling the available plans in our county in KY, which is part of a major metro area. There are over 20 silver plans from 4 different insurers to choose from, and which ones are "benchmark" I couldn't tell you, but I can tell you that there are only three that were even options for us, because of which doctors and facilities were covered, at what deductibles, max OOP, co-pays, prescription coverage, etc. The three decent silver plans for our needs ranged in premium costs for us of approximately $950, $1200, and $1350. Were less expensive plans available? Yes. Did they provide adequate/decent coverage for our needs/circumstances? No. Not even close. I suspect that probably the "benchmark" silver plans are the crappy ones. The gold plans on the exchange are totally unaffordable.

As I said before, it's the older age demographic with "higher" middle class incomes and more medical needs that really pays the price versus those much younger with lower incomes who often qualify for Medicaid or heavy premium subsidies. Of course, a couple in their 30s or 40s with the same income we have of $120K per year will have lower premiums on the exchange for the same plan than we do, for obvious reasons.

 

And reduced the standard of living for the majority of the middle class by making monthly health care premiums rival house payments. You keep moving the goal posts in the discussion. Did it "insure more people"? Yes, most at no cost to them. Did it reduce bankruptcy due to medical bills? Yes, it definitely helped that very small segment of the middle class with chronic expensive medical conditions who previously had their insurance dropped or maxed out and had assets that could be attached. A problem that needed to be dealt with, sure, but with tweezers, not a sledgehammer. To "help" a small percentage of the population, a much larger percentage of the population was hurt in the wallet. Wealth transfer and picking winners and losers.

 

im torn on this, I live within my means, so if a new car is not in the budget then I dont buy a new car, If I'm looking to move into a new house I pic a house I can afford, If I lose my job I will work 2 jobs to pay the bills. BUT if one of my children needs a medical procedure that is way outside what I can afford? I'm getting my child that procedure and will not think twice and my credit be dammed. But does that make me a risk for other loans like cc or new cars?

This is not an easy answer

 

Spending per enrollee in employer-based coverage in the U.S. has gone up by just a smidge under 2.7% annually over the 2013-2023 period. The data simply don't support any narrative about widescale "large cost increases" in an era when cost growth has been at historic lows.

The benchmark plan is the second cheapest silver plan, it determines the value of the tax credit. KY's marketplace doesn't seem very amenable to window shopping so I'll just lean on KFF's calculator for the numbers: at those ages in that rating area and in that financial situation (655% of the poverty level and well above the median income in the area), the value of the tax credit is $884/mo (i.e., it's the amount that would be left over once you pay your required $850/mo toward the benchmark plan). One can certainly buy up to more expensive plans, of which the $884/mo will obviously cover less of the cost, or down to less expensive plans, of which it'll cover more of the cost.

You're not wrong that older, well-off people "pay the price" vs. people who are young and don't have much money. Older folks tend to incur more of the costs and hold more of society's resources. But this is an example of an older, well-off couple getting $10,600 in tax credits per year to apply to any insurance plan they like. That's in the ballpark of what it costs on average to insure two younger people via Medicaid. But the latter pay less because they cost less and they have less.

Older people in commercial coverage will cost more, and the ACA protects them somewhat via 3:1 age rating bands (i.e. the oldest customers can only be charged three times what the youngest enrollees are for a given product). The GOP's position has been that 5:1 bands are preferable, raising premiums on older enrollees to drop them for younger ones. That debate seems to have gone dormant, but one of the big debates on the horizon in two years, when the Inflation Reduction Act's enhanced ACA subsidies are due to expire, will be whether such a couple should get any financial assistance at all. Should a reasonably well-off couple be getting more than $10K in subsidies for coverage vs. none at all? Predictably the GOP will argue the answer is no, and the Dems will argue yes. Very unclear which side will come out on top.

 

In reference to your first paragraph: It's now been over a decade since the ACA was implemented, most of the major cost increases occurred at the beginning, i.e. doubling of premiums, etc. Everyone recalls the shellacking the Dems took in the subsequent election. Since those early times, there haven't been such major increases, but when it hit, it was a doozy, and if you weren't in the lower income or chronic expensive medical demographic it was designed to help, it was a big hit to your finances. Now, it's like anything else, people have learned to live with it.

In reference to your last paragraph: It's interesting because how one frames and talks about the facts (which don't change) shapes the argument and perception. Bottom line, everyone who pays a dime for health insurance, whether through their employer, through the ACA, or independent purchase gets a "tax credit" for doing so.....whether it's the fact that medical premiums come out of the paychecks of people who get their insurance from their employer on a pre-tax basis and reduce their taxable income, whether they get a "subsidy" on the ACA (which is basically the tax credit they'd get at the end of the year for what they pay for their premiums which enables them to somewhat afford the monthly premiums vs having to shell it out and wait til the end of the year to get it back), or those who pay for an independent policy and can deduct their premiums on their tax returns for a tax credit. IMO, the "subsidy" is pretty much an accounting gimmick that tricks people into thinking they are getting a financial break when they're really not. Is it helpful to afford the high cost of insurance premiums on a monthly basis? Yes, it is. But it's no gift they wouldn't be entitled to anyway, it just kept the masses from screaming even louder at how expensive it is. The enhanced ACA subsides from the Inflation Reduction Act (imo a total misnomer) have certainly been beneficial to some people, including us, just like student loan forgiveness would have helped my son, but I disagree that it either is/was good public policy or necessary. I am not, however, stupid enough to turn down money.

 

The number is actually slightly lower (2.6% annual growth per enrollee) if you start the clock in in 2009. Employer-based coverage has seen record-low cost increases during the ACA era. In real dollars, per enrollee spending in employer-based coverage this year is up 2% over spending when the ACA passed in 2010. Not per year, total.

Which was the original point: the ACA era has been one of unusually slow health care cost growth. So slow that there's been very little relative growth in health care costs over the past thirteen years.

 

I'll take your word for it, but it sure wasn't our experience or that of many people we know as to when we had employer based coverage (up thru 2016). Our premiums more than doubled over the first two years the ACA was implemented (most of it the first year) and we didn't receive any real additions to our excellent coverage we already had. The employer self-insured, with them paying a fixed percentage of overall cost and employees paying the rest. Those percentages didn't change either. Public utilities have open records, and they're not like private companies where there may be some incentive to have employees pay more when that's not necessary and shift it to the profits category. That simply was not the case here. I don't recall the specifics about which ACA provisions caused the increase (we got explanation letters at the time). When you go from paying @$450/mo one year to over $900/mo the next year, and receive nothing extra for it, it's hard to be happy about it.

 

So you're telling me that nothing changed about your coverage and there was no change in the composition of your risk pool (because it was self-insured)--and yet it passes the smell test for you that some unspecified 'something' changed that raised the costs of the plan?

 

Tell me… what consequences will there be for those who refuse to pay their medical bills?

 

Civil suits most likely.

Or we could move to a system that doesn’t bankrupt families so that insurers, hospitals and manufacturers can take in billions per year.

 

What type of system would you support to pay for said medical system? One where we tax everyone equally more or just the rich? Or maybe tax people based on lifestyle such as more tax for the obese?