Tiberius Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 [This is an automated response.] You're not trying to make a point, you're just a jerk. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Oh, I'm the jerk? LOL
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Oh, I'm the jerk? LOL [This is an automated response.] This ridiculous verbiage is brought to you by... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7.
North Buffalo Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) But he did...................it is EVERYBODY but us....... He also does his usual twist and pout ..........and tries to equate my posting of an article to "settling for less" ...... I guess my 43 years in the healthcare field don't count Not really too myopically biased. . Edited March 6, 2017 by North Buffalo
Azalin Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 [This is an automated response.] This ridiculous verbiage is brought to you by... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Nicely done, sir.
Magox Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Looks like some members of the more conservative wing of the party may end up going along with Ryan's plan. The issue primarily was about the tax credits, it appears that some of them may end up accepting a means tested version of it to go through. Advanced tax credits is essentially a subsidy, so the main argument against it from the Freedom Caucus is that it would create a new entitlement and of course the budget consequences. The ACA rewarded subsidies based off of income, the Ryan/Price/Trump plan is to provide them based off of age. Older people would get advanced tax credits/subsidies twice as large as younger people, which sounds like a lot but is considerably less than the way ACA rewarded them. This new advanced tax credits doesn't reward the subsidies in such a perverse matter that essentially discriminates more so against younger folks, which is a good thing. You need younger people signing up to create healthier risk pools which in turn drives premiums down. The concession that is being discussed between some members of the Freedom Caucus and Ryan/Price is that rather than just give it based off of age, to means test the advanced tax credits and have the wealthiest people not be eligible for the subsidy. Now on one hand I find that to be a little ironic since that is indeed a part of economic progressive orthodoxy, but on the other hand, their argument is that the bill will cost less with this concession, which is true.
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Looks like some members of the more conservative wing of the party may end up going along with Ryan's plan. The issue primarily was about the tax credits, it appears that some of them may end up accepting a means tested version of it to go through. Advanced tax credits is essentially a subsidy, so the main argument against it from the Freedom Caucus is that it would create a new entitlement and of course the budget consequences. The ACA rewarded subsidies based off of income, the Ryan/Price/Trump plan is to provide them based off of age. Older people would get advanced tax credits/subsidies twice as large as younger people, which sounds like a lot but is considerably less than the way ACA rewarded them. This new advanced tax credits doesn't reward the subsidies in such a perverse matter that essentially discriminates more so against younger folks, which is a good thing. You need younger people signing up to create healthier risk pools which in turn drives premiums down. The concession that is being discussed between some members of the Freedom Caucus and Ryan/Price is that rather than just give it based off of age, to means test the advanced tax credits and have the wealthiest people not be eligible for the subsidy. Now on one hand I find that to be a little ironic since that is indeed a part of economic progressive orthodoxy, but on the other hand, their argument is that the bill will cost less with this concession, which is true. Interesting. Subsides vs. tax credits. I have to imagine that there will be a thousand and one more details to be worked out, also. But if they can get past the main sticking points they might actually take ownership of the health insurance system. God bless them
Magox Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Interesting. Subsides vs. tax credits. I have to imagine that there will be a thousand and one more details to be worked out, also. But if they can get past the main sticking points they might actually take ownership of the health insurance system. God bless them Its one thing to strike an agreement within your own caucus, it's another thing to get 60 votes through the Senate, which is what would be needed to get through. Even though there may be a way for them to pass s the repeal together with elements of their plan such as the advanced tax credits through reconciliation. I'd have to look that up a little more.
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Its one thing to strike an agreement within your own caucus, it's another thing to get 60 votes through the Senate, which is what would be needed to get through. Even though there may be a way for them to pass s the repeal together with elements of their plan such as the advanced tax credits through reconciliation. I'd have to look that up a little more. Don't bother. Gator's trying to copy/paste his overlord's entire position on ACA, which he's beeen copy/pasting for months and sounds a lot like this: "Obamacare is an amazing law that saved millions of lives and gave health care to everyone," until the GOP changes the law, in which case "The GOP owns this disaster law that is leaving millions of people for dead." It's how the left tries to alter the fact that the abortion known as ACA was created by, and remains exclusively owned by, the Democrats. Edited March 6, 2017 by LABillzFan
row_33 Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Friends in the US who were happy with their work policy now aren't covered for broken bones and cancer treatment despite a hike in the premiums. Yah...
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Don't bother. Gator's trying to copy/paste his overlord's entire position on ACA, which he's beeen copy/pasting for months and sounds a lot like this: "Obamacare is an amazing law that saved millions of lives and gave health care to everyone," until the GOP changes the law, in which case "The GOP owns this disaster law that is leaving millions of people for dead." It's how the left tries to alter the fact that the abortion known as ACA was created by, and remains exclusively owned by, the Democrats. Please don't respond to Tiberius, it hurts us
B-Man Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Not really, too myopically biased. Hilariously wrong . (I had to edit it to correct your poor grammar, it made it unreadable). Edited March 6, 2017 by B-Man
Magox Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 It's how the left tries to alter the fact that the abortion known as ACA was created by, and remains exclusively owned by, the Democrats. For now. But once the law is repealed; for better or for worse it will belong to the GOP. The GOP hopefully will learn from the mistake of the Democrats and not try to do this on a strictly partisan basis. Something as large and as impactful as Healthcare reform is should be done on a bipartisan basis. If not, you will have this constant drumbeat of opposition like the ACA had. They need to try to craft the bill to where at least 60-65% of the US Senate will end up voting for it.
Azalin Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 They need to try to craft the bill to where at least 60-65% of the US Senate will end up voting for it. I honestly don't think that's a possibility at this point in time. It's a shame, but I think the entire political landscape is too bitterly divided and outright antagonistic toward each other to get a majority like that.
Magox Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 I honestly don't think that's a possibility at this point in time. It's a shame, but I think the entire political landscape is too bitterly divided and outright antagonistic toward each other to get a majority like that. I suspect you are correct.
Nanker Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 I too think getting many Democrats to sign on to this will be a near impossible task. They're in a hypnotic trance right now having supped the bitter elixir of Hillary's election defeat. They're marching like the living dead inexorably attacking anything that doesn't exude the same acrid stench that their rotting flesh imparts.
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 The "markets" continue to implode. And now Republicans want to make it even worse by eliminating Medicaid's expansion.
TH3 Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 I honestly don't think that's a possibility at this point in time. It's a shame, but I think the entire political landscape is too bitterly divided and outright antagonistic toward each other to get a majority like that. Agree - Any partisan effort is doomed regardless of its efficacy...a one sided effort will always be leveraged by the party that didn't sign on... I wish they would form a bipartisan committee - give them a clean sheet of paper...keep the lobbyists out, get a team of actuaries...and design a completely new HC structure From what my SIL (actuary) sees of the GOP effort now on the table....not going to be any more effective in reducing cost, getting better HC, or expanding coverage....
keepthefaith Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 Agree - Any partisan effort is doomed regardless of its efficacy...a one sided effort will always be leveraged by the party that didn't sign on... I wish they would form a bipartisan committee - give them a clean sheet of paper...keep the lobbyists out, get a team of actuaries...and design a completely new HC structure From what my SIL (actuary) sees of the GOP effort now on the table....not going to be any more effective in reducing cost, getting better HC, or expanding coverage.... Agree. This is too important a topic and too large of an expense to not consult with experts and take some time to truly make improvements and yes if something is crafted that is a big improvement, there should be bipartisan support.
Magox Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 And now Republicans want to make it even worse by eliminating Medicaid's expansion. That has nothing to do with what he posted. If anything there will be a lot more carriers wanting to participate in the individual market due to the relaxing of the paternalistic regulations that the ACA brought onto the carriers.
Recommended Posts