6
   

Republican Senator Susan Collins criticizes secretive process of Senate health care replacement bill

 
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2018 12:36 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The fact that there are regulations to protect people doesn't mean it is less market-based.
The term "market based" can be subjective in its definition. If you ask an ultra conservative to describe "market based", they will probably tell you "market based" is when you don't have government regulations and intrusions telling industries, companies, and businesses what they can or can't do. That refers to any industry, not just healthcare. The Oil and gas industry, the Airline industry, the banking industry, the investment industry, pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street, and any other industry. I am just pointing out that the term " market based" is used differently by ultra conservatives. An ultra conservative would not call Obamacare "market based" because of all of the protections and regulations that the health insurance industry is forced to comply with. I, myself, believe in government regulations and protections, but I am a liberal and not a conservative.


Quote:
Some countries have a system where hospitals are owned and run by the government, and doctors and nurses are government employees. There are no medical bills to speak of, so no need for health insurance. Health care is simply provided by the government for free.
I know exactly how the system you are describing works, because America has a limited version of this system. It is the Veterans Administration (also known as the V.A.). What you are describing is exactly how the V.A. hospitals work. The only difference is that V.A. care is only offered to veterans, not the general public. By the way, I am a veteran. I have been utilizing the V.A. for many years. On the contrary to what some people may have heard about the V.A., the overall quality care and professionalism I've received from the V.A. has been Excellent.

If V.A. care were offered to everyone in the general public, that would be much further left and much more liberal than single-payer. (Medicare-for-all) is government run healthcare insurance. On the other hand, (VA-for-all) is government run healthcare.

If republicans don't like (Medicare-for-all), they're definitely not going to like (VA-for-all).
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2018 07:30 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
The term "market based" can be subjective in its definition. If you ask an ultra conservative to describe "market based", they will probably tell you "market based" is when you don't have government regulations and intrusions telling industries, companies, and businesses what they can or can't do. That refers to any industry, not just healthcare.

I'm defining market-based as any system where businesses have to compete against each other for customers, forcing them to innovate and provide good service if they want to survive against their competitors.

I'm fine with (and in fact favor) government regulations in the marketplace to protect against abusive business practices.


Real Music wrote:
If republicans don't like (Medicare-for-all), they're definitely not going to like (VA-for-all).

True. But a strengthened and successful Obamacare exchange where various plans have to compete against each other would be a pretty good system.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2018 09:47 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I'm fine with (and in fact favor) government regulations in the marketplace to protect against abusive business practices.
The devil's in the detail. Are you opposed to the Obamacare protections/regulations?


Quote:
a strengthened and successful Obamacare exchange where various plans have to compete against each other would be a pretty good system.
The devil's in the detail. Can you explain in what ways is it different from the current existing Obamacare? I ask the question, so that I can better understand what you are proposing.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2018 09:59 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
Are you opposed to the Obamacare protections/regulations?

No. I support those.


Real Music wrote:
Can you explain in what ways is it different from the current existing Obamacare? I ask the question, so that I can better understand what you are proposing.

I'm not making a concrete proposal of my own. Just wishing that Congress would work on the bipartisan fix to Obamacare instead of talking about single payer.

Off hand though, I would suggest resuming subsidies, repairing the risk corridors, and in general undoing all the things that the Republicans did to sabotage Obamacare.

Beyond that, I'd say make the subsidies even stronger.

If there were a way to encourage not-for-profit insurers on the exchanges without being unduly unfair to for-profit insurers, I'd like that as well.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2018 11:53 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Off hand though, I would suggest resuming subsidies, repairing the risk corridors, and in general undoing all the things that the Republicans did to sabotage Obamacare.

Beyond that, I'd say make the subsidies even stronger.
Although I am for all of those same things, I still believe that single-payer would ultimately be better.


Quote:
If there were a way to encourage not-for-profit insurers on the exchanges without being unduly unfair to for-profit insurers, I'd like that as well.
I am not certain to what is a non-profit insurer. I am not aware of such an insurer. I am not sure how that would work. That would mean that an insurer would exist in the same way a charitable organization would exist. Charitable organizations are funded by charitable donations. Without the donations, charitable organizations cannot exist. Medicare is non-profit because it is funded by tax payers. Because there is no profit motives with Medicare is why Medicare can operate at a much lower cost. Medicare is virtually free to its patients. We all pay for Medicare through our taxes. With Medicare there is a shared risk pool, because we would all be in the same pool. Private insurance have to make enough profit or go out of business. The problem with that is that private insurers profits has to come out the pockets of patients. That would come in the way of either premiums, co-payments, deductibles, and/or reduced coverage.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2018 05:24 am
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
Although I am for all of those same things, I still believe that single-payer would ultimately be better.

Market competition between insurance plans drives plans to provide good service to people, and causes plans that don't provide good service to fail and be replaced by plans that do.


Real Music wrote:
I am not certain to what is a non-profit insurer.

A non-profit insurer does not pay lots of money to their shareholders. Instead their premiums are just enough so that the insurer can stay in business.


Real Music wrote:
I am not aware of such an insurer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/best-health-care-brands-are-nonprofit_n_1910733.html

(Article is from 2012 when Obamacare was just starting.)
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2018 12:32 am
Democrats just previewed their secret weapon against Republicans in the 2018 midterms.

Obamacare rate hikes are set to surge ahead of the 2018 elections. Democrats say Trump is to blame.

Published: May 8, 2018, 3:20pm EDT


Quote:
The rates of health insurance premium costs on the Obamacare exchanges are starting to trickle in from a few states, and early signs don’t bode well for “affordable” insurance. Democrats want to ensure Trump gets the blame.

Insurers in Virginia and Maryland recently announced they are seeking steep rate hikes on some of their Obamacare exchange plans. One company called CareFirst, which covers 15,000 people in Maryland, is proposing to raise rates by 91 percent, with premiums as high as $1,334 a month for a 40-year-old.

Senate Democrats have seized on this, and on Tuesday, they made it clear they are going to hammer the point home from now until the fall.

“When those rates go up, coverage goes down,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday. “It’s important to remember, President Trump and congressional Republicans are fully responsible for the significantly higher premiums and millions fewer people insured.”

Other states are proposing increases that aren’t as substantial as CareFirst but will still pose a burden to people looking to get health insurance. In Virginia, rates could go up anywhere between 6.4 percent and 40 percent.

The premium increases are set to kick in October, exactly one month before the election. This could be really bad for Republicans; as the party in power, they now get blamed for everything. Plus, Trump and the GOP aren’t exactly hiding their attempts to destabilize the market. And many health insurers and policy experts agree: These rates likely wouldn’t have skyrocketed this year without the Trump administration’s meddling.

Obamacare premiums were stabilizing. Enter President Trump.

As Vox’s Dylan Scott has written about extensively, in spring 2017, rates on the Obamacare exchanges were starting to stabilize. Some insurance providers, such as UPMC Health Plan in Pennsylvania, said that while rates were going to increase, the increase would be in the single digits — about 8 percent.

Then Trump came in with the intent of making sure the system failed. He announced his administration would halt payments to health insurers, known as cost-sharing reduction subsidies, and drastically cut his administration’s budget for Obamacare outreach. The GOP repealed the individual mandate — the provision that requires every American to have insurance or pay a penalty — in its sweeping tax bill last year.

As a result, plans like UPMC are signaling their health insurance rates will likely be going up a lot more than 8 percent to compensate; rates are likely to increase upward of 40 percent. Georgia has said its premiums will be 57 percent higher than last year.

Democrats are using the words of Trump’s former top health and human services official against him; former HHS Secretary Tom Price recently said he believed axing the individual mandate would make people in the individual market sicker and drive up costs. Schumer pointed to Price’s words on Tuesday in the Senate Democrats’ press conference.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said it’s not doing any damage to the exchanges. Earlier this year, officials announced they would expand short-term insurance plans that don’t meet the ACA’s requirements, including plans that discriminate against preexisting health conditions or offer fewer services. (The conventional wisdom from the administration is that more young and healthier people would want to choose these plans.)

But as Scott reported in February, an analysis from the Urban Institute painted a bleak coverage picture with these plans available:

According to the analysis, nearly 9 million more Americans will lack minimal essential health coverage — uninsured, as far as the CBO is concerned — in 2019 and insurance premiums will increase by an average 16.4 percent across the country.

About 4.2 million would be covered by the non-ACA short-term plans — which can have annual or lifetime limits, which might cover fewer services, and which can discriminate based on health status.

The Trump administration is, in other words, overseeing a significant rollback of the historic coverage gains made under President Barack Obama and the ACA.

Insurance companies have between May 1 and July 31 to submit their proposed rates for state regulators to look at, and insurers have to let the federal government know whether they’re participating in the exchanges by September. Final rates will come out around October, right before the November midterms.

Trump and the GOP have shown every indication they’re going to try to blame this on Obama and the Democrats for passing the Affordable Care Act in the first place, but as the party in power, they’re likely to get a big share of the blame for not attempting to shore up the exchanges and further exacerbating the problem.

The ACA is fairly popular, and proposed premium hikes will come at a critical time

This is all happening right before November 2018, which should have Republicans very afraid. Democrats believe they can win based on health care; there is a very clear picture of Republicans try to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, plus the Trump administration’s actions to destabilize the exchanges.

Now that they are out of power, Democrats are hammering home points about all the unpopular Republican policies and unveiling their own economic agenda before 2018. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias noted, it’s been hard for them to get airtime, as the country is consumed with endless Trump scandals.

Health care has already shown itself to be a powerful motivator in turning out Democrats in key special elections in Pennsylvania and Arizona. (Democrats won the former and closed margins in a Republican state in the latter.)

Per Scott:

At the macro level, Americans clearly trust Democrats more than Republicans on the issue. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from November found that 44 percent of voters trusted Democrats more, compared to 34 percent who trusted Republicans more. (USA Today and Suffolk found a similar breakdown: 43 percent trusted Democrats the most, 15 percent said they trusted Trump, and 10 percent trust Republicans in Congress — harsh numbers for the GOP any way you cut them.)

On top of that, the ACA — the Republican policy boogeyman for the past decade — has never been more popular than it is today, after withstanding a year of GOP attacks. So it should come as no surprise that Democrats are already landing substantial wins on health care in this cycle’s special elections thus far.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/8/17330880/democrats-obamacare-premium-rate-increase-chuck-schumer-donald-trump-2018-midterms
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2018 07:22 pm
@Real Music,
I don't think the health insurance premium rate hikes are going to hurt the GOP. It might hurt Trump, but he's already in the dumps on his approval rating at 41%.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2018 at 04:46:24