But basically the amendment had a democrat and a republican co author. And it seemed like it was going to pass. But got held up because of concerns of states rights. because each individual state has the right and the ability to determine what a insurance company has to cover and what they don't so the amendment was defeated. I cannot find right now who introduced this amendment but have found it in the past by researching my name in the congressional record.
Some day when i am bored i will look for it. The democrat proposed language that if 2 states wanted to decide to have the same insurance guidelines then a company could offer packages across state lines. as of 2018 no 2 states had ever agreed to this.
[/QUOTE]I'm not sure I understand the obsession with interstate selling when it comes to insurance. It's hard for me to see how it'd be a good thing.
The reason it's not possible, is that states appoint their own regulators to determine the baseline levels of care, coverage, and ensure strong policies that make sure people get good value for their premiums. The moment you regulate interstate selling, there's an immediate race to the bottom and insurance companies will begin offering plans that align with the state regulatory body that allows for plans that are in the best interest of the insurers.
Basically, it would mean that Mississippi lawmakers (or whoever) could set the standard for the nation. Why give that power to an individual state legislature?
It might make costs lower, but that's only because the plans will be worse.
Other thing son the affordable care act. Ok yes more people are insured now then before the affordable care act but 90% of those insured pickups were people that qualified for expanded medicare. so people who got insurance for free. And that number would be even higher if people would go sign up.
Can you cite this data?
About 2 million more people got insurance provided from their place of work. But the affordable care act was sold everywhere as something to help people who didn't have insurance from there employer but bought it on the open market.
Before the affordable care act a insurance company could put people in to risk pools so if i was healthy, kept my weight and blood pressure down you qualify for a lower rate and so on. The affordable care act took this away.
In a few paragraphs, you say you're in favor of pre-existing coverage protections. How is this different?
Further, this is really, really bad policy. If you give for-profit insurers the right to only insure healthy people, what you are left with is the most expensive portion of the population on the government's dime. That's exactly why American per capita healthcare costs are vastly higher than our counterparts. You're basically gifting the private insurers the lowest risk pool.
Now hey it did do somethings for some people. Because you did have high risk preexisting condition people who were paying tremendously high premiums for there insurance. But to give them coverage they could pay for they put me and healthy people like me in there risk pools and double and tripled my rates and higher deductibles then everyone else.
Can you cite the fact that your premiums tripled? I can't find any corroborating evidence for that in broader data. Health insurance costs have risen consistently for 4 decades and continue to do so. But not at the rate you're suggesting.
There was a republican counter offer that set up expanded medicare just like the affordable care group does and had risk pools for high risk people with preexisting conditions and the government would subsidies there premiums. We could of done that at spent a hell of a lot less money and still accomplished the something and not financially crushed the biggest part of 14 million people.
Cite this, as well. The original text of the ACA had mandatory medicare expansion; the end draft put that decision on the states. The only states that declined to expand were Republican states. Your recollection doesn't square with mine. Do you have any citation?
in the last 10 years i have paid just about 100k in insurance premiums. i have paid almost 22k in doctors bills and my insurance has almost not paid a dime i think i looked up and i think the last time i looked they have paid less then 4k in 10 years.
Respectfully dude, you live in a country that ties health insurance to employment, and you work for an employer who has chosen not to provide you with insurance. That sucks, I know. But I employ 27 internal employees. I offer them all 100% covered health insurance. You can blame the ACA all you want, but our country ties insurance to employment and your employer has made a decision not to offer you insurance. That's the real reason you have shitty access to plans.
It's also, for what it's worth, the exact reason many, many people are in favor of universal healthcare. In Canada, for instance, there are universal plans that everybody gets, and employers just provide supplements to that basic care. The policies employers offer tack on extra value (like a private hospital room after surgery, etc).
Too be very clear, you're voting to continue employer tied coverage, even though employer tied coverage is screwing you over.
it hasn't been good for me i know very few people that get there own coverage it has been good for. And we are who it is supposed to help Biden and Obama tell me that all the time.
it is what it is. To me this was just another policy another tax to stop me from getting ahead. and it seems to me that this is what almost every democratic policy does. I am lucky most people that make a little less then me this keeps them from being able to buy a house or a newer car or pay off some debt.
The private market for health insurance sucks. No question. You just voted twice to double down on that.
Trump promised that he would break the state line thing or to get different risk pools set up they didn't make it happen. He did try to set up things where everyone in one industry could group together and buy a group policy but that was shot down.
He lied about having a healthcare policy for four years and never presented actual legislation. There's a lesson in there about voting for competent executives. If you like his ideas, that's cool. But ideas aren't worth anything if they come from somebody incapable of executing.