House Republicans unveil Obamacare replacement bill

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The rich get a tax break, the poor who will lose coverage won't even get a coupon for a dollar off a jar of Vasoline. Trump and the Republicans 'taking care' of the little guy.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

Kushner, along with Trump’s economic adviser Gary Cohn, strategist Steve Bannon and policy adviser Stephen Miller, “have emphasized the potential political costs to moving aggressively,” the Post’s Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein write, while another group of White House advisers is eager to make big changes to the health care industry.

For Kushner, the cost of following through on his father-in-law’s repeated and unambiguous promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is more personal than for other aides to the president.

No, affordable care for a life-threatening illness afflicting a family member is not on the line, as it is for many Americans. Instead, it’s a family member’s business. 

Kushner’s brother, Josh, co-founded Oscar, an insurance company that is valued at $2.7 billion. That would be an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest, at the very least, and the potential for a conflict is even greater because Oscar was started for the express purpose of making money on the state exchanges for individual insurance that were created as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Oscar, a website and app, sells insurance directly to individuals who aren’t already eligible for insurance through their employer or a government program. Under the ACA, individuals who aren’t already covered are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty under what is called the individual mandate. And the federal government may partially subsidize the plans that the Oscar app sells and manages. Precisely how big that subsidy is depends on the type of plan and the buyer’s income and, eventually, on the health care law that the Trump administration passes ― or fails to pass.

 "Gary Cohn, strategist Steve Bannon and policy adviser Stephen Miller, “have emphasized the potential political costs to moving aggressively "

 

This is fake news. I know this because Cohn, Bannon and Miller could really give a rats A$$ about the political costs or the costs to the nation. They want to burn society to the ground and rebuild Circa 1922

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

The rich get a tax break, the poor who will lose coverage won't even get a coupon for a dollar off a jar of Vasoline. Trump and the Republicans 'taking care' of the little guy.

Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they name you the king.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

But if they do that, then the repeal will only mean we're back where we were before Obamacare. It would be another slap in the face of those who voted for Trump.

The folks in coal country will become aware of that fact when they go to renew their ACA and learn that the unavailable ACA and Obamacare were the same

Edited March 7, 2017 by ccneat

[Dashinka 25,897]

10 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

He did. You may have missed that one single interview where Trump said Obamacare was a disaster. I believe it was aired during Super bowl, that's why you may have missed it.

I think most learned economist agree Obamacare is circling the drain.  Whether it is a disaster or not is a matter of opinion, but for something that is failing so quickly after being passed, and needing a Chief Justice to re-write a key portion of it to keep it alive, it certainly could be considered a disaster.  That is the issue with a lot of these socialistic programs, they are simply unsustainable no matter how much the government taxes the citizens.  I don't know if this revision will fix the fundamental issues as it does not get rid of the pre-existing condition issue which will keep premiums high with any change. 

 

Maybe we can set up a system like Canada has.  With their average wait times, it can perform a Darwin like service to the country.

 

Canada Average Wait Times

Neurosurgery: 44.8 weeks

Orthopedic surgery (such as hip and knee replacements): 29.7 weeks

Ophthalmology (eye surgery): 29.4 weeks

Gynecology: 14.7 weeks

General surgery (such as hernia repair or appendix or gall bladder removal): 7.6 weeks

Cardiovascular surgery: 5.5 weeks

Radiation oncology (cancer treatment): 3 weeks

Medical oncology: 2.9 weeks

 

http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7093431-wait-times-are-the-defining-feature-of-health-care-system/

[Dakine10 5,452]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think most learned economist agree Obamacare is circling the drain.  Whether it is a disaster or not is a matter of opinion, but for something that is failing so quickly after being passed, and needing a Chief Justice to re-write a key portion of it to keep it alive, it certainly could be considered a disaster.  That is the issue with a lot of these socialistic programs, they are simply unsustainable no matter how much the government taxes the citizens.  I don't know if this revision will fix the fundamental issues as it does not get rid of the pre-existing condition issue which will keep premiums high with any change. 

 

Maybe we can set up a system like Canada has.  With their average wait times, it can perform a Darwin like service to the country.

 

Canada Average Wait Times

Neurosurgery: 44.8 weeks

Orthopedic surgery (such as hip and knee replacements): 29.7 weeks

Ophthalmology (eye surgery): 29.4 weeks

Gynecology: 14.7 weeks

General surgery (such as hernia repair or appendix or gall bladder removal): 7.6 weeks

Cardiovascular surgery: 5.5 weeks

Radiation oncology (cancer treatment): 3 weeks

Medical oncology: 2.9 weeks

 

http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7093431-wait-times-are-the-defining-feature-of-health-care-system/

 

    You left out the part where it says other countries with universal care have better wait times and lower costs and/or private sector alternatives. You also completely made up the part about this list being average wait times for Canada, it clearly says average wait times for Ontario. The next time you post about fake news, I'll have to take your skills at discerning said news into consideration.

[Jacque67 7,328]

8 hours ago, ccneat said:

 "Gary Cohn, strategist Steve Bannon and policy adviser Stephen Miller, “have emphasized the potential political costs to moving aggressively "

 

This is fake news. I know this because Cohn, Bannon and Miller could really give a rats A$$ about the political costs or the costs to the nation. They want to burn society to the ground and rebuild Circa 1922

Good point!!! However family ties and all!!! Jared tries to control him, and Trump being a father wants to protect Ivanka from financial ruin!!!! 

[Teddy B 17,252]

So what happened between January and now? Trump made some big promises in January that appear to be missing from this new plan. This must have been alt news too.

 

 

Quote

 

Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover everybody, report says

Trump describes Obamacare plan 01:38

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump is putting the finishing touches on an Obamacare replacement plan that aims to provide "insurance for everybody," he told The Washington Post.

Also, he will demand that drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid and lower their prices, saying they will no longer be "politically protected."

Trump did not reveal any details of how he'd accomplish this daunting task, noting that he is waiting for his health secretary nominee, Tom Price, to be confirmed. Price is appearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee on Wednesday, but his hearing before the crucial Senate Finance Committee has yet to be scheduled.

 

Repealing Obamacare: Trump says fast, Congress says slow

Trump's weekend interview with The Washington Post comes just after Congress took its first steps to dismantle President Barack Obama's landmark health care reform law. The House on Friday followed the Senate in approving a budget resolution that would repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act. Committees in both chambers will now work out the details of repealing and replacing the law.

However, after nearly seven years of vowing to repeal Obamacare, Republicans are fracturing over how to actually go about doing it. Some want to slow down the repeal effort until a replacement plan is unveiled.

Trump is making some big promises: His insurance reform will cover more people and cost less money.

"We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

"[They] can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/trump-obamacare/index.html

 

 

[OriZ 3,165]

12 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

That will give the insurance companies free reign to hike prices every time you change providers. I think in alternate reality, higher prices mean "cheaper", because the opposition to Obamacare is based on cost to the American people.

 

I still think my idea was better. To those who missed it, I say eliminate all deductibles. Health care is not a car. Then, you introduce waiting periods on certain things. They will only apply to those that wait beyond a reasonable determined amount of time to get insurance once "my plan" goes into effect, or those who either lose or choose to end their insurance and again, wait a certain length of time before signing up for a new one. So if you wanted to just hop no problems, but if you wait to get sick then certain procedures will not be covered right away. Say you never had insurance, and know you may need to have surgery in a couple of months, so you only now sign up so they can pay hundreds of thousands if not millions while you pay hardly nothing. A waiting period will take care of that if say, hospital procedures aren't covered for the first 6 months. Now that might seem cruel but keep in mind we are talking about only people who wait to get coverage when they are sick, so that alone could A. Be a deterrent to prevent them from doing so and B. Teach them a lesson so they won't do it again.

 

On top of that, even if it was a covered expense, had I not eliminated deductibles, they would have had to pay those. Now all they have is hospital bills that they can make payments on, so there's at least some kind of offset there. Depending on how big/expensive the procedure is and what the deductible/medical out of pocket would have been obviously determines the extent of the offset. Under this plan you lso keep maximum out of pocket the same, but allow certain limited adjustments to co pays to partially make up for the elimination of deductibles. You also let them compete across state lines and you let people "customize" their own insurance. For example there's no reason why someone should pay more for insurance that covers pregnancy if they have no intention of having a baby. Also while fitting it to each person I believe dental care should be an option as well. The more services you want covered, the higher your premium will be. If all you want is catastrophic, then that's ok too. This isn't my line of work so I may be way off base, but it sounds better to me than this plan ot the ACA.

[Teddy B 17,252]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

I still think my idea was better. To those who missed it, I say eliminate all deductibles. Health care is not a car. Then, you introduce waiting periods on certain things. They will only apply to those that wait beyond a reasonable determined amount of time to get insurance once "my plan" goes into effect, or those who either lose or choose to end their insurance and again, wait a certain length of time before signing up for a new one. So if you wanted to just hop no problems, but if you wait to get sick then certain procedures will not be covered right away. Say you never had insurance, and know you may need to have surgery in a couple of months, so you only now sign up so they can pay hundreds of thousands if not millions while you pay hardly nothing. A waiting period will take care of that if say, hospital procedures aren't covered for the first 6 months. Now that might seem cruel but keep in mind we are talking about only people who wait to get coverage when they are sick, so that alone could A. Be a deterrent to prevent them from doing so and B. Teach them a lesson so they won't do it again.

 

On top of that, even if it was a covered expense, had I not eliminated deductibles, they would have had to pay those. Now all they have is hospital bills that they can make payments on, so there's at least some kind of offset there. Depending on how big/expensive the procedure is and what the deductible/medical out of pocket would have been obviously determines the extent of the offset. Under this plan you lso keep maximum out of pocket the same, but allow certain limited adjustments to co pays to partially make up for the elimination of deductibles. You also let them compete across state lines and you let people "customize" their own insurance. For example there's no reason why someone should pay more for insurance that covers pregnancy if they have no intention of having a baby. Also while fitting it to each person I believe dental care should be an option as well. The more services you want covered, the higher your premium will be. If all you want is catastrophic, then that's ok too. This isn't my line of work so I may be way off base, but it sounds better to me than this plan ot the ACA.

What's to prevent a person from simply declaring bankruptcy after they have the necessary procedures done and passing the cost on to everyone else? Much easier to make insurance a requirement for everyone, no exceptions.

[OriZ 3,165]

9 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

What's to prevent a person from simply declaring bankruptcy after they have the necessary procedures done and passing the cost on to everyone else? Much easier to make insurance a requirement for everyone, no exceptions.

Well what's stopping them from doing it now? I know people even now that don't have insurance, the fines don't stop it. And declaring bankrupcty, especially if you're the little guy, is not a cakewalk like most people think, and if they do it once, maybe twice trust me they will not want to or be able to do it a third time.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Well what's stopping them from doing it now? I know people even now that don't have insurance, the fines don't stop it. And declaring bankrupcty, especially if you're the little guy, is not a cakewalk like most people think, and if they do it once, maybe twice trust me they will not want to or be able to do it a third time.

The fact that most people do have insurance now keeps those bankruptcy filings at a minimum. Bankruptcy is much easier than you think. I know at least half a dozen "little guys" that have declared bankruptcy at least once. One couple I know just finished their third bankruptcy and continue to spend like there's no tomorrow. They alternate putting bills in each other's names so when one is just about done with the credit hit from the previous bankruptcy, the other is getting ready to file.

 

Again, it's much easier to make insurance a requirement for everyone. Up the penalties and watch how fast people sign up. Personally I would rather see a single payer plan but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

[OriZ 3,165]

7 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The fact that most people do have insurance now keeps those bankruptcy filings at a minimum. Bankruptcy is much easier than you think. I know at least half a dozen "little guys" that have declared bankruptcy at least once. One couple I know just finished their third bankruptcy and continue to spend like there's no tomorrow. They alternate putting bills in each other's names so when one is just about done with the credit hit from the previous bankruptcy, the other is getting ready to file.

 

Again, it's much easier to make insurance a requirement for everyone. Up the penalties and watch how fast people sign up. Personally I would rather see a single payer plan but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

Well their bankruptcy doesn't sound related to medical bills though so yeah, some people do that, and live like that, I'm not sure in the particular case you mentioned how they are allowed to or are able and willing to keep doing it and living like that but they must not be making it hard enough for them. Like I said I don't know all the details obviously, but bankruptcy should not be so easy, and should only be done when someone truly can't afford their bills. If they are being let off the hook too easily then that's a problem, regardless of whether or not it's because they like to spend and not pay or a medical issue. My wife has actually gone bankrupt (due to medical bills because she couldn't get insurance - sound familiar? lol) once before we were together so I kind of know what it takes. I also looked into it myself about a decade ago and decided against it because I didn't want the issues that come with it. My issue with making insurance a requirement is where the libertarian in me comes in. I just don't believe in forcing something like that down someone's throat who doesn't want it. We're already forced to pay too much out of our hard earned money as it is.

Edited March 7, 2017 by OriZ

[yuna628 9,875]

7 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well what's stopping them from doing it now? I know people even now that don't have insurance, the fines don't stop it. And declaring bankrupcty, especially if you're the little guy, is not a cakewalk like most people think, and if they do it once, maybe twice trust me they will not want to or be able to do it a third time.

I know someone that did bankruptcy three times as effortlessly as a sneeze. They believe it solves all life's problems, and repeat the same pattern over and over again. I would describe their situation as poor, but not poor enough that they can receive any sort of assistance. They just got themselves new insurance, that within a few weeks they were then told that insurer was pulling out of the market altogether. They were on the phone crying to me how expensive it was and begging for money (again) [we didn't give it, because we don't have it]. Whelp, don't I know it huh? Had husband not had someone take a chance and hire him, we'd have lost our terrible- high deductible no choice coverage and be paying the penalty. This bill solves nothing, and I think we all know that.

[OriZ 3,165]

Just now, yuna628 said:

I know someone that did bankruptcy three times as effortlessly as a sneeze. They believe it solves all life's problems, and repeat the same pattern over and over again. I would describe their situation as poor, but not poor enough that they can receive any sort of assistance. They just got themselves new insurance, that within a few weeks they were then told that insurer was pulling out of the market altogether. They were on the phone crying to me how expensive it was and begging for money (again) [we didn't give it, because we don't have it]. Whelp, don't I know it huh? Had husband not had someone take a chance and hire him, we'd have lost our terrible- high deductible no choice coverage and be paying the penalty. This bill solves nothing, and I think we all know that.

Like I told Teddy I don't know the specifics of the particular situations you both mentioned. All I know is bankruptcy usually isn't, and shouldn't be a cakewalk. Or everybody would do it all the time. The fact you know some people who do it but not everybody you know does it means it's not always so easy. My wife's bankruptcy didn't get removed from her credit score till just recently, so if those people kept getting more credit then whoever gave them that credit deserved to not get paid back I guess.