“Led by Governor John Kasich of Ohio…”. That’s all I needed to assess the viability of the plans. But, I read it all to be sure some other governor didn’t talk some sense into him, and … the crutch of Medicaid expansion is still being used by people who aren’t creative enough… or willing to forego political power… to fix the underlying problems.
Not until the ACA is fully repealed can Congress start to enact bills that address the underlying problems of regulation that stifle competition, thus innovation and cost efficiencies, and the lack of an adequate supply of medical providers. The latter problem is a direct result of ACA, although it existed to a lesser extent before ACA was enacted…. largely due to Medicare and Medicaid interference with equilibrium in the health care services market (supply & demand).
Two people, who do not understand the effect of Socialist health care on the costs and supply should stop down voting and take a trip to Can-duh, and visit a hospital or ER.
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 1
Thumb down 11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Led by Governor John Kasich of Ohio…”. That’s all I needed to assess the viability of the plans. But, I read it all to be sure some other governor didn’t talk some sense into him, and … the crutch of Medicaid expansion is still being used by people who aren’t creative enough… or willing to forego political power… to fix the underlying problems.
Reply
Don’t you generally insult Agent when he makes the same comment you just made?
Pot, meet kettle.
May 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
No. But I will work for fish.
May 23, 2017 at 10:16 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
It’s not an insult. As far as I know Agent has never said that to me, and I have never criticized him for it. If you think otherwise provide a link, otherwise shut up.
Your obsession with me is disturbing. LEAVE ME ALONE, CYBERSTALKER.
May 24, 2017 at 12:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh look you complained again, put it to rest already.
There were nothing in my next posts that could have been seen as any form of improper.
The moderators here are encouraging your behavior. Guys, if you keep on doing this at his whim, you’re only encouraging him to come in, edge the line, mistreat others, actually threaten people like he did me, the report everyone else.
It’s ruining and silencing too many people here. Moderate better. Instead of silencing anyone who talks to UW that doesn’t agree with him, block his IP as apparently Agent says you are doing with him.
May 18, 2017 at 10:17 am
GOP Health Care Plan says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26
13
1) Don’t get sick
2) If you do, die quickly
3) Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of households
4) Keep waiting for the “trickle down” … any day now
HA! Nice, the paranoia is rising again. I have been away from the office the last couple of days. And, I don’t change my moniker. You must have me confused with your buddy Yogi who changes his constantly. Though, I will certainly echo those sentiments numbered above. Cheers, Agent!
“HA! Nice, the paranoia is rising again. I have been away from the office the last couple of days. And, I don’t change my moniker. You must have me confused with your buddy Yogi who changes his constantly. Though, I will certainly echo those sentiments numbered above. Cheers, Agent!”
This is not Paranoia. It is reasonable suspicion. Paranoia would include tinfoil hat Russian conspiracies.
How did people ever live past age 26 (when their parents kicked them out of their home’s basements and out onto the street, into the cold, harsh world) before ACA?
“1) Don’t get sick
2) If you do, die quickly
3) Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of households
4) Keep waiting for the “trickle down” … any day now”
Agent:
I agree, this is likely planet.
I am astounded as to how ignorant the left is.
Let’s be clear: Before the tax cuts of Reagan, we were in disaster territory, and these massive cuts for the rich so to speak were massive cuts to the cost of doing business. The top rate was 70%. The corporate rate was about 35%. Any business had to pass through one of those two tunnels, and still do, so the tax cuts they say go to the wealthy, go to the cost of business.
If you want to know why the economy cannot provide for the poor, look at the outrageous costs of doing business just through regulation and taxes. You cannot regulate and tax people into a higher annual income. It’s impossible. You can say until the cows come home that it will allow people to get an education, however, the lowest tier will always exist. In order to have the lower tier in retail and restaurants be able to care for themselves you need a low cost of living. You cannot tell me that taxing and regulating decreases the cost of living. This is a lie. And you cannot tell me, that conversely, higher tax rates and more regulations do not increase the cost of living.
It isn’t just trickle down that matters here. It is the cost to survive.
Regardless, I see profit loss sheets all the time. A lower rate to say 15%, would allow most companies to have double left over what they do. The business could afford higher payroll by this point, whether higher incomes, or more employees. It’s basic math, it’s easy math, and anyone that denies it is patently absurd.
Want Single Payer? Believe Dirty Grandpa from Vermont, who know owns a lake-side vacation home, mysteriously funded recently, is telling you the truth about his Medicare for All plan?
Guess you’re going to have to fight back your tears when you come to realize that ain’t gonna happen now…
They should have posted more details on the specifics of the plan rather than going back to healthcare at large. If we care enough to read this article we probably already know the state of the argument and just want more details on new developments.
Why underwrite INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people ??
OK to provide preexisting conditions coverage for people that try to live healthy ( like they have juvenile diabetes), but if a person drinks a bottle of Booze, Smokes 4 packs or snorts Crack every day or is 200# Overweight, why should they get same price insurance?
Maybe if charged more, they’ll get healthy.
Bill Price
Bill, your point is a good one, however it will not work. Higher insurance prices will not deter them from their bad behaviors. They just won’t carry insurance and go to the emergency room for their “free care”. They will get a bill, but will not pay it. This will drive up the cost of medical care for the rest of us. There should be an state run insurance program for those who choose not to live a healthy life style, similar to Medicaid. There should be state run health care clinics that treat them, but do not perform extraordinary measures like organ transplants or life saving measures unless they commit themselves to a rehab center for a minimum of 30 days. I know this sounds cruel, but they choose this lifestyle. They should be provided with basic care and sent on their way. Their families should be supporting them, not the rest of us.
The “thumbs down” that you & Bill have received show that this would not work. At least not politically. If we could let health insurance companies price according to risk, create plans based on what people want & could afford, then they would resemble real insurance companies and we’d see prices all over the board. But the American public does not have the stomach to watch people go untreated when they can’t afford to buy insurance or they picked the less expensive plan. In fact we’re continually up in arms with drug companies for their pricing as if the drug company works for us or is part of the G’ment. They aren’t – they put their capital at risk, created their own inventions, and should get to do what they want. If we can’t afford to buy their product, they’ll eventually drop the price. Doesn’t matter what political party someone belongs to, most people can’t draw a line in the sand on treatment or drugs. Especially when it’s their own family members. That’s why the Republicans really didn’t have a better plan when they said they did.
SW, you get a thumbs down for your last sentence. Obamacare is a disaster not seen in this country since its founding. The simple solution for states is to all have Pools so the unhealthy don’t ruin the rates for the healthy. Putting everyone in a plan at the same rates is a Progressive dream and it has been a national nightmare for 7 years now.
Agent, you get a thumbs down for your last sentence. Nowehere in the three posts to which you replied was anyone advocating for putting everyone in a plan at the same rate.
As for your simple solution, the ‘unhealthy pool’ you speak of is exactly what the other posters were discussing. Do you have any comment on the points they raised about such a system?
May 18, 2017 at 3:53 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
PS – I didn’t actually vote and give you a thumbs down since I don’t vote on this site. I was just copying your opening sentence structure.
May 19, 2017 at 10:52 am
Bill Price says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY (IH)
Preexisting Conditions (PC)coverage in ACA or AHCA will bankrupt the country.
Charging Intentionally Unhealthy people more, will –
– Increase Revenues,
OR
– reduce the PC claims (as IH people drop ins.) ,
OR
– IH people will become more healthy, therewith reducing costs.
AHCA is ALSO doomed otherwise.
Bill Price
While your approach has validity from an underwriting standpoint, how would you implement this? How do you determine the difference between an inherited propensity to certain ailments, such as high cholesterol and diabetes, and those brought upon by unhealthy choices?
Is this determined at the underwriting or claims stage?
I hope you can see that your approach would be virtually impossible to implement.
May 19, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Bill Price says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY:
For Instance:
Nobody would say 2 packs of Cig/D is inherited.
Tests for Nicotine show Smokers vs Non Smokers.
Give a guy a year.
Stop smoking-> STD rating.
Keep Smoking-> 200% Rate increase.
Same with Drugs/200# Overweight/Heavy Boozer.
Why should we subsidize Health Ins. for INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people?
Bill Price
May 19, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Bill Price says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Tests for Nicotine show Smokers vs Non Smokers.
Give a guy a year.
Stop smoking-> STD rating.
Keep Smoking-> 200% Rate increase.
Same with Drugs/200# Overweight/Heavy Boozer.
Why should we subsidize Health Ins. for INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people?
Bill Price
I do agree with you that, in our current health insurance environment, we should not subsidize intentionally unhealthy people.
Insurance companies are currently allowed to surcharge for tobacco use. Were you not aware?
Now, care to answer that and any of my other questions?
May 19, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Bill Price says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron,
I understand ACA and proposed AHCA cover all Preexisting Conditions.
( no surcharges for smoking, Drug use, Over weight, or Boozing). If different can you direct me to the Clause?
– Surcharge only on Unhealthy CHOICES, not inherited health Issues.
– Give the person 1 year (or as proper) after underwriting to quit, or apply a significant Surcharge.
Why wouldn’t this work, to reduce costs, or Increase Revenues, or improve health?
Thanks,
Bill Price
May 20, 2017 at 9:50 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bill Price,
Here you go.
‘‘SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
‘‘(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM RATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market—
‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by—
‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary
by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
I still want to know how you go about proving someone’s specific health issues can be tied directly to and solely caused by unhealthy choices.
We nearly all engage in some unhealthy choices.
May 22, 2017 at 9:03 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Ron; you posted the passages of the law that is about to be repealed. THAT is an invalid position to take now.
Further, under a scenario of repeal of THAT law (ACA), the rating process will account for bad health choices through rating using expected losses and expenses, based on the experience of risks, whether in groups or individually.
Ergo, there is no need to PROVE or MEASURE unhealthy life style choices…. the measures will show up in the experience data.
Why do you assume the status quo for future forecasts? You’d never cut it as a member of my staff…. too closed minded to create workable solutions to problems.
May 22, 2017 at 9:14 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election,
1. Bill Price requested for me to prove that insurance companies may surcharge for tobacco use within the PPACA. He was not asking me to predict the future.
2. The PPACA has not yet been repealed, therefor my position remains valid under current law. Aren’t you one of the guys who keep telling us that we are a nation of laws?
3. Why would I ever want to work with or for someone with such poor comprehension?
May 22, 2017 at 11:19 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
1. You’re living in the past. ACA is toast… only a matter of weeks, perhaps two months at most.
2. see 1.
3. You wouldn’t be able to work for me due to your lack of forecasting skills and foresight. If you want to speculate about my comprehension, go ahead and make all the speculative points you wish… they will not be valued by anyone who knows me.
May 22, 2017 at 11:23 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
classic trolling.
May 22, 2017 at 12:31 pm
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
If all you can reply with is THAT ^, it’s easy to see who is the real troll.
May 22, 2017 at 12:33 pm
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
ACA is toast because the death spiral has ALREADY resulted in major HI Cos. pulling out of nearly all exchanges and CO-OPs going bust.
But, like Einstein said, keep repeating your failed actions and hope for a different outcome.
May 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Not hard to see how uninformed you are about Obamacare Confused. Bob has tried in vain, Polar had tried in vain and I have tried in vain. Now, you can stew in your own juices and keep posting nonsense on this blog.
So did you conjur up that reply from the archives of the last 5-6 years? Why have you fought tooth and nail against Bob and Polar when they tried to teach you something? Please tell us how you would fix Healthcare and Ron’s Single Payer doesn’t count in a free society.
Woah woah woah! Leave me out of this one please, if it’s in that context what you’re saying is incorrect.
Confused and I haven’t actually haven’t argued much on healthcare on the specifics, so I couldn’t have taught him much. I’ve pressed confused on other matters.
I’ve told Confused that he has been blind to republican plans, but that’s a bit different than educating him. I’ve only really debated specifics of what was wrong with solutions to Ron. I’m under the impression confused agrees with those specifics, (namely competition in the market is good and single payer may not be the best solution)
I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.
Confused, am I incorrect?
On this note I have tried to point people to plans pushed. I have not so much gone over Trump’s plan, because it isn’t a finished and known plan. The senate will modify it drastically, and Trump himself has talked about it in phases. One of those seems to be a push for deregulation, which is what I support and believe will bring competition out and fix the monkey wrench we threw in this system in the 60’s by regulating the tar out of it.
So really you’re saying that Confused refuses to learn about what would work, but I think it’s better to say Confused refuses to see that republicans have solutions, have presented them several times, has talked about deregulating the industry for some time, but confused doesn’t take that seriously for one reason or another.
This is why I keep telling him that his weakness is not in facts, it is rather in seeing both sides as the same due to how things appear, without connecting the dots of who supports what.
Right now, what Confused needs to hear and see, is that republicans support a solution that directs what he sees as problems.
The way to get someone to see that is not to say “you haven’t learned what Bob taught you” as I haven’t taught him what is good, he taught himself. The better solution would be to say “it’s right in front of you, calm down and look at it”.
Deregulating and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenize costs nation wide ( at high levels)
Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
It’s critical to limit low cost Ins for the Intentionally Unhealthy.
What would OMB show?
Bill Price
May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Deregulating and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenize costs nation wide ( at high levels)
Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
It’s critical to limit low cost Ins for the Intentionally Unhealthy.
What would OMB show?
Bill Price”
I think you’re missing my point. I’m trying to go over things they have talked about, and below I asked him for a specific area he wants.
I will then show him bills that match up with it.
I have talked about Tom Price’s bills, which are interesting, in the past.
May 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
It’s an uninformed stance when you OBJECT to the fixes offered that take HI out of the control of the gummint. Get a clue, clueless one!
Even YOU have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far and stated they’re insufficient on their own to make any difference without having additional bills/laws/rules enacted. I guess that makes you uninformed and clueless too.
Great, big difference between your approach and mine. I have a clue as to how to FIX the ACA mess. You don’t and are trolling.
May 19, 2017 at 10:11 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
CURRENT Republican fixes still involve the gummint, which WON’T WORK unless their role is greatly diminished to only regulatory actions on licensing and tort law reforms.
May 19, 2017 at 1:51 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
These bills are not the only bills they have tried to address.
Actually, many of the proposals that you and Agent have wanted have been suggested, separately. It’s easy to modify bills to do with regulations if they are itemized by type and goal.
There have been a multitude of bills dealing with regulation as well. You just haven’t been paying attention to them, and instead would prefer to believe the false narrative that democrats push which is that republicans have no solutions. It’s a lie. Stop believing that lie, and maybe agent will stop railing on you.
While I told Agent to leave me out of this, I have decided to make some brief commentary on the matter.
May 19, 2017 at 2:23 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob, I cannot respond to everything you claimed you think you knew about me which I do not agree with and stay on topic, so I will point out just the most recent example.
Me to Yogi: “even you have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far…they’re insufficient on their own”
Bob: “[confused] believe[s] the false narrative that…republicans have no solutions. It’s a lie. Stop believing that lie”
The last thing I wrote here was that Republicans have suggested fixes. I clarified that remark to acknolwedge they are only piece-meal solutions and additional laws/regulations/etc. are needed for those fixes to be viable.
Once again you inaccurately posited what you think I believe even though my last post stated otherwise.
Republicans have no plans IS NOT what I said I believe, which was that the they have plans, but they’ve only released parts of it which are not comprehensive enough to fix the issues without additional plans/changes/fixes/etc.
I sincerely hope you take this as a learning experience and will stop posting what you think I believe or what you think I meant to say. I can speak for myself, I choose my words wisely to properly express myself, and you have proven time and time again that your analysis of SOME (not all, some) of the content I post is not accurate.
May 19, 2017 at 3:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In other words Confused,
“Even YOU have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far and stated they’re insufficient on their own to make any difference without having additional bills/laws/rules enacted. I guess that makes you uninformed and clueless too”
You are not understanding, that these aspects you want fixed…
WILL VERY LIKELY BE SEPARATE BILLS.
When I say that you have missed bills proposed by republicans:
Tort reform is a broad area of reform. It doesn’t just apply to medical.
Look. Tort reform! This would in some degree affect health insurance as well.
Look! Bills that would catch medical regulation with their passing! In other words: Anything with $100 million or more of economic cost would be analyzed. This would come back to health insurance regulations!
h ttp://theh ill.com/regulation/legislation/249953-watchdogs-cheer-shelved-gop-regulatory-bills
These bills are not the type you should pass with the ACA, or the ACHA.
You’re just too ignorant to understand what is going on.
Republicans have been attempting to get a hold of absurd regulation and tort law for some time.
However, the democrats always say then people won’t be able to sue, people will be harmed, etc etc.
Come off it Confused! You have no clue the way the system works.
May 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
So let’s go over this:
You want tort reform correct? That won’t come in any healthcare bill. It affects all law and tort. It will come blanket, and apparently, they are currently working on it based on what I just sent you in link evidence.
You want deregulation correct?
Repealing the ACA will deal with a lot of that, however, so will these other bills, designed to analyze the cost of regulation, and remove them as needed.
Many regulations regarding cost will be handled in this manner.
Trump already issued an executive order with regards to rolling back regulations in a similar manner, possibly for this reason.
So the goal is:
Deregulate
Tort reform
Write across state lines
And other aspects.
List me an area you want. And I will find you a bill that has or would have addressed it.
Does that sound fair? That way I can prove any area you’ve thought of, the republicans have already formed some sort of bill to deal with it, separately from this health bill.
Is that fair?
Line item an area please.
I will find the .gov bills since you are too lazy to do so.
May 19, 2017 at 3:37 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
To summarize:
Agent said you don’t know your facts.
I said YOU DO. And that you simply believe republican plans don’t address the problems you see.
I then said that is because some of these are separate bills, separate bills you clearly have not seen.
How was that not fair to you Confused?
You clearly think no bills address what you’re mentioning, and you’re entitled to believe that. So debate back with me fairly, don’t be facetious to me and say I’m misrepresenting what you’re saying when it is clear I am not. Do not tell me you seriously hope I can realize I’m misrepresenting you, it’s condescending. I defended your common sense only for you to launch an attack on me, and I don’t appreciate it confused! I’m demanding an apology by the way here. I don’t get treated this way. Now, I’ve said to Agent we should show you there are bills proposed on such areas, rather than to tell you that you don’t know what would work, because you clearly do know what would work. Unlike Ron, you have common sense in this regard.
So below, I asked you for an area not dealt with on this bill, and I will find bills that republicans have tried to pass dealing with it.
This is fair.
You believe they haven’t, well then, give me the opportunity to show you these bills.
You can’t simply call me a liar on your view points, while refusing to debate bills. It isn’t honest! It’s boring, and it’s absurd. This is why I debate better than you. I demand the facts, people who debate with me give me facts in person, they don’t give me an earful virtue signaling lecture on how I am misinterpreting their words!
They stay on task and on point! Do the same!
May 19, 2017 at 8:46 pm
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@bob;
Thanks for the above stuff. I do not hold that a single bill will fix the ACA mess. Several bills are needed to address the problems, one by one. But repeal is a key step. Tort reform of med mal is another. Some have stated that won’t amount to much of the overall cost of health care. That conclusion means they missed the key point.
One more hint; regulatory changes to allow HI companies to write across state lines is a key step to increasing competition. There is FAR more to be said about that point than I have time for now…. desert is approaching!
ROAR!
May 19, 2017 at 3:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Oh…my…God.
Do you just enjoy finding ways to make it appear people are saying things they aren’t? I sincerely hope you look inward.
Allow me to put my stuff together:
“Right now, what Confused needs to hear and see, is that republicans support a solution that directs what he sees as problems.”
“I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.”
Would you agree that these statements line up with:
“Republicans have no plans IS NOT what I said I believe, which was that the they have plans, but they’ve only released parts of it which are not comprehensive enough to fix the issues without additional plans/changes/fixes/etc.”
When I said:
“This is why I keep telling him that his weakness is not in facts, it is rather in seeing both sides as the same due to how things appear, without connecting the dots of who supports what.”
And I also said:
“These bills are not the only bills they have tried to address.
Actually, many of the proposals that you and Agent have wanted have been suggested, separately. It’s easy to modify bills to do with regulations if they are itemized by type and goal”
Addresses that you believe that what we have seen so far does not meet what you consider enough reform, however, such plans to address reform have been dealt with in separate bills, bills that have been blocked by democrats, and bills you do indeed refuse to admit have been proposed. You have to date acted like republicans have not attempted to fix what you consider to be the problem, and they have. Consistently.
At NO POINT did I say that you said there have been NO PLANS from republicans. I said that
“I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.”
“That” being deregulating the market, and making the market work better through controls such as writing insurance across state lines, or any issue really, whether tort reform or whatever else.
Would you agree:
That my statement that you don’t believe there have been bills pushed to address these issues is accurate. And that is what I said.
At which point, it makes some degree of sense for me to say these attempts of changes have been made SEPARATELY from the ACA, and ACHA. As a side note, passed in one bill, it would be nearly impossible to modify the regulations your talking about, and modifying other provisions may darn well require an entire repeal (the same weakness of the ACA).
You’re asking for the impossible here, and you’re surprised you cannot have it, while you ignore the bills republicans have tried to pass to address the concerns you have, separately.
AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
ACA universal Preexisting Conditions coverage is unsustainable.
It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks .
What would OMB show?
Bill Price
Bill has a key point that many have missed. There is NO INCENTIVE to control costs when they are subsidized or paid completely by others, through taxation or direct rate subsidies.
HI involves health issues that are BOTH under the control of each individual and out of the control of individuals. Moral hazard is COMPLETELY ignored by ACA. Socialism tends to do bad stuff like that.
You would have to be dumber than Progressive Socialists to believe what we had pre-PPACA was working and that is the system to which we should return. And even dumber if you believe eliminating regulations is what is best for the people.
May 22, 2017 at 6:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You would have to be dumber than Progressive Socialists to believe what we had pre-PPACA was working and that is the system to which we should return. And even dumber if you believe eliminating regulations is what is best for the people.”
Yes. It is. Regulation is what caused healthcare costs, which existed before 1960, to skyrocket out of tune with inflation. I already gave you a chart.
I already showed you laser eye surgery. When it went back to the private free market, not covered by either government or your typical insurance plan, it went down from $30,000 down to $2,000. We need a market that can price things down. Regulations that have set amounts insurance companies can charge, or put to claims, or exactly the problem here.
Price setting doesn’t work. It caused the crises of gas rations during Carter, and it will cause more here.
Deregulation of the health industry is needed. Huge amounts of it, that were not passed with the ACA, so there is no reason to believe it will come with the ACHA.
May 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
“ACA universal Preexisting Conditions coverage is unsustainable.”
What’s your point?
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
What’s your point?
I don’t care what someone has said, I care about what will work.
In the 60’s when we regulated the health industry, the democrats made similar claims.
And what happened based on the charts I showed you?
The costs diverged from inflation and exploded.
We need deregulation, and for the market to set pricing.
Similar to Laser eye surgery, which went down in cost to $2,000 dollars now from $30,000 in somewhere around 15 years, we may have an insurance industry and a government program that poorly mucking things up on all coverage that is needed.
The free market finds costs, has people target them, and it allows the cost to be pulled down.
As it stands, deregulation is needed in the health insurance industry. Price setting should be avoided, for one aspect, say for regulations dealing with how much premiums go to where, which we currently do through the ACA.
I am asking for specific areas confused wants changed to deal with the free market aspect.
Keep in mind, while I said that his desires might include some items I listed, I have in another post, directed my personal opinions on the matter, and never have brought up selling across state lines.
This is not a hot item for me, I’m talking in the perspective, or I’m trying to, of the two people I addressed at the same time. If you’re not in the habit of doing this, I suggest you change how you address people.
It’s a form of government rationing because budget restrictions create a shortage for everyone in the system, resulting in waiting lists that some patients never get off. Their citizens mostly accept that for non-emergencies because fortunately, as in the US, most people don’t require sophisticated or advanced medical care. When they cannot accept it, they leave the system and fund their own private healthcare.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
Intentionally Unhealthy: >> Bill Price response to Bob and RiceSusan
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
>> Deregulation has different forms. Deregulation of Interstate sales is a form that ultimate won’t benefit as premiums will equilibrate across the system. <> ACA universal Preex has no limiter. Politically one can agree that Individuals with inherited Preex.
( i.e. Juvenile Dibetes, Heart Problems etc
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
RE Intentionally Unhealthy: >> Bill Price response to Bob and RiceSusan
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and allow Interstate Sales will simply ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
>> Agreed Deregulation has different forms. Deregulation of Interstate sales is a form that ultimate won’t benefit as premiums will equilibrate across the system.
>> Preex Pools do nothing to increase Rev. or reduce costs, and Taxes will have to come from some source to fund the Pool growing rapidly increasing costs.
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
What’s your point?
>> ACA universal Preex has no limiter. Politically, one can agree that Individuals with inherited Preex. ( i.e. Juvenile Diabetes, Heart Problems etc.) that try hard to live healthy lives should be insured, but those individuals that are Intentionally Unhealthy ( excessive Smokes, Drugs, Fat, Booze) should be surcharged. This will either Increase revenue ( via the Surcharges), OR reduce health care costs ( as such people change lifestyles and get healthier.)
>> Your people are the experts.. What would an OMB analysis say?
Bill Price
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Not until the ACA is fully repealed can Congress start to enact bills that address the underlying problems of regulation that stifle competition, thus innovation and cost efficiencies, and the lack of an adequate supply of medical providers. The latter problem is a direct result of ACA, although it existed to a lesser extent before ACA was enacted…. largely due to Medicare and Medicaid interference with equilibrium in the health care services market (supply & demand).
Two people, who do not understand the effect of Socialist health care on the costs and supply should stop down voting and take a trip to Can-duh, and visit a hospital or ER.
Re-Posted:
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 1
Thumb down 11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Led by Governor John Kasich of Ohio…”. That’s all I needed to assess the viability of the plans. But, I read it all to be sure some other governor didn’t talk some sense into him, and … the crutch of Medicaid expansion is still being used by people who aren’t creative enough… or willing to forego political power… to fix the underlying problems.
Reply
Attn: Libitterals; you’ll have to go to your local coffee house or vape shop to switch IP addys ten times to censor this post… AGAIN.
Do you work for IJ or Wells Media?
Don’t you generally insult Agent when he makes the same comment you just made?
Pot, meet kettle.
No. But I will work for fish.
It’s not an insult. As far as I know Agent has never said that to me, and I have never criticized him for it. If you think otherwise provide a link, otherwise shut up.
Your obsession with me is disturbing. LEAVE ME ALONE, CYBERSTALKER.
Oh look you complained again, put it to rest already.
There were nothing in my next posts that could have been seen as any form of improper.
The moderators here are encouraging your behavior. Guys, if you keep on doing this at his whim, you’re only encouraging him to come in, edge the line, mistreat others, actually threaten people like he did me, the report everyone else.
It’s ruining and silencing too many people here. Moderate better. Instead of silencing anyone who talks to UW that doesn’t agree with him, block his IP as apparently Agent says you are doing with him.
1) Don’t get sick
2) If you do, die quickly
3) Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of households
4) Keep waiting for the “trickle down” … any day now
Thank you moniker changing Planet. You must be a big fan of Alan Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Shmucky, Maxine Waters.
HA! Nice, the paranoia is rising again. I have been away from the office the last couple of days. And, I don’t change my moniker. You must have me confused with your buddy Yogi who changes his constantly. Though, I will certainly echo those sentiments numbered above. Cheers, Agent!
“HA! Nice, the paranoia is rising again. I have been away from the office the last couple of days. And, I don’t change my moniker. You must have me confused with your buddy Yogi who changes his constantly. Though, I will certainly echo those sentiments numbered above. Cheers, Agent!”
This is not Paranoia. It is reasonable suspicion. Paranoia would include tinfoil hat Russian conspiracies.
How did people ever live past age 26 (when their parents kicked them out of their home’s basements and out onto the street, into the cold, harsh world) before ACA?
“1) Don’t get sick
2) If you do, die quickly
3) Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of households
4) Keep waiting for the “trickle down” … any day now”
Agent:
I agree, this is likely planet.
I am astounded as to how ignorant the left is.
Let’s be clear: Before the tax cuts of Reagan, we were in disaster territory, and these massive cuts for the rich so to speak were massive cuts to the cost of doing business. The top rate was 70%. The corporate rate was about 35%. Any business had to pass through one of those two tunnels, and still do, so the tax cuts they say go to the wealthy, go to the cost of business.
If you want to know why the economy cannot provide for the poor, look at the outrageous costs of doing business just through regulation and taxes. You cannot regulate and tax people into a higher annual income. It’s impossible. You can say until the cows come home that it will allow people to get an education, however, the lowest tier will always exist. In order to have the lower tier in retail and restaurants be able to care for themselves you need a low cost of living. You cannot tell me that taxing and regulating decreases the cost of living. This is a lie. And you cannot tell me, that conversely, higher tax rates and more regulations do not increase the cost of living.
It isn’t just trickle down that matters here. It is the cost to survive.
Regardless, I see profit loss sheets all the time. A lower rate to say 15%, would allow most companies to have double left over what they do. The business could afford higher payroll by this point, whether higher incomes, or more employees. It’s basic math, it’s easy math, and anyone that denies it is patently absurd.
Want Single Payer? Believe Dirty Grandpa from Vermont, who know owns a lake-side vacation home, mysteriously funded recently, is telling you the truth about his Medicare for All plan?
Guess you’re going to have to fight back your tears when you come to realize that ain’t gonna happen now…
http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-why-single-payer-healthcare-wont-work-611168?ref=yfp
They should have posted more details on the specifics of the plan rather than going back to healthcare at large. If we care enough to read this article we probably already know the state of the argument and just want more details on new developments.
Why underwrite INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people ??
OK to provide preexisting conditions coverage for people that try to live healthy ( like they have juvenile diabetes), but if a person drinks a bottle of Booze, Smokes 4 packs or snorts Crack every day or is 200# Overweight, why should they get same price insurance?
Maybe if charged more, they’ll get healthy.
Bill Price
Bill, your point is a good one, however it will not work. Higher insurance prices will not deter them from their bad behaviors. They just won’t carry insurance and go to the emergency room for their “free care”. They will get a bill, but will not pay it. This will drive up the cost of medical care for the rest of us. There should be an state run insurance program for those who choose not to live a healthy life style, similar to Medicaid. There should be state run health care clinics that treat them, but do not perform extraordinary measures like organ transplants or life saving measures unless they commit themselves to a rehab center for a minimum of 30 days. I know this sounds cruel, but they choose this lifestyle. They should be provided with basic care and sent on their way. Their families should be supporting them, not the rest of us.
The “thumbs down” that you & Bill have received show that this would not work. At least not politically. If we could let health insurance companies price according to risk, create plans based on what people want & could afford, then they would resemble real insurance companies and we’d see prices all over the board. But the American public does not have the stomach to watch people go untreated when they can’t afford to buy insurance or they picked the less expensive plan. In fact we’re continually up in arms with drug companies for their pricing as if the drug company works for us or is part of the G’ment. They aren’t – they put their capital at risk, created their own inventions, and should get to do what they want. If we can’t afford to buy their product, they’ll eventually drop the price. Doesn’t matter what political party someone belongs to, most people can’t draw a line in the sand on treatment or drugs. Especially when it’s their own family members. That’s why the Republicans really didn’t have a better plan when they said they did.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent, you get a thumbs down for your last sentence. Nowehere in the three posts to which you replied was anyone advocating for putting everyone in a plan at the same rate.
As for your simple solution, the ‘unhealthy pool’ you speak of is exactly what the other posters were discussing. Do you have any comment on the points they raised about such a system?
PS – I didn’t actually vote and give you a thumbs down since I don’t vote on this site. I was just copying your opening sentence structure.
INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY (IH)
Preexisting Conditions (PC)coverage in ACA or AHCA will bankrupt the country.
Charging Intentionally Unhealthy people more, will –
– Increase Revenues,
OR
– reduce the PC claims (as IH people drop ins.) ,
OR
– IH people will become more healthy, therewith reducing costs.
AHCA is ALSO doomed otherwise.
Bill Price
Bill Price,
While your approach has validity from an underwriting standpoint, how would you implement this? How do you determine the difference between an inherited propensity to certain ailments, such as high cholesterol and diabetes, and those brought upon by unhealthy choices?
Is this determined at the underwriting or claims stage?
I hope you can see that your approach would be virtually impossible to implement.
INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY:
For Instance:
Nobody would say 2 packs of Cig/D is inherited.
Tests for Nicotine show Smokers vs Non Smokers.
Give a guy a year.
Stop smoking-> STD rating.
Keep Smoking-> 200% Rate increase.
Same with Drugs/200# Overweight/Heavy Boozer.
Why should we subsidize Health Ins. for INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people?
Bill Price
Tests for Nicotine show Smokers vs Non Smokers.
Give a guy a year.
Stop smoking-> STD rating.
Keep Smoking-> 200% Rate increase.
Same with Drugs/200# Overweight/Heavy Boozer.
Why should we subsidize Health Ins. for INTENTIONALLY UNHEALTHY people?
Bill Price
I do agree with you that, in our current health insurance environment, we should not subsidize intentionally unhealthy people.
Insurance companies are currently allowed to surcharge for tobacco use. Were you not aware?
Now, care to answer that and any of my other questions?
Ron,
I understand ACA and proposed AHCA cover all Preexisting Conditions.
( no surcharges for smoking, Drug use, Over weight, or Boozing). If different can you direct me to the Clause?
– Surcharge only on Unhealthy CHOICES, not inherited health Issues.
– Give the person 1 year (or as proper) after underwriting to quit, or apply a significant Surcharge.
Why wouldn’t this work, to reduce costs, or Increase Revenues, or improve health?
Thanks,
Bill Price
Bill Price,
Here you go.
‘‘SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
‘‘(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM RATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market—
‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by—
‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary
by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text
I still want to know how you go about proving someone’s specific health issues can be tied directly to and solely caused by unhealthy choices.
We nearly all engage in some unhealthy choices.
@Ron; you posted the passages of the law that is about to be repealed. THAT is an invalid position to take now.
Further, under a scenario of repeal of THAT law (ACA), the rating process will account for bad health choices through rating using expected losses and expenses, based on the experience of risks, whether in groups or individually.
Ergo, there is no need to PROVE or MEASURE unhealthy life style choices…. the measures will show up in the experience data.
Why do you assume the status quo for future forecasts? You’d never cut it as a member of my staff…. too closed minded to create workable solutions to problems.
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election,
1. Bill Price requested for me to prove that insurance companies may surcharge for tobacco use within the PPACA. He was not asking me to predict the future.
2. The PPACA has not yet been repealed, therefor my position remains valid under current law. Aren’t you one of the guys who keep telling us that we are a nation of laws?
3. Why would I ever want to work with or for someone with such poor comprehension?
1. You’re living in the past. ACA is toast… only a matter of weeks, perhaps two months at most.
2. see 1.
3. You wouldn’t be able to work for me due to your lack of forecasting skills and foresight. If you want to speculate about my comprehension, go ahead and make all the speculative points you wish… they will not be valued by anyone who knows me.
classic trolling.
If all you can reply with is THAT ^, it’s easy to see who is the real troll.
ACA is toast because the death spiral has ALREADY resulted in major HI Cos. pulling out of nearly all exchanges and CO-OPs going bust.
But, like Einstein said, keep repeating your failed actions and hope for a different outcome.
Not hard to see how uninformed you are about Obamacare Confused. Bob has tried in vain, Polar had tried in vain and I have tried in vain. Now, you can stew in your own juices and keep posting nonsense on this blog.
You know I’ve told you DOZENS of times that I think Obamacare has been a “super-duper failure.” Please explain how that is an uninformed stance.
So did you conjur up that reply from the archives of the last 5-6 years? Why have you fought tooth and nail against Bob and Polar when they tried to teach you something? Please tell us how you would fix Healthcare and Ron’s Single Payer doesn’t count in a free society.
Woah woah woah! Leave me out of this one please, if it’s in that context what you’re saying is incorrect.
Confused and I haven’t actually haven’t argued much on healthcare on the specifics, so I couldn’t have taught him much. I’ve pressed confused on other matters.
I’ve told Confused that he has been blind to republican plans, but that’s a bit different than educating him. I’ve only really debated specifics of what was wrong with solutions to Ron. I’m under the impression confused agrees with those specifics, (namely competition in the market is good and single payer may not be the best solution)
I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.
Confused, am I incorrect?
On this note I have tried to point people to plans pushed. I have not so much gone over Trump’s plan, because it isn’t a finished and known plan. The senate will modify it drastically, and Trump himself has talked about it in phases. One of those seems to be a push for deregulation, which is what I support and believe will bring competition out and fix the monkey wrench we threw in this system in the 60’s by regulating the tar out of it.
So really you’re saying that Confused refuses to learn about what would work, but I think it’s better to say Confused refuses to see that republicans have solutions, have presented them several times, has talked about deregulating the industry for some time, but confused doesn’t take that seriously for one reason or another.
This is why I keep telling him that his weakness is not in facts, it is rather in seeing both sides as the same due to how things appear, without connecting the dots of who supports what.
Right now, what Confused needs to hear and see, is that republicans support a solution that directs what he sees as problems.
The way to get someone to see that is not to say “you haven’t learned what Bob taught you” as I haven’t taught him what is good, he taught himself. The better solution would be to say “it’s right in front of you, calm down and look at it”.
Deregulating and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenize costs nation wide ( at high levels)
Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
It’s critical to limit low cost Ins for the Intentionally Unhealthy.
What would OMB show?
Bill Price
“Deregulating and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenize costs nation wide ( at high levels)
Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
It’s critical to limit low cost Ins for the Intentionally Unhealthy.
What would OMB show?
Bill Price”
I think you’re missing my point. I’m trying to go over things they have talked about, and below I asked him for a specific area he wants.
I will then show him bills that match up with it.
I have talked about Tom Price’s bills, which are interesting, in the past.
It’s an uninformed stance when you OBJECT to the fixes offered that take HI out of the control of the gummint. Get a clue, clueless one!
Even YOU have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far and stated they’re insufficient on their own to make any difference without having additional bills/laws/rules enacted. I guess that makes you uninformed and clueless too.
I objected AND OFFERED BETTER FIXES.
Great, big difference between your approach and mine. I have a clue as to how to FIX the ACA mess. You don’t and are trolling.
CURRENT Republican fixes still involve the gummint, which WON’T WORK unless their role is greatly diminished to only regulatory actions on licensing and tort law reforms.
These bills are not the only bills they have tried to address.
Actually, many of the proposals that you and Agent have wanted have been suggested, separately. It’s easy to modify bills to do with regulations if they are itemized by type and goal.
There have been a multitude of bills dealing with regulation as well. You just haven’t been paying attention to them, and instead would prefer to believe the false narrative that democrats push which is that republicans have no solutions. It’s a lie. Stop believing that lie, and maybe agent will stop railing on you.
While I told Agent to leave me out of this, I have decided to make some brief commentary on the matter.
Bob, I cannot respond to everything you claimed you think you knew about me which I do not agree with and stay on topic, so I will point out just the most recent example.
Me to Yogi: “even you have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far…they’re insufficient on their own”
Bob: “[confused] believe[s] the false narrative that…republicans have no solutions. It’s a lie. Stop believing that lie”
The last thing I wrote here was that Republicans have suggested fixes. I clarified that remark to acknolwedge they are only piece-meal solutions and additional laws/regulations/etc. are needed for those fixes to be viable.
Once again you inaccurately posited what you think I believe even though my last post stated otherwise.
Republicans have no plans IS NOT what I said I believe, which was that the they have plans, but they’ve only released parts of it which are not comprehensive enough to fix the issues without additional plans/changes/fixes/etc.
I sincerely hope you take this as a learning experience and will stop posting what you think I believe or what you think I meant to say. I can speak for myself, I choose my words wisely to properly express myself, and you have proven time and time again that your analysis of SOME (not all, some) of the content I post is not accurate.
In other words Confused,
“Even YOU have objected to the fixes the Republicans have offered so far and stated they’re insufficient on their own to make any difference without having additional bills/laws/rules enacted. I guess that makes you uninformed and clueless too”
You are not understanding, that these aspects you want fixed…
WILL VERY LIKELY BE SEPARATE BILLS.
When I say that you have missed bills proposed by republicans:
Tort reform is a broad area of reform. It doesn’t just apply to medical.
Look. Tort reform! This would in some degree affect health insurance as well.
ht tp://dailyca ller.com/2017/03/10/house-passes-tort-reform-bills/
Look! Bills that would catch medical regulation with their passing! In other words: Anything with $100 million or more of economic cost would be analyzed. This would come back to health insurance regulations!
h ttp://theh ill.com/regulation/legislation/249953-watchdogs-cheer-shelved-gop-regulatory-bills
These bills are not the type you should pass with the ACA, or the ACHA.
You’re just too ignorant to understand what is going on.
Republicans have been attempting to get a hold of absurd regulation and tort law for some time.
However, the democrats always say then people won’t be able to sue, people will be harmed, etc etc.
Come off it Confused! You have no clue the way the system works.
So let’s go over this:
You want tort reform correct? That won’t come in any healthcare bill. It affects all law and tort. It will come blanket, and apparently, they are currently working on it based on what I just sent you in link evidence.
You want deregulation correct?
Repealing the ACA will deal with a lot of that, however, so will these other bills, designed to analyze the cost of regulation, and remove them as needed.
Many regulations regarding cost will be handled in this manner.
Trump already issued an executive order with regards to rolling back regulations in a similar manner, possibly for this reason.
So the goal is:
Deregulate
Tort reform
Write across state lines
And other aspects.
List me an area you want. And I will find you a bill that has or would have addressed it.
Does that sound fair? That way I can prove any area you’ve thought of, the republicans have already formed some sort of bill to deal with it, separately from this health bill.
Is that fair?
Line item an area please.
I will find the .gov bills since you are too lazy to do so.
To summarize:
Agent said you don’t know your facts.
I said YOU DO. And that you simply believe republican plans don’t address the problems you see.
I then said that is because some of these are separate bills, separate bills you clearly have not seen.
How was that not fair to you Confused?
You clearly think no bills address what you’re mentioning, and you’re entitled to believe that. So debate back with me fairly, don’t be facetious to me and say I’m misrepresenting what you’re saying when it is clear I am not. Do not tell me you seriously hope I can realize I’m misrepresenting you, it’s condescending. I defended your common sense only for you to launch an attack on me, and I don’t appreciate it confused! I’m demanding an apology by the way here. I don’t get treated this way. Now, I’ve said to Agent we should show you there are bills proposed on such areas, rather than to tell you that you don’t know what would work, because you clearly do know what would work. Unlike Ron, you have common sense in this regard.
So below, I asked you for an area not dealt with on this bill, and I will find bills that republicans have tried to pass dealing with it.
This is fair.
You believe they haven’t, well then, give me the opportunity to show you these bills.
You can’t simply call me a liar on your view points, while refusing to debate bills. It isn’t honest! It’s boring, and it’s absurd. This is why I debate better than you. I demand the facts, people who debate with me give me facts in person, they don’t give me an earful virtue signaling lecture on how I am misinterpreting their words!
They stay on task and on point! Do the same!
@bob;
Thanks for the above stuff. I do not hold that a single bill will fix the ACA mess. Several bills are needed to address the problems, one by one. But repeal is a key step. Tort reform of med mal is another. Some have stated that won’t amount to much of the overall cost of health care. That conclusion means they missed the key point.
One more hint; regulatory changes to allow HI companies to write across state lines is a key step to increasing competition. There is FAR more to be said about that point than I have time for now…. desert is approaching!
ROAR!
Oh…my…God.
Do you just enjoy finding ways to make it appear people are saying things they aren’t? I sincerely hope you look inward.
Allow me to put my stuff together:
“Right now, what Confused needs to hear and see, is that republicans support a solution that directs what he sees as problems.”
“I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.”
Would you agree that these statements line up with:
“Republicans have no plans IS NOT what I said I believe, which was that the they have plans, but they’ve only released parts of it which are not comprehensive enough to fix the issues without additional plans/changes/fixes/etc.”
When I said:
“This is why I keep telling him that his weakness is not in facts, it is rather in seeing both sides as the same due to how things appear, without connecting the dots of who supports what.”
And I also said:
“These bills are not the only bills they have tried to address.
Actually, many of the proposals that you and Agent have wanted have been suggested, separately. It’s easy to modify bills to do with regulations if they are itemized by type and goal”
Addresses that you believe that what we have seen so far does not meet what you consider enough reform, however, such plans to address reform have been dealt with in separate bills, bills that have been blocked by democrats, and bills you do indeed refuse to admit have been proposed. You have to date acted like republicans have not attempted to fix what you consider to be the problem, and they have. Consistently.
At NO POINT did I say that you said there have been NO PLANS from republicans. I said that
“I’m also under the impression he thinks that republicans have no plans to solve either aspect of that.”
“That” being deregulating the market, and making the market work better through controls such as writing insurance across state lines, or any issue really, whether tort reform or whatever else.
Would you agree:
That my statement that you don’t believe there have been bills pushed to address these issues is accurate. And that is what I said.
At which point, it makes some degree of sense for me to say these attempts of changes have been made SEPARATELY from the ACA, and ACHA. As a side note, passed in one bill, it would be nearly impossible to modify the regulations your talking about, and modifying other provisions may darn well require an entire repeal (the same weakness of the ACA).
You’re asking for the impossible here, and you’re surprised you cannot have it, while you ignore the bills republicans have tried to pass to address the concerns you have, separately.
AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.
ACA universal Preexisting Conditions coverage is unsustainable.
It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks .
What would OMB show?
Bill Price
Bill has a key point that many have missed. There is NO INCENTIVE to control costs when they are subsidized or paid completely by others, through taxation or direct rate subsidies.
HI involves health issues that are BOTH under the control of each individual and out of the control of individuals. Moral hazard is COMPLETELY ignored by ACA. Socialism tends to do bad stuff like that.
Rice, Progressive Socialists have to be as dumb as a box of rocks if they think their system will ever work.
You would have to be dumber than Progressive Socialists to believe what we had pre-PPACA was working and that is the system to which we should return. And even dumber if you believe eliminating regulations is what is best for the people.
“You would have to be dumber than Progressive Socialists to believe what we had pre-PPACA was working and that is the system to which we should return. And even dumber if you believe eliminating regulations is what is best for the people.”
Yes. It is. Regulation is what caused healthcare costs, which existed before 1960, to skyrocket out of tune with inflation. I already gave you a chart.
I already showed you laser eye surgery. When it went back to the private free market, not covered by either government or your typical insurance plan, it went down from $30,000 down to $2,000. We need a market that can price things down. Regulations that have set amounts insurance companies can charge, or put to claims, or exactly the problem here.
Price setting doesn’t work. It caused the crises of gas rations during Carter, and it will cause more here.
Deregulation of the health industry is needed. Huge amounts of it, that were not passed with the ACA, so there is no reason to believe it will come with the ACHA.
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
“ACA universal Preexisting Conditions coverage is unsustainable.”
What’s your point?
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
What’s your point?
I don’t care what someone has said, I care about what will work.
In the 60’s when we regulated the health industry, the democrats made similar claims.
And what happened based on the charts I showed you?
The costs diverged from inflation and exploded.
We need deregulation, and for the market to set pricing.
Similar to Laser eye surgery, which went down in cost to $2,000 dollars now from $30,000 in somewhere around 15 years, we may have an insurance industry and a government program that poorly mucking things up on all coverage that is needed.
The free market finds costs, has people target them, and it allows the cost to be pulled down.
As it stands, deregulation is needed in the health insurance industry. Price setting should be avoided, for one aspect, say for regulations dealing with how much premiums go to where, which we currently do through the ACA.
I am asking for specific areas confused wants changed to deal with the free market aspect.
Keep in mind, while I said that his desires might include some items I listed, I have in another post, directed my personal opinions on the matter, and never have brought up selling across state lines.
This is not a hot item for me, I’m talking in the perspective, or I’m trying to, of the two people I addressed at the same time. If you’re not in the habit of doing this, I suggest you change how you address people.
The Prexers issue is one that is difficult to resolve. But someone has proposed a novel solution. Stay tuned!
Anyone on the Libitteral side care to continue to suggest a SP system as a viable HC market solution?
http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-why-single-payer-healthcare-wont-work-611168?ref=yfp
Excerpted:
It’s a form of government rationing because budget restrictions create a shortage for everyone in the system, resulting in waiting lists that some patients never get off. Their citizens mostly accept that for non-emergencies because fortunately, as in the US, most people don’t require sophisticated or advanced medical care. When they cannot accept it, they leave the system and fund their own private healthcare.
Here’s more, sacbee says ‘it’s bigger than our state budget’…
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html
excerpted:
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
OOPS!
Intentionally Unhealthy: >> Bill Price response to Bob and RiceSusan
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and Interstate Sales ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
>> Deregulation has different forms. Deregulation of Interstate sales is a form that ultimate won’t benefit as premiums will equilibrate across the system. <> ACA universal Preex has no limiter. Politically one can agree that Individuals with inherited Preex.
( i.e. Juvenile Dibetes, Heart Problems etc
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
What’s your point?
RE Intentionally Unhealthy: >> Bill Price response to Bob and RiceSusan
“AHCA plan to Deregulate and allow Interstate Sales will simply ultimately homogenizes costs nation wide ( at high levels)
AHCA Preexisting Pool coverage ultimately requires funding from another pocket of Taxes.”
This is not the only form of deregulation I’m referring to.
>> Agreed Deregulation has different forms. Deregulation of Interstate sales is a form that ultimate won’t benefit as premiums will equilibrate across the system.
>> Preex Pools do nothing to increase Rev. or reduce costs, and Taxes will have to come from some source to fund the Pool growing rapidly increasing costs.
“It’s critical to Surcharge or Cutoff or heal the Intentionally Unhealthy folks.”
What’s your point?
>> ACA universal Preex has no limiter. Politically, one can agree that Individuals with inherited Preex. ( i.e. Juvenile Diabetes, Heart Problems etc.) that try hard to live healthy lives should be insured, but those individuals that are Intentionally Unhealthy ( excessive Smokes, Drugs, Fat, Booze) should be surcharged. This will either Increase revenue ( via the Surcharges), OR reduce health care costs ( as such people change lifestyles and get healthier.)
>> Your people are the experts.. What would an OMB analysis say?
Bill Price