Paul Ryan’s plan to phase out Medicare is just what Democrats need

[boutons_deux]

bout, would you please post the link to the original CBS poll (not some article that mentions it) so I can check?



Do you have internet access? "Do Your Own Research" -- WC

you may not grasp this, but there's a difference between "wanting ACA repealed" and "dis/approving ACA"

ACA has saved 1000s of lives, reduced pain and suffering, esp among Trash's rural sickos.

A lot of original DISapprovers wanted ACA to go much further, right up to Medicare for all.

[rmt]

Do you have internet access? "Do Your Own Research" -- WC

you may not grasp this, but there's a difference between "wanting ACA repealed" and "dis/approving ACA"

ACA has saved 1000s of lives, reduced pain and suffering, esp among Trash's rural sickos.

A lot of original DISapprovers wanted ACA to go much further, right up to Medicare for all.

Fine, I won't waste my time. Go ahead and believe these polls after what happened with the election.

[boutons_deux]

Fine, I won't waste my time. Go ahead and believe these polls after what happened with the election.

exactly, all polls are totally useless, no information, no institutions, no govt are trustworthy, so believe Trash, Breitbart, right-wing-hate-media, VRWC propaganda

Pootin loves your kind of ignorance

[boutons_deux]

GOP governors who turned down Medicaid money have hands out

Republican governors who turned down billions in federal dollars from an expansion of Medicaid under President Barack Obama's health care law

now have their hands out in hopes the GOP Congress comes up with a new formula to provide insurance for low–income Americans.

"Do I think that Obamacare can be dramatically improved? I do," Kasich told reporters this month.

"Do I want to see a repeal of the expansion of Medicaid? I don't."

https://www.mdlinx.com/nephrology/medical-news-article/2017/01/20/medicare-obamacare-trump-obama-governor-medicaid/7017481/

Obviously White Man's Taxpayer Money is better than Black Man's Taxpayer Money.

[boutons_deux]

GOP senators unveil ObamaCare replacement bill

Two Republican senators on Monday unveiled one of the first ObamaCare replacement bills of the new Congress -- a state-centric plan they admit is imperfect but describe as a tangible start to overhauling the 2010 health care law on a bipartisan basis.

“We recognize that our bill is not perfect,” :lol said Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who introduced the 2017 Patient Freedom :lol Act with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician and fellow Republican.

“We need comprehensive legislation,” Collins continued. “It’s still a work in progress. ... But if we don’t start putting specific legislation on the table that can be debated, refined, amended and enacted, then we will fail the American people.” :lol Y'all assholes gonna fail the American people

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/gop-senators-unveil-obamacare-replacement-bill.html

[baseline bum]

GOP senators unveil ObamaCare replacement bill

Two Republican senators on Monday unveiled one of the first ObamaCare replacement bills of the new Congress -- a state-centric plan they admit is imperfect but describe as a tangible start to overhauling the 2010 health care law on a bipartisan basis.

“We recognize that our bill is not perfect,” :lol said Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who introduced the 2017 Patient Freedom :lol Act with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician and fellow Republican.

“We need comprehensive legislation,” Collins continued. “It’s still a work in progress. ... But if we don’t start putting specific legislation on the table that can be debated, refined, amended and enacted, then we will fail the American people.” :lol Y'all assholes gonna fail the American people

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/gop-senators-unveil-obamacare-replacement-bill.html

:lol McConnel saying 8 of 10 Americans want Obamacare replaced.

[boutons_deux]

ACA sign up until 31 Jan. I bet the Repugs don't publish the final numbers and/or block CMS from publishing them.

fuck the Repugs to hell. Nothing but bad faith from those assholes

from a month ago:

Obamacare 2017 enrollment hits record, despite Trump's threat to repeal

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/21/news/economy/obamacare-enrollment-record/

[boutons_deux]

:lol McConnel saying 8 of 10 Americans want Obamacare replaced.

??? I thought Repugs, esp ST assholes, say all polls are wrong, like Trash denying his approval is a shitty 37% ? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Conservative realizes Obamacare repeal is stupid ... politically anyway (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/25/1625041/-Conservative-realizes-Obamacare-repeal-is-stupid-politically-anyway)

. Pundit Matt Lewis is the latest to wake up (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/25/maybe-on-obamacare-republicans-should-just-punt.html) to reality.


Conservative philosophy—from Burke to Hayek—suggests that comprehensive plans are a fatal conceit; the world is too complex to plan. The notion that Republicans could magically “fix” the largest sector of the world’s largest economy is dubious, at best.But that ship has sailed. No matter the fate of the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama already accomplished a huge legacy-guaranteeing paradigm shift: It is now understood that it is the federal government’s job to make sure everyone has access to health care insurance.

Even President Donald Trump agrees with this promise of universal coverage, telling The Washington Post recently: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody… There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” […]
Should Republicans actually kick off a new administration by engaging in a fool’s errand that is almost guaranteed to backfire?

Sometimes you have to punt.


Lewis talked to James C. Capretta, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who got there way before him:


"The idea that in this new political era, Congress and this new administration are going to remake health care is not realistic."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/25/1625041/-Conservative-realizes-Obamacare-repeal-is-stupid-politically-anyway?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Trash, Repugs claim "everybody will be covered" under Repugocare, but they critically don't mention at what cost.

Everybody has FOREVER been covered, it was just too expensive for 10Ms.

[boutons_deux]

Trump vows to cover more people at less cost — instead of letting Obamacare ‘explode’ to punish Dems

but he instead promised to provide better health care coverage at a lower cost.

During an interview with ABC News (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/full-transcript-president-donald-trumps-interview-abc-news/), the president offered a broadly sketched outline of what his replacement for Obamacare might be, although

his proposal offered few specifics. Trash? specifics? :lol

“Here’s what I can assure you —

we are going to have a better plan,

much better health care,

much better service treatment,

a plan where you can have access to the doctor that you want and

the plan that you want,” Trump said.

“We’re gonna have a much better health care plan at much less money.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trump-vows-to-cover-more-people-at-less-cost-instead-of-letting-obamacare-explode-to-punish-dems/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Less cost means less profits for health care industry, but nobody touches their cheese

iow, HE'S LYING

[baseline bum]

Of course he's lying, his mouth is moving.

[boutons_deux]

In leaked audio, Republicans destroy their own public talking points on Obamacare

The Post’s Mike DeBonis has obtained leaked audio of Republicans at a closed-door session airing serious anxieties about the GOP’s strategy to repeal and replace Obamacare (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/behind-closed-doors-republican-lawmakers-fret-about-how-to-repeal-obamacare/2017/01/27/deabdafa-e491-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1485542333&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.1eccf2fa773c). What’s remarkable is how decisively their specific comments in private undercut the party’s public, carefully-crafted talking points about the battle to come.

Now, to be clear, these private comments reveal Republicans actually wrestling with the policy challenges that repeal (and replace) will create, which is a good thing as far as it goes.

However, in so doing, they basically admit in various ways that Republicans will be responsible for the mess that repealing the law — which would probably be done on a delay while Republicans come up with a replacement — is expected to make.

For instance:



Senators and House members expressed a range of concerns about the task ahead:

how to prepare a replacement plan that can be ready to launch at the time of repeal;

how to avoid deep damage to the health insurance market;

how to keep premiums affordable for middle-class families;

even how to avoid the political consequences of defunding Planned Parenthood, the women’s health-care organization, as many Republicans hope to do with the repeal of the ACA.

“We’d better be sure that we’re prepared to live with the market we’ve created” with repeal, said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).

“That’s going to be called Trumpcare. :lol

Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we’ll be judged in the election less than two years away.”


The notion that Republicans will have “created” the state of the market that results after repeal, and that they will “own” that outcome, is refreshing to hear.

Republicans have employed a series of overwrought formulations (http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/05/ryan-obamacare-phaseout-leave-no-one-worse-off/94998966/) and tortured metaphors (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/12/the-gops-obamacare-problem-perfectly-captured-in-one-awful-talking-point/?utm_term=.3b689a9b9e16) that are designed to suggest that, because Obamacare is already allegedly collapsing, Republicans are merely stepping in with a “rescue mission (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/the-gop-wants-to-repeal-obamacare-in-a-fast-paced-rescue-mission--except-not-really/2017/01/12/8b4a6ab6-d8c5-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.774a54347858)” to arrest that damage, while building a “bridge (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/04/the-battle-over-obamcare-repeal-starts-right-now-are-republicans-going-wobbly/)” to an as-yet-unspecified replacement.

The game there has been to preemptively lay the groundwork to claim later that whatever consequences are unleashed by repealing the law were already in motion, and were not created by repeal itself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/27/in-leaked-audio-republicans-destroy-their-own-public-talking-points-on-obamacare/?utm_term=.b6e0ea2e3a84&wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

Repugs are SO FUCKED! :lol

[boutons_deux]

'Negotiator' Trump caves to big pharma (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/31/1628064/--Negotiator-Trump-caves-to-big-pharma)

Today, after a meeting with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives, he abandoned that pledge, referring to an idea he supported as recently as three weeks ago as a form of “price fixing” that would hurt “smaller, younger companies.”

Instead of getting tough, Trump’s new plan is that he’s “going to be lowering taxes” and “getting rid of regulations.” […]As recently as January 11, President-elect Trump was promising to revisit this policy.

"Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there's very little bidding on drugs," he said at a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan.

"We're the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don't bid properly." :lol

Today he apparently changed his mind. According to Herb Jackson, the designated pool reporter for the day,

Trump's new policy on prescription drugs is that drug companies should get tax cuts and deregulation. :lol

Competition through corporate tax cuts and deregulation, at the cost of people on Medicare, :lol which is pretty much Paul Ryan's wet dream.

As for Medicare price-fixing, who knows what he means, but it's probably this (https://twitter.com/onceuponA/status/826489535802519553): "someone, somewhere, probably tried to explain formularies to him. (I suspect it didn't take.)"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/31/1628064/--Negotiator-Trump-caves-to-big-pharma?detail=email&link_id=6&can_id=4217e8eb109c68bd0c2e4143dd2d8c15&source=email-mcconnell-demands-democrats-treat-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-like-republicans-treated-obamas&email_referrer=mcconnell-demands-democrats-treat-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-like-republicans-treated-obamas___161006&email_subject=democrats-consider-surrendering-to-trump-on-supreme-court-they-must-want-to-destroy-their-party

What a "deal"! :lol

Trash fucking over his voters, as predicted.

Easier, faster drug approval, with BigPharma continuing hide, even more, the negative outcomes of their self-interested "testing", means even more patients sickened, maimed, killed by BigPharma, for profit.

[boutons_deux]

5 Things The GOP Won’t Tell You About Obamacare

1. If they go through with any substantive repeal of the Affordable Care Act, they probably won’t be able to replace it — ever.

If you want to cover “everybody,” you either have to establish some meaningless standard for coverage that evaporates any time you have an ailment bigger than half a hangnail, or you have to spend money — even more than the billions of dollars Republicans are eager to give back to the richest Americans (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aca-repeal-would-lavish-medicare-tax-cuts-on-400-highest-income-households). “If you end it in three years without a replacement, what Republican is going to vote for a tax increase to fund it?” asked Senator Bob Corker (R-TN). “I don’t know any.”

2. Repeal isn’t inevitable.

“Right after the election, Republicans vowed to have a repeal bill on Trump’s desk on January 20,” Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, told me. “That timeline has already slipped, and is slipping even more as we speak.” Senate Republicans have shown they have the simple majority they need for repeal, but about a half dozen of their 52 members have expressed concerns about repealing Obamacare without a decent replacement. That’s more than enough to create uncertainty.

3. If Trump has an actual plan to cover everybody, Republicans would be his problem.

“Most fundamentally, [Republicans] have no idea how to keep their promise to cover as many people as the Affordable Care Act,” Spiro explained. “That’s because it’s a false promise: Expanding and maintaining coverage is not, and has never been, their goal. But they just can’t seem to come out and admit that they don’t care if people lose coverage.”

Trump told The Washington Post, “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it.” The “circles” he’s referring to are better known as “The Republican Party.”
4. Repeal could weaken everyone’s insurance.

Obamacare removed both yearly and lifetime caps on insurance, something you only probably noticed if you or a family member has had a serious illness. As Spiro notes, it also expanded free coverage of preventive services like colon cancer screening, mammograms, and flu shots. And it put a limit on what insurance companies can charge for out-of-pocket costs. All of that affects even those who get insurance at work.

5. If a replacement plan did pass, it would leave Republicans open to the fiercest attack they made on the ACA.

Having no ability to repeal the law gave Republicans the freedom to attack Obamcare for offering their favorite kind of insurance — high-deductible plans that force consumers to think about price as they make medical decisions. GOP proposals “offer threadbare, catastrophic coverage with enormous deductibles,” New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/repeal-and-delay-is-forever.html). “The English vernacular term for the kind of insurance Republican health care plans would offer is ‘crappy.’ ”

Trump promised us “something terrific.”

He just didn’t explain it was a terrific mess that could end with Americans finally discovering how much they had gained,

right as he takes it away.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-things-the-gop-wont-tell-you-about-obamacare/

[boutons_deux]

Some Republicans Now Think They Should Repair Obamacare, Not Repeal It

The Hill reports that Republicans are gradually backing off their promise to repeal Obamacare: (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/317441-gop-talk-shifts-from-replacing-obamacare-to-repairing-it)

Key Republican lawmakers are shifting their goal on ObamaCare from repealing and replacing the law to the more modest goal of repairing it.


....“I think it is more accurate to say repair ObamaCare because, for example, in the reconciliation procedure that we have in the Senate, we can't repeal all of ObamaCare,” [Sen. Lamar] Alexander said. “ObamaCare wasn't passed by reconciliation, it can't be repealed by reconciliation. So we can repair the individual market, which is a good place to start."

....Lawmakers have already started to face crowds of constituents concerned about what repeal might do to their own healthcare....Other lawmakers are worried repeal could cause chaos in the insurance market that would be politically damaging to Republicans, or simply that their constituents could lose coverage under repeal.



Even if it's a good idea, which is debatable, older people will obviously hate it. AARP is already calling out the dogs. (http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-01-2017/aarp-opposes-age-rating-bill-threatens-drive-up-health-costs.html) And since older people tend to be Republicans, why would Republicans want to piss them off? It's all very mysterious.


every other insurer is doing the same. They need to know what Republicans plan to do before they commit to anything for 2018. And if they don't commit, there are going to be millions of registered voters who will lose their insurance and then descend on their members of Congress like a plague of angry locusts.

The clock is ticking.



http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/some-republicans-now-think-they-should-repair-obamacare-not-repeal-it

Repugs are so fucked!

[boutons_deux]

Here's why Repugs are gonna screw 10Ms of people out of health insurance, health care

A look at the $1.1 trillion in taxes over 10 years imposed by former President Barack Obama's health care overhaul

-- 3.8% tax on investment income over $200,000 for individuals, $250,000 for couples: $223 billion in revenue over 10 years

.—tax penalty on larger employers not providing health insurance to workers: $178 billion.

—annual fee on health insurance companies: $130 billion.

—0.9% Medicare surtax on income over $220,000 for individuals, $250,000 for couples: $123 billion.

—"Cadillac" tax on value of high–cost employer provided health insurance: $79 billion.

—deductibility of medical costs exceeding 10 percent of people's income, raised from prior 7.5% threshold: $40 billion.

—tax penalty on individuals who don't obtain health insurance: $38 billion.

—annual fee on makers and importers of prescription drugs: $30 billion.

—2.3% tax on makers and importers of some medical devices, exempts consumer products such as eye glasses: $20 billion.

—$2,500 annual limit on employee contributions to flexible spending accounts for medical costs (cap grows with inflation): $32 billion.

—10% tax on indoor tanning services: $800 million.

https://www.mdlinx.com/nephrology/medical-news-article/2017/02/14/obama-tax-health-insurance-medical-replace/7054992/

Repugs gonna cut the taxes on the wealthy and everywhere else,

then won't have money to pay for whatevr TF their plan will be, Ms of people will suffer and even die for want of healthcare

so their plan will not be as good as ACA, and they will "pay for" it by gutting the social safety net

[boutons_deux]

Trump administration unveils 'Trumpcare'—higher costs for less coverage for middle-income Americans (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/15/1634159/-Trump-administration-unveils-Trumpcare-higher-costs-for-less-coverage-for-middle-income-Americans)

These new regulations (http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/trump-administrations-new-health-rule-would-reduce-tax-credits-raise-costs-for) would allow insurance companies to sell plans with higher deductibles and narrower networks and reduce the subsidies that low- and middle-income families get to purchase insurance. Yes, higher out-of-pocket costs and less help buying insurance. For the people that have the hardest time affording insurance and medical care.


If finalized as proposed, the rule would reduce the amount of health care that marketplace plans have to cover.

That would allow individual-market insurers to offer plans with higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs than they can now sell through the marketplaces.

It would also have the hidden impact of reducing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) premium tax credits, which help moderate-income marketplace consumers afford health care.

As a result, the rule would force millions of families to choose between higher premiums and worse coverage.

[…]The Administration argues that

allowing less generous health plans,

with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs but lower premiums,

will give consumers more choices, :lol the magic "choice" :lol

draw more people into the marketplace, and, in this way, stabilize the market.

But, in fact, this provision of the rule will do just the opposite.




Due to the impact on premium tax credits, it will mainly serve to

make marketplace coverage more expensive for marketplace consumers.

Together with other provisions of the rule, that will

almost certainly result in lower enrollment and a weaker risk pool which, in turn, will weaken market stability.

Moreover, the rule does nothing to dispel the main source of uncertainty and instability currently affecting the marketplace:

the looming threat that congressional Republicans will repeal the ACA, without enacting a comprehensive replacement.


These elements are in some of the Republican proposals for "replacing" Obamacare because Republicans don't care if you have to bankrupt yourself and your family to have health care. But make no mistake: if these rules are approved and put in place,

they will begin to erode Obamacare and its protections, and Republicans are going to own that.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/02/15/1634159/-Trump-administration-unveils-Trumpcare-higher-costs-for-less-coverage-for-middle-income-Americans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Only the beginning but an strong indication of where the Repug MUST go: higher costs and shittier coverage.

[boutons_deux]

Administration Moves To Block Access To Health Insurance


They can’t repeal Obamacare, so the Trump White House wants to make it much harder for you to get insurance with it.

The Trump administration is moving to make it harder for you to get health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

The net effect of the proposals would be significantly greater regulatory and paperwork burdens for both consumers and health insurance exchanges, the opposite of Trump’s promise during the campaign and since taking office.

The proposed rules also would lower the percentage of expenses that insurers must cover, forcing patients to pay more for their health care (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/02/15/415237/for-the-insurance-lobby-old-habits-are-hard-to-break/).

Andy Slavitt, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the Trump administration has created a “manufactured crisis” in the Affordable Care Act (http://www.the-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20170215/AP/302159810/TrumphealthofficialsproposeruletoshoreupAffordable CareActmarketplaces) with talk of a repeal and not enforcing rules.

About 650,000 more people would have to submit documents to verify that they can get health insurance. Among those affected are newlyweds, people switching insurance because of a life event such as losing a job and Native Americans.

This is just some of the fine print in the 71-page proposed regulation (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-03027.pdf) that the Department of Health and Human Services unveiled Wednesday, just days after Tom Price was sworn in as the new Health secretary. Price, a physician, has promised to gut the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/administration-moves-block-access-health-insurance

You Repugs suck ejaculating donkey dick.

[rmt]

boutons, think about what insurance in general is meant to do - it is meant to cover in case of catastrophe - when there's a fire (home), when your car is damaged/totaled (auto), when you die (life). It is not meant to pay for maintenance like oil/tire/brake changes or replacing your window. Likewise, health insurance should not be covering the routine services like annual checkup ($90), sick visit ($75), birth control pills ($9/month), mammogram/ultrasound ($80) or else it will be too expensive. Allow people to buy catastrophic insurance and shop for the non-emergency stuff - prices should go down if there is people compare prices and pay directly (cut out insurance middleman). ACA is unsustainable - families cannot afford $1800/month in premiums plus deductibles and co-pays and why should they pay for "essential" benefits like maternity coverage that they don't need?

[mavsfan1000]

boutons, think about what insurance in general is meant to do - it is meant to cover in case of catastrophe - when there's a fire (home), when your car is damaged/totaled (auto), when you die (life). It is not meant to pay for maintenance like oil/tire/brake changes or replacing your window. Likewise, health insurance should not be covering the routine services like annual checkup ($90), sick visit ($75), birth control pills ($9/month), mammogram/ultrasound ($80) or else it will be too expensive. Allow people to buy catastrophic insurance and shop for the non-emergency stuff - prices should go down if there is people compare prices and pay directly (cut out insurance middleman). ACA is unsustainable - families cannot afford $1800/month in premiums plus deductibles and co-pays and why should they pay for "essential" benefits like maternity coverage that they don't need?
+1

[boutons_deux]

boutons, think about what insurance in general is meant to do - it is meant to cover in case of catastrophe - when there's a fire (home), when your car is damaged/totaled (auto), when you die (life). It is not meant to pay for maintenance like oil/tire/brake changes or replacing your window. Likewise, health insurance should not be covering the routine services like annual checkup ($90), sick visit ($75), birth control pills ($9/month), mammogram/ultrasound ($80) or else it will be too expensive. Allow people to buy catastrophic insurance and shop for the non-emergency stuff - prices should go down if there is people compare prices and pay directly (cut out insurance middleman). ACA is unsustainable - families cannot afford $1800/month in premiums plus deductibles and co-pays and why should they pay for "essential" benefits like maternity coverage that they don't need?

How many people who got covered by ACA pay $1800/month?

almost none, so your "unsustainable" is bullshit.

probably a very tiny percentage, but that's cheaper than employer group insurance

Annual Healthcare Cost For Family Of Four Now At $24,670

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/05/19/annual-healthcare-cost-for-family-of-four-now-at-24671/#3cb43e434dfb====

That's a lot higher than I've seen elsewhere, eg:

Average Family Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance

(http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/family-coverage/?activeTab=graph&currentTimeframe=0******Timeframe=1&selectedDistributions=total&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D)http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/family-coverage/?activeTab=graph&currentTimeframe=0******Timeframe=1&selectedDistributions=total&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D

... probably $18K+ for 2017

... skimmed right off the top of employee salaries, tax-free compensation in kind, and hosed straight to BigInsurance. It's fucking criminal racket, a shakedown.

Deductibles in all health insurance means health care "brakes, tires, oil" aren't covered. Just like Medicare doesn't cover vision or hearing.

[rmt]

How many people who got covered by ACA pay $1800/month?

almost none, so your "unsustainable" is bullshit.

probably a very tiny percentage, but that's cheaper than employer group insurance

Annual Healthcare Cost For Family Of Four Now At $24,670

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/05/19/annual-healthcare-cost-for-family-of-four-now-at-24671/#3cb43e434dfb====

That's a lot higher than I've seen elsewhere, eg:

Average Family Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance

(http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/family-coverage/?activeTab=graph¤tTimeframe=0******Timeframe=1&selectedDistributions=total&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D)http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/family-coverage/?activeTab=graph¤tTimeframe=0******Timeframe=1&selectedDistributions=total&selectedRows=%7B%22wrapups%22:%7B%22united-states%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D

... probably $18K+ for 2017

... skimmed right off the top of employee salaries, tax-free compensation in kind, and hosed straight to BigInsurance. It's fucking criminal racket, a shakedown.

Deductibles in all health insurance means health care "brakes, tires, oil" aren't covered. Just like Medicare doesn't cover vision or hearing.

So, just because some don't pay for it themselves that justifies the high cost of ACA? Someone is still paying - that's us the taxpayers - we're paying those ridiculous premiums and also paying for those with subsidies and Medicaid. When you force every single policy to cover annual, birth control pills, labs, maternity benefits, pediatric dental and vision - it drives up the cost. Insurance should be for major stuff - not routine. And before you mention single payor, remember Vermont and Colorado.

[boutons_deux]

"the high cost of ACA"

goddam, you're stupid

ACA doesn't set prices, your beloved BigInsuranceCo does

[rmt]

"the high cost of ACA"

goddam, you're stupid

ACA doesn't set prices, your beloved BigInsuranceCo does




No, that'd be the stupid law written and passed by the Dems - allowing people to sign up after they get sick, having the penalty so low people are willing to pay it and wait till they're sick to sign up, forcing policies to have their so-called 10 essential benefits driving up prices, allowing people to enroll/do annuals/labs/procedures and then drop after they've have their care, charging young people higher to pay for old people (x3 instead of x5) resulting in few young signing up. All that is what is driving up prices. Face it, your Dems colluded with BigInsuranceCo, BigPharma, etc to come up with ACA.

[boutons_deux]

No, that'd be the stupid law written and passed by the Dems - allowing people to sign up after they get sick, having the penalty so low people are willing to pay it and wait till they're sick to sign up, forcing policies to have their so-called 10 essential benefits driving up prices, allowing people to enroll/do annuals/labs/procedures and then drop after they've have their care, charging young people higher to pay for old people (x3 instead of x5) resulting in few young signing up. All that is what is driving up prices. Face it, your Dems colluded with BigInsuranceCo, BigPharma, etc to come up with ACA.

the penalties were too

signing up after your sick could have been fixed, but Repugs don't fix, they destroy

prices DRIVE UP every year, way above inflation, for decades, LONG before ACA.

ACA had to let BigPharma/BigInsurance get paid, since BigCorp makes national policies for its own benefit.

If you think Repugs are gonna take money away from health care industry, you're really stupid.

Repugs will make EVERYTHING more expensive for citizens, and that has already started. It's going to get a LOT worse.

You're REALLY stupid if you think Repugs are gonna "replace" ACA with something better and cheaper. It will be WORSE and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE with Ms fewer covered.

[rmt]

the penalties were too

signing up after your sick could have been fixed, but Repugs don't fix, they destroy

prices DRIVE UP every year, way above inflation, for decades, LONG before ACA.

ACA had to let BigPharma/BigInsurance get paid, since BigCorp makes national policies for its own benefit.

If you think Repugs are gonna take money away from health care industry, you're really stupid.

Repugs will make EVERYTHING more expensive for citizens, and that has already started. It's going to get a LOT worse.

You're REALLY stupid if you think Repugs are gonna "replace" ACA with something better and cheaper. It will be WORSE and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE with Ms fewer covered.

The republicans are going to get government out of the insurance business. They will allow sale of catastrophic insurance and higher levels in HSA. That will encourage competition among all non-emergency/catastrophic procedures and drive down prices (no insurance middleman). Buy your cheap catastrophic insurance (in case of cancer, brain tumor, major accident) and comparison shop/pay out of HSA for routine stuff. C'mon, boutons, this is right up your alley - BigInsuranceCo will be neutered except for catastrophic/hospital-related stuff. Everything else could be done at doctor's office, (discount) blood labs, critical care/outpatient/imaging centers where you pay directly from your HSA debit card after comparison shopping from posted prices.

This is where I advocate allowing others to contribute to each other's HSA if there is a need - instead of a GoFundMe page, anybody could contribute to anyone's HSA. Wouldn't that unleash the power of giving/charity and desire to help others?

[Th'Pusher]

The republicans are going to get government out of the insurance business. They will allow sale of catastrophic insurance and higher levels in HSA. That will encourage competition among all non-emergency/catastrophic procedures and drive down prices (no insurance middleman). Buy your cheap catastrophic insurance (in case of cancer, brain tumor, major accident) and comparison shop/pay out of HSA for routine stuff. C'mon, boutons, this is right up your alley - BigInsuranceCo will be neutered except for catastrophic/hospital-related stuff. Everything else could be done at doctor's office, (discount) blood labs, critical care/outpatient/imaging centers where you pay directly from your HSA debit card after comparison shopping from posted prices.

This is where I advocate allowing others to contribute to each other's HSA if there is a need - instead of a GoFundMe page, anybody could contribute to anyone's HSA. Wouldn't that unleash the power of giving/charity and desire to help others?

Do You realize that 60% of Americans health insurance is part of their compensation package provided by their employers? Now subtract the people on Medicare and Medicaid. For the pipe dream you described above to work, you need to shift away from employer based health insurance. This would be a fundamental shift and a death knell to the insurance industry which is the same reason the single payer failed and the dems settled for the ACA. Good luck with that.

[ElNono]

This is where I advocate allowing others to contribute to each other's HSA if there is a need - instead of a GoFundMe page, anybody could contribute to anyone's HSA. Wouldn't that unleash the power of giving/charity and desire to help others?

I don't think it would. As a matter of fact, charity is what people used to look for before ACA, when they didn't have insurance. That or straight to an emergency room for urgent care (which was oftentimes government-paid charity too). That system left almost half of Americans without health insurance and was responsible for almost half of all bankruptcies.

People bringing charity have no idea of the cost of healthcare in the US and charity itself does nothing to bring down that cost. It's the same old question of 'how are we going to pay for this?' when the first question should really be 'why does this cost that much?'

You have to address cost. After that, we can start talking how to pay for it.

[rmt]

I don't think it would. As a matter of fact, charity is what people used to look for before ACA, when they didn't have insurance. That or straight to an emergency room for urgent care (which was oftentimes government-paid charity too). That system left almost half of Americans without health insurance and was responsible for almost half of all bankruptcies.

People bringing charity have no idea of the cost of healthcare in the US and charity itself does nothing to bring down that cost. It's the same old question of 'how are we going to pay for this?' when the first question should really be 'why does this cost that much?'

You have to address cost. After that, we can start talking how to pay for it.

The reason it costs so much is because of the way insurance is set up - no transparency in prices, practitioner hikes up price, submits to insurance company, insurance company pays certain amount, etc. - extra personnel on both sides to handle authorization, payment, etc. Cut out insurance for all but major/hospital-related (catastrophic) stuff. No insurance for everything else, post your prices like they do for lasik surgery and people will shop for mammograms/ultrasound ($80 without insurance), annual ($90), sick visit ($75), blood tests ($99 for CWP - $69 in Dec). We have become conditioned to going to a practitioner and not knowing what it's gonna cost and being at the mercy of insurance/getting a bill later (even though you paid your co-pay) that patient is responsible for $x. IMO, we should shop for these services like we do for our cel phones/plans. The prices I have posted are real, direct-pay prices from last year when dh was out of a job for 5 months - not the jacked up hundreds of $ anything involving insurance is. Even for surgery see https://surgerycenterok.com for posted prices which are probably cheaper than the jacked up insurance prices at your local hospitals.

What I'm advocating is with the understanding that you have catastrophic insurance for the big things. The small things (if there isn't enough in the HSA) or the deductible on the catastrophic insurance (where the insurance takes over) is what I'm referring to. They could allow people to get HSA$ from parents, (adult kids), relatives, friends, people at work (btw, Google has something similar for time off - if you need extra time to take care of a relative, co-workers can donate their time to you).

[rmt]

Sorry - can't edit my post

https://surgerycenterok.com/pricing/

[ElNono]

The reason it costs so much is because of the way insurance is set up - no transparency in prices, practitioner hikes up price, submits to insurance company, insurance company pays certain amount, etc. - extra personnel on both sides to handle authorization, payment, etc. Cut out insurance for all but major/hospital-related (catastrophic) stuff. No insurance for everything else, post your prices like they do for lasik surgery and people will shop for mammograms/ultrasound ($80 without insurance), annual ($90), sick visit ($75), blood tests ($99 for CWP - $69 in Dec). We have become conditioned to going to a practitioner and not knowing what it's gonna cost and being at the mercy of insurance/getting a bill later (even though you paid your co-pay) that patient is responsible for $x. IMO, we should shop for these services like we do for our cel phones/plans. The prices I have posted are real, direct-pay prices from last year when dh was out of a job for 5 months - not the jacked up hundreds of $ anything involving insurance is. Even for surgery see https://surgerycenterok.com for posted prices which are probably cheaper than the jacked up insurance prices at your local hospitals.

What I'm advocating is with the understanding that you have catastrophic insurance for the big things. The small things (if there isn't enough in the HSA) or the deductible on the catastrophic insurance (where the insurance takes over) is what I'm referring to. They could allow people to get HSA$ from parents, (adult kids), relatives, friends, people at work (btw, Google has something similar for time off - if you need extra time to take care of a relative, co-workers can donate their time to you).


Sorry - can't edit my post

https://surgerycenterok.com/pricing/

Did you notice/follow all the asterisks on those prices? Make sure to read the fine print.

I don't disagree about the market distortion on prices and lack of pricing transparency. That's one problem out of a plethora of them. I don't particularly have the time right now, and I hate it because I think it's a topic worth discussing, but let me tell you that I'm certainly one of those people that would like to see a working health system in America for once. Both on the access level and that compares relatively favorably on the health spending per capita with those of other developed nations.

To tackle that (and going back to charity), you have to reduce costs. There's no other way around it. Once the actual prices even out, then we can discuss charity or anything else that can deal with the actual figure. With the current (and previous) system and costs, charity is nowhere near enough.

[rmt]

Did you notice/follow all the asterisks on those prices? Make sure to read the fine print.

I don't disagree about the market distortion on prices and lack of pricing transparency. That's one problem out of a plethora of them. I don't particularly have the time right now, and I hate it because I think it's a topic worth discussing, but let me tell you that I'm certainly one of those people that would like to see a working health system in America for once. Both on the access level and that compares relatively favorably on the health spending per capita with those of other developed nations.

To tackle that (and going back to charity), you have to reduce costs. There's no other way around it. Once the actual prices even out, then we can discuss charity or anything else that can deal with the actual figure. With the current (and previous) system and costs, charity is nowhere near enough.

Yes, I see the asterisks. The point is if you bypass the insurance, these are the prices. If it involves insurance, it's a lot more. The majority of procedures at that OK center would be covered by catastrophic insurance so I don't know why I even included it - serves me right for posting so late at night.

As seen by Vermont and Colorado, taxpayers are going to balk at single-payer. Why not try to cover everyone with catastrophic insurance and pay out of pocket/HSA for the routine stuff? It's just too expensive for everyone to have full-coverage insurance. I'm not stuck on the charity - it's just a suggestion borne out of the Google example above.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, I see the asterisks. The point is if you bypass the insurance, these are the prices. If it involves insurance, it's a lot more. The majority of procedures at that OK center would be covered by catastrophic insurance so I don't know why I even included it - serves me right for posting so late at night.

As seen by Vermont and Colorado, taxpayers are going to balk at single-payer. Why not try to cover everyone with catastrophic insurance and pay out of pocket/HSA for the routine stuff? It's just too expensive for everyone to have full-coverage insurance. I'm not stuck on the charity - it's just a suggestion borne out of the Google example above.

agian, the majority of Americans are on full coverage employer sponsored health insurance which is part of the employees' compensation package. What is the strategy for eliminating the employer sponsored health insurance, which is key to making your competition driven market work? Note that your plan completely neuters the private insurance industry. The same way the dems didn't have the political capital to kill that industry, the republcans won't either.

[ElNono]

Yes, I see the asterisks. The point is if you bypass the insurance, these are the prices. If it involves insurance, it's a lot more. The majority of procedures at that OK center would be covered by catastrophic insurance so I don't know why I even included it - serves me right for posting so late at night.

I'm all for removing middle-man, tbh... but remember that HSAs are another form of middle-man: the banks. Honestly, if you could actually have the power to basically get rid of the health insurance industry (a claim extremely dubious, at best), you should probably go all the way and remove employment-tied health coverage too. The thing here though, is that we still have the same problem: providers charge to what the market will bear, and at least in the US, the average health services consumer can pony up a pretty penny. So, that's really the elephant in the room when it comes to cost. But then again, capping somebody's earning (even though we do that with insurance companies) it's unlikely to happen.


As seen by Vermont and Colorado, taxpayers are going to balk at single-payer. Why not try to cover everyone with catastrophic insurance and pay out of pocket/HSA for the routine stuff? It's just too expensive for everyone to have full-coverage insurance. I'm not stuck on the charity - it's just a suggestion borne out of the Google example above.

In economic terms, it makes zero sense to run single-payer at the State level. The reason, economically, it's really simple: the Federal government controls the currency, the States do not. That's why to run Medicaid States need federal funding (be it what it is now or block grants). People in the hard-to-insure group are a sunk cost. Taxpayers pick it up either through one of those programs or paying back the hospital when they show up in emergency rooms there. So the question is what's preferable (or cheaper), since taxpayers are paying for it one way or the other.

[rmt]

agian, the majority of Americans are on full coverage employer sponsored health insurance which is part of the employees' compensation package. What is the strategy for eliminating the employer sponsored health insurance, which is key to making your competition driven market work? Note that your plan completely neuters the private insurance industry. The same way the dems didn't have the political capital to kill that industry, the republcans won't either.

All the quoted prices above are side-by-side with employer sponsored insurance from last year. I simply Googled, called and asked for the cash/direct pay price. Iirc, was it 101A who also got a very good price for treatment for his daughter when he was in between jobs? We don't have to eliminate employer sponsored insurance to do this (that would be political suicide to try) - we just have to get it more mainstreamed (so that practitioners post prices - instead of us having to call/compare). Even now that we have employer sponsored insurance, I always ask whichever doctor I go to what the cash price is and it's usually half what the insurance price is.

And if the Repubs do raise the HSA amount - enough for it to make financial sense (it is in essence a tax sheltered savings vehicle) and one is relatively healthy, even people on employer sponsored insurance will choose high deductible health plans. Then young people would able to build up HSAs so that they have a nice buffer available for later years and imagine (I know it's a pipe dream) allowing the exchange/giving of HSA$ among family/friends.

[rmt]

I'm all for removing middle-man, tbh... but remember that HSAs are another form of middle-man: the banks. Honestly, if you could actually have the power to basically get rid of the health insurance industry (a claim extremely dubious, at best), you should probably go all the way and remove employment-tied health coverage too. The thing here though, is that we still have the same problem: providers charge to what the market will bear, and at least in the US, the average health services consumer can pony up a pretty penny. So, that's really the elephant in the room when it comes to cost. But then again, capping somebody's earning (even though we do that with insurance companies) it's unlikely to happen.

See above


In economic terms, it makes zero sense to run single-payer at the State level. The reason, economically, it's really simple: the Federal government controls the currency, the States do not. That's why to run Medicaid States need federal funding (be it what it is now or block grants). People in the hard-to-insure group are a sunk cost. Taxpayers pick it up either through one of those programs or paying back the hospital when they show up in emergency rooms there. So the question is what's preferable (or cheaper), since taxpayers are paying for it one way or the other.

Doesn't this apply to all "federal" government programs - not just Medicaid but with Medicare/SS/etc. too? the ability of the feds to print $, to lump together and run at a loss - something states cannot do (most have to have a balanced budget)? To me, the reason why it won't work is because the state cannot control who comes within its borders so when some one is (seriously) sick, he/she can go live in that state and be covered. And if it's like the proposed California plan (also covering illegals), taxpayers are going to balk at supporting so many.

To me, try for catastrophic coverage for everyone and instead of the feds putting money toward subsidies/Medicaid for able-bodied people, put that toward high-risk/hard-to-insure people. I don't have any ideas for keeping these people out of the emergency room but that was happening before (and iirc, went up with Obamacare) except for the charity and trying to steer them away from hospitals toward cheaper care (critical care, physician office).

[ElNono]

I'm not particularly against HSAs, I just don't think they're realistic in this market, for a number of reasons. First of all, the vast majority of people that will require the most care are Boomers/Gen-X, which they just can't start now with an HSA. Those people will need the Medicare/Medicaid.

The second issue is that HSAs don't do anything about cost. Almost half of America is living paycheck to paycheck (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/). How do you tell those people they need to pay catastrophic insurance and on top of that put money on their HSAs?

- If you force them to put money on their HSAs, then it's no different than a tax.
- If you don't force them, then they'll end up bankrupt in the emergency room just like they did before. Catastrophic doesn't kick in until, well, it's catastrophic. And still costs a pretty penny (upwards of $300/mo where I live).
- The cost of care raises way faster than inflation. For HSAs to work, it's not an amount problem, it's an interest problem. The compound interest (provided you didn't have to spend more money from it than the interest payment) has to be higher than the raise in the cost of care. While that might sound like a given, it really isn't for people that need care the most (since they actually spend their HSA money, thus the compound part of the interest doesn't necessarily applies).

So there's a lot of assumptions about HSAs, especially that people will generally be healthy and won't be tapping into that until they're old. But if they do need to, they're kinda fucked.

That said, they're certainly a valid option when trying to figure out how to pay for care. They just won't address the fact that the US overpays extremely for the same services with same or worse outcomes than other places. And I really think that's the real elephant in the room, and until we address that head-on, we're really just circling around the same problem.

[ElNono]

Doesn't this apply to all "federal" government programs - not just Medicaid but with Medicare/SS/etc. too? the ability of the feds to print $, to lump together and run at a loss - something states cannot do (most have to have a balanced budget)? To me, the reason why it won't work is because the state cannot control who comes within its borders so when some one is (seriously) sick, he/she can go live in that state and be covered. And if it's like the proposed California plan (also covering illegals), taxpayers are going to balk at supporting so many.

Pretty much. It's not "federal programs" though, it's the fact that the States don't control the currency. You know when politicos compare the economy with a household economy? Well, that certainly DOES apply to States. They either get it from revenue or by issuing debt (much like paying with a credit card). Arguably, they CAN go bankrupt (unless daddy Federal govt comes in and bails it out).

However, it drives me up a wall when the case is made with the Federal government, because it simply does not work that way. Yes, the federal can print $, and yes, there's such a thing as printing too much (which ends up in inflation, not bankruptcy). But effectively, there's not a single check the federal government issues that cannot be cashed. Now, I'm actually all for fiscal conservatism (you don't want that high inflation, or hyperinflation. You never lived through it, but I have. You don't want to get to know it), but understanding these kind of differences are important when talking about programs with a sunk cost. Once you have a program like that, the discussion should center on how to reduce the cost, because that's always going to be there (as I was saying, taxpayers end up paying for it one way or the other, and while you don't want to print a lot, you do want to be able to handle any spikes).


To me, try for catastrophic coverage for everyone and instead of the feds putting money toward subsidies/Medicaid for able-bodied people, put that toward high-risk/hard-to-insure people. I don't have any ideas for keeping these people out of the emergency room but that was happening before (and iirc, went up with Obamacare) except for the charity and trying to steer them away from hospitals toward cheaper care (critical care, physician office).

There could be a bunch of hybrid approaches to that (as a matter of fact, there are all around the world). The catastrophic single-payer is not a bad idea, at least you could basically give peace of mind. That has value.

Another idea would be the other way around: have government clinics for basic care, which is the vast majority of care, and require people to have catastrophic for when the shit really hits the fan. You control accessibility and costs that way because you have a "free" provider, and basic care isn't necessarily high-tech. A broken bone, the flu, a yearly physical. Those are not rocket science, and in any part of the world they're not expensive things. If you want to go to your private practice, with the doctor you know, and pay, go ahead. They'll be competing against the free option, so there's an incentive to charge a "premium value" but not go overboard. That also gives you peace of mind.

And there's a multitude of other approaches. I just think if we don't question the rate at which cost has been increasing (a rate which for some reason largely only applies to America), we're only really addressing the symptoms, not the problem.

Appreciate the links, btw.

[boutons_deux]

Insurance Company Celebrates 50 Billionth Fucking Over Of Customer

CANTON, OH—Overjoyed Cigna executives celebrated the health insurer’s 50 billionth fucking over of a customer Thursday, personally surprising 56-year-old spinal trauma victim Clyde Gershon with champagne, confetti, and hundreds of multicolored balloons as they denied his most recent disability claim.

“We did it! We’ve completely and utterly fucked over a customer for the 50 billionth time," exclaimed CEO David Cordani, drawing a vibrant round of applause as Gershon, gaunt and dejected, stared blankly off into the distance.

“Ruining this many lives is an accomplishment no one ever could have dreamed of back in 1982 when Cigna was founded.

And today, I can proudly say we have not only achieved it, but inflicted an incalculable amount of mental anguish along the way.”

“So congratulations, Mr. Gershon, you poor son of a bitch,” he continued, raising a flute of Dom Perigno.

“On behalf of myself and the rest of our 30,600 employees, I hope you find some other way to pay for your medical care, because you are now royally fucked!”

http://www.theonion.com/article/insurance-company-celebrates-50-billionth-fucking--29709?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

[Winehole23]

tangentially related, eye-opening, related to labor participation and the opioid epidemic:


You may now wish to ask: What share of prime-working-age men these days are enrolled in Medicaid? According to the Census Bureau’s SIPP survey (Survey of Income and Program Participation), as of 2013, over one-fifth (21 percent) of all civilian men between 25 and 55 years of age were Medicaid beneficiaries. For prime-age people not in the labor force, the share was over half (53 percent). And for un-working Anglos (non-Hispanic white men not in the labor force) of prime working age, the share enrolled in Medicaid was 48 percent.



By the way: Of the entire un-working prime-age male Anglo population in 2013, nearly three-fifths (57 percent) were reportedly collecting disability benefits from one or more government disability program in 2013.https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/

[CosmicCowboy]

Disability is the new way to game the welfare rolls. Get em on disability and they don't count anymore.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502085/moving-people-from-welfare-to-disability-rolls-is-a-profitable-full-time-job

[DMC]

Disability is the new way to game the welfare rolls. Get em on disability and they don't count anymore.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502085/moving-people-from-welfare-to-disability-rolls-is-a-profitable-full-time-job

Nothing like years of taxpayer funded medical visits which eventually result in a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, so that they can get on disability benefits.

[Th'Pusher]

Disability is the new way to game the welfare rolls. Get em on disability and they don't count anymore.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502085/moving-people-from-welfare-to-disability-rolls-is-a-profitable-full-time-job

It's likely borne out of need rather than malice. Still, we'll see if Donald does anything to strip this "welfare" from his base.

[AaronY]

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in savings


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/

Gutting or getting rid of these programs gonna work out real well imo

[baseline bum]

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in savings


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/

Gutting or getting rid of these programs gonna work out real well imo

It'lll work out great for Trump and his billionaire cabinet who can pay much less in taxes, and they're the only people that matter to him.

[rmt]

Oh no, the phishing is back! Just a little over a day of relief. Please, please undo whatever was done.

[DMC]

How would a king operate?

You get power (ergo king)
You don't look for ways to defeat your opponents, you get them close to you, to commit. Then you have them arrested or indicted for crimes. You can fire them and shame them. Maybe Trump will bring in the biggest GOP assholes and take them down one by one.

Yeah that

hmmm maybe I was onto something.

[baseline bum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEGpriv2TAc

[boutons_deux]

lies and bullshit and pussy grabbing are easy

Trash admits health care is really hard, complicated :lol

even bastard Bannon is worried about screwing too many people over health care, losing control of Congress

[rmt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEGpriv2TAc

AFFORDABLE Care Act - what a joke.

Not DOUBLE digit increases but TRIPLE digit increases in Arizona

"Obamacare coverage" is the problem - men, children and post-menopausal women paying for maternity benefits and birth control pills, adults paying for pediatric vision and dental, Dems want full-blown, unnecessary what they consider "essential" coverage and those over the threshold paying >$1600 per month for family - that's more than my mortgage.

He mocks continuous coverage - what does he think employer-sponsored and COBRA plans require - that's right - continuous coverage - that is exactly what is needed - not this ability to hop in and out whenever they please knowing that if they get sick they can sign up during enrollment, get treated and drop after treatment.

That mandate is sure keeping "the young, healthy people in the system which is crucial to lower the cost for everyone" - don't think so.

And yes, it should be painful to get it again if you drop coverage and it should involve higher premium or threat of long waiting period or else where is the incentive to keep being insured. Spoilt - that's what this idea is that you can drop whenever you want, don't maintain coverage and expect to sign up when sick at the same price as someone who did maintain continuous coverage.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Stunned As 67% Of Americans Oppose Obamacare Repeal In New Poll


http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/27/republicans-stunned-67-americans-oppose-obamacare-repeal-poll.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[rmt]

Republicans Stunned As 67% Of Americans Oppose Obamacare Repeal In New Poll


http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/27/republicans-stunned-67-americans-oppose-obamacare-repeal-poll.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29




9 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans
8 percentage points more strong Democrats than strong Republicans
3 percentage points more not strong Democrats as not strong Republicans
4 percentage points more Democratic leaning independents than Republican leaning independents

Don't you think Trump voters are gonna hang up on these pollsters? After how ever many years of this law and 22?% average increase from last year - suddenly there's a spike in approval - SURE.

[AaronY]

Trump and Paul Ryan Head for a Clash Over the Budget, and Ideology


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal-republican-ideology.html

[baseline bum]

9 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans
8 percentage points more strong Democrats than strong Republicans
3 percentage points more not strong Democrats as not strong Republicans
4 percentage points more Democratic leaning independents than Republican leaning independents

Don't you think Trump voters are gonna hang up on these pollsters? After how ever many years of this law and 22?% average increase from last year - suddenly there's a spike in approval - SURE.

Because the ACA while deeply flawed is a lot better than $3000 in tax credits and HSAs when half the country lives paycheck to paycheck like ElNono mentioned above. The people are about to lose a huge benefit that kept them from having to choose between death and medical bankruptcy all so Trump can give tax cuts to the rich.

[rmt]

keep believing those polls

[ElNono]

Disability is the new way to game the welfare rolls. Get em on disability and they don't count anymore.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502085/moving-people-from-welfare-to-disability-rolls-is-a-profitable-full-time-job

Terrible for those that are actually disabled, and probably will need to go through a much stricter process (again) when the shit eventually hits the proverbial fan.

On the other hand, it's understandable why States do that, and furthermore, IMO, this has to be seen in the context of the current labor market, where there's a lot of part-time jobs, which offer no health insurance, besides meager pay.

It's certainly not right to game the system, especially since it really fucks with those that really need it, but there's undoubtedly other systemic problems contributing to this phenomenon.

[ElNono]

keep believing those polls

just alternative facts, tbh

[boutons_deux]

9 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans
8 percentage points more strong Democrats than strong Republicans
3 percentage points more not strong Democrats as not strong Republicans
4 percentage points more Democratic leaning independents than Republican leaning independents

Don't you think Trump voters are gonna hang up on these pollsters? After how ever many years of this law and 22?% average increase from last year - suddenly there's a spike in approval - SURE.

nearly all people who poll against ACA aren't on ACA but on employer plans

and insurance prices aren't increased by ACA but, as in decades past, by the fleecing, predatory BigInsurance

current BigPharma project is hiring whores to lobby for a $1000/day pill

[rmt]

nearly all people who poll against ACA aren't on ACA but on employer plans

and insurance prices aren't increased by ACA but, as in decades past, by the fleecing, predatory BigInsurance

current BigPharma project is hiring whores to lobby for a $1000/day pill

Sorry, boutons, the employer plans also have to have the 10 essential benefits to be ACA-compliant - so their premiums are affected by ACA. The differences between them and the exchanges is that the employees maintain continuous coverage (don't opt in and out of the plans as the exchanges) and the pool is stable (young as well as old stay in).

[baseline bum]

keep believing those polls

More reliable than believing that crook in the white house.

[rmt]

More reliable than believing that crook in the white house.

You mean like believing that we would get $2500 back, keep our doctors and our plans?

[baseline bum]

You mean like believing that we would get $2500 back, keep our doctors and our plans?

So you believe Trump is covering everybody with better coverage for less money like he claimed?

[rmt]

So you believe Trump is covering everybody with better coverage for less money like he claimed?

This is probably the plan that will come out of the House as it's the one touted by Paul Ryan:
http://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf

[boutons_deux]

This is probably the plan that will come out of the House as it's the one touted by Paul Ryan:
http://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf

:lol just like ALL of Ryan's BULLSHIT, the arithmetic is pure fantasy ************ forever :lol

[baseline bum]

This is probably the plan that will come out of the House as it's the one touted by Paul Ryan:
http://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf

Is that Ryan's voucher plan for Medicare that screws everyone over except for the older people who vote Republican that they're depending on for the 2018 primaries? That's not Trump's promised plan that was going to cover everyone in America with better coverage and cost people less than Obamacare. So your boy is telling yet another complete boldface lie? The only trustworthy thing I think I have ever heard Trump say is that he could go shoot someone and he still wouldn't lose votes from his base.

[boutons_deux]

Ryan wants to cut Medicare, Trash doesnt, big battle looming, Trash will cave blame it Ryan.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ryan wants to cut Medicare, Trash doesnt, big battle looming, Trash will cave blame it Ryan.

SS, Medicare and interest are 60% of the budget now headed to 80%.

You can't do anything meaningful with the budget without addressing that.

There isn't enough "discretionary spending" to cut. Not enough 'waste". Nobody is gonna touch the "third rail" of SS and medicare until it's really a crisis.

Trump can't get the selective budget increases he wants without blowing up the debt. It's the only way.

[spurraider21]

SS, Medicare and interest are 60% of the budget now headed to 80%.

You can't do anything meaningful with the budget without addressing that.

There isn't enough "discretionary spending" to cut. Not enough 'waste". Nobody is gonna touch the "third rail" of SS and medicare until it's really a crisis.

Trump can't get the selective budget increases he wants without blowing up the debt. It's the only way.raising retirement age for SS would be a good start. also we dont need to add 53 billion to defense spending when we spend more than the next 7 countries combined as it is. we also dont need a 25 billion dollar wall that's going to be a taxpayer burden (and any tariff or "border tax" will essentially be a federal sales tax on the consumer/taxpayer)

can also cut down on medical spending if we put restraints on big pharma... something nobody's been willing to touch

[Thread]

raising retirement age for SS would be a good start.

You can't do that. The stampede to the SS counter up to the cutoff date would be catastrophic.

[rmt]

I would like them to tie SS and Medicare to life expectancy. Even the GOP's suggestion of raising it 2 years is not enough. Would have to raise age for all the retirement-related stuff too - 401k RMD, etc.

[spurraider21]

You can't do that. The stampede to the SS counter up to the cutoff date would be catastrophic.
Price worth paying. And if a bunch die in the stampede that's even less a taxpayer burden

[boutons_deux]

Repugs are holding ACA-repeal/replace meeting in the hyper-secret basement room, no pics, no phones, no copies. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Members Of Congress Literally Chasing Each Other Around Capitol Hill Trying To Find Text Of Obamacare Repeal Bill

Rep. Chris Collins told The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321848-house-panel-to-markup-obamacare-bill-next-week-lawmaker-says) that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would be holding a markup session on the bill on Wednesday, March 8.

A markup session is when a committee publicly reviews the contents of a bill and suggests changes — amendments — that they then vote to adopt or reject. It takes the draft of a bill and marks it up with edits, adding, tweaking, and removing content to move toward a final version.

Usually, however, a bill is publicly introduced, and the text known and available, well before a markup session happens. That, though, is not the case here. Nobody’s actually sure who’s introducing the bill, what it says, what the text is, or, in fact, if it really exists.

It’s not just the media and the public that are scrambling here, either; both members of the House and Senate — from both parties — are trying to find out.

not only is the bill apparently being kept secret — Representatives and media who are looking for it do not know where it is being kept secret. They literally cannot find it. There is an actual, non-figurative, cartoon-style chase slowly unfolding in the Capitol.

Kliff added (https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/837355745649766404) that, “I covered the 2009-2010 health debate, and this hunt for a bill in a mysterious room is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever witnessed.”

BuzzFeed’s Paul McLeod, also on the chase, reports (https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/837354615872028672) that, “the bill has been moved to a new secret location after the old secret location got too much heat. The hunt continues.”

https://consumerist.com/2017/03/02/members-of-congress-literally-chasing-each-other-around-capitol-hill-trying-to-find-text-of-obamacare-repeal-bill/

:lol

[boutons_deux]

5 Points On The Tax Credit Debate Roiling The GOP’s Obamacare Repeal Effort

1. The debate reflects a fundamental disagreement over the goal of the GOP's Obamacare replacement.

2. Leadership wants a refundable tax credit, in part, because whatever they do will be compared to Obamaca

3. Conservatives bash refundable tax credits for creating a new 'entitlement' program.

4. Conservatives prefer a deduction system

5. If they don’t come to a deal, leadership and conservatives will be playing a game of chicken

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/tax-credit-debate-roiling-the-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-effort?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Notice that that their diverse BLIND IDEOLOGIES (destroy govt, it's all bad, and privatize everything for-profit) place actual health care For The People way down their list of priorities.

[boutons_deux]

House Republican ACA Repeal Plan Replaces Taxes on Rich and Corporations with Taxes on Middle-Class Workers

Tax exemption for employer-provided health care benefits would be capped and tax credits for working families to buy coverage would be much less generous

Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) said the secret Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal plan from House Republican leaders would

impose $200 billion in new taxes on middle-class workers by taxing their health benefits,

which are currently excluded from taxation:


“House Republicans want to tax workers’ health care benefits rather than continue to require the wealthiest Americans and big healthcare corporations to help finance health care for 20 million people now getting covered under the ACA. If true, the GOP healthcare repeal plan means the rich will get richer, millions will lose their healthcare, and workers will pick up the tab.

“When Republicans talk about ‘repeal and replace,’ now we know they mean replace taxes on billionaires and big corporations with taxes on working families.

“The Republicans’ reckless assault on the ACA already risks the health coverage of millions of Americans while handing more than $525 billion in tax cuts (http://link.email.dynect.net/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=%2Bdu7sJaY23OO%2BqQ6mC2QqglzHYl8onDna9bYv0z8S%2B 2c1yLWI1mxfpgrQv3BLAC1YXJOvbkyzxuDVRtdkanzOHzpnSYY AmANW0QncoXKnCj%2Biz7J8jtX6CC%2BT7PuR59p&G=0&R=https%3A%2F%2Famericansfortaxfairness.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FATF-Fact-Sheet-Tax-Cuts-for-Wealthy-Corporations-From-Obamacare-Repeal.pdf&I=20170306164422.00000028275d%40mail6-59-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU4YmQ5MWRmYTNiMTM5ODllMDQ5YzJjMjs% 3D&S=RbSCvaPoJo_C5zrCumcQoHlK0evZysAvsbbCiLmMYoM) over 10 years to the nation’s wealthiest households, health insurance corporations and drug firms, according to Congressional Budget Office data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness.

“ATF’s analysis shows that

wealthy taxpayers would get a tax cut of at least $346 billion and insurance, prescription drug and medical device corporations would get a total tax cut of at least $180 billion over 10 years.

The richest 400 families would each get about a $7 million tax break a year (http://link.email.dynect.net/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=%2Bdu7sJaY23OO%2BqQ6mC2QqglzHYl8onDna9bYv0z8S%2B 2c1yLWI1mxfpgrQv3BLAC1YXJOvbkyzxuDVRtdkanzOHzpnSYY AmANW0QncoXKnCj%2Biz7J8jtX6CC%2BT7PuR59p&G=0&R=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbpp.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffi les%2Fatoms%2Ffiles%2F1-12-17tax.pdf&I=20170306164422.00000028275d%40mail6-59-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU4YmQ5MWRmYTNiMTM5ODllMDQ5YzJjMjs% 3D&S=W0fGnbZdagNCHzYRduCG9qY1jX15eE8JF-XvhHr5i_Q), according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Now we can add a new $200 billion tax paid by workers on their employer-provided health insurance to the list of threats posed by the GOP’s healthcare repeal efforts.

“Moreover, a new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis (http://link.email.dynect.net/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=%2Bdu7sJaY23OO%2BqQ6mC2QqglzHYl8onDna9bYv0z8S%2B 2c1yLWI1mxfpgrQv3BLAC1YXJOvbkyzxuDVRtdkanzOHzpnSYY AmANW0QncoXKnCj%2Biz7J8jtX6CC%2BT7PuR59p&G=0&R=http%3A%2F%2Fkff.org%2Fhealth-reform%2Fpress-release%2Fkff-analysis-average-health-insurance-tax-credit-for-consumers-would-be-at-least-a-third-lower-under-currently-discussed-replacement-plans-than-the-aca%2F&I=20170306164422.00000028275d%40mail6-59-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU4YmQ5MWRmYTNiMTM5ODllMDQ5YzJjMjs% 3D&S=qRyqD4Cqy7YSXkAraJc5DH5K0g2QXWOZHZ3YOevwXP8) estimates that

consumers will get 36% less in insurance premium tax credits in 2020, on average,

under the GOP’s ACA repeal plan. These credits are critical to help moderate-income families pay for health insurance.

Kaiser found that under the GOP plan ‘the average tax credit for current ACA marketplace enrollees would rise from an estimated $2,957 in 2020 to $3,729 in 2027.

By comparison, the average tax credit under the ACA would be $4,615 in 2020, increasing to $6,648 in 2027.’

“These much less generous tax credits to purchase health insurance are the equivalent of

a major tax increase on working families, and they are designed to partially replace the taxes being paid by the wealthy and big corporations under the existing ACA.

“The Republican plan would tax, for the first time ever, worker health benefits provided by their employers.

Even workers who pay 100% of the cost of their own coverage under an employer-provided plan would be taxed.

It’s outrageous that Republicans plan to tax workers’ health benefits to give huge tax breaks to those at the top and to prescription drug and insurance corporations.

“The ACA has expanded Medicaid and CHIP coverage to 13 million (http://link.email.dynect.net/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=%2Bdu7sJaY23OO%2BqQ6mC2QqglzHYl8onDna9bYv0z8S%2B 2c1yLWI1mxfpgrQv3BLAC1YXJOvbkyzxuDVRtdkanzOHzpnSYY AmANW0QncoXKnCj%2Biz7J8jtX6CC%2BT7PuR59p&G=0&R=https%3A%2F%2Famericansfortaxfairness.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Fatf-obamacare-rd2-v1-2-digital.pdf&I=20170306164422.00000028275d%40mail6-59-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU4YmQ5MWRmYTNiMTM5ODllMDQ5YzJjMjs% 3D&S=tOcUerDhE0KLp0dhwFGnWxuT9FuP11taxzMAjj71YYo), made health insurance affordable for 9 million and strengthened Medicare in large part by asking the wealthy and healthcare corporations to pay a fairer share of taxes. Reliance on these funding sources has decreased economic inequality even as it improves the nation’s health.

“Taxing working families’ health care instead of asking the richest Americans and most profitable corporations to pay their fair share reverses the progress made by the ACA in narrowing the nation’s income and wealth gaps.”


ATF’s estimate of $525 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and healthcare corporations from ACA repeal is a very conservative estimate

based on 2015 data from the Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/03/06/house-republican-aca-repeal-plan-replaces-taxes-rich-and-corporations-taxes

Trash/Repug voters choose YET AGAIN to screw themselves OVER AND OVER AND OVER