Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Paul Ryan's description of the Obamacare-replacement, a good one?
Ryan made a number of points. A few of them:
* Fed govt will give a "tax credit". Was it only for people who don't get their insurance through their employer? Was it only for people who pay income taxes (barely half the U.S. population), and so can get their taxes reduced? Or was it a straight payment, regardless of whether you pay any income taxes?
* States will be in charge of crafting insurance policies, no the Fed govt. While there are still great concerns over the wisdom of government being involved in insurance at all, this devolvement to the states has at least one major advantage over Obamacare: The state devolvement makes it LEGAL. The U.S. Constitution forbids the Fed govt from running insurance and general health plans - a little fact conveniently ignored by the Obamacare pushers, and unexamined by the Supreme Court. Such activities are to be left for "the States and the people"... which is exactly what this devolvement does.
* Ryan gave an example of a hypothetical 40-person company that self-insures - pays through its own money pools for all the covered illnesses and injuries of its employees. He described a theoretical instance where 10% of the employees - four people - get treatable cancer and have expensive medical treatments for it. He pointed out that premiums from the other 36, must go much higher to pay for the four. He seemed to say that costs will go down under his state-devolvement plan, since the state can have a risk pool fund that can pay for such rare but expensive treatments.
My question on this point is, won't everybody in the state be tapping into those state funds, as they tap into insurance companies today? And so payments into those funds will have to be much larger, instead of the insurance premiums being much larger? I don't see how this plan makes costs come down. People are just paying into a different fund - but they still pay overall for ALL the treatments, which is no different from what we have had before. (Who else could possibly pay for those treatments? You got it - The People. There is no other source of money.)
* Presently, a person in line for a raise at his company, might refuse it because it lifts him out of the range for large Obamacare subsidies. And many companies are cutting back their employees' hours, because Obamacare demands that they start paying very high premiums for employees working over 35 hours/week (or whatever the limit is). Ryan described how such things will be gone on the new plan. He said he didn't want any disincentives for people to work more, advance more, improve their situation, try harder, innovate more etc. Sounds like a great plan, but I'm not clear on how he intends to make it happen. More details needed here.
I'm still a long way away from approving this new plan. But it's sounding better than it did. Still needs to be taken farther away from the Federal govt, but this is a step in the right direction at least.
"The head of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons told the pro-Trump outlet Brietbart that the bill was basically no different from Obamacare and not worth supporting." And the AARP, American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, America's Essential Hospitals and Families USA all oppose the republicans new healthcare plan. Groups lining up in opposition to GOP health care plan - CNNPolitics.com
"The American Medical Association announced on Wednesday that it opposed the House Republicans’ proposed legislation to replace the federal health care law, saying it was concerned the bill “would result in millions of Americans losing coverage and benefits.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/h...alth-plan.html
"The American Nurses Association said the Republican plan "threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation." It points to changes the bill would make to Medicaid and says the measure "restricts million of women from access to critical health services."" GOP Health Care Bill Opposed By Medical Groups Of Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals : NPR
"The American Hospital Association also weighed in, pointing out the Congressional Budget Office has yet to provide a cost estimate for the measure or say how it would change coverage levels. Without such analysis and "needed transparency," the group said, Congress "should wait" before proceeding." GOP Health Care Bill Opposed By Medical Groups Of Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals : NPR
ACA needs to be fixed but what the Pubs are doing is not a fix, it is a band aid. Health insurance is still going to cost as much as ACA but now less people will be able to afford it. How is that good?
There is only one fix and that is single payer. The Pubs will never go that route but until we do we will always have the problem of insurance that half the country cannot afford to buy.
The way the Democrats are running, single payer would fail. Everything fails under Dems.
I guess i am wondering why Trump has stood up for this bill, when it is clearly is going to hurt a lot of people.
And it really looks like it will hurt lower income poeple a lot. I am thinking if i voted for Trump and he put this in front of me i would be damned angry.
The new plan keeps the same annual out-of-pocket that's in ACA. It's somewhere around $7200/yr or so. So you really can't get a $20,000 deductible with the new GOP plan if you want a true catastrophic-only plan. This means it will be tougher to try to lower your premium. This is one of the things people complained about for ACA and the new plan doesn't fix it.
Another big complaint of ACA was the essential coverage that was forced on a policy - mental health, reproductive care, etc. Looks like the GOP plan keeps these same essential coverages, which many complained that it helped drive up the cost of the premium.
Both of these 2 issues are going to keep the monthly premiums high rather than allowing someone the choice to lower their premium if they want to pick a more bare-bones insurance plan. They aren't given this choice.
The way the Democrats are running, single payer would fail. Everything fails under Dems.
come on you must realize your post is tribal and adds nothing. We know the dems are actaully good at governing and we know the republicans can do it to.
But rather than discuss the merits of this bill, you simply sling mud.
why not tell us exactly what you think makes this bill a good replacement plan.
From what I have heard, this is part 1 of 3 pieces of legislation.
And it should be about making the best plan that gives people the choice to choose their own care while being sustainable... instead of pitting one side against another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
