Trump to gut ACA via executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's a great thing. i want it to collapse.

It was poorly thought out and rammed through. It's been a disaster. No need to throw more money at it. Everywhere this type of government run healthcare is tried, it fails.

Do you know what else was failing, even worse? The healthcare system that preceded the ACA.

That was true for some, not true for others. ACA created an entire new class of "underinsured middle-class Americans." My friend's SIL is a doctor, and he said he saw a big switch in his patient base - many more low income people (getting free care) and much fewer middle income people (who can no longer afford it).

+1 I think Obama's main focus was on the uninsured and very poor. The very wealthy aren't really affected by what happens. It's the middle class worker and small business owner who have been hit by much higher rates.

Yes, and that's the problem with liberals - and why they lost the election. They were so focused on the poor/working poor, as usual, that they ignored the impact it would have on the lower-middle class. (As you point out, the upper-middle and wealthy could absorb the added costs.) There's no way a self-employed person, making a livable but modest income of $50,000, can afford to pay $700 or $800 a month for an insurance policy that still leaves him responsible for thousands of dollars in doctor's visits, treatments, lab work, and prescriptions every year.

I think this is a good point (I'm pretty sure that I would be described as a 'liberal', even though I consider myself to be more of a 'moderate' democrat). That being said, I think this makes an even stronger case for a government option that would allow EVERYONE access to quality healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this was posted but Bannon said at the "Values Summit" that the point of cutting off CSRs was to intentionally blow up the insurance markets (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/bannon-admits-it)

Craig Garthwaite (a Republican health care economist critical if the ACA) said the same thing on twitter-- doing it two weeks before enrollment means it was intentional sabotage of the insurance markets.

It just boggles my mind that this Administration would be so blinded by its hate of anything Obama-related that it would intentionally hurt Americans who need individual insurance.

What's happening today is perfect strangers are being intentionally hurt by the artificial consequences of Obamacare, which are crazy-high premiums and a mandate that you will give up a bigger and bigger part of your pay check for them.

Stop taking what Trump does personally. For every person you see hurt by him, he's trying to alleviate the "hurt" of another (much as Obama did - I'm going to levy a tax on person A for the benefit of person B).

Look, we can have a discussion about whether his plan to make it easier for people to set up new group insurance is a good idea or a bad one, because if it works it will let healthy people band together and get cheaper insurance and leave less healthy people with a spiral of increasing premiums. That's a case where there are winners and losers and you can decide if you want to undermine the insurance market to benefit healthy people or not.

But there are exactly zero ways cutting off CSRs benefits anyone. The whole point is Trump is NOT trying to alleviate anyone's problem. This only increases premiums and it also increases federal budget outlays. So don't tell me how Obamacare is hurting people because whoever is hurting now from Obamacare will only be hurt more

Also for the record I have group insurance so personally I am unaffected by this but I am not so blind or ignorant as to think he can play a game of signalling against Obamacare that has no consquences for real people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this was posted but Bannon said at the "Values Summit" that the point of cutting off CSRs was to intentionally blow up the insurance markets (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/bannon-admits-it)

Craig Garthwaite (a Republican health care economist critical if the ACA) said the same thing on twitter-- doing it two weeks before enrollment means it was intentional sabotage of the insurance markets.

It just boggles my mind that this Administration would be so blinded by its hate of anything Obama-related that it would intentionally hurt Americans who need individual insurance.

What's happening today is perfect strangers are being intentionally hurt by the artificial consequences of Obamacare, which are crazy-high premiums and a mandate that you will give up a bigger and bigger part of your pay check for them.

Stop taking what Trump does personally. For every person you see hurt by him, he's trying to alleviate the "hurt" of another (much as Obama did - I'm going to levy a tax on person A for the benefit of person B).

Look, we can have a discussion about whether his plan to make it easier for people to set up new group insurance is a good idea or a bad one, because if it works it will let healthy people band together and get cheaper insurance and leave less healthy people with a spiral of increasing premiums. That's a case where there are winners and losers and you can decide if you want to undermine the insurance market to benefit healthy people or not.

But there are exactly zero ways cutting off CSRs benefits anyone. The whole point is Trump is NOT trying to alleviate anyone's problem. This only increases premiums and it also increases federal budget outlays. So don't tell me how Obamacare is hurting people because whoever is hurting now from Obamacare will only be hurt more

Also for the record I have group insurance so personally I am unaffected by this but I am not so blind or ignorant as to think he can play a game of signalling against Obamacare that has no consquences for real people.

....but the CSRs were ruled illegal.

[Anonymous]

A single district court judge found the CSRs need appropriations from Congress, which Congress hasn't done, and then the court put its own decision own hold to allow the appeals court to consider the issue. There is no need to stop paying CSRs (and certainly no need to wait until now to decide to stop).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look, we can have a discussion about whether his plan to make it easier for people to set up new group insurance is a good idea or a bad one, because if it works it will let healthy people band together and get cheaper insurance and leave less healthy people with a spiral of increasing premiums. That's a case where there are winners and losers and you can decide if you want to undermine the insurance market to benefit healthy people or not.

But there are exactly zero ways cutting off CSRs benefits anyone. The whole point is Trump is NOT trying to alleviate anyone's problem. This only increases premiums and it also increases federal budget outlays. So don't tell me how Obamacare is hurting people because whoever is hurting now from Obamacare will only be hurt more

Also for the record I have group insurance so personally I am unaffected by this but I am not so blind or ignorant as to think he can play a game of signalling against Obamacare that has no consquences for real people.

Look, families are paying higher and higher premiums for complete strangers who are taking advantage of the system; claim you're low income, get a very reduced premium of several hundred dollars and then proceed to use thousands to tens of thousands in benefits.

Wake the hell up. That math doesn't work. Never gonna work. ten minus ten will always equal zero, regardless of how you want to change the laws of mathematics and economics.

Let me repeat... Wake the hell up!!!

[Anonymous]

So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

What I'm saying is you need to stop taking so much of everyone's pay checks for your wishes. The EARNER needs to keep more of what they earn. Up next, your desire for universal pre-K, universal basic income and universal bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

What I'm saying is you need to stop taking so much of everyone's pay checks for your wishes. The EARNER needs to keep more of what they earn. Up next, your desire for universal pre-K, universal basic income and universal bullshit.

Explain to me how the CSRs take money from your paycheck. I'll be right here waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

DP. It's not that someone's getting "better than they deserve....it's that in order to give someone good medical care for free, another person has lost the ability to afford insurance. Why don't libs understand that there's no free lunch, and that when someone gets a freebie, someone else is paying for it? And in this case, it's the hard-working lower-middle class that has gotten stuck with worthless insurance as a result of. Obamacare. I've bought my own plans for 20 years, and NEVER had I had so much uncovered medical expenses as I have with Obamacare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

DP. It's not that someone's getting "better than they deserve....it's that in order to give someone good medical care for free, another person has lost the ability to afford insurance. Why don't libs understand that there's no free lunch, and that when someone gets a freebie, someone else is paying for it? And in this case, it's the hard-working lower-middle class that has gotten stuck with worthless insurance as a result of. Obamacare. I've bought my own plans for 20 years, and NEVER had I had so much uncovered medical expenses as I have with Obamacare.

I said there's lots of room to debate about how to fix healthcare but the question is how -- under any approach-- it makes sense to increase premiums and dedtabilize the i durance market by discontinuing CSRs. If you can tell me why you think you will be better off w/o CSRs I am all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what you're saying is because you believe someone you don't know might be getting better benefits than you think they deserve we should make everyone's lives worse.

That's pretty much the entire Trump base approach to policy and I find it ignorant and repulsive. It's not that the math doesn't work, it's that you'd rather nurture your grievances than see anyone else helped.

What I'm saying is you need to stop taking so much of everyone's pay checks for your wishes. The EARNER needs to keep more of what they earn. Up next, your desire for universal pre-K, universal basic income and universal bullshit.

Explain to me how the CSRs take money from your paycheck. I'll be right here waiting.

DP. It's indirect, but these payments are made directly to insurance companies from taxpayer money. You didn't think government money grows on trees, did you?

I'd rather remove the CSRs - let people pay the full co-pay for a doctor visit given that they are already paying practically nothing of their premiums - and use the money that would otherwise be paid to the insurance companies to lower the premiums of lower-middle class people. That's the problem with the entire scheme.....the imbalance. We have lower-income people paying $30 or less for premiums and then only $5 for doctor visits, and $5 for prescriptions, while the lower-middle class person is paying $800 a month and still $300 to see the doctor and $200 for prescriptions. The lower income are thrilled with their care, and the LM have to skip the doctor altogether.

[Anonymous]

The CSRs lower net costs to the government-- you didn't think those were the only payments the govt makes regarding healthcare did you?

[Anonymous]

Again, the EO will make premiums higher for the middle/upper. If ACA is financially hurting you now, the EO will make it worse. That is the point of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Also for the record I have group insurance so personally I am unaffected by this but I am not so blind or ignorant as to think he can play a game of signalling against Obamacare that has no consquences for real people.

And, this is the point. You do not understand what this has done to the worker who purchases independently. The working middle class who are purchasing without a subsidy are paying exorbitant premiums and deductibles so that others may get a subsidy. Those with group insurance with heavy contributions from their employers simply don't understand this.

All of the freebies that were placed in the ACA cost money. What people want is coverage for when they are sick. Sure, we want vaccinations for kids, etc, but some of the requirements of the ACA are ridiculous. Add into that the paperwork requirements for MDs and health care has become very expensive. The working middle class are carrying the brunt of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, the EO will make premiums higher for the middle/upper. If ACA is financially hurting you now, the EO will make it worse. That is the point of this thread.

Short term, yes. But it will also wreck Obamacare quicker, which is a great thing. Obamacare needs to be destroyed.