Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 726455 times)

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2900 on: June 26, 2017, 09:56:21 AM »

I cannot wrap my head it.  I am seriously starting to think Paul Ryan (who has actually been quoted describing how he used to be the guy in the corner at fraternity keggers, talking about his dreams of ending Medicaid funding) is an honest to god sociopath.


^this! Yes! I've been saying this for the last couple of months. I actually make a sort of strangled screaming noise every time I see his face. What sort of person, who has the real data at their fingertips, proposes these sorts of changes?

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2901 on: June 26, 2017, 10:07:43 AM »
No doubt Paul Ryan is a sociopath, obviously so is Trump, and so are a majority of Republican reps and senators.   They at least used to pretend otherwise, now they are saying things that make it obvious, and dumbass voters still vote for them.   Ryan, Trump, McConell, etc:   If I saw them get run over by a bus and I could call 911 to save them, I wouldn't lol. 

Tom Perez was right when he said "Republicans don't give a shit about people". 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:10:03 AM by Luck12 »

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Cincinnati
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2902 on: June 26, 2017, 10:09:24 AM »
This is good:

Premiums and Tax Credits under the Affordable Care Act vs. the Senate Better Care Reconciliation Act: Interactive Maps

http://www.kff.org/interactive/premiums-and-tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act-vs-the-senate-better-care-reconciliation-act-interactive-maps/

For the oldies like me, premium costs go up, subsidies go down. Hang on, aren't we older gen-X supposed to be the core Republican voters (after the boomers)? I guess they figure they can lose us (not that they ever had me).

From the article: "In 2017, the average deductible for a silver plan was $3,609 and $6,105 for a bronze plan."

That's interesting. Our silver, non-HSA plan has a $7K deductible per person.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2903 on: June 26, 2017, 10:12:24 AM »

I cannot wrap my head it.  I am seriously starting to think Paul Ryan (who has actually been quoted describing how he used to be the guy in the corner at fraternity keggers, talking about his dreams of ending Medicaid funding) is an honest to god sociopath.


^this! Yes! I've been saying this for the last couple of months. I actually make a sort of strangled screaming noise every time I see his face. What sort of person, who has the real data at their fingertips, proposes these sorts of changes?

The one who is looking to make healthcare more affordable to tax paying middle class Americans despite harming some of the non taxpaying poor Americans. Obviously there is a large portion of the population that wants this and has voted to get republicans in office.  Just a few days ago a republican nocked out a democrat out of a House seat in Georgia. It looks like there are enough people out there that want this.

Disclaimer: I am not saying I agree or disagree with this.  I am just explaining it.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2904 on: June 26, 2017, 10:22:51 AM »

And then there's Medicaid:

Medicaid Cuts May Force Retirees Out of Nursing Homes https://nyti.ms/2t3J2Hd

How Medicaid Works, and Who It Covers https://nyti.ms/2t0TbEK

It depends where they want to cut it.  It could be on the older nursing home population or the younger poor population.  Someone is going to pay the price.  There is no doubt about that. Today it is the middle class Americans.  I disagree with any plan that doesn't actively attempt to do something about cost making healthcare more affordable to all Americans not just those that vote for their party.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2905 on: June 26, 2017, 10:35:06 AM »

I cannot wrap my head it.  I am seriously starting to think Paul Ryan (who has actually been quoted describing how he used to be the guy in the corner at fraternity keggers, talking about his dreams of ending Medicaid funding) is an honest to god sociopath.


^this! Yes! I've been saying this for the last couple of months. I actually make a sort of strangled screaming noise every time I see his face. What sort of person, who has the real data at their fingertips, proposes these sorts of changes?

He's not a sociopath.

I know Paul Ryan.  I knew him back in high school when his name was Matt and he founded the American Values Club for after school conservative wank circles.  I knew him in college when his name was Tommy and he would buy entire pallets of Natty Ice (with his unemployment check) and host bonfire parties where he'd rail against the evils of welfare.  I still hang out with him these days, virtually and long distance from Florida, where he's addicted to pain killers and having his house foreclosed on, but absolutely loves DJ Trumpenstein because "he speaks for the real America".

These people are intelligent, well read, hard working (white male) Americans, raised in conservative Christian households where Bill Clinton was Pontius Pilate and Dad whooped your ass if your chores weren't done by the time Mom had dinner on the table.  Your pastor warned you about the dangers of slow dancing, but you sat enraptured late at night at last summer's family reunion while your older cousin told you about the first time her boyfriend went down on her.  Life seems messy and complicated, but Ayn Rand helps everything seem so clear and you don't understand why everyone else doesn't see how obvious it is.  Of COURSE Medicaid is evil, a tool of the devil made manifest by sinners and harlots to denigrate our great Christian nation.  Black people and Mexicans aren't evil, they're just really unlucky that they were born so lazy and stupid. 

Men like Paul Ryan are a product of their culture, a warped little slice of Americana where little white boys are taught that they alone will bear the burden of saving America, if only they are strong enough to drown out the drumbeat of multiculturalism and inclusiveness that will try to invade their minds as they head out into the world.  Don't listen to the liberals! They want to destroy America!  Don't even talk to them, they will try to plant little seeds of doubt in your mind, but those seeds can grow into forests that choke out Jesus's light if you're not careful.

So no, Paul Ryan is not a sociopath.  He thinks he is the only sane person left in the entire world, and he will work tirelessly to "save" America from itself.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 11:09:50 AM by sol »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2906 on: June 26, 2017, 10:39:50 AM »

I cannot wrap my head it.  I am seriously starting to think Paul Ryan (who has actually been quoted describing how he used to be the guy in the corner at fraternity keggers, talking about his dreams of ending Medicaid funding) is an honest to god sociopath.


^this! Yes! I've been saying this for the last couple of months. I actually make a sort of strangled screaming noise every time I see his face. What sort of person, who has the real data at their fingertips, proposes these sorts of changes?

The one who is looking to make healthcare more affordable to tax paying middle class Americans despite harming some of the non taxpaying poor Americans. Obviously there is a large portion of the population that wants this and has voted to get republicans in office.  Just a few days ago a republican nocked out a democrat out of a House seat in Georgia. It looks like there are enough people out there that want this.

Disclaimer: I am not saying I agree or disagree with this.  I am just explaining it.

I don't think this is a meaningful data point. This isn't a swing district. Tribalism is strong, and this has been a GOP held seat for decades.

Anyway, polls show the house bill is historically unpopular, and I expect this one won't be much more so.  I have no doubt a lot of people want something different from the ACA. I doubt very strongly most of them thought they were voting for anything like what the GOP is proposing.

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2907 on: June 26, 2017, 10:40:27 AM »
Just a few days ago a republican nocked out a democrat out of a House seat in Georgia. It looks like there are enough people out there that want this.

Have you looked at the past election results?  This is a district where Tom Price's 23 point victory in 2016 is smaller than every other election result from 2002-2014 (wiki didn't list results prior to 2002).  I would not use this as evidence that "people want this bill".  You know, you could perhaps look at polls to gauge this.   

If this bill(s) was about helping middle class americans and stabilizing the insurance marketplace, why cut Medicaid even below the pre-ACA levels?   Gee I don't know, it couldn't possibly be because they want to fuck over the poor and because they are sociopaths. 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:42:58 AM by Luck12 »

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2908 on: June 26, 2017, 10:44:22 AM »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2909 on: June 26, 2017, 11:00:03 AM »
On the bright side, since we are rich we would benefit from the HSA expansion.  Increasing the limit to $13,100 per year per family would save us about $1800/yr in the 28% tax bracket.  Hooray for tax dodging!

Not that it does us any good, if insurance prices spike for equivalent coverage, in the way republicans seem to want it to.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2910 on: June 26, 2017, 11:03:37 AM »

I cannot wrap my head it.  I am seriously starting to think Paul Ryan (who has actually been quoted describing how he used to be the guy in the corner at fraternity keggers, talking about his dreams of ending Medicaid funding) is an honest to god sociopath.


^this! Yes! I've been saying this for the last couple of months. I actually make a sort of strangled screaming noise every time I see his face. What sort of person, who has the real data at their fingertips, proposes these sorts of changes?

He's not a sociopath.

I know Paul Ryan.  I knew him back in high school when his name was Matt and he founded the American Values Club for after school conservative wank circles.  I knew him in college when his name was Tommy and he would buy entire pallets of Natty Ice (with his unemployment check) and host bonfire parties where he'd rail against the evils of welfare.  I still hang out with him these days, virtually and long distance from Florida, where he's addicted to pain killers and having his house foreclosed on, but absolutely loves DJ Trumpenstein because "he speaks for the real America".

These people are intelligent, well read, hard working (white male) Americans, raised in conservative Christian households where Bill Clinton was Pontius Pilate and Dad whooped your ass if your chores weren't done by the time Mom had dinner on the table.  Your pastor warned you about the dangers of slow dancing, but you sat enraptured late at night at last summer's family reunion while your older cousin told you about the first time her boyfriend went down on her.  Life seems messy and complicated, but Ayn Rand helps everything seem so clear and you don't understand why everyone else doesn't see how obvious it is.  Of COURSE Medicaid is evil, a tool of the devil made manifest by sinners and harlots to denigrate our great Christian nation.  Black people and Mexicans aren't evil, they're just really unlucky that they were born so lazy and stupid. 

Men like Paul Ryan are a product of their culture, a warped little slice of Americana where little white boys are taught that they alone will bear the burden of saving America, if only they are strong enough to drown out the drumbeat of multiculturalism and inclusiveness that will try to invade their minds as they head out into the world.  Don't listen to the liberals! They want to destroy America!  Don't even talk to them, they will try plant little seeds of doubt in your mind, but those seeds can grow into forests that choke out Jesus's light if you're not careful.

So no, Paul Ryan is not a sociopath.  He thinks he is the only same person left in the entire world, and he will work tirelessly to "save" America from itself.

You know, I've been trying to figure out the Paul Ryan type for years, and it is so confusing to me EVEN THOUGH MY FATHER IS ONE OF THEM LOL.  In fact, most of my paternal family is 'one of them'.  And they aren't sociopaths, precisely, but they do really lack an ability to empathize with anyone not making the same choices they did. 

My father didn't have an easy road psychologically, but he DID have a position of huge privilege...born into an upper middle class family that owned two successful family business, who bought him his first couple cars, paid for his college education (which he dicked off through), and then offered two family businesses as employment to fall back on.  They preached WASP values, the evils of the Liberals, the fundamental inferiority of non whites, the fundamental inferiority of all poor people (for which they seemed to have actual physical revulsion, as though poverty was a communicable disease), the fundamental worthlessness of intellectual pursuits (reading fiction was discouraged), and the fundamental worthlessness of their own sister (born mentally disabled AND with epilepsy...my father is also so revolted by her he can hardly stand to talk to her).

My fathers family LOVED Nixon, loved the military, exhibited rigidly upright behavior in public while constantly cheating on their spouses (and eventually dumping them for younger models) on the sly.  Constantly bitched about welfare and medicare and taxes, etc.

I have tried and tried to make sense of my father's weird reaction of rage and revulsion toward blue collar workers, the poor, men with facial hair, minorities of all types, etc etc etc.  The only consistent underlying thing I have ever seen in him that might explain it is clinical narcissism (which he has) and abject terror of EVERYTHING in the world that he can't control, which comes out as either anger or revulsion. And since we can control very little in life, almost everything seems to fill  him with fear.

Despite all his material advantages in life, my father attributes 100% of his subsequent business success (which was admirable, no doubt) to his own awesomeness in the face of what he perceives as overwhelming odds stacked against him (basically, just a dick father who died young).  He really thinks he had a hard row to hoe, and that he is superior to most other people because he was a business success.  It's so weird..

Could most of the conservative mindset just be explainable by fear? Sometimes I wonder...

chasesfish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Texas
    • Years in the making, I created a journal!
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2911 on: June 26, 2017, 11:44:36 AM »
Just a few days ago a republican nocked out a democrat out of a House seat in Georgia. It looks like there are enough people out there that want this.

Have you looked at the past election results?  This is a district where Tom Price's 23 point victory in 2016 is smaller than every other election result from 2002-2014 (wiki didn't list results prior to 2002).  I would not use this as evidence that "people want this bill".  You know, you could perhaps look at polls to gauge this.   

If this bill(s) was about helping middle class americans and stabilizing the insurance marketplace, why cut Medicaid even below the pre-ACA levels?   Gee I don't know, it couldn't possibly be because they want to fuck over the poor and because they are sociopaths.

That comment about a "knockout" was really funny.  I lived next to this district for 7 years including the last redistricting, it was basically Newt Gingrich and Phil Gingrey's district and hasn't sniffed a democrat in over 15 years.

The democrats then run a terrible candidate, John Osoff, a 30 year old staffer for Hank Johnson who didn't even live in the district.   He got less total votes than the 2016 candidate, Rodney Stooksbury, who ran against Price with $0 in campaign spending and was jokingly labeled "ghost candidate".   I think the thing was only close because Karen Handel was the opponent, who had quite a loosing record prior to this and barely any platform.

Neither side should read too much in to these special elections, I think Democrats are 0-4 including the guy in Montana who was charged with assault the day before election.  The appointees are generally from safe republican districts.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2912 on: June 26, 2017, 11:57:54 AM »
Could most of the conservative mindset just be explainable by fear? Sometimes I wonder...

Maybe something like that -

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Of course studies involving the brain typically aren't as well understood as some would like to believe -

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i-got-mind-tell-you/201508/the-amygdala-is-not-the-brains-fear-center

If you read one, please see all three. They are not necessarily in agreement.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5581
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2913 on: June 26, 2017, 12:01:54 PM »
It feels unfair that a Mustachian who saved $1M and needs end-of-life skilled care will slowly deplete their savings before getting on Medicaid while a spendypants with $10k savings will use that in a month;  both will leave no inheritance. A workaround for the saver would be to give the inheritance to their children before they die, which may be what this bill is trying to avoid.

But more importantly, it feels unfair that a Mustachian who lived their whole life frugally would get the same end result as a careless spender who enjoyed a life with less work, less stress or more indulgences. Liberals often try to push their ideal of giving from the rich to the poor, with the argument that the rich are born into wealth and the poor simply got unlucky to be stuck in shitty jobs, but high earners pay a lot in terms of quality of life, and it doesn't seem fair to favor the poor too much just because "poor them, they got unlucky". Kinda like parents giving more inheritance to one child (the spender, low education, low income, or high debt one) because the other child was more frugal and serious with their career and doesn't need the money. Is that what we want our tax system to incentivize? We have a good thing with the US economy in general and some people don't realize the full consequences and side effects of introducing changes in that running system.
Come on now, life is not fair.

But mostly -
I know several women who lived to be in their 90s, and ended up in nursing homes.

The two who were wealthier had a *much* nicer time.  They lived in nursing facilities where they had their own apartments, and friends, and bus trips.

The one who was poor and on Medicaid (husband's other grandmother) - that place was fucking depressing.

One would think that if you are mustachian and frugal that you are saving money for a reason.  For me, it's a rainy day.  College for my kids, more comfort in the future.  If I have to end up in a nursing facility, and I have the money, why on EARTH would I expect a bunch of poor people (regardless of why they got there) to subsidize me when I have a million in the bank?  Yes, the spendypants maybe lived high on the hog for a couple of decades, but end up in a miserable home for the last 2 years.

So what?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2914 on: June 26, 2017, 02:33:11 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2915 on: June 26, 2017, 03:04:15 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu

Countdown is running until someone points out that the Senate saved two million people from losing their insurance (compared to the House version of the bill).  See, they really do have heart!

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2916 on: June 26, 2017, 03:10:18 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu
From that link:
"Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year."

Every iteration gets worse than the last one.  Can't wait for the final version.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2917 on: June 26, 2017, 03:36:43 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu
From that link:
"Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year."

Every iteration gets worse than the last one.  Can't wait for the final version.

I'm not sure this version is worse.  Yes, they're penalizing people for not having insurance by taking away their insurance, but at least they've recognized that without some sort of individual incentive (call it a mandate if you must) they would just be kick starting the death spiral. 

So at least they've recognized the necessity of another pillar of Obamacare, just like they have with income-based subsidies pegged to benchmark plans, keeping kids on until age 26, the public marketplace exchanges for buying policies, the Medicare provider enhancements, funding the cost sharing reductions (for 2 more years),  enforcing medical loss ratios to cap insurance company profits (though at only 5:1), in network vs out of network subsidy equivalence, individual out of pocket maximums enforced by cost sharing, and the wellness incentives for preventative care.  It looks like most of the text of the ACA would stay conceptually intact, they just cut all the taxes out and gutted Medicaid for poor people.

Interestingly, the republican plan makes no mention of some of their previous talking points, like "buying insurance across state lines" or "bringing down costs" or "letting the government negotiate drug prices" even in cases where these idea have bipartisan support.

But it does do some unusually cruel things, like slashing Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Medicare (yes really!)

And the cruelest of all is returning to the bad old days of care exceptions.  Yes, they've kept the guaranteed issue clause for people with pre existing conditions, but they would let insurers exempt specific care types.  So if you get cancer, they do have to offer you health insurance but that insurance doesn't have to cover cancer treatment, which makes it effectively useless that you can technically get insurance.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 03:40:57 PM by sol »

ZiziPB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3182
  • Location: The Other Side
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2918 on: June 26, 2017, 03:39:29 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu
From that link:
"Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year."

Every iteration gets worse than the last one.  Can't wait for the final version.
Yup, the 6 months waiting period would make sure that some of them die before they could get insurance...  An easy way to solve the problem. 

Requiring people to buy insurance = infringement on individual freedoms

Prohibiting people from buying insurance = no infringement on individual freedoms

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2919 on: June 26, 2017, 04:01:14 PM »

Interestingly, the republican plan makes no mention of some of their previous talking points, like "buying insurance across state lines" or "bringing down costs" or "letting the government negotiate drug prices" even in cases where these idea have bipartisan support.


Yup, our politicians at their best doing absolutely nothing of real value.  Just moving the money around is all. Sounds like some lobbyists got their claws on this plan as well.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2920 on: June 26, 2017, 04:20:22 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/quiCkLy

Thinking about it more carefully, I find the CBO score for the Senate's bill to be shockingly generous.  How does it cover 1m more people than the House bill, while making even more drastic cuts to Medicaid funding, and allowing states to opt out of Medicaid entirely?  The CBO must have assumed every state would raise taxes in order to keep their Medicaid spending flat, or that the Senate plan somehow got more middle class people onto insurance to make up for all of the poor people who would lose it.

chasesfish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Texas
    • Years in the making, I created a journal!
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2921 on: June 26, 2017, 04:33:03 PM »
Yeah, I don't know how the Senate Bill passes...

I also don't understand the CBO's score of "more" people loose coverage, that would have the assumption either the insurance companies keep absorbing losses from exchange based plans or receive taxpayer subsidies.

Looking forward to this failing this week so all these politicians can have an adult conversation with each other.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2922 on: June 26, 2017, 04:40:45 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/quiCkLy

Thinking about it more carefully, I find the CBO score for the Senate's bill to be shockingly generous.  How does it cover 1m more people than the House bill, while making even more drastic cuts to Medicaid funding, and allowing states to opt out of Medicaid entirely?  The CBO must have assumed every state would raise taxes in order to keep their Medicaid spending flat, or that the Senate plan somehow got more middle class people onto insurance to make up for all of the poor people who would lose it.

Further research has solved this mystery.  The reason that the CBO says the Senate's bill isn't woefully worse for coverage numbers than the House bill is that the Senate bill postpones the Medicaid cuts long enough that people don't lose coverage until after the 10 year time horizon that the CBO uses.  It's years 11-15 that see the extra tens of millions of people lose Medicaid (up to half of all Medicaid recipients, eventually).

That's dirty pool.  The Senate cut an extra half trillion or so from medicaid, so they get the full financial accounting available immediately to finance their tax cuts for billionaires, but the coverage losses are beyond the time window for comparison of how many poor people will lose access to healthcare.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 11:34:38 PM by sol »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2923 on: June 26, 2017, 04:45:50 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/quiCkLy

Thinking about it more carefully, I find the CBO score for the Senate's bill to be shockingly generous.  How does it cover 1m more people than the House bill, while making even more drastic cuts to Medicaid funding, and allowing states to opt out of Medicaid entirely?  The CBO must have assumed every state would raise taxes in order to keep their Medicaid spending flat, or that the Senate plan somehow got more middle class people onto insurance to make up for all of the poor people who would lose it.

Further research has solved this mystery.  The reason that the CBO says the Senate's bill isn't woefully worse for coverage numbers than the House bill is that the Senate bill postpones the Medicaid cuts long enough that people don't lost coverage until after the 10 year time horizon that the CBO uses.  It's years 11-15 that see the extra tens of millions of people lose Medicaid (up to half of all Medicaid recipients, eventually).

That's dirty pool.  The Senate cut an extra half trillion or so from medicaid, so they get the full financial accounting available immediately to finance their tax cuts for billionaires, but the coverage loses are beyond the time window for comparison of how many poor people will lose access to healthcare.

Yup. I predicted this exact strategy to my husband last week, but even I wasn't cynical enough to think they'd try to use it to gut Medicaid beyond the expansion provided by the ACA.  It also allows them to postpone a lot of the pain (and potentially voter rage) in the hopes that a Dem president might be available to take the heat.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6796
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2924 on: June 26, 2017, 05:20:47 PM »
Looking forward to this failing this week so all these politicians can have an adult conversation with each other.

I think it will pass.

Who is going to vote against it?  Conservatives like Ted Cruz are saying they can't vote for it, but remember that Ted Cruz literally wrote this bill.  Conservative hardliners hate Obama so much they will vote for ANYTHING that looks like a repeal bill. 

You think moderate republicans will vote against it?  When has that ever happened?  I literally can't think of a single time that moderate republicans in the Senate have joined with democrats to block GOP legislation, unless the bill was going to fail anyway and they have plenty of political cover.  When it comes down crunch time, they always opt for party unity.  Always.

Lots of republicans would like to be the only no vote, as long as they're sure it will pass anyway.  Nobody wants to actually be the deciding vote, though.  I think this bill either passes easily, or if it's clear it won't pass they'll flee it like rats and it only get like 25 yays.  I think a closely voted defeat, like 49 yays, is literally impossible.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 05:23:26 PM by sol »

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1701
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2925 on: June 26, 2017, 05:43:00 PM »
The newest version:
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BetterCareReconcilistionAct.6.26.17.pdf

Page 137 has about the 6 month waiting period.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2926 on: June 26, 2017, 06:06:30 PM »
Looking forward to this failing this week so all these politicians can have an adult conversation with each other.

I think it will pass.

Who is going to vote against it?  Conservatives like Ted Cruz are saying they can't vote for it, but remember that Ted Cruz literally wrote this bill.  Conservative hardliners hate Obama so much they will vote for ANYTHING that looks like a repeal bill. 

You think moderate republicans will vote against it?  When has that ever happened?  I literally can't think of a single time that moderate republicans in the Senate have joined with democrats to block GOP legislation, unless the bill was going to fail anyway and they have plenty of political cover.  When it comes down crunch time, they always opt for party unity.  Always.

Lots of republicans would like to be the only no vote, as long as they're sure it will pass anyway.  Nobody wants to actually be the deciding vote, though.  I think this bill either passes easily, or if it's clear it won't pass they'll flee it like rats and it only get like 25 yays.  I think a closely voted defeat, like 49 yays, is literally impossible.

Agree with this, as well.  My husband was holding  out hope that Cruz (regrettably, our senator) would vote against because it wasn't conservative enough (opposite of our beliefs, but we'll take any 'no' we can get).  And I said: no WAY he votes no unless about 10-12 other people vote no as well.  No WAY the conservative block supposedly standing in the way of this bill holds firm if the vote is close.  The only one I'm not sure would cave in that case is Rand Paul. Cruz is a craven POS, but I'm not sure Paul is. Repugnant  in many ways, but he does seem to have more balls than Cruz could ever dream on  his best day.

chasesfish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Texas
    • Years in the making, I created a journal!
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2927 on: June 26, 2017, 07:17:52 PM »
Looking forward to this failing this week so all these politicians can have an adult conversation with each other.

I think it will pass.

Who is going to vote against it?  Conservatives like Ted Cruz are saying they can't vote for it, but remember that Ted Cruz literally wrote this bill.  Conservative hardliners hate Obama so much they will vote for ANYTHING that looks like a repeal bill. 

You think moderate republicans will vote against it?  When has that ever happened?  I literally can't think of a single time that moderate republicans in the Senate have joined with democrats to block GOP legislation, unless the bill was going to fail anyway and they have plenty of political cover.  When it comes down crunch time, they always opt for party unity.  Always.

Lots of republicans would like to be the only no vote, as long as they're sure it will pass anyway.  Nobody wants to actually be the deciding vote, though.  I think this bill either passes easily, or if it's clear it won't pass they'll flee it like rats and it only get like 25 yays.  I think a closely voted defeat, like 49 yays, is literally impossible.

I may be eating these words shortly, but I don't think it passes with opposition from Collins, Heller, and Johnson.  There's not a path even if they can somehow pull Rand Paul in.

I don't know why they're insistent on changing anything, politicians don't get credit for fixing something early and more than half the population doesn't think the ACA is broken.  Who the hell is advising these people?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2928 on: June 26, 2017, 08:06:07 PM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/quiCkLy

Thinking about it more carefully, I find the CBO score for the Senate's bill to be shockingly generous.  How does it cover 1m more people than the House bill, while making even more drastic cuts to Medicaid funding, and allowing states to opt out of Medicaid entirely?  The CBO must have assumed every state would raise taxes in order to keep their Medicaid spending flat, or that the Senate plan somehow got more middle class people onto insurance to make up for all of the poor people who would lose it.

Further research has solved this mystery.  The reason that the CBO says the Senate's bill isn't woefully worse for coverage numbers than the House bill is that the Senate bill postpones the Medicaid cuts long enough that people don't lose coverage until after the 10 year time horizon that the CBO uses.  It's years 11-15 that see the extra tens of millions of people lose Medicaid (up to half of all Medicaid recipients, eventually).

That's dirty pool.  The Senate cut an extra half trillion or so from medicaid, so they get the full financial accounting available immediately to finance their tax cuts for billionaires, but the coverage loses are beyond the time window for comparison of how many poor people will lose access to healthcare.

Clever in an evil way for the Senate Republicans to do this.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2929 on: June 27, 2017, 05:32:34 AM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/quiCkLy

Thinking about it more carefully, I find the CBO score for the Senate's bill to be shockingly generous.  How does it cover 1m more people than the House bill, while making even more drastic cuts to Medicaid funding, and allowing states to opt out of Medicaid entirely?  The CBO must have assumed every state would raise taxes in order to keep their Medicaid spending flat, or that the Senate plan somehow got more middle class people onto insurance to make up for all of the poor people who would lose it.

Further research has solved this mystery.  The reason that the CBO says the Senate's bill isn't woefully worse for coverage numbers than the House bill is that the Senate bill postpones the Medicaid cuts long enough that people don't lose coverage until after the 10 year time horizon that the CBO uses.  It's years 11-15 that see the extra tens of millions of people lose Medicaid (up to half of all Medicaid recipients, eventually).

That's dirty pool.  The Senate cut an extra half trillion or so from medicaid, so they get the full financial accounting available immediately to finance their tax cuts for billionaires, but the coverage loses are beyond the time window for comparison of how many poor people will lose access to healthcare.

Clever in an evil way for the Senate Republicans to do this.

Yeah.  They made sure that the cuts to Medicaid don't go into effect until after the 2020 election.
They made sure that biggest coverage losses (other than the upfront ~15MM they couldn't avoid) would come starting at year 11 as Medicaid gets progressively smaller.

I've often criticized SSA for putting out comicly long 75 year projections, but it seems 10 years is too short when the bulk of the phase-out will happen towards their predicted time period, and few of its effects will be felt.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2930 on: June 27, 2017, 05:59:34 AM »
The biggest problem in trying to understand the mindset of people who want to do away with the ACA and replace it with something that will help fewer people is that you are approaching this from the point of view that helping people is a good thing. People like Paul Ryan don't see it that way. They see a dog-eat-dog world which rewards the strong and punishes the weak and anything that helps the weak simply reinforces their deficiencies. They don't want to help people because in their mind helping people creates dependence. Many of them will refer to it as "feeding the animals" because the poor and needy are subhuman.

That's what you need to remember while you try to make sense of what's going on with the ACA replacement bills right now.

zing12

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2931 on: June 27, 2017, 06:59:27 AM »
^ I wish they were honest about that. Instead, they lie and create the falsehood that they are ok with the goals of the ACA and that it is just "bad" at what it is supposed to do, when in reality they are opposed to the goals.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2932 on: June 27, 2017, 07:49:26 AM »
Someone please clarify for me, will the end result (when this passes) be worse, better, or the same as pre-Obamacare?

Thanks.

Depends on what time frame you're talking about, but after 2020 it's inarguably worse. For employer-provided and individual policies it's about the same. Individuals get some subsidies but not a whole lot. After 2020 the 10 essential health benefits sunset and states can seek waivers for any provision in the bill, including lifetime and annual caps. Large employers can get a plan in any state they want, which means some state is going to waive everything in the bill and large employers are going to flock to it because plans there will be cheaper.

The big deal is that the Senate bill effectively unwinds Medicaid as a program. It does this by capping benefits per person and then only allowing those benefits to grow at the urban CPI rate, which is significantly less than the medical inflation rate. Over (not much) time lower reimbursements from the Federal government will obliterate state government budgets, causing huge cuts in benefits to seniors, people with disabilities, not to mention people who finally got access to medical care under the Medicaid expansion.

If this bill passes, and there's little evidence to support it not passing in some form, everyone on this board, and in fact everyone in the entire country, now has to worry about paying for their parents' nursing home bills and end of life care out of pocket. How does someone plan for any kind of retirement, let alone FIRE, if they are going to be on the hook for $5,000 per month per person in 2017 dollars for one or two (or three or four, for a married couple) parents' nursing home bills? It's a gigantic step backwards for the country as a whole.

I was actually thinking...$9,000...but I may be considering higher-end levels of care.

marion10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 237
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2933 on: June 27, 2017, 08:28:35 AM »
MY MIL  had Alzheimer's, diabetes (developed in her 90s), atrial fib and a broken pelvis that would not heal was $9,000 a month in rural Wisconsin.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 08:57:48 AM by marion10 »

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2934 on: June 27, 2017, 08:29:59 AM »
Senate Health Bill Would Leave 22 Million More Uninsured, C.B.O. Says

https://nyti.ms/2u9M1Lu
From that link:
"Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year."

Every iteration gets worse than the last one.  Can't wait for the final version.
The wording on this is interesting. "Wait six months before their coverage would begin" implies that they are on the insurance for six months already when their coverage starts. Does this mean that they will be paying premiums for those six months without receiving benefits? And if coverage begins at month 6, does that mean that anything that happens during months 0-5 won't be covered? (E.g., cancer diagnosis during month 3 wouldn't be covered after the waiting period because you weren't technically covered at the time of the diagnosis?) Or are they simply prohibited from being covered by any health insurance for six months?

And what's with "more than about two months the prior year"? That's not very precise. And is that cumulative, or counted within a single stretch? (E.g., if I went without insurance for all of February and all of November, 2017, will I be hit with the waiting period in 2018? What if I hold my new insurance from Nov '17 through Nov '18, but lose my job and am unable to replace it. Do I still get hit with the waiting period even though I held it for 12 months, just because of the two one-month lapses in 2017?)

I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2935 on: June 27, 2017, 08:40:11 AM »
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

It's not. It's punishingly cruel to people who get dropped if, for example, they forget to make a payment because they're in the hospital, or they're taking care of a family member, or for whatever reason.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2936 on: June 27, 2017, 08:42:29 AM »
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

It's not. It's punishingly cruel to people who get dropped if, for example, they forget to make a payment because they're in the hospital, or they're taking care of a family member, or for whatever reason.

It is 63 days so they wanted to make sure it's more than 2 missed payments but it's still cruel.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2937 on: June 27, 2017, 08:43:57 AM »
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

It's not. It's punishingly cruel to people who get dropped if, for example, they forget to make a payment because they're in the hospital, or they're taking care of a family member, or for whatever reason.
I mean from the perspective of trying to get more people paying into insurance. If anything this is going to chase more people away from insurance than the individual mandate did.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2938 on: June 27, 2017, 08:58:50 AM »
Why do republicans put so much time and money into pro-life efforts and then try and kill 22 million people?

It doesn't make any logical sense.   

gerardc

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF bay area
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2939 on: June 27, 2017, 09:01:14 AM »
The biggest problem in trying to understand the mindset of people who want to do away with the ACA and replace it with something that will help fewer people is that you are approaching this from the point of view that helping people is a good thing. People like Paul Ryan don't see it that way. They see a dog-eat-dog world which rewards the strong and punishes the weak and anything that helps the weak simply reinforces their deficiencies. They don't want to help people because in their mind helping people creates dependence. Many of them will refer to it as "feeding the animals" because the poor and needy are subhuman.

That's what you need to remember while you try to make sense of what's going on with the ACA replacement bills right now.

It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Liberals have this view of poor people dying of hunger, but I'd say they're closer to your irresponsible and entitled uncle that consistently makes bad financial decisions and will keep making them until you stop financing him.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2940 on: June 27, 2017, 09:08:12 AM »
The biggest problem in trying to understand the mindset of people who want to do away with the ACA and replace it with something that will help fewer people is that you are approaching this from the point of view that helping people is a good thing. People like Paul Ryan don't see it that way. They see a dog-eat-dog world which rewards the strong and punishes the weak and anything that helps the weak simply reinforces their deficiencies. They don't want to help people because in their mind helping people creates dependence. Many of them will refer to it as "feeding the animals" because the poor and needy are subhuman.

That's what you need to remember while you try to make sense of what's going on with the ACA replacement bills right now.

It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Liberals have this view of poor people dying of hunger, but I'd say they're closer to your irresponsible and entitled uncle that consistently makes bad financial decisions and will keep making them until you stop financing him.

Rather, helping people with health care access makes them less sick, and more productive, better able to work, and makes the ultimate health care costs cheaper since you aren't trying to solve deep-rooted health problems that have gone untreated for too long.

"As noted by a study from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, poor health and limited access to health care not only raise the cost of providing such care but also reduce productivity, eat into wages, increase absenteeism, weigh on tax revenues and generally lower the nationís quality of life."

When Cutting Access to Health Care, Thereís a Price to Pay
https://nyti.ms/2udLd8k

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2941 on: June 27, 2017, 09:09:48 AM »
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

It's not. It's punishingly cruel to people who get dropped if, for example, they forget to make a payment because they're in the hospital, or they're taking care of a family member, or for whatever reason.

The private insurance has been lobbying hard to prevent people from buying insurance only when they desperately need it. The talking point has been "people signing up for insurance in the back of an ambulance".  To combat this they've stuck on this 6 month waiting period and the 63 days/year of coverage lines.

To combat a very rare practice (and one where people would get emergency treatment anyway) they've stuck in some deeply onerous provisions which are designed to prevent large losses (read: Maximize profits!) of insurance companies.
It's yet another example of creating restrictions and justifying them as fraud-prevention when the real goal is both obvious and more sinister. Complex voter-registration is another example.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2942 on: June 27, 2017, 09:11:01 AM »
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the individual mandate.

It's not. It's punishingly cruel to people who get dropped if, for example, they forget to make a payment because they're in the hospital, or they're taking care of a family member, or for whatever reason.
I mean from the perspective of trying to get more people paying into insurance. If anything this is going to chase more people away from insurance than the individual mandate did.

You're exactly right, it runs counter to the goal of stabilizing markets. Then again, market stability is not actually these lawmakers' goal. Their goal with this legislation is the complete and utter destruction of the Great Society programs. Every single bit of the stuff about the non-group market is a sideshow.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2943 on: June 27, 2017, 09:12:32 AM »
Why do republicans put so much time and money into pro-life efforts and then try and kill 22 million people?

It doesn't make any logical sense.

Because in their minds, once you are an adult, you can earn enough to live or else die. They don't see health care as a right.

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2944 on: June 27, 2017, 09:19:51 AM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Difference being that not giving a few thousand or whatever to family won't cause them to die because they can't afford cancer treatments but cutting Medicaid or backdoor evisceration of protections for pre-exisiting conditions does.  Many studies show that it's X # of deaths per Y # of uninsured.  Or is that fake news? 

Just admit that many of you right wingers just don't give a shit about people, you don't care if people die.   Fucking sociopaths. 
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 09:22:35 AM by Luck12 »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2727
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2945 on: June 27, 2017, 09:30:50 AM »
Sounds like *someone* has gotten too dependent on the interstate highway system, national defense (who doesn't like speaking German or Russian?), and worst of all, that pesky government-designed bastard child of DARPAnet!

There are some situations in which private enterprise doesn't work (even hardcore libertarians will admit this if pressed). I think that healthcare is probably one of them.

-W

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8002
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2946 on: June 27, 2017, 09:37:51 AM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Liberals have this view of poor people dying of hunger, but I'd say they're closer to your irresponsible and entitled uncle that consistently makes bad financial decisions and will keep making them until you stop financing him.

IMO providing health care and/or health insurance is not furthering poor life decisions.  ACcording to Kaiser's white paper on teh subject, as may as 55MM American citizens have pre-existing conditions.  Ensuring that these people can receive affordable healthcare that includes coverage for their conditions is neither enabling bad decisions nor (as DavidAnnArbor has pointed out) wasteful spending.
No one is getting drunk off added healthcare benefits, nor are they deciding to be MORE unhealthy once they have the ability to see a doctor.  Access to healthcare makes people healthier, period.

In response to your analysis of liberals I'd remark that many conservatives consider being poor as a moral failure and the result of bad financial decisions (as you indicate above).  I don't adhear to either of these beliefs.  With the caveat that correlation isn't necessarily causation, the sinlge greatest indicator of economic success is how wealthy your parents were, and those that have recieved more governmental benefits tend to rise higher on the economic ladder than those who receive less.

runewell

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
  • Age: 46
  • actuary
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2947 on: June 27, 2017, 09:57:09 AM »
I disagree with any plan that doesn't actively attempt to do something about cost making healthcare more affordable to all Americans not just those that vote for their party.

The Americans that were struggling to get healthcare had a lot of pre-existing conditions.  Why would anyone then expect that by mandating coverage for all Americans that somehow healthcare will become more affordable?  Everybody wants free benefits but nobody wants to (or is able to) pay for it.

There are big problems with health insurance.  Paul Rand correctly notes that there is a severe lack of competition, and that the customer is disconnected from financial impact. 

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2948 on: June 27, 2017, 10:22:41 AM »
I disagree with any plan that doesn't actively attempt to do something about cost making healthcare more affordable to all Americans not just those that vote for their party.

The Americans that were struggling to get healthcare had a lot of pre-existing conditions.  Why would anyone then expect that by mandating coverage for all Americans that somehow healthcare will become more affordable?  Everybody wants free benefits but nobody wants to (or is able to) pay for it.

There are big problems with health insurance.  Paul Rand correctly notes that there is a severe lack of competition, and that the customer is disconnected from financial impact.

But what does Ayn Rand think?

The bar to starting your own health insurance company is so high, with necessary regulations to prevent fraud, that the marketplace for it is not really able to be competitive. There's too much mismatch in information between consumers and providers, etc.
This is a classic case when the free market fails. Time for government intervention.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #2949 on: June 27, 2017, 10:53:44 AM »
Why do republicans put so much time and money into pro-life efforts and then try and kill 22 million people?

It doesn't make any logical sense.

Because in their minds, once you are an adult, you can earn enough to live or else die. They don't see health care as a right.

"Kill 22 million people."  I love lines like this. Because they add fear to the discussion without any backing of reality.  Who needs reality when you have fear.  Just an FYI, our hospital system treats about 20% of its patient who are uninsured and no pay.

If we were really serious about making healthcare affordable we would be yelling at our congress people to allow CMS to negotiate on medication purchases.  We would be pushing to decrease law suit liabilities from big pharma and minimize the regulatory burden the FDA imposes so that we can have less expensive drugs.  US has a much more stringent drug approval process as compared to European countries.  We would be pushing our congress people to demand educating the public on death with dignity. We would push to decrease the regulatory burden and unnecessary personnel involved in the delivery of healthcare. But no, we just clamor about who will pay the bill.

We all pay in some form or another except the very very poor who still qualify for medicaid.  And even they suffer because only so many providers are willing to accept the piss poor reimbursement of medicaid.  But hey, at least we can comfortably say we did not kill 22 million people.