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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The American Health Care Act isn't bad..it's just being implemented backward. First you build the new highway, then begin migrating traffic over to it, then demolish the old road.

The GOP is trying to do a "9-11" process. Fly a plane into ObamaCare, and then rebuild. Can't do that with people's healthcare.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
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.


The fine was supposed to phase in over time. 2.5% is too low to accomplish what they were trying to do, but there was also pretty large opposition to a meaningful fine in the first place.

It doesn't help matters that premiums increased as much as they did, which resulted in most bronze tier plans not even being worth buying.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

The only insurance companies to profit were those that administer MEDICAID for Uncle Sam. Expanded medicaid is a Gold Mine for the 2 or 3 big administrators. (Centene Corp is the biggest)

The companies that provide health insurance to working people lost so much money that they pulled out of the exchanges. Here in Illinois, we only have Blue Cross and Ambetter (Celtic) left. Blue Cross of Illinois lost $275 million in 2016, but has a deal with the Feds to continue operating on the exchanges.

Those who say that health insurance companies are making a bunch of money on ObamaCare are stuck in a pre-2010 world.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
...Wouldn't be a problem funding the thing if it weren't for that de-funding binge being used for $53 Fricking Billion to the military that isn't "depleted"...

Apparently a lot of people refuse to admit they supported a bull#ter with a history of bull#ting.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
There is no mandate though. You do not HAVE to buy insurance. However, what it is doing is protecting the Health Care system from someone who does not have health care, has a heart attack and suddenly wants it after they did not want it. Like not buying insurance for an item, it breaks, then you try to buy insurance. There is a look back now that is used for cost and coverage used to fine employers if they do not provide coverage so it is also taking the burden off of the employer. Many times the employer pays for a employees healthcare and then the quit and are stuck with the bill. I hate insurance companies but business is business. It is an incentive for the buyer also.

As usual, to much is going to be spent on something that will apply to a small subsection of the populace.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
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.


The fine was supposed to phase in over time. 2.5% is too low to accomplish what they were trying to do, but there was also pretty large opposition to a meaningful fine in the first place.

It doesn't help matters that premiums increased as much as they did, which resulted in most bronze tier plans not even being worth buying.


This proposed 30% penalty will not induce healthy people to maintain continuous coverage either. Particularly with year-around open enrollment and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. You just sign up, pay 30% more, get your $40,000 surgery, and cancel the policy.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
This proposed 30% penalty will not induce healthy people to maintain continuous coverage either. Particularly with year-around open enrollment and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions. You just sign up, pay 30% more, get your $40,000 surgery, and cancel the policy.


I agree, and that's a problem. It means insurance isn't going to have the customer pool to draw from to actually pay for this stuff. It will put insurance out of business.

I'm pretty sure insurance is already in a death spiral, but this legislation isn't going to turn things around. It's going to accelerate it.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
To pass, this will need 60 Senate votes right?

There's more in play here that meets the common eye.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
To pass, this will need 60 Senate votes right?

There's more in play here that meets the common eye.



From what I understand, some things need 50 and some need 60. Everything they put in phase 1 needs 50. The stuff that needs more is coming later.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

So, this chokes the healthcare system and they realize they cannot continue to charge too much and prices come down? Maybe method to that madness because I do not see where Trump will bali them out like the ACA. It was written in that even if it worked they(companies) were subsidized by the government.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

It's not going to lower prices. Insurance requires a whole bunch of healthy people who don't need it to buy it. Under this system as written, the cheapest route is to not buy insurance until you're sick. That becomes even more true if premiums come down. As long as you can be reasonably sure you're not going to come down with a serious illness within the next 2-6 months, you're better off not purchasing insurance and then only buying it when you do become sick.

A whole lot more people are going to be uninsured after this. From the 20% of the population who doesn't make enough money to have a tax rebate to spend on health care, to the 80% of the population who is going to be better off going uninsured.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Now there will be no incentive for companies to insure their employees. No matching funds, now it's up to the American working man to fend for himself.

Glad I have my Union.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
To pass, this will need 60 Senate votes right?

There's more in play here that meets the common eye.



Needs only 51 in the Senate. Being passed the same way ObamaCare was...via reconciliation.
heavy.com...

Ryan says today that he has the HOUSE votes necessary.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Those who take a few minutes to compare how insanely high our medical procedures cost, compared to other nations, will understand why prices are so high. Also, you have to factor in the American diet. We're used to poisoning ourselves and then going to the doctor for a quick fix, with drugs or surgery.

Basically, it boils down to good old Demand vs Supply.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Almost a trillion dollars was spent on healthcare by the Federal government in 2015. Of that, there is also 250 billion or so lost in taxes because of the high cost of pre-tax insurance.

If a plan costs 400 dollars and the person makes 1000 it means that the government is losing tax revenue on that 400 dollars. Lower the cost of insurance and then there is more to tax to use for Medicaid which accounts for over half of the spending.

It is real easy folks. This way you have more take home, you have coverage and those who need it have funds from the additional tax which is less than the healthcare and goes not to big pharma but those in need.

I see this as a first step to remove the mandate and draw lines in the sand. I did not see ANY healthcare provider subsides like I saw in the ACA.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Why does takehome matter? Is there any functional difference between taking home $1000 but having $600 in expenses and having $800 take home with $400 in expenses?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs



If a plan costs 400 dollars and the person makes 1000 it means that the government is losing tax revenue on that 400 dollars. Lower the cost of insurance and then there is more to tax to use for Medicaid which accounts for over half of the spending.


I don't think that's how it works. The person would be taxed on the $1000 and claim the $400 as a tax deduction at the end of the year, for a refund.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Health Insurance companies are an enemy to people and their well-being. Time to ditch them. Single Payer. That's the future. Republicans have an opportunity here to really make a change and own some legislation worthy of bragging about for generations to come. Skip all the same old insurance-based bullsh#t and go straight to Single Payer.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

They make 1000 gross.

1000-400 = 600.00 600 in taxable wages
1000-200 = 800.00 800 in taxable wages and 200 more take home. Yes, it would be an extra 10k a year take home.

For taxes, I will just use 25% as average.

600.00 equals 150 in taxes.
800.00 equals 200 in taxes.
50 dollars more for taxes and STILL 150 dollars more with a lower cost of health insurance to take home.

Approximately 120 million pay taxes for working. Now, if all of those taxpayers gave an extra 50, just an average, that is 312 BILLION dollars collected that could be used for Medicare/Medicaid/Uninsured people.

Yes, it is simple...



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Health Insurance companies are an enemy to people and their well-being. Time to ditch them. Single Payer. That's the future. Republicans have an opportunity here to really make a change and own some legislation worthy of bragging about for generations to come. Skip all the same old insurance-based bullsh#t and go straight to Single Payer.


Not going to happen as long as the GOP is all in for the Corporate Oligarchy. Health Care is a for profit enterprise and that's simply not gonna change. Corruption, sweet appointments to the board, and kick backs rule the day. It's capitalism.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join