It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans release Obamacare replacement bill

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That is actually more believable.
I hope.

And I would assume it is only for one year, until the next open enrollment.

Otherwise.....you could be on the hook for 3, 5, 10 years of fines!!!!!




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Even then it still locks out those that can't afford insurance now from every being able to afford insurance. And since they're rolling back the Medicaid expansion there's going to be a lot more people fitting that bill.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Yeah, I do agree with you about that.




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
"Sorry, we can't undo the pre-existing conditions clause-- it already took root and people like that... and we can't do anything about kids staying on their parents insurance- that took root also... but we CAN remove the required preventative coverage, and we CAN remove the mandate, so people will opt out and THEN you can charge extra high rates for people who went off their insurance. Make the poor folk pay extra for a year. That'll feel good. Plus you can charge extra for elderly and people with issues... ... and we can pretty much guarantee as long as we use the words 'repealed and replaced' our voters will support it."



edit on 7-3-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
It will be great to hear Trump in the near future tell us what a great thing this is for the American people.

Even his middle class supporters will praise him as they get screwed, pay more for less coverage than the ACA. Classic
edit on 7-3-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
It will be great to hear Trump in the near future tell us what a great thing this is for the American people.

Even his middle class supporters will praise him as they get screwed. Classic

Yup. America first... after big pharma and the insurance industry... bigly



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: olaru12
It will be great to hear Trump in the near future tell us what a great thing this is for the American people.

Even his middle class supporters will praise him as they get screwed. Classic

Yup. America first... after big pharma and the insurance industry... bigly


I wonder how anyone can't see that the neocons are still calling the shots. Amazing!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That is actually more believable.
I hope.

And I would assume it is only for one year, until the next open enrollment.

Otherwise.....you could be on the hook for 3, 5, 10 years of fines!!!!!


That's a better outcome for the consumer but it's totally unsustainable. It means the best action is to skip insurance and only buy it when you get sick. That's not a viable business model for insurance.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Yes, it specifically states that the look-back period is for 12 months at the date of purchasing insurance (or, I assume, submission of application).



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
It's possible, that's how I read it though. I could be wrong, I'm basing it though on Rand Pauls description of the fine when he gave an interview on it the other day. It's also the only thing that makes fiscal sense because the concept of insurance simply doesn't work if you can go without, and then get on it when you become sick.

I didn't hear Mr. Paul's comments, but if he interprets it the way that you explained it, I'm willing to say that he's wrong, too. But then again, I read it only once over, but from my years of experience reading legalese, I think that I have a pretty good grasp on what it's saying.

I guess at this point, we could both be wrong. Either way, it's the first copy of the bill, so who knows how it will change in the end, anyhow.



It's not your earnings until it's in your hand. Tax money is not your money. You have what you have. Besides, you're going to pay that money anyways. 47% of federal revenues come from income taxes. If the government stops collecting that money, what exactly do you think they're going to do? I'll give you a hint, it's not going to involve cutting spending by 47%.

So, looking at the part of your statement that I bolded, you're telling me that I didn't earn the whole of my paycheck before taxes are out? So, what, did the government come in and earn that money for me before taking it upon penalty of conviction?

As far as history, we as a country went through a few major wars and the industrial revolution before the "need" to implement an income tax. Funnier still, less than two decades later, we have a Great Depression on our hands. I'm not saying that correlation means causation in that regard, but our country was doing just fine (I'd argue even better, financially speaking) before the implementation of the income tax.

But we're getting WAY off-topic, so respond to that if you want, but I won't continue that branch of the discussion out of respect for the subject of the OP.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I worked for BlueCross. I know the game. Listening to Tom Price, this bill is a disaster and will be worse than ACA

1) getting rid of the individual mandate means young and/or healthy people drop out, and the plan loses their premiums. You are left with increasingly sick people staying in because they have to or they will lose their house. As premiums rise, more young and or healthy people drop out. This is known as the death spiral.

2) competition does NOTHING to bring down premiums. When I was negotiating renewals I always had competition. It was always the same carriers, the big national carriers, usually at least 3. Underwriters price premiums based on claims history and demographics. If another carrier comes in lower, the underwriter will tell you, "great we will get them back in 3 years when that carrier has to jack the rates up to catch up".

TrumpCare is a pile of bull#


edit on 7-3-2017 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Nothing--neither Obamacare nor this--will be sustainable. That's what happens when government gets involved.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
HAHA Price just did a hard bail when the tough questions about "conscience" start coming



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Now spicer is reading a poorly written staement



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
"access to coverage" doesn't mean the rates are affordable, fine print warning !!!!

HSA's have been around for years, and are considered tax shelters for the rich and "better than nothing" plans for the young and healthy. If you are sick or have kids its trash

this is only phase 1. Oh boy, "ready fire aim" my favorite game

offering bare bones stripped down plans so you "can buy only what you need" is a very bad idea. This causes "adverse selection" which means people only buy insurance if they need it , and if you offer competing plans to someone, will only choose the more expensive plan if they are sick or need it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are driving the sick people and families into 1 plan, the rates will skyrocket, it is the only possible outcome

if you are lucky enough to be wealthy, young or healthy, you will like this bill

why am I not surprised?








edit on 7-3-2017 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
they sure are proud of how small theirs is, tee hee



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I guess at this point, we could both be wrong. Either way, it's the first copy of the bill, so who knows how it will change in the end, anyhow.


It's possible. It's how I read it, but I'm fully willing to admit I could be reading it wrong.

If I'm understanding it right, a lot of people are going to be without health care.

If you're understanding it right, the insurance companies aren't going to be able to stay in business.

I don't think either of those is the intent, I'm sure that before long there will be summaries of it. Plus as people have pointed out here and elsewhere, this is a draft of a bill in one house of Congress. There's still the final bill to go, as well as reconciliation, and then finally whatever Trump wants to negotiate in, in exchange for signing it into law. So I fully expect some changes here.



But we're getting WAY off-topic, so respond to that if you want, but I won't continue that branch of the discussion out of respect for the subject of the OP.


That's fine, I can avoid discussing it. I'm sure it will come up somewhere else eventually. But the part I do think is worth discussing still is the effect on taxes. If we start giving tax credits, that revenue has to be made up elsewhere. We both know the government isn't going to give up a substantial portion of something (in this case, about 5/6) of a tax that makes up 47% of revenues. For every dollar you're able to give yourself in a tax credit, there's going to be another dollar added somewhere in sales or excise taxes to counter the effect, and in the end we'll end up with an even more opaque tax system than we currently have.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
I worked for BlueCross. I know the game. Listening to Tom Price, this bill is a disaster and will be worse than ACA


Trump is claiming that in phase two of this legislation process they'll be adding insurance across state lines. How do you feel about this given your experience in the industry?

From what I have read on it (and I first learned about this tidbit on this site), several states already allow insurance carriers to sell across state lines in deals they've made with each other. The problem is that no one wants to do this because of issues with networks and maintaining a high population density in a given area. Basically, if a state moves into a new state, few will be on their insurance, but they still have to maintain a doctor/hospital network as if they had many people. This ultimately becomes too expensive and it's just not worth expanding. having 50,000 customers across one state is better than 60,000 across two states, or 100,000 across 50 states.

Would you say this is accurate given your experience with the industry?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
I worked for BlueCross. I know the game. Listening to Tom Price, this bill is a disaster and will be worse than ACA


Trump is claiming that in phase two of this legislation process they'll be adding insurance across state lines. How do you feel about this given your experience in the industry?

From what I have read on it (and I first learned about this tidbit on this site), several states already allow insurance carriers to sell across state lines in deals they've made with each other. The problem is that no one wants to do this because of issues with networks and maintaining a high population density in a given area. Basically, if a state moves into a new state, few will be on their insurance, but they still have to maintain a doctor/hospital network as if they had many people. This ultimately becomes too expensive and it's just not worth expanding. having 50,000 customers across one state is better than 60,000 across two states, or 100,000 across 50 states.

Would you say this is accurate given your experience with the industry?


I got out of the business in 2005, but its really much more complicated than they are letting on. You make a great point about provider networks, but that only really applies to the small players and regional carriers. The big national carriers are not going to renegotiate new networks. If you are a regional carrier and you want to expand into a new market, you have no leverage, and no hope to compete. Providers are more and more grouping together to gain leverage. So when you call and say "hey we have 50 members, give us your best rate" they will laugh and hang up the phone

Another point is each state has their own mandates for what has to be covered, I sure hope this bill doesn't squash these state laws

On a side note, most carriers are national, so allowing them to sell across state lines does not mean they will. The vast majority of groups over 10 employees are handled through a broker who puts the renewal out for bid. He goes to the same carriers every month, all the big boys, BlueCross, United, Aetna, etc and maybe a local or regional carrier and puts it on an excel spreadsheet and shops it out and tell all the carriers to give their best rate

none of these carriers will bid against themselves, its cannibalism and simply not done.


the only way to get claims down is to go to single payer

single payer is not socialism it is a monopoly that would make Cornelius Vanderbilt blush

single payer is how you get the costs down, no other system can do that

when you tell a provider that if you want to practice in this country you accept our rates or take a hike, you win and costs come down

simple



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
I worked for BlueCross. I know the game. Listening to Tom Price, this bill is a disaster and will be worse than ACA

1) getting rid of the individual mandate means young and/or healthy people drop out, and the plan loses their premiums. You are left with increasingly sick people staying in because they have to or they will lose their house. As premiums rise, more young and or healthy people drop out. This is known as the death spiral.

2) competition does NOTHING to bring down premiums. When I was negotiating renewals I always had competition. It was always the same carriers, the big national carriers, usually at least 3. Underwriters price premiums based on claims history and demographics. If another carrier comes in lower, the underwriter will tell you, "great we will get them back in 3 years when that carrier has to jack the rates up to catch up".

TrumpCare is a pile of bull#



Correct, you fail to see, the only way to get people to understand that health care via for profit business model is to get it to collapse. I have asked this question dozens of times and no on has answered it. If everyone was healthy how would the trillion dollar health industry survive? The health industry TREATS, it is legally prevented from curing anything, curing is VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS.

That said, the model as it stands, charge sick people for treatment that will not end their sickness, the medical industry goes to government and demands a mandate the purchase of their products, which, often kill those who are mandated to pay for and use our services 2.5 million people over a any ten year period killed by the medical establishment. Jail? Nope. Changes? Nope. Solution, CHARGE MORE, MANDATE MORE, and blame those who don't accept this as their reality - damn healthy kids do right by paying for MY MEDS you rats!

I know chemo therapy is a failure, a horror of horrors, for me it is morally criminal, so I fail to see why I need to pay for others to have it. I find big pharma's insistence on getting old people hooked on pain killers, useless statins and the like as criminal, I don't want to pay for them to get it. I find the deaths of 250,000 thousand people a year unacceptable and I don't want to pay for it. I find the fact that so called "alternative" treatments are not covered and teeth and eyes are not covered by insurance, I refuse to stand in line to pay for this abomination. Yet, you and all the rest who don't get what "insurance" means, as opposed to holistic health maintenance/care demand I feed into this unsustainable monster. I say, let it burn...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join