Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has shared some details about the Trump-Vance campaign’s health care plan, and it appears to allow insurers to charge more for preexisting conditions.

Vance gave details on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, where he told Kristen Welker that Donald Trump’s plan involves “deregulating insurance markets, so that people can actually choose a plan that makes sense for them.”

This would appear to roll back some of the Affordable Care Act, which got rid of insurance companies’ ability to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Prior to President Obama’s legislation, it was difficult to get affordable health care coverage except through Medicare, Medicaid, or employer-based plans. While health care plans were available outside of that, insurers sought profits by weeding out people likely to require medical care.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Vance said that under Donald Trump’s plan, Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.” In other words, healthier young people wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as older people more likely to need medical care, lowering costs for younger Americans.

    If this statement is true to their plan there’s a bigger implication that should worry more than 50% of Americans.

    Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.”

    Men wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as women. Guess which group has higher overall health insurance because one group has a much more complicated and functional reproductive system?

    For those that don’t remember life before the reforms put in place, men were charged a small fraction of health insurance premiums compared to women. I remember as a young man when I learned this by comparing my pay stub with a woman coworker that was the same age as me at the time. We were both in our early 20s. To reiterate; we were the same age, same employer, same insurance company, same plan, the only difference was gender.

    I was paying $23 every two weeks. She was paying $110.

    I was shocked and embarrassed. I fully supported the reforms that lead men and women to paying equal rates even though that meant I had to pay much more than I had in the past.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That would literally drive me out of the country. Both of my children have special needs and I hit my out of pocket maximum almost every year.