View Full Version : Obamacare insurance premium increase.
dpacrkk
09-01-2017, 08:12 AM
You're welcome.
Why am I saying that? Because I am one of the small pool of unsubsidized participants in the individual marketplace who is being soaked in order to support your subsidized rates and lower deductible. For starters, I pay $20,000 a year for a family of 5, with a $7,500 per person deductible to help support your $50 per month rate with a $1,500 deductible. The rest of the support for your subsidies and deductibles come from cost sharing payments, which I also pay for through the boatload of federal tax dollars I pay each year.
So you're welcome. ;)
Funny I'm in a high tax bracket but would never walk into a military base and say "hey guys, you're welcome for your pay and equipment, part of it comes from my taxes!" even though I don't agree with the federal government's military spending. The reason I don't do this: only incredibly selfish people think this way. Government is not a business, its purpose is to (straight from the preamble of the Constitution) "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
I'll reply to the rest after the long weekend.
rickdugan
09-01-2017, 08:26 AM
Funny I'm in a high tax bracket but would never walk into a military base and say "hey guys, you're welcome for your pay and equipment, part of it comes from my taxes!" even though I don't agree with the federal government's military spending. The reason I don't do this: only incredibly selfish people think this way. Government is not a business, its purpose is to (straight from the preamble of the Constitution) "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
I'll reply to the rest after the long weekend.
I'm not the type to say "I pay your salary" to a government employee either. There is a big difference between taxes being taken and then paid to a government employee for services rendered vs. a blatant and onerous income re-distribution scheme. This is especially true when that income re-distribution racket also forces me to accept lower standards of healthcare (as outlined in my previous posts) for my family than I could naturally purchase on my own in the absence of the scheme.
misspandora
09-02-2017, 02:17 PM
You're welcome.
Why am I saying that? Because I am one of the small pool of unsubsidized participants in the individual marketplace who is being soaked in order to support your subsidized rates and lower deductible. For starters, I pay $20,000 a year for a family of 5, with a $7,500 per person deductible to help support your $50 per month rate with a $1,500 deductible. The rest of the support for your subsidies and deductibles come from cost sharing payments, which I also pay for through the boatload of federal tax dollars I pay each year.
So you're welcome. ;)
The problem, however, is that there are just not enough of me in the individual marketplace to support all of you, which is why Obamacare is failing. This started long before Trump was elected, with many insurers running for the exit after sustaining massive losses in the exchanges. I've laid out the numbers in earlier posts so I won't repeat them, but in a nutshell there are just too many sick and/or poor people and not enough healthy affluent ones for the system to be anywhere close to self sustaining. This is also why you are being treated like crap as it has forced insurers to cut payments to the bone in order to limit losses on Obamacare plans.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you get an almost free healthcare plan, someone else has to pay for it. California is going to find this out if they pass universal healthcare as they simply cannot afford it, especially with a budget so dependent on the stock market for tax revenues. The state already has massive unfunded pension liabilities that are going to cripple its budget in the coming years. One long market downturn and that state is going to be begging the federal government for help (yet again), even without adding the massive costs of universal health.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You're not paying my subsidies. Unless you make over $250k a year? Do you? If so then I don't have too much sympathy for you, for not qualifying for them yourself.
PLEASE READ.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/07/243584170/how-the-affordable-care-act-pays-for-insurance-subsidies
Subsidies are paid by TAXES, not by your payments to your health plan.
Taxes on the rich and on medical device makers. This is why the GOP is so keen on repealing it. Not because it's "failed." Not because it doesn't work. Not because it's costing our government a fortune..because it's a TAX ON THE RICH. And they hate that. The Koch Brothers and other wealthy selfish b***rds who want lower taxes want it repealed cuz THEY'RE PAYING FOR IT.
And yeah, like someone else pointed out, I don't go to a military base and say bow down and thank me for paying your salary, even though I too do not agree with the insane amount of money goes to the military. I'd rather MY taxes went to schools, public education, environmental causes etc.
misspandora
09-02-2017, 02:18 PM
In the end, having more people insured, esp the poor who are likely to go to ER's for all their health care if they can't afford drs..or they DEFER health care, which makes them worse and they become public health threats..saves us ALL money in the long run.
misspandora
09-02-2017, 02:19 PM
I'm not the type to say "I pay your salary" to a government employee either. There is a big difference between taxes being taken and then paid to a government employee for services rendered vs. a blatant and onerous income re-distribution scheme. This is especially true when that income re-distribution racket also forces me to accept lower standards of healthcare (as outlined in my previous posts) for my family than I could naturally purchase on my own in the absence of the scheme.
It's not a "redistribution racket"--pls educate yourself about how it works.
And you can still get private health insurance so what's your problem??
misspandora
09-02-2017, 02:21 PM
I'm not the type to say "I pay your salary" to a government employee either. There is a big difference between taxes being taken and then paid to a government employee for services rendered vs. a blatant and onerous income re-distribution scheme. This is especially true when that income re-distribution racket also forces me to accept lower standards of healthcare (as outlined in my previous posts) for my family than I could naturally purchase on my own in the absence of the scheme.
And btw stop characterizing it as "failing." That's not even true.
Maybe step away from the right wing propaganda.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-charts-20170104-story.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/18/15987252/obamacare-repeal-working-mcconnell
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-trump-administrations-own-data-says-obamacare-isnt-imploding/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/01/paul-ryan/paul-ryans-damning-claim-affordable-care-act-obama/
rickdugan
09-03-2017, 06:36 AM
First off, of course my premiums are subsidizing the market. If there weren't jackasses like me willing to pay $20,000 per year for a high deductible high copay/catastrophic plan that doesn't pay me back shit, the $50 per month low deductible and almost non-existent co-pay plan that you enjoy would not exist. It is one of the foundations of Obamacare, hence the individual mandate.
Second, those Obamacare subsidies and cost sharing payments are general entitlements, pure and simple. They are not tied to whether any of that laundry list of Obamacare taxes are ultimately collected in the amounts that they hope, and, indeed, overestimates of the impact of new taxes are common since they often don't properly account for tax avoidance strategies. One of the taxes, the so-called "Cadillac tax", will likely never be collected at all since it is unpopular with constituents of both parties. Oh, and I should add that many of those taxes impact a variety of people at all income levels.
Now in the strictest sense, you are correct to a degree. As long as your health care costs come in below a certain threshold, the only subsidies that you personally receive from people like me are those picked from our pockets by the federal government. But because a fair % of the subsidized market, and for that matter some of the unsubsidized, cost insurers more than they are collecting in premiums, our pockets are also being picked by the insurers to pay for those excess medical expenses and the market wouldn't exist at all without enough of us being forced to pay for far more than we consume.
And of course the market is failing. Right now it is projected that 40% of all the counties in the U.S. will only have one insurer next year and a handful will have none. This started long before Trump, with United and Aetna, among many others, leaving many individual markets in 2016 and 2017. Also, from 2016 to 2017, participation in the individual plan market dropped by 13% and participation by those who are unsubsidized dropped by a whopping 29%. Do you really call that winning? Sure millions are receiving subsidized care, but millions of others are being priced out of the market. The year over year rate hikes, which you are shielded from by our federal tax dollars, are a killer for many unsubidized people. Sooner or later, almost all that will be left in the plans will be sick people and those receiving subsidies, which will not be a sustainable risk pool for almost any insurer.
Oh, and "right wing propaganda" has nothing to do with my views - I live it every day. I have watched my premiums and deductibles jack up every year while my coverage gets increasingly worse. I experienced being dumped by Aetna, who left my market last year, and now only have a single insurer to turn to. I have relationships with people who dumped their coverage in 2017 because it was just too damned expensive and, frankly, I may be joining them in 2018 if there is another big rate hike (which looks likely). Whatever "right wing propaganda" exists out there lines right up with what I am experiencing on the ground.
Here are a couple of articles that outline this stuff further:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450095/obamacare-death-spiral-exchange-enrollment-down-29-percent
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/these-folks-dont-get-obamacare-subsidies-now-and-it-is-really-costing-them.html
Now I don't begrudge you access to affordable healthcare and I am well aware that the most heavily subsidized folks are generally happy with it. But the powers that be needed to find a way to do it that didn't fuck over another targeted group of people so badly. They needed to spread the pain over a much larger group of people to make this work (discussed in much more detail in posts 65, 76 and 93). Since they didn't, the individual market is quickly devolving, which is good for nobody.
RyanXO
09-05-2017, 09:51 AM
It's not a "redistribution racket"--pls educate yourself about how it works.
And you can still get private health insurance so what's your problem??
My problem is it costs 500$ month with a 6500 deductible.
baer45
09-05-2017, 10:46 AM
Besides the individual level...
Blue states or red states, the simple fact is they all can not afford the healthcare cost without federal funds to match it (ACA). California is probably one of the most wealthy states, but it's not self-sufficient for the healthcare cost. And the cost is keep growing every year. This is even worse for the red states (as they are poorer compare to CA, NY...). Obamacare is dying, one of the reasons, the federal funds are not unlimited. We are in a dead lock here if we don't do anything about the high medical costs.
Eric Stoner
09-05-2017, 11:08 AM
From:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year.
Come on Eagle. This is blatant comparison of an apple to an orange. You want to compare Medicare SPENDING to private insurance PREMIUMS ? And you want to look at PRE-Obamacare Medicare increases ? I'm sorry but where is the relevance to the CURRENT situation ?
A reason , NOT the only reason but a reason for lower increases in Medicare is that their reimbursement rates have been going DOWN. Hence the growing number of doctors who will not see Medicare patients.
Eric Stoner
09-05-2017, 11:21 AM
If you want Obamacare to work, tell your GOP politicians to STOP SABOTAGING IT. That includes Trump.
I'm in a blue state (I don't count last election because of shenanigans and 3rd party votes). We have a Dem governor. It makes a huge diff. When I was in California, I got quoted for a GREAT plan. Very cheap..low deductible. Reason being, California's DEMOCRATIC government negotiates with health insurers for better rates for its citizens through the health care exchange. In fact, we should all move to California because now that Trump is trying to kill Obamacare, they're investigating producing their own signle payer health care for all California citizens.
I'm in PA, thanks to very generous state subsidies. I pay $70 a month. No joke. And I'm 50. My deductible is $1500. Dr visit co-pay is $30. Free well woman gyn pap smear visits, etc.
The only problem is here in PA we have ONE choice. Independence Blue Cross. They suck and they treat ACA customers like CRAP. I don't blame Obama for any of this. Obama helped me and a lot of other working class people tremendously during his time in office. If it wasn't for his HARP program, I might not have kept my condo. The current corrupt snake oil salesman in chief doesn't care about the average citizen one bit. If he did, he'd work with the GOP and the Dems to improve the ACA. Not kill it.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/policy-dose/articles/2017-05-30/republicans-raised-your-health-care-premiums-not-obamacare
Also:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/342804-cbo-obamacare-repeal-without-replace-would-cost-32-million-insurance
Please , PLEASE tone down the politics. This is an important topic with practical implications for almost all of us who live and work in the U.S. I do not want to see this thread shut down so please observe the rules.
There are other sites where you can vent to your heart's content about Trump, Republicans, the Koch brothers and anyone else you do not like.
Btw, you may not like their politics but the Koch brothers have donated hundreds of millions to various hospitals around the country. A lot of that money helped a lot of poor people get a lot of health care.
dpacrkk
09-05-2017, 05:06 PM
I'm not the type to say "I pay your salary" to a government employee either. There is a big difference between taxes being taken and then paid to a government employee for services rendered vs. a blatant and onerous income re-distribution scheme. This is especially true when that income re-distribution racket also forces me to accept lower standards of healthcare (as outlined in my previous posts) for my family than I could naturally purchase on my own in the absence of the scheme.
The myth of income redistribution is rooted in the idea that a high percentage of taxes goes to social welfare programs. They do not, and only ~28% of Americans get insurance through government funded programs (and the beneficiaries include Congressmen, who you probably wouldn't say are recipients of income redistribution). Secondly, the annual percentage increase in per capital health insurance premiums has decreased since the ACA. Employer Premiums and ACA (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/)
First off, of course my premiums are subsidizing the market. If there weren't jackasses like me willing to pay $20,000 per year for a high deductible high copay/catastrophic plan that doesn't pay me back shit, the $50 per month low deductible and almost non-existent co-pay plan that you enjoy would not exist. It is one of the foundations of Obamacare, hence the individual mandate.
This isn't correct. Cost burden reductions are subsidized by the government, not others in the risk pool. The most you could argue is that your policy has features that you may not need, but the two are not equivalent statements.
And of course the market is failing. Right now it is projected that 40% of all the counties in the U.S. will only have one insurer next year and a handful will have none. This started long before Trump, with United and Aetna, among many others, leaving many individual markets in 2016 and 2017. Also, from 2016 to 2017, participation in the individual plan market dropped by 13% and participation by those who are unsubsidized dropped by a whopping 29%. Do you really call that winning? Sure millions are receiving subsidized care, but millions of others are being priced out of the market. The year over year rate hikes, which you are shielded from by our federal tax dollars, are a killer for many unsubidized people. Sooner or later, almost all that will be left in the plans will be sick people and those receiving subsidies, which will not be a sustainable risk pool for almost any insurer.
If you're looking at the individual marketplace, enrollment dropped 7.3% (the numbers of actually having selected a plan and paying premiums are 11.1 million in 2016 in March 2016 and 10.3 million in March 2017). I can't find numbers on participation based on subsidies.
Oh, and "right wing propaganda" has nothing to do with my views - I live it every day. I have watched my premiums and deductibles jack up every year while my coverage gets increasingly worse. I experienced being dumped by Aetna, who left my market last year, and now only have a single insurer to turn to. I have relationships with people who dumped their coverage in 2017 because it was just too damned expensive and, frankly, I may be joining them in 2018 if there is another big rate hike (which looks likely). Whatever "right wing propaganda" exists out there lines right up with what I am experiencing on the ground.
Yes that sucks, but you're not alone. You mentioned your premium for your family is $20000. In 2016, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance was $18142 for a family. My plan for just myself is ~7100 and is a worse (HDHP) plan than before. But neither the premium increases nor the declining coverage are due to the ACA. Looking at trend from previous years (graph in here (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/)), it would be higher without ACA. Health insurance premiums are high because health care is high due to inelastic demand.
Blue states or red states, the simple fact is they all can not afford the healthcare cost without federal funds to match it (ACA). California is probably one of the most wealthy states, but it's not self-sufficient for the healthcare cost. And the cost is keep growing every year. This is even worse for the red states (as they are poorer compare to CA, NY...). Obamacare is dying, one of the reasons, the federal funds are not unlimited. We are in a dead lock here if we don't do anything about the high medical costs.
Before ACA was enacted, very similar legislation (colloquially dubbed Romneycare) has been working since 2006 Massachusetts. And it too has the unpopular individual mandate with tax penalty.
baer45
09-05-2017, 05:48 PM
Before ACA was enacted, very similar legislation (colloquially dubbed Romneycare) has been working since 2006 Massachusetts. And it too has the unpopular individual mandate with tax penalty.
1/3 MA residents are on Masshealth now. MA also needs federal funds, probably more than poorer states.
dpacrkk
09-05-2017, 10:42 PM
1/3 MA residents are on Masshealth now. MA also needs federal funds, probably more than poorer states.
The only numbers I saw (1.9 of 6.8 million) yielded ~28%. MA is also 1 of 14 donor states, i.e. it pays more in federal taxes than it gets in federal funding. So if states were left to fend for themselves (I'm definitely not advocating this, by the way), MA would have MORE money to spend on social services for its people...like healthcare.
rickdugan
09-06-2017, 07:20 AM
The myth of income redistribution is rooted in the idea that a high percentage of taxes goes to social welfare programs. They do not, and only ~28% of Americans get insurance through government funded programs (and the beneficiaries include Congressmen, who you probably wouldn't say are recipients of income redistribution). Secondly, the annual percentage increase in per capital health insurance premiums has decreased since the ACA. Employer Premiums and ACA (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/)
When the government creates an entitlement that forces me to give my money to other people to cover their costs and expenses, it is income redistribution. See post above re: the difference between salaried government employees providing services vs. entitlement recipients.
Oh, and the price of bananas has gone up 30% in the past year. You may be wondering about the relevancy of that comment in this discussion, but it is about as relevant as merging the group and non-group markets for data analysis purposes. The two markets are priced completely differently based upon their specific risk characteristics. But I should mention that group insured have been getting screwed too. Their premiums may be going up at a slower rate, but only because their deductibles are being jacked up and their overall coverage is getting worse.
This isn't correct. Cost burden reductions are subsidized by the government, not others in the risk pool. The most you could argue is that your policy has features that you may not need, but the two are not equivalent statements.
It is absolutely correct. The government only pays premium support and fixed cost sharing reductions in order to get deductibles down for subsidized people. These are fixed numbers. When a subsidized person's medical expenses exceed whatever they pay in premiums plus the fixed government subsidies, the insurance company foots the balance. This comes from premiums paid by other people in the same risk pool and insurers have to charge enough to ensure that they can pay these medical expenses. The insurer also needs enough people who consume less than they pay in order to cover those who consume more. Now one might argue that this is how all insurance works, but the problem with Obamacare is faulty construction that has too few healthy people subsidizing too many sick people, which is why our premiums and deductibles keep jacking up.
If you're looking at the individual marketplace, enrollment dropped 7.3% (the numbers of actually having selected a plan and paying premiums are 11.1 million in 2016 in March 2016 and 10.3 million in March 2017). I can't find numbers on participation based on subsidies.
You are only looking at the exchange numbers. Individual marketplace data includes policies purchased off the exchange and those policies are priced in the same risk pool as the policies purchased on the exchange. The numbers that I provided regarding the % drops come right from government filings. See the link I provided in this same post.
Yes that sucks, but you're not alone. You mentioned your premium for your family is $20000. In 2016, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance was $18142 for a family. My plan for just myself is ~7100 and is a worse (HDHP) plan than before. But neither the premium increases nor the declining coverage are due to the ACA. Looking at trend from previous years (graph in here (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/)), it would be higher without ACA. Health insurance premiums are high because health care is high due to inelastic demand.
My premiums skyrocketed for two reasons: (1) because I am now forced to pay for a bunch of sick people who previously were excluded from the individual market due to pre-existing conditions; and (2) I now must also foot the bill for a variety of Essential Health Benefits, whether of not I use them. This is not rocket science and the issues in the individual market are widely understood, most especially by those of us who were in the individual market prior to Obamacare kicking in. See posts 10, 12 and 14 for a more detailed discussion of what changed pre- and post-Obamacare for me and it is the same for everyone who was in the individual market before and after.
Oh, and demand is far from inelsatic, as is evidenced by how many people are sitting out of the insurance market and the millions who dropped out just this year. ;)
whirlerz
09-06-2017, 08:03 AM
Rick, you're really railing there^..
All I know is, not looking forward to the plans or lack thereof. :(
dpacrkk
09-06-2017, 10:30 AM
I'll get to the rest later, but these two points had to be responded to.
It is absolutely correct. The government only pays premium support and fixed cost sharing reductions in order to get deductibles down for subsidized people. These are fixed numbers. When a subsidized person's medical expenses exceed whatever they pay in premiums plus the fixed government subsidies, the insurance company foots the balance. This comes from premiums paid by other people in the same risk pool and insurers have to charge enough to ensure that they can pay these medical expenses. The insurer also needs enough people who consume less than they pay in order to cover those who consume more. Now one might argue that this is how all insurance works, but the problem with Obamacare is faulty construction that has too few healthy people subsidizing too many sick people, which is why our premiums and deductibles keep jacking up.
The bold part is exactly it: risk is shared and it's not different from any other insurance. Then again you've said "you're welcome" to others for getting more of a benefit, so I'm not particularly surprised. I have to ask: if you received a higher cost of health care than your premium, would you do the "noble" thing and pay the difference? I've never received more than the value of my health insurance premium in health care, but I know it's part of risk sharing, and I'd never say "you're welcome" to other people in my risk pool that did.
Oh, and demand is far from inelsatic, as is evidenced by how many people are sitting out of the insurance market and the millions who dropped out just this year. ;)
It's a good thing I typed demand for health care and not health insurance, then isn't it? Unless you can't tell the difference between the two:
. Health insurance premiums are high because health care is high due to inelastic demand.
Eric Stoner
09-06-2017, 10:37 AM
When the government creates an entitlement that forces me to give my money to other people to cover their costs and expenses, it is income redistribution. See post above re: the difference between salaried government employees providing services vs. entitlement recipients.
Oh, and the price of bananas has gone up 30% in the past year. You may be wondering about the relevancy of that comment in this discussion, but it is about as relevant as merging the group and non-group markets for data analysis purposes. The two markets are priced completely differently based upon their specific risk characteristics. But I should mention that group insured have been getting screwed too. Their premiums may be going up at a slower rate, but only because their deductibles are being jacked up and their overall coverage is getting worse.
It is absolutely correct. The government only pays premium support and fixed cost sharing reductions in order to get deductibles down for subsidized people. These are fixed numbers. When a subsidized person's medical expenses exceed whatever they pay in premiums plus the fixed government subsidies, the insurance company foots the balance. This comes from premiums paid by other people in the same risk pool and insurers have to charge enough to ensure that they can pay these medical expenses. The insurer also needs enough people who consume less than they pay in order to cover those who consume more. Now one might argue that this is how all insurance works, but the problem with Obamacare is faulty construction that has too few healthy people subsidizing too many sick people, which is why our premiums and deductibles keep jacking up.
You are only looking at the exchange numbers. Individual marketplace data includes policies purchased off the exchange and those policies are priced in the same risk pool as the policies purchased on the exchange. The numbers that I provided regarding the % drops come right from government filings. See the link I provided in this same post.
My premiums skyrocketed for two reasons: (1) because I am now forced to pay for a bunch of sick people who previously were excluded from the individual market due to pre-existing conditions; and (2) I now must also foot the bill for a variety of Essential Health Benefits, whether of not I use them. This is not rocket science and the issues in the individual market are widely understood, most especially by those of us who were in the individual market prior to Obamacare kicking in. See posts 10, 12 and 14 for a more detailed discussion of what changed pre- and post-Obamacare for me and it is the same for everyone who was in the individual market before and after.
Oh, and demand is far from inelsatic, as is evidenced by how many people are sitting out of the insurance market and the millions who dropped out just this year. ;)
All true. But you left out NOT being able to go out of your state to buy coverage AND not enabling Medicaid , Medicare and larger insurers to negotiate lower drug prices. Yes, yes, I know that drug companies need to make a profit and be able to fund R & D. But why , WHY do we in the U.S. ,where so many of these drugs originated, have to pay the highest drug prices in the world ?
And we have to make provision for those with pre-existing conditions. One idea is to take the high risk assureds and put them in a type of "Assigned Risk " pool where carriers have to take their proportionate share of said risks according to their share of the market. Orrrr you can permit carriers to charge higher premiums and subsidize same or let them increase the deductibles and co-pays and then subsidize those who cannot afford same. In short , let the industry innovate. Say to them : " You have to cover these people. Exactly how you do it is up to you so long as you are providing adequate , affordable coverage ".
RyanXO
09-06-2017, 10:55 AM
All true. But you left out NOT being able to go out of your state to buy coverage AND not enabling Medicaid , Medicare and larger insurers to negotiate lower drug prices. Yes, yes, I know that drug companies need to make a profit and be able to fund R & D. But why , WHY do we in the U.S. ,where so many of these drugs originated, have to pay the highest drug prices in the world ?
And we have to make provision for those with pre-existing conditions. One idea is to take the high risk assureds and put them in a type of "Assigned Risk " pool where carriers have to take their proportionate share of said risks according to their share of the market. Orrrr you can permit carriers to charge higher premiums and subsidize same or let them increase the deductibles and co-pays and then subsidize those who cannot afford same. In short , let the industry innovate. Say to them : " You have to cover these people. Exactly how you do it is up to you so long as you are providing adequate , affordable coverage ".
^Yes and like Baer said, unless the issue of high (excuse me, OUTRAGEOUS) medical costs are addressed, I don't expect much to change any time soon.
Eric Stoner
09-06-2017, 10:58 AM
I'll get to the rest later, but these two points had to be responded to.
The bold part is exactly it: risk is shared and it's not different from any other insurance. Then again you've said "you're welcome" to others for getting more of a benefit, so I'm not particularly surprised. I have to ask: if you received a higher cost of health care than your premium, would you do the "noble" thing and pay the difference? I've never received more than the value of my health insurance premium in health care, but I know it's part of risk sharing, and I'd never say "you're welcome" to other people in my risk pool that did.
It's a good thing I typed demand for health care and not health insurance, then isn't it? Unless you can't tell the difference between the two:
Rick has been trying to point out the warped and distorted insurance market that has resulted from Obamacare. Nobody, NOBODY , not the most ardent supporters of Obamacare have even tried to say that it does not have major and serious problems. Except for Paul Krugman of course but he lives in a fact free bubble all his own.
Likewise Rick has tried to show that unlike other forms of insurance Obamacare has created a huge disconnect among risk , coverage and COSTS. It used to be that worse risks like bad drivers , smokers and Type 2 diabetics got charged more for auto , life and health insurance respectively. NOT under Obamacare. It used to be that if you wanted to be covered for pre-natal and post partum care ( breast pump optional ) you could get it. If you paid for it. Or maybe dropped something else. Rick and I and many other MEN ( I know, we're sorry , please forgive us ) can't figure out why we have to pay for these kind of coverages any more than women being compelled to pay for PSA testing. Young healthy people used to be able to buy catastrophic coverage ; or hospitalization only ; or several variants that DID bear a relation among risk, coverage and costs.
Obamacare's biggest supporters are who ? People who before Obamacare did not have any coverage but now are getting policies that they were NEVER able to afford on their own. Whether they bought them themselves or their employers were compelled to pay for. As Rick has repeatedly pointed out , subsidized health coverage is now an ENTITLEMENT. As even you recognize , there is no "free lunch" i.e. someone has to pay for it.
What was one of Obamacare's greatest selling points ( No , besides "if you like your plan you can keep your plan " ) ? That insurance costs would go down . Many of us at the time either questioned that claim or called Bullshit then and there. We've been proven right haven't we ?
RyanXO
09-06-2017, 11:07 AM
I'll admit I am no financial/economics expert, so I encourage someone to correct me, but why can't Medicaid be expanded for everyone? I get that single-payer universal healthcare is not a viable option (at least in my opinion) but why can't it be where you have both systems: Medicaid for those who can't afford care or those who don't want to have to pay much, and then a separate, private option for those who want to pay more or get to choose their favorite doctor or whatever?
I am well aware that with Obamacare a lot of states (though not all unfortunately) DID expand Medicaid. But what I am saying (like Rickdugan and Eric Stoner have said) is that the private system we used to have became forced to subsidize those which the government should just take care of anyway. I am not being eloquent, so I don't know if what I am saying is making sense. I guess what I am trying to get at is why can't it be there is a government option, but you have the choice to buy separate, better insurance if you so desire to buy it. That way you avoid the whole single-payer system which ends up being a disaster. I mean, before Obamacare our taxes had to pay for the poor to get treatment (which I believe in a rich country we should) anyways.
Of course there are other issues, like ridiculous drug prices and $5,000 CT scans and $10,000 ER visits that last only 2 hours, etc. but I hope what I'm saying is making sense.
And I would like to add I agree with Eric S you should be able to choose what type of coverage you want to buy, like catastrophic (this is what I used to buy). It's not fair for everyone to be forced to cover EVERYTHING.
baer45
09-06-2017, 11:33 AM
The only numbers I saw (1.9 of 6.8 million) yielded ~28%. MA is also 1 of 14 donor states, i.e. it pays more in federal taxes than it gets in federal funding. So if states were left to fend for themselves (I'm definitely not advocating this, by the way), MA would have MORE money to spend on social services for its people...like healthcare.
MA has to pay tax and federal doesn't have to fund the Masshealth, that was the case for every other states when Romney started Masshealth in MA.
I don't see any solutions on the horizon since we won't touch medical system and pharms. If each MRI cost $9000, then insurance company has to charge you high premium, otherwise they will be losing money despite what government forcing them to do. And the last, if we can't have normal people all contribute in high premium payments, there is only one way to keep this going, borrow more money from Other countries. 8 tirllion to 20 trillon in obama's years. double that to 40 trillion when trump is done.
I'll admit I am no financial/economics expert, so I encourage someone to correct me, but why can't Medicaid be expanded for everyone? I get that single-payer universal healthcare is not a viable option (at least in my opinion) but why can't it be where you have both systems: Medicaid for those who can't afford care or those who don't want to have to pay much, and then a separate, private option for those who want to pay more or get to choose their favorite doctor or whatever?
I support this model.
RyanXO
09-06-2017, 11:55 AM
I don't see any solutions on the horizon since we won't touch medical system. If each MRI cost $9000, then insurance company has to charge you high premium, otherwise they will be losing money despite what government forcing them to do. And the last, if we can't have normal people all contribute in high premium payments, there is only one way to keep this going, borrow more money from Other countries. 8 tirllion to 20 trillon in obama's years. double that to 40 trillion when trump is done.
Agreed
Eric Stoner
09-07-2017, 08:19 AM
MA has to pay tax and federal doesn't have to fund the Masshealth, that was the case for every other states when Romney started Masshealth in MA.
I don't see any solutions on the horizon since we won't touch medical system and pharms. If each MRI cost $9000, then insurance company has to charge you high premium, otherwise they will be losing money despite what government forcing them to do. And the last, if we can't have normal people all contribute in high premium payments, there is only one way to keep this going, borrow more money from Other countries. 8 tirllion to 20 trillon in obama's years. double that to 40 trillion when trump is done.
I support this model.
MRI's are expensive because A. MRI machines are expensive whether the hospital or radiologist purchased or leased one and B. those without insurance who get MRI's have to be paid for.
As I have posted before , when Medicaid was passed it was advertised as solid , basic care for those who could not otherwise afford it. Basic health care for poor people.At the time a debate developed as to whether Medicaid would cover everything : cutting edge procedures and therapies , coverage for any and every medical condition regardless of cost or likely outcome of treatment etc. vs. decent, basic health care. At the time it was called "Cadillac vs. Volkswagen ". In the 1980's some states like Oregon tried to innovate to control costs. They tried various forms of rationing. Oregon ranked diseases and conditions from "1" to 500something. "1" was pneumonia because it was easy to diagnose and treat and the consequences of NOT treating it were serious for the patient and society. There was a cut-off and if you had an illness that was rare, expensive to treat with a LOW to Zero likelihood of success it was not covered. Suits were brought and the Supreme Court ruled the scheme to be in violation of the Federal Law establishing Medicaid. I don't recall if they adopted the equal protection argument.
Most people forget that Medicaid is a Federally mandated state program. Each state gets a portion of its Medicaid costs paid for by the Feds. In N.Y. the Feds pay 50% for NYC, the state pays 25% and NYC pays 25%. In Mississippi the Feds pay 90 %. I don't know what the breakdown for California is but I know the state share for Medi-Cal is huge.
So when you advocate expanding Medicaid or Medicare , please be careful. The costs are huge and have been going up. Another thing that did NOT happen with Obamacare despite claims that it would.
I have advocated what Nixon proposed ( and Ted Kennedy went to his grave regretting not supporting ) - government subsidies so that poor people can get private coverage. You can put it out for bids ; take requests for proposals ; give the poor vouchers they can use to buy coverage etc.etc. And you can tweak eligibility to expand the number of people covered by Medicaid .
rickdugan
09-07-2017, 09:08 AM
I'll get to the rest later, but these two points had to be responded to.
The bold part is exactly it: risk is shared and it's not different from any other insurance. Then again you've said "you're welcome" to others for getting more of a benefit, so I'm not particularly surprised. I have to ask: if you received a higher cost of health care than your premium, would you do the "noble" thing and pay the difference? I've never received more than the value of my health insurance premium in health care, but I know it's part of risk sharing, and I'd never say "you're welcome" to other people in my risk pool that did.
It's a good thing I typed demand for health care and not health insurance, then isn't it? Unless you can't tell the difference between the two:
Rick has been trying to point out the warped and distorted insurance market that has resulted from Obamacare. Nobody, NOBODY , not the most ardent supporters of Obamacare have even tried to say that it does not have major and serious problems. Except for Paul Krugman of course but he lives in a fact free bubble all his own.
Likewise Rick has tried to show that unlike other forms of insurance Obamacare has created a huge disconnect among risk , coverage and COSTS. It used to be that worse risks like bad drivers , smokers and Type 2 diabetics got charged more for auto , life and health insurance respectively. NOT under Obamacare. It used to be that if you wanted to be covered for pre-natal and post partum care ( breast pump optional ) you could get it. If you paid for it. Or maybe dropped something else. Rick and I and many other MEN ( I know, we're sorry , please forgive us ) can't figure out why we have to pay for these kind of coverages any more than women being compelled to pay for PSA testing. Young healthy people used to be able to buy catastrophic coverage ; or hospitalization only ; or several variants that DID bear a relation among risk, coverage and costs.
Obamacare's biggest supporters are who ? People who before Obamacare did not have any coverage but now are getting policies that they were NEVER able to afford on their own. Whether they bought them themselves or their employers were compelled to pay for. As Rick has repeatedly pointed out , subsidized health coverage is now an ENTITLEMENT. As even you recognize , there is no "free lunch" i.e. someone has to pay for it.
What was one of Obamacare's greatest selling points ( No , besides "if you like your plan you can keep your plan " ) ? That insurance costs would go down . Many of us at the time either questioned that claim or called Bullshit then and there. We've been proven right haven't we ?
dp, Eric beat me to the punch. This 100%. For sick people, this is not really "insurance" but rather a guarantee that other premium payers will instantly be on the hook for their medical expenses. There are no underwriting standards, beyond different charges at different ages, and no exclusion of people who will, by default, automatically collect a windfall. This has caused massive distortions of prices in the individual insurance market and makes the policies far more expensive than they would be in a true "insurance" model.
Now again, I have no problem with the government choosing to provide health care to sick people who cannot afford their own. But how the architects of Obamacare chose to do it was both devious and cowardly. It is also simply unsustainable.
I say devious because they wanted the care of sick people to be covered, but couldn't do it directly because of budget implications, so instead tried to force a small pool of individual marketplace people to do it for them. We now see how that's going. Pretty soon there will be no healthy people left to foot the bill for the sick ones.
I say cowardly because they knew that the premium spikes and other cost issues were coming if they did not rope in a much larger base of people to pay for this, yet they pushed ahead with this faulty construction anyway because they lacked the political spine to spread the pain. Many market experts warned of these cost issues even before the legislation was passed. The fact that the individual marketplace had much higher %s of sicker and less affluent people was not a mystery and guaranteeing care was going to have a high price tag. Yet they fucked over a smaller group of unsubsidized individuals because they didn't have the guts to make the much larger group marketplace, including their union and corporate donors, share the pain.
baer45
09-07-2017, 09:22 AM
MRI's are expensive because A. MRI machines are expensive whether the hospital or radiologist purchased or leased one and B. those without insurance who get MRI's have to be paid for.
As I have posted before , when Medicaid was passed it was advertised as solid , basic care for those who could not otherwise afford it. Basic health care for poor people.At the time a debate developed as to whether Medicaid would cover everything : cutting edge procedures and therapies , coverage for any and every medical condition regardless of cost or likely outcome of treatment etc. vs. decent, basic health care. At the time it was called "Cadillac vs. Volkswagen ". In the 1980's some states like Oregon tried to innovate to control costs. They tried various forms of rationing. Oregon ranked diseases and conditions from "1" to 500something. "1" was pneumonia because it was easy to diagnose and treat and the consequences of NOT treating it were serious for the patient and society. There was a cut-off and if you had an illness that was rare, expensive to treat with a LOW to Zero likelihood of success it was not covered. Suits were brought and the Supreme Court ruled the scheme to be in violation of the Federal Law establishing Medicaid. I don't recall if they adopted the equal protection argument.
Most people forget that Medicaid is a Federally mandated state program. Each state gets a portion of its Medicaid costs paid for by the Feds. In N.Y. the Feds pay 50% for NYC, the state pays 25% and NYC pays 25%. In Mississippi the Feds pay 90 %. I don't know what the breakdown for California is but I know the state share for Medi-Cal is huge.
So when you advocate expanding Medicaid or Medicare , please be careful. The costs are huge and have been going up. Another thing that did NOT happen with Obamacare despite claims that it would.
I have advocated what Nixon proposed ( and Ted Kennedy went to his grave regretting not supporting ) - government subsidies so that poor people can get private coverage. You can put it out for bids ; take requests for proposals ; give the poor vouchers they can use to buy coverage etc.etc. And you can tweak eligibility to expand the number of people covered by Medicaid .
Used low-field MRI machines can be as cheap as $150,000 or as expensive as $1.2 million. For a state-of-the-art 3 Tesla MRI machine, the price tag to buy one new can reach $3 million.
According to a report by IMV Medical Division, the average age of MRI scanners in the United States has risen to 11.4 years as of 2013.
3,000,000/10= 300,000 cost of year
300,000/200= 1500 daily cost
You know a MRI machine in hospital runs more than 200 days a year, sees multiple patients a day.
Eric Stoner
09-07-2017, 11:03 AM
Used low-field MRI machines can be as cheap as $150,000 or as expensive as $1.2 million. For a state-of-the-art 3 Tesla MRI machine, the price tag to buy one new can reach $3 million.
According to a report by IMV Medical Division, the average age of MRI scanners in the United States has risen to 11.4 years as of 2013.
3,000,000/10= 300,000 cost of year
300,000/200= 1500 daily cost
You know a MRI machine in hospital runs more than 200 days a year, sees multiple patients a day.
That's right. No argument. Also most MRI machines are leased. Hospital MRI machines can easily be used 300 days a year or more. BUT how many of those MRI's are being done on the uninsured ? Or when the carrier claims that it was not necessary to do an MRI ?
baer45
09-07-2017, 02:14 PM
That's right. No argument. Also most MRI machines are leased. Hospital MRI machines can easily be used 300 days a year or more. BUT how many of those MRI's are being done on the uninsured ? Or when the carrier claims that it was not necessary to do an MRI ?
I don't know. you tell me. I just dont believe hospitals are losing money or break even on MRI machine with the price of each MRI scan.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2017, 07:10 AM
I don't know. you tell me. I just dont believe hospitals are losing money or break even on MRI machine with the price of each MRI scan.
I didn't say they were. Just that they cost a lot to buy or lease and that money has to be made back.
baer45
09-08-2017, 07:39 AM
I didn't say they were. Just that they cost a lot to buy or lease and that money has to be made back.
you can charge $1000 per patient or $10,000, both will make that money back.
eagle2
09-09-2017, 01:15 PM
Come on Eagle. This is blatant comparison of an apple to an orange. You want to compare Medicare SPENDING to private insurance PREMIUMS ? And you want to look at PRE-Obamacare Medicare increases ? I'm sorry but where is the relevance to the CURRENT situation ?
A reason , NOT the only reason but a reason for lower increases in Medicare is that their reimbursement rates have been going DOWN. Hence the growing number of doctors who will not see Medicare patients.
You said:
If Medicare's overhead is so low ( and there are studies questioning that claim ) then WHY do the costs of Medicare increase so much year after year ? And that is AFTER allowing for the Baby Boomers coming on stream. The per recipient costs have done nothing but go up every year so it is not just total outlay.
If you look at the actual figures, the costs of Medicare aren't increasing that much year after year. If you want to look at post-Obamacare Medicare increases:
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html
Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015
Eric Stoner
09-11-2017, 09:43 AM
^^^.Hmmmm. That may be true BUT a LOT of doctors are either not taking Medicare patients or refusing to take on new Medicare patients. And as the Baby Boomers continue to hit 65 the costs are going to do nothing but go up. We still have the peak years of the Baby Boom ( 1954 to 1960 ) yet to go.
You are correct in that Medicare has not increased as much as Medicaid or private insurance. But it has gone up well ahead of inflation . Your own figures say so.
baer45
09-14-2017, 10:05 AM
Sanders introduces universal health care, backed by 15 Democrats
The bill would revolutionize America’s health-care system, replacing it with a public system that would be paid for by higher taxes. Everything from emergency surgery to prescription drugs, from mental health to eye care, would be covered, with no co-payments. Americans younger than 18 would immediately obtain “universal Medicare cards,” while Americans not currently eligible for Medicare would be phased into the program over four years. Employer-provided health care would be replaced, with the employers paying higher taxes but no longer on the hook for insurance.
Private insurers would remain, with fewer customers, to pay for elective treatments such as cosmetic surgery — a system similar to that in Australia, which President Trump has praised for having a “much better” insurance regimen than the United States.
rickdugan
09-14-2017, 10:26 AM
Sanders introduces universal health care, backed by 15 Democrats
The bill would revolutionize America’s health-care system, replacing it with a public system that would be paid for by higher taxes. Everything from emergency surgery to prescription drugs, from mental health to eye care, would be covered, with no co-payments. Americans younger than 18 would immediately obtain “universal Medicare cards,” while Americans not currently eligible for Medicare would be phased into the program over four years. Employer-provided health care would be replaced, with the employers paying higher taxes but no longer on the hook for insurance.
Private insurers would remain, with fewer customers, to pay for elective treatments such as cosmetic surgery — a system similar to that in Australia, which President Trump has praised for having a “much better” insurance regimen than the United States.
Another distracting political gimmick. Just what we need.
This will of course go nowhere and is undoubtedly sponsored by 15 of the most left leaning Dems hailing from places that are very left of center. The reality is that 2/3 of Americans do not want the government to take over healthcare, which Bernie and crew know all too well. Even Obama stopped short of trying to go in that direction, even when he had a Congressional majority.
But here we go with a ream of pointless articles that will no doubt flood the news sites. What would be much more useful is a real fix for the current broken system, preferably with some input from both sides of the aisle. But I won't hold my breath.
Eric Stoner
09-14-2017, 11:49 AM
Other countries seem to manage with variants on "single payer" systems. Some better than others. I have never automatically said: " Absolutely Not " to any such proposal.The devil is always in the details ; the biggest one being cost.
Some states like California want to try having their own single payer system. Echoing Justice Brandeis I would like them to be "little social labs of democracy" so we can see whether such a system is possible; how it works and how much it costs. If California wants to risk its already precarious finances , let them.
baer45
09-14-2017, 06:07 PM
Another distracting political gimmick. Just what we need.
This will of course go nowhere and is undoubtedly sponsored by 15 of the most left leaning Dems hailing from places that are very left of center. The reality is that 2/3 of Americans do not want the government to take over healthcare, which Bernie and crew know all too well. Even Obama stopped short of trying to go in that direction, even when he had a Congressional majority.
But here we go with a ream of pointless articles that will no doubt flood the news sites. What would be much more useful is a real fix for the current broken system, preferably with some input from both sides of the aisle. But I won't hold my breath.
Most likely, this bill will go no where. Again, the lobbyists, bought politicans will scream their hearts out to against it. Obviously this will put some health insurance companies out of work. Further more, this might be the only way that we can touch the high medical cost. When the country become the single payer, it has the power, to tell medical system to lower its cost. When your products only have one buyer, you start to be reasonable because you can't say "I'll just take my business somewhere else".
Even if it get passed, we need make sure it only covers to citizen and legal immigrants. Just like Australia did, no free healthcare to the rest of the world. Otherwise, it won't last long.
add. White house is not on board, it seems.
rickdugan
09-15-2017, 04:32 AM
Most likely, this bill will go no where. Again, the lobbyists, bought politicans will scream their hearts out to against it. Obviously this will put some health insurance companies out of work. Further more, this might be the only way that we can touch the high medical cost. When the country become the single payer, it has the power, to tell medical system to lower its cost. When your products only have one buyer, you start to be reasonable because you can't say "I'll just take my business somewhere else".
Even if it get passed, we need make sure it only covers to citizen and legal immigrants. Just like Australia did, no free healthcare to the rest of the world. Otherwise, it won't last long.
add. White house is not on board, it seems.
It sounds good in theory, but it hasn't really worked out that way for the countries that already have a single payer system. When something is "free" some % of users will over-consume. Further, government loses the political will to reign in these costs when certain groups (such as seniors) have a lot of political clout. Universal health has been a real budget buster in countries that have it and they haven't really found a way to control the costs. In some countries, it has led to rationing of medical care and onerous taxes that are debilitating to healthy economic growth.
Also, when you start pushing down payments, doctors find creative ways to increase their income, such as by making a patient return more frequently than necessary, ordering unnecessary tests, etc. It also has led to doctor shortages in some countries, most notably Canada, where wait times for basic medical tests are absurd.
I really don't know what the answer is, but I don't trust politicians to do anything correctly, especially something as big and as critical as healthcare. That's because politicians make decisions based upon political concerns rather than sound economic principals. This poorly constructed, largely politically driven train wreck known as Obamacare is Exhibit 1. Do we really want to hand them the reigns to the entire healthcare system? :O
Zofia
09-17-2017, 04:17 AM
Other countries seem to manage with variants on "single payer" systems. Some better than others. I have never automatically said: " Absolutely Not " to any such proposal.The devil is always in the details ; the biggest one being cost.
As an employer, I would gladly trade our conventional group insurance plan for Medicare at the current Medicare tax cost. The problem is, there is no way the federal government could possibly deliver the services for the current Medicare tax cost. And that is the problem. The U.S. federal government is not very good at doing anything for a reasonable cost.
Z
baer45
09-17-2017, 06:47 AM
As an employer, I would gladly trade our conventional group insurance plan for Medicare at the current Medicare tax cost. The problem is, there is no way the federal government could possibly deliver the services for the current Medicare tax cost. And that is the problem. The U.S. federal government is not very good at doing anything for a reasonable cost.
Z
yup, 600 million for obamacare website, wasn't even operating correctly. Give that job to google, they will have it running for 6 milion.
rickdugan
09-21-2017, 01:54 PM
A new healthcare reform bill has been introduced in the Senate which seems to have a good chance of passing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2017/09/18/ten-reasons-why-every-state-should-welcome-the-grahamcassidyhellerjohnson-health-reform-bill/#770619025481
I am starting to feel some hope again. Let's hope it isn't false hope.
423texas
09-21-2017, 03:18 PM
A new healthcare reform bill has been introduced in the Senate which seems to have a good chance of passing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2017/09/18/ten-reasons-why-every-state-should-welcome-the-grahamcassidyhellerjohnson-health-reform-bill/#770619025481
I am starting to feel some hope again. Let's hope it isn't false hope.
It might be tough to pass with "GOP" holdouts like McCain, Murkowski, and Collins.
Too bad, they can't be bribed the Democrat way. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback, and the Louisiana Purchase. That's what it took to get the ACA passed.
rickdugan
09-21-2017, 03:54 PM
It might be tough to pass with "GOP" holdouts like McCain, Murkowski, and Collins.
Too bad, they can't be bribed the Democrat way. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback, and the Louisiana Purchase. That's what it took to get the ACA passed.
McCain and Collins both hail from states with Republican governors who support the bill and believe that the block grants would work in their states favor, so I am having trouble believing that at least one of them can't be pealed off this time.
I'm guessing that McCain, who has already indicated that he may reluctantly sign the legislation if his governor supports it (which he does), will finally find the right path.
Collins is a Republican in name only, but she is going to have a much tougher time justifying a NO vote this time as ME would get more money, not less, under the new bill.
RyanXO
09-22-2017, 11:07 AM
McCain just announced opposition.
rickdugan
09-22-2017, 01:07 PM
^Dammit. Then hopefully they can get Rand and Murkowski on board. The bill built in a nice bone for Alaska, which I have to guess is a payoff for Murkowski's vote. Rand threatened a no vote last time but ended up voting yes, so hopefully they can pull him into the fold too. If the only holdouts are McCain and Collins then they will still get this passed.
whirlerz
09-22-2017, 03:52 PM
Graham Cassady health Care bill:
•Not enough time between now & 9/30 to get an accurate CBO score that tells how many people will lose coverage, as well as what the bill will cost
It ends individual & employer mandates which'll drive premiums up. It will also end federal subsidies for individual insurance, leaving 32 million uninsured
•It takes $ going to the states that opted in to Medicaid expansion & distributes it among all states, even those who voted against expansion
In 2026, funding for Medicaid expansion would end entirely, leaving the state to cover the shortfall
•It institutes a 1yr freeze on Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood
Even tho fed law already prohibits tax $ to fund/finance abortion
•It allows individual states to define what constitutes an individual benefit which will slash coverage for maternity, cancer treatments/service, ER visits, prescription drugs &many more benefits
This could also prevent women clinics from charging Medicaid for cancer screening & birth control
•It allows insurers to.double surcharge for elderly patients (ACA allows insurers to charge older customers 3 X's as much as younger ones. This bill increases that to 5x's as much)
•It allows insurers to charge higher rates based on health status & it repeals language in the ACA which prevents changing insurance rates after a patient is diagnosed w/a condition
202-224-3121 US Capitol Switchboard will connect u w Senate office u request
ResistBot, 50409, text resist to this # you can fax straight to your senator's office, by texting what u want to say
eagle2
09-22-2017, 11:39 PM
Jimmy Kimmel talks about the bill here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUH0KQ1qMiw
rickdugan
09-23-2017, 05:49 AM
Jimmy who? Isn't he an entertainer or something? I think many disagree with his "analysis" if it can be called that.
Whirlerz, A few odds and ends points in response.
Right now, 3 states get 37% of all healthcare spending. The bill would redistribute the money based upon the number of poor people in various states. Why should 3 states, including one as small as MA, eat up so much of the healthcare spending?
As far as your points about lost protections, these would only be true if states applied for waivers, which would require legislative action in those states. State legislatures and governors have voters too last I checked.
As far as people "losing" health insurance if the mandate goes away, Hallelujah. Many of them don't want the insurance in the first place, especially young healthy people. Though the fact that there are less than 20 million in the marketplace now makes that 32 million number a bit suspect.
The one thing I disagree with is the sunsetting of the medicaid grants, though I suspect that those would ultimately end up being continued.
I have my poms poms on as I am beyond sick and tired of the destruction that Obamacare has caused.
whirlerz
09-23-2017, 10:01 AM
Well, what would YOU propose, RD?
I didn't cite my source but it's a social media copy
dpacrkk
09-24-2017, 08:17 AM
I typed something, but screw it. Let the government settle this (though both this and Sanders' bill will likely fail).
eagle2
09-25-2017, 07:13 PM
Looks like there are now at least 51 senators against this goofy bill that would take healthcare away from millions of people, so it most likely won't pass.