You cant filabuster the repeal of Obamacare?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol! That's good advice! You should take it! I did enjoy the fantasy post you made prior though!

You have gumption! Never tired of being wrong. It's an almost endearing quality.

 

[highland145]

So, what you're saying is you have no idea why ins. premiums went up drastically except the hearsay you've taken as fact, eh?

Here's a bit of why it happened with historical background:

The Medicare drug plan program started under President Bush in 2006. Today, competition there is vigorous, rates are lower than estimated and enrollees are satisfied. In other words, the market works well.

Why? The legislation offered well-established methods to reduce risk. For example, it built in protections for insurers who enrolled especially sick people. It also provided backup payments for very high-cost cases and protected against big losses and limited big gains in the first three years.

The ACA gets passed with these same methods to reduce risk...create large pools of insured, backup payments for high cost cases, protect against big loses, limit gains...all for the first few years of the ACA.

Instead, the Repubs. went after the ACA because, the best I can determine, Obama. No other rational reason. Anyway, when the time came to pay up for risk reduction in the Obamacare exchanges, Congress reneged and paid only 12% of what was owed to the insurers. So, on top of the fact that the companies had to bear the risk of unknown costs and utilization in the startup years, which turned out to be higher than they expected, insurers had to absorb legislative uncertainty of whether the rules would be rewritten.

It is no wonder that this year they have dramatically increased premiums, averaging 20%, to compensate for the extra risk they didn’t factor into the original lower rates. In contrast, underlying health costs are rising at about 5%.

I'll bet you never wondered why the premiums went up, just that Obama is somehow responsible because it was "badly written and inept" or some such drivel. Fact is, if the Repubs. had supported the ACA like they did the 2006 Medicare Prescription Drug legislation and allowed it to function like it was designed, you most likely wouldn't have been fucked...at all.

But instead, blame Obama for the actions of the Repubs. who really created the mess.

Yep....got mine.

1st marked for later. 2nd marked for a nice ride.

 

[MrSquished]

 

[PokerGuy]

Great start to unraveling all the crap built up under this regime for the past 8 years. Once the cheeto man gets into office and starts undoing all the executive actions with his own pen, things will really get into action.

 

[fskimospy]

It's sad but also kind of funny to see all the news stories of Trump voters who think he's going to fix all that's gone 'wrong' over the last eight years and then confronted with what Trump has repeatedly said he wants to do they say 'No, he wouldn't REALLY do that, would he?'

 

[thraashman]

More food for thought on the legislative perils of the Republicans chosen path:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Rule

"Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[2] However, this has not been done since 1975.[3]"

----------------

Obamacare was passed as it was scored as reducing the deficit. Both in raising taxes and "bending down the cost curve" of Medicare and Medicaid spending long term.

With the promised OCare tax cuts/eliminations, the GOP will have carefully navigate the balance to find spending offsets to keep within reconciliation rules. This will likely be benefit and subsidy cuts which will immediately effect millions of people, red states that accepted Medicaid expansion (watch Kentucky) as well as the insurance industry.

Will be a shit storm.

Actually the GOP just released rules for this session of Congress in which they instruct the budget committee to ignore budget deficit increases caused by the repeal of the ACA so that they can hide their illegal use of reconciliation. (starts on page 25 but here's the relevant section)

DETERMINATIONS OF BUDGET LEVELS
For purposes of this subsection, the levels of net increases in direct spending shall be determined on the
basis of estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the Budget.

(4) LIMITATION
.—This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—
(A) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
(B) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;

Here is an article talking about it from a left leaning source. One from a more conservative source

 

[ivwshane]

Actually the GOP just released rules for this session of Congress in which they instruct the budget committee to ignore budget deficit increases caused by the repeal of the ACA so that they can hide their illegal use of reconciliation. (starts on page 25 but here's the relevant section)


Here is an article talking about it from a left leaning source. One from a more conservative source

Thank you.

I'd love to see the righties here defend this move. Despicable!

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you.

I'd love to see the righties here defend this move. Despicable!

It is kind of comical to see the people who endlessly (and falsely) whined about Pelosi saying 'we need to pass the bill so you can see what's in it' turn around and explicitly try to prevent anyone from seeing the consequences of their attempts to repeal it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I don't think so. They can dismantle it to the point of being terrible though.

For example, you can't use budget reconciliation to remove the requirement to have insurance or the requirements that insurances have minimum coverage. But they can remove the government subsidies. That will leave us with expensive required insurance and no help to pay for it.

Obamacare is far better than what we had, but it was still not good. It is basically a pieced together market-based GOP plan with just enough sweeteners to get democrats to go along with it. But, ultimately, it was still based on our horrible existing Human Resources-based plans. Why on Earth are the most important coverage decisions not being made by the doctor and patient, but instead by the HR department of the company the patient works at (when the select the insurance plans that they make available to their employees)? The whole thing is stupid. I hope it gets replaced by something that takes employers entirely out of the picture.

The major defining change with Obamacare was simply the tax penalty and not being able to dismiss people pre-existing conditions. The rest is a giant pile of garbage mess, beauracracy, and paper pushing bullshit.

It makes me cringe to the point of stabbing someone in the face when someone likes to make claims that there are more people insured after the Affordable care act. Really? You fucking think so? Gee, perhaps it's because 99% of the people enrolled are either
1) People with low income that are going to have most of their costs re-imbursed or...
2) People that don't want to pay a fucking tax penalty.

Gee, pay a penalty for doing nothing, or sign up for a health care plan. Who would have thought if you put a gun to someone's head and say "Get a healthcare plan or get penalized" that a lot of people would do so? Boy what a surprise!

It's a tax. Plain and simple. I honestly wish we would have just gone single payer. Now shit is just going to get more messy. There should also never be a penalty for doing nothing. In fact, I can't think of any tax that occurs when you do nothing. Everything else has some kind of reason.

For example, although you are required to have car insurance, you can choose not to get it. You are free to walk, bike, or take the bus for whatever transportation needs you have. Health is not an option. I can't tell my body to not have a heart attack. It's not a choice. But someone should be penalized for not having insurance? Ridiculous. Just tax everyone and make it single payer, I'm tired of this shit.

 

[Sunburn74]

But someone should be penalized for not having insurance? Ridiculous. Just tax everyone and make it single payer, I'm tired of this shit.

I agree.
I would also say yes if you are in a position to have health insurance, you should not be allowed to waive it and should be penalized. It's no different than someone refusing to pay taxes because they don't drive and homeschool their kids.

 

[thraashman]

Obama said he'd back a repeal if Republicans can come up with something better

"I am saying to every Republican right now: If you, in fact, can put a plan together that is demonstrably better than what 'Obamacare' is doing, I will publicly support repealing 'Obamacare' and replacing it with your plan," Obama said in a live-streamed interview with online news site Vox. "But I want to see it first."

"What you don't want is a situation where they make a promise they can't keep," Obama said. "I've worked on this a long time. If we had had a better way to do this, we would have done it. It would have been in my interest to do it, because I knew I was going to be judged on whether or not it worked."

Basically Obama said he doesn't care what you call it, who you credit it with, or any of that. He just wants it to work and make things better for the American people. Unlike Republicans he doesn't want a political victory, he wants to actually help people. Contrast that with the GOP who, lets be honest, are literally giddy about the idea of people dying in the streets because they can't receive healthcare.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Obama said he'd back a repeal if Republicans can come up with something better


Basically Obama said he doesn't care what you call it, who you credit it with, or any of that. He just wants it to work and make things better for the American people. Unlike Republicans he doesn't want a political victory, he wants to actually help people. Contrast that with the GOP who, lets be honest, are literally giddy about the idea of people dying in the streets because they can't receive healthcare.

Yeah and Madonna said she'd give a blowjob to every guy that voted for Hillary. Who believed her and who would believe a piece of shit like Obama ?

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah and Madonna said she'd give a blowjob to every guy that voted for Hillary. Who believed her and who would believe a piece of shit like Obama ?

Yes comparing Madonna's tongue in cheek blowjob statement with the actual president makes a ton of sense.

If you are a dimshit right winger I suppose.

 

[highland145]

So, what you're saying is you have no idea why ins. premiums went up drastically except the hearsay you've taken as fact, eh?

Here's a bit of why it happened with historical background:

The Medicare drug plan program started under President Bush in 2006. Today, competition there is vigorous, rates are lower than estimated and enrollees are satisfied. In other words, the market works well.

Why? The legislation offered well-established methods to reduce risk. For example, it built in protections for insurers who enrolled especially sick people. It also provided backup payments for very high-cost cases and protected against big losses and limited big gains in the first three years.

The ACA gets passed with these same methods to reduce risk...create large pools of insured, backup payments for high cost cases, protect against big loses, limit gains...all for the first few years of the ACA.

Instead, the Repubs. went after the ACA because, the best I can determine, Obama. No other rational reason. Anyway, when the time came to pay up for risk reduction in the Obamacare exchanges, Congress reneged and paid only 12% of what was owed to the insurers. So, on top of the fact that the companies had to bear the risk of unknown costs and utilization in the startup years, which turned out to be higher than they expected, insurers had to absorb legislative uncertainty of whether the rules would be rewritten.

It is no wonder that this year they have dramatically increased premiums, averaging 20%, to compensate for the extra risk they didn’t factor into the original lower rates. In contrast, underlying health costs are rising at about 5%.

I'll bet you never wondered why the premiums went up, just that Obama is somehow responsible because it was "badly written and inept" or some such drivel. Fact is, if the Repubs. had supported the ACA like they did the 2006 Medicare Prescription Drug legislation and allowed it to function like it was designed, you most likely wouldn't have been fucked...at all.

But instead, blame Obama for the actions of the Repubs. who really created the mess.

Sorry for the delay but I actually had to work at all of the year end/beginning crap that doesn't bring a dime in the door....whatever.

To be clear, the risk corridors were set up in the ACA but there wasn't anything set up on how to pay for them. The CMS said losing insurance companies would get paid and it would come from the use fees collected or "it would make up the difference" down the line. (Good way for some companies to game the system, imo) The R's just blocked appropriations outside of the CMS. And there was some discussion that the HHS wouldn't help them because of a 'budget neutrality" rule but I didn't see where that ended up. The CMS are the ones that said they would pay out the 12.6% and wait and see what the future held. The CBO, in 2009, also predicted the premium increases that have been seen for 2017 (your 2nd bolded). The CBO also predicted that the corridors would be neutral at the end of 2016.

Repubs. who really created the mess..

Blame them for not fixing the steaming pile that the Ds locked them out of in the 1st place?


So my light reading (below) confirmed what I already thought and what werepossum posted a while back. The self employed are an endangered species if something doesn't change. An employee with insurance, GTG. The ~85% on the ACA that get subsidies, GTG. The 5M or so that have to pay for their own way, postpone retirement.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-to-increase-substantially/#5c52568946e3
https://informationstation.org/kitc...-nationwide/?gclid=CP2O_ZGSutECFQGpaQodMtUHqQ
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/opinions/affordable-health-care-exchange-premiums-jost/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/upshot/rising-obamacare-rates-what-you-need-to-know.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...we-wiped-out-obamacare-bailout-fund-insuranc/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-to-increase-substantially/#5c52568946e3

 

[First]

^ You realize that gap those people fall through in ACA (indeed unacceptable) is easily fixed with a few sentences on subsidies and the like in a bill Repubs refuse to pass, right? To blame Dems for not getting statutory language precise from the get-go pretty much defies the well known history all U.S. legislation takes, which generally speaking involves a stream of simple legislative fixes year by year. It happened with SS under Reagan and Medicare after LBJ, and it'll happen when Repubs fail to repeal ACA without a replacement. They'll fix around the edges because the alternative bill (in Repub's case, nothing substantial) is far worse.

 

[highland145]

^ You realize that gap those people fall through in ACA (indeed unacceptable) is easily fixed with a few sentences on subsidies and the like in a bill Repubs refuse to pass, right? To blame Dems for not getting statutory language precise from the get-go pretty much defies the well known history all U.S. legislation takes, which generally speaking involves a stream of simple legislative fixes year by year. It happened with SS under Reagan and Medicare after LBJ, and it'll happen when Repubs fail to repeal ACA without a replacement. They'll fix around the edges because the alternative bill (in Repub's case, nothing substantial) is far worse.

The gap the self employed are falling through? I don't think there's a way to fix that short of single payer....maybe.

generally speaking

It should but when's the last time you saw both parties work together? Hopefully Reagan wasn't it.

Blaming the Ds because there was no bi-partisan support and the Rs were locked out with a big eff you. And the pass it so you can find out what's in it b.s. That should give a clue how the ACA will be viewed by the Rs.

Edit: I fully expect the Rs to drop the ball too.

 

[ivwshane]

The gap the self employed are falling through? I don't think there's a way to fix that short of single payer....maybe.

It should but when's the last time you saw both parties work together? Hopefully Reagan wasn't it.

Blaming the Ds because there was no bi-partisan support and the Rs were locked out with a big eff you. And the pass it so you can find out what's in it b.s. That should give a clue how the ACA will be viewed by the Rs.

Revisionist history strikes again!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Just take an axe to Obamacare and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[highland145]

Just take an axe to Obamacare and let the chips fall where they may.

For me, personally, it doesn't matter. I'm already paying. How about work on the H.C. costs in general. They are ridiculous.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

For me, personally, it doesn't matter. I'm already paying. How about work on the H.C. costs in general. They are ridiculous.

Part of the reason they're so high is the federal interference with the market. When you remodel a house you sometimes have to demo it to the studs and start out fresh.

 

[fskimospy]

Revisionist history strikes again!

It is frankly amazing to me that Republicans explicitly went out of their way to refuse any cooperation on the ACA whatsoever yet some people have managed to convince themselves it was the other way around. This wasn't even that long ago.

Jesus.

 

[highland145]

The wife was working far Barrett at the time and the Rs were locked out. After the passing, did you really expect help?

Pedro

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The major defining change with Obamacare was simply the tax penalty and not being able to dismiss people pre-existing conditions. The rest is a giant pile of garbage mess, beauracracy, and paper pushing bullshit.

It makes me cringe to the point of stabbing someone in the face when someone likes to make claims that there are more people insured after the Affordable care act. Really? You fucking think so? Gee, perhaps it's because 99% of the people enrolled are either
1) People with low income that are going to have most of their costs re-imbursed or...
2) People that don't want to pay a fucking tax penalty.

Gee, pay a penalty for doing nothing, or sign up for a health care plan. Who would have thought if you put a gun to someone's head and say "Get a healthcare plan or get penalized" that a lot of people would do so? Boy what a surprise!

It's a tax. Plain and simple. I honestly wish we would have just gone single payer. Now shit is just going to get more messy. There should also never be a penalty for doing nothing. In fact, I can't think of any tax that occurs when you do nothing. Everything else has some kind of reason.

For example, although you are required to have car insurance, you can choose not to get it. You are free to walk, bike, or take the bus for whatever transportation needs you have. Health is not an option. I can't tell my body to not have a heart attack. It's not a choice. But someone should be penalized for not having insurance? Ridiculous. Just tax everyone and make it single payer, I'm tired of this shit.

Problem is driving a car without insurance usually leads to a fine. Having an emergency without HC usually means unaffordable bill then non payment

 

[ivwshane]

The wife was working far Barrett at the time and the Rs were locked out. After the passing, did you really expect help?

Pedro

Just because the GOP repeats lies often because gullible idiots like yourself believe them doesn't mean it works when you repeat your lie.

 

[PokerGuy]

It is frankly amazing to me that Republicans explicitly went out of their way to refuse any cooperation on the ACA whatsoever yet some people have managed to convince themselves it was the other way around. This wasn't even that long ago.

Jesus.

Dems: "Hey, we want to pass this disastrous multi-page monstrosity of a law that's going to screw things up for decades. Would you like to participate? "
Gop: "Uh, no. It's stupid".
Dems: "hah, great, didn't want your input anyway, we'll proceed with this disaster without any input from you and then when everyone realizes it's garbage we'll blame you for not cooperating!"