As a preface to my more details comments to be posted tomorrow afternoon, after I analyze the bill for the required criteria per my phrase HEALTH CARE SPECIFICS, I post a refutation to liberals’ claims that ACA R&R will result in fewer people covered…
The ACA as it is will eventually cause a HI market collapse as the Death Spiral in progress reduces the markets to a few insurers who restrict coverage offerings. So, the benchmark number for comparison of number of insured is the PROJECTED COLLAPSE of the HI market under ACA.
The Health Insurance market under the ACA R&R will improve coverage terms and choice / freedom by providing coverage, one way or another, to those WHO WANT INSURANCE. Those who don’t want insurance cannot be legally required to buy it without violating their US Constitutional rights. Many will want coverage on THEIR terms, not on the coverage terms required by the GOVERNMENT. So, many more will choose basic, affordable coverage. So, it is possible the number of people insured under the Republicans bill will actually be equal to or greater than the number currently insured. One draw is the tax credits, which would help younger people who might not want to insure otherwise.
It looks like you might work for IJ. Pretty disgusting Wells Media, Insurance Journal and Andrew Simpson either endorse the harassment and cyber stalking, or at the very least tolerate it.
factchecker, you are the worst of the lot and should be banned from comments.
March 10, 2017 at 5:17 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It looks like you are working for George Soros … pretty disgusting. It also looks like you are going on suspension. The only thing uncertain is the duration.
March 10, 2017 at 10:18 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
More on BOTs, for those denying using them, and for an explanation as to how so many posts with conservative views are censored quickly.
Those who proclaim to be tolerant are actually not so.
REPOSTED DUE TO SNOWFLAKE LIBITTERALS censorship due to fear of the facts and/ or conservative voices;
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
As a preface to my more details comments to be posted tomorrow afternoon, after I analyze the bill for the required criteria per my phrase HEALTH CARE SPECIFICS, I post a refutation to liberals’ claims that ACA R&R will result in fewer people covered…
The ACA as it is will eventually cause a HI market collapse as the Death Spiral in progress reduces the markets to a few insurers who restrict coverage offerings. So, the benchmark number for comparison of number of insured is the PROJECTED COLLAPSE of the HI market under ACA.
The Health Insurance market under the ACA R&R will improve coverage terms and choice / freedom by providing coverage, one way or another, to those WHO WANT INSURANCE. Those who don’t want insurance cannot be legally required to buy it without violating their US Constitutional rights. Many will want coverage on THEIR terms, not on the coverage terms required by the GOVERNMENT. So, many more will choose basic, affordable coverage. So, it is possible the number of people insured under the Republicans bill will actually be equal to or greater than the number currently insured. One draw is the tax credits, which would help younger people who might not want to insure otherwise.
More details to follow on Tuesday Afternoon.
Reply
I challenge any politician who claims the ACA R&R will cost more than the current or EVENTUAL cost under ACA to show their analyses and numbers… and will do so in much the same way Dems and liberals were hounding Republicans to show them their ACA R&R plan.
Anyone care to show the average premiums projected under EACH SCENARIO ( ACA, AHCA )? Hellooo? Bueller? Hellooo?
I challenge anyone who claims the ACA R&R will result in more people insured than the ACA due to the PROJECTED collapse of the HI market under the ACA to show their analyses and numbers — prove just how many people people are PROJECTED to lose their insurance if the ACA ran unchecked and prove the time frame on when said losses of insurance would have taken place under the ACA.
Because you did not understand the question, you did not provide an actual answer to what I asked. Would you like me to rephrase the question so we can try and discuss this rationally?
The Republican changed the rules so the CBO is specifically no longer required to analyze ACA repeal bills, so now they can put up a bunch of garbage and hide what it does.They can then put out a bunch of lies and the usual morons will spread throughout tge internet and repeat their lies. Then thwy will say “fake news” not answer questions, and whine about bots.
@Confused: I see you are FAR TOO COWARDLY to take up my original challenge. So, you issued your own challenge, which I more than met. YOUR TURN, if you have the courage, ability, and verifiable stats.
Only challenge I see here is the cost-analysis challenge you directed solely towards politicians. I am not a politician, so that challenge doesn’t apply to me.
Are you talking about a different challenge?? Prey tell.
The one aimed at politicians. Just look at it as if you are interacting with a 10 year old when you read this nonsense. This is an actual functionally illiterate person based on his reading and writing skills.
March 9, 2017 at 1:59 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
reported. enjoy your time off, again.
March 10, 2017 at 10:20 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libitterals do not fear suspension of a screen name….
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
Polar, they say that sunlight is the best disinfectant and you are really bringing it to light and killing the germs of discontent.
March 8, 2017 at 8:06 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
Reply
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
Reply
In typical “fiscal conservative”, Republican fashion, let’s keep all of the goodies and just remove how to pay for them, and just renaming the entitlements from “subsidies” to “tax credits”.
cont. WC, OM, IM, Lloyds… all are efficient due to competition. The exception might be OM, but that would occur for niche markets in specific global regions with lesser marine traffic and fewer insurers willing to write slips or policies.
SO… please explain how SINGLE PAYER will occur with the adults now in charge.
I know it won’t happen because politicians do not care about what is best for the American people,, only their donors and corporate masters. That goes for both parties.
These “adults” will not fix the problems. They cannot even agree among themselves, yet garner support outside of their ranks.
I have heard mixed results, but no where near as well as it should for our Veterans.
However, the VA is NOT single payer. It is government run and administered. Single-payer would actually eliminate the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare and would get the government out of health care administration.
March 7, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
The VA is a mess, but it’s not a single payer plan as Ron has argued for over the years. To wit:
VA is a socialized health system run by the government. The VA owns the hospitals and clinics and pays the doctors, nurses and other health providers. Furthermore, the VA doesn’t cover everyone and is not accessible to every veteran.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a single-payer system in which the federal government pays the bills for those who qualify, but hospitals and other providers remain private.
Do you see the difference between a single-payer system (medicare) and socialized medicine (VA)?
March 7, 2017 at 12:35 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Yes. No.
March 7, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
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
March 7, 2017 at 4:34 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
‘Mixed results for the VA’ is a lie, or your hearing is gone.
The VA has ongoing problems, and few of them have been addressed over the last 8 years.
March 9, 2017 at 2:01 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ahem. Single payer means something different than how YOU want to define it.
March 9, 2017 at 3:24 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
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.
March 10, 2017 at 9:55 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@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.
Bring a candle or flashlight with you on your solitary venture down a rabbit hole of definitions.
March 10, 2017 at 10:22 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Apparently you have absolutely no interest in having an intelligent, rational, adult conversation since you can’t even agree with me that “words mean what dictionaries say they mean.”
Adult discussions cannot be had if you’re unwilling to accept that words have the meanings as they are defined in lexicons.
You wrote: “you are sadly mistaken if you think I am going to continue to follow you and…”
Fine – just stop replying to me and be done with it, then.
March 10, 2017 at 10:48 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
PolarBeaRepeal,
Congratulations. You finally got something right.
Thank you for finally admitting that Single-Payer health care is NOT Socialism.
March 10, 2017 at 5:19 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Ron; no I didn’t.
March 7, 2017 at 11:13 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Dream or not, it is the only real solution.
The free market has had opportunities to solve all of the problems regarding health care, including insurance, and they have failed. They have even been able to sell in multiple states.
Actually, free markets have NOT had opportunities to solve all their problems; e.g. drug market costs are not completely in their control, nor is medical service costs and med mal cost pass-backs.
Try again; that was a softball pitch far too easy to hit out of the park.
I did not realize that pharmaceuticals are government run. They are in a private sector, free market industry.
Strike one.
March 7, 2017 at 12:35 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
Not now. Regulations matter.
March 7, 2017 at 12:36 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Oh, Can-a-duh!
March 7, 2017 at 12:42 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Narrow-minded people always assume the status quo.
March 7, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Please cite wherein the ACA R&R plan offered by the Republicans that it says anything about pharmaceutical companies transitioning to governmental-run businesses. I’ll wait.
March 7, 2017 at 4:35 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
@Confused; you don’t pay me so I won’t respond to your arrogant lib-hole demands.
March 8, 2017 at 11:02 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Psst; I’m not bound by the newly released Republican ACA R&R plan. further, IT IS ONLY THE FIRST PART of THREE PARTS.
March 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Pharma cos. DON’T report to the govt.
They are bound by regulations written by the govt.
Go ask your stewpid questions elsewhere, where you can amuse other people.
March 7, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Dream on Ron. Obamacare is the biggest disaster of legislation ever passed. Your hero had his chance and failed miserably. Time for a new approach.
You do not work in actual insurance or you would know those are moronic comparisons. You do not have to drive, and if you do and your car breaks down the mechanic does not have to fix the car even if you cannot pay at that time.
The comparison is in regard to solving problems with the way the insurance mechanism works, was broken and was subsequently fixed. The only moronic thing is the way you re-direct the discussion into avenues and rabbit holes that no one is dumb enough to follow you.
If anyone doesn’t work in insurance, it is someone who doesn’t understand how insurance execs resolved past problems, unlike HI execs. But HI execs now have an opportunity to fix several problems with novel ideas submitted by people working in HI or Auto, WC, HO, Life, Commercial Property, Commercial Liability, pensions, etc.
Psst; ‘tax credits’ is a substitute that ENCOURAGES insurance purchase instead of MANDATING IT. In turn, THAT results in NO violation of US citizens’ Constitutional rights.
These examples apply to both subsidies within the PPACA and tax credits.
March 7, 2017 at 12:04 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Psst; I was contrasting the means the two parties used to ‘coerce’ / force people to buy insurance to make the insurance mechanism function effectively to pool costs among a complete distribution of all / nearly all risk classes.
i.e. mandates were not my point…. they were one subject.
I know what you meant. However, it was not relevant to what I posted.
March 7, 2017 at 12:36 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
I’ve lost interest in your trolling posts.
March 7, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
First, how is it trolling when I am only responding to what you are posting. Just because I am making you look uneductaed, does not mean I am trolling you.
Second, you have been saying for a while that you are not interested in my posts, yet you keep replying.
March 7, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
It never looks good when you misspell “uneducated”. My apologies.
March 7, 2017 at 10:58 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Two major FLAWS are the lack of licensing changes to allow insurers to write countrywide (across state lines) and cost controls;
in my criteria;
IFIC = Interstate For Increased Competition.
CS = Cost Savings.
which are the last two parts of HEALTH CARE SPEC{IFIC}{CS}.
OMFG. The NAIC is not a regulator and does not actually regulate! Are you giving them new powers?
March 7, 2017 at 12:21 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Confused,
He thinks the NAIC can come up with a model regulation that all 50 states will agree. While I actually agree with this approach, it is already available to them and they have shown no interest.
March 7, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Gotcha. So it’s similar to the claim Yogi keeps making that one major key to decreased costs is to have the ability to sell insurance across state lines, while ignoring the fact that such an option already exists and nobody is actually doing it.
March 7, 2017 at 12:39 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Can’t reveal everything until it’s made public.
Also, Dem Governors and their appointed Regulators are roadblocks. But, perhaps not for long.
NAIC isn’t a regulatory oriented entity? Since when?
March 7, 2017 at 12:49 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
It has been made public and it is inadequate as a replacement.
March 7, 2017 at 5:14 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I’m more convinced now that the plan released yesterday was a red herring. Libitterals are taking the bait, too!
March 8, 2017 at 8:32 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Oh, now Price says the bill released was Part One of Three.
That makes more sense. Tackle the basics, then address the licensing across state lines and high risk pools separately.
The cost savings issues are more complex and will require cooperation from the HI Industry. Thus, the meetings with the HI CEOs last week.
OK, maybe the bill submitted without full explanation was a red herring to send the Libitterals off into meltdown over the ‘tax cuts for the rich’. In truth, the ‘tax CREDITS’ require purchase of HI to qualify for those CREDITS. ANY Dem politician who calls the tax credits ‘tax cuts for the rich’ are liars; e.g. US Senator Chris Murphy, D-CT already spouted off about ‘TxC4t1%’.
March 7, 2017 at 12:40 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Look carefully at the Dems amendment to McCarran Ferguson in 2010, to make ACA work.
Thank you for admitting that Republicans are only interested in playing games and not governing.
If they do not grow up, they will suffer the same fate as the Democrats did in 2010. Then again, that may be their goal. That way they can go back to the only thing they are good at, complaining.
Red herring = Republicans’ payback for PEE-Low-See-it-after-we-DEMS-ALONE-PASS-IT fiasco in 2010.
Libitterals were sent off on a wild goose chase to find fault and criticize the Part 1 bill.
LOL at them taking the bait and melting down.
March 8, 2017 at 8:35 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I studied PL-15 many years ago as part of my job. Get a clue, and FULLY explain why YOU think HI should be regulated differently from other lines of insurance.
Explain. Fully. Clearly. Without avoiding the question. Explain.
I will be happy to respond respectfully. However, I need some clarifications:
1. What is PL-15?
2. What did I state that makes you think I believe health insurance should be regulated differently? You are the one calling for it to become interstate commerce, not me. That is what would call for federal regulation.
I apologize if my posts came across as condescending. That was not my intention. However, I have become increasingly frustrated with you and some others misinterpreting my positions. If you could just take me at my word, we would have far more civil debates.
PL-15 = Public Law 15 = McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.
If you had adequate experience in regulatory issues, you would have recognized the abbreviated name of PL-15.
March 8, 2017 at 11:12 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So, it is OK for you to post something condescending?
Regardless, I am still waiting for you to post why you believe I think health insurance should be regulated differently than other lines. What exactly did I post?
Here is a question for you, why are you against anti-trust laws for the health insurance industry? Please explain how that will increase competition?
March 8, 2017 at 11:18 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Auto insurance, HO, etc. have solved problems with regard to selling insurance under McC-F 1945, so HI can too. Congress needs to look at that issue, and that is part 2 or part 3.
March 8, 2017 at 11:21 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I’m not against anti-trust laws for HI. They can be applied just like HO, Auto, Liability, Life, etc.
Sales across state lines is the key. Focus on that, not the regulatory details needed. NAIC should be involved. Figure out the missing details by yourself, or wait for Bill #2 or #3.
March 9, 2017 at 7:40 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron;
You still haven’t explained why you think HI should be regulated differently than other insurance lines.
OK, thanks. Dems did in 2010, and amended PL-15 to make things work for ACA. That needs to be reversed, too! HOW? I dunno, exactly, as I am just an average polar bear, too busy with other matters to study the details of McC-F PL-15 to fix the MESS left behind by PEE_LOW_SEE_IT_AFTER_WE_PASS_IT and her minions.
March 8, 2017 at 8:36 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Oh, yeah; avoid the condescending attitude in your posts in the future, or expect no further replies from me.
Polar, you are fighting a losing battle to make Ron understand your positions. Bob and I have tried it for the last 7 years with similar results. He is a died in the wool Progressive who speaks a different language than Conservatives and then condescendingly talks down to us and tells us we have a reading comprehension problem. Ron, the Progressive is the one with the reading comprehension problem. His hero failed and he knows it.
In 2010, his hero experienced his first “shellacking” from the folks on Obamacare. He then said that perhaps it wasn’t explained right. Lies, deception, passing it in the middle of the night behind closed doors and saying they had to pass it to see what was in it tends to make for a shellacking.
The good thing about this first rollout is that it is in 3 phases as Dr. Price said and it will be discussed, debated by both the House and Senate, amendments added to craft the final bill. People on both sides should just “chill” and not jump to all the wrong conclusions.
@Agent; remember this one point for the near future. The ACA is in a death spiral. when Dems say the ACA R&R will result in loss of coverage of at least 10 million people, they are basing that CLAIM on CURRENT enrollment numbers.
The TRUE measure of the effectiveness of the ACA R&R must be based on PROJECTED enrollment of ACA if NOT repealed. That would be much less than current enrollment due to the ongoing death spiral. The ACA R&R bill is only one part of three, and the other parts must address the missing components of competitive markets across state lines and cost savings actions needed.
Refute Libitterals claims that ACA repeal will result in lost coverage…. because the ACA death spiral will do MUCH worse if unchecked by R&R.
March 8, 2017 at 11:14 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
So, we are not going to judge the replacement on its own merits, but as a comparison to the PPACA? Way to aim high.
March 8, 2017 at 11:23 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
No, WE Conservatives are not going to fall for Dem congressmen lying about loss of coverage as if ACA would have maintained high enrollment despite an UNAVOIDABLE DEATH SPIRAL caused by the faulty design of ACA.
Are you dense, or just trolling?
March 8, 2017 at 11:26 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
NOTHING in what I said projects specific amounts of insureds.
A free market will regulate itself, with regulatory oversight for abusive behavior.
The TRUE, ideal enrollment will be that resulting from personal freedom to choose to insure or not. There should be NO GOAL on enrollment size, other than that.
March 8, 2017 at 11:29 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
If COSTS are properly addressed, HI will become affordable and available. CURRENT forced enrollment levels may be eclipsed, or the citizens free to choose may choose lesser levels of enrollment.
If COSTS are properly addressed, and more people get jobs, fewer people will need subsidies and more people will insure in a MUCH MORE EFFICIENT economic health care and insurance system.
March 8, 2017 at 11:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I know, you Conservatives only fall for and excuse the lies of President Trump and the Republicans. That makes you so much better.
The problem is, the replacement bill is not addressing costs either.
If costs went down over the past 7 years, premiums would have gone down and the PPACA would have looked like a success.
The success of the replacement bill is just as reliant on assumptions as was the PPACA. How about some real reform? Never mind, they would take courage and work.
March 8, 2017 at 8:21 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron; the bill published Monday was Part 1 of 3.
The Cost Savings are a future issue; i.e. Bill 2 or 3.
In my phrase, it is at the end; i.e. Cost Saving = CS;
HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS.
THIS type of libitteral trolling is one reason why the Republicans did conservatives a service by withholding the 1st bill so long. ANYTHING that can be questioned by Libitterals will be questioned, as a means of venting their frustration with the election outcome. Elections have consequences. Repeal of ACA is a favorable consequence for US citizens.
March 8, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, a bit off topic, but still important on the economic front. Today’s news from the Labor Dept shows nearly 300,000 jobs added in Feb which beats the projection by over 100,000. Apparently, the “economists” thought the country would only produce 190,000 jobs. We have gotten used to the Obama economy of meager, burger flipper jobs being created for the past 8 years. Trump means “Business” and business is responding. Samsung just announced a major investment and attributed it to President Trumps economic policies. Now Progressive trolls, you can down vote me, but you can’t hide me anymore.
I am not sure which policies President Trump has implemented that lead to this positive jobs report, but thank you.
Funny how you never made such a post when similar reports were released under President Obama. Just sayin’. You always found a way to criticize, even though the information comes from the same place.
March 8, 2017 at 2:51 pm
Tolerance Matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
I have been meaning to ask you this but have a life outside of IJ and simply forgot until now. During Obama’s terms the Dow tripled. Who is responsible?
March 8, 2017 at 8:23 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Ron; CEOs and stockholders are perfectly capable of projecting the impact of PROPOSED tax cuts, INITIATED EO to reduce regulations, and ONGOING effort to repeal ACA. Thus, they plan to hire, and buy stock, respectively.
March 8, 2017 at 8:25 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Tolerance: the tripling is due to artificially low interest rates, and a VERY LOW starting point in the denominator.
Got any other softball questions?
March 9, 2017 at 7:56 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
CEOs do not make hiring decisions based on anything except real demand for their product or service, not potential changes in the tax laws that will not even be introduced for 5-6 months.
If they are planning to hire based off of those projections, as you stated, it would not have impacted the recently released jobs report. yet, President Trump is more than happy to again take credit for something in which he had no involvement.
March 8, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Tolerance Matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
American Medical Association publically denounced the AHCA today. Doctors have no idea how health insurance works, right?
Tolerance, did you switch monikers from Conserving the Truth. Your Tolerance moniker has been silent for a while. Did you not know that the Dow has added $3 Trillion in value in only a few months. Need an explanation? President Trump conveying the message to business that the USA is open for business again.
Your trolling behavior is unacceptable and trying to downvote Conservatives does not work anymore. By the way, if you care to wait until phase 2 & 3 are completed, you may just find a lot of groups that like this new plan. Dr. Price is a very brilliant doctor and HHS secretary. Stay tuned.
March 8, 2017 at 8:24 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Nope. The Bill didn’t excite them as it is incomplete.
March 9, 2017 at 7:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Further, the AMA would denounce ANYTHING that threatens their price levels.
Duh!
March 9, 2017 at 7:43 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Agent; didn’t you notice SEVERAL Libitteral monikers were absent from IJ for a while after I complained about their behavior and use of BOTs? Coincidence or correlated; you be the judge.
March 9, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Tolerance Matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent,
Your conspiracy theories are truly amazing. You are a modern day Alex Jones. Keep them coming.
Polar,
Enjoy this while it lasts. You earned it.
March 9, 2017 at 3:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, the monikers may have disappeared for a while, but most of these trolls have multiple monikers that IJ permits so they just re-constitute themselves, down vote you on each moniker until they hide your comments. They aren’t fooling anyone but IJ monitors.
March 7, 2017 at 6:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Good one Polar. These lemmings are robbing their employer blind by spending so much time on this forum. Things must be slow at their offices.
Polar, how about we get back to talking about Health Insurance. Since I am a Health Agent with Blue Cross Blue Shield, following is an excerpt of a bulletin just received. Keep in mind that previous bulletins from them usually started with “We are all in for the ACA”.
Title: The Path Forward
1. Stabilize the Individual Market – Including maintaining cost sharing subsidies for lower income individuals, at least during a transition, providing reinsurance payments consistent with the levels already included in premiums, and allowing more flexibility for grandfathered plans, so consumers can keep plans that they like.
2. Return regulatory authority for insurance to the states so they can resume their traditional role, particularly with respect to rate review, benefit design, provider network adequacy and small employer market rules.
3. Provide funding for mechanisms that make premiums more affordable by broadly and fairly spreading the costs of high claims across the individual market. (State Pools)
4. Establish incentives for individuals to maintain continuous coverage throughout the year including changing open enrollment so everyone’s coverage starts on Jan 1st, and verifying eligibility for special enrollment periods, just like employer and government plans like Medicare already do.
5. Improve the rules for Health Savings accounts so that consumers have more flexibility for saving and paying for their out of pocket costs, including premiums.
Sounds to me like they are buying into private market solutions. What do you think?
As a preface to my more details comments to be posted tomorrow afternoon, after I analyze the bill for the required criteria per my phrase HEALTH CARE SPECIFICS, I post a refutation to liberals’ claims that ACA R&R will result in fewer people covered…
The ACA as it is will eventually cause a HI market collapse as the Death Spiral in progress reduces the markets to a few insurers who restrict coverage offerings. So, the benchmark number for comparison of number of insured is the PROJECTED COLLAPSE of the HI market under ACA.
The Health Insurance market under the ACA R&R will improve coverage terms and choice / freedom by providing coverage, one way or another, to those WHO WANT INSURANCE. Those who don’t want insurance cannot be legally required to buy it without violating their US Constitutional rights. Many will want coverage on THEIR terms, not on the coverage terms required by the GOVERNMENT. So, many more will choose basic, affordable coverage. So, it is possible the number of people insured under the Republicans bill will actually be equal to or greater than the number currently insured. One draw is the tax credits, which would help younger people who might not want to insure otherwise.
More details to follow on Tuesday Afternoon.
1st sentence should read “my more detailed comments” not “my more details comments”. Polar Bear culpa.
Polar, looks like you have drawn the fire of the Liboterals once again.
As IJ staff implemented BOT-killer software, that means someone is logging in and out with multiple IDs to do their censorship thing.
It must be one of the IJ Libitterals in a Chernobyl & Fukushima combined level UraniuMeltdown.
It looks like you might work for IJ. Pretty disgusting Wells Media, Insurance Journal and Andrew Simpson either endorse the harassment and cyber stalking, or at the very least tolerate it.
factchecker, you are the worst of the lot and should be banned from comments.
It looks like you are working for George Soros … pretty disgusting. It also looks like you are going on suspension. The only thing uncertain is the duration.
More on BOTs, for those denying using them, and for an explanation as to how so many posts with conservative views are censored quickly.
Those who proclaim to be tolerant are actually not so.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-accounts-could-be-bots-says-study.html
REPOSTED DUE TO SNOWFLAKE LIBITTERALS censorship due to fear of the facts and/ or conservative voices;
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
As a preface to my more details comments to be posted tomorrow afternoon, after I analyze the bill for the required criteria per my phrase HEALTH CARE SPECIFICS, I post a refutation to liberals’ claims that ACA R&R will result in fewer people covered…
The ACA as it is will eventually cause a HI market collapse as the Death Spiral in progress reduces the markets to a few insurers who restrict coverage offerings. So, the benchmark number for comparison of number of insured is the PROJECTED COLLAPSE of the HI market under ACA.
The Health Insurance market under the ACA R&R will improve coverage terms and choice / freedom by providing coverage, one way or another, to those WHO WANT INSURANCE. Those who don’t want insurance cannot be legally required to buy it without violating their US Constitutional rights. Many will want coverage on THEIR terms, not on the coverage terms required by the GOVERNMENT. So, many more will choose basic, affordable coverage. So, it is possible the number of people insured under the Republicans bill will actually be equal to or greater than the number currently insured. One draw is the tax credits, which would help younger people who might not want to insure otherwise.
More details to follow on Tuesday Afternoon.
Reply
I challenge any politician who claims the ACA R&R will cost more than the current or EVENTUAL cost under ACA to show their analyses and numbers… and will do so in much the same way Dems and liberals were hounding Republicans to show them their ACA R&R plan.
Anyone care to show the average premiums projected under EACH SCENARIO ( ACA, AHCA )? Hellooo? Bueller? Hellooo?
I challenge anyone who claims the ACA R&R will result in more people insured than the ACA due to the PROJECTED collapse of the HI market under the ACA to show their analyses and numbers — prove just how many people people are PROJECTED to lose their insurance if the ACA ran unchecked and prove the time frame on when said losses of insurance would have taken place under the ACA.
The projected loss of ACA policies is 100% in ONE YEAR.
Disprove it.
hint: “repeal” or “collapse”.
Because you did not understand the question, you did not provide an actual answer to what I asked. Would you like me to rephrase the question so we can try and discuss this rationally?
No. You do not understand “death spiral” so there is NO SENSE in continuing the discussion. Try Huff & Puff POSt.
Thank you for admitting you have no interest in a rational conversation. That actually explains a lot of what you post.
You simply dodge the challenge to disprove my claim.
Fail.
Then, to try to avoid your cowardice being pointed out, YOU issue a lame counter-challenge.
Here’s the math on ACA:
20M new policies x 0% = 0 policies.
The Republican changed the rules so the CBO is specifically no longer required to analyze ACA repeal bills, so now they can put up a bunch of garbage and hide what it does.They can then put out a bunch of lies and the usual morons will spread throughout tge internet and repeat their lies. Then thwy will say “fake news” not answer questions, and whine about bots.
Why were Health Insurance cos. CEOs meeting with Congressional members last week? Need more clues?
Oops! I forgot; elections have consequences.
You didn’t complain when Obama used EOs for everything the American voters blocked through election of a Republican controlled Congress. Deal with it.
“… put up a bunch of lies and hide what it does….”
Sounds like Nancy “Pee-low-see it after it’s passed to find out what’s in it”.
Warning; as a Libitteral, you should expect at least 8 more years of such frustration, unless you move out of the USA. Adios!
@Confused: I see you are FAR TOO COWARDLY to take up my original challenge. So, you issued your own challenge, which I more than met. YOUR TURN, if you have the courage, ability, and verifiable stats.
You wrote “I challenge any politician who claims the ACA R&R will cost more…”
You made that challenge to politicians. I am not one, hence that challenge was not directed at me.
Are you talking about a different challenge?? Prey tell.
Still no reply? I called your bluff. Step aside and let adults discuss the important issues.
I am trying to reply bud.
What challenge do you think I’m still avoiding?
Only challenge I see here is the cost-analysis challenge you directed solely towards politicians. I am not a politician, so that challenge doesn’t apply to me.
Are you talking about a different challenge?? Prey tell.
Restate your challenge and I shall reply.
The one aimed at politicians. Just look at it as if you are interacting with a 10 year old when you read this nonsense. This is an actual functionally illiterate person based on his reading and writing skills.
reported. enjoy your time off, again.
Libitterals do not fear suspension of a screen name….
they just use another ID.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-accounts-could-be-bots-says-study.html
I hereby amend my challenge to include Concussion, as well as politicians…
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
I did not downvote you once, but I did post a rebuttal.
Confused,
That must mean you are not a Libitteral.
… and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
Polar, they say that sunlight is the best disinfectant and you are really bringing it to light and killing the germs of discontent.
RE-POSTED:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
Reply
RE-Posted:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 6
Thumb down 17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Libitterals already down-voted my comments multiple times each, WITHOUT the COURAGE or WISDOM to post any meaningful rebuttal.
It must be an inefficient use of their time to log out and log in to another IP address to manually accumulate a sizeable number of down votes WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO USE BOTs to do so now.
Reply
In typical “fiscal conservative”, Republican fashion, let’s keep all of the goodies and just remove how to pay for them, and just renaming the entitlements from “subsidies” to “tax credits”.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/06/house-republicans-release-obamacare-replacement-bill.html
The good news is that this bill is most likely not going to even get to President Trump’s desk.
Anything short of single-payer will not solve the problems of controlling costs and expanding coverage to all citizens.
Keep dreaming about Single Payer.
Costs can be controlled by competition. Example: auto insurance, property insurance, liability insurance, life insurance, pensions, etc.
cont. WC, OM, IM, Lloyds… all are efficient due to competition. The exception might be OM, but that would occur for niche markets in specific global regions with lesser marine traffic and fewer insurers willing to write slips or policies.
SO… please explain how SINGLE PAYER will occur with the adults now in charge.
I know it won’t happen because politicians do not care about what is best for the American people,, only their donors and corporate masters. That goes for both parties.
These “adults” will not fix the problems. They cannot even agree among themselves, yet garner support outside of their ranks.
Correction: “yet’ should be “let alone”
Your ‘correction’ should be that Single Payer systems are Socialist Govt control whihc is NOT best for All Americans.
Ask any Greek, Venezuelan, Cuban, Russian, …
and please excuse the fact that some of the above are better described as Communist than Socialist.
Single payer is best for Americans?
How’s the VA working out for vets these days?
I have heard mixed results, but no where near as well as it should for our Veterans.
However, the VA is NOT single payer. It is government run and administered. Single-payer would actually eliminate the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare and would get the government out of health care administration.
The VA is a mess, but it’s not a single payer plan as Ron has argued for over the years. To wit:
VA is a socialized health system run by the government. The VA owns the hospitals and clinics and pays the doctors, nurses and other health providers. Furthermore, the VA doesn’t cover everyone and is not accessible to every veteran.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a single-payer system in which the federal government pays the bills for those who qualify, but hospitals and other providers remain private.
Do you see the difference between a single-payer system (medicare) and socialized medicine (VA)?
Yes. No.
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
‘Mixed results for the VA’ is a lie, or your hearing is gone.
The VA has ongoing problems, and few of them have been addressed over the last 8 years.
Ahem. Single payer means something different than how YOU want to define it.
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.
@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.
Bring a candle or flashlight with you on your solitary venture down a rabbit hole of definitions.
Apparently you have absolutely no interest in having an intelligent, rational, adult conversation since you can’t even agree with me that “words mean what dictionaries say they mean.”
Adult discussions cannot be had if you’re unwilling to accept that words have the meanings as they are defined in lexicons.
You wrote: “you are sadly mistaken if you think I am going to continue to follow you and…”
Fine – just stop replying to me and be done with it, then.
PolarBeaRepeal,
Congratulations. You finally got something right.
Thank you for finally admitting that Single-Payer health care is NOT Socialism.
@Ron; no I didn’t.
Dream or not, it is the only real solution.
The free market has had opportunities to solve all of the problems regarding health care, including insurance, and they have failed. They have even been able to sell in multiple states.
Actually, free markets have NOT had opportunities to solve all their problems; e.g. drug market costs are not completely in their control, nor is medical service costs and med mal cost pass-backs.
Try again; that was a softball pitch far too easy to hit out of the park.
I did not realize that pharmaceuticals are government run. They are in a private sector, free market industry.
Strike one.
Not now. Regulations matter.
Oh, Can-a-duh!
Narrow-minded people always assume the status quo.
Please cite wherein the ACA R&R plan offered by the Republicans that it says anything about pharmaceutical companies transitioning to governmental-run businesses. I’ll wait.
@Confused; you don’t pay me so I won’t respond to your arrogant lib-hole demands.
Psst; I’m not bound by the newly released Republican ACA R&R plan. further, IT IS ONLY THE FIRST PART of THREE PARTS.
Pharma cos. DON’T report to the govt.
They are bound by regulations written by the govt.
Go ask your stewpid questions elsewhere, where you can amuse other people.
Dream on Ron. Obamacare is the biggest disaster of legislation ever passed. Your hero had his chance and failed miserably. Time for a new approach.
You do not work in actual insurance or you would know those are moronic comparisons. You do not have to drive, and if you do and your car breaks down the mechanic does not have to fix the car even if you cannot pay at that time.
The comparison is in regard to solving problems with the way the insurance mechanism works, was broken and was subsequently fixed. The only moronic thing is the way you re-direct the discussion into avenues and rabbit holes that no one is dumb enough to follow you.
If anyone doesn’t work in insurance, it is someone who doesn’t understand how insurance execs resolved past problems, unlike HI execs. But HI execs now have an opportunity to fix several problems with novel ideas submitted by people working in HI or Auto, WC, HO, Life, Commercial Property, Commercial Liability, pensions, etc.
Psst; ‘tax credits’ is a substitute that ENCOURAGES insurance purchase instead of MANDATING IT. In turn, THAT results in NO violation of US citizens’ Constitutional rights.
I said subsidies are being replaced by tax credits, not mandates.
Please explain how a tax credit (money from the government to help pay for something) is not the same as a subsidy?
Many differences;
two examples:
1. varies & limited by income vs. fixed by actuaries.
2. requires income vs. granted as an entitlement (Medicaid).
These examples apply to both subsidies within the PPACA and tax credits.
Psst; I was contrasting the means the two parties used to ‘coerce’ / force people to buy insurance to make the insurance mechanism function effectively to pool costs among a complete distribution of all / nearly all risk classes.
i.e. mandates were not my point…. they were one subject.
I know what you meant. However, it was not relevant to what I posted.
I’ve lost interest in your trolling posts.
First, how is it trolling when I am only responding to what you are posting. Just because I am making you look uneductaed, does not mean I am trolling you.
Second, you have been saying for a while that you are not interested in my posts, yet you keep replying.
It never looks good when you misspell “uneducated”. My apologies.
Two major FLAWS are the lack of licensing changes to allow insurers to write countrywide (across state lines) and cost controls;
in my criteria;
IFIC = Interstate For Increased Competition.
CS = Cost Savings.
which are the last two parts of HEALTH CARE SPEC{IFIC}{CS}.
More criticism later….
So far, this looks like a red herring. If so, BRILLIANT move by Ryan!
If not, replace Ryan before making a serious attempt to repeal ACA!
“IFIC = Interstate For Increased Competition.” Who is going to be the regulator?
Me.
50 states. Details to be worked out by NAIC.
Good luck with that.
OMFG. The NAIC is not a regulator and does not actually regulate! Are you giving them new powers?
Confused,
He thinks the NAIC can come up with a model regulation that all 50 states will agree. While I actually agree with this approach, it is already available to them and they have shown no interest.
Gotcha. So it’s similar to the claim Yogi keeps making that one major key to decreased costs is to have the ability to sell insurance across state lines, while ignoring the fact that such an option already exists and nobody is actually doing it.
Can’t reveal everything until it’s made public.
Also, Dem Governors and their appointed Regulators are roadblocks. But, perhaps not for long.
NAIC isn’t a regulatory oriented entity? Since when?
It has been made public and it is inadequate as a replacement.
I’m more convinced now that the plan released yesterday was a red herring. Libitterals are taking the bait, too!
Oh, now Price says the bill released was Part One of Three.
That makes more sense. Tackle the basics, then address the licensing across state lines and high risk pools separately.
The cost savings issues are more complex and will require cooperation from the HI Industry. Thus, the meetings with the HI CEOs last week.
OK, maybe the bill submitted without full explanation was a red herring to send the Libitterals off into meltdown over the ‘tax cuts for the rich’. In truth, the ‘tax CREDITS’ require purchase of HI to qualify for those CREDITS. ANY Dem politician who calls the tax credits ‘tax cuts for the rich’ are liars; e.g. US Senator Chris Murphy, D-CT already spouted off about ‘TxC4t1%’.
Look carefully at the Dems amendment to McCarran Ferguson in 2010, to make ACA work.
Carefully. Look.
I read it very carefully. However, I do not understand your objection. Do you even know what anti-trust laws are and why they are important?
Yes. Yes.
This plan is DEFINITELY a red herring OR Ryan will soon be on his way out.
PolarBeaRepeal,
Thank you for admitting that Republicans are only interested in playing games and not governing.
If they do not grow up, they will suffer the same fate as the Democrats did in 2010. Then again, that may be their goal. That way they can go back to the only thing they are good at, complaining.
Red herring = Republicans’ payback for PEE-Low-See-it-after-we-DEMS-ALONE-PASS-IT fiasco in 2010.
Libitterals were sent off on a wild goose chase to find fault and criticize the Part 1 bill.
LOL at them taking the bait and melting down.
I studied PL-15 many years ago as part of my job. Get a clue, and FULLY explain why YOU think HI should be regulated differently from other lines of insurance.
Explain. Fully. Clearly. Without avoiding the question. Explain.
Ready, … steady, …. GO!
I will be happy to respond respectfully. However, I need some clarifications:
1. What is PL-15?
2. What did I state that makes you think I believe health insurance should be regulated differently? You are the one calling for it to become interstate commerce, not me. That is what would call for federal regulation.
I apologize if my posts came across as condescending. That was not my intention. However, I have become increasingly frustrated with you and some others misinterpreting my positions. If you could just take me at my word, we would have far more civil debates.
PL-15 = Public Law 15 = McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.
If you had adequate experience in regulatory issues, you would have recognized the abbreviated name of PL-15.
So, it is OK for you to post something condescending?
Regardless, I am still waiting for you to post why you believe I think health insurance should be regulated differently than other lines. What exactly did I post?
Here is a question for you, why are you against anti-trust laws for the health insurance industry? Please explain how that will increase competition?
Auto insurance, HO, etc. have solved problems with regard to selling insurance under McC-F 1945, so HI can too. Congress needs to look at that issue, and that is part 2 or part 3.
I’m not against anti-trust laws for HI. They can be applied just like HO, Auto, Liability, Life, etc.
Sales across state lines is the key. Focus on that, not the regulatory details needed. NAIC should be involved. Figure out the missing details by yourself, or wait for Bill #2 or #3.
@Ron;
You still haven’t explained why you think HI should be regulated differently than other insurance lines.
I’ll wait…. but not long.
I do not.
OK, thanks. Dems did in 2010, and amended PL-15 to make things work for ACA. That needs to be reversed, too! HOW? I dunno, exactly, as I am just an average polar bear, too busy with other matters to study the details of McC-F PL-15 to fix the MESS left behind by PEE_LOW_SEE_IT_AFTER_WE_PASS_IT and her minions.
Oh, yeah; avoid the condescending attitude in your posts in the future, or expect no further replies from me.
Polar, you are fighting a losing battle to make Ron understand your positions. Bob and I have tried it for the last 7 years with similar results. He is a died in the wool Progressive who speaks a different language than Conservatives and then condescendingly talks down to us and tells us we have a reading comprehension problem. Ron, the Progressive is the one with the reading comprehension problem. His hero failed and he knows it.
In 2010, his hero experienced his first “shellacking” from the folks on Obamacare. He then said that perhaps it wasn’t explained right. Lies, deception, passing it in the middle of the night behind closed doors and saying they had to pass it to see what was in it tends to make for a shellacking.
The good thing about this first rollout is that it is in 3 phases as Dr. Price said and it will be discussed, debated by both the House and Senate, amendments added to craft the final bill. People on both sides should just “chill” and not jump to all the wrong conclusions.
@Agent; remember this one point for the near future. The ACA is in a death spiral. when Dems say the ACA R&R will result in loss of coverage of at least 10 million people, they are basing that CLAIM on CURRENT enrollment numbers.
The TRUE measure of the effectiveness of the ACA R&R must be based on PROJECTED enrollment of ACA if NOT repealed. That would be much less than current enrollment due to the ongoing death spiral. The ACA R&R bill is only one part of three, and the other parts must address the missing components of competitive markets across state lines and cost savings actions needed.
Refute Libitterals claims that ACA repeal will result in lost coverage…. because the ACA death spiral will do MUCH worse if unchecked by R&R.
So, we are not going to judge the replacement on its own merits, but as a comparison to the PPACA? Way to aim high.
No, WE Conservatives are not going to fall for Dem congressmen lying about loss of coverage as if ACA would have maintained high enrollment despite an UNAVOIDABLE DEATH SPIRAL caused by the faulty design of ACA.
Are you dense, or just trolling?
NOTHING in what I said projects specific amounts of insureds.
A free market will regulate itself, with regulatory oversight for abusive behavior.
The TRUE, ideal enrollment will be that resulting from personal freedom to choose to insure or not. There should be NO GOAL on enrollment size, other than that.
If COSTS are properly addressed, HI will become affordable and available. CURRENT forced enrollment levels may be eclipsed, or the citizens free to choose may choose lesser levels of enrollment.
If COSTS are properly addressed, and more people get jobs, fewer people will need subsidies and more people will insure in a MUCH MORE EFFICIENT economic health care and insurance system.
I know, you Conservatives only fall for and excuse the lies of President Trump and the Republicans. That makes you so much better.
The problem is, the replacement bill is not addressing costs either.
If costs went down over the past 7 years, premiums would have gone down and the PPACA would have looked like a success.
The success of the replacement bill is just as reliant on assumptions as was the PPACA. How about some real reform? Never mind, they would take courage and work.
@Ron; the bill published Monday was Part 1 of 3.
The Cost Savings are a future issue; i.e. Bill 2 or 3.
In my phrase, it is at the end; i.e. Cost Saving = CS;
HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS.
THIS type of libitteral trolling is one reason why the Republicans did conservatives a service by withholding the 1st bill so long. ANYTHING that can be questioned by Libitterals will be questioned, as a means of venting their frustration with the election outcome. Elections have consequences. Repeal of ACA is a favorable consequence for US citizens.
Polar, a bit off topic, but still important on the economic front. Today’s news from the Labor Dept shows nearly 300,000 jobs added in Feb which beats the projection by over 100,000. Apparently, the “economists” thought the country would only produce 190,000 jobs. We have gotten used to the Obama economy of meager, burger flipper jobs being created for the past 8 years. Trump means “Business” and business is responding. Samsung just announced a major investment and attributed it to President Trumps economic policies. Now Progressive trolls, you can down vote me, but you can’t hide me anymore.
I am not sure which policies President Trump has implemented that lead to this positive jobs report, but thank you.
Funny how you never made such a post when similar reports were released under President Obama. Just sayin’. You always found a way to criticize, even though the information comes from the same place.
Agent,
I have been meaning to ask you this but have a life outside of IJ and simply forgot until now. During Obama’s terms the Dow tripled. Who is responsible?
@Ron; CEOs and stockholders are perfectly capable of projecting the impact of PROPOSED tax cuts, INITIATED EO to reduce regulations, and ONGOING effort to repeal ACA. Thus, they plan to hire, and buy stock, respectively.
@Tolerance: the tripling is due to artificially low interest rates, and a VERY LOW starting point in the denominator.
Got any other softball questions?
CEOs do not make hiring decisions based on anything except real demand for their product or service, not potential changes in the tax laws that will not even be introduced for 5-6 months.
If they are planning to hire based off of those projections, as you stated, it would not have impacted the recently released jobs report. yet, President Trump is more than happy to again take credit for something in which he had no involvement.
American Medical Association publically denounced the AHCA today. Doctors have no idea how health insurance works, right?
Tolerance, did you switch monikers from Conserving the Truth. Your Tolerance moniker has been silent for a while. Did you not know that the Dow has added $3 Trillion in value in only a few months. Need an explanation? President Trump conveying the message to business that the USA is open for business again.
Your trolling behavior is unacceptable and trying to downvote Conservatives does not work anymore. By the way, if you care to wait until phase 2 & 3 are completed, you may just find a lot of groups that like this new plan. Dr. Price is a very brilliant doctor and HHS secretary. Stay tuned.
Nope. The Bill didn’t excite them as it is incomplete.
Further, the AMA would denounce ANYTHING that threatens their price levels.
Duh!
@Agent; didn’t you notice SEVERAL Libitteral monikers were absent from IJ for a while after I complained about their behavior and use of BOTs? Coincidence or correlated; you be the judge.
Agent,
Your conspiracy theories are truly amazing. You are a modern day Alex Jones. Keep them coming.
Polar,
Enjoy this while it lasts. You earned it.
Polar, the monikers may have disappeared for a while, but most of these trolls have multiple monikers that IJ permits so they just re-constitute themselves, down vote you on each moniker until they hide your comments. They aren’t fooling anyone but IJ monitors.
Good one Polar. These lemmings are robbing their employer blind by spending so much time on this forum. Things must be slow at their offices.
Polar, how about we get back to talking about Health Insurance. Since I am a Health Agent with Blue Cross Blue Shield, following is an excerpt of a bulletin just received. Keep in mind that previous bulletins from them usually started with “We are all in for the ACA”.
Title: The Path Forward
1. Stabilize the Individual Market – Including maintaining cost sharing subsidies for lower income individuals, at least during a transition, providing reinsurance payments consistent with the levels already included in premiums, and allowing more flexibility for grandfathered plans, so consumers can keep plans that they like.
2. Return regulatory authority for insurance to the states so they can resume their traditional role, particularly with respect to rate review, benefit design, provider network adequacy and small employer market rules.
3. Provide funding for mechanisms that make premiums more affordable by broadly and fairly spreading the costs of high claims across the individual market. (State Pools)
4. Establish incentives for individuals to maintain continuous coverage throughout the year including changing open enrollment so everyone’s coverage starts on Jan 1st, and verifying eligibility for special enrollment periods, just like employer and government plans like Medicare already do.
5. Improve the rules for Health Savings accounts so that consumers have more flexibility for saving and paying for their out of pocket costs, including premiums.
Sounds to me like they are buying into private market solutions. What do you think?
Yes. Good news!
Lot’s of key elements there that have been discussed.
I’m under tight time frames now…. will respond with more this weekend.
More good news Polar. Sessions cut loose 46 Obama holdovers in the DOJ. Now, that is draining the swamp.