GOP ACA Replacement Imminent....Predictions

[First]

Hopefully this will be the first step in selling across state lines, but in addition to that it'll increase my choices by giving insurance companies more flexibility in plans that they offer. Under Obamacare the gov't mandates that every plan include birth control, mammograms, alcohol/mental illness, immunizations, colonoscopies and many other things free of co-pays or deductibles. If I only want a bare bones plan like just surgeries and hospitalizations I should be able to buy that

The freedom to choose barebones plans isn't really insurance in the first place, so to say that's much of a "choice" is definitely a pretty weak argument that doesn't apply to the vast majority of the population. At the rates you quoted here ($1000+/month), it would make far more sense for you to forgo insurance and pay the penalty anyway.

Also, even many R healthcare economists don't believe selling across state lines is going to do anything for choice or prices, it's entirely a red herring. Companies would actually have to want to create provider networks across state lines, and it's not even illegal to do it now. Bottom line; selling across state line won't make a dent.

 

[theeedude]

Hey the right have the Koch bros, the left has Soros. Its a wash

Soros spends money to promote democratic institutions around the world. Kochs spend money to subvert democracy.

 

[Chromagnus]

It appears the only ones who will hurt from the GOP plan is ins companies. With no mandate (which Im good with) that means younger healthy people wont get ins (which, of course, will result in higher costs *IF* something catastrophic happens) and lower income people wont get the subsidies they used to get. Either way, its higher cost for ins companies.

This is completely false. Any increase in costs to the insurance company gets pushed down to premiums. It's the fundamental way that all insurance products are priced.

 

[fskimospy]

It appears the only ones who will hurt from the GOP plan is ins companies. With no mandate (which Im good with) that means younger healthy people wont get ins (which, of course, will result in higher costs *IF* something catastrophic happens) and lower income people wont get the subsidies they used to get. Either way, its higher cost for ins companies.

Without a mandate your insurance pools are going to overwhelmingly skew towards the sick. What this will end up meaning is that premium costs will skyrocket, further pushing people to avoid buying insurance until they REALLY need it, which with further sicken the insurance pool. The classic death spiral.

Eliminating the mandate doesn't really change the equation for the insurance companies, it just means they will have to increase their revenue per subscriber or exit the market.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And so here we are. If the Republicans won't compromise on the mandate then they likely won't have enough votes to pass their own bill. Since the mandate that they hate is already law, it sounds like they can either accept reality as it is and compromise from there or they can perhaps get nothing. I guess it all depends on how accepting of reality Republicans want to be, wouldn't you agree?

"If" is a damn big word. I think Republicans will compromise.

 

[Jhhnn]

Repubs' plan isn't designed to pass. Quite the contrary. It's designed to pander to their base & their donors while merely maintaining their promises.

"We worked so hard but the dirty Democrats & blah, blah, blah."

They will, of course, continue to cripple the ACA in order to discredit it & force collapse if possible. At that point, they'll go on about the failure of the ebil soshulism, throw up their hands & default to... Free Market!

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes. States can already allow insurers to sell into their state, most states haven't allowed it and even for the ones that have, most insurers don't want to do it.

Not most insurers, all of them. In fact six states already allow policies to be sold across state lines and even though this has been allowed for more than 7 years and not a single company has taken advantage of it.

The problem with selling across state lines is not that state regulations or licensing is difficult, it is that negotiating with local providers is impossible if you don't already have a good customer base in the area.

 

[First]

Republicans are too divided and will never get the votes they need without Democratic help imo. Democrats have an excellent opportunity to leverage here...but I doubt they'll take advantage of it as they seem to be more hellbent on obstruction than anything else. But this plan is a good starting place for negotiations. However, if this effort fails, I would wash my hands and keep ACA in place as it was unilaterally enacted by Democrats...watching it burn until the left eventually comes to their senses.

The amount of self-delusion necessary to believe it is possible Dems can settle fundamental internecine warfare between moderate & far-right R's on healthcare while also believing that keeping ACA in place & not doing anything to improve it will be a Dem problem despite R gov't in all 3 branches......oy. And you support single payer to boot? DSF, your cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

 

[theeedude]

Yep, we have Sutter Health in the Bay Area, and they have such a dominant position, that they regularly charge 50% more than others and bend even big insurers over to pay for it. It's to the point where employers are trying every which way to get their employees to use Stanford health or other groups.

 

[Sea Ray]

The freedom to choose barebones plans isn't really insurance in the first place, so to say that's much of a "choice" is definitely a pretty weak argument that doesn't apply to the vast majority of the population. At the rates you quoted here ($1000+/month), it would make far more sense for you to forgo insurance and pay the penalty anyway.

Also, even many R healthcare economists don't believe selling across state lines is going to do anything for choice or prices, it's entirely a red herring. Companies would actually have to want to create provider networks across state lines, and it's not even illegal to do it now. Bottom line; selling across state line won't make a dent.

You give lousy advice. Why should I risk bankruptcy and go w/o insurance? My wife has had breast cancer and open heart surgery. With your advice I wouldn't have a pot to...you know what in.

Barebones is insurance. I had such a plan before ACA. With deductibles as high as it is now, it's basically what I have now

 

[Sea Ray]

Soros spends money to promote democratic institutions around the world. Kochs spend money to subvert democracy.

Pretty partisan view on your part. Someone on the right might say that Soros is spending money to subvert democracy in favor of socialism

 

[First]

I've heard health insurance carriers in certain areas of the country described the same way as ISP's, that natural monopolies occur frequently due to the complexities and costs of building those networks. Don't know how you solve that without single payer.

 

[theeedude]

You give lousy advice. Why should I risk bankruptcy and go w/o insurance? My wife has had breast cancer and open heart surgery. With your advice I wouldn't have a pot to...you know what in.

Barebones is insurance. I had such a plan before ACA. With deductibles as high as it is now, it's basically what I have now

So what's the problem?

 

[Blackjack200]

The amount of self-delusion necessary to believe it is possible Dems can settle fundamental internecine warfare between moderate & far-right R's on healthcare while also believing that keeping ACA in place & not doing anything to improve it will be a Dem problem despite R gov't in all 3 branches......oy. And you support single payer to boot? DSF, your cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

I have a 5 year plan to fix the ACA

Year 1: Expand Medicare to cover 55+
Year 2: Expand Medicare to cover 45+
Year 3: Expand Medicare to cover 35+
Year 4: Expand Medicare to cover 20+
Year 5: Medicare for all

Hope the R's don't obstruct it.

 

[First]

You give lousy advice. Why should I risk bankruptcy and go w/o insurance? My wife has had breast cancer and open heart surgery. With your advice I wouldn't have a pot to...you know what in.

Huh? Why would you want a barebones plan if your wife had breast cancer and open heart surgery? That's a shitty choice to ask R's to give you, so maybe you're not explaining something fully or it's possible I missed your earlier explanations.

Barebones is insurance. I had such a plan before ACA. With deductibles as high as it is now, it's basically what I have now

It is literally impossible that your pre-ACA barebones plan is as comprehensive as whatever ACA plan you have now. The minimum requirements make that literally impossible.

 

[First]

I have a 5 year plan to fix the ACA

Year 1: Expand Medicare to cover 55+
Year 2: Expand Medicare to cover 45+
Year 3: Expand Medicare to cover 35+
Year 4: Expand Medicare to cover 20+
Year 5: Medicare for all

Hope the R's don't obstruct it.

Ha, I wish. Single payer this motha would indeed be great, but R's will never accept it. They don't even agree on what a mandate does.

 

[Sea Ray]

Huh? Why would you want a barebones plan if your wife had breast cancer and open heart surgery? That's a shitty choice to ask R's to give you, so maybe you're not explaining something fully or it's possible I missed your earlier explanations.



It is literally impossible that your pre-ACA barebones plan is as comprehensive as whatever ACA plan you have now. The minimum requirements make that literally impossible.

It's not as comprehensive. My point is that with sky high deductibles, I pretty much don't get coverage until there's a very serious illness like breast cancer. Yes, my wife had breast cancer before ACA took effect and the insurance went just beautifully

 

[theeedude]

Pretty partisan view on your part. Someone on the right might say that Soros is spending money to subvert democracy in favor of socialism

That's utter BS. Soros helped defeat Socialism in Eastern Europe, and has been fighting dictatorships ever since. Kochs, meanwhile, made their money building refineries for Stalin's USSR.

 

[Sea Ray]

So what's the problem?

Sky high premiums. Nearly $1500/mo and going up exponentially every yr. It's also a horrible plan. What happens if I need care in another state?

 

[Sea Ray]

That's utter BS. Soros helped defeat Socialism in Eastern Europe, and has been fighting dictatorships ever since. Kochs, meanwhile, made their money building refineries for Stalin's USSR.

If you don't admit that Soros wants a European style socialism here in this country then you've got your head up your...

 

[First]

It's not as comprehensive. My point is that with sky high deductibles, I pretty much don't get coverage until there's a very serious illness like breast cancer. Yes, my wife had breast cancer before ACA took effect and the insurance went just beautifully

What? I don't think you understand what's going on; by statute it is impossible for a pre-ACA barebones plan to have been as comprehensive as a post-ACA plan unless you didn't actually purchase the cheapest "barebones" plan pre-ACA.

To ask for a barebones plan that will cover catastrophic illnesses.....doesn't really make any sense. It's the entire opposite purpose of a barebones plan.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Believe it or not, the official name of the bill is "The World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017." https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text I guess Paul Ryan knows what is likely to appeal to Herr Twitler.

 

[Sea Ray]

I have a 5 year plan to fix the ACA

Year 1: Expand Medicare to cover 55+
Year 2: Expand Medicare to cover 45+
Year 3: Expand Medicare to cover 35+
Year 4: Expand Medicare to cover 20+
Year 5: Medicare for all

Hope the R's don't obstruct it.

That's easy enough. You left out the heavy lifting. Who's going to pay for it? Can hospitals, medical offices survive on what Medicare pays out? Seems to me we have to continually pass a "doctor fix" bill of some sort regularly in order to keep doctors from dropping Medicare

 

[WHAMPOM]

Alright what do we have now we got a few inklings on what the bill is all about? Cut half the people off their insurance, cost twice as much for half the service, screw every one living paycheck to paycheck by paying full price with a delayed refund at tax time?

 

[Sea Ray]

What? I don't think you understand what's going on; by statute it is impossible for a pre-ACA barebones plan to have been as comprehensive as a post-ACA plan unless you didn't actually purchase the cheapest "barebones" plan pre-ACA.

To ask for a barebones plan that will cover catastrophic illnesses.....doesn't really make any sense. It's the entire opposite purpose of a barebones plan.

You obviously don't understand insurance. Have you ever shopped for it on the open market? I have my whole life. A barebones plan does cover breast cancer but does not cover preventative visits, colonoscopies, mental health, birth control and many other things