LadySkinsFan Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Isn't hospice care more palliative than active treatment? These people live/dying in those facilities, there's nursing care, etc. so $4000/month doesn't seem unreasonable. What do you want, forced euthanasia? And I don't mean that in a snarky way. I plan on not living with pain, or beyond when I want, but that's my choice, not rationing of care. Death panels according to the GOP propaganda, who should make those decisions? Rich people will get what they want. The tale of the Rich versus the poor. And you know that gulf is widening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Elessar78 said: It's hospice care, in this case—not life extension. Just making them comfortable. Which is why it is much cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 minute ago, skinsfan_1215 said: I think he meant *politically* smart to make ACA actually as bad as GOP has been claiming for years. I was thinking he thought it was better policy for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just now, tshile said: I was thinking he thought it was better policy for the country. I hope Kilmer doesn't think intentionally making insurance prices spike drastically is a good thing for this country. Although maybe in the long run it will be better off. If the GOP really ****s up insurance and kills ACA, Dems can take back the govt in 2018 and 2020 and pass a real universal healthcare Medicare for all type law. Just will really suck for poor and/or sick people between now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) If only 1.5 B was collected in ACA fines and 7.5 M preferred to pay it in 2015....is it really doing much to keep premiums down? add study shows ACA increased premiums http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#477cc1e846e3 Edited January 23, 2017 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: I hope Kilmer doesn't think intentionally making insurance prices spike drastically is a good thing for this country. Although maybe in the long run it will be better off. If the GOP really ****s up insurance and kills ACA, Dems can take back the govt in 2018 and 2020 and pass a real universal healthcare Medicare for all type law. Just will really suck for poor and/or sick people between now and then. And what the GOP has proven is that they don't care. It will literally cost lives...people, human beings, will get sick, or more sick, and other people, human beings, will die. And they don't care. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: And what the GOP has proven is that they don't care. It will literally cost lives...people, human beings, will get sick, or more sick, and other people, human beings, will die. And they don't care. Yeah. My priest ended mass yesterday promoting the march for life, the sanctity of life, the specialness of life, "all life". Yet his cohorts don't recognize the sanctity in the lives of children and adults and the need to preserve the quality of that life. Hey what do I know? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 minute ago, skinsmarydu said: And what the GOP has proven is that they don't care. It will literally cost lives...people, human beings, will get sick, or more sick, and other people, human beings, will die. And they don't care. If we all paid 100 percent of our income in taxes, but that meant that everyone would be 100 percent healthy and live past 100, would it be worth it? Just matching hyperbole with hyperbole. yes. People die. And some people die because they don't get proper health care. That's happening TODAY even with ACA. My comment about not enforcing the mandate was related to the politics of the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) I don't think not enforcing the mandate is good politics either simply because of the unintended consequences. You really cannot force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and not have a mandate. Put on your business hats and put yourself in the position of being an insurance company for anything. I don't have to get auto insurance until I wreck my car. I don't have to get house insurance until there is a fire, I don't have to get health insurance until I have cancer. Insurance companies would no longer exist. If the mandate was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been a part of the ACA. Edited January 23, 2017 by Hersh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, twa said: If only 1.5 B was collected in ACA fines and 7.5 M preferred to pay it in 2015....is it really doing much to keep premiums down? add study shows ACA increased premiums http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#477cc1e846e3 " They do not account appropriately for substantial subsidies insurers received to discount individual market ACA plan premiums. They also do not consider the trend in medical claims costs, which is presumably a better measure of the ACA’s effect on the individual market thus far given both the large subsidies and large losses insurers have incurred selling ACA plans." Why do (claimed) losses to health insurance companies matter? They still made an over all profit. They've enough profits the last few years, they've been forced to send out rebates for violating the law. Their stock prices are going up. When we talk about premiums, aren't we talking about what actual consumers paid? If a store like Walmart sells something for a loss (like they do on Black Friday), did I the consumer not save money? Or if they made money some other way, did I still not pay less? " The Manhattan Institute compared the average of the five least expensive pre-ACA plans in 2013 with the least expensive plans available on exchanges in 2014. " As I pointed out in my post in the other thread, apples-to-apples comparisons are hard to find. The 5 least expensive pre-ACA plans do not compare to the 5 least expensive plans on the exchange in 2014 because the exchange plans covered things that non-exchange plans in 2013 did not. Obamacare mandated that the insurance cover things that it did not before. Yes, if you are that consumer, you are paying more, but you are also getting more. **EDIT** On the rebates: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/medical-loss-ratio-returns-nearly-2b-to-consumers/ Edited January 23, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: My comment about not enforcing the mandate was related to the politics of the ACA. So you don't so much think it's brilliant to essentially destroy the current system without having a replacement ready. You just think it's good politics for the gop. Which, I agree, it probably is. It's easy to appeal to dumb people with dumb moves. And people who think it's 'good' to destroy aca without having a replacement ready are dumb people who don't understand the system they're vehemently against. Which also says something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Prior to Obamacare, I bought health insurance for my wife for $100. It was cheap because the moment you have a preexisting condition, they could kick you out using all sorts of excuses. What use is a health insurance if it does not protect you from a preexisting condition? Now, I pay more than 300. Am I happy about it? No, but all it means is that the subsidy should cover more people. Even Obama said that was the right thing to do. There is a youtube video of Obama discussing this. bIt was set up by Vox. And I agree with him. If the middle class also received subsidy, and by a higher amount, a lot of people would be happier. Basically, if you make less than 400% of the poverty level, you get some subsidy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said: Moving this line of thought here. Not enforcing the the individual mandate=brilliant. Well, it's certainly a great move, politically. Its no no doubt the most hated portion of the law. And its it's something that (I think) he can do, on his own, without Congress. Although I confess I'm not certain of that. It sounds to me like what he's proposing, is ordering the IRS to not collect taxes that are due. But then, I do believe in the Executive having broad powers to choose not to enforce some laws. And I could see this being considered that way. And I think I'm reading you correctly, that you think it's good politics, because it will result in lots of people losing insurance, but the GOP can pretend that they didn't do it. Edited January 23, 2017 by Larry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, redskins59 said: Prior to Obamacare, I bought health insurance for my wife for $100. It was cheap because the moment you have a preexisting condition, they could kick you out using all sorts of excuses. This is a huge problem. People recall their cheaper healthcare that would have bankrupted them (in any number of ways) had a serious medical condition actually come up. But they were 28 years old, single, and that ****tastic health insurance was cheap 10 years ago. Now they're married, with two kids, and have to have insurance that... actually protects them... and it's way more expensive, and they're completely unable to connect the dots. Then they take umbrage when someone points out they might not be thinking too critically on this one... 5 minutes ago, Larry said: Well, it's certainly a great move, politically. Its no no doubt the most hated portion of the law. And its it's something that (I think) he can do, on his own, without Congress. Although I confess I'm not certain of that. It sounds to me like what he's proposing, is ordering the IRS to not collect taxes that are due. But then, I do believe in the Executive having broad powers to choose not to enforce some laws. And I could see this being considered that way. If Obama can have the DEA not enforce federal laws about drugs, I'd think Trump could have the IRS not collect the tax that enforces the mandate. I don't like either, and I think this is a terrible way of implementing policy, but if one is allowed to do it I don't see why the other shouldn't be. Edited January 23, 2017 by tshile 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) The executive order supposedly means that the penalty for not buying insurance may not be collected. This automatically means higher premium for everybody. This may occur in 2018 IMO. We are safe this year. However, it means that Trump better find a solution within a year. Edited January 23, 2017 by redskins59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just spitballing, here. But does Trump have the authority to, say, announce that he is pardoning all corporate income taxes? In effect, eliminating the tax? Heck, I think he could "pardon in advance" any corporation who chooses not to file corporate income taxes. (Thus getting rid of any ability to calculate how much his tax cut added to the deficit). (No, I'm not advocating it. More along the lines of idly speculating on just how much power the dude has, to really **** things up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, redskins59 said: The executive order supposedly means that the penalty for mot buying insurance may not be collected. This automatically means higher premium for everybody. This may occur in 2018 IMO. We are safe this year. However, it means that Trump better find a solution within a year. Brilliant political timing. HIgher premiums the year(s) before election. Take away voters' health insurance in the election year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Elessar78 said: Brilliant political timing. HIgher premiums the year(s) before election. Take away voters' health insurance in the election year. Tell them it's all Obama's fault, and they're working really hard to fix it, but Obama screwed it up so bad it's hard and will take a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, tshile said: Tell them it's all Obama's fault, and they're working really hard to fix it, but Obama screwed it up so bad it's hard and will take a while. GOP has owned messaging for quite some time so they can probably pull it off. When the most popular "news" network is a de facto propaganda arm of the GOP, it makes it a lot easier to do that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: yes. People die. And some people die because they don't get proper health care. That's happening TODAY even with ACA. So if 43,000 MORE people die. You're cool with that?https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-than-43000-people-annually/?utm_term=.6c7c4486df7c 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: GOP has owned messaging for quite some time so they can probably pull it off. When the most popular "news" network is a de facto propaganda arm of the GOP, it makes it a lot easier to do that. the way the media covered the 2016 election is not helping. they've galvanized that group of people into thinking everyone else is simply against them by virtue of reporting information that conflicts with their opinions. and i, for one second, don't absolve those outlets of responsibility in that. they all covered trump non-stop when it was convenient for their ratings. very few of them ever held him accountable for the various issues in what he said (including constantly contradicting himself, and in general having no plan.) they've all used their privilege to push stories that fit their narrative, and have been caught being sloppy or in some cases just outright lying. so yeah, we now have a portion of the country that simply calls information that conflicts with their opinion fake. i do not see any way to reach these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Larry said: Just spitballing, here. But does Trump have the authority to, say, announce that he is pardoning all corporate income taxes? In effect, eliminating the tax? Heck, I think he could "pardon in advance" any corporation who chooses not to file corporate income taxes. (Thus getting rid of any ability to calculate how much his tax cut added to the deficit). (No, I'm not advocating it. More along the lines of idly speculating on just how much power the dude has, to really **** things up.) The POTUS directs the enforcement arms, though as Obama found out the court can rule against him. But the only real check on his discretion is Congress removing him.. I will note Obama delayed ACA mandates/rules already unilaterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 10 hours ago, Mad Mike said: One person dying is a tragedy. 43000 is a statistic. Take emotion out of the equation and we can all start having a true conversation about the issue. Of course I don't want 43000 people to die. But would you be willing to pay 100% tax rate to keep them alive? Or is there probably a realistic number in between "let them all die" and "save them all at any cost"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Removing emotion is hard. If you can provide healthcare to all by eliminating extraordinary effort/care by medical staff to the very elderly or terminal cases would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now