Opposition to Obamacare Becomes Political Liability for GOP Incumbents

[JasperL]

Medicare is not UHC care for seniors. Depending on which parts you have coverage will vary. If you cannot afford to purchase additional coverage such as part B,C or D you do not have universal health care.

You didn't address my point. UHC does not imply first dollar coverage of all healthcare costs.

Those who can't afford "additional coverage" are covered by Medicaid. So the system does provide UHC to all seniors.

 

[RAMOSS]

The Democrats create problems and they try to blame others. This is a pattern that they repeat all the time. In this case, they created the unaffordable health care act, which hurt the middle class tax payer. Here is a link from the CMS or Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The entire article can be read at the link below.

Thank Obamacare for the Rise of the Uninsured | CMS

Ah, a trump official, whinging about the ACA, in a personal blog. OF course, it has to do with the modifications the Republicans and Trump admin did . So honest (not)

 

[avatar]

You didn't address my point. UHC does not imply first dollar coverage of all healthcare costs.

Those who can't afford "additional coverage" are covered by Medicaid. So the system does provide UHC to all seniors.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There are many people living on Social Security that do not qualify for medicaid who still cannot afford to purchase sufficient "medicare supplements" to obtain coverage equal to Universal Health care.

Additionally, one is limited to doctors who will accept medicare payments for services. You probably have never had the joy of having to drive a relative 60 miles one way for a Moh's surgery appointment for a tumor.

 

[JasperL]

I'm not sure I agree with this. There are many people living on Social Security that do not qualify for medicaid who still cannot afford to purchase sufficient "medicare supplements" to obtain coverage equal to Universal Health care.

You've made up your own definition of "UHC" to mean no cost sharing, no premiums, every dollar from the first dollar is paid for by the UHC plan. That might be your preference, but it's not a reasonable definition. What is reasonable is that copays and premiums required under Medicare, or UHC, doesn't in practice exclude the poor, and you've not demonstrated that. Medicaid serves that role for poor seniors and you asserting that "many people" don't qualify for Medicaid and still cannot afford supplemental insurance isn't evidence.

Additionally, one is limited to doctors who will accept medicare payments for services. You probably have never had the joy of having to drive a relative 60 miles one way for a Moh's surgery appointment for a tumor.

I just do not agree that "UHC" means no payments for any healthcare service, ever, and that the person is granted by law the right to be treated by any doctor they want.

Moh's surgery is very specialized - my mother in law had it done - and in fact we did drive her over an hour away to get that treatment, and we drove her an hour each way once/quarter for a couple years for checkups. There was no one in her area that did the surgery at all, so we drove from Baldwin county AL to a provider in Pensacola who was an expert in it. That's a reasonable expectation for such a procedure.

 

[avatar]

You've made up your own definition of "UHC" to mean no cost sharing, no premiums, every dollar from the first dollar is paid for by the UHC plan. That might be your preference, but it's not a reasonable definition. What is reasonable is that copays and premiums required under Medicare, or UHC, doesn't in practice exclude the poor, and you've not demonstrated that. Medicaid serves that role for poor seniors and you asserting that "many people" don't qualify for Medicaid and still cannot afford supplemental insurance isn't evidence.



I just do not agree that "UHC" means no payments for any healthcare service, ever, and that the person is granted by law the right to be treated by any doctor they want.

Moh's surgery is very specialized - my mother in law had it done - and in fact we did drive her over an hour away to get that treatment, and we drove her an hour each way once/quarter for a couple years for checkups. There was no one in her area that did the surgery at all, so we drove from Baldwin county AL to a provider in Pensacola who was an expert in it. That's a reasonable expectation for such a procedure.

UHC by the definition of most means that if you are sick you will get treated. It won't matter if you can pay and you will not be contacted by a collection agency after the event with a demand for all the surprise costs the hospital has deemed possible.

In my relatives area there were 4 different MOH's. None of the close ones would accept medicare. My own doctor does not accept medicare should I ever have to resort to that as my primary insurance. Medicare for 2 with all the necessary additions will cost us virtually all of my wife's SS income.

I challenge your definition of Universal Health Care. IMO universal health care should be paid by our taxes.

 

[upsideguy]

Medicare by itself sucks. One must purchase additional care to survive.

The supplemental is very inexpensive. Medicare has a higher satisfaction rate than regular health insurance.

Insurance.com Survey Shows Medicare Preferred Over Other Health Plans
Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied

 

[Greenbeard]

UHC by the definition of most means that if you are sick you will get treated. It won't matter if you can pay and you will not be contacted by a collection agency after the event with a demand for all the surprise costs the hospital has deemed possible.

Every country's health system includes out-of-pocket spending by households.

 

[avatar]

Every country's health system includes out-of-pocket spending by households.

Please note that the per capita for the US is the highest on the chart after Switzerland.

 

[Greenbeard]

Please note that the per capita for the US is the highest on the chart after Switzerland.

Putting side the difference in per capita income, what’s your point? If you define UHC as something no one has to pay for, no country on earth has it.

 

[avatar]

Putting side the difference in per capita income, what’s your point? If you define UHC as something no one has to pay for, no country on earth has it.

Why not?
Obviously it gets paid for anyway. So why not simply make it universal. Employers would no longer need to pay. Your taxes would go up but so would your pay check. Everyone would be covered at the same cost that is now being paid.

It's a wash either way and fewer middlemen would be taking a cut.

So, again, why not?

 

[wellwisher]

And yet here you are, sharing propaganda that blames the Democrats for premium hikes intentionally triggered by Trump when he illegally dismantled part of the ACA.

Obamacare bombshell: Trump kills key payments to health insurers

The insurance and Health care companies are business that set rates a year or more in advance so they can maximize profits. The bean counters have to plan ahead to calculate premiums and profits by estimating market trends. When Trump took office the rate hikes, set during the last years of Obama, finally took affect. The left does not like business, and has no clue how big business always plans ahead. A big ship takes a lot of time to turn, so you need to start the turn very early, so the turn will time out with the future needs; Big Business 1.0.

The way the Democrats set up ObamaCare, it was destined to fail, since there were incentive in place to raise prices. Big University was set up the same way by the Democrats. The goal of the Democrats, under ObamaCare, was to collapse the system, so Big Government could ride in on a white horse and save the day; single payer. The Green New Deal uses the same tired scam; collapse then save the day.

In the case of Obamacare, this lack of price control and transparency caused a middle class problem in terms of lack of affordable care. These people became Trump's base since they lived the truth, in spite of left wing lying. Aren't violent riots called peaceful demonstrations, now by the Democrats? One is being told to deny reality then and now.

Trump hinted of his plan at a rally he gave a few days ago in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. However, he said this legislation will not take affect until Jan of 2021. He hoped it would be sooner, but he needed the Democrats on board, and the Dems did not want Trump to get credit before the election.

The gist of the plan is to require full transparency in pricing for hospitals, doctors, drug manufacturers, insurers, and support industries. This was not required under ObamaCare. The consumer will be able to see what everyone is charging causing shoppers awareness. This will increase competition and lower prices. Under ObamaCare, prices changes were secret in exchange for campaign donations and kickbacks to Democrats. This ripped off the consumer and hurt the middle class. Some Democrats states still will not allow you to shop outside their state; kickback deal.

Picture a person who needs medication. Before he would pay a very high price. Now he or she will be able to sees that the manufacturer sells their same drug, for only 10% the cost, in Germany. Many people are not aware of this. The consumer will be outraged and will look for a better price. Trump plans to tap into America ingenuity instead of bureaucrats in Washington. Business people will see profit in the differences in cost. For example, middlemen will go to Germany and buy their meds at the lower German price, and then sell them cheaper than the manufacturer in the USA. The manufacturer, to keep consumer confidence, will be forced to lower prices. Healthcare will become affordable under TrumpCare, as closed doors price deals, under ObamaCare, become open door under Trump Care.

 

[Greenbeard]

The insurance and Health care companies are business that set rates a year or more in advance so they can maximize profits.

I'm talking about 2018, by far the largest hikes in the lifetime of the marketplaces. Insurers were quite clear in the rate filings that actions taken by the Trump administration and threatened by the GOP Congress were the driver of premiums that year; indeed, in the absence of Trump's interference, many premiums in the marketplace were plateauing or reversing by that point. Trump permanently reset premiums upwards at a time when the markets had stabilized. The GOP did something similar two years earlier when they sabotaged the financing of the marketplaces.

Painful to think of what things might look like today if the GOP hadn't been obsessed with breaking markets and dismantling marketplaces. The Biden enhancements will be critical steps toward fixing what the GOP has broken.

The way the Democrats set up ObamaCare, it was destined to fail, since there were incentive in place to raise prices.

The incentive not to raise prices is called a marketplace. More competitive marketplaces tend to have lower premiums. Which is why it's a shame the GOP aim over the past several years has been to drive down competition, chase insurers out of the marketplaces, and sabotage their functioning as much as possible.

The gist of the plan is to require full transparency in pricing for hospitals, doctors, drug manufacturers, insurers, and support industries. This was not required under ObamaCare.

That is Obamacare. The legal authority cited for that action in the regulation is 2718(e) of the Public Health Service Act, a provision created by, you guessed it, the Affordable Care Act.

Section 1001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Pub. L. 111-148), as amended by section 10101 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152), amended Title XXVII of the PHS Act, in part, by adding a new section 2718(e) of the PHS Act. Section 2718 of the PHS Act, entitled “Bringing Down the Cost of Health Care Coverage,” requires each hospital operating within the United States for each year to establish (and update) and make public a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis related groups (DRGs) established under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (SSA).

Repeal the ACA and that provision gets repealed as well and there's no legal basis for a price transparency reg.

The consumer will be able to see what everyone is charging causing shoppers awareness. This will increase competition and lower prices. Under ObamaCare, prices changes were secret in exchange for campaign donations and kickbacks to Democrats.

Insurer-provider contracts have been proprietary since forever. Making them public isn't going to change consumer behavior, but it may change the dynamic between insurers and providers at the negotiating table. Whether for better or for worse remains to be seen.

Regardless, if the GOP succeeds in getting the ACA struck down it doesn't matter anyway, since the transparency agenda relies on the ACA.

 

[Tahuyaman]

The ACA is not a major issue since the public mandate has been basically eliminated.

 

[Greenbeard]

The ACA is not a major issue since the public mandate has been basically eliminated.

The ACA is a major issue because Trump and the GOP are trying to bring back pre-existing conditions, strip 30 million people of coverage, and upend the health care system during a pandemic.

 

[Tahuyaman]

The ACA is a major issue because Trump and the GOP are trying to bring back pre-existing conditions, strip 30 million people of coverage, and upend the health care system during a pandemic.

Nonsense. No one is trying to strip health care from 30 million people. That claim is just a partisan motivated talking point.

 

[Jay59]

considering the continuous Republican sabotage, i'm surprised that there's anything left of the ACA that is still functional.

Then you have no clue how Republicans think.

And yet here you are, sharing propaganda that blames the Democrats for premium hikes intentionally triggered by Trump when he illegally dismantled part of the ACA.

Your use of the word illegally is propaganda, nor was it part of ACA

An appeals court found in favor of Big Insurance over some disputed payments. Your own article points out that the payments were successfully challenged in court.

Obamacare bombshell: Trump kills key payments to health insurers

Funny that you don't mention that the payments are not part of the law and came from an executive order, which Trump rescinded.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nonsense. No one is trying to strip health care from 30 million people. That claim is just a partisan motivated talking point.

California v. Texas.

 

[Greenbeard]

Funny that you don't mention that the payments are not part of the law and came from an executive order, which Trump rescinded.

The payments are required in Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.

Also known as 42 U.S. Code § 18071 - Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health plans

(3)Methods for reducing cost-sharing

(A)In general
An issuer of a qualified health plan making reductions under this subsection shall notify the Secretary of such reductions and the Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions.​

Hence the court slapping down Trump's decision to upend the market and jack up premiums by arbitrarily rescinding them.

 

[Jay59]

The payments are required in Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act. Also known as 42 U.S. Code § 18071 - Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health plans

Read it again. It says the benefit must be offered. Payment is ambiguous, hence the successful suit.

Hence the court slapping down Trump's decision to upend the market and jack up premiums by arbitrarily rescinding them.

More propaganda and hyperbole, "upend the market and jack up premiums." The decision to end the payments was no more arbitrary than the decision to begin them without an enabling law.

Experts have said that ACA was designed to fail, because of the insufficient funding. This is one of the places. It has failed in the sense that many states have only one provider in their "exchange".

 

[Greenbeard]

Read it again. It says the benefit must be offered. Payment is ambiguous, hence the successful suit.

"The Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions."


Very ambiguous!

 

[Greenbeard]

Experts have said that ACA was designed to fail, because of the insufficient funding.

Since it didn't fail, your unnamed "experts" should return their expert cards to the novelty shop where they got them.

 

[Exquisitor]

As a reminder, in the 2018 midterms exit polls showed health care to be by far the most important issue in that election. Those voting on health care preferred Dem candidates by a 52-point (75-23) margin. The Dems gained back the House with the largest midterm vote margin of all time, nearly 10 million votes.

And now once again the GOP's opposition to the Affordable Care Act is shaping up to be a major albatross around its neck.

Opposition to Obamacare Becomes Political Liability for GOP Incumbents

Trying to take away people's health care wasn't popular when the GOP tried it in 2017. But trying it during a pandemic? Boy, I don't know.

Great news dude.

 

[Jay59]

"The Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions." Very ambiguous!

Show where it enables the Secretary to acquire the funds.

Since it didn't fail, your unnamed "experts" should return their expert cards to the novelty shop where they got them.

It has failed, as already noted.

 

[Helix]

Then you have no clue how Republicans think.

sure i do.

 

[Jay59]

sure i do.

Your last post proved otherwise. Republicans don't break things from spite. That's a Democrat thing. Republicans try to patch things together enough to get by.