Posted on 11/12/2016 4:19:09 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to the age of 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.
Let’s say that in the beautiful new world of “repeal and replace,” insurers are required to sell you insurance despite the fact that your kid has a brain tumor. Insurance companies know what to do with that. Their actuaries can calculate that kids with brain tumors typically require (I’m making this number up) about $200,000 a year in medical care. So they’ll offer to sell you a policy at an annual premium of $240,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Absolutely true!
Nor should they get benefits when they get sick when they didn't need, nor have, insurance!
It's a positive no-brainer!
The real issue is, if you've had insurance over the years, and you get sick, then your policy must remain in force without financial penalties! Or else you didn't really have insurance in the first place!!!
That's where the regulatory rhubarb resides.
What did her insurance company hammer it down to? Have ever heard of Chargemaster? AKA the starting point?
If she didn't have insurance, what did she end up having to pay?
good morning. He already stated - during campaigns, that there had to be something for those who really couldn't afford health insurance and offered up that the critical needs would be taken care of bu they wouldn't have all the options of those who were paying for policies that they wanted.
If he were to tell the poor - many who were purposely created by Obama and his disaster of an economy, "Tough luck - suffer until you die, but go away." How do you think that would play out?
Some things we consider less than optimal are necessary evils that can be whittled away at with a sound economic policy and long term movement to require those capable of working to do it if they want any sort of assistance and then make that assistance at a subsistence level to encourage them to do better for themselves or grovel without the amenities - accent on "long term".
Has nothing to do with Obama Care - just a reality whether we like it or not.
We have that already. It's called Obamacare. What you're talking about is Obamacare lite - all the subsidies and most of the costs with less coverage. Where is that an improvement.
If he were to tell the poor - many who were purposely created by Obama and his disaster of an economy, "Tough luck - suffer until you die, but go away." How do you think that would play out?
What is the alternative?
Some things we consider less than optimal are necessary evils that can be whittled away at with a sound economic policy and long term movement to require those capable of working to do it if they want any sort of assistance and then make that assistance at a subsistence level to encourage them to do better for themselves or grovel without the amenities - accent on "long term".
The longer Obamacare or any vestiges of it is retained the less likely it will every be repealed or replaced by anything.
Has nothing to do with Obama Care - just a reality whether we like it or not.
Realty is the poor execution of a great fantasy. The fantasy is a world where everyone can afford comprehensive, affordable healthcare that meets their needs because of a free market insurance industry. The reality is that the healthcare industry is not free market and that government can do nothing to reign in costs short of a single payer government system. There are some things that government cannot fix and cannot make better. This is one. Any replacement for Obamacare will be just as expensive, just as intrusive, and just as big a failure. Time we accepted that.
Some folks refuse to be happy unless they can have it all and the reality is that they will never be happy due to self-imposed denial of reality.
And I want to cancel my policy as soon as the insurance company pays for my accident.
Which were what?
It's gonna take time to transition towards a rational solution.
And that rational solution is what?
Some folks refuse to be happy unless they can have it all and the reality is that they will never be happy due to self-imposed denial of reality.
And some people believe there is a government solution for everything. History has shown that they are wrong more often than not.
The government broke it and is knee-deep in it with un-constitutional laws we can thank Roberts for - the government needs to release its control and allow for a humane transition. Reality bites but it is reality.
Tell me, what would your plan be? You seem good at carping about what you consider to be unsound ideas - just how would you handle it?
EMTALA can be amended.
Which takes care of the "no dying in the streets" promise. So you've just shown there is no reason to replace Obamacare, which is what I have been saying all along.
The government broke it and is knee-deep in it with un-constitutional laws we can thank Roberts for - the government needs to release its control and allow for a humane transition. Reality bites but it is reality.
Humane transition to what? Back to what we had before? Fine with me.
Tell me, what would your plan be? You seem good at carping about what you consider to be unsound ideas - just how would you handle it?
My plan has never changed. Repeal Obamacare, realize that there are some problems government can't solve, and leave it at that.
Must be nice to think things are that simple - just toss the straws, see where they landed and then ignore any issues.
Probably not as nice as believing that the healthcare issue can be solved through a few simplistic ideas.
Your ideas seem more simplistic - just real ObamaCare and let the chips fall where they may - I understand that it will be a pretty complex phasing in of a replacement (and going open market is a replacement).
There are about 11.5 million people getting healthcare coverage through expanded Medicaid and the healthcare exchanges. Of those over 85% are getting subsidies of anywhere from $3000 per year to $6000 per year on average. How are you replacing that with your open market model?
Some people will still be getting 'free" stuff - I'm more curious to see how the Trump administration approaches it than trying to come up with a plan of my own. The freelaoders have been around and the laws have said they can't be turned away, long before ObamaCare came along and there is likely no way to fully eliminate them.
The approaches can be to stop the subsidies and just give them minimal care when emergencies arise or actually insure them in basic/catastrophic plans as it would probably be cheaper than just footing their bills.
Don't know how it will all play out but I do know that many have some really false hopes/expectations - I call them the "All or Nothing" folks who will never be satisfied so they'd just as soon lose as win if they can't have all their dreams come true.
I'm not an expert in the whole deal (and neither are you) but I'm smart enough to know that the complexities will have to be dealt with in a sometimes serial manner and it isn't all gonna be done with a stoke of a pen on a single sheet of paper. Part of the deal will be getting government out of a lot they were in before ObamaCare - they meddled to insist all folks had certain coverage that only a percentage of folks would ever need - making ti more expensive for everyone so certain folks wouldn't have to foot the extra for coverage they might want (think birth control/abortion). They also put up roadblocks to interstate commerce of policies to maintain firm control and stop competition. Then they put extra rules on health savings plans where if you didn't guess right and set aside the right amount of money, you would either end up spending taxable dollars on health care or losing money if you put too much in.
All that will need to be addressed and fixed - it will not be finished overnight and there will always be some getting a free ride - it's called reality.
Free stuff is free stuff. Why would Trump's free stuff be better than Obama's free stuff?
The approaches can be to stop the subsidies and just give them minimal care when emergencies arise or actually insure them in basic/catastrophic plans as it would probably be cheaper than just footing their bills.
In other words, repeal Obamacare but not replace it. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?
I'm not an expert in the whole deal (and neither are you) but I'm smart enough to know that the complexities will have to be dealt with in a sometimes serial manner and it isn't all gonna be done with a stoke of a pen on a single sheet of paper.
And some times a radical solution is the only solution. Continue the subsidies, the "free stuff", and it'll be never ending. End it now and the immediate pain will pass with time. Maybe the insurance industry will come around and decide there's a market for lower-cost insurance that isn't all inclusive and can be priced where people can afford it. Maybe not. But anything the government does in this are will either only make it worse or will be prohibitively expensive. Prolonging the problem won't make it better.
- they meddled to insist all folks had certain coverage that only a percentage of folks would ever need -
That's not entirely Obamacare. Health insurance has never been gender specific so policies you bought before Obamacare covered things like pregnancy and prostate care equally. Obamacare did add drug treatment and mental health and annual physicals which people may or may not use.
They also put up roadblocks to interstate commerce of policies to maintain firm control and stop competition.
Insurance is a contract and as such the states, and not the federal government, has the power to regulate it. But if we were to say 10th Amendment be damned and mandate that the states allow their people to buy insurance from companies who are not currently doing business in their state then the impact it would have on premium costs would likely be zero because there is no incentive for me to buy from them and no incentive for them to sell to me.
Then they put extra rules on health savings plans where if you didn't guess right and set aside the right amount of money, you would either end up spending taxable dollars on health care or losing money if you put too much in.
Health Savings Accounts of the type Trump is talking about have always been multi-year plans where money deposited this year and not used would carry over to the next year. You are confusing those with Healthcare Reimbursement Accounts which are annual only. But those are designed for people with low deductible policies who can accurately forecast their out-of-pocket expenses each year while Heath Savings Accounts are for those with high deductible plans who may be faced with a big payment at some time.
All that will need to be addressed and fixed - it will not be finished overnight and there will always be some getting a free ride - it's called reality.
Reality is that there are some things that the government cannot fix but can only make worse. Healthcare coverage is one of them, and if the Obamacare debacle didn't teach us that then we're in for a long, expensive failing healthcare road.
Doodle along.....
Yes, well whatever.
Atta girl .....
> And some times a radical solution is the only solution. Continue the subsidies, the “free stuff”, and it’ll be never ending. End it now and the immediate pain will pass with time. Maybe the insurance industry will come around and decide there’s a market for lower-cost insurance that isn’t all inclusive and can be priced where people can afford it. Maybe not. But anything the government does in this are will either only make it worse or will be prohibitively expensive. Prolonging the problem won’t make it better.
Singapore is quite successful with a private health insurance for the majority and a medicaid type system for anyone who can’t pay to cover their condition. The costs are low, the healthcare quality is high and people highly rate it. The problem with a purely capitalistic system is that we live in a country where the majority of voters are not willing let people who can’t afford it care die in the streets. We have to deal with that reality by A) Rebuilding our free religious healthcare first or by covering people via the goverment. That’s the reality of the situation that Trump’s dealing with. Since religious based free healthcare seems to be a non starter Singapore’s system seems to be the next best idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.