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.
Prospects for the new repeal legislation — sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — remain uncertain, but the proposal won an important endorsement Monday from a key Republican governor, Arizona’s Doug Ducey.
And the new bill is a humdinger, it will completely eliminate funding of medicaid to states in 2026 unless congress decides at that time to fund it. It allows states to charge whatever they want for premiums and there is no limit on the cost of premiums sold to people with pre-existing conditions. McCain said he will vote for it if Ducey likes it and Ducey likes it. Dean Heller is a co-sponsor so his vote is a sure thing. Rand Paul however said he will vote against it because it does not repeal the ACA (sorry I got all that off of Twitter and I didn't save links)
They really want to fund those tax cuts for billionaires, don't they?
Getting this new monster bill passed may not go as smoothly as they had hoped, 10 governor's including Republicans have sent McConnell a letter asking him not to hold a vote on it: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/si...dy_9-19-17.pdf
And the new bill is a humdinger, it will completely eliminate funding of medicaid to states in 2026 unless congress decides at that time to fund it. It allows states to charge whatever they want for premiums and there is no limit on the cost of premiums sold to people with pre-existing conditions. McCain said he will vote for it if Ducey likes it and Ducey likes it. Dean Heller is a co-sponsor so his vote is a sure thing. Rand Paul however said he will vote against it because it does not repeal the ACA (sorry I got all that off of Twitter and I didn't save links)
They really want to fund those tax cuts for billionaires, don't they?
Basically, it is a tax cut bill and nothing else. Health benefits are essentially nonexistent for most people if it passes. Congress is just hiding behind the pretense of healthcare in order to get the tax cuts, thats all.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the health insurance companies say no thanks and drop out. Really, there is nothing in it for them as very few people could afford the vastly increased premiums. And then a lot of healthcare providers (including ERs and/or hospitals) would fold. This new healthcare bill would very quickly evolve into a useless nothing (but thats congress anyway there days).
Interesting. Not sure I agree with this, but it's worth reading.
"A main driver of exploding healthcare costs has been the way the federal reimbursement system discourages thrift. And Obamacare made that problem much worse. Under Obamacare, Medicaid rolls were vastly expanded, adding millions to a faltering program. And in order to seduce states into signing up, the Feds promised to cover 100% off the additional costs for the first three years and no less than 90% in later years. If you had an expense account where someone else covered most of the tab, how eager would you be to control costs?
By giving states a lump sum, the hope is they would experiment with cost-saving reforms that improve healthcare results. Opponents of giving states the money and flexibility to innovate often seem to work from the assumption that governors and state legislatures want to harm their own citizens."
That last sentence: it's certainly not the ONLY reason that some people oppose giving the $ to states.)
Interesting. Not sure I agree with this, but it's worth reading.
"A main driver of exploding healthcare costs has been the way the federal reimbursement system discourages thrift. And Obamacare made that problem much worse. Under Obamacare, Medicaid rolls were vastly expanded, adding millions to a faltering program. And in order to seduce states into signing up, the Feds promised to cover 100% off the additional costs for the first three years and no less than 90% in later years. If you had an expense account where someone else covered most of the tab, how eager would you be to control costs?
By giving states a lump sum, the hope is they would experiment with cost-saving reforms that improve healthcare results. Opponents of giving states the money and flexibility to innovate often seem to work from the assumption that governors and state legislatures want to harm their own citizens."
That last sentence: it's certainly not the ONLY reason that some people oppose giving the $ to states.)
Consider the source, Jonah Goldberg; founding editor of the National Review Online, a fellow at the right-wing American Enterprise think tank, and a widely distributed conservative columnist.
Then think about what he is really saying which is you can't give states enough to cover the costs of healthcare for the poor because they will waste it and compare it with real life numbers: California spends less per medicaid (medi-cal) enrollee than 47 other states at $4,193 per person. How is that indicative of 'wasteful spending'? And one of the effects of this bill would be to cut medicaid grants to California by 78 billion dollars.
There are other states including a lot of red states that expanded medicaid that will also sustain substantial cuts, but just using California as an example- where should they start cutting in order to make up a 78 billion dollar loss? Do they start with little kids or old people?
Block granting is a great scheme when the feds want to rob the states and spend the money on things their own bucket list. Block grants never grow at the rate of inflation they are always pegged below it. Even this one will only increase at the rate of healthcare cost increases for a few years, then it does this funny little trick: "For FY 2025 and beyond, increase per-enrollee amounts by CPI-U for adults and children and medical CPI for elderly and disabled.". So after 2025 if healthcare costs go up 10% the block grant for adults and children will only go up at the rate of CPI, maybe 2%? So they now have 8% less to spend than they did the year before, and that compounds every year.
Sadly this monstrosity has a decent chance of passing and that is terrifying.
PS it also removes the requirement for employers to provide healthcare so you can add the low wage workers who will lose their employer healthcare to the medicaid rolls
The same AARP that told us Obamacare would reduce premiums? Health care in this country is broken because there is no incentive to reduce costs. The ACA simply guaranteed a flow of federal funds to bail out the health insurance industry as they watched their existing, flawed, model flail towards doom. The heavily-lobbied legislation was an echo of the Medicare scheme in 1965 where the insurance industry got the federal government to take those costly seniors off their backs. For a good laugh, look at their projections for the cost of Medicare versus the reality today. IIRC they underestimated the tab by a mere factor of ten.
Our only hope (and one the insurance industry will fight) is to dismantle the corrupt agreements between hospitals, doctors, pharma, and the insurance companies. We can use existing federal antitrust laws to do it, but someone has to enforce them.
Our only hope (and one the insurance industry will fight) is to dismantle the corrupt agreements between hospitals, doctors, pharma, and the insurance companies. We can use existing federal antitrust laws to do it, but someone has to enforce them.
I see O-care as being a band-aid on a broken system. There are problems with it to be sure, but the problems arise at least as much from the broken system that preceded O-care as from O-care itself.
In single payer systems, everyone (to my knowledge) pays into the system, and everyone is entitled to coverage. The single payer system serves both as an insurance pool, and as a mechanism for subsidizing premiums for lower income people. Yet, there is little call in Canada for repealing the system.
Until the U.S. adopts a single payer system (which may not be for a generation), the debate will never stop. If O-care were completely repealed, the push that got Obama elected in 2008 would start all over again, and the merry go round will just keep turning forever. Above I write "if O-care were _completely_ repealed" because O-care was never really completely implemented. The refusal to expand Medicaid in about 20 states left 30 million people without health insurance, and likely without much if any health care.
Criticize O-care if you want to, but until a solution is found for people without health insurance, this debate will continue to boil, and operate to prevent progress on other fronts such as cost reduction, and better diet/health guidance for people prior to developing problems like diabetes and high blood pressure.
There's always been a "solution" for those without health insurance. It's called Medicaid, and every state has its version.
CA4Now - The Cassidy-Graham ACA repeal bill will screw anyone over age 60 (just as the other ACA repeal bills tried to do).
Obamacare established the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) to control Medicare costs. It hasn't had an effect yet because Medicare spending hasn't hit the target amounts to trigger it.
When it does (projected for 2021), seniors will realize that Democratic party screwed them over royally.
Democrats claim IPAB is a great idea. Yet, its cost-cutting measures aren't an idea that they will apply to any welfare program such as Food Stamps or heaven help us, aid to illegal immigrants.
Wake up, seniors.
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.
