Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2017 6:54 AM
383 online now:
Huntard, jar, PaulK (3 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,384 Year: 18,990/21,208 Month: 1,749/3,111 Week: 544/707 Day: 8/112 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 636
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 5.5


(4)
Message 136 of 178 (797038)
01-10-2017 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by NoNukes
01-04-2017 3:14 PM


Re: Plan? What plan??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2017 3:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 01-26-2017 12:29 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
14174dm
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 10-12-2015
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 137 of 178 (797758)
01-26-2017 12:09 PM


STILL no Republican Plan
http://www.msn.com/...veils-obamacare-replacement/ar-AAmeDyQ

Almost SEVEN years of Republican work to eliminate Obamacare and they STILL have no idea what they are doing. Paul Ryan is FINALLY putting together a plan as are a couple of Senators. Where is Trump's legislation?

How are we supposed to take the GOP as serious leadership when they refuse to make any plans for the future?


    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2694
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 138 of 178 (797760)
01-26-2017 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Diomedes
01-10-2017 9:51 AM


Re: Plan? What plan??

This was the GOP plan for the last 8 years. At least they are consistent.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Diomedes, posted 01-10-2017 9:51 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2017 2:28 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18779
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 139 of 178 (797769)
01-26-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
01-26-2017 12:29 PM


Re: Plan? What plan??
Put up the dough ray me or die die die.

Are you trying to be a sanity clause?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 01-26-2017 12:29 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 140 of 178 (798073)
01-30-2017 4:20 PM


The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
They didn't tell us how much of the $826 billion Max Baucus (2009) plan would cost in say 2014 verses say 2020.

The media didn't tell us how much per year the plan would cost.

Specifically:

How much went to the "generous" subsidies for insurance purchasers. (whether mandated or not)

How much went to the prescription drug "donut hole" closing.

How much went to the Medicaid expansion.

How much went to the Community Health Centers.

The biggest failure of the media was to even ask how much consumers would have to pay to get the insurance (after subsidies did their part) through the mandated premiums (not to mention deductibles).

THE RESULT?

Now Obama, Max Baucaus, etc. pushed a plan that had pathetically low subsidies to help people make the MANDATED insurance purchase.

To make matters worse, look at the 2010 "reconciliation" (ahem) fixes that were rammed through.

Before the Reconciliation vote (after the Republicans took Ted Kennedy's seat and nocked Democrats down to 59 Senate seats), the Senate passed a $826 billion plan that required people to pay for insurance (at least 6% of income would be required to be spent on the high-deductible Bronze plan), and it also offered a Medicaid expansion that only covered 90% of expansion costs in 48 states (plus 100% of costs in Nebraska and Louisiana).

When Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat in early 2010, the House had to pass the Senate bill (which had several parts the House disdained: tax-payer funds to pay for abortion, no "public option", smaller insurance subsidies, and a Medicaid expansion that only went up to 138% of the poverty line as opposed to the House's 150%) with all of its deep flaws.

The one good part of the Senate bill (despite all the bitter pills that would cause the bill to end up being a rough assault on, especially, lower-income Americans) was that the Medicaid mandate was fully funded for Nebraska and Louisiana (100% in those two states as opposed to 90% everywhere else). The so-called Affordable Care Act actually did have a few - and only a few - mandates funded!

That was until the Senate reconciliation vote which slipped through (via a simple majority vote) a poison pill (supported by Obama) which choose to gut the 100% Medicaid expansion coverage for Nebraska and Louisiana. The Terminator Governor of California pushed for Obama to spend the extra $2-3 billion per year to fully fund the Medicaid expansion in ALL states (meaning all states would get 100% funding for all future Medicaid enrollees due to ACA changes as opposed to just 90%), but Obama nickel and dimed in an area that would have made a vital difference to the ACA and its feasibility in being ultimately successful.

Now consumers are forced to pay about $200-$500 billion a year in premiums (unfunded but mandated), but states, due to a Supreme Court decision in June 2013, don't have to pay the very small amount to make up the 10% difference between the covered funds for the Medicaid expansion and the uncovered funds.

It would have been about $2-3 billion per year in additional federal funding to pay for the 100% Medicaid expansion funding inside of an A.C.A. that saw radical foundational change to the health care policy in our nation. A rather insignificant funding amount (with no real disruption in peoples lives) ON THE MEDICAID PART for an otherwise fundamentally intrusive overhaul from the federal government which has hurt consumers badly.

The Affordable Care Act might have succeeded had (non-disabled) men in Nebraska, Texas, South Carolina, etc. gained free health care (as Medicaid is) with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level (about $17000 per year incomes in 2017), but that was prevented by bad policy. It was a change that would have benefited businesses monumentally, as they would have been able to avoid all health care responsibilities for minimum wage workers. No mandates, just a small amount of federal funding that would have worked magic (compared to the intrusive nature of most of the rest of the ACA).

The ACA is a failure (and Hillary had no plans to pay the difference to avoid the "unfunded mandate" Medicaid issue that allows states to refuse the expansion) and alternatives need to be sought.

John McCain had a plan in 2008 that ended the federal governments policy of giving tax breaks to businesses to pay for health care. He would have sent the hundreds of billions of federal dollars directly to Americans (about $5000 per year would have been sent to individuals) to pay for health insurance.

That is one idea.


Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 02-02-2017 1:34 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Kiko Brian 
Suspended Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-30-2017


Message 141 of 178 (798362)
02-02-2017 12:17 AM


spam
Spam removed

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3797
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 142 of 178 (798441)
02-02-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by LamarkNewAge
01-30-2017 4:20 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
The ACA isn't all that bad. But the Republican "plan" is guaranteed to be far worse for the consumers. They've made many promises that nobody will lose insurance. A pathetic lie. The leadership is being very careful to say everyone will have access to medical care unless, of course they can't pay for it.

Plus back billing. That's a sweet deal for hospitals and will significantly increase health care bankruptcies. My late wife's care was probably in the 2-2.5 million range. Back billing would have wiped me out even though I have first-class health insurance


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-30-2017 4:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2017 4:11 PM JonF has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 143 of 178 (798595)
02-03-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by JonF
02-02-2017 1:34 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
quote:

Plus back billing. That's a sweet deal for hospitals and will significantly increase health care bankruptcies. My late wife's care was probably in the 2-2.5 million range. Back billing would have wiped me out even though I have first-class health insurance

I know a lot of (even young)people that have $500,000 to $600,000 in debt because Obama didn't make any effort at all to provide Medicaid to people when he had the chance.

I'm referring to the 2013 "deal" where Democrats simply voted on a permanent Bush tax cut for those making $250,000 to $450,000, without ANYTHING in return. The Bush tax cuts (which cost about $500 billion per year) were automatically going to expire, and $4.8 trillion over 10 years was going to be available to reduce the deficit (automatically) or to pay for a single payer system( with a major political push THAT IS).

The cuts were allowed to expire only for those making over $450,000 but all others were made permanent. So $4.2 trillion out of the $4.8 are permanent.

No attempt to get $30 billion over 10 years to close the "unfunded mandate" gap and get millions more Medicaid. Democrats didn't care. It wasn't even an issue.

quote:

The ACA isn't all that bad. But the Republican "plan" is guaranteed to be far worse for the consumers. They've made many promises that nobody will lose insurance. A pathetic lie. The leadership is being very careful to say everyone will have access to medical care unless, of course they can't pay for it.

It is terrible!

The Bronze plan requires a severe 6% income grab from lower income folks (for premium charges) then they get deductibles that are around $5000, then when "coverage" kicks in, only 60% of the health care bill is covered (assuming its a covered expense and in the narrow "network" of allowed doctors, facilities, hospitals, etc. which is increasingly unlikely).

In 2014, $2 trillion was spent on non Medicare, non Medicaid, non VA healthcare. MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) statistics and studies showed that insurance companies take up 15% to 20% of that cost. In 2009, the MLR for insurance companies was 75-80 on average while Medicare was under 1%!)

A Single Payer system would reduce absolute medical costs by at least 15% right away and have brought the total national bill to $1.7 trillion or less. Reduced health bills by 15% or more right away.

If the government had a no deductible plan that covered 50% of all costs in a single payer system, then it would be far superior to the Bronze plan, and only cost the government $850 billion (at most), while the health care consumers pay the other $850 billion.

Bills would be 60% cheaper to health consumers but with no deductible.

Where to get the $850 billion though?

The remaining Bush tax cuts are half of that amount.

A 25 percent tax on sugary drinks would bring in $42-$45 billion per year.

Nobody really knows what the Obama subsidies cost ($60-70 billion per year?), but that funding can be applied.

A 1% tax on those making over $250,000 per year brings in a little over $20 billion per year. A flat 1% on everybody would bring in about $100 billion per year.

A 1% value added tax on everything (food, car purchases, house purchases) would bring over $200 billion per year. (I think)

The mortgage interest deduction is now over $100 billion per year in costs.

BACK TO OBAMACARE AND THE MANDATES.

On Obama care, do we even know if making everybody buy insurance is a better policy than simply having high-risk pools to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions?

What is the price for a high-risk pool? I mean a government fund that helps the "uninsurable" buy insurance (which is very expensive for sure) in a world where ObamaCare never existed.

What is the total price to consumers who have to buy those expensive insurance policies required under ObamaCare? Easily hundreds of billions, thought the media didn't tell us)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 02-02-2017 1:34 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 5:43 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3797
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 144 of 178 (798603)
02-03-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by LamarkNewAge
02-03-2017 4:11 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.

Are you in favor of back billing?

Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2017 4:11 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-06-2017 11:34 AM JonF has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9725
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 145 of 178 (798818)
02-05-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by LamarkNewAge
02-03-2017 4:11 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
I'm referring to the 2013 "deal" where Democrats simply voted on a permanent Bush tax cut for those making $250,000 to $450,000, without ANYTHING in return.

Your suggestion that the Democrats could have gotten single payer healthcare in 2013 is a ridiculous. At that point in time, Democrats were forced to rely on Senate fillibusters and presidential vetos just to keep Obamacare from being repealed.

A Single Payer system would reduce absolute medical costs by at least 15% right away and have brought the total national bill to $1.7 trillion or less. Reduced health bills by 15% or more right away.

I'm for a single-payer system. But the idea that the democrats could have gotten any improvements to the ACA, and single-payer in particular, in 2013 is laughable.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-03-2017 4:11 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-06-2017 11:51 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 12:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 146 of 178 (798902)
02-06-2017 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by JonF
02-03-2017 5:43 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
quote:

I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?

Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).


They will perhaps try to do things that terrify me, such as tort reform, forcing down the price of drugs through regulations (complaining of the drug companies "20% profit margin or something), limit coverage or knee replacements, artificial hips, Medicare coverage of electronic devices, etc.

All things that Obama's "economic team" (Ezekiel Emmanuel, Orzag, Daschle, etc.) wanted to do.

All things Max Baucus wanted to do.

All things Karen Ignagni and the Obamacare supporting insurance companies supported.

They complain that we have like 7 times the MRI machines per hospital that England does.

Tort reform alone will give doctors the right to refuse to run life-saving tests. And they will indeed refuse to listen to their patients concerns and requests for tests.

Tort reform will save 1% to 5% in medical costs per year. (at a severe cost to healthcare)

But they can claim it will "control costs".

Saving the country another 1% to 2% per year in healthcare costs (by ending insurance company profits) will be the motivation for the dreadful proposal of "negotiating with drug companies to lower prescription drug prices", which will destroy any hope of a cure for cancer and many other things.

Both the right and left want to do these things.

ObamaCare was brought to us by Max Baucus (a Democrat) and Charles Grassley (a Republican) and they agreed with Ben Bernanke that we need a health care board that is a parallel to base closure boards for military bases to deny care and treatment to people in the name of saving costs.

The cost savings were dropped for fear of political pushback that would sink ObamaCare.

But the elites on all sides are pushing for "DEATH PANEL" policies (like Tort Reform).

Beware.

I'll document my claims in a future post with credible sources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 5:43 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 12:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 147 of 178 (798903)
02-06-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
02-05-2017 4:25 PM


Reply to NoNukes and my January 2013 reference.
quote:

Your suggestion that the Democrats could have gotten single payer healthcare in 2013 is a ridiculous. At that point in time, Democrats were forced to rely on Senate fillibusters and presidential vetos just to keep Obamacare from being repealed.
....

I'm for a single-payer system. But the idea that the democrats could have gotten any improvements to the ACA, and single-payer in particular, in 2013 is laughable.


I was talking about the Medicaid expansion funding issue in that 2013 reference.

January 2010
Obama and the congress brought us the ObamaCare law in early 2010. It had a Medicaid expansion with just 90% of NEW (via ObamaCare changes ) Medicaid bills covered.

June 2012
The Courts gave states the right to refuse the Medicaid expansion due to the fact that it was an "unfunded mandate" as the 2010 policy change did indeed lack the remaining 10% of funding required to cover all costs states would see via the new law Washington passed called ObamaCare.

January 2013
After 4 years of Democrats passing temporary extensions of the Bush tax cuts (all $500 billion per year of them), they passed a permanent extension of the cuts for all but those making over $450,000 per year. It was while Obama had proposed (on the campaign trail in 2008 and 2012) letting them expire for those making over $250,000 in yearly incomes.

The Obama campaign promise would have brought in $880 billion over 10 years.

The Senate give away (which made the cuts permanent for those making from $250,000-$450,000 per year as well as all below) cost over $200 billion and only brought in about $650 billion per year.

Democrats did this giveaway without addressing the fact that the appropriations for the NIH (a yearly budget of around $30 billion per year from the federal government) remained about 20% below 2003 levels (when adjusted for inflation), and no Democrat called for closing that gap (which would cost only about $6 billion per year) and infact the gap wasn't closed.

So much for cancer cures!

So much for diabetes and brain illness cures for the elderly!

(cures for these illnesses would reduce the scary "40% of GDP costs for healthcare in 2050" - the excuse for death panel policies like Tort Reform and such - down to 25% according to Newt Gingrich)

(real "cost savings" in health care should center on increased research budgets not denying care! This is an urgent issue we need to be aware of)

There also was no demand for an extra $3 billion per year to close the "unfunded mandate" 10% gap in Medicaid expansion funds. (my point was only this, not single payer proposals)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3797
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 148 of 178 (798907)
02-06-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by LamarkNewAge
02-06-2017 11:34 AM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
Again I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.

Are you in favor of back billing?

Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-06-2017 11:34 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by LamarkNewAge, posted 02-07-2017 4:01 PM JonF has responded
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2017 7:29 PM JonF has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6799
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 149 of 178 (798912)
02-06-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
02-05-2017 4:25 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
NoNukes writes:

Your suggestion that the Democrats could have gotten single payer healthcare in 2013 is a ridiculous. At that point in time, Democrats were forced to rely on Senate fillibusters and presidential vetos just to keep Obamacare from being repealed.

Democrats couldn't get support for a public health insurance option WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. At this time in history there is simply not enough support among the American public for a single payer system. Americans are simply unaware of how much cheaper and better single payer systems are. Hopefully someone will come along and start an education movement on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 4:27 PM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18779
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 150 of 178 (798935)
02-06-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Taq
02-06-2017 12:35 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
... At this time in history there is simply not enough support among the American public for a single payer system. ...

Wrong but irrelevant. both parties are in the healthcare (hospitals, big pharm, insurance, etc) pockets so it doesn't matter what the people want.

Until we get our government back. Bernie was a good chance for that, but nobody else is interested.

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned

That was may 2009, so probably different now. Once republicans finish wrecking Obama/Romney care there could be a swing back to universal healthcare.

Healthcare System (Gallup)

52% in favor.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 12:35 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 5:59 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017