Reply With Quote
GOP plan is to allow you to buy what you want if you want it. Obamacare is: you must have health insurance (or pay a fine), and it must have these 10 essential benefits (that they have determined).
Wow, sounds catchy....watch out!
G.O.P. Plans to Replace Health Care Law With Universal Access
Source: MSN/NY Times
WASHINGTON House Republicans, responding to criticism that repealing the Affordable Care Act would leave millions without health insurance, said on Thursday that their goal in replacing President Obamas health law was to guarantee universal access to health care and coverage, not necessarily to ensure that everyone actually has insurance.
In defending the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have focused on the 20 million people covered by the law, which has pushed the percentage of Americans without health insurance to record lows. The American Medical Association recently said that any new reform proposal should not cause individuals currently covered to become uninsured.
But House Republicans, preparing for a rapid legislative strike on the law next month, emphasize a different measure of success.
Our goal here is to make sure that everybody can buy coverage or find coverage if they choose to, a House leadership aide told journalists on the condition of anonymity at a health care briefing organized by Republican leaders.
Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...%99/ar-AAlCyvr
..so the GOP's plan is to replace universal access to health care for 20 million people with universal access to health insurance...
GOP plan is to allow you to buy what you want if you want it. Obamacare is: you must have health insurance (or pay a fine), and it must have these 10 essential benefits (that they have determined).
goddam, your're ing stupid.
Who wants to pay auto insurance? That's how insurance works. Some insurance, like ACA, auto, life insurance for a mortgagee, are legally mandatory.
goddam, your're ing stupid.
If I'm young, healthy or have no assets, I can think of lots of more pressing needs than EXPENSIVE ACA health insurance. A cheap, catastrophic policy, $59 on a Comprehensive Wellness Check* (no need to even see the doctor) to check that everything's in range and I'm good to go. Even if I'm old or have assets, that sounds good. Only if I'm sick does ACA sound good - hence the very high rates.
*https://www.directlabs.com/?tabid=2492
goddam, your're ing stupid.
Ms of people drive cars and never make claim. But they have to buy MANDATORY auto insurance.
Ever heard of a bad break? Keep your fingers crossed.
And auto insurance doesn't cover oil/tire changes or routine maintenance - we pay for those ourselves. Catastrophic insurance is cheap - that will cover bad breaks - people will buy it. Comparison shop for routine doctor's visits and non-emergency procedures - pay out of pocket (like you do for oil changes) or HSA. ACA insurance mandates 10 essential benefits and drives up the cost making it more expensive for EVERYBODY.
Mandatory Liability Auto Insurance
People with pre-existing conditions will be allowed to buy insurance in the same way people are allowed to buy Lamborghinis?
Yep, huge difference. Liability is a very different responsibility/protection concept than self coverage options. Being required to protect yourself isn't the same as being required to protect others, else the child seat laws are too invasive.
The problem with heath insurance is it doesn't insure anyone's health. You don't have a lot of health related events, you have health trends. People age, they develop conditions and unlike autos, they aren't repairable. They instead are treated with maintenance routines and medications. That snowballs as people age and a lot of it is due to lifestyle when young.
I don't know that people are en led to healthcare. It seems like they should be, if it was just an aspect of living like freedom, joy, happiness and such, but it's brought on by the labor of other people. Who is en led to receive your labor for free? Since it's never going to be free because doctors and researchers won't work for free (because the rest of the world isn't free to use), there would have to be a system that has a surplus to an extent where healthcare is made free for everyone, not just for those who cannot pay for it.
On federal lands where minerals exist including petroleum, those minerals could be sold and all of the profit used to pay for things that affect the entire country instead of being rolled into the pockets of the few. Or not. I don't give a . I'm just rambling on like it matters. We all die eventually so why spend your life as a slave to the system that has 100% failure rate eventually?
They would be treated the same way that employer sponsored or COBRA people are treated - no different rating as long as continuous coverage is maintained. No being without coverage and sign up when something happens the way it is now with ACA (without your rates being jacked up).
Meh without the subsidies that Ryan intends to remove for 2018 or 2019 the lower middle class and below aren't going to be able to afford insurance and many will have to drop coverage. Price's $1200 tax credit is laughable as . I know republicans like to act like insurance only got wildly expensive in 2014 with the nigger's plan, but ultimately Trump's plan will just pick people off insurance and bring things back to the glory days of medical bankruptcies. Even that plan is probably going to be hard to get through a teabagger congress scared of being primaried and where Trump likely won't get any democrat votes. The GOP acts like they have this big mandate but the senate numbers are close and if Ted Cruz and two other right wing senators think this plan is too much government interference it ain't even passing with reconciliation.
COBRA is time-limited though... after a while, you're out of luck. I would argue that one of the major problems with healthcare in the US is it being tied to employment. Things like COBRA are the problem. When you need something like COBRA it's because you lost, even temporarily, employment and thus income, and those COBRA premiums, while perhaps smaller than out of pocket, are no slouch. Even people that eventually move to Medicare due to disability, it takes two full years before they can actually get Medicare. When they're the most vulnerable and need the most help, is when everything disappears. I don't like ACA at all, but the previous system was perverse as , and arguably just as bad.
Then again, as long as the discussion centers around who's going to pay for the bloated, inflated cost, instead of actually discussing why we have a bloated, inflated cost, there's not going to be a solution to this problem.
Cost is such a complicated thing though. We eat like crap, we get diabetes, we get heart disease, and our healthcare bills shoot through the roof. But then people go nuts when San Francisco tells McDonalds they can't put toys in their Happy Meals to try to bribe kids into eating this kind of diet that's going to give them these exact expensive health problems. Germany slashed the money doctors get paid. But German doctors aren't raped by an insanely expensive educational system for 8 years like American docs are. The thought of hey take a pay cut when they have a mountain of student debt and thus took great risk for that MD degree sounds horrible.
Today I went for my mammogram and ultrasound and asked the insurance lady what the cash price vs insurance price was. Cash price $80. My co-pay with insurance is 10% which is $15 - so total insurance price is $150. The difference between cash price and insurance price is $70 - almost the real price of the procedure itself. Everyone complains about COST and how ACA didn't address it. The GOP plan (with its HSAs) allows for people to comparison shop for non-emergency procedures and routine physicals/labs and cut out the middleman (insurance companies). Of course, we can't comparison shop if we meet in a major car accident and are in an ambulance on the way to the ER, but that's when catastrophic insurance kicks in (this is really when insurance companies should be involved - not for the minor/routine stuff). People will never care about what something costs when the real cost is hidden by layers of insurance/copays, etc. Only when we are paying with "real" (HSA) dollars will we comparison shop the way we do for our phones, electronics, etc.
Regarding ElNono's COBRA post, the idea is that if people lose their job, they could convert to a cheap, catastrophic policy with same "rating" which would be much cheaper than a full-blown employer sponsored policy. Hopefully, HSA money has built up in previous years or if we could give/receive HSA $ from others (family, friends, charities), to cover the deductible if a catastrophe happens.
If we switch to a European model and force healthcare professionals to accept much less, then you have to practically guarantee low-cost education (because they would not be able to repay debt on low salary). The best and brightest will avoid the healthcare field. Similarly, with drug price control - no incentive for new drugs. If people want that trade-off, they have to accept low/no innovation too. And what do you do with the people caught between the 2 systems (between the switch) - forgive the debt?
At some point, we have to take responsibility for keeping healthy - we can't keep eating terribly, not exercising, etc and not expect disease to set in.
I've had times between good jobs when I had no insurance. Years ago, I went Dr. shopping. My youngest has hypothyroidism. I found a private clinic that could do the appointment, lab work, etc. for something like $170. When I had a good job again, and insurance choices, I asked the same clinic which insurance was best for us and for them to dealing with. She is now 28, and we both use the same clinic still.
You can find places that will give dramatically reduced places if you pay on the spot, and they don't have to deal with insurance companies.
Same thing happened to us when dh was out of work for 5 months. We went on Christian Healthcare Ministries (basically catastrophic coverage) and paid the routine stuff. I was amazed at the prices - $80 mammograms/ultrasounds, $59 CWP labs. And now that we have insurance from dh's employer, I still go and support that place (granted - it's not swanky and the building's old but the equipment is up to date).
This is not a plug for CHM, but I'd like to put out their cost.
There are 3 levels (includes $9/month for Brother Keepers):
Gold - approx. $159 per month/unit - $500 deductible/incident - unlimited financial assistance
Silver - $94 per month/unit - $1000 deductible/incident - $225k financial assistance (accruing up to $1million)
Bronze - $54 per month/unit - $5000 deductible/incident - same as Silver
each adult counts as a unit, all dependent children up to age 26 count as 1 unit (even if you have 10 kids) so 3 units cover a family
CHM has been in existence since 1981 and self-sustaining. Granted - abortions, non-Christian behavior (e.g. drunk driving accident, STDs) aren't covered.
http://www.chministries.org/programs.aspx
You just opened the door for lib attacks...
It's just an example of the cost - have to add a little more to cover for those. Everybody complains about the cost - well, here's a way. Cheap, catastrophic insurance and shop like we do for everything else. When we have no stake in the game, people don't care about the costs and health providers/companies continue to build their swanky buildings and charge us through the nose for them. Make them post their prices and people will gravitate toward the lower price.
$500 deductible per incident. Is that supposed to be good?
That's how the costs are kept down, to be able to afford insurance.
Just don't have any incidents!
Compared to the $6k deductibles we have now? You'd have to have 12 such incidents before you hit $6k.
Really, so that's how Canada keeps costs down? With super high deductibles that don't cover anything?
I have a lot of relatives in Canada - recently went to a funeral there. It irks me no end when they say something to the effect that they don't have to spend hardly anything on defense cause the US will defend anybody who messes with Canada (because we are so close geographically). Same with drugs, medical devices, virtually any innovation - let US spend on research and development and we'll just copy what they discover. And their vaunted system is having problems too - no matter how much they spend.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth.../#24612819290d
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/natasha...b_4429892.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus...b_9646872.html
Last edited by rmt; 12-18-2016 at 01:50 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
