Fake Senate ACA Replacement Already Blocked!

[debbiedowner]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Government, payroll taxes and your Part B premium. Medicare also a fee schedule that either the provider accepts or not.

 

[Iceweasel]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Most likely you could have gotten an exemption for hardship being unemployed and not had to pay the fine. Too bad most accounting tax firms didn't know that.

Maybe they didn't read all 50,000 pages.

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone on here explain how Trumpcare is a better program than Obamacare?

More letters? Er... no, wait. Uh... oh I know. Less syllables!

Seriously though, it's no better. It starts with the same flawed premise: the idea that insurance is the best (some would say "only") way to pay for healthcare. The health care market is being strangled by too much insurance. Yet the Republican bill remains blindly fixated on the goal of promoting even more insurance. The insurance lobbyists are cheerfully encouraging them, of course, but most voters have also bought into that core delusion of ACA.

Insurance can't morph into a social safety net, no matter how much we "mandate". If we have decided, as a nation, that we want socialized medicine*, we should have the nerve to say so and do it properly. We could offer health care as a government service the way we do primary and secondary education - locally. Primarily through cities and counties. Our education system has resisted corporatization far better than similar government services, in part, because of this decentralized model. It avoids the centralized control that inevitably becomes a honey pot for corporate influence.


*pre-emptively: I'm defining socialism broadly as state control of the means of production. If you control the money necessary for any given endeavor, you control it. Period. If the government becomes the primary, or sole, source of income for doctors, the state will be in control of doctors. Doctors will, essentially, be employees of the state. It will, in principle and in fact, be socialized medicine.

Are you proposing single payer?

 

[debbiedowner]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

They are leaving because the bailouts are ending. It's not complicated.

The bailouts are in the senate plan until 2020.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Medicare is subsidized by paying into it your whole life

 

[Iceweasel]

So obiecare will be left to fail. Not a risky gamble, many will be hurt though.

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

They are leaving because the bailouts are ending. It's not complicated.

The bailouts are in the senate plan until 2020.

...which isn't law and may never be and it's two years off.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Government, payroll taxes and your Part B premium. Medicare also a fee schedule that either the provider accepts or not.

Obviously most accept the pay scale. Are they overcharging other insurance companies to make up the difference? I think if that were true the private insurance companies would be bitching. So all the years of working prior to age 65 pays helps pay?

 

[debbiedowner]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Insurance companies are very profitable. And the ACA was a gift to the insurance companies. In fact they wrote it. Did you know that? That's why the mandate everyone has had to buy their product. And why they were given years to jack up the price before the cost savings kicked in.

The oil companies made a great profit too when gas was $4 a gallon. Do you want to go back to that too?

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

Major insurance companies are enjoying record profits but claim they are losing money under the Affordable Care Act

Yes, insurance companies did demand the individual mandate and without it, for a major medical plan, your rates are going to skyrocket. They will put together some catastrophic plans without the bells and whistles, no copays and high deductibles with low rates.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Medicare is subsidized by paying into it your whole life

I guess a person works for 65 years to use the benefit for what may only be 10 or so years.

 

[grainbely]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

I've read that they don't know how to price it because they don't have good data on their new incoming customers. The risk is high. Which sort of makes sense when you consider that the big insurers have crafted themselves into big data analytics powerhouses.

 

[debbiedowner]

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

You mean they were until they had to start paying claims for people they previously excluded because of pre-existing conditions. You can't have a profitable insurance company and guarantee universal coverage for specifically that reason. That's why subsidies are necessary to defray the cost of having to cover pre-existing conditions. This is the model Conservatives were in support of about 23 years ago, for 15 years. So it's confusing to see them oppose it today. Makes me think their opposition to it is wholly political and ideological. Not economic or fiscal. Because the realities of a for-profit insurance system is that it only is for-profit if it doesn't pay out claims. Which is in direct conflict with the guarantee Trump made of universal coverage.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

That 50% you didn't pay didn't just magically vanish. It was redistributed to providers and insurers. So that means a provider has to charge more for something like aspirin so the insurer can use that reimbursement and apply it to things like giving a 50% off to someone with no insurance. That means your premiums will increase too to cover those costs. It is grotesque entitlement to think you get a discount on health care and that discount isn't passed onto the provider and policyholders.

it's a grotesque entitlement to think i have to pay for someone elses coverage when you boil it down like that. you think only their rates are going to go up?

please.

What's the difference? You were paying for someone else's care before ACA and the people who show up at ER without insurance.

 

[debbiedowner]

You know, most of the countries that have socialized insurance also have private insurance companies you can purchase from too.

 

[Freewill]

I realize this is a small slice of the healthcare pie but what the hell do these guys do to contain cost for the consumer? It appears to be absolutely nothing.

Highest-paid health insurance CEO earned $22M in 2016 | FierceHealthcare

 

[debbiedowner]

How do you pay a penalty if you don't get a refund?

I don't know enough about the penalties to answer that. I think you still have to pay the penalty regardless of your income status.

NO, but I'll get back to that later when I get to work.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is what I don't understand.

The most likely of people to have medical problems, expensive medical problems are the old. Yet they are covered under medicare for 139 a month. Although that only covers 80 percent of part B (hospital) it still covers most seniors.

Then the private insurance companies are offering all sorts of low cost supplemental/advantage plans, most with things like free gym membership without a monthly premium.

But buy something on Obamacare. High premiums, greater than 400/month easily, and high out of pocket for example 750 dollars to go to the emergency room and not be admitted.

But since most people are covered by employer subsidized health care insurance most either don't care or think Obamacare is great stuff because their uncle Lou has coverage and it is FREEEEEEEEE.

In my opinion medicare is far superior then anything I see on the exchanges, price wise. Is that because it is heavily subsidized by the government?

Medicare is subsidized by paying into it your whole life

I guess a person works for 65 years to use the benefit for what may only be 10 or so years.

Try to set up an insurance pool with only people 65 and older in it
See what your rates will have to be to cover the expenditures

You pay into Medicare your whole life to defer the insurance costs when you are older and really need the health coverage

 

[iceberg]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Most likely you could have gotten an exemption for hardship being unemployed and not had to pay the fine. Too bad most accounting tax firms didn't know that.

i did my own taxes that year. maybe i could have - dunno. i've made some bad tax decisions i've come to find that paying an accountant would be cheaper in the long run.

 

[sealybobo]

The problem of bringing insurers to the table has back fired as they now are leaving for political points. I believe it was Aetna that was caught doing this even in markets where they were making money so as to win gop favor.

I believe you need to support your opinion.

Aetna:
U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

They threatened to pull out of exchanges if their merger wasn't approved and then when it wasn't they pulled out of even profitable ones. They now will be out entirely in 2018.

I remember another source that I haven't found yet that had more juicy tidbits.

I'm going to look into the other merger that was blocked to see if anything similar happened.

Go ahead but you'll just be playing with yourself. I am not a liberal so I don't embrace judges as gods. And I don't accept cherry picked data or opinion that defy logic. If the practice was profitable why wouldn't they stay? Of course they would. Problem is you lefties cannot accept the policies of your god not working in the real world. You can't force businesses to lose money and expect them to survive.

Your denial is fresh. Would this even warrant a second glance from you? Or even a motivated investigation?

I bet I can find more dirt on them leaving profitable exchanges.

Private companies are not the property of the US government. It's more complicated than retail since people are paying for insurance so I'd say the fair thing is for them to have an escrow account if they want to get into it.

It's also more complicated if the government moves the goal posts on them.

That's like saying NBA teams or players aren't the property of the NBA. If the NBA says the LA Lakers aren't in the NBA anymore, guess what?

So they may not be the property of the government but they can only do business if the government allows them to do business. Are they breaking any laws?

The sad thing is that a lot of the shit corporations do are legal because they've paid our government to allow them to do whatever it is they want to do.

We the people are the boss. Our government represents us. Government is the boss. Sorry you hate it.

 

[iceberg]

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

You mean they were until they had to start paying claims for people they previously excluded because of pre-existing conditions. You can't have a profitable insurance company and guarantee universal coverage for specifically that reason. That's why subsidies are necessary to defray the cost of having to cover pre-existing conditions. This is the model Conservatives were in support of about 23 years ago, for 15 years. So it's confusing to see them oppose it today. Makes me think their opposition to it is wholly political and ideological. Not economic or fiscal. Because the realities of a for-profit insurance system is that it only is for-profit if it doesn't pay out claims. Which is in direct conflict with the guarantee Trump made of universal coverage.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

That 50% you didn't pay didn't just magically vanish. It was redistributed to providers and insurers. So that means a provider has to charge more for something like aspirin so the insurer can use that reimbursement and apply it to things like giving a 50% off to someone with no insurance. That means your premiums will increase too to cover those costs. It is grotesque entitlement to think you get a discount on health care and that discount isn't passed onto the provider and policyholders.

it's a grotesque entitlement to think i have to pay for someone elses coverage when you boil it down like that. you think only their rates are going to go up?

please.

What's the difference? You were paying for someone else's care before ACA and the people who show up at ER without insurance.

mostly the cost has skyrockets for us all. i know many who run their own business and their insurance costs tripled. my own benefits have gone down from work but i still value what i do have.

so when insurance companies have to cover millions upon millions of $$$ they never had to before, it does in fact affect us all.

 

[Iceweasel]

I believe you need to support your opinion.

Aetna:
U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

They threatened to pull out of exchanges if their merger wasn't approved and then when it wasn't they pulled out of even profitable ones. They now will be out entirely in 2018.

I remember another source that I haven't found yet that had more juicy tidbits.

I'm going to look into the other merger that was blocked to see if anything similar happened.

Go ahead but you'll just be playing with yourself. I am not a liberal so I don't embrace judges as gods. And I don't accept cherry picked data or opinion that defy logic. If the practice was profitable why wouldn't they stay? Of course they would. Problem is you lefties cannot accept the policies of your god not working in the real world. You can't force businesses to lose money and expect them to survive.

Your denial is fresh. Would this even warrant a second glance from you? Or even a motivated investigation?

I bet I can find more dirt on them leaving profitable exchanges.

Private companies are not the property of the US government. It's more complicated than retail since people are paying for insurance so I'd say the fair thing is for them to have an escrow account if they want to get into it.

It's also more complicated if the government moves the goal posts on them.

That's like saying NBA teams or players aren't the property of the NBA. If the NBA says the LA Lakers aren't in the NBA anymore, guess what?

So they may not be the property of the government but they can only do business if the government allows them to do business. Are they breaking any laws?

The sad thing is that a lot of the shit corporations do are legal because they've paid our government to allow them to do whatever it is they want to do.

We the people are the boss. Our government represents us. Government is the boss. Sorry you hate it.

You lie every time you post. You obviously hate the truth. Your interpretations are juvenile beyond comprehension. The government belongs to the people, we own the government. Sorry if your smug retarded ass doesn't like that! You belong in Cuba.

 

[debbiedowner]

lets be honest, the reason they sign up is because of the fines if they don't in as much as anything.

You can't achieve universal coverage and still have profitable insurance companies. So you need to decide what is more important to you; coverage or profits. Because you can't have both.

our insurance companies are not profitable? well they were until saddled with stupid things they had to now pay for.

when i was unemployed and didn't buy insurance (choosing to pay the fine) every time i needed something i got 50% off and paid in cash. care to tell me why i got 50% off? maybe that's insurance profits...

Most likely you could have gotten an exemption for hardship being unemployed and not had to pay the fine. Too bad most accounting tax firms didn't know that.

i did my own taxes that year. maybe i could have - dunno. i've made some bad tax decisions i've come to find that paying an accountant would be cheaper in the long run.

Well I did my own for most of my life the last two years used an accountant and he screwed them up both years, didn't know shit about ACA even though he's been in the business for 20 years. Anyway if their bill is passed you can file an amended tax return and get it back because they will get rid of the mandate back to 2016 or end of 2015, whatever they decide. But here is a pdf of instructions and exemptions. You can also go to healthcare.gov scroll down and click the link for tax info.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8965.pdf