Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 06, 2016, 06:16:29 PM
-
Democrats are demanding to know how Obamacare repeal and replace will work.
Is anyone else just dying to have someone on the Republican side say, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it"?
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/12/06/excuse-us-senate-dems-seriously-have-no-right-to-lecture-trump-team-about-this/
-
Me me me
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Democrats are demanding to know how Obamacare repeal and replace will work.
Is anyone else just dying to have someone on the Republican side say, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it"?
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/12/06/excuse-us-senate-dems-seriously-have-no-right-to-lecture-trump-team-about-this/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2FBarry-Yes.gif&hash=55b1ee139db91a23958c1144c77eb83f8466c2ac)
-
Is anyone else just dying to have someone on the Republican side say, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it"?
My very first thought.
-
The petty side of me wants the republicans to have a list handy of every dumbass, arrogant thing Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have said during the last eight years when anyone dared question them about anything, and throw those same phrases back in the dems faces.
-
The petty side of me wants the republicans to have a list handy of every dumbass, arrogant thing Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have said during the last eight years when anyone dared question them about anything, and throw those same phrases back in the dems faces.
I don't think that would be at all petty.
The GOPe is too nutless to do it though.
-
I am afraid the popular features of obamacare (pre-existing conditions etc) are the things for the unpopular features (high prices, taxes). You can't take the "good" without the "bad".
The republicans should eliminate every bit of it. I'm not hopeful though.
One thing the republicans should do is require doctors to charge individuals paying cash for health care the same prices they charge insured people:
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/hospitalization/
-
I am afraid the popular features of obamacare (pre-existing conditions etc) are the things for the unpopular features (high prices, taxes). You can't take the "good" without the "bad".
The republicans should eliminate every bit of it. I'm not hopeful though.
One thing the republicans should do is require doctors to charge individuals paying cash for health care the same prices they charge insured people:
http://truecostofhealthcare.net/hospitalization/
I was actually quite surprised that both Trump and the Rs are in favor of keeping "on your parent's insurance until you're 26". I'd be okay with "until 21", but gee whiz, 26?
As for the "but they're still going to college" argument, as I recall, even well before Obamacare, the university I went to had ridiculously cheap (often free) health care available. I'm sure that has only expanded since my time. I'm still in favor of cheap catastrophic care options. That plus what they can get in school for preventative care would cover them.
-
I was actually quite surprised that both Trump and the Rs are in favor of keeping "on your parent's insurance until you're 26". I'd be okay with "until 21", but gee whiz, 26?
As for the "but they're still going to college" argument, as I recall, even well before Obamacare, the university I went to had ridiculously cheap (often free) health care available. I'm sure that has only expanded since my time. I'm still in favor of cheap catastrophic care options. That plus what they can get in school for preventative care would cover them.
And people wonder why Onesie Boy is still living in Mom's basement after college...
-
You can't take the "good" without the "bad".
The republicans should eliminate every bit of it. I'm not hopeful though.
Agreed. I don't believe there is an easy solution after repealing though. People are going to be angry when they lose their subsidies and mandated coverage.
I was actually quite surprised that both Trump and the Rs are in favor of keeping "on your parent's insurance until you're 26". I'd be okay with "until 21", but gee whiz, 26?
Why require dependent coverage at any age? Let the insurance companies offer whatever plan options they want - including no kids for less $$.
the university I went to had ridiculously cheap (often free) health care available. I'm sure that has only expanded since my time.
um.... You know someone was paying for that right? Either your tuition or the taxpayer. :mad:
-
You know someone was paying for that right? Either your tuition or the taxpayer. :mad:
Yeah, no duh. What do I care if they want to cover it via tuition or by the student being employed as a TA or whatever? If it's partially covered by state taxpayers, who cares? That's the state's problem - vote or move.
When it's mandatory via the feds for all insurers everywhere for "kids" in college or in the basement, I have to pay for it whether I have kids or not via increased premiums.
-
If it's partially covered by state taxpayers, who cares? That's the state's problem - vote or move.
The taxpayers should care. Their taxes paying for your healthcare - you seriously don't see any problem there as long as it's the state doing it and not the feds?
When it's mandatory via the feds for all insurers everywhere for "kids" in college or in the basement, I have to pay for it whether I have kids or not via increased premiums.
Exactly. So why is 21 ok but 26 not? Get rid of that mandate all together regardless of age or college status.
-
The taxpayers should care. Their taxes paying for your healthcare - you seriously don't see any problem there as long as it's the state doing it and not the feds?
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter, since it's pre-Obamacare. (Pre-pre-pre-Obamacare, because Ben is Super-old.)
-
The taxpayers should care. Their taxes paying for your healthcare - you seriously don't see any problem there as long as it's the state doing it and not the feds?
Of course they should, hence "vote or move". CA will always have crap like that. TX, not so much as long as it's their choice. If it's a federal mandate then all states are stuck with it. BTW, taxpayers didn't pay for my healthcare when I was in college. You seem to be assuming that since I mentioned it, that I used it, versus having my own.
Exactly. So why is 21 ok but 26 not? Get rid of that mandate all together regardless of age or college status.
I said I could live with 21, as that's the maximum age that is considered the transition from childhood to adulthood. Eighteen would be better. Do you really think insurers will deny having any children on a family's plan, ACA or not? Children have always been an option on insurance as minors. The ACA changed that to include adult children.
-
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter, since it's pre-Obamacare. (Pre-pre-pre-Obamacare, because Ben is Super-old.)
Why you young whippersnapper...! :laugh:
-
Per the discussion of children staying on parents insurance up to a certain age. I'm not convinced that was ever really an issue for most people nor that it affected costs that much. I'm sure not all states were the same, but I recall thinking at the time they were extolling that feature of Obamacare; that in PA it was already the law for at least 21, I seem to recall it being 23 or 25. And really what difference does it make if the parent or child or their employers are actually paying the premiums?
-
BTW, taxpayers didn't pay for my healthcare when I was in college. You seem to be assuming that since I mentioned it, that I used it, versus having my own.
Fair enough. My point was that it's a bad idea, not against your use of it specifically. Wrong pronoun I guess. I still think that just saying "move if you don't like it" is a bit of a cop out - that's applicable to any law and shouldn't provide free license to enact bad policy. A bad idea at the state level is preferable to one at the federal, but it's still bad.
Do you really think insurers will deny having any children on a family's plan, ACA or not? Children have always been an option on insurance as minors.
I'm not an insurance expert so I can't say whether or not they would deny having children on a family plan. However, why not let them decide what to cover based off the market instead of mandating it? If consumer pressure forces them to include children of whatever age in their plans, then they will do so. If not, maybe people can save some money.
-
Fair enough. My point was that it's a bad idea, not against your use of it specifically. Wrong pronoun I guess. I still think that just saying "move if you don't like it" is a bit of a cop out - that's applicable to any law and shouldn't provide free license to enact bad policy. A bad idea at the state level is preferable to one at the federal, but it's still bad.
Well when we're arguing about health services that are included at a public university, then you have to be against the school nurse at the elementary - high school levels. The inexpensive and free services at universities (at least when I went) were for basic things like health screenings, a couple of stitches, diagnosing colds and flues, etc. A local doctor or intern from the hospital might show up a couple days a week on a volunteer basis for more advanced diagnoses. They weren't giving out free appendectomies. They did offer health coverage at a group rate, but then so does Costco.
To be clear, I also said "vote or move" , not just move. If the majority of voters vote contrary to you in a state, then you have to live with it or move. I know - I live in CA.
I'm not an insurance expert so I can't say whether or not they would deny having children on a family plan. However, why not let them decide what to cover based off the market instead of mandating it? If consumer pressure forces them to include children of whatever age in their plans, then they will do so. If not, maybe people can save some money.
Consumer pressure did force them to have kids on a family plan, for all the years pre-obamacare. As for the mandate, the major point of my original argument is that both Trump and the R's want to keep the mandate in place. I was arguing that if they are going to keep the mandate, the least they could do was make it for children, not 26 year old adults.
-
Given the 21 to 26 age groups health, it is not a high cost item like pre existing conditions. While the randroid in me may rail against it, my inner actuary tells randroid to stfu and look at the higher cost issues.
-
Given the 21 to 26 age groups health, it is not a high cost item like pre existing conditions. While the randroid in me may rail against it, my inner actuary tells randroid to stfu and look at the higher cost issues.
Trump et. al. are also keeping the pre-existing condition mandate. :)
-
Also, I will concede the point that the cost of the 21-26 year old crowd is probably not that much in the greater scheme, but it still irks me from the perspective of keeping adults as children too long. The person who stays on his parent's insurance until 26 will become the 40 year old manchild that skateboards to work.
-
Trump et. al. are also keeping the pre-existing condition mandate. :)
Isn't that the stupidest part of Obamacare, aside from the insurance-or-else tax/fine?
-
Isn't that the stupidest part of Obamacare, aside from the insurance-or-else tax/fine?
I believe it's the most popular.
-
Isn't that the stupidest part of Obamacare, aside from the insurance-or-else tax/fine?
There were somewhat legitimate issues with the pre-existing condition thing. If someone looses a job, the COBRA payments were outrageous and often unaffordable for someone trying to maintain coverage. Often much more than the company and the employee were paying together every month. And let's be honest not everyone that really that wanted to legitimately get another job could. Something did need to be done about it; the ACA just wasn't the best way to deal with it.
-
There were somewhat legitimate issues with the pre-existing condition thing. If someone looses a job, the COBRA payments were outrageous and often unaffordable for someone trying to maintain coverage. Often much more than the company and the employee were paying together every month. And let's be honest not everyone that really that wanted to legitimately get another job could. Something did need to be done about it; the ACA just wasn't the best way to deal with it.
More to the point, most people that lost a job couldn't walk into anything else with comparable benefits within a few months. Finding a job is one thing; finding one that pays enough and/or provides good enough coverage to stay at a comparable level is entirely another. Plus you have a lot of people losing a good salaried job and the only thing they can get that's not hourly retail or food service ends up being 1099 work.
-
the COBRA payments were outrageous and often unaffordable for someone trying to maintain coverage. Often much more than the company and the employee were paying together every month.
Never had to use it so I could be wrong, but wasn't that the whole point of COBRA? To keep that premium the same?
The premium cannot exceed 102 percent of the cost to the plan for similarly situated individuals who have not incurred a qualifying event, including both the portion paid by employees and any portion paid by the employer before the qualifying event, plus 2 percent for administrative costs.
-
More to the point, most people that lost a job couldn't walk into anything else with comparable benefits within a few months. Finding a job is one thing; finding one that pays enough and/or provides good enough coverage to stay at a comparable level is entirely another. Plus you have a lot of people losing a good salaried job and the only thing they can get that's not hourly retail or food service ends up being 1099 work.
Which brings up one of the issues that really needed fixing. I was a 1099 consultant for over 10 years, I couldn't write off any of my health insurance on taxes, but a larger corporation can write off payments for health insurance for employees. Those are the kind of things that need to be addressed by congress. I've seen that in multiple Republican health care proposals.
-
Never had to use it so I could be wrong, but wasn't that the whole point of COBRA? To keep that premium the same?
The one time I did COBRA it was definitely more than the employers share and mine. Maybe that company was overcharging; but the point remains. For someone who loses a job and can only find a lower paying job without a healthcare option COBRA isn't affordable to maintain insurance to deal with a pre-existing condition. Also COBRA is only good for 18 months. Something does need to be figured out to deal with the issue. Something as simple as mild hypertension can qualify as a pre-existing condition even if controlled.
-
Which brings up one of the issues that really needed fixing. I was a 1099 consultant for over 10 years, I couldn't write off any of my health insurance on taxes, but a larger corporation can write off payments for health insurance for employees. Those are the kind of things that need to be addressed by congress. I've seen that in multiple Republican health care proposals.
That has always bothered the hell out of me. If the politicians, both R & D really cared about "the little guy" they would make ALL health costs tax write-offs. Right now it's >10% of AGI with all kinds of exclusions as to what you can deduct. They would also at least double what you can put into an HSA (and I believe Trump wants to significantly raise that from the current amount).
As to pre-exisiting conditions, I don't have any answers, but it definitely needs to be addressed. It's pretty awful that someone can lose everything to medical expenses as they slowly die of cancer or whatever. Kind of adding insult to injury. I hear ads on Fox Business a lot about some kind of Christian "insurance pool" where like-minded people contribute funds that then pay for everyone's medical expenses. I'm curious about the viability of something voluntary like that, especially if you end up with a significant population of people with expensive diagnoses.
-
I hear ads on Fox Business a lot about some kind of Christian "insurance pool" where like-minded people contribute funds that then pay for everyone's medical expenses. I'm curious about the viability of something voluntary like that, especially if you end up with a significant population of people with expensive diagnoses.
I hear the same ads on Sirius on the commute and often wondered the same thing, so here (https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/) it is.
bob
-
I hear the same ads on Sirius on the commute and often wondered the same thing, so here (https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/) it is.
bob
Yeah, technically Sirius is where I heard it too. :)
Interesting, it appears if I wanted to chip in $5000/yr for my own expenses, then they would charge me $245/mo (I assumed I would qualify for the "healthy" rate). I currently pay $420 for a HDHP with HSA with Anthem (to jump to $480 starting in 2017 - thanks Obama) with the $6500 max out of pocket and $4800 deductible.
I didn't do an in-depth check for comparisons of what's covered and stuff, but that seems pretty darn reasonable.
-
Yeah, technically Sirius is where I heard it too. :)
Interesting, it appears if I wanted to chip in $5000/yr for my own expenses, then they would charge me $245/mo (I assumed I would qualify for the "healthy" rate). I currently pay $420 for a HDHP with HSA with Anthem (to jump to $480 starting in 2017 - thanks Obama) with the $6500 max out of pocket and $4800 deductible.
I didn't do an in-depth check for comparisons of what's covered and stuff, but that seems pretty darn reasonable.
So you are basically at approximately $12000 a year before insurance actually starts.
For example someone making $30k a year that doesn't leave much for rent/mortgage/food/etc. While the libertarian in me doesn't believe healthcare is a right and the government shouldn't pay for it something needs to be done. Obviously the ACA isn't it. Even as a pretty rabid libertarian I'd rather the government just pay for basic insurance in tax credits for those on the lower end than pay a billion dollars to a company that can't make a website work and then bail out the insurance companies when they can't make a profit.
-
So you are basically at approximately $12000 a year before insurance actually starts. For someone making $30k a year that doesn't leave much for rent/mortgage/food/etc. While the libertarian in me doesn't believe healthcare is a right and the government shouldn't pay for it something needs to be done. Obviously the ACA isn't it. Even as a pretty rabid libertarian I'd rather the government just pay for basic insurance in tax credits for those on the lower end than pay a billion dollars to a company that can't make a website work and then bail out the insurance companies when they can't make a profit.
Agree with all you said except the $12k is worst case (still outrageous though). For my annual physical and blood etc tests (pretty much the only time the doctor sees me) I end up paying like $20 to cover lab work that the insurance doesn't. There are other visits and procedures where the insurance will kick in at least partially as well, though it is a ridiculous maze to figure out what is what. If I ever ended up having an emergency operation though, I guess $12K is still better than $75K.
I do basically pay nearly $6000 for an annual physical though, if you just look at the part of the insurance that I use. :laugh:
-
Agree with all you said except the $12k is worst case (still outrageous though). For my annual physical and blood etc tests (pretty much the only time the doctor sees me) I end up paying like $20 to cover lab work that the insurance doesn't. There are other visits and procedures where the insurance will kick in at least partially as well, though it is a ridiculous maze to figure out what is what. If I ever ended up having an emergency operation though, I guess $12K is still better than $75K.
I do basically pay nearly $6000 for an annual physical though, if you just look at the part of the insurance that I use. :laugh:
Yeah. I did edit my post slightly to make sure it was clear the dollars were an example not necessarily what your situation is. I probably with my employers "contribution" pay the same for the same limited care. That is I would think where the catastrophic policies that the ACA basically outlawed would have come into play.
There still needed/needs to be a pre-existing condition fix. I've never understood why the insurance companies didn't just put all individuals in a pool to deal with it. I suspect a government regulation was the reason, but I may be wrong.
-
Never had to use it so I could be wrong, but wasn't that the whole point of COBRA? To keep that premium the same?
If that was the point -- the insurance companies didn't get the memo.
Been there, done that. COBRA was VERY expensive.
Which brings up one of the issues that really needed fixing. I was a 1099 consultant for over 10 years, I couldn't write off any of my health insurance on taxes, but a larger corporation can write off payments for health insurance for employees.
Been there and done that, too, and I agree completely. If the .gov is going to pretend that corporations are just like people, then why can a corporation deduct health care premiums but sole proprietors (and partners, I guess) can't? Manifestly unfair.
-
Agree with all you said except the $12k is worst case (still outrageous though).
But it only takes one open heart surgery event to generate that worst case scenario.
Ask me how I know ...
In my case, the heart surgery was in the same year as and followed just a few months after my wife's death, so I had the double whammy of funeral expenses (for which we were not insured) followed by the mega-deductable on the health insurance policy. That was definitely not a good year.
-
Pre-0bamacare I had a health insurance policy from the open market. I was a W2 employee, but they didn't subsidize the insurance at all. Compared to the cost of what they offered (and comparable open market policies), I saved a ton by getting a high deductible plan with an HSA. I ran the numbers. Even if I used the whole deductible in any given year I'd still be better off than getting the more traditional plan even if I never went to the doctor.
These days I'm not sure where things stand without employer sponsored/subsidized insurance. And I hope I don't have to find out.
-
the university I went to had ridiculously cheap (often free) health care available. I'm sure that has only expanded since my time. I'm still in favor of cheap catastrophic care options. That plus what they can get in school for preventative care would cover them.
Since Obamacare passed, my University has stopped offering healthcare. You'd have to go to the exchange, get on medicare/medicaid, or similar.
Even as a pretty rabid libertarian I'd rather the government just pay for basic insurance in tax credits for those on the lower end than pay a billion dollars to a company that can't make a website work and then bail out the insurance companies when they can't make a profit.
As a non-rabid libertarian, I can't help but note that if we could get medical care costs down to reasonable levels as seen by much of the rest of the world, the federal government already spends enough on medical care to cover 90% of the healthcare needs of the country, and states more than make up the remaining 10%. IE you wouldn't have to spend $6-12k/year on your healthcare.
-
Let it become a damn free market.....
As for forcing doctors to bill cash paying people the same as they do those with insurance, there is a lot less paperwork and headaches to deal with when you accept cash.
-
Time for some Deem and Pass baby!
-
Let it become a damn free market.....
As for forcing doctors to bill cash paying people the same as they do those with insurance, there is a lot less paperwork and headaches to deal with when you accept cash.
True, but many try to use cash-payers to make up for the no-payers they have to treat. Insurance company carried more water than an individual patient with cash.
-
As for forcing doctors to bill cash paying people the same as they do those with insurance, there is a lot less paperwork and headaches to deal with when you accept cash.
Give them some extra teeth when dealing with insurance companies that drag out payment or challenge every little charge, but at the same time tighten the screws on the truly unnecessary extra charges. The $40 Tylenol at sign in comes to mind. If you tell them you're paying cash, you suddenly don't need that "critical treatment."
-
Since Obamacare passed, my University has stopped offering healthcare. You'd have to go to the exchange, get on medicare/medicaid, or similar.
Interesting. I hadn't considered that. If they stop offering health services, probably 90% of the student body qualify for a pretty fully subsidized silver plan on the exchange at taxpayer expense.
-
Interesting. I hadn't considered that. If they stop offering health services, probably 90% of the student body qualify for a pretty fully subsidized silver plan on the exchange at taxpayer expense.
I'd say that the 90% is probably closer to how many are getting insurance through their parents. Remember that the age to be covered was increased to 26. That said, if the parents aren't providing coverage, they would indeed qualify for the fully subsidized silver plan. I'm not sure how objectionable that would be. College students are normally pretty cheap, healthcare wise, and I don't want healthcare to be a barrier for higher education. Moan about useless degrees if you like, the fact is that a college graduate is more likely to be a net tax contributor than a drain.
A complicating factor might be that Alaska is one of the states where you don't ever have to pay the penalty because even the most basic plan busts the affordability guidelines.
And yes, UAA/UAF stopped offering healthcare to any student other than 2 categories. Graduate and foreign exchange.
http://obamacarefacts.com/health-plan-options-for-college-students/
Yep, generous assistance if you're not covered otherwise and not making enough as a student to be well over the poverty line. Huh. Yeah, if the student claims themselves for the tax return, they probably qualify for free healthcare from the government in some fashion.
Oh, and I forgot a way for students to have healthcare - part of Obamacare is the expansion of coverage of children to 26, remember? So 90% of them are riding their parent's coattails. The rest is probably a mix of uninsured, people who have returned to college but have healthcare otherwise(I have tricare)
-
I'd say that the 90% is probably closer to how many are getting insurance through their parents. Remember that the age to be covered was increased to 26.
Yeah, sorry - I should have specified that I meant if they were getting insurance on their own. I'm sure you're correct on how many are on the parents plan.
-
I'd say that the 90% is probably closer to how many are getting insurance through their parents. Remember that the age to be covered was increased to 26. That said, if the parents aren't providing coverage, they would indeed qualify for the fully subsidized silver plan. I'm not sure how objectionable that would be. College students are normally pretty cheap, healthcare wise, and I don't want healthcare to be a barrier for higher education. Moan about useless degrees if you like, the fact is that a college graduate is more likely to be a net tax contributor than a drain.
A complicating factor might be that Alaska is one of the states where you don't ever have to pay the penalty because even the most basic plan busts the affordability guidelines.
And yes, UAA/UAF stopped offering healthcare to any student other than 2 categories. Graduate and foreign exchange.
http://obamacarefacts.com/health-plan-options-for-college-students/
Yep, generous assistance if you're not covered otherwise and not making enough as a student to be well over the poverty line. Huh. Yeah, if the student claims themselves for the tax return, they probably qualify for free healthcare from the government in some fashion.
Oh, and I forgot a way for students to have healthcare - part of Obamacare is the expansion of coverage of children to 26, remember? So 90% of them are riding their parent's coattails. The rest is probably a mix of uninsured, people who have returned to college but have healthcare otherwise(I have tricare)
As do I and Tricare will not cover up to 26. Because it is government subsidized.