I just read the proposed health care bill. The republicans failed
miserably. Thank you for introducing obama 2.0. The republicans
just wasted a lot of time and money, and accomplished nothing.
Thank you for doing nothing. Please return your salary to the
taxpayers. Just proposed another unfunded entitlement.
David Fromel Gysgt. U.S.M.C.
This is the first phase in the process, not the final bill. So how is it you’ve come to a conclusion when you don’t know what the outcome will be. Did the Democrats post a review of the ACA before they rammed it through. If the Republicans do nothing, the ACA will self destruct. Would you prefer that to happen and have millions lose their coverage. There’s no objectivity left in our society. Everyone has to be a critic but many are not willing to have positive input, such as this post.
Yes, by now we all know the mantra: “Obamacare will self-destruct.” Except that’s not the truth. The ACA was “destructed” by Republican states shooting it in the gut, and by Republican legislators who refused to adjust it.
Remove the brakes from your car and take a sledgehammer to its engine, drive it a mile if you can, then tell me it self-destructed.
Not JUST the anti-Medicaid maneuver. This one was more subtle, and I think few still realize it. I’d been noting the buzzwords but the impact of this poison pill escaped me until learning more about the “risk corridor.” Please read this article before commenting, but for those who won’t, here’s an excerpt:
“…Everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously uninsured but sick people got into the system, got better and things evened out [“Risk Corridor”].
[So]the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in the first decade … with a [financial] guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.
Then … Rubio and a number of other Republicans … succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that just in 2015, … payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed … to the tune of around $400 million. … The insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to refund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years.
So the insurance companies did the only thing they could. In (mostly red) states with low incomes and thus poorer health, they simply pulled out of the marketplace altogether. This has left some states with only a single insurer left. In other states, they jacked up their prices to make up their losses.”
I have documents saved long ago with the criteria listed.
LOOOOONG ago… before the General Election. Before the primaries. Once the death spiral started.
Whether or not the Congressional committees and HI CEOs are capable of determining the solutions is beyond my control.
March 8, 2017 at 9:19 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
9
12
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
Single payer IS NOT SOCIALISM. Private companies would be in control of the production and distribution of health care, not the government.
If you do not understand what a term (Socialism in this case) actually means, please stop using it.
America cannot not reach its full potential until the people become educated first.
March 9, 2017 at 2:08 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
8
If it gives you comfort, keep repeating that. But the label is irrelevant. Call it ‘ham sandwich-ism’ if you like. The concept is what matters.
March 9, 2017 at 2:09 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
8
LOL @ private cos. in ‘control’ of health care and insurance.
They’d be in control as much as Dems are currently in control of the US govt.
March 13, 2017 at 10:19 am
SnowFlakeOverlord says:
Like or Dislike:
8
1
Was this before or after he was secretly born in Kenya. . Republicans had seven years to come up with an alternative instead bloviating about how bad the PPACA was. They chose to hollowly put forth repeal legislation that they knew would never pass as a symbolic gesture of protest, aka the 84-month long temper tantrum. This was their chance to be heroes, and they failed. Miserably. Repeatedly. By any standard of measure, including their own party and Trump voters. The fallout will be vitriolic, and frankly, I would like to pre-emptively thank Paul Ryan for giving the Democrats blow-out wins in the mid-terms.
March 8, 2017 at 4:24 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
13
RE-Posted due to LiBOTterals’ censorship of conservative viewpoints:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
Reply
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
Reply
Multi moniker sore loser trolls down voting do not the majority make. The voting is skewed. Polar, you are the only one who presents the facts. Keep it up. I am behind you 100%.
March 7, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Paul says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32
5
I’m seeing a lot of repeal, but very little replace in this. Until health insurance is taken away from being the responsibility of employers and put directly on the consumer, with market-based individual plans – by doing so we deconstruct whole government bureaucracies like HIPAA, COBRA, ERISA to name a few, along with their fifty state counterparts, then I’m afraid we are simply rearranging deck furniture on the sinking ship, because none of these things proposed address the core issues, and that is bureaucracy to comply – both from within the employer’s office as well as the provider’s business office, and the fifty state legislature’s propensity to impose uninsurable benefits through employer plans, the costs of which are passed onto the premium payer. Our health insurance marketplace needs a fundamental disruption which would also require a decoupling of the health insurance industry from the health care industry, and by doing so putting the responsibility to manage care back on the patient where it belongs.
I’d say the days of EXCLUSIVE use of employer provider HI through THEIR group plans are over.
The proposal I like most is an option for an employee to retain their individual policy for which their employer pays an EQUAL amount to the insurer regardless of the employees’ age, premium required by their insurers, or years of service. That keeps open the possibility of a lesser volume of insured workers under a smaller volume group plan. EMPLOYEE FREEDOM OF CHOICE enables employees to better make health care decisions; e.g. what coverage options, deductibles, co-pays, etc. for their needs.
Freedom of choice can’t be considered wrong, unless you are a Commie Socialist who thinks govt control is the best way for people too dumb to make good decisions tolive their lives.
TrumpCare gives new life to job lock, which was significantly reduced under the PPACA. If I can’t afford insurance on my own, I am stuck with the insurance I have under the job I don’t like. I can’t leave my job to take one that doesn’t offer insurance or start my own business and purchase an individual policy if I can’t afford that. TrumpCare makes these scenerios much more likely. Unless, of course, I make more than $1,000,000 year or am a Health Insurance CEO. Then I’m all set.
As someone who has benefited from the ACA, I still agree with you. I was a “self-payer” for years and pricing in health care is whack! There is a different price for everything depending on who you are and zero transparency.
An endoscopy which I believed would cost $900 turned out to be $2200. What could I do? I had to call all the service providers and try to negotiate. VERY stressful and did nothing for the ulcer for which I was seeking treatment. A typical scenario for the uninsured middle incomer.
I can shop around for services and rates for my car, my dog, my plumbing, but not my health care. I believe strongly that insurance companies need to be removed from the equation and health care put back in the free market. Then we do need to find a way to help the poor, or at least level the playing field. Generally speaking, it’s inhumane to let someone die of cancer because they can’t afford coverage, and a broken leg shouldn’t bankrupt someone (like me!).
While I was happy that I was at least able to afford insurance under ACA, (it was a choice between insurance or buying a home prior to ACA) I was disappointed that it did nothing to change the fundamentals of health care system.
Sadly this GOP bill comes nowhere near satisfying that need. The tax credits will do very little to help someone like me come up with actual cash to pay for coverage. And frankly, I see no reason to enrich for-profit middle-man insurers anyway. I’d much rather go direct to the provider with my money.
GOP has had YEARS to come up with something, while all they did was bitch and moan and blame the others.
So sick of politicians.
Agreed. Health insurance requires standards. Is not a classic supply-and-demand consumer commodity under customer control. Legislators should stop trying to pretend it is.
Has the GAO or actuaries from any health insurers calculated the costs of this Trumpcare program? Burying premium requirements under the guise of tax credits wouldn’t seem to change anything.
My understanding is the CBO report should be available when the bill reaches the House’s budget committee. Granted you’re reading an anonymous person’s post on an insurance blog, so I wouldn’t wager any bets on this info being 100% accurate – as previously stated, that’s just my understanding.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
Reply
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE-POSTED on behalf of Agent:
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
Reply
Reply
I already read his comment PBR. Could you PLEASE stop posting it over and over again? You’re clogging up the thread with old posts and “closed” conversations. I’m asking nicely and would appreciate a reply without any insults or attitude.
I am trying to make a point with those who are trying to censor conservative voices, rather than have n open mind about discussion and debate.
March 10, 2017 at 4:56 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Rosenblatt, would you prefer that the multi moniker sore loser trolls continue to hide Polars comments?
March 7, 2017 at 2:42 pm
AWoman says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
13
7
And Planned parenthood medical providers won’t be able to collect from Medicaid for its pap smears, etc. Because it also provides abortions. So poor ladies, you can go to any doctors you like, except for PP doctors.
Because there are still women who will not be able to afford Health Insurance. And the tax credits cannot be used toward a policy that covers elective abortion. And because the health choices that a woman makes are no ones damn business and should not be codified into legislation.
Finally, PP has been long overdue to close. With all of the free clinics and fast clinics out there, PP is no longer needed. They are a private company looking out for their profits not your health. If they want to stay open with donations, more power to them, but the government should not be supporting them.
My god The govt is not going to pay For your sex life!!! I don’t want govt in my health insurance!!! I don’t need or wantgovt paid birth control!! One size for all in health care doesn’t work Face it!!!
What about that garbage web site? Are you going to break up open enrollment?
What about Distribution? Infrastructure between agent and carrier worked just fine prior to OBAma sticking his nose into it. Can the web site. can the terrible call centers.
Put distribution and service back in the hands of agents.
Break up open enrollment .
Hi FFA. Good to see you back on the thread. As I see it, the “Government” website will go by the wayside gradually and consumers will be able to go direct to the carriers for plans and will be offered plans they want, not what the government wants. Agents can do the same thing and actually present something that is patient/doctor centered. A lot more choice when you get selling across state lines. Didn’t you say your choices shrunk down under Obamacare and had to travel to find an approved doctor? With Dr. Price in charge of HHS, he is very smart and will be working with Congress to get it lined out. A law as complicated as Obamacare was will take a lot of work to unwind.
I had no PPO Option in my area and had to go HMO to find a doc within 50 miles. I must admit, its not a bad as I thought it would be. Most rates in Wi held or went down this past year so something is going right (Opioid Program). My wife was not so happy because they wont give her pain killers, but we adjust and try “unconventional” medicine and it works just as much as the RX do with out the addiction / withdrawal issues. She is no where near as depressed as she was. I know your dead set against it. Our back was against the wall and had to try something and we are way better off for it. Its just a matter of time before Wi gets is legal for Med purposes. Its way better then narcotics. Sometimes people just have to take that leap of faith. In my case, we are better off.
We did see it and it was very good. Did you see Designated Survivor? That is even better and is about like what is going on in DC currently. Traitors galore, but the good guys will eventually triumph.
March 8, 2017 at 4:27 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
Re-POSTED on behalf of AGENT:
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hi FFA. Good to see you back on the thread. As I see it, the “Government” website will go by the wayside gradually and consumers will be able to go direct to the carriers for plans and will be offered plans they want, not what the government wants. Agents can do the same thing and actually present something that is patient/doctor centered. A lot more choice when you get selling across state lines. Didn’t you say your choices shrunk down under Obamacare and had to travel to find an approved doctor? With Dr. Price in charge of HHS, he is very smart and will be working with Congress to get it lined out. A law as complicated as Obamacare was will take a lot of work to unwind.
Reply
Would you or somebody, anybody (!) please explain exactly how insurance sold across state lines will work?
What state will regulate it? Or will there be no regulations or standards, what? Will all the insurers register themselves in whatever state has the lowest standards? And, given that shopping for an insurance policy is highly personalized, uniquely technical, and not transparent (until you have a claim), how do individual consumers shop for it?
NObody ever explains this. We just hear that one-sentence statement over and over. A URL will do. Thanks.
Many states need to cooperate to regulate insurers across state lines, and how that is accomplished is yet unknown.
Let me give a naive example; insurer’s HQs domicile state is responsible for regulation, and for coordinating regulation among 49 other states, and US jurisdictions. Details? Ask the politicians who must coordinate such with 50 states, preferably through an NAIC committee communicating with all 50 Insurance Commissioners offices.
Please do NOT assume it is impossible. Ask a lawyer, if you’ve got time… and hyuuge amounts of money.
I read one approach, but don’t think it will work perfectly. Hence, I think they are struggling with those details as the Part 2 bill.
Dem Governors and their Insurance Commissioners may be roadblocks to the agreement. If so, I hope TrumPresident tweets out their names, so all can see who is obstructing progress.
March 10, 2017 at 11:23 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Randall,
Let me make this simple. Here are the options to make this possible:
1. Federal regulation of health insurance (Interstate Commerce)
2. No regulation of health insurance
3. Forcing one state to accept the regulatory requirements of another.
The only other possibility is to have all 50 states agree on one set of regulations, which is already an option.
I’d immediately rule out #1, seeing that Republicans control Congress and TrumPresident isn’t adequately knowledgeable about insurance regulation to NOT heed the advice of the insurance industry conservatives who are advising him on the issue.
March 10, 2017 at 1:42 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Further, 2. is unikely.
#3. is the reason for the delay in that part of the reform. Dem state’s governors and insurance regulators are resisting this approach. That is why I advise TrumPresident to tweet the names of any such roadblocks to the replacement plan.
March 10, 2017 at 1:43 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Oh, yeah; #3. ‘forcing’ isn’t the proper word. It is a matter to NEGOTIATING a DEAL for cooperation of all 50 states. The Art of The Deal guy is working his way toward a deal that all can support. Stay tuned!
March 15, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Randall says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Seems there’s a catch-22. I agree that “forcing” is not the right approach, for the same reason that the Republican plan wants each state to design its own Medicaid (or kill it or whatever).
As for negotiating an agreement the likes of which has never been attempted before, sorry, no matter how good the negotiator (and I have NO confidence in Trump’s negotiating style in this case), I don’t even buy an automobile sight-unseen. And as contraptions go, a car is relatively simple.
Polar, what would be wrong with our brilliant Dr. Price of HHS inviting all the states up there for a big pow wow and stay in a room until they have an agreement?
That sounds good in principle, but is not likely an efficient use of time because deep blue states will simply resist, to resist.
Price could use a majority rule approach, but Dems would whine about it after the meeting and the media would support them rather than the best interests of US citizens. Perhaps a C-SPAN broadcast of such a meeting would expose the malcontents working against compromise and forward thinking?
I read that if you are 60 to 65 years old, the health insurance providers will increase your premiums by 18%. How can this be affordable on a fixed income? The new law returns healthcare back to insurance companies. They will go back to maximum lifetime benefits.
A thought… Mandate insurance companies to be nonprofit, like CareSource in OH and IN. Premiums are low and the coverage is great.
If we will be allowed to purchase across state lines, will the in-network providers be eliminated?
If you think it’s difficult to find a doctor now, the suggestion you make to mandate health care providers make no profit will be a shock to you when you seek health care services. Try Cana-duh or Britain for your health care now for a sample of what your suggestion will yield.
RE-POSTED due to LiBOTterals suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome attempting to censor conservative viewpoints on IJ:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
If you think it’s difficult to find a doctor now, the suggestion you make to mandate health care providers make no profit will be a shock to you when you seek health care services. Try Cana-duh or Britain for your health care now for a sample of what your suggestion will yield.
Reply
Not just 18%. They will be able to charge large multiples of what they charge a young persons. ACA capped that multiple at 3x. Now you’re going to see that go back to the 7x or more that was common before.
HSA’s & FSA’s are great – but only if you have the disposable income to fund them. HSA’s do nothing for those living at/near the poverty line who live paycheck to paycheck.
My point is simple: HSA/FSA accounts cannot the end-all-be-all resolution to ensure those who need additional financial assistance are able to receive it, and increasing their multiplier is only exacerbating the issues for those folks.
May 5, 2017 at 10:35 am
lady 1 says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I live, very much, paycheck to paycheck, seeing what we can put on the table after the necessities are paid. I contribute to an FSA because it is easier money wise in the long run for me. I have a child who needs medicine and machines to keep him alive. I am blessed that he can live a somewhat normal life other than these aspects. With the FSA, I chose the limit of $2500. They take a set amount out of my pay every week so it’s easier for me to plan and not get hit one week with a doozy. Also, this way, I am receiving the tax benefit a little at a time rather than having to put the money out and having to wait to see if I can deduct it all at the end of the year. BTW, that limit only takes me to May, so I’m on my own for the rest of the year, so the taking away of the limit and making it as much as your deductible is awesome for me. Also taking away the over the counter tax is good to, as alcohol, bandages, antibiotic creams, band aids, you get the point won’t be as expensive and will be considered a qualified medical expense from now on.Though I know this is not law yet, I hope they keep those provisions in.
March 13, 2017 at 10:32 am
SnowFlakeOverlord says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
“Aren’t you saying ‘share the wealth’ from young to old?
What if elders are richer, and youths are poor?”
Did you get your insurance license form the same school as Paul Ryan?
No one thing is a silver bullet to solve the ACA disaster.
Many people are involved in resolving many problems in health care/insurance, some of which were CAUSED BY ACA.
Please stop making irresponsible assumptions about the HSA’s to be used. I believe the plan is for a different form of HSA, with a different name.
March 13, 2017 at 12:30 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
No, I’m not saying that… and won’t tell you … just like Pee-Low-See-it-after-we-pass-it-without-Republican-support and Harry ‘Literally Lock-em Out’ Reid did. Upset by BOTH such plans concealment? You should be, unless you’re a hypocrite.
What is an ‘insurance license’? Be specific.
March 13, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I never said Medicaid is being phased out, so I don’t know why you directed that comment to me.
“Please stop making irresponsible assumptions about the HSA’s to be used”
What irresponsible assumption did I make? That those without disposable income will not have said disposable income to fund an HSA or FSA account? Explain to me how that is false, with the knowledge of this next part too:
“I believe the plan is for a different form of HSA, with a different name” — sir, this goes back to another dispute you and I had about what words mean.
If it’s a different TYPE of HSA (and not an HRA), then it cannot be called an HSA. HSA/FSA’s are distinct terms with defined meanings. You cannot call something an HSA if it does not fit the definition of an HSA.
I mean – are you going to argue a strawberry is a berry just because it has “berry” in the name, ignoring how “berry” is actually defined?
You can’t change definitions to fit your argument. If the replacement plan calls for an HSA, an HSA is it. If the plan calls for a NEW type of savings account, it cannot be called an HSA by definition.
March 13, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Similar “use words as they’re defined and not how you want to define them” questions stolen from Linda Richmond:
Do you think Rhode Island is an island because it has “island” in the name?
Do you think a chick pea is a pea because it has “pea” in the name?
Do you think a peanut is a pea and a nut because it has those words in the name?
May 5, 2017 at 10:25 am
lady 1 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
But this lowers the AGI for 65+ for medical expense deduction and makes the refundable tax credit higher with age.
Likely? Don’t bet the farm. Passage of parts 2 and 3 isn’t even sure, let alone the necessarily massive “revisions” to a disputed Part 1. That’s hardly a sound way to plan for the future.
Stop, hold comprehensive hearings, bring in all stakeholders, and build something that makes sense for all. Stop pandering for political points and “playing to the base.”
The GOP’s real problem, in terms of passing legislation, isn’t that the party can’t agree on specifics, or that legislators need to bargain their way toward a compromise that gives everyone something they want. It’s that they don’t agree on, or in some cases even have, basic goals when it comes to health policy. Little in politics shocks me. The process House Republicans want to use for their healthcare bill does. After literally years of complaining Obamacare was jammed down the American people’s throats with insufficient information or consideration, the GOP intends to hold committee votes on their bill two days after releasing it, and without a Congressional Budget Office report estimating either coverage or fiscal effects. It’s breathtaking. / If Republicans believed the American people — or even their own legislators — would like the results of a thorough estimate of their proposal’s effects, they would have waited for one. / I honestly have no idea what it will do to the deficit — it’s hard to see any short-term reduction, and if there’s a long-term reduction, it will only be due to deep, deep Medicaid cuts, which will mean a correspondingly large increase in the uninsured. / Adverse selection seems like a huge problem in this plan. Death spirals seem very likely in weak markets. Republicans will fully own those death spirals. /The plan is strikingly regressive compared to the Affordable Care Act. For example a 40-year-old making 160 percent of the poverty line would get $4,143 in subsidies under the ACA, but only $3,000 under the GOP plan; by contrast, a 40-year-old making $75,000 would get nothing under the ACA, but $3,000 under the GOP plan. / Hypocrisy is a minor sin in politics, but still, it is remarkable how much of it there is to be found in this legislation. / Were voters clamoring for a bill that cut taxes on the rich, raised premiums on the old, and cut subsidies for the poor? Will Americans be happy when 15 million people lose their health insurance and many of those remaining face higher deductibles? /This bill has a lot of problems, and more will come clear as experts study its language, the Congressional Budget Office release its estimates, and industry players make themselves heard. But the biggest problem this bill has is that it’s not clear why it exists. What does it make better? What is it even trying to achieve? Democrats wanted to cover more people and reduce long-term costs, and they had an argument for how their bill did both. As far as I can tell, Republicans have neither. At best, you can say this bill makes every obvious health care metric a bit worse, but at least it cuts taxes on rich people? Is that really a winning argument in American politics? / In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare; this is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal-and-replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions
Thank you for your on-point, thoughtful and instructive response to this GOP (disaster) bill. Stunned that they will push it thru without CBO cost projections. What a mess.
Republicans are quelling the panic created by Dems. They are informing the public of their efforts to fix the mess left by BHO, Pee-Low-See-it-after-we-pass-it, and Harry ‘Literally lock em out of our discussions’ Reid.
Republicans are defending the ACA R&R because stewpid Dems in Congress are resisting the NEEDED replacement.
There is no hyperbole. Rate ARE rising sharply and CO-OPs are folding up like cheap suits, insurers ARE abandoning markets, and insureds ARE dropping coverage that has become MORE unaffordable.
At least someone know the facts. I’d love to see someone dispute yours. Just look at the news to see which health care insurers are going belly up or getting out to save their butts. In a year or two there wouldn’t be any cheap insurance to get for the poor and then they would all be getting fined for no insurance. Yeah, that makes sense. I was told by a “friend ” of mine that I was killing babies if I supported Trump. Really? I’m against abortion, so I’m not funding killing babies there. And in case anyone forgets, it is illegal for any hospital or health care center to deny any person life saving medical treatment. So if I walk into a hospital while having a heart attack and an illegal immigrant walks into same hospital, we both get the care needed. The only difference is, he walks out with a “promise” to pay and I walk out with a bill to cover my expenses and part of his. Then when the collections agency calls them, I have a person I know with first hand knowledge of this, if they have a correct number and it’s not fake, they claim to not speak English and just say over and over, no money, no money. So when I am told I am killing babies, what do you think this Hillary supporter meant by that?
March 8, 2017 at 9:31 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
Also, this is bill 1 of 3. Stay tuned for revisions to #1, as well as #2, #3.
Do you trust CBO projections?
Health insurance actuaries are a better resource for such. Stay tuned!
Regarding only the “this is 1 of 3” statement made by the GOP, it is fine that this is bill 1 of 3 as long as there isn’t an expectation for moving 1 through without having a clearer idea of what would be in 2 and 3 (or better yet, don’t seek approval until 2 and 3 are also written). To leverage a probably poor analogy from gambling, you never bet on the “see come”…(you don’t invest now in the hopes that an unknown future factor may improve the outcome)
This is how Republicans “govern”. Throw out something that their own party does not agree, then claim we need to wait for the finished product. Then, wait until Democrats regain control because then people are sick of waiting. Finally, go back to complaining and convincing uneducated people that all of the problems created by their failure to govern are the Democrats’ fault and get re-elected. Lather, rinse and repeat.
March 9, 2017 at 2:12 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
I like that MUCH better than the Pee-low-see-it-after-we-pass-it approach.
March 9, 2017 at 2:16 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Pssst; Congress does not govern. It legislates. POTUS and governors govern.
As part of their job in legislating a RESPONSIBLE Congress will allow preliminary drafts of proposed legislation to be published, in order to gather comments with which to improve the drafted legislation before it goes to a vote.
I’m glad to have had this opportunity to edify you on these important federal government duties matters.
March 10, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
Wrong, government governs, hence the term. Please stop edifying, explaining, clarifying, tipping, etc., you are incompetent. Stick to lying about politics, your job, your education, and threatening people.
March 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
(start sarcasm) stop telling Yogi what words mean. he gets to make up his own definitions regardless of what’s in the dictionary or how terms are used colloquially
to wit
Confused = Are hospitals and providers private entities? If yes = single-payer. If no, are hospitals and providers owned by the entity who is paying those providers? If yes = that’s socialized medicine & not a single payer system.
Yogi = Ahem. Single payer means something different than how YOU want to define it.
Confused = Alright then – we can easily resolve the issue of you thinking the words I use mean other things than how I’ve used them. Just tell me EXACTLY what dictionary you use as reference when you argue what words actually mean so I know what terms to use with you in the future.
Yogi = @Confused: you are sadly mistaken if you think I am going to continue to follow you and your debate tactics down a rabbit hole of defining terms that are well understood. Single-PAYER = government controlled FINANCING system. The independence or lack thereof of health care PROVIDERS or ENTITIES such as clinics or hospitals is IRRELEVANT.
Please play your word parsing games elsewhere. No one is willing to chase your specious arguments down a rabbit hole.
March 10, 2017 at 1:50 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Confused or Confusing or Actu or actu;
Please list all members of Congress who took a single, significant executive, governing action at any time during their terms in CONGRESS.
Ready, steady, ….GO!
March 10, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
You should parse words more so you are competent to discuss…well anything.
For example, genius, you ask for a single example of a member of Congress taking a single executive action of governing, thereby parsing words in such a way that you redefine the word “governing” to fit only your preferred, incorrect definition of the word. You are a fraud, a liar, and an intellectual lightweight. You have no interest or capability of analyzing politics or policy, your only goal is pushing BS right wing talking points. You are no better nor more advanced than a twitter bot that automatically retweets from certain accounts.
March 10, 2017 at 3:52 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
…and yet we still allow ourselves to get trolled by him :(
March 10, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I laugh at him. Nothing he says can be taken even remotely seriously so he can’t really troll me. He’s a disgusting human. The only sad part is that people like him exist.
March 10, 2017 at 10:16 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Actu; the explanation you denied is no longer a secret:
@Libitterals participating in this elongated sub-thread:
Have you noticed how IJ has prevented multiple votes on posts, or use of BOTs? It’s a new day on IJ… good for dissemination of ideas, bad for would-be-suppressors of forward thinking speech.
May 5, 2017 at 11:10 am
lady 1 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Boy, I wish you were around when they passed the ACA.
This thoughtful comment deserves to be more readable. READABILITY TIP: If you’re at a computer keyboard, you can probably insert paragraph spacing by using the SHIFT-ENTER key combination.
If you typed all this on a smartphone, thank you so much for your effort. :-)
the working people — those not on social security or diabled; basically fund the current pmts for the elderly or disabled. it’s not fair to, at the same time, take away their options for insurance while they are at their ‘prime’ earnings period(s) in their life(s) – not good USA economics either… this is especially true for self employed people, who, contrary to popular opinion, are not always rich — going from $1,000 deductible to 15,000 out of pocket with tripled or more premiums
I am one of those self-employed people and definitely not rich. But not poor. We manage a comfy lifestyle on $30k-$50k per year (no kids). But insurance was totally unaffordable to me prior to ACA, or at least not if I wanted to buy a house- which I did and have done. Choosing to go uninsured was the trade off.
We’ve been fine with a fairly cheap, although HIGH deductible plan for the past couple years. It’s better than nothing in case we get an injury that costs tens of thousands to treat.
But the GOP tax subsidies won’t help us specifically and I’ll probably end up back where I was before ACA. Making big trade-offs.
I don’t see how this plan is better for the American people. And it does nothing to address the muddle in health care costs and pricing caused by insurance middle-men. Ayn Rand would not approve.
You definitely don’t live in the East. You can’t even rent a 1 bedroom apartment with what you make a year. My husband is self employed also, about 52,000 per year, I have to work to pay for health insurance because we have a child who needs medication to stay alive. I have had to leave my kids home alone at 12 years old because I had to work. We don’t go on vacations, don’t go out to eat, rarely see a movie, maybe for a special birthday, live for hand me downs and thrift stores and don’t even understand the latest technology other than what the kids get in school. But guess what, we are good. I don’t need food stamps, we eat hot dogs some times. I don’t need any hand outs and wouldn’t take them any way. I pay for my insurance like I am supposed to and expect to get what I pay for, but I don’t because of all of the taxes put on my sons meds and medical devices this year. I have family who complain they can’t afford health insurance, yet vacation in Disney, have the latest phones and computers and always buying and updating things for the house, constantly eating out and going shopping. For people like that, I have no pity. Unfortunately there are many like them. That’s what I hate paying for, not the people that truly need the help, but the people that take advantage. Look up the current number of people using their government given funds at Disneyland. I don’t mind sacrificing for my family, but I shouldn’t have to sacrifice for theirs.
Everyone in this country should have access to affordable health care.
Everyone in this country should have the freedom to pick their health care providers.
This bill appears to cut taxes and reduce the number of people who have health insurance (which might happen anyway, although a bit more slowly, if nothing is done).
If your subsidy at age 60 is $700 a month now, having it cut to $333 a month will likely mean the end of your health insurance. Do you approve of this?
Until we can control the growing cost of delivering quality health care, this problem will only grow in scope.
Where did you get those numbers? If there are specific rate changes, I’d like to see them. Just curious.
I’m 100% in agreement of control of the underlying costs. I suspect much of the current effort is being devoted to that end. ACA never addressed costs by trying to lower or slow their increase; it just subsidized them, buttressing them, leading to their recent sharp increases.
There were some (working) people forced to go off fairly reasonably priced cat policies onto either o.care or medicaid or increasingly watered down policies (out of pockets) at higher premiums. Even slick Willie mentioned it while stumping for Hillary – how crazy it was for these people just trying to make a living.
Since they (and their descendants) are funding the health care the govt should not be able to tell them what policy they have to carry (today). Direct funding is through income taxes or medicare taxes on earned income; indirect is through increased health care prices providers attempt to pass on to the paying customers.
Now, if they refuse to carry any policy, then society has to determine what level of care they deserve, if any, when they show up at the ER with no means or security. Yes, they are still funding the health care for others — is this a conundrum or am I way off?
When the country was formed its founders pledged their lives and fortunes, now: it’s what can I get?
Knowall, it is a mess and no one wants to make the decision to “determine the level of care” people receive and/or deserve. That’s one reason our elderly care is so high – the family stands around Grandma’s bedside and says “Doc, do everything you can”. Might be a different pitch if the doctor turned to the family and said “I’m glad you love your Grandma so much, can I have each of your credit cards to pay for this”.
Since we were never allowed to see what was in Obamacare before they voted on it……Repeal it completely…then…Raise the “Federal” gas tax by 0.15 cents per gallon.
This would cover all those that can’t afford to purchase their own Health Insurance, and then some. I’ve done the research and the math.
There are approximately 20 million that can’t afford insurance. Make sure that only “Americans” are eligible for this entitlement(No illegals). Prove that your personal wealth is below the poverty level.
No more tax on Social Security income. If you are over 70 your health care is free.
The way these “poor” people buy the expensive phones, cars and purses, a consumption tax instead of income tax would bring so much money into our “I want bigger and better than him” society, we would be able to have free healthcare for everyone.
I love everything that I just read. Bad taxes are being wiped out is what I see. If any of you read this, you would see that Obama increased a lot of taxes using Obamacare. The only item that I didn’t see that I think should be added is the repeal of the employer mandate where if employee has coverage at work the affordable care act states that the rest of the family cannot buy coverage on the exchange if their cost of employee coverage at the employer is less than a percentage of total household income. The last I remember is 9 1/2%. I.e. If the cost of health insurance is less than 9 1/2% of the total household income, then the family does not qualify for a subsidy or a tax credit. That part of the act should be repealed.
By the looks of reading this, it appears we have been seeing all the increases that Obama care was going to give us. What Trump put together up here, those increases would not appear in my pocketbook if this gets approved. Slow down people. Learn a little bit about tax law and read. Don’t be so damn political.
It also appears that taxes were going to be assessed on certain drugs. Trump took that away too. I like this. Please add the employer employee fix I suggested and I’ll be happy and start paying Agents again for their services.
I really didn’t see anything to do about rate changes. I saw a lot to do with tax law changes which would then affect how health insurance affects taxes. Section 15 is interesting for anyone Purchasing health insurance off exchange and for small business people like me.
The backdating the employer and individual mandate to 2015 will give a lot of people refunds so I would redo your tax return if this gets approved for tax year 2015 and 2016.
1. RINOcare is NOT a repeal of ObamaCare. It is “repeal in name only” from its first paragraph (which admits it “amends” ObamaCare”) to the entire structure of the bill. RINOcare is just the RINOs version of ObamaCare which is what Ryan and his Gang Of RINOs wanted all along!
2. RINOcare is a “gift to illegals” according to Daniel Horowitz, who notes that this new GOP travesty potentially offers more expansive coverage for illegals than even ObamaCare!
3. RINOcare retains much of ObamaCare’s oppressive tax structure, such as the “cadillac” tax on good insurance plans.
4. RINOcare keeps the individual mandate through a devious 30% surcharge you will pay to the insurance company if you do not keep continuous coverage.
5. RINOcare keeps the coverage mandates that are bankrupting the entire health insurance system and are the fundamental problem with ObamaCare!
6. RINOcare is a DISASTER that Republicans will OWN and will lead to election defeats in 2018 and 2020 because all the failures of ObamaCare will now be correctly blamed on the GOP!
You left out a lot of the bill:
1. De-funds Planned Parenthood – 33 mentions of abortion in the bill.
2. Repeals Medicaid expansion, terminates Medicaid enhancements for children
3. Eliminates the cuts to uncompensated care to hospitals
4. Removes LOTTERY WINNERS from Medicaid – 5 pages for that
5. Allots $ to stabilize the insurance market for claims >$50k
6. Introduces CAP for Medicaid
Can we add a new section…
‘If you sign up before mid 2018, your age is 50 or beyond and your income is $60,000 or less per taxable calendar year, you will pay 0 taxes and not be required to file a Tax Return from January 2018 until your Death. If you are married this will include your spouse also. You will also pay 0 fees for the new Health Care Act for the same timeframe. Any IRS Agents whom have the prime responsibility to monitor any Taxpayers within this age and income bracket will be terminated as of Jan 2 2018 and their Salaries and Benefits will be directly assigned to the cost of this section’s rules. Those Persons within this category will also receive a one time $5000 Gift Card and extra $2000 to Veterans awarded and paid at date of their sign up and at age 60 by Direct Deposit to their designated checking Account for their long range tax contribution to the Federal Tax Program. This Gift will not be taxable to this category of Persons’
Let’s do a deeper dive on pre-existing conditions. My son had a liver transplant at 4 months and is now a 15 yo healthy soccer/basketball playing guy that pops a couple anti-rejection pills per day and will do so for the rest of his life. Pre-ACA, we bumped up against our $2M lifetime healthcare expense max. When we reached his lifetime max, no more insurance benefit even though we paid his premiums the whole time. Switching wasn’t an option, because he would have been rejected by any other private insurance. He was uninsurable except by a high risk pool run by the state. Yep these high risk pools are not a new idea. They existed pre-ACA. They were high premiums for very little coverage. So now the government promises to shower the states with billions in cash to cover the costs of these high risk pools? Yeah right.
We MUST include both currently healthy and people who have experienced illness in the same insurance pool. That is what insurance is. You pool the risk. Everyone is required to have liability insurance when they drive a car. Its part of our social contract. Everyone should have medical insurance too. Healthy people must be mandated to participate. I also believe in single payer. But the ACA should not go away until we have that. Otherwise we are raising kids like mine with a financial noose around their neck for the rest of their lives. As well as the other 50% of the US population that have some kind of pre-existing condition.
Why have the Republicans or Democrats advocated drug price negotiations be allowed by Medicare? Why has neither party passed any law allowing people to buy insurance out of state? When we will we be allowed to buy prescription drugs outside of the United States? When will someone in Washington break their paid ties to the Pharmaceutical industry?
There do not seem to be any reductions in overall costs which is the major problem.
Someone is going to have to pay for all of the tax cuts and give aways and that is going to put payment on the backs of general taxpayers who live on a fixed retirement income like me and get no benefit.
Enough with the free market porn!!!I’m sorry but is it not possible to compare 18th & 19th century Brazil to the equivalent period in the US. These two societies were at completely different stages of social and technological development for any accurate comparison.More to the point simply referring uncritically to the numbers of slaves is a frankly idiotic approach to historical economic analysis.
I just read the proposed health care bill. The republicans failed
miserably. Thank you for introducing obama 2.0. The republicans
just wasted a lot of time and money, and accomplished nothing.
Thank you for doing nothing. Please return your salary to the
taxpayers. Just proposed another unfunded entitlement.
David Fromel Gysgt. U.S.M.C.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yes, by now we all know the mantra: “Obamacare will self-destruct.” Except that’s not the truth. The ACA was “destructed” by Republican states shooting it in the gut, and by Republican legislators who refused to adjust it.
Remove the brakes from your car and take a sledgehammer to its engine, drive it a mile if you can, then tell me it self-destructed.
“The ACA was “destructed” by Republican states shooting it in the gut, and by Republican legislators who refused to adjust it.”
In other words you’re blaming republican state legislatures for not increasing taxes of their states to cover for the insolvency of Obamacare. Gotcha.
Your car is a perfect metaphor for the entire U.S. health care industry; especially since 1965.
Not JUST the anti-Medicaid maneuver. This one was more subtle, and I think few still realize it. I’d been noting the buzzwords but the impact of this poison pill escaped me until learning more about the “risk corridor.” Please read this article before commenting, but for those who won’t, here’s an excerpt:
“…Everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously uninsured but sick people got into the system, got better and things evened out [“Risk Corridor”].
[So]the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in the first decade … with a [financial] guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.
Then … Rubio and a number of other Republicans … succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that just in 2015, … payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed … to the tune of around $400 million. … The insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to refund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years.
So the insurance companies did the only thing they could. In (mostly red) states with low incomes and thus poorer health, they simply pulled out of the marketplace altogether. This has left some states with only a single insurer left. In other states, they jacked up their prices to make up their losses.”
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/thom-hartmann-how-republicans-quietly-sabotaged-obamacare-long-trump-came-office?akid=15315.1068945.5EeGSC&rd=1&src=newsletter1074074&t=4
Even though it’s the first phase, it badly needs some revisions.
I can’t comment on specifics now. Stay tuned.
Of course, you cannot comment on specifics because no one knows what those will look like – they will make it up on the fly.
No, I actually know some of the specifics that are being discussed.
‘HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS’ spells them out.
e.g. HEA = Health Expense Accounts (aka Health Savings Acct)
IFIC = Interstate For Increased Competition
CS = Cost Savings.
Stay tuned for more elements per the phrase above!
I have documents saved long ago with the criteria listed.
LOOOOONG ago… before the General Election. Before the primaries. Once the death spiral started.
Whether or not the Congressional committees and HI CEOs are capable of determining the solutions is beyond my control.
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
ACA collapsing was the plan all along. Overload the system so you can then advance single-payer. Cloward/Piven all the way.
Correct.
Obama is on tape as a Senator (IL or US?) saying Single-Payer was his Socialist/ communist goal for Healthcare.
The 2200 exemptions and the slowly escalating tax penalty for not insuring were TWO key factors DESIGNED to slowly lead to collapse (death spiral).
Anyone denying such is a LIAR.
Single payer IS NOT SOCIALISM. Private companies would be in control of the production and distribution of health care, not the government.
If you do not understand what a term (Socialism in this case) actually means, please stop using it.
America cannot not reach its full potential until the people become educated first.
If it gives you comfort, keep repeating that. But the label is irrelevant. Call it ‘ham sandwich-ism’ if you like. The concept is what matters.
LOL @ private cos. in ‘control’ of health care and insurance.
They’d be in control as much as Dems are currently in control of the US govt.
Was this before or after he was secretly born in Kenya. . Republicans had seven years to come up with an alternative instead bloviating about how bad the PPACA was. They chose to hollowly put forth repeal legislation that they knew would never pass as a symbolic gesture of protest, aka the 84-month long temper tantrum. This was their chance to be heroes, and they failed. Miserably. Repeatedly. By any standard of measure, including their own party and Trump voters. The fallout will be vitriolic, and frankly, I would like to pre-emptively thank Paul Ryan for giving the Democrats blow-out wins in the mid-terms.
RE-Posted due to LiBOTterals’ censorship of conservative viewpoints:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
Reply
RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 7
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Addendum; As said above, ACA is in a death spiral.
Dem politicians who say ‘millions will lose coverage under this proposal’ are hiding the FACT that MANY millions will lose coverage when ACA collapses.
Lies can’t be hidden from those who see the stats of the death spiral; e.g. failing CO-OPs in almost all of the 23 states using them.
Reply
Reposted because eveeybody hated it tge first time. Spammer.
Everybody = 18 voters?
Just enough down votes, manually, not via BOT apps, to censor it, doesn’t equal ‘everybody’.
Censoring requires at least 11 MORE down votes than up votes.
Multi moniker sore loser trolls down voting do not the majority make. The voting is skewed. Polar, you are the only one who presents the facts. Keep it up. I am behind you 100%.
I’m seeing a lot of repeal, but very little replace in this. Until health insurance is taken away from being the responsibility of employers and put directly on the consumer, with market-based individual plans – by doing so we deconstruct whole government bureaucracies like HIPAA, COBRA, ERISA to name a few, along with their fifty state counterparts, then I’m afraid we are simply rearranging deck furniture on the sinking ship, because none of these things proposed address the core issues, and that is bureaucracy to comply – both from within the employer’s office as well as the provider’s business office, and the fifty state legislature’s propensity to impose uninsurable benefits through employer plans, the costs of which are passed onto the premium payer. Our health insurance marketplace needs a fundamental disruption which would also require a decoupling of the health insurance industry from the health care industry, and by doing so putting the responsibility to manage care back on the patient where it belongs.
Well said!
Too many people are assuming the status quo for parts 2 and 3 of the Republicans ACA R&R plan.
Are you calling for the end of employer-provided or subsidized health insurance?
I’d say the days of EXCLUSIVE use of employer provider HI through THEIR group plans are over.
The proposal I like most is an option for an employee to retain their individual policy for which their employer pays an EQUAL amount to the insurer regardless of the employees’ age, premium required by their insurers, or years of service. That keeps open the possibility of a lesser volume of insured workers under a smaller volume group plan. EMPLOYEE FREEDOM OF CHOICE enables employees to better make health care decisions; e.g. what coverage options, deductibles, co-pays, etc. for their needs.
Freedom of choice can’t be considered wrong, unless you are a Commie Socialist who thinks govt control is the best way for people too dumb to make good decisions tolive their lives.
TrumpCare gives new life to job lock, which was significantly reduced under the PPACA. If I can’t afford insurance on my own, I am stuck with the insurance I have under the job I don’t like. I can’t leave my job to take one that doesn’t offer insurance or start my own business and purchase an individual policy if I can’t afford that. TrumpCare makes these scenerios much more likely. Unless, of course, I make more than $1,000,000 year or am a Health Insurance CEO. Then I’m all set.
As someone who has benefited from the ACA, I still agree with you. I was a “self-payer” for years and pricing in health care is whack! There is a different price for everything depending on who you are and zero transparency.
An endoscopy which I believed would cost $900 turned out to be $2200. What could I do? I had to call all the service providers and try to negotiate. VERY stressful and did nothing for the ulcer for which I was seeking treatment. A typical scenario for the uninsured middle incomer.
I can shop around for services and rates for my car, my dog, my plumbing, but not my health care. I believe strongly that insurance companies need to be removed from the equation and health care put back in the free market. Then we do need to find a way to help the poor, or at least level the playing field. Generally speaking, it’s inhumane to let someone die of cancer because they can’t afford coverage, and a broken leg shouldn’t bankrupt someone (like me!).
While I was happy that I was at least able to afford insurance under ACA, (it was a choice between insurance or buying a home prior to ACA) I was disappointed that it did nothing to change the fundamentals of health care system.
Sadly this GOP bill comes nowhere near satisfying that need. The tax credits will do very little to help someone like me come up with actual cash to pay for coverage. And frankly, I see no reason to enrich for-profit middle-man insurers anyway. I’d much rather go direct to the provider with my money.
GOP has had YEARS to come up with something, while all they did was bitch and moan and blame the others.
So sick of politicians.
Agreed. Health insurance requires standards. Is not a classic supply-and-demand consumer commodity under customer control. Legislators should stop trying to pretend it is.
Has the GAO or actuaries from any health insurers calculated the costs of this Trumpcare program? Burying premium requirements under the guise of tax credits wouldn’t seem to change anything.
My understanding is the CBO report should be available when the bill reaches the House’s budget committee. Granted you’re reading an anonymous person’s post on an insurance blog, so I wouldn’t wager any bets on this info being 100% accurate – as previously stated, that’s just my understanding.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
And this is only Bill 1 of 3 expected to resolve the mess left by Pee-low-see-what’s-in-it-after-passing-it.
RE-POSTED on behalf of Agent:
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
Reply
RE-POSTING OF PRIOR REPOSTING:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
RE-POSTED on behalf of Agent:
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wow Rosenblatt, I finally agree with you on something. One shouldn’t infer that this law/bill is in its final form. It will go to committee, be amended, go back and forth between the House & Senate before anything is passed and sent to the President for signature. The good news is that it won’t be rammed down the throat of the population with a one size fits all bill like the Democrats did. It will be Patient/Doctor centered, not government centered and that is a good thing.
Reply
Reply
I already read his comment PBR. Could you PLEASE stop posting it over and over again? You’re clogging up the thread with old posts and “closed” conversations. I’m asking nicely and would appreciate a reply without any insults or attitude.
I understand you read it.
I am trying to make a point with those who are trying to censor conservative voices, rather than have n open mind about discussion and debate.
Rosenblatt, would you prefer that the multi moniker sore loser trolls continue to hide Polars comments?
And Planned parenthood medical providers won’t be able to collect from Medicaid for its pap smears, etc. Because it also provides abortions. So poor ladies, you can go to any doctors you like, except for PP doctors.
With that coverage being under the Health Insurance, why even have PP any more?
Because there are still women who will not be able to afford Health Insurance. And the tax credits cannot be used toward a policy that covers elective abortion. And because the health choices that a woman makes are no ones damn business and should not be codified into legislation.
They should change the word abortion with erection pill
Finally, PP has been long overdue to close. With all of the free clinics and fast clinics out there, PP is no longer needed. They are a private company looking out for their profits not your health. If they want to stay open with donations, more power to them, but the government should not be supporting them.
My god The govt is not going to pay For your sex life!!! I don’t want govt in my health insurance!!! I don’t need or wantgovt paid birth control!! One size for all in health care doesn’t work Face it!!!
The govt paying for everything the people want worked out well in Greece. Oh, wait! Never mind.
What about that garbage web site? Are you going to break up open enrollment?
What about Distribution? Infrastructure between agent and carrier worked just fine prior to OBAma sticking his nose into it. Can the web site. can the terrible call centers.
Put distribution and service back in the hands of agents.
Break up open enrollment .
Hi FFA. Good to see you back on the thread. As I see it, the “Government” website will go by the wayside gradually and consumers will be able to go direct to the carriers for plans and will be offered plans they want, not what the government wants. Agents can do the same thing and actually present something that is patient/doctor centered. A lot more choice when you get selling across state lines. Didn’t you say your choices shrunk down under Obamacare and had to travel to find an approved doctor? With Dr. Price in charge of HHS, he is very smart and will be working with Congress to get it lined out. A law as complicated as Obamacare was will take a lot of work to unwind.
I had no PPO Option in my area and had to go HMO to find a doc within 50 miles. I must admit, its not a bad as I thought it would be. Most rates in Wi held or went down this past year so something is going right (Opioid Program). My wife was not so happy because they wont give her pain killers, but we adjust and try “unconventional” medicine and it works just as much as the RX do with out the addiction / withdrawal issues. She is no where near as depressed as she was. I know your dead set against it. Our back was against the wall and had to try something and we are way better off for it. Its just a matter of time before Wi gets is legal for Med purposes. Its way better then narcotics. Sometimes people just have to take that leap of faith. In my case, we are better off.
BTW Agent – Did you catch The Americans last night? Its set up to be a heck of a season….
We did see it and it was very good. Did you see Designated Survivor? That is even better and is about like what is going on in DC currently. Traitors galore, but the good guys will eventually triumph.
Re-POSTED on behalf of AGENT:
Agent says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hi FFA. Good to see you back on the thread. As I see it, the “Government” website will go by the wayside gradually and consumers will be able to go direct to the carriers for plans and will be offered plans they want, not what the government wants. Agents can do the same thing and actually present something that is patient/doctor centered. A lot more choice when you get selling across state lines. Didn’t you say your choices shrunk down under Obamacare and had to travel to find an approved doctor? With Dr. Price in charge of HHS, he is very smart and will be working with Congress to get it lined out. A law as complicated as Obamacare was will take a lot of work to unwind.
Reply
Would you or somebody, anybody (!) please explain exactly how insurance sold across state lines will work?
What state will regulate it? Or will there be no regulations or standards, what? Will all the insurers register themselves in whatever state has the lowest standards? And, given that shopping for an insurance policy is highly personalized, uniquely technical, and not transparent (until you have a claim), how do individual consumers shop for it?
NObody ever explains this. We just hear that one-sentence statement over and over. A URL will do. Thanks.
Many states need to cooperate to regulate insurers across state lines, and how that is accomplished is yet unknown.
Let me give a naive example; insurer’s HQs domicile state is responsible for regulation, and for coordinating regulation among 49 other states, and US jurisdictions. Details? Ask the politicians who must coordinate such with 50 states, preferably through an NAIC committee communicating with all 50 Insurance Commissioners offices.
Please do NOT assume it is impossible. Ask a lawyer, if you’ve got time… and hyuuge amounts of money.
I read one approach, but don’t think it will work perfectly. Hence, I think they are struggling with those details as the Part 2 bill.
Dem Governors and their Insurance Commissioners may be roadblocks to the agreement. If so, I hope TrumPresident tweets out their names, so all can see who is obstructing progress.
Randall,
Let me make this simple. Here are the options to make this possible:
1. Federal regulation of health insurance (Interstate Commerce)
2. No regulation of health insurance
3. Forcing one state to accept the regulatory requirements of another.
The only other possibility is to have all 50 states agree on one set of regulations, which is already an option.
Thanks. Very helpful and concise.
I’d immediately rule out #1, seeing that Republicans control Congress and TrumPresident isn’t adequately knowledgeable about insurance regulation to NOT heed the advice of the insurance industry conservatives who are advising him on the issue.
Further, 2. is unikely.
#3. is the reason for the delay in that part of the reform. Dem state’s governors and insurance regulators are resisting this approach. That is why I advise TrumPresident to tweet the names of any such roadblocks to the replacement plan.
Oh, yeah; #3. ‘forcing’ isn’t the proper word. It is a matter to NEGOTIATING a DEAL for cooperation of all 50 states. The Art of The Deal guy is working his way toward a deal that all can support. Stay tuned!
Seems there’s a catch-22. I agree that “forcing” is not the right approach, for the same reason that the Republican plan wants each state to design its own Medicaid (or kill it or whatever).
As for negotiating an agreement the likes of which has never been attempted before, sorry, no matter how good the negotiator (and I have NO confidence in Trump’s negotiating style in this case), I don’t even buy an automobile sight-unseen. And as contraptions go, a car is relatively simple.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar, what would be wrong with our brilliant Dr. Price of HHS inviting all the states up there for a big pow wow and stay in a room until they have an agreement?
That sounds good in principle, but is not likely an efficient use of time because deep blue states will simply resist, to resist.
Price could use a majority rule approach, but Dems would whine about it after the meeting and the media would support them rather than the best interests of US citizens. Perhaps a C-SPAN broadcast of such a meeting would expose the malcontents working against compromise and forward thinking?
I love the C-Span idea.
I read that if you are 60 to 65 years old, the health insurance providers will increase your premiums by 18%. How can this be affordable on a fixed income? The new law returns healthcare back to insurance companies. They will go back to maximum lifetime benefits.
A thought… Mandate insurance companies to be nonprofit, like CareSource in OH and IN. Premiums are low and the coverage is great.
If we will be allowed to purchase across state lines, will the in-network providers be eliminated?
You mean like how colleges and universities are non-profit?
If you think it’s difficult to find a doctor now, the suggestion you make to mandate health care providers make no profit will be a shock to you when you seek health care services. Try Cana-duh or Britain for your health care now for a sample of what your suggestion will yield.
RE-POSTED due to LiBOTterals suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome attempting to censor conservative viewpoints on IJ:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
If you think it’s difficult to find a doctor now, the suggestion you make to mandate health care providers make no profit will be a shock to you when you seek health care services. Try Cana-duh or Britain for your health care now for a sample of what your suggestion will yield.
Reply
Not just 18%. They will be able to charge large multiples of what they charge a young persons. ACA capped that multiple at 3x. Now you’re going to see that go back to the 7x or more that was common before.
What multiple do you accept as ‘fair’?
Aren’t you saying ‘share the wealth’ from young to old?
What if elders are richer, and youths are poor?
Hence, health savings accounts are an integral component of fixing the multiple of 7.0, but removing the restriction / capping at 3.0.
HSA’s & FSA’s are great – but only if you have the disposable income to fund them. HSA’s do nothing for those living at/near the poverty line who live paycheck to paycheck.
My point is simple: HSA/FSA accounts cannot the end-all-be-all resolution to ensure those who need additional financial assistance are able to receive it, and increasing their multiplier is only exacerbating the issues for those folks.
I live, very much, paycheck to paycheck, seeing what we can put on the table after the necessities are paid. I contribute to an FSA because it is easier money wise in the long run for me. I have a child who needs medicine and machines to keep him alive. I am blessed that he can live a somewhat normal life other than these aspects. With the FSA, I chose the limit of $2500. They take a set amount out of my pay every week so it’s easier for me to plan and not get hit one week with a doozy. Also, this way, I am receiving the tax benefit a little at a time rather than having to put the money out and having to wait to see if I can deduct it all at the end of the year. BTW, that limit only takes me to May, so I’m on my own for the rest of the year, so the taking away of the limit and making it as much as your deductible is awesome for me. Also taking away the over the counter tax is good to, as alcohol, bandages, antibiotic creams, band aids, you get the point won’t be as expensive and will be considered a qualified medical expense from now on.Though I know this is not law yet, I hope they keep those provisions in.
“Aren’t you saying ‘share the wealth’ from young to old?
What if elders are richer, and youths are poor?”
Did you get your insurance license form the same school as Paul Ryan?
@Rosenblatt; Medicaid isn’t being phased out.
No one thing is a silver bullet to solve the ACA disaster.
Many people are involved in resolving many problems in health care/insurance, some of which were CAUSED BY ACA.
Please stop making irresponsible assumptions about the HSA’s to be used. I believe the plan is for a different form of HSA, with a different name.
No, I’m not saying that… and won’t tell you … just like Pee-Low-See-it-after-we-pass-it-without-Republican-support and Harry ‘Literally Lock-em Out’ Reid did. Upset by BOTH such plans concealment? You should be, unless you’re a hypocrite.
What is an ‘insurance license’? Be specific.
I never said Medicaid is being phased out, so I don’t know why you directed that comment to me.
“Please stop making irresponsible assumptions about the HSA’s to be used”
What irresponsible assumption did I make? That those without disposable income will not have said disposable income to fund an HSA or FSA account? Explain to me how that is false, with the knowledge of this next part too:
“I believe the plan is for a different form of HSA, with a different name” — sir, this goes back to another dispute you and I had about what words mean.
If it’s a different TYPE of HSA (and not an HRA), then it cannot be called an HSA. HSA/FSA’s are distinct terms with defined meanings. You cannot call something an HSA if it does not fit the definition of an HSA.
I mean – are you going to argue a strawberry is a berry just because it has “berry” in the name, ignoring how “berry” is actually defined?
You can’t change definitions to fit your argument. If the replacement plan calls for an HSA, an HSA is it. If the plan calls for a NEW type of savings account, it cannot be called an HSA by definition.
Similar “use words as they’re defined and not how you want to define them” questions stolen from Linda Richmond:
Do you think Rhode Island is an island because it has “island” in the name?
Do you think a chick pea is a pea because it has “pea” in the name?
Do you think a peanut is a pea and a nut because it has those words in the name?
But this lowers the AGI for 65+ for medical expense deduction and makes the refundable tax credit higher with age.
Nice job Mr. Trump. You just lost your majorities in both houses, because in 2018, the American voters are going to collectively say, “You’re Fired!”
And, by the way, what Congressional Health care. Who pays for that? Dumb question…we do!
Over-reaction.
This bill is part 1 of 3. And revisions to bill 1 are likely.
Stay tuned.
Likely? Don’t bet the farm. Passage of parts 2 and 3 isn’t even sure, let alone the necessarily massive “revisions” to a disputed Part 1. That’s hardly a sound way to plan for the future.
Stop, hold comprehensive hearings, bring in all stakeholders, and build something that makes sense for all. Stop pandering for political points and “playing to the base.”
One more question…what about the folks who live on trust funds and claim to be poor so they can get subsidies?
Names, please. Post them all ASAP.
The GOP’s real problem, in terms of passing legislation, isn’t that the party can’t agree on specifics, or that legislators need to bargain their way toward a compromise that gives everyone something they want. It’s that they don’t agree on, or in some cases even have, basic goals when it comes to health policy. Little in politics shocks me. The process House Republicans want to use for their healthcare bill does. After literally years of complaining Obamacare was jammed down the American people’s throats with insufficient information or consideration, the GOP intends to hold committee votes on their bill two days after releasing it, and without a Congressional Budget Office report estimating either coverage or fiscal effects. It’s breathtaking. / If Republicans believed the American people — or even their own legislators — would like the results of a thorough estimate of their proposal’s effects, they would have waited for one. / I honestly have no idea what it will do to the deficit — it’s hard to see any short-term reduction, and if there’s a long-term reduction, it will only be due to deep, deep Medicaid cuts, which will mean a correspondingly large increase in the uninsured. / Adverse selection seems like a huge problem in this plan. Death spirals seem very likely in weak markets. Republicans will fully own those death spirals. /The plan is strikingly regressive compared to the Affordable Care Act. For example a 40-year-old making 160 percent of the poverty line would get $4,143 in subsidies under the ACA, but only $3,000 under the GOP plan; by contrast, a 40-year-old making $75,000 would get nothing under the ACA, but $3,000 under the GOP plan. / Hypocrisy is a minor sin in politics, but still, it is remarkable how much of it there is to be found in this legislation. / Were voters clamoring for a bill that cut taxes on the rich, raised premiums on the old, and cut subsidies for the poor? Will Americans be happy when 15 million people lose their health insurance and many of those remaining face higher deductibles? /This bill has a lot of problems, and more will come clear as experts study its language, the Congressional Budget Office release its estimates, and industry players make themselves heard. But the biggest problem this bill has is that it’s not clear why it exists. What does it make better? What is it even trying to achieve? Democrats wanted to cover more people and reduce long-term costs, and they had an argument for how their bill did both. As far as I can tell, Republicans have neither. At best, you can say this bill makes every obvious health care metric a bit worse, but at least it cuts taxes on rich people? Is that really a winning argument in American politics? / In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare; this is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal-and-replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions
Thank you for your on-point, thoughtful and instructive response to this GOP (disaster) bill. Stunned that they will push it thru without CBO cost projections. What a mess.
Really? Your stunned that they would push it through? If you are a Pelosi supporter, you might want to rethink that statement.
I think CBO projections will be released soon.
Don’t panic or use hyperbole like Dems resisting everything now.
Because “Death Spiral” isn’t panic-driven or dripping with hyperbole.
Republicans are quelling the panic created by Dems. They are informing the public of their efforts to fix the mess left by BHO, Pee-Low-See-it-after-we-pass-it, and Harry ‘Literally lock em out of our discussions’ Reid.
Republicans are defending the ACA R&R because stewpid Dems in Congress are resisting the NEEDED replacement.
There is no hyperbole. Rate ARE rising sharply and CO-OPs are folding up like cheap suits, insurers ARE abandoning markets, and insureds ARE dropping coverage that has become MORE unaffordable.
At least someone know the facts. I’d love to see someone dispute yours. Just look at the news to see which health care insurers are going belly up or getting out to save their butts. In a year or two there wouldn’t be any cheap insurance to get for the poor and then they would all be getting fined for no insurance. Yeah, that makes sense. I was told by a “friend ” of mine that I was killing babies if I supported Trump. Really? I’m against abortion, so I’m not funding killing babies there. And in case anyone forgets, it is illegal for any hospital or health care center to deny any person life saving medical treatment. So if I walk into a hospital while having a heart attack and an illegal immigrant walks into same hospital, we both get the care needed. The only difference is, he walks out with a “promise” to pay and I walk out with a bill to cover my expenses and part of his. Then when the collections agency calls them, I have a person I know with first hand knowledge of this, if they have a correct number and it’s not fake, they claim to not speak English and just say over and over, no money, no money. So when I am told I am killing babies, what do you think this Hillary supporter meant by that?
Also, this is bill 1 of 3. Stay tuned for revisions to #1, as well as #2, #3.
Do you trust CBO projections?
Health insurance actuaries are a better resource for such. Stay tuned!
Regarding only the “this is 1 of 3” statement made by the GOP, it is fine that this is bill 1 of 3 as long as there isn’t an expectation for moving 1 through without having a clearer idea of what would be in 2 and 3 (or better yet, don’t seek approval until 2 and 3 are also written). To leverage a probably poor analogy from gambling, you never bet on the “see come”…(you don’t invest now in the hopes that an unknown future factor may improve the outcome)
There are goals for 2 and 3. Wait.
Did that happen for Nancy “Pee-low-see it after we pass it”?
This is how Republicans “govern”. Throw out something that their own party does not agree, then claim we need to wait for the finished product. Then, wait until Democrats regain control because then people are sick of waiting. Finally, go back to complaining and convincing uneducated people that all of the problems created by their failure to govern are the Democrats’ fault and get re-elected. Lather, rinse and repeat.
I like that MUCH better than the Pee-low-see-it-after-we-pass-it approach.
Pssst; Congress does not govern. It legislates. POTUS and governors govern.
As part of their job in legislating a RESPONSIBLE Congress will allow preliminary drafts of proposed legislation to be published, in order to gather comments with which to improve the drafted legislation before it goes to a vote.
I’m glad to have had this opportunity to edify you on these important federal government duties matters.
Wrong, government governs, hence the term. Please stop edifying, explaining, clarifying, tipping, etc., you are incompetent. Stick to lying about politics, your job, your education, and threatening people.
(start sarcasm) stop telling Yogi what words mean. he gets to make up his own definitions regardless of what’s in the dictionary or how terms are used colloquially
to wit
Confused = Are hospitals and providers private entities? If yes = single-payer. If no, are hospitals and providers owned by the entity who is paying those providers? If yes = that’s socialized medicine & not a single payer system.
Yogi = Ahem. Single payer means something different than how YOU want to define it.
Confused = Alright then – we can easily resolve the issue of you thinking the words I use mean other things than how I’ve used them. Just tell me EXACTLY what dictionary you use as reference when you argue what words actually mean so I know what terms to use with you in the future.
Yogi = @Confused: you are sadly mistaken if you think I am going to continue to follow you and your debate tactics down a rabbit hole of defining terms that are well understood. Single-PAYER = government controlled FINANCING system. The independence or lack thereof of health care PROVIDERS or ENTITIES such as clinics or hospitals is IRRELEVANT.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/03/06/443750.htm/?comments
@Actu or actu;
Please play your word parsing games elsewhere. No one is willing to chase your specious arguments down a rabbit hole.
@Confused or Confusing or Actu or actu;
Please list all members of Congress who took a single, significant executive, governing action at any time during their terms in CONGRESS.
Ready, steady, ….GO!
You should parse words more so you are competent to discuss…well anything.
For example, genius, you ask for a single example of a member of Congress taking a single executive action of governing, thereby parsing words in such a way that you redefine the word “governing” to fit only your preferred, incorrect definition of the word. You are a fraud, a liar, and an intellectual lightweight. You have no interest or capability of analyzing politics or policy, your only goal is pushing BS right wing talking points. You are no better nor more advanced than a twitter bot that automatically retweets from certain accounts.
…and yet we still allow ourselves to get trolled by him :(
I laugh at him. Nothing he says can be taken even remotely seriously so he can’t really troll me. He’s a disgusting human. The only sad part is that people like him exist.
@Actu; the explanation you denied is no longer a secret:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-accounts-could-be-bots-says-study.html
@Libitterals participating in this elongated sub-thread:
Have you noticed how IJ has prevented multiple votes on posts, or use of BOTs? It’s a new day on IJ… good for dissemination of ideas, bad for would-be-suppressors of forward thinking speech.
Boy, I wish you were around when they passed the ACA.
Re-POSTED due to CHILDISH TEMPER TANTRUMS by Libitterals in full scale UraniuMeltdown mode:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I think CBO projections will be released soon.
Don’t panic or use hyperbole like Dems resisting everything now.
Reply
Re-POSTED to defeat censorship attempts by Libitterals:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Also, this is bill 1 of 3. Stay tuned for revisions to #1, as well as #2, #3.
Do you trust CBO projections?
Health insurance actuaries are a better resource for such. Stay tuned!
Reply
This thoughtful comment deserves to be more readable. READABILITY TIP: If you’re at a computer keyboard, you can probably insert paragraph spacing by using the SHIFT-ENTER key combination.
If you typed all this on a smartphone, thank you so much for your effort. :-)
the working people — those not on social security or diabled; basically fund the current pmts for the elderly or disabled. it’s not fair to, at the same time, take away their options for insurance while they are at their ‘prime’ earnings period(s) in their life(s) – not good USA economics either… this is especially true for self employed people, who, contrary to popular opinion, are not always rich — going from $1,000 deductible to 15,000 out of pocket with tripled or more premiums
I am one of those self-employed people and definitely not rich. But not poor. We manage a comfy lifestyle on $30k-$50k per year (no kids). But insurance was totally unaffordable to me prior to ACA, or at least not if I wanted to buy a house- which I did and have done. Choosing to go uninsured was the trade off.
We’ve been fine with a fairly cheap, although HIGH deductible plan for the past couple years. It’s better than nothing in case we get an injury that costs tens of thousands to treat.
But the GOP tax subsidies won’t help us specifically and I’ll probably end up back where I was before ACA. Making big trade-offs.
I don’t see how this plan is better for the American people. And it does nothing to address the muddle in health care costs and pricing caused by insurance middle-men. Ayn Rand would not approve.
You definitely don’t live in the East. You can’t even rent a 1 bedroom apartment with what you make a year. My husband is self employed also, about 52,000 per year, I have to work to pay for health insurance because we have a child who needs medication to stay alive. I have had to leave my kids home alone at 12 years old because I had to work. We don’t go on vacations, don’t go out to eat, rarely see a movie, maybe for a special birthday, live for hand me downs and thrift stores and don’t even understand the latest technology other than what the kids get in school. But guess what, we are good. I don’t need food stamps, we eat hot dogs some times. I don’t need any hand outs and wouldn’t take them any way. I pay for my insurance like I am supposed to and expect to get what I pay for, but I don’t because of all of the taxes put on my sons meds and medical devices this year. I have family who complain they can’t afford health insurance, yet vacation in Disney, have the latest phones and computers and always buying and updating things for the house, constantly eating out and going shopping. For people like that, I have no pity. Unfortunately there are many like them. That’s what I hate paying for, not the people that truly need the help, but the people that take advantage. Look up the current number of people using their government given funds at Disneyland. I don’t mind sacrificing for my family, but I shouldn’t have to sacrifice for theirs.
knowall, thank you for describing Obamacare, the worst legislation ever passed.
Everyone in this country should have access to affordable health care.
Everyone in this country should have the freedom to pick their health care providers.
This bill appears to cut taxes and reduce the number of people who have health insurance (which might happen anyway, although a bit more slowly, if nothing is done).
If your subsidy at age 60 is $700 a month now, having it cut to $333 a month will likely mean the end of your health insurance. Do you approve of this?
Until we can control the growing cost of delivering quality health care, this problem will only grow in scope.
Where did you get those numbers? If there are specific rate changes, I’d like to see them. Just curious.
I’m 100% in agreement of control of the underlying costs. I suspect much of the current effort is being devoted to that end. ACA never addressed costs by trying to lower or slow their increase; it just subsidized them, buttressing them, leading to their recent sharp increases.
There were some (working) people forced to go off fairly reasonably priced cat policies onto either o.care or medicaid or increasingly watered down policies (out of pockets) at higher premiums. Even slick Willie mentioned it while stumping for Hillary – how crazy it was for these people just trying to make a living.
Since they (and their descendants) are funding the health care the govt should not be able to tell them what policy they have to carry (today). Direct funding is through income taxes or medicare taxes on earned income; indirect is through increased health care prices providers attempt to pass on to the paying customers.
Now, if they refuse to carry any policy, then society has to determine what level of care they deserve, if any, when they show up at the ER with no means or security. Yes, they are still funding the health care for others — is this a conundrum or am I way off?
When the country was formed its founders pledged their lives and fortunes, now: it’s what can I get?
Knowall, it is a mess and no one wants to make the decision to “determine the level of care” people receive and/or deserve. That’s one reason our elderly care is so high – the family stands around Grandma’s bedside and says “Doc, do everything you can”. Might be a different pitch if the doctor turned to the family and said “I’m glad you love your Grandma so much, can I have each of your credit cards to pay for this”.
Since we were never allowed to see what was in Obamacare before they voted on it……Repeal it completely…then…Raise the “Federal” gas tax by 0.15 cents per gallon.
This would cover all those that can’t afford to purchase their own Health Insurance, and then some. I’ve done the research and the math.
There are approximately 20 million that can’t afford insurance. Make sure that only “Americans” are eligible for this entitlement(No illegals). Prove that your personal wealth is below the poverty level.
No more tax on Social Security income. If you are over 70 your health care is free.
Just to be sure, do you mean 15 cents per gallon, or one and a half pennies?
The way these “poor” people buy the expensive phones, cars and purses, a consumption tax instead of income tax would bring so much money into our “I want bigger and better than him” society, we would be able to have free healthcare for everyone.
I love everything that I just read. Bad taxes are being wiped out is what I see. If any of you read this, you would see that Obama increased a lot of taxes using Obamacare. The only item that I didn’t see that I think should be added is the repeal of the employer mandate where if employee has coverage at work the affordable care act states that the rest of the family cannot buy coverage on the exchange if their cost of employee coverage at the employer is less than a percentage of total household income. The last I remember is 9 1/2%. I.e. If the cost of health insurance is less than 9 1/2% of the total household income, then the family does not qualify for a subsidy or a tax credit. That part of the act should be repealed.
By the looks of reading this, it appears we have been seeing all the increases that Obama care was going to give us. What Trump put together up here, those increases would not appear in my pocketbook if this gets approved. Slow down people. Learn a little bit about tax law and read. Don’t be so damn political.
It also appears that taxes were going to be assessed on certain drugs. Trump took that away too. I like this. Please add the employer employee fix I suggested and I’ll be happy and start paying Agents again for their services.
I really didn’t see anything to do about rate changes. I saw a lot to do with tax law changes which would then affect how health insurance affects taxes. Section 15 is interesting for anyone Purchasing health insurance off exchange and for small business people like me.
The backdating the employer and individual mandate to 2015 will give a lot of people refunds so I would redo your tax return if this gets approved for tax year 2015 and 2016.
1. RINOcare is NOT a repeal of ObamaCare. It is “repeal in name only” from its first paragraph (which admits it “amends” ObamaCare”) to the entire structure of the bill. RINOcare is just the RINOs version of ObamaCare which is what Ryan and his Gang Of RINOs wanted all along!
2. RINOcare is a “gift to illegals” according to Daniel Horowitz, who notes that this new GOP travesty potentially offers more expansive coverage for illegals than even ObamaCare!
3. RINOcare retains much of ObamaCare’s oppressive tax structure, such as the “cadillac” tax on good insurance plans.
4. RINOcare keeps the individual mandate through a devious 30% surcharge you will pay to the insurance company if you do not keep continuous coverage.
5. RINOcare keeps the coverage mandates that are bankrupting the entire health insurance system and are the fundamental problem with ObamaCare!
6. RINOcare is a DISASTER that Republicans will OWN and will lead to election defeats in 2018 and 2020 because all the failures of ObamaCare will now be correctly blamed on the GOP!
Trump will cut $883 Billion of Obamacare taxes out and that is a good thing.
You left out a lot of the bill:
1. De-funds Planned Parenthood – 33 mentions of abortion in the bill.
2. Repeals Medicaid expansion, terminates Medicaid enhancements for children
3. Eliminates the cuts to uncompensated care to hospitals
4. Removes LOTTERY WINNERS from Medicaid – 5 pages for that
5. Allots $ to stabilize the insurance market for claims >$50k
6. Introduces CAP for Medicaid
Find your healthcare amidst all this!
Nothing said about the Medical Loss Rule (80/20), guess the insurance companies and agents got it removed.
Can we add a new section…
‘If you sign up before mid 2018, your age is 50 or beyond and your income is $60,000 or less per taxable calendar year, you will pay 0 taxes and not be required to file a Tax Return from January 2018 until your Death. If you are married this will include your spouse also. You will also pay 0 fees for the new Health Care Act for the same timeframe. Any IRS Agents whom have the prime responsibility to monitor any Taxpayers within this age and income bracket will be terminated as of Jan 2 2018 and their Salaries and Benefits will be directly assigned to the cost of this section’s rules. Those Persons within this category will also receive a one time $5000 Gift Card and extra $2000 to Veterans awarded and paid at date of their sign up and at age 60 by Direct Deposit to their designated checking Account for their long range tax contribution to the Federal Tax Program. This Gift will not be taxable to this category of Persons’
Let’s do a deeper dive on pre-existing conditions. My son had a liver transplant at 4 months and is now a 15 yo healthy soccer/basketball playing guy that pops a couple anti-rejection pills per day and will do so for the rest of his life. Pre-ACA, we bumped up against our $2M lifetime healthcare expense max. When we reached his lifetime max, no more insurance benefit even though we paid his premiums the whole time. Switching wasn’t an option, because he would have been rejected by any other private insurance. He was uninsurable except by a high risk pool run by the state. Yep these high risk pools are not a new idea. They existed pre-ACA. They were high premiums for very little coverage. So now the government promises to shower the states with billions in cash to cover the costs of these high risk pools? Yeah right.
We MUST include both currently healthy and people who have experienced illness in the same insurance pool. That is what insurance is. You pool the risk. Everyone is required to have liability insurance when they drive a car. Its part of our social contract. Everyone should have medical insurance too. Healthy people must be mandated to participate. I also believe in single payer. But the ACA should not go away until we have that. Otherwise we are raising kids like mine with a financial noose around their neck for the rest of their lives. As well as the other 50% of the US population that have some kind of pre-existing condition.
neither health insurance nor health care are “rights”.
Why have the Republicans or Democrats advocated drug price negotiations be allowed by Medicare? Why has neither party passed any law allowing people to buy insurance out of state? When we will we be allowed to buy prescription drugs outside of the United States? When will someone in Washington break their paid ties to the Pharmaceutical industry?
There do not seem to be any reductions in overall costs which is the major problem.
Someone is going to have to pay for all of the tax cuts and give aways and that is going to put payment on the backs of general taxpayers who live on a fixed retirement income like me and get no benefit.
Enough with the free market porn!!!I’m sorry but is it not possible to compare 18th & 19th century Brazil to the equivalent period in the US. These two societies were at completely different stages of social and technological development for any accurate comparison.More to the point simply referring uncritically to the numbers of slaves is a frankly idiotic approach to historical economic analysis.