Healthcare going forward

[Kabluey]

Yes of course many democrats want a public option in which the government gives them healthcare paid for by other people who actually pay taxes.
Attacking the messenger, including all conservative media, is Y O U R cardinal rule.

Have a heart attack, lose your house.
Broke tea partiers want debt collectors to take their life's savings and future earnings.
Or they foolishly believe their insurance cover is unlimited.

Talk about naive. Begrudge even themselves a life.

 

[gsdx]

Have a heart attack, lose your house.
Broke tea partiers want debt collectors to take their life's savings and future earnings.
Or they foolishly believe their insurance cover is unlimited.

Talk about naive. Begrudge even themselves a life.

He's conveniently forgotten that Trump Does Not Pay Taxes.

And he obviously hasn't read Trumpcare.

 

[DantheManFL]

CBO Report was just released.

24 Million People Stand To Lose Insurance Under GOP Obamacare ‘Replacement’
Donald Trump had promised “insurance for everybody.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/24-million-more-uninsured-under-gop-obamacare-replacement_us_58c6ebb2e4b0598c6698b098?dw8jqotcy8z4obt9&

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes of course many democrats want a public option in which the government gives them healthcare paid for by other people who actually pay taxes.
Attacking the messenger, including all conservative media, is Y O U R cardinal rule.

And the GOP wants a country where government gives no help to anyone, because that might reduce someone's profits.

Many people want a public option so they can finally have insurance such that they know what is covered, they know their bills will be paid promptly, and hospitals and clinics will no longer have to have a large staff dedicated to nothing but dealing with all the different insurance companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

CBO Report was just released.

24 Million People Stand To Lose Insurance Under GOP Obamacare ‘Replacement’
Donald Trump had promised “insurance for everybody.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/24-million-more-uninsured-under-gop-obamacare-replacement_us_58c6ebb2e4b0598c6698b098?dw8jqotcy8z4obt9&

If a garage mechanic told me he was going to replace the broken parts in my car, and what he did instead was rip out a while bunch of parts and patch the thing just enough to keep it limping along, I'd be able to sue for incompetence and fraud. But when politicians do it, we're supposed to be happy?

 

[KaraBulut]

Yes of course many democrats want a public option in which the government gives them healthcare paid for by other people who actually pay taxes.
Attacking the messenger, including all conservative media, is Y O U R cardinal rule.

Again, not taking your bait.

CBO Report was just released.
24 Million People Stand To Lose Insurance Under GOP Obamacare ‘Replacement’
Donald Trump had promised “insurance for everybody.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/24-million-more-uninsured-under-gop-obamacare-replacement_us_58c6ebb2e4b0598c6698b098?dw8jqotcy8z4obt9&

Available on their website here.

Highlights:

Effects of the American Health Care Act

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

• In 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate.
• Changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026.
• In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law (ACA).

Stability of the Health Insurance Market

• The market for insurance purchased individually (that is, nongroup coverage) would be unstable.
• The nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation.

Effects on Premiums

• The legislation would tend to increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter.
• Changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law.

Effects on the Federal Budget

• Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion.
• Reduces federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period.

 

[Benvolio]

Again, not taking your bait.


Available on their website here.

Highlights:

Effects of the American Health Care Act

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

• In 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate.
• Changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026.
• In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law (ACA).

Stability of the Health Insurance Market

• The market for insurance purchased individually (that is, nongroup coverage) would be unstable.
• The nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation.

Effects on Premiums

• The legislation would tend to increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter.
• Changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law.

Effects on the Federal Budget

• Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion.
• Reduces federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period.

Now it comes out. Most of the increase in uninsureds results from repeal of the penalty for not buying insurance. So no one is taking insurance from them. They are choosing to cancel their policies because the feds do not force them. .

 

[KaraBulut]

Now it comes out. Most of the increase in uninsureds results from repeal of the penalty for not buying insurance. So no one is taking insurance from them. They are choosing to cancel their policies because the feds do not force them. .

No, they're canceling their policies because they wouldn't be able to afford them without the subsidies. No financial penalties for being uninsured. Free healthcare in America's emergency rooms. It's cheaper to be uninsured and take your chances.... kind of like before the ACA.

 

[Benvolio]

No, they're canceling their policies because they wouldn't be able to afford them without the subsidies. No financial penalties for being uninsured. Free healthcare in America's emergency rooms. It's cheaper to be uninsured and take your chances.... kind of like before the ACA.

That is not what it says.

 

[Stardreamer]

Now it comes out. Most of the increase in uninsureds results from repeal of the penalty for not buying insurance. So no one is taking insurance from them. They are choosing to cancel their policies because the feds do not force them. .

That is rather presumptive, can you assure us that anyone who DOES want insurance can obtain it? Most of the projected losses after 2018 will be from Medicaid recipients who will be forced off the program as the expansion is phased out.

It is rather interesting that Republicans complained that Democrats were paying for the ACA by cutting money from Medicare. This plan does not put that money back, in fact it makes an additional cut that is even bigger.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, not taking your bait.


Available on their website here.

Highlights:

Effects of the American Health Care Act

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

• In 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate.
• Changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026.
• In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law (ACA).

[/LIST]

What baffles me is how anyone can consider himself a patriot but be willing to accept that 28 million fellow Americans are going to be left to fend for themselves like they were strangers or criminals, even if the GOP butchery of the ACA doesn't pass. How can we not be demanding that all Americans get quality care?????

 

[Benvolio]

That is rather presumptive, can you assure us that anyone who DOES want insurance can obtain it? Most of the projected losses after 2018 will be from Medicaid recipients who will be forced off the program as the expansion is phased out.

It is rather interesting that Republicans complained that Democrats were paying for the ACA by cutting money from Medicare. This plan does not put that money back, in fact it makes an additional cut that is even bigger.

I am not presuming anything. The CBO report says most of the loses will be from repealing the penalty.

 

[Stardreamer]

I am not presuming anything. The CBO report says most of the loses will be from repealing the penalty.

Actually it says most of the increase in 2018 will be from repealing the penalty, that is projected at 14 million. But after 2018, most of the increases come from people gradually being forced out of Medicaid.

After 2018, CBO thinks that most of the increase in the number of uninsured would stem from changes the AHCA would make to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, an expansion that allowed many more low-income adults to enroll in the program. The bill would “freeze” enrollment in that program on January 1, 2020. Medicaid enrollees would trickle off the rolls as their incomes changed. And this would lead to another big decline in coverage. The number of uninsured, CBO projects, would rise by 21 million in 2020 and hit 24 million in 2026.

Vox:CBO estimates 24 million lose coverage under GOP plan. The devastating report, explained.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually it says most of the increase in 2018 will be from repealing the penalty, that is projected at 14 million. But after 2018, most of the increases come from people gradually being forced out of Medicaid.


Vox:CBO estimates 24 million lose coverage under GOP plan. The devastating report, explained.

Once again, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

And the GOP is full of people who insist this is a "Christian country"! With this plan, it would be more like the country the minor prophets thundered against, condemning those who piled up possessions and lands while letting the poor starve. If the theology of the "Christian country" people is correct, then if this plan is made into law we should all expect the country to be invaded and/or otherwise devastated due to God's displeasure.

At this point, I will believe that any GOP congresscritter is a Christian if and only if they follow Jesus' admonition to the rich young ruler: go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Because right now, they're all just pissing on the poor and calling it righteousness.

 

[frankfrank]

This is going to KILL people, and the Republican Party should be considered guilty of premeditated Murder. People have been sent to prison for this, by cutting off life support in hospitals. THIS is cutting off life support for the sick; how is this any different?

I expect life expectancy in the U. S. to begin to plummet, if this all goes through. "We" are ALREADY far from the top, because even Obamacare and Medicaid are primitive and barbaric compared to EVERY other modernized nation, and pre-ACA things were even far, far worse.

This would retreat to something even more dire than the pre-ACA era, because BOTH political parties (always Republicans...with Democratic Party also coming aboard in later years - think Cory Booker of NJ) are openly encouraging and blessing Big Pharma to "PLEASE price-gouge the consumers!!!"

The controversies generated by Martin Shrkeli on that HIV drug, and the maker of the EpiPen which also saves lives, would no longer be noticed at all, if price increases of 50% to 8,000% on common life-saving drugs becomes commonplace and routine.

 

[KaraBulut]

.The CBO report says most of the loses will be from repealing the penalty.

One of the reasons that I provided a link to the full report is so the interpretation can be accurate.

Page 20 of the report:

Most of the reductions in coverage in 2018 and 2019 would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they choose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties. And some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums. CBO and JCT estimate that, in total, 41 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2018 and 43 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2019.

Once again, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

...and the elderly and those who need insurance the most.

pg 22:

...premiums in the nongroup market would be 20 percent to 25 percent lower for a 21-year-old and 8 percent to 10 percent lower for a 40-year-old—but 20 percent to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old.

pg 17:

CBO and JCT estimate that, under the legislation, a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.

pg 18:

By 2026, CBO and JCT estimate that the average subsidy under the legislation would be about 50 percent of the average subsidy under current law.

pg 20:

Roughly 9 million fewer people would enroll in Medicaid in 2020; that figure would rise to 14 million in 2026 , as states that expanded eligibility for Medicaidd is continued doing so, as states projected to expand Medicaid in the future chose not to do so, and as the cap on per-enrollee spending took effect.

 

[Benvolio]

Nevertheless, most of the 1818 losses are said to be from the repealling of the penalty. That is, from people CHOOSING no to buy insurance because they aren't forced to. And again, 9million fewer will enroll in Medicaid--again, a choice.The Liberal ideology of forcing people.
NOTICE that the CBO is not just doing accounting as we thought they should do. They are making ideological guesses of what people will do. Based on what?
And notice, that Medicaid will continue to be available.It is not like they were abandoned.

 

[Kabluey]

Nevertheless, most of the 1818 losses are said to be from the repealling of the penalty. That is, from people CHOOSING no to buy insurance because they aren't forced to. And again, 9million fewer will enroll in Medicaid--again, a choice.The Liberal ideology of forcing people.
NOTICE that the CBO is not just doing accounting as we thought they should do. They are making ideological guesses of what people will do. Based on what?
And notice, that Medicaid will continue to be available.It is not like they were abandoned.

Bunkum again.
People can choose not to buy house insurance. Doesn't mean they can afford a storm or house fire.

 

[thewiz]

I realize the Republicans like to talk, endlessly, about returning healthcare to "free markets." The problem is that healthcare cannot be delivered using a free market approach. I suppose as you are doing CPR on your loved one because they aren't breathing or having a heartbeat you can also find time to log into your computer to see where the best prices will be given on emergency health care. At the same time you probably want to Google ambulance services because a private provider that is 40 miles away is $2 cheaper than using the municipal ambulance service stationed five blocks from your house. Sound stupid -- in the case of the Republican plan and talking points, that is exactly what they encourage.

Health care is, by and large, delivered on an emergency or illness basis. You are likely to shop for a primary care provider who can deliver wellness protection and care for the most basic of incidents. But when it's an emergency, you are not likely to shop or even give a rip about prices. And most healthcare systems are monopolies; the ambulance service likely has an exclusive contract with the community in which you live or it is fire-based (or in rare instances police based). There is likely one trauma hospital in your community; it is rare that multiple facilities will be in close proximity simply because there are limited numbers of patients.

And scrapping the system created by the ACA does not require many brains to understand that prices will increase -- both for those receiving care and for insurance. If everyone has insurance, no one shows up at hospitals or in emergency settings with critical illnesses that is not covered. If they do, care must be provided but the cost of such care is spread over the "pool" of patients that use the same facility. If you remove 24 million people (most that will not require emergency care), the "pool" of money available shrinks while costs do not. When those 24 million do need care, they will get it but the cost will be spread on the remaining people in the way of higher room prices, higher emergency room costs, higher pharmaceuticals, etc. This is the 2009 system that was broken and spiraling out of control. It was not unusual for double digit increases every year -- in the range of 12 to 26 percent.

I'm not sure what Paul Ryan smokes but while watching his powerpoint presentation showing that a small portion use health services but a large group pays -- he demonstrated why we have insurance pools to begin with. It's also why you buy auto insurance from a company rather than self insure. I have never had a claim but yet I pay in $1,200 per year for auto insurance. Of course I know there will be someone that is severely injured, totals their car, and will be paid. That is what "insurance" is all about.

Republicans have gotten so convinced by their own stupid talking points that they are believing them. Another example is their constant rhetoric that they want to remove state lines and allow insurance companies to sell without borders. They can now except some states regulate prices and have controls (I suppose that pretty much destroys the state's rights mantra they like to beat). Also, most insurance companies carve out areas from which they can service and from which they have experience. Nothing precludes them all from selling nationwide but the companies choose not to do so (just like when I moved from Michigan to DC, my auto insurance company does not sell outside the midwest and I had to change companies).

I realize they hate science, deny facts, choose which studies are "accurate" only when it supports their intentions and now health care. Sadly, they ignore the fact that people will become sicker, prices will increase faster, and lives will truly be lost. For a party that likes to spew Christianity at every turn, it seems they little resemble the Jesus they profess except to birth someone. As a birther party, nothing else matters.

 

[Kabluey]

It's not possible to have true competition in a market that has near unlimited demand and heavily regulated supply.

The only way the supply side can be competitive is if regulations around medicine can be reduced to encourage greater participation... But no one who can imagine the actual consequences really wants that.