Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 187 (794223)
11-11-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by caffeine
11-11-2016 1:42 PM


Yet that was the very argument Newt used to build opposition within the Republican Party to the Health Care proposal from Hillary Clinton when she was the new First Lady.
The issue is not what has happened but rather what the power people in the current administration think might happen.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by caffeine, posted 11-11-2016 1:42 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 187 (794224)
11-11-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Diomedes
11-11-2016 12:18 PM


Re: pay or die
Their plan is: don't get sick. And if you do, die quickly.
Sounds like survival of the fittest. Govenor Lamb in Colorado once said that old people had a responsibility to die and get out of the way for the next generation.
And IIRC he was a Democrat!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Diomedes, posted 11-11-2016 12:18 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 187 (794228)
11-11-2016 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dwise1
11-11-2016 10:19 AM


Re: Eye Of Newt
dwise1 writes:
My brother-in-law, a life-long staunch Republican, has been retired for ten or more years now. About six years ago in light of everything the Republicans were and still are trying to the retired, he suddenly said, "I've learned that the Republicans are definitely not my friends." And yet he continued to vote for them.
I'm one year away from retirement myself. I have health insurance through my military retirement, but who's to say that they won't go after that too? The foxes are in charge of the hen house now.
That's nothing.
Both of my parents have always voted democrat. This election, they have been proudly telling everyone they voted for Trump.
I asked them they disagree with Clinton? They said no they don't disagree with Clinton. In fact, they agree with every single thing Clinton said. I asked them they agree with Trump? They told me no they disagree with just about everything Trump has said. So, I asked them why did you vote for Trump? They said because a woman is too weak to be president. Yes, both my mom and dad said this.
My dad went on further right in front of my mom and said women are too weak minded and thus are too easily controlled by other people. The presidency is no place for a woman!
I've been laying low after the election. My boyfriend and I are already planning out how we're going to protect ourselves from what might happen with a Trump presidency.
To give you an idea of how depressed we've been since the morning on the 9th, we haven't had sex at all.

If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 11-11-2016 10:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 11-12-2016 1:35 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 187 (794255)
11-12-2016 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by coffee_addict
11-11-2016 4:32 PM


Re: Eye Of Newt
To give you an idea of how depressed we've been since the morning on the 9th, we haven't had sex at all
Then again, some people have sex more frequently when they are depressed...it medicates the pain of reality.
On my list of worries is the whole idea of the conservative justices that will be pushed through.
I fear that the balanced system has now been too stacked on the right.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 11-11-2016 4:32 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(7)
Message 20 of 187 (794306)
11-14-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by petrophysics1
11-11-2016 12:30 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
HSA's are not a solution. This is not a health care plan and this "plan" has not been endorsed by the republican party
Name calling is uncalled for.
Normally I do not reply to trolls, but there is no need for calling people morons because they disagree with you. You seem to be a bit ignorant on what the republican plan to repeal the ACA is, because as of yet there is no plan.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by petrophysics1, posted 11-11-2016 12:30 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 21 of 187 (794469)
11-16-2016 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by petrophysics1
11-11-2016 12:30 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
petrophysics1 writes:
As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
One of the biggest hurdles is getting everyone into the healthcare system, including healthy people. By eliminating the mandate to buy health insurance this discourages young healthy people from buying insurance which increases the prices for everyone as a disproportionate number of sick people enter the system. That's just one problem.
The other problem is a lot of "hows". For example:
"As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it." (from the Trump plan that you quoted earlier)
Many state governments have already refused to increase Medicaid coverage for lower income people when it was a part of Obamacare. Trump also does not outline how people will afford insurance if they don't qualify for Medicaid. Paying for unaffordable insurance and then also saving money on the side for an HSA is simply not a viable plan.
On top of that, there is nothing in the plan about guaranteed coverage, at least not that I can see. If you repeal the ACA, you are also repealing the requirement that insurance companies insure everyone. Before the ACA, insurance companies only competed with each other to get healthy people into their plans while denying coverage to sick people. It appears that if we enact the Trump plan, that is what we will return to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by petrophysics1, posted 11-11-2016 12:30 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 12:29 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 22 of 187 (794470)
11-16-2016 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
11-11-2016 7:59 AM


Re: Eye Of Newt
jar writes:
The US has one of the highest per person health care costs in the developed world and one of the lowest health care ratings in the developed world. No one in civilized countries ever goes bankrupt paying medical bills.
While the quality of US healthcare can be debated back and forth (e.g., shorter life expectancy because people are not receiving healthcare), there is nothing to debate when it comes to the high cost of US healthcare. We pay more than twice what other countries pay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 11-11-2016 7:59 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 187 (794473)
11-16-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
11-16-2016 11:37 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
If you repeal the ACA, you are also repealing the requirement that insurance companies insure everyone.
That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it.
Paying for unaffordable insurance and then also saving money on the side for an HSA is simply not a viable plan.
The plan is to have the insurance premiums be deducted from your taxes and the contributions to the HSA be tax-free. That should alleviate some of the cost burden.
The HSAs would be allowed to accumulate, so people could start building up tax free savings for when they need to spend money on healthcare.
Many state governments have already refused to increase Medicaid coverage for lower income people when it was a part of Obamacare.
The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens.
Also, the plan for price transparency of procedures and the cross-state insurance options would allow individuals to shop around for the best prices for both insurance and procedures.
All in all, it doesn't sound like a bad plan for allowing individuals to have more control over what they're spending on healthcare, by having the power to decide what they spend on coverage and procedures.
On the other hand, people are going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on big brother to take care of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 11:37 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 11-16-2016 1:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 31 by vimesey, posted 11-16-2016 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 24 of 187 (794476)
11-16-2016 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2016 12:29 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it.
Half is better than none.
The plan is to have the insurance premiums be deducted from your taxes and the contributions to the HSA be tax-free. That should alleviate some of the cost burden.
Many (most?) lower income families are already taking the standard deduction, so I don't know if they could even take advantage of an itemized deduction. I guess it depends on how they write it into the tax code. Will it be in addition to the standard deduction, or would you have to qualify for an itemized deduction?
Even with the deduction, how much will that actually save the consumer? Let's say that premiums are $500/month (6k/year) and their taxable income is 25k a year with a 15% tax rate. 25k would be 3.7k in taxes while taxes on 19k would be 2.85. How much of a difference would an HSA with $800-$900 in it make? Probably not much. In fact, if the deductible is 2.5k they probably can't even afford to save that 1k with the tax deduction if they had any doctor visits during that year.
Does anyone expect someone making 25k a year to put their tax refund check into an HSA? The reason that Social Security works is that we have to put that money into the system. If Social Security were optional, would it still work? Probably not.
I really don't see how HSAs can solve anything. It certainly doesn't address the reason healthcare costs are so high to begin with.
The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens.
We have already seen what Republicans think will best fit their citizens. That would be no social programs whatsoever.
Also, the plan for price transparency of procedures and the cross-state insurance options would allow individuals to shop around for the best prices for both insurance and procedures.
It allows companies to use the worst regulations from the worst state across the entire country, and there has already been competition for decades. Neither is going to lower prices.
All in all, it doesn't sound like a bad plan for allowing individuals to have more control over what they're spending on healthcare, by having the power to decide what they spend on coverage and procedures.
It takes control out of their hands by removing regulations that previously protected them. It also puts no control on prices. The Trump plan looks like it puts all of the control back in the hands of the insurance companies and healthcare providers. Without regulations to limit prices and subsidies for lower income people, there is no getting out of this problem.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 1:36 PM Taq has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 25 of 187 (794478)
11-16-2016 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2016 12:29 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it
That is an issue. But no insurance is worse. From what I can see the people who have been subsidized are screwed. (High-risk pools have been tried; they are expensive and never received sufficient funding. I doubt the Republican government will be allocating huge funding.)
contributions to the HSA be tax-free
Thus alleviating the burden for those who can afford to contribute to an HSA. Those who cannot afford it or don't have Federal income tax liability to be offset (the famous 47%) will not be helped at all.
The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens.
I.e. like all previous block grant programs cut back funding greatly and hope the states decide to use it to provide health care.
Also, the plan for price transparency of procedures and the cross-state insurance options would allow individuals to shop around for the best prices for both insurance and procedures
There are several states that already allow out-of state insurance companies to operate. There are exactly zero insurance companies taking advantage of that. It's horrendously expensive to expand into a new state and it takes quite some time to realize a return.
Of course state governments are not interested in giving up their regulatory functions.
Likely there would be a "race to the bottom" as with credit cards. Insurers will find the state with the most flexible and limited regulation and move there.
On the other hand, people are going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on big brother to take care of them
Yes, and since health care isn't amenable to a free-market solution, many many of those people will be screwed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 3:22 PM JonF has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 187 (794479)
11-16-2016 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
11-16-2016 1:07 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it.
Half is better than none.
Is it, though? Being forced to pay for insurance that your provider won't take and then paying out of pocket for a procedure anyways is not better than just paying out of pocket in the first place.
Many (most?) lower income families are already taking the standard deduction, so I don't know if they could even take advantage of an itemized deduction. I guess it depends on how they write it into the tax code. Will it be in addition to the standard deduction, or would you have to qualify for an itemized deduction?
I don't know what the standard deduction is, but the way I read it we all get to deduct our insurance premiums from our taxes. If your insurance isn't great, then you should put that money into a tax free HSA.
Even with the deduction, how much will that actually save the consumer? Let's say that premiums are $500/month (6k/year) and their taxable income is 25k a year with a 15% tax rate. 25k would be 3.7k in taxes while taxes on 19k would be 2.85. How much of a difference would an HSA with $800-$900 in it make? Probably not much. In fact, if the deductible is 2.5k they probably can't even afford to save that 1k with the tax deduction if they had any doctor visits during that year.
I don't doubt that any plan will have cases that can be made that won't work well, but that's still better than being forced to pay for insurance that your provider doesn't accept.
Does anyone expect someone making 25k a year to put their tax refund check into an HSA?
If they care about being prepared for healthcare costs... what, am I to assume that people in general are idiots?
I really don't see how HSAs can solve anything. It certainly doesn't address the reason healthcare costs are so high to begin with.
Obamacare was suppposed to reduce the costs, except that it didn't. Let's try something else.
The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens.
We have already seen what Republicans think will best fit their citizens. That would be no social programs whatsoever.
Doesn't that depend on the state? And is there really a correlation between red states and no social programs?
It allows companies to use the worst regulations from the worst state across the entire country,
Does it? If state X has more regulations than state Y, then does state Y really have to accept State X's stuff?
Shit, I gotta run.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 1:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2016 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 11-16-2016 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 27 of 187 (794480)
11-16-2016 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2016 1:36 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Is it, though? Being forced to pay for insurance that your provider won't take
You always have the option to use your non-Obama care insurance. Beyond that, while there are doctors who won't accept ACA insurance, it is only difficult, but not impossible to find doctors who will. The stats I've seen indicate a substantial minority of doctors won't take the insurance.
You are satisfied with 'let folks die insurance', when the rest of the Western world manages to provide health care to all of its citizens for much less than we pay. That's what you call freedom.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 3:23 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 28 of 187 (794488)
11-16-2016 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2016 1:36 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:
Is it, though? Being forced to pay for insurance that your provider won't take and then paying out of pocket for a procedure anyways is not better than just paying out of pocket in the first place.
Going to a provider that does take your insurance is obviously better. The next obvious step is to pass regulations that force all providers to accept all insurance.
I don't know what the standard deduction is, but the way I read it we all get to deduct our insurance premiums from our taxes. If your insurance isn't great, then you should put that money into a tax free HSA.
If your itemized deductions are less than the standard deduction, then you take the standard deduction. For people with low incomes that pay rent for housing, chances are their itemized deductions will be less than the standard deduction so they will often take the standard deduction. The standard deduction for a single person is currently $6,300, so if their insurance premiums are less than 6,300 per year then it might not make a difference in the taxes they pay.
However, they could allow tax payers to use the standard deduction and also deduct the cost of their premiums. Again, it depends on how they write the tax code.
I don't doubt that any plan will have cases that can be made that won't work well, but that's still better than being forced to pay for insurance that your provider doesn't accept.
Then find a provider who does take it. Simple fix.
If they care about being prepared for healthcare costs... what, am I to assume that people in general are idiots?
They probably also care about paying rent, power bills, and car payments.
Obamacare was suppposed to reduce the costs, except that it didn't. Let's try something else.
Let's try something that actually works.
Doesn't that depend on the state? And is there really a correlation between red states and no social programs?
My own state is very red, and they didn't expand Medicaid. Yes, there is a strong correlation.
Does it? If state X has more regulations than state Y, then does state Y really have to accept State X's stuff?
Under Trumpcare, yes it does have to accept the crappier regulations from another state. It takes control out of the hands of the people in that state and gives that power to the legislatures of other states.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2016 3:16 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 30 by Diomedes, posted 11-16-2016 3:17 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 187 (794489)
11-16-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
11-16-2016 2:54 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Going to a provider that does take your insurance is obviously better.
Maybe...
The next obvious step is to pass regulations that force all providers to accept all insurance.
Fuck that. Neither all providers, nor all insurances, are equal. There's good and bad doctors/hospitals just like there's good and bad insurances, and they all shouldn't be forced to co-mingle.
The standard deduction for a single person is currently $6,300, so if their insurance premiums are less than 6,300 per year then it might not make a difference in the taxes they pay.
However, they could allow tax payers to use the standard deduction and also deduct the cost of their premiums. Again, it depends on how they write the tax code.
Ah, I see. That didn't click the first time. But yeah, I read that as premiums being a deduction in addition to the standard one, but I could be wrong.
Then find a provider who does take it. Simple fix.
It isn't necessarily that simple, like if the closest provider is pretty far away. Or if you're in an emergency situation. But generally, sure.
They probably also care about paying rent, power bills, and car payments.
With their tax returns? Maybe they should care more about getting their shit together.
Under Trumpcare, yes it does have to accept the crappier regulations from another state.
How so? Got a link?
It takes control out of the hands of the people in that state and gives that power to the legislatures of other states.
Not if the state doesn't have to accept the crappier regulations from another state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 2:54 PM Taq has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(6)
Message 30 of 187 (794490)
11-16-2016 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
11-16-2016 2:54 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Obamacare was suppposed to reduce the costs, except that it didn't. Let's try something else.
Let's try something that actually works.
What 'works' is a singular system that is either partially or fully run by the government. Every 1st world country on the planet has recognized this except the USA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 2:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 11-16-2016 4:09 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024