Republicans release Obamacare replacement bill

originally posted by: crankyoldman
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.

Not true. Curing is fantastic for business. If you create a cure you can patent it and get 100% of the market share for years. There would be no competition with other treatments, because everyone would buy the cure even if it were higher priced. Imagine if one company cured lung cancer, literally everyone with lung cancer would buy it rather than gambling on a treatment or mix of treatments.

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...

At it's core, insurance means paying more on average for a product/service in exchange for protecting yourself from a catastrophic/total loss. In terms of health insurance, this means that you pay more for doctors visits and routine medications in exchange for actually having the financial resources for treatment when you get HIV or cancer, or anything else serious.

a reply to: crankyoldman

I am not aware of a law preventing an illness from being cured per se

keep in mind the more that is covered, the more it costs. Many alternative treatments can't show the carriers they get good outcomes, and the carriers aren't going to cover treatments that just result in more appointments

injuries to your teeth and eyes are covered by most health plans, routine care is not

I don't get what insurance means ? please enlighten me. I always thought it meant making you whole after a loss. what does it really mean?

Capitalism doesn't care about your health, just your money being turned over.

a reply to: Aazadan

The whole problem with ACA was that people were not signing up in the numbers needed though.
Is this really any worse?

I'm not seeing it as more sustainable either.

They need to take out a lot of the red tape out of ACA.
Why should companies pay for free physicals, vaccines, and the like....people that don't go to doctors much don't use that service anyway. I think patients should pay at least a minimum for those services.
All the paperwork generated also keeps prices high....having to pay for more personnel in doctor's offices, etc.
The bureaucracy is HUGE.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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).

It would be nice to be able to buy insurance any time in the year, not the insane end of year enrollment periods, but a 12-month look back seems fair. Especially in lieu of the mandated penalties.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The signups were designed to exponentially increase. The mandate after x years was supposed to be more expensive than the premiums making the default choice buying insurance. That didn't work out though.

As far as people purchasing preventative care goes, it's cheaper than treating serious conditions. The insurance companies have a real incentive to push it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The signups were designed to exponentially increase. The mandate after x years was supposed to be more expensive than the premiums making the default choice buying insurance. That didn't work out though.

As far as people purchasing preventative care goes, it's cheaper than treating serious conditions. The insurance companies have a real incentive to push it.

that was initial reaction to the mandate costs, they were too low !

we missed the boat when HMO's were rolled out after the 80/20 plans. The marketplace saw $5 copays as a license to live an unhealthy lifestyle almost.

Then the capitated plans suffered serious pushback from the providers because patients weren't taking their advice about losing weight etc

When I did open enrollment meetings everybodies eyes glassed over when I started talking about nutrition and weightloss programs.

I just see this new plan as an adverse selection nightmare with no actual cost control there is only one possible outcome

a reply to: Aazadan

I read it as that it was going to be now more legal than before, giving it a feeling of being in the gray area of the law.

I was listening to an interview with some congressman earlier. It sounds like the TP wing is pretty against this plan. There's only about 120 Republicans in the House currently supporting it, and about 40 in the Senate.

It looks like some pretty major changes are going to have to happen in order to get people on board.

The sticking points appear to be that the bill is unfunded, is essentially a massive entitlement, keeps the cadillac tax (ironically, part of what funds the bill), and it does nothing to address health care costs... instead arguably increasing them.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Aazadan

I read it as that it was going to be now more legal than before, giving it a feeling of being in the gray area of the law.

I find it amusing personally. We have no problem legislating what is essentially a 100% death tax on the poor, but any mention of even a 50% death tax on the wealthy gets a massive outcry of opposition.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Obama didn't write the ACA either, but he was called a liar when the non-compliant policies were ditched by the insurance companies and some folks thought they were missing out on coverage they liked (which was really no coverage at all) when they got new improved policies instead. "But Obama promised I could keep throwing my money down the plug hole, he promised darn it all"!

That was 100% on Congress for not specifying that Insurance companies must grandfather in old worthless policies instead of making sure all policies met the new standards, or even ensuring that old policies that did meet the new standards need not be rewritten. But Obama was the liar? When it was obvious he meant policies that met the minimum standards anyway? He was smeared not because that bit was set up wrong, but because it could be exploited politically.

It was, in fact, the Insurance Companies that decided that this was an opportune time to rewrite every policy whether it was compliant or not. They just didn't want to continue to have many different products to support - it is an administrative nightmare. And it served them well, not only did they keep the ACA on the back foot, but they increased profits beyond their wildest dreams. The insurance companies did quite well out of the ACA, thank you very much.

The 'all new' GOPCare is an abortion. You are going to lose Medicare, Employer Provided Insurance, and the Mandate is going to go up by a factor of at least 10 (they won't call it a 'mandate' though).

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It would be nice to be able to buy insurance any time in the year, not the insane end of year enrollment periods, but a 12-month look back seems fair. Especially in lieu of the mandated penalties.

The '12-month lookback' is another word for 'mandate'. And it will be much more costly than the existing ACA mandate.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
It would be nice to be able to buy insurance any time in the year, not the insane end of year enrollment periods, but a 12-month look back seems fair. Especially in lieu of the mandated penalties.

If we actually had free markets, that might be a reality--but yes, it should be like home or auto or any other insurance, where you can purchase it at any time without penalty or small windows of opportunity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Or like you used to be able to do pre-unACA.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Dammit...EXACTLY!

I keep asking the rhetorical question as to why there must be a replacement after a repeal. IF something is necessary for lower-income folks and families, all that should be required is some sort of Medicaid expansion--and quite honestly, I think that states should raise their own taxes to do that, not the federal government.

I'm a big fan of Trump's focus on giving rights and authority back to the states on a lot of issues thus far. BUT, whether or not that is the end result when he signs laws will be a different story.

a reply to: Aazadan
How about the massive tax credits that the insurance agencies will get if they pass this?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Aazadan
How about the massive tax credits that the insurance agencies will get if they pass this?

I'm not a fan of those either. In theory tax breaks to the insurance agencies should result in lower premiums, but in practice I don't think it will have much of an effect. As I've pointed out several times now, if you cut taxes from one area you have to raise them somewhere else unless you also reduce spending... which isn't happening any time soon. So tax breaks here simply mean tax increases elsewhere and ultimately a further muddying of the tax code.

Oh, yesterday I was listening to yet another interview on Hannity about this (who despite being a total shill, I have to admit is really doing good on this issue and airing all viewpoints). The congressman in question said that this bill is what the Judaeo-christian belief system preaches and that Jesus himself would approve of this health care plan.

How about we pull a Windows 10... say goodbye to 8. skip 9, and go straight to Single Payer. Come on Republicans, blow my mind.

a reply to: Aazadan

It was known from day1 that the penalty for not having insurance was peanuts. Besides, if every young person in America enrolled, it still wouldn't pay for the insanely high medical bills. I've mentioned before about the guy in Iowa who burned through $17.1 million dollars in 2016.