Here’s how Trump’s tax law is raising health insurance premiums

[GMDino]

Is this that better, cheaper healthcare that Trump promised we won't believe?

http://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/393243-heres-how-trumps-tax-law-is-raising-health-insurance-premiums

Quote:Approximately six months ago, Congress passed a tax law designed to benefit corporations and the wealthy while repealing the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate penalty.



Today, we’re already seeing the consequences: Premiums in the individual market are rising, often by double digits. As more and more states hit their deadlines for insurers to file preliminary premium rates, the headlines tell the same story, with average premiums going up by 30 percent in Maryland, 19 percent in Washington, and 24 percent in New York.

This is no surprise — and no accident. The repeal of the mandate penalty was the latest in a long line of actions that the Trump administration has taken to deliberately undermine the ACA marketplaces.
 
President Trump himself has not exactly been subtle about this, remarking last year that “the best thing we can do politically speaking is let ObamaCare explode.” Similarly, former White House advisor Steve Bannon exclaimed, “That’s going to blow that thing up — gonna blow those exchanges up, right?” when describing Trump’s decision to cancel ACA cost-sharing payments last year.


Congress knew in advance that the individual mandate played an important role in stabilizing the market, and that repealing the mandate penalty would cause premiums to go up. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the mandate penalty would increase individual market premiums by 10 percent on average in 2019.


In fact, Trump’s own former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, recently admitted that the repeal “actually will harm the pool in the exchange market because you'll likely have individuals who are younger and healthier not participating in that market, and consequently that drives up the cost for other folks in that market."


In their proposed premium rate filings, insurers have confirmed Price’s assessment and stated plainly that the repeal of the mandate penalty was a major factor driving up premiums. For example, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Maryland wrote that, “The elimination of the Individual Mandate is expected to have a significant impact,” while the CEO of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield stated, “There’s been a series of actions taken by the current administration that have undermined enrollment.”


Other insurers also noted that the market had been improving before the Trump administration and Congress stepped in to destabilize it. “The ACA market has had sufficient time to stabilize,” PacificSource Health Plans of Oregon wrote, “. . . however we project that market morbidity will worsen due to the removal of the individual mandate.”


Some states, such as New York, actually asked insurers to estimate what their premium increases would have been if the individual mandate penalty hadn’t been repealed – and the answers were striking. According to this data, individual market premiums in New York are rising by 24 percent on average for 2019, but would have risen by 12 percent on average if it weren’t for the tax law.


In other words, Congress’s actions are directly responsible for doubling the average premium increase in New York.


Importantly, consumers who qualify for the ACA’s tax credits will largely be shielded from these premium hikes. But with each act of sabotage by the Trump administration, health care becomes harder and harder to afford for middle-class enrollees who don’t qualify for financial assistance.


Luckily, some states are taking action to protect their residents from sabotage by the Trump administration and Congress. For example, New Jersey and Vermont recently enacted legislation to establish their own individual mandates. In addition, New Jersey and other states have been working to establish reinsurance programs and limit the short-term “junk plans” that the Trump administration has proposed expanding.


That’s a stark contrast from the approach we’ve seen from the federal government. The Trump administration and the Republican Congress may have failed to repeal the ACA and cap Medicaid funding last year, but they remain intent on undermining the ACA by any avenue available. 


This week, the “Health Policy Consensus Group” led by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and conservative think tanks unveiled their latest proposal to repeal the ACA, which could presage yet another repeal effort by Congress. And recently, Trump’s Department of Justice broke with its constitutional duties by refusing to defend the ACA from a lawsuit and asking the court to strike down the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions


While this lawsuit is frivolous and unlikely to succeed, the Trump administration’s actions make clear that they don’t plan to stop attacking the ACA any time soon. So it’s time to call this what it is — sabotage. And the target of this sabotage isn’t just a law. It’s the health care of Americans across the country whose costs are going up.

[*wildcats forever*]

One aspect that has hit home for me is the denial of coverage to those with preexisting conditions for supplemental Medicare insurance. No increased premium option is offered; just coverage denial. This will force some pensioners to bankruptcy when faced with a 20% copay on an 'event', given current medical costs for those dealing with CVD, Cancer, Diabetes etc. Many probably won't give this a second thought, as age isn't an issue for them currently. However, this is something few can avoid because sooner or later everyone will have a preexisting condition.

[*PhilHos*]

It sucks that it raises premiums, but I still fail to see how it's Constitutional to FORCE American citizens to purchase something.

[*Nately120*]

(07-27-2018, 03:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It sucks that it raises premiums, but I still fail to see how it's Constitutional to FORCE American citizens to purchase something.

I think the short answer is that without forcing people to buy stuff like health insurance or auto insurance people would not buy it, incur huge bills if/when they needed it, and then just shrug and say "I can't pay for this.  Bye."

[GMDino]

(07-27-2018, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think the short answer is that without forcing people to buy stuff like health insurance or auto insurance people would not buy it, incur huge bills if/when they needed it, and then just shrug and say "I can't pay for this.  Bye."

And it's all a scam.

Pay for something you hoe to never need.  And if you do need it they won't cover everything and will probably raise your rates to voer the amount they DID cover.

Plus it doesn't matter when things cost so many times more here in the US than around the world.

[treee]

(07-27-2018, 03:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It sucks that it raises premiums, but I still fail to see how it's Constitutional to FORCE American citizens to purchase something.

The constitution seems to me to be focused primarily on sovereignty. While important, the aims of it were narrow.

Public healthcare is a simple premise: an insurance pool that projects total costs and charges only that much to its participants. While not expressly sanctioned by the constitution, there is no language that forbids the mechanisms that require it to work, either.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think the short answer is that without forcing people to buy stuff like health insurance or auto insurance people would not buy it, incur huge bills if/when they needed it, and then just shrug and say "I can't pay for this.  Bye."

Yeah, it sucks, but again, we're supposed to be a land free from tyranny. I don't see how you can claim freedom while forcing citizens to purchase something they may or may not need. If some people are going to be deadbeats, I don't know why those that aren't should be punished. Might as well make ALL men pay child support even if they're not a father.

(07-27-2018, 04:08 PM)treee Wrote: The constitution seems to me to be focused primarily on sovereignty. While important, the aims of it were narrow.

Public healthcare is a simple premise: an insurance pool that projects total costs and charges only that much to its participants. While not expressly sanctioned by the constitution, there is no language that forbids the mechanisms that require it to work, either.

The constitution is all about what laws government is allowed to impose on its citizens with the goal of being free but not anarchic. Forcing citizens to have health insurance goes against what the consitution is all about.

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yeah, it sucks, but again, we're supposed to be a land free from tyranny. I don't see how you can claim freedom while forcing citizens to purchase something they may or may not need. If some people are going to be deadbeats, I don't know why those that aren't should be punished.

Because EVERYONE was paying for the people who did not have health insurance.  When doctors and hospitals lose money because patients can not pay they have to raise the prices for everyone else.  The number one cause of bankruptcy in the country is medical bills.  When all of those debts get written off prices are raised on everyone else to make up for the losses.

Kind of the same reasoning behind requiring auto insurance.  When people who don't have insurance for the damage they cause can't pay someone else has to.

EVERYONE benefits if EVERYONE has health and auto insurance.  That is "promoting the general welfare".

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because EVERYONE was paying for the people who did not have health insurance.  When doctors and hospitals lose money because patients can not pay they have to raise the prices for everyone else.  The number one cause of bankruptcy in the country is medical bills.  When all of those debts get written off prices are raised on everyone else to make up for the losses.

Kind of the same reasoning behind requiring auto insurance.  When people who don't have insurance for the damage they cause can't pay someone else has to.

EVERYONE benefits if EVERYONE has health and auto insurance.  That is "promoting the general welfare".

I understand all that. But, requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or face punishment is antithetical to freedom. 

And there's a difference between health and auto insurance in that only those who purchase a vehicle have to buy auto insurance.  AND, the only time you get in trouble for ont having auto insurance is when you get caught - which usually happens when you need it.

I'm all for lowering the costs of health care - heck, I'll even consider government-run or single payer health care if done right - but not at the expense of American's freedoms.

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2018, 05:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I understand all that. But, requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or face punishment is antithetical to freedom. 

And there's a difference between health and auto insurance in that only those who purchase a vehicle have to buy auto insurance.  AND, the only time you get in trouble for ont having auto insurance is when you get caught - which usually happens when you need it.

I'm all for lowering the costs of health care - heck, I'll even consider government-run or single payer health care if done right - but not at the expense of American's freedoms.

Most people do not consider the "Freedom to stick someone else with your medical bill" that high of a priority.

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  The constitution is all about what laws government is allowed to impose on its citizens with the goal of being free but not anarchic. Forcing citizens to have health insurance goes against what the consitution is all about.

The Constitution was designed as it was so that it could change. I believe — from reading the framer's opinions — that this was largely so that there could be flexibility without completely having to scrap the thing or radically change the government. 

Personally, I'm a minimalist kind of guy. I prefer as little government as we can get away with. But at the same time, when you have hundreds of millions of people with diversity in their incomes, backgrounds and social structure, you can't just throw something at the wall and see what sticks. Just because the Constitution didn't mention roads (it does say post roads, but not public roads), healthcare, civil rights, or a hundred other things doesn't mean that we don't have to deal with them. And because we have to deal with them, there needs to be some balance.

I don't think the government should be able to force anyone to buy healthcare. Unfortunately, that only leaves two options: a system where taxpayers get stuck paying for businesses to make obscene profits (what we have now) or a system where businesses are regulated by the government on what they can charge (socialist healthcare). 

[*Nately120*]

(07-27-2018, 05:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I understand all that. But, requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or face punishment is antithetical to freedom. 

And there's a difference between health and auto insurance in that only those who purchase a vehicle have to buy auto insurance.  AND, the only time you get in trouble for ont having auto insurance is when you get caught - which usually happens when you need it.

I'm all for lowering the costs of health care - heck, I'll even consider government-run or single payer health care if done right - but not at the expense of American's freedoms.

Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but the notion that people should drive less and this country should be built in a manner that facilitates public transportation is dismissed as a liberal pipe-dream as well as an attack on big oil.  Plus, all those American auto workers are going to lose jobs if we do stuff like walk or take the train to work.  Personally, I've gone years of my life without a car but it was when I lived in NYC and Chicago.  That's not something that carries over to many other places, though.  Our country is designed around the idea that anyone working age can legally and realistically drive a personal vehicle, vehicles which routinely lead to heavenly bills in property and medical damage.

As for healthcare, again we are seeing the price of a civilized society.  We don't want to let people die in the streets, but at the same time we just can't get enough of making it A-OK to subsist off of a diet of trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and various pollutions.  We don't prevent, we treat with profit in mind.


So many things contribute to the issue at hand.  I suppose we'd get some sort of perverse satisfaction at watching someone who isn't a marathon-running vegan attempt to pay cash for heart surgery before he drops dead, but we supposedly live in a civilized society where we survive by looking out for each other.  But unless you are fairly well-off and then die suddenly without visiting a hospital I assume everyone is going to get to a point where the costs of trying to stay alive will outweigh his/her bank account.

Personally, I have health and auto insurance I've never used.  I've been paying other people's bills all these years, but meh...who knows what tomorrow will bring.  I can see myself being full of cancer eventually.

[hollodero]

(07-27-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yeah, it sucks, but again, we're supposed to be a land free from tyranny. I don't see how you can claim freedom while forcing citizens to purchase something they may or may not need.

Because you also live in a society?
How come you can't see health care as some kind of tax. Something you contribute to society so society can flourish and you alongside it. Universal healthcare just is a good idea for running a society, it's cheaper overall, plus everyone gets the care he really needs no matter his wealth (which is undeniably, I'd say so, good for a society). One might disagree with that politically, but doing it with the constitution... seems like a stretch.

Do you see taxes as a form of tyranny? They pay for roads, schools, police, aircraft carriers, Scott Pruitts desk.... now one might not personally need one or more of these things. Someone who doesn't have kids doesn't personally need schools. But still schools are good to have and taxes funding schools aren't tyranny. Is a logic I wonder if it couldn't be applied.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2018, 10:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: Because you also live in a society?
How come you can't see health care as some kind of tax. Something you contribute to society so society can flourish and you alongside it. Universal healthcare just is a good idea for running a society, it's cheaper overall, plus everyone gets the care he really needs no matter his wealth (which is undeniably, I'd say so, good for a society). One might disagree with that politically, but doing it with the constitution... seems like a stretch.

Do you see taxes as a form of tyranny? They pay for roads, schools, police, aircraft carriers, Scott Pruitts desk.... now one might not personally need one or more of these things. Someone who doesn't have kids doesn't personally need schools. But still schools are good to have and taxes funding schools aren't tyranny. Is a logic I wonder if it couldn't be applied.

To the bold:

Yes, yes they do.

While they want a giant defense and big, beautiful wall...but taxes are tyranny.

Let private companies build everything.  Keep government out of our lives!!!!11!!!1!!

I see it has a disconnect, they see it as the only way to be "free".

[hollodero]

(07-30-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold:

Yes, yes they do.

Hey... spoiler alert  

[Benton]

(07-30-2018, 10:30 AM)hollodero Wrote:  

Do you see taxes as a form of tyranny?  

It's gotten to that point with our poor spending.

Levying a tax to build a road isn't abusing public trust; going to war and reducing taxes off the notion that it would 'pay for itself' is abuse. Building a library isn't abusing public trust; borrowing money (which will eventually have to be repaid with taxes) to build a giant wall that is not expected to have any significant positive economic effect is an abuse. 

Hell, just in Afghanistan, for what we've spent in the last decade we could've given every man, woman and child $5 million and a plane ticket and told them to go somewhere else. It would've been cheaper than the nearly $3 trillion we've spent. Instead, we spend close to $2 million to blow up a mug hut that costs $0 to build and gets rebuilt as soon as the troops roll out. All to benefit a handful of companies and to increase a fake sense of patriotism.

[hollodero]

(07-30-2018, 11:29 AM)Benton Wrote: It's gotten to that point with our poor spending.

Levying a tax to build a road isn't abusing public trust; going to war and reducing taxes off the notion that it would 'pay for itself' is abuse. Building a library isn't abusing public trust; borrowing money (which will eventually have to be repaid with taxes) to build a giant wall that is not expected to have any significant positive economic effect is an abuse. 

Hell, just in Afghanistan, for what we've spent in the last decade we could've given every man, woman and child $5 million and a plane ticket and told them to go somewhere else. It would've been cheaper than the nearly $3 trillion we've spent. Instead, we spend close to $2 million to blow up a mug hut that costs $0 to build and gets rebuilt as soon as the troops roll out. All to benefit a handful of companies and to increase a fake sense of patriotism.

Oh I get that. And I guess I agree with all you said. I meant my question more in a theoretical sense though. That much gets wasted away sure is true, through political malpractice and corruption. 
My question was rather meant more theoretical, in a more idealistic scenario (where politicians don't waste the money they're entrusted with or do indeed get voted out if they do.) My question would be, are taxes still tyranny in an ideal USA. And in the same sense, is universal healthcare really unconstitutional.