ADVERTISEMENT

ACA Replacement plan

Which brings us back to our seismic difference in philosophy. I want all to be covered. Not just 'many'.

We're on opposite sides of this debate, so no use going at it.

I hope Trumpcare gets it right. I'm just skeptical competition will drastically lower prices, people with pre existing conditions will be better off, and the poor that rely on medicare will find a better solution.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see because we just don't know. All we have is congressional reports and speculation from pendants at this point. We won't know for sure until its out in the real world.

Why are you skeptical about that? Competition lowers prices in every single industry in the world. Why then would it not apply here?

Many states are down to 1 single insurance provider under Obamacare. Do you really think they're better off with a plan from that one provider vs. what they could find if 4-5 companies were offering competing plans?
 
Why are you skeptical about that? Competition lowers prices in every single industry in the world. Why then would it not apply here?

Many states are down to 1 single insurance provider under Obamacare. Do you really think they're better off with a plan from that one provider vs. what they could find if 4-5 companies were offering competing plans?

And Iowa just lost their last insurer. The state of Iowa has zero healthcare options for individuals. Obamacare is great though.
 
Why are you skeptical about that? Competition lowers prices in every single industry in the world. Why then would it not apply here?

Many states are down to 1 single insurance provider under Obamacare. Do you really think they're better off with a plan from that one provider vs. what they could find if 4-5 companies were offering competing plans?

I'm sure prices will be lower. I'm skeptical they will be drastically be lowered.

There are roughly 40 companies that offer major medical insurance in the US. Most are regional. I'm not sure there is enough competition to drive down prices as drastically as people will hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
There's a problem when we pay more for healthcare than any country in the world but receive less for it.
squires_oecd_exhibit_02.png

squires_oecd_exhibit_03.png

squires_oecd_exhibit_07.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
There's a problem when we pay more for healthcare than any country in the world but receive less for it.
squires_oecd_exhibit_02.png

squires_oecd_exhibit_03.png

squires_oecd_exhibit_07.png


But...but...but... we're 'MURICA!!!!! We're the best at everything! We are the land of the free and they can't beat freedom!
 
Under this plan some will be paying more than that.

Most likely totally wrong.

Obamacare had to gouge people like Bob since the entire system revolved around exploiting the young and the healthy. It didn't matter if people could actually afford these plans or not- if you were young and/or healthy, you were getting a foot up the ass.

By getting rid of Obamacare, insurance companies can now sell plans to young healthy people that feature low premiums and high deductibles. Which is really attractive to people who rarely if ever actually use insurance. And now with expanded Health Savings Accounts, people can put money in tax-free and save just in case they do need to pay out those higher max deductibles.

There's also the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in this country get their insurance via their employer. Most employers now offer HSAs and most also match or contribute a lump sum up front. And given that the labor market is tightening, no employer is going to start slashing their insurance plans at a time when they need to keep and hire new workers.

Obamacare had people forced into buying plans that included a ton of stuff they didn't need, at prices they couldn't afford, and many times in states where there is one solitary insurance provider. That is not a sustainable system.
 
I wonder how many "pre existing conditions" chemmie has for the rest of us to cover for him, simply by being living an unhealthy lifestyle?
 
It's a good thing Rolly Polly doesn't have kids. I'd be paying $700 a month to support his degenerates in addition to his diabetic clogged artery fat ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: btbones
Most likely totally wrong.

Obamacare had to gouge people like Bob since the entire system revolved around exploiting the young and the healthy. It didn't matter if people could actually afford these plans or not- if you were young and/or healthy, you were getting a foot up the ass.

By getting rid of Obamacare, insurance companies can now sell plans to young healthy people that feature low premiums and high deductibles. Which is really attractive to people who rarely if ever actually use insurance. And now with expanded Health Savings Accounts, people can put money in tax-free and save just in case they do need to pay out those higher max deductibles.

There's also the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in this country get their insurance via their employer. Most employers now offer HSAs and most also match or contribute a lump sum up front. And given that the labor market is tightening, no employer is going to start slashing their insurance plans at a time when they need to keep and hire new workers.

Obamacare had people forced into buying plans that included a ton of stuff they didn't need, at prices they couldn't afford, and many times in states where there is one solitary insurance provider. That is not a sustainable system.
So if your state drops coverage for pre-existing conditions and you have one it's going to be cheaper? No. This thing is also going to raise the costs for the elderly as well. You all should be proud.
 
So if your state drops coverage for pre-existing conditions and you have one it's going to be cheaper? No. This thing is also going to raise the costs for the elderly as well. You all should be proud.

So people that need more healthcare shouldn't pay more than healthy people? How does that make any sense? Should older experienced drivers pay more than new teenage drivers? Should people with new homes pay more than those with old homes? Should young healthy people pay more for life insurance than the elderly?

Please explain how you justify your argument. Explain why I should pay more for health insurance, a person that visits the doctor less than once a year, than most people in the country.

You're literally arguing that someone who uses one roll of toilet paper a week should pay more for that one roll than someone that uses 12 in that same week.
 
So if your state drops coverage for pre-existing conditions and you have one it's going to be cheaper? No. This thing is also going to raise the costs for the elderly as well. You all should be proud.

So people that need more healthcare shouldn't pay more than healthy people? How does that make any sense? Should older experienced drivers pay more than new teenage drivers? Should people with new homes pay more than those with old homes? Should young healthy people pay more for life insurance than the elderly?

Please explain how you justify your argument. Explain why I should pay more for health insurance, a person that visits the doctor less than once a year, than most people in the country.

You're literally arguing that someone who uses one roll of toilet paper a week should pay more for that one roll than someone that uses 12 in that same week.
Reading comprehension. I said these groups will pay more then what they're paying now. That is a fact, regardless of what Trump says. I made no reference to what you or anyone else should pay. You and 85 know this so you all make up supposed views of the left just so you have a point to argue and a leg to stand on. Or you come up with unrelated hypotheticals.
 
Reading comprehension. I said these groups will pay more then what they're paying now. That is a fact, regardless of what Trump says. I made no reference to what you or anyone else should pay. You and 85 know this so you all make up supposed views of the left just so you have a point to argue and a leg to stand on. Or you come up with unrelated hypotheticals.

Yes they will and they should pay more. Just like they were paying more before Obamacare. My premium went from 150 a month with a 5K deductible to soon to be 475 with a 6k deductible. I'm certainly not paying more to cover my healthcare expenses. Someone that uses more of a product should pay more than than someone that uses less. You still haven't explained why you support it being the opposite.
 
Bernie Sanders laughs out loud after Trump praises Australia's universal healthcare system.
 
So if your state drops coverage for pre-existing conditions and you have one it's going to be cheaper? No. This thing is also going to raise the costs for the elderly as well. You all should be proud.

First off, you use PEC's so vaguely that it's hard to even debate with you. There are literally thousands that I could label as a PEC yet only a small fraction of those is going to require long term, costly treatment.

Second, I just told you that my family members' insurance, with a PEC, WAS cheaper before Obamacare. Why? Because her insurance plan accounted for this, she did pay more than me, but she was only paying for that coverage. Now, her insurance is even MORE expensive because her plan must cover a laundry list of PECs that DO NOT APPLY TO HER. And now her treatment is rationed back from the frequency of what it was.

Third, not all PECs are created equal. Many people have PECs that they were born with or had absolutely no control over. However, millions of people have PECs that they directly created themselves by leading shitty, unhealthy lifestyles. How many people went to buy insurance with diabetes, heart disease, obesity, joint and muscle impairment, lung disease, cardiac complications, etc etc etc? How many of those people manifested their own PECs by eating like shit, drinking too much, smoking, taking drugs, etc?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should help cover PECs, to some degree, that are hereditary or things that people had no control over. I am not sympathetic to the idea that we should gouge healthy and young people to cover the millions of Americans who choose to lead shitty, unhealthy lifestyles and demand everyone else pay for them.

That's the irony- our health care costs across the board would be a fraction of what they are if people simply lived healthier. So much of our costs go to treating people that have created their own ailments by lifestyle. Yet all I hear are the snowflakes telling us that we can't fat shame people, the proliferation of drugs is a good thing, and that we should just accept people rather than ask them to alter their lifestyles.
 
First off, you use PEC's so vaguely that it's hard to even debate with you. There are literally thousands that I could label as a PEC yet only a small fraction of those is going to require long term, costly treatment.

Second, I just told you that my family members' insurance, with a PEC, WAS cheaper before Obamacare. Why? Because her insurance plan accounted for this, she did pay more than me, but she was only paying for that coverage. Now, her insurance is even MORE expensive because her plan must cover a laundry list of PECs that DO NOT APPLY TO HER. And now her treatment is rationed back from the frequency of what it was.

Third, not all PECs are created equal. Many people have PECs that they were born with or had absolutely no control over. However, millions of people have PECs that they directly created themselves by leading shitty, unhealthy lifestyles. How many people went to buy insurance with diabetes, heart disease, obesity, joint and muscle impairment, lung disease, cardiac complications, etc etc etc? How many of those people manifested their own PECs by eating like shit, drinking too much, smoking, taking drugs, etc?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should help cover PECs, to some degree, that are hereditary or things that people had no control over. I am not sympathetic to the idea that we should gouge healthy and young people to cover the millions of Americans who choose to lead shitty, unhealthy lifestyles and demand everyone else pay for them.

That's the irony- our health care costs across the board would be a fraction of what they are if people simply lived healthier. So much of our costs go to treating people that have created their own ailments by lifestyle. Yet all I hear are the snowflakes telling us that we can't fat shame people, the proliferation of drugs is a good thing, and that we should just accept people rather than ask them to alter their lifestyles.
How many people do you expect to lose coverage if this bill were to make it through the Senate? Also, what do you expect the cost of it to be?
 
How many people do you expect to lose coverage if this bill were to make it through the Senate? Also, what do you expect the cost of it to be?

lol

I like how I respond with logical, competent answer and your only response is a troll attempt.

I'm sure millions of people would be removed from their existing plans, many of which they don't like and pay too much for. That's where the CBO analysis stopped, and that's the issue. They didn't even attempt to gauge how many of those people would simply buy new, cheaper plans under the new law.

cost? no idea. But I know it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than Obamacare and wouldn't run massive out-year deficits like the CBO has already told us Obamacare will do.
 
lol

I like how I respond with logical, competent answer and your only response is a troll attempt.

I'm sure millions of people would be removed from their existing plans, many of which they don't like and pay too much for. That's where the CBO analysis stopped, and that's the issue. They didn't even attempt to gauge how many of those people would simply buy new, cheaper plans under the new law.

cost? no idea. But I know it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than Obamacare and wouldn't run massive out-year deficits like the CBO has already told us Obamacare will do.
Cheaper? Healthcare costs have been rising for 30 years. This bill will do nothing to stop that.
 
Cheaper? Healthcare costs have been rising for 30 years. This bill will do nothing to stop that.

Gee, and what has occurred over the past 30 years? More and more and more and more government intrusion and control over the health insurance marketplace.

There has not been a single bill passed in that time, that I can recall, which restored more power to the free market. Every single bill with regards to healthcare has expanded entitlements, expanded the governments' role in health care, and with Obamacare, attempted to install a Federal controlled "exchange marketplace" that no companies actually want to participate in.

If this law were to simply make it much easier and lucrative for multiple insurance companies to compete in every state, across state lines, it would instantly lower costs. There's not a single industry in this country that did not see prices for goods and services drop when there was increased competition.
 
This law is ridiculous and unsustainable. The Republicans should have let it collapse under its own weight before they did anything.
That may well still happen. The Senate is already saying they will come up with their own answer, not this bill, if they can get one thru, You still have to reconcile the 2 very different bills. Idaho just had their last insurer pull out, they no longer have a policy to sell under Obama care.
 
Yes they will and they should pay more. Just like they were paying more before Obamacare. My premium went from 150 a month with a 5K deductible to soon to be 475 with a 6k deductible. I'm certainly not paying more to cover my healthcare expenses. Someone that uses more of a product should pay more than than someone that uses less. You still haven't explained why you support it being the opposite.

That's just it though, they aren't going to pay it. They'll just go uninsured and use the emergency room as their primary physician because they know we don't let people go untreated in this country. Just like people are doing now through Obamacare because the penalty is cheaper than the insurance. More people will go uninsured and somehow we'll all still foot the bill because in the end the doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies all have to get paid.

It's all just more cost shifting. Obamacare tried to make people responsible for their own health with the individual mandate but the penalty was less than the insurance. There are no guarantees insurance companies go back to the states and with more sick people uninsured they're still going to get treated on the tax payers dime. It's more shitty cost shifting under a different name with a new bow just like Obamacare.

The only way to to really fix healthcare in this country is to blow it up and start from zero.
 
Most likely totally wrong.

Obamacare had to gouge people like Bob since the entire system revolved around exploiting the young and the healthy. It didn't matter if people could actually afford these plans or not- if you were young and/or healthy, you were getting a foot up the ass.

By getting rid of Obamacare, insurance companies can now sell plans to young healthy people that feature low premiums and high deductibles. Which is really attractive to people who rarely if ever actually use insurance. And now with expanded Health Savings Accounts, people can put money in tax-free and save just in case they do need to pay out those higher max deductibles.

There's also the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in this country get their insurance via their employer. Most employers now offer HSAs and most also match or contribute a lump sum up front. And given that the labor market is tightening, no employer is going to start slashing their insurance plans at a time when they need to keep and hire new workers.

Obamacare had people forced into buying plans that included a ton of stuff they didn't need, at prices they couldn't afford, and many times in states where there is one solitary insurance provider. That is not a sustainable system.
You didn't read the bill. The AHCA does not repeal the ACA at all - it only amends it. A lot of ACA policies are still in place and all the AHCA does is alter some of the language to cut taxes that help pay for the plan, reduce subsidies that help low income people pay for insurance, and give power to the states to decide certain things. The one real positive is that the AHCA allows health insurance companies to follow the rules of one state to sell policies in another - but even that could turn into disaster. ACA was awful, but AHCA almost doubles down on the awfulness and fails to address some of the real problems of healthcare in this country.
 
If this law were to simply make it much easier and lucrative for multiple insurance companies to compete in every state, across state lines, it would instantly lower costs.
I like this fantasy, but most health insurance companies (and there's only about 40 of them) already sell in multiple states, if not most states. Or do you think there will be new health insurance companies that start up because of the AHCA?
 
You didn't read the bill. The AHCA does not repeal the ACA at all - it only amends it. A lot of ACA policies are still in place and all the AHCA does is alter some of the language to cut taxes that help pay for the plan, reduce subsidies that help low income people pay for insurance, and give power to the states to decide certain things. The one real positive is that the AHCA allows health insurance companies to follow the rules of one state to sell policies in another - but even that could turn into disaster. ACA was awful, but AHCA almost doubles down on the awfulness and fails to address some of the real problems of healthcare in this country.

The real problem in the health care system is that most states are trapped with 1 frigging provider.

If this bill did nothing more than get 2-3 companies into each state, whom can compete anywhere, it's a huge win.
 
That may well still happen. The Senate is already saying they will come up with their own answer, not this bill, if they can get one thru, You still have to reconcile the 2 very different bills. Idaho just had their last insurer pull out, they no longer have a policy to sell under Obama care.

Exactly, House Republicans just needed something to bring back to their voters in 2018. They can say they did their part and the Senate failed.

Some House Republicans already said they won't agree to anything the senate sends back that is different from this....so we'll play a nice game of ping pong for how long?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
The real problem in the health care system is that most states are trapped with 1 frigging provider.

If this bill did nothing more than get 2-3 companies into each state, whom can compete anywhere, it's a huge win.
Oh, you mean for individual plans? Yes. However, the biggest reason insurance companies are pulling out of ACA exchanges isn't because of the provisions altered by AHCA, it's because not enough young healthy people are buying insurance, and too many sick people are. Removing the individual mandate surtax won't change that. All AHCA does is make it more expensive for sick/elderly people to buy insurance (if they can even get it). AHCA actually creates a disincentive for buying insurance when you're healthy with the 30% premium hike for those who go without health insurance for 9 weeks.

This is really all mott anyway, as I'm reading now the Senate is basically going to rip the AHCA to shreds and/or start over with a whole new bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
It's all a big dog and pony show. Trump gets to claim a "victory" and run more commercials targeting his uneducated base who will lap it up, while in reality congress just cost shifted a piece of policy that does nothing to fix the ACA's flaws on to the Senate just to get the pressure off them. The Republicans are gambling for sure. They will claim this as a victory in their re-election campaigns for 2018 in an attempt to appeal to their base, but it could come back to haunt them. It remains to be seen. People are more politically conscious than ever before and I guess Trump is to thank for that. How many dodos can now name the Secretay of State under Trump but couldn't do it under Obama or Bush? We'll see if people see right through this "victory claiming theater" legislation. Trump's base is his base, but others are already starting to turn on him.
 
It's all a big dog and pony show. Trump gets to claim a "victory" and run more commercials targeting his uneducated base who will lap it up, while in reality congress just cost shifted a piece of policy that does nothing to fix the ACA's flaws on to the Senate just to get the pressure off them. The Republicans are gambling for sure. They will claim this as a victory in their re-election campaigns for 2018 in an attempt to appeal to their base, but it could come back to haunt them. It remains to be seen. People are more politically conscious than ever before and I guess Trump is to thank for that. How many dodos can now name the Secretay of State under Trump but couldn't do it under Obama or Bush? We'll see if people see right through this "victory claiming theater" legislation. Trump's base is his base, but others are already starting to turn on him.

At some point will you start whining about the Democrats?

Considering they have admitted Obamacare is a steaming pile of shit en route to disaster, but are content to not lift a finger to do anything about it?
 
At some point will you start whining about the Democrats?

Considering they have admitted Obamacare is a steaming pile of shit en route to disaster, but are content to not lift a finger to do anything about it?

Honestly, what would you like them to do? They are in a true 100% minority through in the house, senate, and Presidency. The freedom caucus won't work with anything they propose and we have a President pushing a revenge politics agenda hell bent on destroying anything Obama may have touched (granted some of it needs altered).

The moment they start playing pass the buck with legislation that is shittier than the original I'll bitch at them too.

Honestly, I wish they would just move on to tax reform. I think Trump might find some center leaning democrats willing to work with him to a certain degree there.
 
Honestly, what would you like them to do? They are in a true 100% minority through in the house, senate, and Presidency. The freedom caucus won't work with anything they propose and we have a President pushing a revenge politics agenda hell bent on destroying anything Obama may have touched (granted some of it needs altered).

The moment they start playing pass the buck with legislation that is shittier than the original I'll bitch at them too.

Honestly, I wish they would just move on to tax reform. I think Trump might find some center leaning democrats willing to work with him to a certain degree there.
They need to get this turd through to work on tax reform. After whats happened thus far, why would Dems work with this clown?
 
ADVERTISEMENT