Trump to gut ACA via executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

[Anonymous]

Exactly, there's no price sensitivity. Very much like half the population not paying income taxes in general.

They vote for it all, because it won't cost them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, there's no price sensitivity. Very much like half the population not paying income taxes in general.

They vote for it all, because it won't cost them.

True. I think EVERY able-bodied adult should have some skin in the game, even a token amount like $100 (that will rise when taxes must go up to provide services). As it is now, we have half the people enjoying the benefits of living in this country - education, roads, emergency personnel, scientific and medical research advances, etc.) without ever paying a cent towards it. Right now, the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes! and we have the non-payers demanding that this group pay even more. OPM, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

What an insightful response that demonstrates your suoerior knowledge about it. Tyoical lib retort - a meaningless insult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone whose employee premium, deductibles and copays have skyrocketed for their employer provided medical coverage, raise your hands.

Everyone who is paying more for medical insurance and getting less, raise your hands.

Tomorrow, when the sun comes up after the moon goes away are you going to believe that the sun made that happen?

Fact is, health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles have been increasing while coverage has been decreasing for many, many years; it's not new since the ACA.

Wait. Are you the PPP who said she had employer-sponsored health insurance? If so, you're not one to talk.

Pre-Ocrap, we didn't see annual increases of 50% and more - even doubling - while deductibles increasing....meaning....wait for it....we are paying much more now AND for much less coverage! Before, I had a reasonable co-pay for specialists, but now it's all out-of-pocket until I reach some godforsaken deductible. I used to pay $40 for labwork, and now it's $250 (the negotiated rate). I never paid $300 for a prescription before, but I do now!

And you know why? Because Obama worked it so the insurance companies would have to cover everybody for everything. There's no way an insurance company can come out ahead doing that without enough healthy people to offset the sick (which we don't have because an onerous penalty would have been ruled unconstitutional), and yet Obama, in his socialist dream state, went ahead with this anyway. So since the insurers couldn't get more money from the low-income, they turned to the middle-income for zooming premiums, Plus, they could make up the costs by also denying coverage until you reach an ever-increasing deductible.

I mean, really....is paying $24,000 a year (for a couple) on top of potentially another $13, 000 is costs counted as "insured"? When they couple is in their 50s and earning less than $80,000 combined?

I agree with the PP who said we need to have short-term gain in order to force Comgress to act, and a good place to start is with the illegal CSRs. They were only allowed to continue because if we stopped popping up this House of Cards, it wold all come crashing down. Let it. Let the poor people go to the ER, just like before Obamacare - and just like they keep doing even with the free insurance.

No, I'm not that PP. Have you ever had cancer or a chronic illness? Are you one of those people who think that you'll always be healthy? Two of my kids get Remicade infusions every 6 weeks. They cost $5-15 thousand or more every time, for each son. If you get cancer or a chronic illness, you'll be begging to pay only $24,000 a year. Honestly, the fact that people like you in this country will tell my kids, that through no fault of their own that they should just be bankrupt their whole lives because they had the misfortune to get a chronic illness (and, no, we have no family history), is indicative of the what a shortsighted and selfish country we live in. Hang a fucking American flag on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

What an insightful response that demonstrates your suoerior knowledge about it. Tyoical lib retort - a meaningless insult.

LOL, do you assume that everyone who knows you're clueless is a liberal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

No... costs would not come down, at all. Pre-ACA, MRIs in this country was 10x as much as in other countries, for the same MRI equipment. Same for RX drugs. It's the actual cost of healthcare that is charged by corporations for things like drugs and imaging. Again, such high costs were in existence PRE ACA. Government in those other countries regulate the cost of healthcare. That's what we need here, but it will never happen. But, this is really the only way to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country. Agreed, not even ACA could bring these costs.

Two ways to bring it down for everyone: either regulate the costs or provide universal healthcare (or as close as possible) so that the government has the clout to negotiate down prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

What an insightful response that demonstrates your suoerior knowledge about it. Tyoical lib retort - a meaningless insult.

LOL, do you assume that everyone who knows you're clueless is a liberal?

No, but I assume that everyone who responds to a well-articulated explanation about price sensitivity with a six-word put-down IS a liberal.

Take an Econ course and learn why government-subsidized goods and services go UP in price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

No... costs would not come down, at all. Pre-ACA, MRIs in this country was 10x as much as in other countries, for the same MRI equipment. Same for RX drugs. It's the actual cost of healthcare that is charged by corporations for things like drugs and imaging. Again, such high costs were in existence PRE ACA. Government in those other countries regulate the cost of healthcare. That's what we need here, but it will never happen. But, this is really the only way to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country. Agreed, not even ACA could bring these costs.

Two ways to bring it down for everyone: either regulate the costs or provide universal healthcare (or as close as possible) so that the government has the clout to negotiate down prices.

That is all a function of insurance, even pre-ACA. People weren't really paying for services....middle class had insurance that paid for it and the poor, well....someone else paid for them.

Go back further, BEFORE throat cultures and a quick visit to the doctor were covered by insurance policies, and when people had only major medical. Those were the days when a doctor's visit cost $5. Adjusted for inflation, that's maybe $30 today. So how are doctors getting away charging $400 for a 10-minute visit? Because insurance is paying for it - and there is no price sensitivity. If insurance did NOT pay for it, the doctor couldn't get away charging astronomical prices. You'd see costs come down.

[Anonymous]

If insurance did NOT pay for it, the doctor couldn't get away charging astronomical prices. You'd see costs come down.

And, doctors wouldn't have to pay for as much clerical help as they do. More clerical help than medical help in most doctor's offices these days. When a doctor hires a scribe to take notes during your office visit--someone is paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

No... costs would not come down, at all. Pre-ACA, MRIs in this country was 10x as much as in other countries, for the same MRI equipment. Same for RX drugs. It's the actual cost of healthcare that is charged by corporations for things like drugs and imaging. Again, such high costs were in existence PRE ACA. Government in those other countries regulate the cost of healthcare. That's what we need here, but it will never happen. But, this is really the only way to bring down the cost of healthcare in this country. Agreed, not even ACA could bring these costs.

Two ways to bring it down for everyone: either regulate the costs or provide universal healthcare (or as close as possible) so that the government has the clout to negotiate down prices.

That is all a function of insurance, even pre-ACA. People weren't really paying for services....middle class had insurance that paid for it and the poor, well....someone else paid for them.

Go back further, BEFORE throat cultures and a quick visit to the doctor were covered by insurance policies, and when people had only major medical. Those were the days when a doctor's visit cost $5. Adjusted for inflation, that's maybe $30 today. So how are doctors getting away charging $400 for a 10-minute visit? Because insurance is paying for it - and there is no price sensitivity. If insurance did NOT pay for it, the doctor couldn't get away charging astronomical prices. You'd see costs come down.

I had private insurance prior to ACA, and I got charged a huge amount for an ultrasound. I paid it out of pocket because I had a high deductible plan. It was about $1000. My friend in the UK paid zero for her ultrasound. I paid $6000 total for a c section OOP. Friend paid $30 in the UK for her c section. Again, this is all pre ACA.

If you have a low copay plan today, you are still only paying $10 or so for an office visit; same as pre ACA. If you have a high deductible plan today, you are paying the full cost (or negotiated priced) of that service; same as pre ACA.

I don't know where you get the idea that middle class had insurance that paid for all the services pre ACA and had no OOP like we do today. It just happens to depend on the type of insurance you have.

Like I said, the only way to control costs is to regulate or have the government use its huge negotiating power like it does with medicaid today.

Try going to the doctor's office and tell them you have no insurance. They wil charge you about $120 for an office visit.

[Anonymous]

What the proponents of ACA cannot get through their thick skulls is that it is structurally flawed and the only way to keep it going is to throw money into it. As some have argued the structural flaws were intentional because it would hasten the day when single payer health care would become inevitable and that was the ulterior goal. It was a plan that went awry because Hillary did not win the election and Trump, who is committed to repealing ACA through legislation or regulation or executive orders won the presidency.

I did not vote for Trump and dislike him but on this he is spot on - even if some of the Republican alternatives that did not get pass were not the answer either.

ACA needs to be destroyed before the Democrats and Republicans will come together to develop an alternative. As Pelosi and Schumer have made abundantly clear: they will not cooperate in any legislation that involves the repeal of ACA.

The ultimate solution will end up including components that both parties now view as anathema but which are needed before a viable, structurally sound alternative can be developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the proponents of ACA cannot get through their thick skulls is that it is structurally flawed and the only way to keep it going is to throw money into it. As some have argued the structural flaws were intentional because it would hasten the day when single payer health care would become inevitable and that was the ulterior goal. It was a plan that went awry because Hillary did not win the election and Trump, who is committed to repealing ACA through legislation or regulation or executive orders won the presidency.

I did not vote for Trump and dislike him but on this he is spot on - even if some of the Republican alternatives that did not get pass were not the answer either.

ACA needs to be destroyed before the Democrats and Republicans will come together to develop an alternative. As Pelosi and Schumer have made abundantly clear: they will not cooperate in any legislation that involves the repeal of ACA.

The ultimate solution will end up including components that both parties now view as anathema but which are needed before a viable, structurally sound alternative can be developed.

What you don't understand is that since Rs won't and can't come up with a better alternative, people - 70% of Americans - want to shore up ACA .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the proponents of ACA cannot get through their thick skulls is that it is structurally flawed and the only way to keep it going is to throw money into it. As some have argued the structural flaws were intentional because it would hasten the day when single payer health care would become inevitable and that was the ulterior goal. It was a plan that went awry because Hillary did not win the election and Trump, who is committed to repealing ACA through legislation or regulation or executive orders won the presidency.

I did not vote for Trump and dislike him but on this he is spot on - even if some of the Republican alternatives that did not get pass were not the answer either.

ACA needs to be destroyed before the Democrats and Republicans will come together to develop an alternative. As Pelosi and Schumer have made abundantly clear: they will not cooperate in any legislation that involves the repeal of ACA.

The ultimate solution will end up including components that both parties now view as anathema but which are needed before a viable, structurally sound alternative can be developed.

What you don't understand is that since Rs won't and can't come up with a better alternative, people - 70% of Americans - want to shore up ACA .

First, a plan put forward by either party to the exclusion of the other will more than likely fail because it will be ideological. It has to be something that both parties buy into which is why there will be components that both parties will want to resist.

As far as most Americans wanting to "shore up ACA", sure they do because once you give people a "benefit" it is very difficult to take it away from them - and that applies irrespective of which party they support. "Shoring up ACA" will be an unending process because it is structurally flawed. People like Pelosi and Schumer who say that the repeal of ACA is not on the table will only be willing to negotiate when they realize that ACA is going to implode and they - as well as Republicans - will face the wrath of voters if they don't do something.