Obamacare Repeal Might Have Just Died Tonight

they promised to make America great, they never said how exactly...

there's a lot thats going to get done as they go along. this is one of those things.
the next few months will be interesting

a reply to: Christosterone

That has nothing to do with what I asked. How exactly do you think Trump will go about fixing the insurance issue? Simply repealing the ACA will not do that. In fact it will only make things worse.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Profusion

If thats how it works, then how did most peoples premiums greatly increase under obamacare?

Part of the problem was that no one knew for sure what the market would actually look like once the ACA was implemented. Initial premiums in the market were based on projections.

What we're seeing now are corrections. They would not continue at this rate forever.


However, with or without the ACA, medical costs are the real problem. Unfortunately, medical costs are married to the amounts insurance companies are willing to pay.

Single payer is one solution to this problem. One payer. One cost. Another is much heavier regulation of pricing by the government, without actually eliminating the insurance industry.

a reply to: Greggers

It makes me cringe to suggest it, but just nationalize healthcare and be done with it. The upside:

- no more gravy train for medical support. You know, the dead administrative weight that earns more than they should to underperform
- it takes the burden of paying for healthcare from me/you, to the government. So no matter what, at least we know what our rates will be next year and can plan for life somewhat
- it removes the politicizing of peoples health issues. I'd rather do anything than spend 4 more years debating health care while people parade an endless supply of sick and downtrodden across media for us to all gawk and gaze at.
- perhaps spending on healthcare will leave less money available for Uncle Sam to make war. That sounds like a double win to me

Sure, there are downsides. But I think they are diminutive in the face of the upside.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greggers

It makes me cringe to suggest it, but just nationalize healthcare and be done with it. The upside:

- no more gravy train for medical support. You know, the dead administrative weight that earns more than they should to underperform
- it takes the burden of paying for healthcare from me/you, to the government. So no matter what, at least we know what our rates will be next year and can plan for life somewhat
- it removes the politicizing of peoples health issues. I'd rather do anything than spend 4 more years debating health care while people parade an endless supply of sick and downtrodden across media for us to all gawk and gaze at.
- perhaps spending on healthcare will leave less money available for Uncle Sam to make war. That sounds like a double win to me

Sure, there are downsides. But I think they are diminutive in the face of the upside.

I'm with you. I have no idea if nationalized, single payer healthcare will work, or how well it will work, but I think it's worth a try, for all the reasons you mentioned. However, before we take that leap, people need to be prepared for many years of adjustments as the system goes through its initial growing pains.

I think I read somewhere that Canada's system took 20 years before hitting its stride, and there was a lot of angst and uncertainty until that point.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think more and more moderates will come to the same conclusion you have. Now that it will have a GOP flavor to it, a nationalized healthcare reform might actually work. "Freedom Care" or "Patriot Docs" or something like that will taste much better to conservatives than "Obama Care", regardless of the substance of the changes.

There's no other way going forward. It will have to either be nationalized (like any other 1st-world nation) or we take a huge step backwards into 3rd-world era healthcare and I really doubt the GOP will expect to survive four years of being blamed for so many deaths and untreated illnesses.

a reply to: Abysha

I don't think personal responsibility is a step backwards.

One of the major delineating points between America and Europe is our disdain for our government. Im not really into the idea of nationalized healthcare. But I do have to admit I'd rather save American's than bomb muslims. So from the perspective of dollars well spent....

The true solution here is: restore the middle class and the value of the dollar. If the dollar wasn't rotting, and if there was a strong middle class, I don't think healthcare would be the issue it is today. But we've overempowered insurance companies, who've driven medical costs through the roof.

If we are going to create affordable healthcare, it would need to be through oversight of an industry. That didn't happen.

I started my prior post with "i hate to say it". I say that because I know there are better solutions that get ignored.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Abysha

I don't think personal responsibility is a step backwards.

One of the major delineating points between America and Europe is our disdain for our government. Im not really into the idea of nationalized healthcare. But I do have to admit I'd rather save American's than bomb muslims. So from the perspective of dollars well spent....

The true solution here is: restore the middle class and the value of the dollar. If the dollar wasn't rotting, and if there was a strong middle class, I don't think healthcare would be the issue it is today. But we've overempowered insurance companies, who've driven medical costs through the roof.

If we are going to create affordable healthcare, it would need to be through oversight of an industry. That didn't happen.

I started my prior post with "i hate to say it". I say that because I know there are better solutions that get ignored.

And I agree with almost all of this. That's what I mean. It's a reasonable conclusion when the available options are actually weighed out.

The difference I find is in "I don't think personal responsibility is a step backwards". I agree with that statement but I don't look at a right to being healthy in the best nation in the world as a lack of personal responsibility. New cars, alcohol, new pumps, etc... those are all things that should always require personal responsibility to attain. But things like roads, emergency services, healthcare, etc; I don't view those as things people should ever be at risk of losing. Honestly, I'd throw in food and shelter but we gotta pick our battles, I suppose.

Getting our healthcare system out of our weird blend of mandatory-socialized-capitalism, and into something more modern and compassionate, could be something everybody agrees on if presented in the right light.

originally posted by: Abysha
weird blend of mandatory-socialized-capitalism

+10 points for nailing a descriptive perfectly.

Obamacare from day one has been used by the Right as a detractor away from the reason it was created.

The purpose was to address segregated subsidy pools. Obamacare was the Governments Hail Marry, that if consumers understood a monopolized conglomerate insurance industry would have the highest cost efficiency, they might pick Obamacare to be the one. The second notion is slightly more bold than the first part, but the first part is fact.

For anyone who doesn't live under a rock, the issue here is that the Insurance industry is the highest revenue industry in the world, and they don't even sell a god damned product. The private insurance sector is a cancer on our economy, and most popularized opinions of Obamacare are just propaganda from these mega-head industries.

Obamacare was the first insurance that decided people in comas, would probably agree to their terms and conditions, and started covering vegetables. There are countless places they throw money at the wall, and while this is expensive, they do have their heart in the right place.

What's not to be missed though was their initial goals, verses the mass spending nonsense that is Obamacare.

If there was a conglomerate subsidy pool for all Americans, an affordable healthcare act would exist. Now that we all agree not Obamacare, the question is what uniform insurance standard would be acceptable? I always find it interesting when people said Obamacare was too expensive for them to get it. I would guess millions of people were in this circumstance. The irony is there is direct relationship between subsidy cost and subscribers. Most of the people that complain about Obamacare, don't even actually have it, and if they did, there would be less to complain about.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Profusion

If thats how it works, then how did most peoples premiums greatly increase under obamacare?

Sure, nobody wants it to get even worse, but it just seems the insurance industry is pulling the wool over our eyes for like the 10th time.

Well, it is too bad people forgot to look at history, which shows that premiums increased by three fold in the two decades before Obamacare. The larger point is, that is what health insurance does, it increases 100% in costs every 7 years or so.

I am all for a jungle style private system and a public option, side by side. Insurance companies are completely deregulated insurance system and the public option is crafted and engineered payor system, like Medicare.

It would keep both sides happy and it would keep both honest.

a reply to: Profusion

Tuesday, February 10, 2017

Donald Trump is showing TRUE LEADERSHIP today by demanding that Republicans grow a set of balls!

""President-elect Donald J. Trump pressed Republicans on Tuesday to move forward with the immediate repeal of the Affordable Care Act and to replace it very quickly thereafter, saying, “We have to get to business. Obamacare has been a catastrophic event.”"

Source: www.msn.com...

"WE MUST REPEAL OBAMACARE!" has been the most often repeated and promised pledge out of every Republican's mouth over the past 6 years. I think they even said it in their sleep at night. Thank goodness Donald Trump is NOT a politician!!!

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Talking to my buddy, he said "So you're saying we need Government Regulation in insurance?"

Government Regulation is already in everything, and was in insurance before this.

Government isn't completely necessary to conglomerate a bunch of insurance companies though.

If it became 'viral popular' for consumers to back any single random insurance, it would have massive subsidy benefit regardless of Government involvement, or the company picked. The sad truth is the insurance system just doesn't work without a single pool as effectively.

Essentially, Obamacare was created to combat the stupidity and FORCE people to back their platform to have a large subsidy pool, but without allocating EVERYONE, the entire thing is futile, as all he's done is created another massive pool to compete with the massive private pools that exist, and force subsidy rates to rise because of another massive contender.

The main issue in addressing these arguments is people on the Right always cite standard competition models against private insurance as arguments for the nature of it's structure. Insurance is not a product. It's an abomination when placed into a traditional competition model, that raises rates and reduces returns when more competitors are added. The best way to visualize this is a claim, after you maybe break your leg. If you imagine a world with only 1 insurance company and make a claim, after your monthly payments, as expected everything works. The very moment there are two insurance companies, there is now a situation where everything on your end is exactly the same, you're going to pay into a pool, and hope they have money for your leg when it breaks, but the reality is, now that there are two companies, there is only a 50% chance 1 will take a loss, and this increases the chance of a 'tilt' and eventually one will not be able to cover someone, somewhere, despite that person paying into the program! This only becomes profoundly worse with each new company added, and so at it's state today, it's easy to fathom how insurance could hold such massive revenue on a world scale. In the future, that might seem ridiculous if we ever actually figure out how to fund a single pool provider.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I totally agree. And the sheer size of it would be an effective bargaining tool to reduce costs across the board.

The big fight would be over abortion, as it always is. Reps will not want it covered in a national system. I suppose they could kick it to individual states, but then you run afoul of the current constitutional right for women to have abortions and access.

Perhaps a separate, privately funded national clinic system like planned parenthood could take it on.

I also see a need for a clinic-style care service in addition to doctors offices and specialits. Like an expansion of urgent care facilities, especially in areas with limited hospital access. Micro-hospitals with open clinic hours.

It solves a ton of problems and removes stress from both individuals who need care and businesses who would no longer have the direct cost of funding it.

The insurance market would be seriously hit, but they could offer "elective treatment" insurance and private hospitals could still exist to cater to upscale folks who want special treatment.

Downsides include madated care - i.e. Vaccines and such which would be required in order to receive treatment. So choices would be limited and have a bit more Big Brother aspect in the name of public health.

I dunno, seems like we could figure something out if people and our reps were willing.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah.

If that is considered Making America Great Again, you will find many Republicans looking at how their own constituents will be crucified, not to mention insurance companies thrown into chaos, and hospital systems tossed into financial ruin...Do they really want that? Why do YOU want that??

Maybe the Reps started seeing it is in their self interest to be rational about governing and not throw a dirty bomb at the entire structure of our current healthcare system with nothing they can agree upon to replace it.

If they act irresponsibly just because they made it a talking point/useful political division, but they don't have the goods to back it up (as in a replacement that doesn't suck) they will go down in flames and we liberals will be back in power in as quick a time as you can say "my kid died because the Republicans took away our healthcare and blew the whole damn system to shreds."

Weren't conservatives supposed to be cautious and responsible?

a reply to: AboveBoard

The states will fire up their risk pools once again, and the Federal Government will be there this time to help pay the expensive premiums.

The majority of people will qualify for much lower-priced underwritten health plans, with lower deductibles, and their doctors "in-network" once again.

a reply to: carewemust

The state risk pools failed because they were not funded properly. If that is the solution they offer they are going to have to throw a crap ton of money at it in perpetuity which in the past was not a winning strategy.

Here: High Risk Pools

And FYI, if you think this is something you or your loved ones personally will not have to deal with, think again. Most families are impacted by major illness at some point.

High risk pools sound good, but they have repeatedly failed to do what they were intended to do.

We need to do better than that.

originally posted by: Profusion
I hope they can at least get rid of the individual mandate and the employer mandate. If they don't even accomplish that, then I'm afraid we were all completely played for suckers.

If you think the individual mandate is going away, you're being played for a sucker. The individual mandate is the other half of the wildly popular provision that you can't be denied care for pre existing conditions. Such a stipulation works only if an individual mandate is in place. You either have to keep both or remove both, they aren't going to remove it.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Profusion

If thats how it works, then how did most peoples premiums greatly increase under obamacare?

Sure, nobody wants it to get even worse, but it just seems the insurance industry is pulling the wool over our eyes for like the 10th time.

Premiums were increasing before the ACA, the rate of increase that was projected was slower under the ACA than under what we had before.

a reply to: AboveBoard

i agree with you...you can't go back now.

That said, my heartburn over ACA passing likely will never go away. Its this constant broiling anger that seethes in the pit of my stomach. Had it never been forced into place, we wouldn't be at this point today.

ACA provides low cost healthcare to the poor while at the same time limiting availability to the middle class. My premium has gone from $280 to $580 since 2008. While my deductible has quadrupled and my copay quintupled.

Just the sheer illogical nature of it all. The US decide the best way to provide healthcare to the poor was to put a for profit middle man in between people and their doctors. I'd call it a bad plan, but that is an understatement.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Why on Earth do we tolerate our elected leaders (and their appointees) trying to dictate our medical care for us?

Thats the real issue: people keep electing party slags. If i were God for a day, my first order of business would be to wipe out political parties.