Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[twa]

1 hour ago, alexey said:

I wonder how much of this is due to an aging population getting on Medicare.

 

also, when I pay into my insurance, and then my insurance pays for my services - is that classified as "other people's money"?

 

Do you pay it or your employer? 

Which with higher premiums reduces other compensation in many cases

 

Medicaid certainly factors in too

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245347/total-medicaid-enrollment-since-1966/

 

expanded benefits as well...do you think ins companies control costs better than the customer?

In todays market they probably do, but it is a market they have created.

[alexey]

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

Do you pay it or your employer? 

Which with higher premiums reduces other compensation in many cases

 

Medicaid certainly factors in too

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245347/total-medicaid-enrollment-since-1966/

 

expanded benefits as well...do you think ins companies control costs better than the customer?

In todays market they probably do, but it is a market they have created.

Right.  So money paid out by my insurance, how is that classified in the "out of pocket vs other people" graph?

 

I do not know how to compare cost control of companies vs customers.  They control costs in very different ways.

[The Sisko]

7 hours ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

It would truly be a Trump move if he and the other idiots on the hill create what's in essence a clone of Obamacare, and use that to "replace" the Democrat version. Trump could then just stamp his name and claim credit for this incredible health care bill, and win bigly.

 

Really though, Republicans have had years to come up with either legitimate improvements to the ACA, or formulate a new system that would be even better (ah hem, single payer), and they best they could do is copy what already exists, and something they politically vilified for years?

If you were smart and cared about either winning elections, the country's well being or both, you'd do exactly this. Sure the media and your opponents would pick up on it but who cares about that while you're basking in the glory of saving the healthcare system and another election win.

 

However we've got a group of true believers on the hill. They sense their chance to gut the New Deal and they're not going to let it slip through their fingers. I'd bet money they get Dump to flip on his pledge not to touch entitlements and then leave him holding the bag. Things will get interesting if he digs his heels in though. If that happens, it's impeachment time. From what I've read, Pence is on board with the Ryan/Droopy plan to "fix" entitlements.

[PeterMP]

14 hours ago, twa said:

 

Percent is same as the share line on yours

Share paid influences choices in most cases and directly relates to rising costs.

 

why bother charting profits when you both guarantee profit and mandate increasing the number of insured?

 

I'm not sure it does, especially in the context of rising out of pocket costs.  Your graph makes it look like out of pocket costs are falling, which it isn't.  Everybody is feeling the increase in rising health care costs, and they continue to go up anyway.

 

(This is the general failure of the right.  They think that health care costs are controlled vs. supply and demand, but in fact they are relatively inelastic in nature.)

 

There is no guarantee of profits for insurance companies, and their profits were rising before the ACA so the money is not really other people's money unless you consider my compensation from my employer other people's money.

 

If insurance companies were seeing income go down, I could see where you MIGHT be able to call it other people's money (i.e. the investors), but in my mind, my compensation for my work is my money.

Edited February 28, 2017 by PeterMP

[The 12th Commandment]

$129,000 for five one hour sessions at the local hospital's infusion center taking a generic cortocosteroid that has been around for 70 years.  Mind blowingly ridiculous.  This **** is going to come to a head soon.  

[twa]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure it does, especially in the context of rising out of pocket costs.  Your graph makes it look like out of pocket costs are falling, which it isn't.  Everybody is feeling the increase in rising health care costs, and they continue to go up anyway.

 

(This is the general failure of the right.  They think that health care costs are controlled vs. supply and demand, but in fact they are relatively inelastic in nature.)

 

There is no guarantee of profits for insurance companies, and their profits were rising before the A

CA so the money is not really other people's money unless you consider my compensation from my employer other people's money.

 

If insurance companies were seeing income go down, I could see where you MIGHT be able to call it other people's money (i.e. the investors), but in my mind, my compensation for my work is my money.

 

Out of pocket costs rise as a result of higher overall costs and increased utilization, DRIVEN by the OPM factor.

The decreasing share encourages it.

The ACA cap on profit simply means rates and subsidies guarantees profit.

 

Hope you are getting a good return on your investment

 

add

were oil prices inelastic?

Edited February 28, 2017 by twa

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, twa said:

 

Out of pocket costs rise as a result of higher overall costs and increased utilization, DRIVEN by the OPM factor.

The decreasing share encourages it.

The ACA cap on profit simply means rates and subsidies guarantees profit.

 

Hope you are getting a good return on your investment

 

add

were oil prices inelastic?

 

Nothing is purely inelastic.  Things are partly inelastic to various degrees.  With respect to oil supply is more elastic than demand, but even combined supply and demand only explain about 85% of changes in oil prices (which means at least currently), there is about a 15% inelastic component to oil prices.

 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ifdp/2016/files/ifdp1173.pdf

 

" We find that (1) oil supply shocks and global demand shocks explain 50 and 35 percent of oil price fluctuations, respectively; (2) a drop in oil prices driven by supply shocks boosts economic activity in advanced economies, whereas it depresses economic activity in emerging economies; and (3) the selection of oil market elasticities is essential for understanding the source of oil price movements and to measuring the multipliers of oil prices on economic activity."

 

(50+35 = 85).

 

I think increased OPM are also partly due to the increase in (higher) deductible plans.  It is not clear to me how a cap on profits can guarantee profits.

Edited March 1, 2017 by PeterMP

[Larry]

19 hours ago, The Sisko said:

 

However we've got a group of true believers on the hill. They sense their chance to gut the New Deal and they're not going to let it slip through their fingers. I'd bet money they get Dump to flip on his pledge not to touch entitlements and then leave him holding the bag. Things will get interesting if he digs his heels in though. If that happens, it's impeachment time. From what I've read, Pence is on board with the Ryan/Droopy plan to "fix" entitlements.

 

That's both the feeling I get, and the future I'm seeing, now days.  (Not necessarily the "impeachment" part.  The "gutting entitlements" part.)  

 

Think it was today I heard a Republican strategist interviewed on NPR, saying that Republicans on the Hill are pushing against Trump's budget proposals because they don't gut entitlements.  

 

 

---

 

10 hours ago, twa said:

The ACA cap on profit simply means rates and subsidies guarantees profit.

 

 

"Caps on profit" equals "guaranteed profit".  

 

If you spin hard enough.  

Edited March 1, 2017 by Larry

[visionary]

 

 

Yeah?

Edited March 1, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 hours ago, visionary said:

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

 

You have got to be ****ting me, right? That didn't actually happen.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[skinsmarydu]

I saw an interview yesterday with a GOPer who said it's under lock & key, no copies were made.  He also said that he thinks the public should be able to inspect it. ...wish I could remember who it was. Had to have been on MoJoe yesterday. 

[Kilmer17]

We have to repeal and replace so we can find out what's in it

[Riggo-toni]

Well...at least it's not gonna be like the Patriot act where almost none of them read it before voting...

[LadySkinsFan]

That's because it's even better for insurance companies and not humans.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

We have to repeal and replace so we can find out what's in it

 

OK, that's one vote for the Congress to discuss their proposal, publicly, for a year.  While actually accepting suggested changes from Democrats, and putting (some of) those changes into the bill.  

 

I could go with that plan, too.  

 

Anybody else?  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

Lol

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

So I saw an ad on TV where a pregnant white chick was crying about losing her insurance, or some BS.  It was an ad asking for support for the republican replacement to ACA.

 

lol

[LadySkinsFan]

Yeah, I support the insurance companies making more profit and screwing over actual humans.

 

/sarcasm off

[Larry]

9 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

Except that what I've at least HEARD is along the lines that GOP Governors who intentionally blocked Medicaid expansion (because they wanted their own constituents to not receive benefits that had a Democrat's name on them), now want the Feds to send them the Medicaid expansion MONEY, without them actually having to, you know, expand Medicaid. 

[skinsmarydu]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Except that what I've at least HEARD is along the lines that GOP Governors who intentionally blocked Medicaid expansion (because they wanted their own constituents to not receive benefits that had a Democrat's name on them), now want the Feds to send them the Medicaid expansion MONEY, without them actually having to, you know, expand Medicaid. 

Heard the same report.  

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by skinsmarydu

[twa]

Block grants were the demand here and remain so....and it does expand Medicaid.

 

but whatever 

[skinny21]

6 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Except that what I've at least HEARD is along the lines that GOP Governors who intentionally blocked Medicaid expansion (because they wanted their own constituents to not receive benefits that had a Democrat's name on them), now want the Feds to send them the Medicaid expansion MONEY, without them actually having to, you know, expand Medicaid. 

Was talking to my wife the other day about this - said it's like giving my kids a cookie for dessert and one of them refusing... only to ask for a bowl of ice cream after the others finish their cookies.  

 

Sidenote - I teach my kids that when playing board games, they need to keep themselves beyond reproach so no one can accuse them of cheating (like no taking turns when someone goes to the bathroom).  It's sad to see adult politicians unable to see this... but this probably applies more to the Rooskie thread... or the cabinet thread.