Trump Ramps Up Obamacare Sabotage With Huge Cuts To Enrollment Programs

[Vern]

You claimed they are causing price hikes and they are not. ..........You say they are sabotaging it, but you not provided me any evidence of it. What have they done that you call sabotage?

so now that you know that republicans and Trump were driving up prices and causing insurers to leave markets you now know that republicans were sabotaging Obamacare. Something makes me think you don't care what the facts are and will cling to your narrative.

Removing the subsidies and the mandate isnt sabatoge. It is making people pay the actual cost for what they are demanding.

so trouble, what do you call Trump and republicans driving up prices and causing insurers to leave markets and being dishonest about it?

 

[jaeger19]

At least you actually provided something that can be discussed.

It seems like pie in the sky thinking to believe you can give more people more comphrehensive coverage and not have premiums rise. ACA combats that in a few different ways.

1. The mandate forces people who dont need comphrehensive coverage to purchase it and spend more on health services than they would without it.

2. cap insurance company prices

3. Transfer the actual costs to the tax payers

Removing the subsidies and the mandate isnt sabatoge. It is making people pay the actual cost for what they are demanding.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Yeah no.

first.. the "subsidy" that you are talking about.. I don't think you realize what it is. Greenbeard could explain it better.. but basically what you are calling a subsidy is a protection against heavy loss by the insurance companies.

See.. the risk corridor payments etc? What happens is that lets say you are an insurance company and you are going into a new market.. which is well.. what we want.. more competition. Well there is risk there. What if you underprice your premiums and get hit with a lot of medical costs?
So the way the system is designed is that if an insurance company prices their premiums and makes a ton of profit.. well they actually have to give some of the profit back. (they keep 20% of costs). IF however, they can hammered with costs and underpriced their premiums.. well then the risk corridor payment is there to help them recoup loss.

Basically its designed as a stabilizer to the insurance companies so they know that if they go into a new market.. they will not lose their shirts (the program only lasts a few years until the markets are well established and the risks are well known) . but now? that security is gone.. so they now are pricing their premiums high to help mitigate potential loss. That is sabotage of the ACA.

The mandate is also an essential part in getting more competitive rates. The key to lower rates is getting more people on insurance. The larger the risk pool.. the lower the risk and the lower the premiums can be. With a mandate that's enforced.. insurance companies are to some degree more assured that if they come into a new market (again more competition.. which is what we republicans SAY they want) they need to have some assurance that they will have enough customers to mitigate the risk. If the only ones that take insurance are the ones that have an immediate need for coverage, its simply not fiscally feasible.

So removing the mandates is most certainly sabotage.

Here is the real irony. These two things are so essential for ANY healthcare reform to work (unless we go to single payer).. that the republicans will HAVE to incorporate some form of a mandate and some form of risk corridor in any healthcare bill.

 

[JasperL]

Here's a whole thread about Trump threatening to withhold the "cost sharing payments". Some raised their rates and others pulled out of markets.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/obam...remium-increases.html?highlight=reimbursement

In addition to those, republicans encouraged people to not sign up. They were trying to reduce the risk pool and drive up prices. And costs are higher in the red states that didn't expand Medicaid. You really should just do a search of threads started by Greenbeard if you want to learn about Obamacare.

Yeah, that's a good idea. I don't know where Greenbeard gets his info, or what his day job might be, but it's accurate and he seems to have lots of it available on command. I've personally learned a great deal reading his posts.

 

[trouble13]

Here's the sabotage of gutting the risk Corridors. Its the same thing Medicare Part D used to allay the fears of insurers entering a new market.

link directs me to page not found error

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Here's a whole thread about Trump threatening to withhold the "cost sharing payments". Some raised their rates and others pulled out of markets.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/obam...remium-increases.html?highlight=reimbursement

In addition to those, republicans encouraged people to not sign up. They were trying to reduce the risk pool and drive up prices. And costs are higher in the red states that didn't expand Medicaid. You really should just do a search of threads started by Greenbeard if you want to learn about Obamacare.

Your really suggesting that not expanding medicaid is sabatoge?



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

so now that you know that republicans and Trump were driving up prices and causing insurers to leave markets you now know that republicans were sabotaging Obamacare. Something makes me think you don't care what the facts are and will cling to your narrative.



so trouble, what do you call Trump and republicans driving up prices and causing insurers to leave markets and being dishonest about it?

I call your accusations missrepresentations.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Yeah no.

first.. the "subsidy" that you are talking about.. I don't think you realize what it is. Greenbeard could explain it better.. but basically what you are calling a subsidy is a protection against heavy loss by the insurance companies.

You dont consider the sliding scale premiums for lower incomes a subsidy?

See.. the risk corridor payments etc? What happens is that lets say you are an insurance company and you are going into a new market.. which is well.. what we want.. more competition. Well there is risk there. What if you underprice your premiums and get hit with a lot of medical costs?
So the way the system is designed is that if an insurance company prices their premiums and makes a ton of profit.. well they actually have to give some of the profit back. (they keep 20% of costs). IF however, they can hammered with costs and underpriced their premiums.. well then the risk corridor payment is there to help them recoup loss.

Basically its designed as a stabilizer to the insurance companies so they know that if they go into a new market.. they will not lose their shirts (the program only lasts a few years until the markets are well established and the risks are well known) . but now? that security is gone.. so they now are pricing their premiums high to help mitigate potential loss. That is sabotage of the ACA.

1. This isnt a new market. These companies have been providing insurance to these people for decades. Not that it really matters I just wanted to correct that statement.

2. Your calling it a stabalizer but in truth its the gov garunteeing sucess to insurance companys.

The mandate is also an essential part in getting more competitive rates. The key to lower rates is getting more people on insurance. The larger the risk pool.. the lower the risk and the lower the premiums can be. With a mandate that's enforced.. insurance companies are to some degree more assured that if they come into a new market (again more competition.. which is what we republicans SAY they want) they need to have some assurance that they will have enough customers to mitigate the risk. If the only ones that take insurance are the ones that have an immediate need for coverage, its simply not fiscally feasible.

Its essential because your demanding people to purchase services they do not need to offset those who are not paying enough to cover the services they are using. Let me also offer you something as food for thought about these people being forced to buy coverage. Do you think its fair to believe they will use services they would not of without the mandate since they are being forced into it. The mandate may drive the individual policy cost down because it spreads the cost over more people but it also drives the total costs up.

So removing the mandates is most certainly sabotage.

On this I agree with you. Removing the mandate would hurt ACA and the mandate was written into the law. Im unsympathetic because I oppose it in principle but I will agree that if they remove it, that can be correctly called sabatoge.

HERE is the real irony. These two things are so essential for ANY healthcare reform to work (unless we go to single payer).. that the republicans will HAVE to incorporate some form of a mandate and some form of risk corridor in any healthcare bill.

No they are not. I could design a healthcare program better than what we have without either of those things being included.


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Vern]

link directs me to page not found error

Your really suggesting that not expanding medicaid is sabatoge?

I call your accusations missrepresentations.

Of course you. trouble the link not working doesn't allow you to ignore that republicans gutted the risk corridors. And of course you magically ignore that not expanding Medicaid increased the cost of premiums to people in those red states. But how did you ignore the Greenbeard thread I provided for you? Trump and republicans threatening not to reimburse insurers for cost sharing expenses literally made rates shoot up and insurers leave markets. I don't see where you accepted that fact. And I didn't see you acknowledge that republicans encouraged people not to sign up.

I knew you'd magically claim "nuh uh". But your magic is requiring you to ignore the facts. Its why you cant respond with nothing other than "nuh uh" and "links don't work". But trouble, the links worked from Jaeger and Greenbeard concerning Trump and republicans threatening to not reimburse the cost sharing subsidies. And jaeger's link pointed out that Trump wont enforce the mandate so I get to add that to the list. Anyhoo, lets review the things republicans actually did that caused higher prices and drove insurers out of the market.

encouraged people to not sign up
didn't expand Medicaid in 19 states
sabotaged the risk corridor program
not enforcing the mandate
threatened to not pay the cost sharing subsidies

now trouble, dig deep and tell us what you would call it when someone causes premium increases and insurers to leave markets and then celebrates premium increases and insurers to leave markets as proof Obamacare is collapsing?

 

[JasperL]

You dont consider the sliding scale premiums for lower incomes a subsidy?

The discussion was about payments to the INSURERS.

1. This isnt a new market. These companies have been providing insurance to these people for decades. Not that it really matters I just wanted to correct that statement.

In some cases, but even if BCBS has been in Knoxville for 10 years, the "exchange" market is new to them. Their existing non-group business is all underwritten, so they know what they're getting into and reject everyone who is too sick - the whole pre-existing condition thingee. When they participate in the exchange, they know the vast majority of the insured will be new people who they haven't been insuring, and they'll have lots of unknown illnesses, some of them very expensive. Others might drop insurance from some other company because the exchange is cheaper, and those people might have chronic and expensive conditions. So, sure, the actuaries can usually predict what the costs are going to be, but they can't predict things like that extreme outlier in Iowa - a single person whose care costs $1 million per MONTH.

2. Your calling it a stabalizer but in truth its the gov garunteeing sucess to insurance companys.

Not really - insurers can still fail and lose money on the exchanges, which we know because that has happened!

Its essential because your demanding people to purchase services they do not need to offset those who are not paying enough to cover the services they are using. Let me also offer you something as food for thought about these people being forced to buy coverage. Do you think its fair to believe they will use services they would not of without the mandate since they are being forced into it. The mandate may drive the individual policy cost down because it spreads the cost over more people but it also drives the total costs up.

Young people need insurance because young people get in bad accidents, women have expensive pregnancies, some get cancer, etc. It's a legitimate complaint that the 3-1 age bands are a way to force healthy young people to subsidize older people but in most (if not all...) companies that age band is 1-1 and a 25 year old pays the same rate as a 64 year old with diabetes and heart disease. So lots of older people who LOVE their "market" based insurance at work love it because they're getting massive subsidies from the youngsters working in their firm, because that's what the pre-ACA law required (AFAIK).

Besides, make it more affordable for the young (with e.g. a 5-1 band) and you make it less affordable for older workers who are under ACA paying 3 times the rates of the young. So it's obviously a difficult compromise to make.

On this I agree with you. Removing the mandate would hurt ACA and the mandate was written into the law. Im unsympathetic because I oppose it in principle but I will agree that if they remove it, that can be correctly called sabatoge.

They just said they wouldn't enforce it. Same thing. And I support a mandate because those who can afford insurance but don't get it are freeloaders. There's no other word to describe it. They're betting they don't get seriously ill or in a bad accident, and if they "lose" that bet, we pay off the big downside risk. It's a helluva deal for them, but I don't see why we should allow freeloading at NO cost at all, given we REQUIRE ER/ED to treat everyone without regard to ability to pay.

No they are not. I could design a healthcare program better than what we have without either of those things being included.

No, you can't really.

 

[jaeger19]

You dont consider the sliding scale premiums for lower incomes a subsidy?

I sure do.. but THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. those sliding scale premiums are being left in tact for now... what we are talking about is the disruption of the risk corridors etc. Which is a different thing
by the way.. the republican plan that passed still contained a subsidy for premiums... it was just labeled a "tax credit".

This isnt a new market. These companies have been providing insurance to these people for decades. Not that it really matters I just wanted to correct that statement.

It IS a new market.. one its a new market for many insurance companies when they go into a different region or state. We (meaning republicans ) want more competition in the market.. "we want insurance companies to cross state lines".. well when insurance companies are offering insurance in different markets.. there is more risk for them. (we can debate how much.. but it is true its there). the cost of healthcare in NYC.. the cost of everything in NYC is different than the cost in Podunk Idaho). Not to mention that if you want more competition from start up insurance companies like non profit cooperatives.

Its also a new market since many of these people WERE UNINSURED. and had been for a while.. so it was not known what their medical needs might be once they had insurance. (We can argue about the degree of that).. but there is definitely a new market and unknown for the insurance companies.

Your calling it a stabalizer but in truth its the gov garunteeing sucess to insurance companys.

No it doesn't guarantee success... it prevents outright failure... that's how its designed. Heck if they make too much money they have to give it up. .. Are their probably shenanigans in the system? I would guarantee that also.. but it does make fiscal sense to have a risk corridor and a stabilizer of the market.

Its essential because your demanding people to purchase services they do not need to offset those who are not paying enough to cover the services they are using. .

Wow.. a lot of problems with that.. okay.. lets start with the last.. that it drives total costs up.

in the long run.. no it doesn't. And that's because while you ask.. "is it fair to believe they will use services they would not without they mandate". Yep it is.. because I HOPE THEY DO. I hope they go to the doctor to get their diabetes under control.. I hope they get they blood pressure under control. I hope they go to the doctor for their "cold" before it sets into pneumonia. Because while its fair to believe they use services they would not without the mandate.... I KNOW as a medical provider that when they go into diabetic shock.. their family is sending them to the hospital.. when they can't breath and feel like an elephant is on their chest.. they are going to the ER.. when their chest is giving them sharp pain and its radiating down their arm and up their neck.. THEY ARE GOING TO THE HOSPITAL EVEN THOUGH THEY DON"T HAVE INSURANCE.

and guess what? the rest of us eat that bill. We eat it. Unpaid care is a huge cost to our system.

No they are not. I could design a healthcare program better than what we have without either of those things being included.

no you really can't. but the only way you could do without the mandate is to basically have a single payer system where everyone is "given" healthcare insurance.

ultimately the only way to make any program cost effective is for everyone to be insured in some way.

That's because we aren;t willing to let people just die in this country because they can't afford healthcare.. not you.. nor anyone else is publically going to say... "hey.. if that 11 year old boy with appendicitis needs surgery but doesn;t have the ability to pay..screw him.. let him die".. no on is going to let that 22 year old mother without insurance who gets into a car wreck die. Or pretty much anyone else.
So the healthcare providers will provide that care.. and if its uninsured.. and unpayed for those costs will get passed on to you and the system. And that's TERRIBLY inefficient. Its one of the major problems in our system right now... people get care.. but they don't pay for it.. they pass that bill to everyone else.

Either you make then pay something in taxes (with single payer) or you make them pay because they have to have insurance (mandate).

Wait.. get rid of pre existing conditions you say? Great.. so now people can go without health insurance.. and then when they get sick.. go get a plan. then when better.. ditch their plan. and THAT doesn;t work from an insurance perspective.

 

[trouble13]

In some cases, but even if BCBS has been in Knoxville for 10 years, the "exchange" market is new to them. Their existing non-group business is all underwritten, so they know what they're getting into and reject everyone who is too sick - the whole pre-existing condition thingee. When they participate in the exchange, they know the vast majority of the insured will be new people who they haven't been insuring, and they'll have lots of unknown illnesses, some of them very expensive. Others might drop insurance from some other company because the exchange is cheaper, and those people might have chronic and expensive conditions. So, sure, the actuaries can usually predict what the costs are going to be, but they can't predict things like that extreme outlier in Iowa - a single person whose care costs $1 million per MONTH.

This is one of the huge flaws in the law. ACA created a new entitlement and forces these companys to finance it. It also wants to insist on how much the company can charge for providing these entitlments. Its not surprising these companys are leaving it as they discover the gop is not going to increase the amount of money the gov will compensate with.

Not really - insurers can still fail and lose money on the exchanges, which we know because that has happened!

Which explains the egress by insurance companys

Young people need insurance because young people get in bad accidents, women have expensive pregnancies, some get cancer, etc. It's a legitimate complaint that the 3-1 age bands are a way to force healthy young people to subsidize older people but in most (if not all...) companies that age band is 1-1 and a 25 year old pays the same rate as a 64 year old with diabetes and heart disease. So lots of older people who LOVE their "market" based insurance at work love it because they're getting massive subsidies from the youngsters working in their firm, because that's what the pre-ACA law required (AFAIK).


Besides, make it more affordable for the young (with e.g. a 5-1 band) and you make it less affordable for older workers who are under ACA paying 3 times the rates of the young. So it's obviously a difficult compromise to make.



They just said they wouldn't enforce it. Same thing. And I support a mandate because those who can afford insurance but don't get it are freeloaders. There's no other word to describe it. They're betting they don't get seriously ill or in a bad accident, and if they "lose" that bet, we pay off the big downside risk. It's a helluva deal for them, but I don't see why we should allow freeloading at NO cost at all, given we REQUIRE ER/ED to treat everyone without regard to ability to pay.

Be honest with yourself and admit that you support the mandate because it serves your goal to move us all into a single payer system. The previous compromise was that an insurance company was not allowed to drop you for getting sick but if you dropped it our did not have it when you got sick they could exclude covering you for that ailment if you applied for insurance later. This gave people the choice of if they wanted to carry insurance or risk not having it. That choice served as a self imposed mandate for consumers and self imposed price control for insurers.

No, you can't really.

Yes I really can because I have. Im not doing it here because it would derail this threads topic but I could outline a system that I think would be far better than what we have now and what we had before ACA was passed.



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

This is one of the huge flaws in the law. ACA created a new entitlement and forces these companys to finance it. It also wants to insist on how much the company can charge for providing these entitlments. Its not surprising these companys are leaving it as they discover the gop is not going to increase the amount of money the gov will compensate with.

Yeah.. you kind of got that wrong. First.. the issues is the risk corridors.. and not the individual premium subsidy.
And you seem to be waffling on this with the insurance companies. First you claim that the insurance companies are guaranteed success.. and now you are basically saying "well these poor insurance companies"..

Lastly.. the issue here is that the government is DECREASING and getting rid of the risk corridors.. not that they are not increasing it.

Which explains the egress by insurance companys

And made worse by Trump hurting the risk corridors and other stabilizers of the market. Like not enforcing the individual mandate.

This gave people the choice of if they wanted to carry insurance or risk not having it. That choice served as a self imposed mandate for consumers and self imposed price control for insurers.

Not at all because when they got sick and didn;t have insurance.. they got care anyway.. and usually more expensive care because of the delay and non payment.. which then got passed to the insurance companies and then to you.

Yes I really can because I have. Im not doing it here because it would derail this threads topic but I could outline a system that I think would be far better than what we have now and what we had before ACA was passed.

I challenge you to do so without an individual mandate of some kind and without going to single payer. You can start a new thread. good luck.

 

[trouble13]

QUOTE=jaeger19;1067612405]I sure do.. but THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. those sliding scale premiums are being left in tact for now... what we are talking about is the disruption of the risk corridors etc. Which is a different thing
by the way.. the republican plan that passed still contained a subsidy for premiums... it was just labeled a "tax credit".
[/QUOTE]

I challenged the idea that ACA does not provide subsidies and you decided to limit it to the risk corridors. My argument was never under that restriction. Yes the gop is offering tax credits and while I generally support lessening peoples tax burden I fully conceed your point that they are playing a shell game with the numbers and in a sense are also guility of subsidizing insurance companys.

No it doesn't guarantee success... it prevents outright failure... that's how its designed. Heck if they make too much money they have to give it up. .. Are their probably shenanigans in the system? I would guarantee that also.. but it does make fiscal sense to have a risk corridor and a stabilizer of the market.

Same difference but if it makes you feel better saying it how you said it, so be it. In laymen terms its a bailout for them. Too big to fail, etc...

Wow.. a lot of problems with that.. okay.. lets start with the last.. that it drives total costs up.

in the long run.. no it doesn't. And that's because while you ask.. "is it fair to believe they will use services they would not without they mandate". Yep it is.. because I HOPE THEY DO. I hope they go to the doctor to get their diabetes under control.. I hope they get they blood pressure under control. I hope they go to the doctor for their "cold" before it sets into pneumonia. Because while its fair to believe they use services they would not without the mandate.... I KNOW as a medical provider that when they go into diabetic shock.. their family is sending them to the hospital.. when they can't breath and feel like an elephant is on their chest.. they are going to the ER.. when their chest is giving them sharp pain and its radiating down their arm and up their neck.. THEY ARE GOING TO THE HOSPITAL EVEN THOUGH THEY DON"T HAVE INSURANCE.

and guess what? the rest of us eat that bill. We eat it. Unpaid care is a huge cost to our system.

I been hearing this same argument since the 80s when HMOs became popular and its not true. Long term prices have not declined and we are not healthier. It has driven costs up not down.

no you really can't. but the only way you could do without the mandate is to basically have a single payer system where everyone is "given" healthcare insurance.

ultimately the only way to make any program cost effective is for everyone to be insured in some way.

That's because we aren;t willing to let people just die in this country because they can't afford healthcare.. not you.. nor anyone else is publically going to say... "hey.. if that 11 year old boy with appendicitis needs surgery but doesn;t have the ability to pay..screw him.. let him die".. no on is going to let that 22 year old mother without insurance who gets into a car wreck die. Or pretty much anyone else.
So the healthcare providers will provide that care.. and if its uninsured.. and unpayed for those costs will get passed on to you and the system. And that's TERRIBLY inefficient. Its one of the major problems in our system right now... people get care.. but they don't pay for it.. they pass that bill to everyone else.

Either you make then pay something in taxes (with single payer) or you make them pay because they have to have insurance (mandate).

Wait.. get rid of pre existing conditions you say? Great.. so now people can go without health insurance.. and then when they get sick.. go get a plan. then when better.. ditch their plan. and THAT doesn;t work from an insurance perspective.

True we are a compassionate society but we give bare bones treatment to the uninsurred to control the costs. I reject your false diactomy that its either the mandate or universal healthcare. We can thrive with a system with neither

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

This is one of the huge flaws in the law. ACA created a new entitlement and forces these companys to finance it. It also wants to insist on how much the company can charge for providing these entitlments. Its not surprising these companys are leaving it as they discover the gop is not going to increase the amount of money the gov will compensate with.

ACA doesn't "force" insurers onto the exchanges nor does it dictate premiums. The insurers set their premiums on the exchanges same way they did off the exchanges before the ACA.

Which explains the egress by insurance companys

Well, you can't say in one post that the ACA system guarantees insurers' profits, then in the next post say the LOSSES explain why some are leaving the exchange markets.... :roll:

Be honest with yourself and admit that you support the mandate because it serves your goal to move us all into a single payer system. The previous compromise was that an insurance company was not allowed to drop you for getting sick but if you dropped it our did not have it when you got sick they could exclude covering you for that ailment if you applied for insurance later. This gave people the choice of if they wanted to carry insurance or risk not having it. That choice served as a self imposed mandate for consumers and self imposed price control for insurers

I support the mandate in the ACA system for the reasons I gave. If you want to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions, you have to have a mandate.

And your description of the system pre-ACA is correct but incomplete. Sure, if you didn't have insurance and got cancer, you're f'd forever on the individual market - can't EVER get insurance at any price. So in a sense, you made the "choice" by going without insurance. But for it to be an actual "choice" then the decision to get insurance just before that cancer diagnosis had to be real - that is the choice was affordable, and that was NOT true for an awful lot of the uninsured. Many of the "uninsured" simply could not afford insurance, which is why they did not have it. Furthermore, what the old system meant is many were a job loss, a deep recession, away from losing insurance for perhaps forever. Sure, COBRA was available, but it's hard for many folks to pay perhaps $1,000 per month for COBRA family coverage while unemployed and making no money, and keep the roof over their heads, the car, etc. then maybe your next job is part time, or full time but without benefits, and you've still got to cover that $1k/month. For many it's not possible....

And I'll just note that people LOVE work based insurance. That's in part because there is an absolute legal mandate to cover everyone regardless of health history. So most people who are opposed to the mandate on principle enjoy and absolutely love the system they are in, work based insurance, which doesn't force you to get insurance, but if you do get that job, the employer MUST insure you and at the same cost as everyone else. So it's a mandate of a different sort but it's an egregious violation of the "free market" but everyone loves it.

Get rid of that for everyone, and see whether that principled opposition to mandates in the health insurance market survives when some guy with a good job and health insurance whose wife had breast cancer and now can't get insurance for her, or his disabled child, at ANY price at his place of work, or when his premium goes to $4k/month for the same coverage his coworkers pay $300/month.

So, fine, if the GOP wants to eliminate the unfair mandate - do it. But not just for ACA. Put eliminating the mandate for work based insurance in the same bill. We'll see that goes NOWHERE.

Yes I really can because I have. Im not doing it here because it would derail this threads topic but I could outline a system that I think would be far better than what we have now and what we had before ACA was passed.

No offense, but unless you have a very high level job in health insurance or otherwise have spent a career studying the issue in some way, you like me don't really have a clue how the various provisions work together and how to fashion a workable alternative. We just saw how difficult it is for the GOP and they have access to those experts. The other barrier is if we ignore political and cost considerations, lots of general solutions are easy to spot. Let's copy, say, France's system! That's got to get through Congress.....

 

[jaeger19]

[

I challenged the idea that ACA does not provide subsidies and you decided to limit it to the risk corridors. My argument was never under that restriction. Yes the gop is offering tax credits and while I generally support lessening peoples tax burden I fully conceed your point that they are playing a shell game with the numbers and in a sense are also guility of subsidizing insurance companys.

Well first. NO ONE was arguing that the ACA does not provide subsidies. What you got wrong was what the OP and others were talking about.. which is the risk corridors. And we were trying to correct you.

Same difference but if it makes you feel better saying it how you said it, so be it. In laymen terms its a bailout for them. Too big to fail, etc...

Yeah no. Its not. they can still fail.. Jasper just pointed that out. All it does is mitigate some of the risk that they could have in the exchanges.

I been hearing this same argument since the 80s when HMOs became popular and its not true. Long term prices have not declined and we are not healthier. It has driven costs up not down.

Ummmm.. you realize that you have been hearing this argument since the 1980's BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE UNINSURED. Long term prices have not declined and we are not healthier because until extremely recently.. we had a significant portion of people that are uninsured. IT WAS NEVER FIXED./ Even with Obamacare.. about 5- 10% of the population is left without insurance and that's just recently. And now.. those numbers of uninsured are going to creep back up again.

You cannot claim that universal coverage has "driven cost up not down".. when we have NEVER HAD UNIVERSAL COVERAGE.

True we are a compassionate society but we give bare bones treatment to the uninsurred to control the costs

No we don't.. we often have to give the most expensive care to the uninsured because its a very inefficient way of providing coverage. Treating a pneumonia that could have been prevented.. treating a heart attach that could have been prevented is not efficient.. and its very costly.

I reject your false diactomy that its either the mandate or universal healthcare. We can thrive with a system with neither

Your rejection is based on your ignorance of how healthcare works and healthcare insurance works. But you explain how you can have millions of people who wait until they are really really sick.. deathly sick to get care because they don't have insurance.. and then go to the hospital for extremely expensive care. and then push that cost onto everyone who has insurance.. and we can "thrive"..

Please explain that. I want you to explain how a healthcare system can thrive when a significant portion of people get healthcare.. expensive healthcare because of delays in care and push that bill onto people that have insurance.

so you please explain how that's possible.

 

[Rogue Valley]

link directs me to page not found error

Link works for me

https://www.debatepolitics.com/obam...remium-increases.html?highlight=reimbursement

 

[Vern]

I call your accusations missrepresentations.

Trouble, its been a few days so I'm assuming you have recovered from the beating you took defending false conservative narratives and trying to ignore the facts. Surely some of the facts had to get through otherwise you'd still be flailing at them. Its real simple trouble, you just have to understand that the people who lied to you about repealing Obamacare have lied to you about everything. To be fair you should have realized it when republicans supported mandates for 20 years and then magically stopped when President Obama supported them. But that was a strange time, there was simply no lie the conservative media or republicans couldn't get away with.

anyhoo, this is what you have to do going forward, before you post things as fact simply because you want to believe them, take a step back and question them yourself. See if you can back up your narrative before you post it. See if it even makes sense. Just think how many fewer conservatives would have humiliated themselves posting about death panels if they just asked themselves "death panels? really?" to be clear, you just cant deny you've been lied about everything related to Obamacare the last 8 years so you should be less trusting of conservative narratives.

 

[trouble13]

Trouble, its been a few days so I'm assuming you have recovered from the beating you took defending false conservative narratives and trying to ignore the facts. Surely some of the facts had to get through otherwise you'd still be flailing at them. Its real simple trouble, you just have to understand that the people who lied to you about repealing Obamacare have lied to you about everything. To be fair you should have realized it when republicans supported mandates for 20 years and then magically stopped when President Obama supported them. But that was a strange time, there was simply no lie the conservative media or republicans couldn't get away with.

anyhoo, this is what you have to do going forward, before you post things as fact simply because you want to believe them, take a step back and question them yourself. See if you can back up your narrative before you post it. See if it even makes sense. Just think how many fewer conservatives would have humiliated themselves posting about death panels if they just asked themselves "death panels? really?" to be clear, you just cant deny you've been lied about everything related to Obamacare the last 8 years so you should be less trusting of conservative narratives.

Your baiting skills are sophmoric at best. If your unable or unwilling to have a civil discussion find someone interested in participating in your childishness, i am not.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Vern]

Your baiting skills are sophmoric at best. If your unable or unwilling to have a civil discussion find someone interested in participating in your childishness, i am not.

I see you're still recovering. When you feel up to discussing the facts instead of me, come on back. Don't rush. And fyi, the facts don't magically change just because you avoid them.

 

[Puigb]

Doesn't really matter how long it's been in place. They've been elected to get rid of it.

nice dodge. BTW, why haven't they gotten rid of it yet? Because they have nothing. They are frauds, period.

 

[Anthony60]

nice dodge. BTW, why haven't they gotten rid of it yet? Because they have nothing. They are frauds, period.

No, because they are as bad as the Democrats, or al least enough of them are.

 

[Vern]

No, because they are as bad as the Democrats, or al least enough of them are.

oh Anthony, your whine's only purpose to justify your continued (and obedient) support of republicans because even you can no longer deny they've lied to you for 7 years concerning Obamacare. Until you can deal with that in an honest and intelligent fashion, you should refrain from posting.

 

[Anthony60]

oh Anthony, your whine's only purpose to justify your continued (and obedient) support of republicans because even you can no longer deny they've lied to you for 7 years concerning Obamacare. Until you can deal with that in an honest and intelligent fashion, you should refrain from posting.

That's a pretty uniformed post, showing that you know very little about me. You are also trying to push the fallacy that if they haven't repealed it, then Obamacare must be great.

So let's not pretend that's the case. Just because there are to many gutless Republicans, doesn't excuse the fact that all the Democrats are gutless. So don't come here talking about lies and justification when we've been saddled with healthcare that is built on Democrat lies.

 

[Rogue Valley]

You are also trying to push the fallacy that if they haven't repealed it, then Obamacare must be great.

No one is pushing that oxcart.

Truth is, the Republicans have had 8 years to formulate a better healthcare alternative, but have been unable to do so.

 

[yankintx]

If its such failure, why cant the inept GOP Congress get rid it if, oh ya, there constituents are sayin not to repeal. Congress work's for the people that elected them, not D Drump, despite trumps obvious lack of basic civics and separation of powers.

See you at the hearings !