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

[Larry]

Yes, I'm aware that profit is a part of our health care system. But is it really a big part?  

 

Remember, one part of Obamacare was that 80% of the money insurance companies take in, have to go out the door in the form of checks to providers. That means all of the company's costs have to come out of the other 20%. (And their profit is a small part of that). And they picked 20% because most companies were already meeting that. 

 

(And note:. This limitation means that it's to the company's advantage to reduce overhead as much as possible, because that comes out of their profit). 

 

(I also note that GOPcare eliminates that requirement). 

[LD0506]

Quote

Investors are reaping major rewards as well. In the first nine months of the year, UnitedHealth spent $1.1 billion in share repurchases and $1.7 billion in direct dividend cash payments to shareholders, according to its quarterly filing. From 2012 to 2015, UnitedHealth spent $12.6 billion in buybacks and dividends. Because most revenue for health insurers comes from insurance premiums, any cash doled out to shareholders essentially behaves as a transfer of wealth from a consumer’s health care budget to an investor’s annual capital gains income.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/making-a-killing-under-obamacare-the-aca-gets-the-blame-for-rising-premiums-while-insurance-companies-are-reaping-massive-profits/

 

That is from 2016 under the ACA, even a cursory look at Trumpcare shows that this will accelerate.

[killerbee99]

42 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Reduce waste and overhead via expanded coverage and/or consolidated coverage. Reducing unpaid bills to zero saves a ton of money. Moving from insurance model to single payer model eliminates the need for profit, and the consolidation also reduces overhead (with the side effect of course of significant job reduction). I'm skeptical about how much savings would actually be realized by having the govt negotiate prices with providers, but in theory you could see that. 

 

Witch !!!....burn him at the stake he said "single payer model"........lol

[PF Chang]

As with everything Republicans do, the point of this bill is to provide a tax cut for the rich. They don't care about the collateral damage.

 

When the negative effects happen the GOP will find a way to blame Obama. There is really no need to even be in the ballpark of truth anymore. If the CBO says the plan sucks, it's because the CBO is a liberal conspiracy. 

[killerbee99]

5 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/making-a-killing-under-obamacare-the-aca-gets-the-blame-for-rising-premiums-while-insurance-companies-are-reaping-massive-profits/

 

That is from 2016 under the ACA, even a cursory look at Trumpcare shows that this will accelerate.

 

This is what I explain to everyone, most of the Insurance providers pulled out from Obamacare because their massive profits shrank and shareholders were pissed.....but it is easier to blame Obamacare for rising premiums, when its Insurance companies trying to maintain their obscene profits.

[Larry]

deleted post. I misread a post. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Larry

[killerbee99]

Just now, PF Chang said:

As with everything Republicans do, the point of this bill is to provide a tax cut for the rich. They don't care about the collateral damage.

 

When the negative effects happen the GOP will find a way to blame Obama. There is really no need to even be in the ballpark of truth anymore. If the CBO says the plan sucks, it's because the CBO is a liberal conspiracy. 

 

Uhmm...it's not called the truth anymore...it's called alternative facts and most Republicans are fine with that ****.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm a healthcare attorney specializing in hospital and physician reimbursement. Ask me anything about this bill.

[killerbee99]

Lombardi, what is wrong with Obamacare and how can it be fixed/. Like is there anything fundamentally wrong with it  or does it need some tweaks?

 

secondly, what the hell is this new bill ,and why are essential healthcare services being dropped from state requirements?

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I'm a healthcare attorney specializing in hospital and physician reimbursement. Ask me anything about this bill.

 

Whats happening with the employer mandate?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Whats happening with the employer mandate?

 

How the **** would I know? The bill isn't written yet.

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

How the **** would I know? The bill isn't written yet.

 

Thanks!

[gbear]

Will medical bills and insurance premiums for the insured increase as the number of uninsured getting treatment (through the ER or other routes) they can not afford increases?  That was always explained to me as part of my hospital bill.

 

Will we see an increase in the number of medical bankruptcies (already number 1 cause of personal bankruptcies)?

 

If the government saves money by reducing Medicaid enrollment, how much of that will be spent covering ER visits by the uninsured and other costs? 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 minutes ago, gbear said:

Will medical bills and insurance premiums for the insured increase as the number of uninsured getting treatment (through the ER or other routes) they can not afford increases?  That was always explained to me as part of my hospital bill.

 

Will we see an increase in the number of medical bankruptcies (already number 1 cause of personal bankruptcies)?

 

If the government saves money by reducing Medicaid enrollment, how much of that will be spent covering ER visits by the uninsured and other costs? 

 

How the **** would I know? The bill isn't written yet.

 

Honestly, I have no freaking idea what is in this current bill. None. And I'm trying.

[The Sisko]

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yes, I'm aware that profit is a part of our health care system. But is it really a big part?  

 

Remember, one part of Obamacare was that 80% of the money insurance companies take in, have to go out the door in the form of checks to providers. That means all of the company's costs have to come out of the other 20%. (And their profit is a small part of that). And they picked 20% because most companies were already meeting that. 

 

(And note:. This limitation means that it's to the company's advantage to reduce overhead as much as possible, because that comes out of their profit). 

 

(I also note that GOPcare eliminates that requirement). 

 

Regulating loss ratios was one of the best things about Obamacare.

 

20 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

As with everything Republicans do, the point of this bill is to provide a tax cut for the rich. They don't care about the collateral damage.

 

When the negative effects happen the GOP will find a way to blame Obama. There is really no need to even be in the ballpark of truth anymore. If the CBO says the plan sucks, it's because the CBO is a liberal conspiracy. 

 

You think there was a reason they chose to name it the "American Health Care Act"? Nah, they'd never think to use their bill having the same acronym as Obamacare for political gain. 

[gbear]

Lombardi, I wasn't trying to pick on you.  I too am just trying to read and understand what they are planning in an effort to understand how they think this should unfold.  I am trying to understand what the goals are and how they are accomplished with this bill.

 

I get the tax relief as they repeal the ACA taxes and why many of their powerful constituents want that,

 

I sort of understand the reluctance over the insurance mandate, except we, the insured, end up covering the uninsured through increased medical bills and insurance premiums,  However, it requires a broader lens to see this because at first look someone else's decision to have or not have insurance shouldn't impact me, but it does.

 

I sort of understand the insurance across state lines, but is the issue with insurance or underserved markets for medical services.  The areas I heard where there was only one insurer seemed very rural.  If a geography has few medical providers, they can charge whatever they want.  This will drive up medical costs and consequently insurance costs.  However, if much of the population is poor then most won't be able to afford the insurance without government subsidies.  Look at where the insurance premiums rose the most.  How do these areas correlate with underserved medical markets and high costs for care?  We quickly assume the increase in costs is due to the ACA, but is it?  I ask, honestly not knowing the answer/rout cause,  I want to hope the Republicans crafting the bill are looking at causes not just snap shots of selected facts picked to tell a predetermined narrative.

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I was being ironic.

 

The premise behind the ACA was actually fairly simple.

 

There are two groups of people in this country without insurance.

 

1. Old people have Medicare.

2. Children either have their parents' insurance or CHIPS (thanks Hillary). If a child doesn't have health insurance at this point, it's because the parent/parents are not really educated.

3. Very poor people have Medicaid.

4. Rich people are rich.

5. Middle class/upper middle class still largely have employer sponsored plans.

 

There are really only two groups that don't have coverage.

 

1. Older people that make $14 or $15 an hour without an employer plan. They don't qualify for Medicaid; they don't make enough to pay out of pocket.

2. Young people that are either students or are in that same $14 or $15 an hour camp.

 

The ACA was really focused on them.

 

The idea was twofold:

 

1. Expand Medicaid to give people at the bottom of those group's coverage.

2. Create the marketplace to give the people at the top of that group (and the rare well off but not wealthy self employed people - like, say, a realtor) more options.

 

Medicaid expansion got screwed up because places like my state refused to opt in. Their argument was that the funding would dry up after a few years and also it's communism or something. The marketplaces got screwed up because not enough people went to them.

 

If you eliminate pre-existing condition denials and you eliminate lifetime caps, you are dramatically increasing costs for the insurers. If you dramatically increase costs, you are going to dramatically increase the price of a policy unless you drive a whole lot of healthy people into the plans. The entire idea of the marketplace was that young strapping bucks like SHF who never use health insurance would essentially be subsidizing old dying people like McSluggo and Predicto.

 

The young strapping bucks didn't materialize even with the threat of IRS penalty. I think having an additional public option available would have flattened the costs in the marketplace, but the issue has always been balancing the number of healthy people with the number of sick people.

 

The problem with the Republican bill is really fundamental.

 

Instead of figuring out how to get more young, sexy healthy people into the pool. They are disincentivizing them. No mandate. No subsidies.

 

However, they are still forcing insurance companies to cover the old and the sick and the dying.

 

Now, they are giving tax breaks and the ability to apply huge big penalties to people who don't sign up - money in the carriers' pocket rather than money in the IRS' pocket.

 

But the money ain't going to be enough.

 

And moreover, they cutting down the Medicaid expansion - which is only going to drive more sick people to the private carriers.

 

The math didn't really work under ACA, but it was theoretically possible....and probably fixable.

 

The math is just flat-out impossosible under the Republican plan, and I think the concessions Trump gave the Freedom Caucus only make it worse.

 

Here is my prediction.......

 

This is going to go fail at some point in the next month. Trump who has no patience for legislative sausage making is going to take his ball and go home....and blame Paul Ryan and the entire GOP.

 

At that point, Nancy Pelosi is going to show up at the White House with some bills.

 

What if we expanded Medicaid and maybe lowered the age for Medicare eligibility, Mr. President and just scrapped that nasty Obamacare bill all together. In other words, we get more poor people covered AND we get a lot more older, sicker people covered.....and get rid of everything else. You get to keep your promise of repeal and replace and we get what we want.....which is this beautiful infrastructure bill.....and look at item #1: a big, beautiful wall on the Southern border. You get, Mr. Trump. You get repeal, you get the wall, and you get infrastructure. You get the deal you want.

 

And all you have to do is: Sign off on all these wonderful infrastructure programs....OH and legalize all the Dreamers, and, um, their parents.

 

What do you say?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[killerbee99]

3 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I was being ironic.

 

Well then you suck, thought you had answers, because obviously Republicans don't have clear answers at this point....lol

[TradeTheBeal!]

We know for sure that the pre-existing clause will remain intact.  Trump would never allow that to be removed...the health and welfare of  the working-class is his great passion and the cornerstone of his life's work.  It's all he ever thinks about.

[Hersh]

The amount of alternative facts being spewed by some in the GOP attempting to defend this mess is staggering. I'm pretty sure Tom Coburn just said we won't know what's in the bill until it's passed cause health care is complicated.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Hersh

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

19 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

We know for sure that the pre-existing clause will remain intact.  Trump would never allow that to be removed...the health and welfare of  the working-class is his great passion and the cornerstone of his life's work.  It's all he ever thinks about.

 

It's incredibly popular. Cutting that clause will get everyone defeated in a primary.

 

It's also the one thing that makes this incredibly difficult to pay for.

 

If I'm an insurance company, and a 50 year old, 400 pound guy with diabetes calls me and wants a policy....why would I ever cover that dude? I know I'm paying $200,000 on him in the next ten years.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by visionary

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I keep hearing the lyrics from Hamilton.

 

"You don't have the votes....."

 

If this fails, Obama should give a speech tonight saying, "Such a blunder. Sometimes it makes me wonder why I even bring the thunder."