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.
3 plans believers, are you thinking this through? If the Republicans can get Dems to go along with Phase 2 and Phase 3, then why not do it now? Why wait and put old people through untold misery? The fact is there is going to be one phase and that phase is going to be a disaster of epic proportions if forced through as a budget reconciliation.
They can't even get their caucus to agree on part 1. They may very well intend to do parts 2 and 3, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Oh my gosh a tweet from someone I've never heard of making an anti-Trump statement about a law not even passed! Trump is definitely going to loose the election now!
A healthy 25 year old under Obamacare Already pays $14,000 out of pocket....
Well we had one such leader but unfortunately the Repugs thwarted him left and right on the universal healthcare plan which they never wanted in the first place. Obamacare would have been alot more successful if Repugs weren't so busy practicing the partisan cr*p and just work for America's best interests...
I agree with you on expanding Medicare (or even Medicaid). We also need to do more though, we need to put caps on how much insurance companies and pharma companies are making and encourage people to buy insurance so we don't have such a large high risk pool...
If we had Clinton in the White House now, instead of Bozo the Clown, we would see some improvements. But instead, we are stuck with a guy who is pitching a disastrous plan that he doesn't know squat about but he calls 'a beautiful plan' anyway...
Medicare is acceptable because it's on existing infrastructure, taking away the insurance market will reshape our existing system, for single payer to work in a mass scale we have to be more efficient, which means less flexibility in providers, inter disciplinary clinics , there is no scenario where we can keep our high costs and just have the government pay for it. We need to address costs first whether is subsiding education for doctors, loan repayment benefits, subsidized universal malpractice insurance, less regulations, you have to first decrease the cost of doing business for providers then work on efficiencies of scale.
3 plans believers, are you thinking this through? If the Republicans can get Dems to go along with Phase 2 and Phase 3, then why not do it now? Why wait and put old people through untold misery? The fact is there is going to be one phase and that phase is going to be a disaster of epic proportions if forced through as a budget reconciliation.
" Why wait and put old people through untold misery?"
This nothing but the "scare tactics" the left always uses.
Just like when they made the commercial showing "granny" being pushed over the cliff in her wheelchair.
"The fact is there is going to be one phase"
You DON'T know this a "fact".
You are only "projecting it because you did NOT vote for any repub.
A simple question, did you watch Ryan's explanation on the ENTIRE process they are working on?
In answer here are a few examples of how wrong they have been on Ocare. Many other examples of how static analysis causes fuzzy and outright wrong projections.
Quote:
In 2012 the CBO predicted that by 2017 an additional 28 million would gain health insurance. The actual figure is closer to 20 million. The CBO was even worse in estimating how people would gain or lose coverage. It forecast 25 million would gain coverage on the ACA exchanges and 10 million more would gain Medicaid coverage. Less than half as many people actually signed up on the exchanges and not all of them gained coverage -- many were replacing non-exchange policies they lost after ACA passage. Conversely, the CBO Medicaid prediction was too low. Nearly three-quarters of the 20 million new health care enrollees last year came from additional Medicaid enrollment (14.3 million in 2016). The CBO also predicted 5 million would lose employer coverage but employer provided insurance stayed relatively stable.
Amateur psychology and central government control don't mix well in crafting programs. Is this guy a genius, or just another opportunist?
Quote:
The CBO model assumes the mandate prompted people to enroll in the ACA health care exchanges and Medicaid. Most of the 14 million additional uninsured it predicts in 2018, “stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate.†But no one has documented how effective the mandate really was. A 2016 publication by economist and ACA architect Jonathan Gruber found that the mandate had no significant effect on ACA coverage gains. The mandate was undermined by lax enforcement of enrollment periods, excessive exemptions, and weak penalties. In 2016, 11 million people received exemptions from the mandate and 5.6 million paid the penalty rather than purchase insurance -- far more than the CBO projected.
Medicare is acceptable because it's on existing infrastructure, taking away the insurance market will reshape our existing system, for single payer to work in a mass scale we have to be more efficient, which means less flexibility in providers, inter disciplinary clinics , there is no scenario where we can keep our high costs and just have the government pay for it. We need to address costs first whether is subsiding education for doctors, loan repayment benefits, subsidized universal malpractice insurance, less regulations, you have to first decrease the cost of doing business for providers then work on efficiencies of scale.
True, I think something also needs to change within our own culture about healthcare. For example, the healthcare system is too profit-minded and not public-oriented. Why do we have such a great disparity in how doctors are paid? Why is an anesthesiologist or cosmetic surgeon paid so much more for the same amount of work? And why are pharma salesmen paid almost as much as a doctor if you factor in base and commission?
I'm also seeing alot more hospital ads lately. Why do hospitals need to do that?
Bottom line is, something has to change within how we view healthcare and there's alot to be learned from other countries where universal healthcare is implemented. We need to think outside the box here.
Of course, taking from one to give to another, under threat, duress and / or coercion is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, wherein it states that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights....
UH
NO
NOT REALLY
Securing endowed rights only means adjudicating disputes and defending against enemies, foreign or domestic.
Everything else comes under "consent of the governed."
You DO know how and when you consented, right?
Hint: there is no law compelling participation in FICA nor punishing those who do not participate. And if one is not a participant, one is not obligated to perform socialist duties.
Guess what would happen if a majority of Americans decided to withdraw from FICA and tell the socialist government to take a hike?
[The Ministry of Truth has deemed the following to be politically incorrect, and has censored it for the public good. Minitru thanks you for your cooperation.]
With Trumpcare/Ryancare, someone 50-65 could have their premiums almost double compared to ACA premiums. After age 65, most become eligible for Medicare, even if their Social Security Full Retirement age is higher.
Yep, people 50 and over will get massive premium increases. Many of these people are already retired, especially as they get older. Some of them started collecting early social security at 62 but they aren't eligible for Medicare until 65.
Ok back up. Show me the money. Someone. please. Where is the proof, how is it determined, analysis, statistics, comparisons, etc. to back up this claim that someone 50-65 could have their premiums almost double compared to ACA premiums. Age is used to determined premiums under the ACA. The only thing the ACA did was to limit the ratio the state could charge to 3:1. Are there statistics showing premiums for person 50-65 dropped due to this ACA regulation? Is there evidence that all rates will exceed a 3:1 ratio without this regulation in place. Is there evidence that this will be dropped under the new health care plan?
And you know who is making up the difference in premium prices to cover the higher medical expenses of older folks whose rates are capped at 3:1 ratio, the younger folks.
I could win the lottery tomorrow, but there is no evidence to back that up especially being how I didnt buy a ticket!
Someone 50-65 COULD have their premiums doubled but here is no evidence to back that up especially being how the new health care plan has not been completed much less passed, we dont know whats in it yet.
Ok back up. Show me the money. Someone. please. Where is the proof, how is it determined, analysis, statistics, comparisons, etc. to back up this claim that someone 50-65 could have their premiums almost double compared to ACA premiums. Age is used to determined premiums under the ACA. The only thing the ACA did was to limit the ratio the state could charge to 3:1. Are there statistics showing premiums for person 50-65 dropped due to this ACA regulation? Is there evidence that all rates will exceed a 3:1 ratio without this regulation in place. Is there evidence that this will be dropped under the new health care plan?
And you know who is making up the difference in premium prices to cover the higher medical expenses of older folks whose rates are capped at 3:1 ratio, the younger folks.
I could win the lottery tomorrow, but there is no evidence to back that up especially being how I didnt buy a ticket!
Someone 50-65 COULD have their premiums doubled but here is no evidence to back that up especially being how the new health care plan has not been completed much less passed, we dont know whats in it yet.
Yes, there are statistics that show the 3:1 ratio made premiums for those aged 50-65 more affordable. Yes, there are statistics that show premiums dropped for those aged 50-65. There were states that didn't have a ratio at all. And insurance companies are going to charge as much as they can.
Yes, younger folks made up the difference in premium prices on the ACA plan.
We do know what's proposed, and that is what is being discussed.
Those folks over the age of 50 are going to get hammered if this new legislation goes into effect. People who need insurance the most won't be able to afford it. People will be filing bankruptcy and losing their homes when they should be preparing to retire. What a great plan!
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.
