OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

Adverse selection. They'll get undercut on pricing, lose market share, and either have to change or will be driven out.

 

 

Why? The assumption is that none of the main insurers will want to offer these insurance plans/coverage. So you have millions of potential customers to be picked up. If you're providing a service that no one else is providing, customers will find you.

 

If there's competition for those customers, all the better.

 

[bmags]

Employee sponsored HC could be drastically changed if companies are allowed to cap your benefit amount to save themselves money. So you not only have a deductible, but you also have a maximum coverage amount.

 

I can see this happening in recessions, but at full employment it would be very difficult.

[LittleHurt05]

I assumed this bill would ease restrictions on requirements of businesses to offer health care. Have you seen that it keeps these regulations in place?

 

Honestly I haven't looked into this bill much, other than what I have heard others say about it. Mine was more of a general comments, if it did help that would be nice. Even before Obamacare, I've had to switch and flip flop between group/individual or providers. every single year it feels like.

[bmags]

I don't have any data to back this up but, if they did it right with drug pricing, etc., I believe most Americans would come out ahead being any increase in taxes would be immediately offset by the elimination of insurance premiums and deductibles.

 

One thing with single payer is when it was enacted in those other countries health care was a much smaller spend of their GDP.

 

Single payer will cause tens of thousands of people to lose their job. It would be a major disruption that would take a while to adjust to.

 

It doesn't mean it isn't worth it, our % of GDP to healthcare is probably incredibly inefficient for growth, but it also is an area that employs lots because its service aspect.

 

We have no idea if anything picks up the slack. We don't know how much private insurance plays for.

 

We also are just a giant country. There are a lot of unknowns. Public option would have been much better easing in to those questions.

[StrangeSox]

Why? The assumption is that none of the main insurers will want to offer these insurance plans/coverage. So you have millions of potential customers to be picked up. If you're providing a service that no one else is providing, customers will find you.

 

If there's competition for those customers, all the better.

 

The people who need the extra services offered by the more expensive plans will choose those plans. Younger and healthier people will buy cheaper plans, which means the older and sicker people who need the expensive plans won't be subsidized. The risk pools end up segregating and we get the same fun death spiral.

 

Why do so many more people shop at Walmart instead of retailers with nicer items or healthier food? Because Walmart is cheaper. Price is an extremely powerful motivator.

 

It's not like we're lacking for historical evidence on what we can expect the healthcare market to look like. It'll look much like it did in the early 2000's before the ACA was passed. I still remember seeing a statement from my dad's health insurance in the late 90's or early 00's that detailed exactly how much of the lifetime $1M cap we had used. This was the health plan at a large and successful (at the time) company while the economy was still riding the tech boom.

 

e: also missing is that people who really need the more expensive plans that actually cover treatment for their illnesses might not be able to afford those plans, especially if the estimates put out by several independent groups are even remotely accurate. We're talking several thousand to $10k+ a month for insurance premiums depending on the pre-existing condition.

 

Insuring people from cradle-to-grave is a very expensive thing to do, and it isn't profitable unless you can exclude the more expensive patients or charge very, very high premiums to them.

Edited May 5, 2017 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Honestly I haven't looked into this bill much, other than what I have heard others say about it. Mine was more of a general comments, if it did help that would be nice. Even before Obamacare, I've had to switch and flip flop between group/individual or providers. every single year it feels like.

 

I am so anxious to see a US economy without employer provided health insurance. I think it creates massive inefficiencies like your downward pressure on growth due to health costs, downward pressure on wages, and quite frankly because it is tax exempt, likely causes higher taxes in general or at least inefficient raising of revenue.

 

On the other hand, it is so entrenched I have no idea what chaos would ensue.

 

[LittleHurt05]

 

trump at least recognizes that every other country's health care system is better than ours, too bad he got behind this disastrous bill rather than pushing for any of those types of systems.

 

The word "great" has pretty much lost all meaning thanks to this guy.

[Texsox]

I think it will be interesting the shift when the GOP's Trumpcare is the law of the land. We'll see how magically it will work better for Republicans and worse for Democrats, just like the Affordable Care Act only caused problems for Republican voters.

[RockRaines]

I think it will be interesting the shift when the GOP's Trumpcare is the law of the land. We'll see how magically it will work better for Republicans and worse for Democrats, just like the Affordable Care Act only caused problems for Republican voters.

Long way to go, still has to go through the Senate. It will be interesting if the GOP still elects to stay on the ACA

[greg775]

Employee sponsored HC could be drastically changed if companies are allowed to cap your benefit amount to save themselves money. So you not only have a deductible, but you also have a maximum coverage amount.

Anybody bringing a child into the world right now may be doing that child a disservice. I know this is a harsh statement, but we are all doomed and all signs are the economy will never ever be better than it is now!

Think about it. We're speeding toward being one lousy disease or condition away from being broke forever! You break a leg, have a heart problem, you have a condition, a horrible disease like MS or something ... you will be BROKE with maximum coverage amounts and companies not insuring any family with somebody with a prior condition!

You wait, in five years no businesses will be paying their employees health costs. That's coming. After all, "You're lucky to have a job at all" is a common refrain.

This health care note of RockRaines saddens and sickens me. Maximum coverage amounts?? No insurance provided by employers? Everybody who doesn't have a job can't get medicare anymore?? Bernie Sanders NEEDED TO BE ELECTED!

Tell me we're not in trouble, folks.

You either stay healthy or forget it. better not be playing any pickup hockey or basketball; you might get an ACL or busted leg. Good luck paying for s*** like that in 3 years.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/05/opinions/hea...ovic/index.html

The White Guys are back in charge

 

It's very simple.

 

Lots of pundits are predicting the tide shifts and we essentially have "Medicare for All," within seven years from now.

The opposite would be pre-ACA, more free market/private-based with the bottom 60% of the country suffering or dying.

 

Trump holds the presidency again, the rich and elite win...and the system gets stacked against everyone else.

 

 

[Jerksticks]

I am so anxious to see a US economy without employer provided health insurance. I think it creates massive inefficiencies like your downward pressure on growth due to health costs, downward pressure on wages, and quite frankly because it is tax exempt, likely causes higher taxes in general or at least inefficient raising of revenue.

 

On the other hand, it is so entrenched I have no idea what chaos would ensue.

For real. The idea itself is insane nowadays. Guys I know are always latching onto companies because they offer "good bennies". Work should just be work. I feel like people would be able to more freely bounce around the job market to find something that suits them. Employer healthcare definitely keeps people locked into jobs they don't like. It's not prison but it has some effect for sure.

 

Should just be $500/month for any adult, $250 for a kid. All PPO.

[caulfield12]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-he...gop-incumbents/

AHCA bill could be a job killer for GOP incumbents

 

 

Republicans put their careers on the line for the wrong bill

 

The New York Republican, one of Donald Trump’s most consistent allies in Congress, said his staff read the legislation, the text of which was made available less than a day before the vote.

 

The article added, “Told by a Buffalo News reporter that the state’s largest loss of federal funds under the bill would be $3 billion annually that goes to the state’s Essential Health Plan, Collins said: ‘Explain that to me.’” Asked specifically if he was aware his party’s American Health Care Act cuts funding to his home state’s Essential Plan, the two-term congressman said he was not.

 

Sometimes, you can anticipate the basis for an attack ad before the campaign even begins. (Collins’ office later said the New York lawmaker was “intimately involved in the creation of this legislation from its inception.” Given the effects of the bill, that may not be a boast worth making.)

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/re...ng-bill?ref=yfp

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news...macare/?ref=yfp

A huge section of the AHCA isn't about ObamaCare, it's about crippling Medicaid

 

How did a sweeping reform to the Medicaid program make it into a bill that is ostensibly about Obamacare? For Republicans, changing how Medicaid is financed has long been a chief priority, aside from undoing Obama's reforms. At a conference in March, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, joked with Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, about how the two of them had been planning to limit federal Medicaid spending since partying together as much younger men.

 

“We've been dreaming of this since I've been around — since you and I were drinking at a keg,” Ryan said.

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care just ask Idaho congressman Raul Labador.

[Texsox]

What I like about cutting the link between employer and insurance is it allows small business to compete in the job marketplace more effectively. Small businesses are much less likely to outsource jobs to other nations. I believe long term it will really benefit our economy thus making America great again™*

 

_{*Used without permission}

[caulfield12]

But yeah, men don't have to worry about erectile dysfunction being a pre-existing condition. They can still get their Ciakis or Viagra.

 

Women, otoh, raped or a victim of domestic violence...C-section, good luck paying for health insurance, especially single mothers.

 

Seems like a bill that had a lot of insight from the women's perspective. You can tell from the celebratory photos at the WH and Senate working list that their needs were a top consideration all along.

 

 

Thankfully, this Brewers' fan trolled Paul Ryan with his t-shirt.

http://uproxx.com/webculture/paul-ryan-t-shirt-troll/

 

 

https://www.popsugar.com/news/Joe-Walsh-Jim...h-Care-43496684

Former IL Rep Joe Walsh and ID Representative Raul Labrador are making things too easy for the DEMS in 2018.

 

Joe Walsh

✔

@WalshFreedom

 

Sorry Jimmy Kimmel: your sad story doesn't obligate me or anybody else to pay for somebody else's health care.

Edited May 8, 2017 by caulfield12

[Bananarchy]

People are so stupid. Here's what happens if you don't provide the poor with insurance.

 

A poor, uninsured person gets a cut and can't afford to go to a physician (no health care). The cut becomes infected, but the uninsured person can't do anything about it because an infected cut is that much more expensive to treat than a regular cut. The untreated infection becomes septic shock. Guess what happens?

 

The patient goes to the ER with a life threatening emergency and EMTALA requires the hospital to treat this person. Who pays when this happens? At a public hospital, we all do (including idiot Joe Walsh). So we could have helped the patient afford a tetanus shot but instead we're paying a boatload more for the treatment and hospital stay for a person on the brink of dying.

[caulfield12]

If that provision becomes law, “anybody with $250,000 a year of adjusted gross income and a lot of investment income is going to have a huge tax cut,” said Buffett, 86, the world’s fourth-richest man. Asked about the House bill, Buffett said, “All I can tell you is the net effect of that act on one person, is that my federal income tax would have gone down 17 percent last year if what was proposed went into effect.”

 

Buffett said that medical costs “are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness,” and have risen much faster in the U.S. than in the rest of the world: to 17 percent of gross domestic product from 5 percent in 1960 or thereabouts.

 

Health care costs in other countries are now 10 percent or 11 percent of GDP, even though the ratios were on par with the U.S. decades ago, he said. “So they have gained a 5- or 6-point advantage.”

 

“When you talk about world competitiveness in business, it’s the single biggest variable,” Buffett said. Among other things, it puts U.S. manufacturers “at a huge disadvantage” at a time the Trump administration is attempting to revive the factory sector.

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...lp-billionaires

Buffett says GOP health care sure to help the wealthy

Edited May 8, 2017 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

What I like about cutting the link between employer and insurance is it allows small business to compete in the job marketplace more effectively. Small businesses are much less likely to outsource jobs to other nations. I believe long term it will really benefit our economy thus making America great again™*

 

_{*Used without permission}

Single payer would for sure help this as the tax payer and not the employer would be paying for insurance. Overall the cost to the tax payer should be less, thus giving them more money to pump into the economy as well. WIn/win

[Brian]

Single payer would for sure help this as the tax payer and not the employer would be paying for insurance. Overall the cost to the tax payer should be less, thus giving them more money to pump into the economy as well. WIn/win

But all the doctors will quit and nobody will be able to get appointments!!!!!

[StrangeSox]

Ariel Edwards-Levy‏Verified account

@aedwardslevy

New HuffPost/YouGov poll on AHCA: 31% favor, 44% oppose

 

8% strongly favor, 34% strongly oppose

 

Josh Kraushaar ✔ @HotlineJosh

Trump voters (including many w-class seniors who stand to lose some benefits) back the legislation 75-9%. Partisanship > policy. https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/861694480537309184 …

4:31 PM - 8 May 2017

[caulfield12]

There’s one other important way the current system saps the US economy: You can’t take employer-sponsored coverage with you permanently if you change jobs or want to start out on your own. Economists worry that “job lock’’—holding onto a job for the insurance, even if you’d be better working at something else—may depress productivity by keeping workers out of jobs they’d be more effective at. It might also explain declining rates of entrepreneurship, another worrying sign for the US economy.

 

Portable benefits for more independent workers

 

One obvious economic trend is the fragmentation of the labor force: fewer people working for a single employer, long-term, and more people working as independent contractors without full-time benefits. Portable benefits, available no matter what your job, would give workers more freedom to find an employment mix that optimizes the return on whatever skills they have. Some economists hoped Obamacare would serve that purpose, though it’s not clear yet whether that has happened.

 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumpcare-20...-200241585.html

[StrangeSox]

GOP Struggles to Explain AHCA’s $880 Billion Medicaid Cuts

This puts people like Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who appeared on CNN’s State of the Union in an awkward position. Asked if Trump is breaking his promise of no cuts to Medicaid by supporting the AHCA, he obviously wasn’t going to agree, so he took the more challenging route, insisting that despite the loss of the better part of a trillion dollars over the next decade, that “there are no cuts to the Medicaid program.”

 

Price is arguing that the reduced spending shouldn’t be considered a “cut,”

lol

“Are you actually saying that $800 billion in cuts, according to the CBO, however you want to talk about that not being a cut, that that’s actually not going to result in millions of Americans not getting Medicaid?” host Jake Tapper asked Price.

 

“Absolutely not,” Price said. “And we believe strongly that the Medicaid population will be cared for in a better way under our program because it will be more responsive to them. These decisions will be made closer to them.”

 

It was a claim that Republican supporters of the bill made repeatedly on Sunday, accompanied by a lot of hand-waving about the magic of allowing states to tailor the program to their population.

 

This bill will put the health of millions of Americans at risk and kill thousands of them a year.

 

 

 

 

 

[RockRaines]

Yeah but Hillary...

Obama....

Keep your doctors....

Liberal Media!!!!!

[Dick Allen]

GOP Struggles to Explain AHCA’s $880 Billion Medicaid Cuts

 

 

 

lol

 

 

This bill will put the health of millions of Americans at risk and kill thousands of them a year.

No one dies from a lack of health care. He did clarify that and said no one is refused treatment at an emergency room if they are dying and can't pay a bill, of course that says nothing about the lack of care leading up to that point.

 

And it was enlightening that a few in the GOP say if you live your life "right" you won't get sick. I would love to talk to one of these people about my mom, a woman who didn't drink, didn't smoke, was eating "organic" and the like and forced the rest of us to since back in the 70s when basically only hippie types were doing it, and died at age 60 from breast cancer. Luckily she had care and was covered with insurance, but no one lived more "right" than she did. I'd probably get arrested if I went to one of their town halls.