The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Tiberius]

the BIRTHS are the problem

 

we should be doing everything in our power to keep the poor from breeding. children breed poverty.

 

Go talk to the Pro-life people in your party, including the poor ones

[B-Large]

Go talk to the Pro-life people in your party, including the poor ones

 

Defunding PP and family planning services will certainly help. Every life is precious until they become poor and getting subsistence healthcare services at the expense of the wealthiest people the earth.... then it's a problem....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Go talk to the Pro-life people in your party, including the poor ones

 

I'm not a republican, you moron.

[ALF]

Here, check it out. What you're missing in your equation is the amount of coinsurance that people have to pay in addition to their high deductibles for their "cheap" insurance.

But of course, based on their income they get a tax credit - which is paid directly to the insurance company.

 

I was talking to someone who was getting coverage thru the NY marketplace and the call to a advisor walked him thru it. It is confusing just off there website offers.

[Magox]

 

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/senate-s-health-care-bill-0

The last time I looked at the NY marketplace the least expensive bronze plan was $340 a month with a $7,500 deductible before that insurance kicks in. That's $4,080 a year plus $7,500 deductible if I understand right.

That's for one person, family coverage must be enormous.

 

 

 

And I can tell you this, in rural America which are most counties in the U.S the premiums are even worse, not to mention that the vast majority of the plans on the exchanges are tiny HMO networks.

 

If they loosened up the regulations to what can be considered a QHP, you would see a lot more participation on the exchanges with lots more designs of plans that would fit more people's needs.

 

They could keep the subsidies/tax credits, Pre ex mandate, the exchanges and just about everything else they could scrap and we would see a much better healthcare system than what we see today. The comments coming from the left are hysterical, they are ignorant and they really don't know what they are talking about. They pretend that the system as it is today has long-term viability and that what the senate GOP are initially proposing would be some sort of catastrophic deal. It's not, it truly isn't a radical change from what currently stands.

 

Like I said, keeping the subsidies/tax credits and some of the protections for Pre Ex and the mechanism to purchase health insurance through a robust competitive exchange and I'd actually be excited to see what this would do to premiums and the forms of coverage that would be available.

 

I think what is going to be key is loosening up the standards of what is considered to be a QHP. If they can do that, then there truly will be competition on the exchanges.

[ALF]

With insurance co's losing money and pulling out of ACA means millions are in dire need of healthcare.

 

This needs a bipartisan solution to fix this disaster.

[Doc Brown]

 

 

And I can tell you this, in rural America which are most counties in the U.S the premiums are even worse, not to mention that the vast majority of the plans on the exchanges are tiny HMO networks.

 

If they loosened up the regulations to what can be considered a QHP, you would see a lot more participation on the exchanges with lots more designs of plans that would fit more people's needs.

 

They could keep the subsidies/tax credits, Pre ex mandate, the exchanges and just about everything else they could scrap and we would see a much better healthcare system than what we see today. The comments coming from the left are hysterical, they are ignorant and they really don't know what they are talking about. They pretend that the system as it is today has long-term viability and that what the senate GOP are initially proposing would be some sort of catastrophic deal. It's not, it truly isn't a radical change from what currently stands.

 

Like I said, keeping the subsidies/tax credits and some of the protections for Pre Ex and the mechanism to purchase health insurance through a robust competitive exchange and I'd actually be excited to see what this would do to premiums and the forms of coverage that would be available.

 

I think what is going to be key is loosening up the standards of what is considered to be a QHP. If they can do that, then there truly will be competition on the exchanges.

 

Even with loosening up some regulations, I still don't see how premiums will be lowered on this bill as subsidies are still tied to your income and cost of the private insurance available in your area like the ACA. Keeping the preexisting conditions mandate and being able to stay under your parents plan until your 26 makes it difficult for insurance companies to offer lower premiums especially without the individual mandate. Now that insurance companies can charge you based off your age, it's very likely the young will pay less and the rich will pay more due to risk factors.

 

Most of the debate from the left has become about Medicaid as that's where the most cuts would be. I agree that the attacks from the left are ridiculous as most haven't even read anything about the bill besides and have just heard a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich (technically not true as it's just taking less from the rich). Plus, there's the usual bs rhetoric about how millions will lose insurance and die of course. I still don't buy them slashing medicaid in 2021 as the system could collapse by then or Democrats would have enough power in government to prevent any cuts.

 

In other words, this is Obamacare lite and it would be dumb for Republicans to pass this bill as is. As a democrat, I hope they pass it asap with little changes. It will hurt the GOP come reelection time as it will give the left something to run on (just like the GOP has been running on repealing the ACA the last 7 years). It seems Obama has moved the health care debate to the left for good and the GOP passing this bill makes it more likely we have a form of single payer in the future.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Tiberius]

The Koch Brothers are unhappy with the Senate Bill. It only nips and tucks Medicaid. That makes these two clowns unhappy. Several Republicans Senators sat and nodded in enthusiastic approval of their lordships pronouncements

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/politics/koch-brothers-senate-healthcare-bill/index.html

[B-Large]

And I can tell you this, in rural America which are most counties in the U.S the premiums are even worse, not to mention that the vast majority of the plans on the exchanges are tiny HMO networks.

 

If they loosened up the regulations to what can be considered a QHP, you would see a lot more participation on the exchanges with lots more designs of plans that would fit more people's needs.

 

They could keep the subsidies/tax credits, Pre ex mandate, the exchanges and just about everything else they could scrap and we would see a much better healthcare system than what we see today. The comments coming from the left are hysterical, they are ignorant and they really don't know what they are talking about. They pretend that the system as it is today has long-term viability and that what the senate GOP are initially proposing would be some sort of catastrophic deal. It's not, it truly isn't a radical change from what currently stands.

 

Like I said, keeping the subsidies/tax credits and some of the protections for Pre Ex and the mechanism to purchase health insurance through a robust competitive exchange and I'd actually be excited to see what this would do to premiums and the forms of coverage that would be available.

 

I think what is going to be key is loosening up the standards of what is considered to be a QHP. If they can do that, then there truly will be competition on the exchanges.

Insurance companies don't want to compete for customers that by law ensure they lose money. This whole competition in insurance is a myth. Health insurers wanted people who paid premium who never made claims. If you want to see kind of free market health insurance, think about pre 2010... that was an ideal rime for insurers.

This country really is incredible when it comes to healthcare. We may be about to overhaul 1/6 of our economy for the second time and still will end up paying twice what other nations pay per head, and not have everybody covered. We're still have not done anything about cost of care, procedures, meds. We still don't have a nationally integrated IT system and have armies of people still faxing, yes faxing pertinent pt. Medical records from provider to provider. We have armies of billing people sitting around processing claims and fighting denials. We still budget/ reimburse based on volume and in person visits, but on quality of outcomes. We have overfunded innovation in technology and pharma, but continue to underfund the science and reasearch that helps us determine the usefulness of that innovation.

 

Color me not impressed.

[Tiberius]

Insurance companies don't want to compete for customers that by law ensure they lose money. This whole competition in insurance is a myth. Health insurers wanted people who paid premium who never made claims. If you want to see kind of free market health insurance, think about pre 2010... that was an ideal rime for insurers.

You can say competition is the problem. In competition the older and sicker are paying more than they can afford and lose out. People think of it as people buying the best automobile and picking the best one, but in health insurance the consumer does not have the freedom to choose because insurance companies don't offer the same insurance to everyone.

[grinreaper]

You can say competition is the problem. In competition the older and sicker are paying more than they can afford and lose out. People think of it as people buying the best automobile and picking the best one, but in health insurance the consumer does not have the freedom to choose because insurance companies don't offer the same insurance to everyone.

If you weren't already there, I'd say you just went off the deep end.

[B-Man]

Democrat Leadership ladies and gentlemen.......................

 

 

 

......I can’t imagine what I was thinking when I said that

 

 

Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind.

 

Earlier this month we reported that California was in a bit of a quandary. They were bound and determined to have a single payer health plan for their citizens no matter what the Republicans wanted to do on the national level. And by golly, they got a plan put together in the state legislature and moved it out of committee, despite the fact that it was going to cost more than the total GDP of the state.

 

 

Then it made it out onto the floor of the Assembly. The cold light of day seems to have given some of the legislators second thoughts and the plan has gone back on the shelf.

 

{snip}

 

Really? The bill was “woefully incomplete?” Which part, exactly? I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but it might be the bit about “financing, delivery of care, cost controls.” You mean you couldn’t figure out those details once it came out of committee?

 

While you consider that news, keep in mind that this is what the liberals in not only California but around the rest of the nation want to push on the entire country. And that attitude remains even after the dismal day when none other than the Washington Post threw in the towel and said that it might just sink the fiscal ship.

 

More at the link:

[/dev/null]

Democrat Leadership ladies and gentlemen.......................

 

 

 

......I can’t imagine what I was thinking when I said that

 

 

Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind.

 

Earlier this month we reported that California was in a bit of a quandary. They were bound and determined to have a single payer health plan for their citizens no matter what the Republicans wanted to do on the national level. And by golly, they got a plan put together in the state legislature and moved it out of committee, despite the fact that it was going to cost more than the total GDP of the state.

 

 

Then it made it out onto the floor of the Assembly. The cold light of day seems to have given some of the legislators second thoughts and the plan has gone back on the shelf.

 

{snip}

 

Really? The bill was “woefully incomplete?” Which part, exactly? I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but it might be the bit about “financing, delivery of care, cost controls.” You mean you couldn’t figure out those details once it came out of committee?

 

While you consider that news, keep in mind that this is what the liberals in not only California but around the rest of the nation want to push on the entire country. And that attitude remains even after the dismal day when none other than the Washington Post threw in the towel and said that it might just sink the fiscal ship.

 

More at the link:

 

To be fair, the People's Republic of California's single payer health care plan isn't the problem. The problem is other people don't have enough money for the Politburo to spend

[B-Man]

 

The decline and fall of Obamacare and the AHCA

 

[boyst]

Insurance companies don't want to compete for customers that by law ensure they lose money. This whole competition in insurance is a myth. Health insurers wanted people who paid premium who never made claims. If you want to see kind of free market health insurance, think about pre 2010... that was an ideal rime for insurers.

This country really is incredible when it comes to healthcare. We may be about to overhaul 1/6 of our economy for the second time and still will end up paying twice what other nations pay per head, and not have everybody covered. We're still have not done anything about cost of care, procedures, meds. We still don't have a nationally integrated IT system and have armies of people still faxing, yes faxing pertinent pt. Medical records from provider to provider. We have armies of billing people sitting around processing claims and fighting denials. We still budget/ reimburse based on volume and in person visits, but on quality of outcomes. We have overfunded innovation in technology and pharma, but continue to underfund the science and reasearch that helps us determine the usefulness of that innovation.

 

Color me not impressed.

please also address the lackluster performance across the country in provision.

 

I can drive 30 minutes to wake Forrest baptist hospital. Or one hour to Duke medical center. Or 10 minutes to my small town hospital or the neighboring town. Any of which will be flooded by people with a flu, a headache, an ankle sprain and dozens of other non critical situations in an emergency room.

 

I will find such poor performance at these hospitals that I almost bled out from a tonsillectomy because they forgot to mark my room as occupied at the local hospital in which a WF doctor in rotation to the small town came to perform on me.

 

In poorer communities the health care system is not only still in such a time warp like the rest. They are failing to provide adequate coverage

[DC Tom]

Democrat Leadership ladies and gentlemen.......................

 

 

 

......I can’t imagine what I was thinking when I said that

 

 

Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind.

 

Earlier this month we reported that California was in a bit of a quandary. They were bound and determined to have a single payer health plan for their citizens no matter what the Republicans wanted to do on the national level. And by golly, they got a plan put together in the state legislature and moved it out of committee, despite the fact that it was going to cost more than the total GDP of the state.

 

 

Then it made it out onto the floor of the Assembly. The cold light of day seems to have given some of the legislators second thoughts and the plan has gone back on the shelf.

 

{snip}

 

Really? The bill was “woefully incomplete?” Which part, exactly? I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but it might be the bit about “financing, delivery of care, cost controls.” You mean you couldn’t figure out those details once it came out of committee?

 

While you consider that news, keep in mind that this is what the liberals in not only California but around the rest of the nation want to push on the entire country. And that attitude remains even after the dismal day when none other than the Washington Post threw in the towel and said that it might just sink the fiscal ship.

 

More at the link:

 

You missed the biggest problem listed in the article: "or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration."

 

That's right. California can't have "single payer" because of Trump.

[IDBillzFan]

Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah… never mind.

 

CA will be more purposeful about this as soon as the bullet train is finished.

[DC Tom]

 

CA will be more purposeful about this as soon as the bullet train is finished.

 

That bullet train will be such an economic stimulous that it will generate the revenue to fund single payer!

[Nanker]

Yes. I can see it now. "The Train to Recovery!"

[Magox]

Insurance companies don't want to compete for customers that by law ensure they lose money. This whole competition in insurance is a myth. Health insurers wanted people who paid premium who never made claims. If you want to see kind of free market health insurance, think about pre 2010... that was an ideal rime for insurers.

This country really is incredible when it comes to healthcare. We may be about to overhaul 1/6 of our economy for the second time and still will end up paying twice what other nations pay per head, and not have everybody covered. We're still have not done anything about cost of care, procedures, meds. We still don't have a nationally integrated IT system and have armies of people still faxing, yes faxing pertinent pt. Medical records from provider to provider. We have armies of billing people sitting around processing claims and fighting denials. We still budget/ reimburse based on volume and in person visits, but on quality of outcomes. We have overfunded innovation in technology and pharma, but continue to underfund the science and reasearch that helps us determine the usefulness of that innovation.

 

Color me not impressed.

 

It is not a myth, it all depends on the market that they are going after. Your argument exists in a vacuum, if there were only minor tweaks to the existing bill in many markets you'd be correct because too many people that are in the risk pools are people that the carriers don't want. The problem B-man is that the way the law is written the incentives skew towards sicker/older people, therefore they aren't getting the necessary younger/healthier people to sign up. Which is why I said that what they need to do is change the standards of the QHP so that carriers can design plans to attract healthier people. Also, if they were to adopt these risk pools that would make a difference as well, it is clear that the American public doesn't understand how these risk pools would work so it is politically not palatable to have this as the main safeguard for Pre ex. So what they should do is still keep the Pre Ex mandate to shield against ignorant criticism and heavily fund these pre Ex pools and attempt to steer as many people there as possible.

 

In regards to the rest of your argument, I'm in agreement with most of what you are saying.