• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Lawsuits could force feds to pay Obamacare insurers (Politico)

ascii42

Member
Mar 27, 2007
14,340
2
1,305
Georgia
Actually, the members of congress do have Obamacare. They purchase their insurance through the DC Insurance exchange. 72% of the premium is subsidized by the federal government though.

When you are paid by the government, what's the practical difference between what you pay from you salary (which you receive from the government) and what the government "subsidizes?" It's all just part of your salary package. That's true with other employers too, actually, regarding the employer-paid portion of premiums.
 

Bsigg12

Member
Apr 9, 2012
20,742
2
535
He wants to blow up the exchanges, not the idea of heath insurance. Health insurance not being a profit cow may be a good thing.

Trump believes health insurance is something you pay for $12 a year starting at 21. He has no fucking idea what they're trying to put in place.
 

Aselith

Member
Mar 17, 2008
30,246
0
1,285
www.youtube.com
This is not a victory - health care is out of control your going to force the federal government to basically subsidize outrageous healthcare cost???

My friend had an 8,000 bill from pretty much nothing we were aghast at this.

Why don't congress members have Obama care????

It is a victory because ACA needs improved not destroyed. Forcing the Trump admin to support ACA will preserve it until we can get someone back in that understands that and can work on it.

When you are paid by the government, what's the practical difference between what you pay from you salary (which you receive from the government) and what the government "subsidizes?" It's all just part of your salary package. That's true with other employers too, actually, regarding the employer-paid portion of premiums.

The practical difference is that if rates go up on the marketplace, your paycheck still shrinks just like anyone else's.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
The goal is better healthcare. If you see a different path, please share.

I hate to be selfish, but my goal isn't better healthcare, it's my wife being a functional human being for the next 2-3 years. Can you pitch to me how your plan achieves this goal?
 

The Wart

Member
Dec 23, 2005
690
0
0
At least in my scenario, they would be forced to do something.

Ah yes, the wonderful "doing something". Clearly if the current situation is suboptimal, blowing the whole thing up in a way that throws a huge chunk of the economy into chaos will fix things!

The goal is better healthcare. If you see a different path, please share.

You have no path. You have pure magical thinking.
 

Sirpopopop

Member
Jun 7, 2004
7,785
1
1,475
If the DNC wasn't full of chicken shit centrists we'd be working towards a first world healthcare solution.

Let's be clear folks. The Greek Freak is not someone worth piling on, or even arguing with at all.

Here's his posting history of shitting on the left:

The U.S. where the left wing party would be borderline extreme right wing in most first worlds? Lol

Ryan's seat is safe, the DNC would rather pretend like his awesome upcoming opponent doesn't exist.

Talk is cheap, when the choice boils down to people vs. Corps 90% of the DNC is spineless at best.

New England Republicans are basically in line with the DNC leadership on most things to be honest.

I've voted for gop local candidates in the past but would be shocked of I ever did for a national position anytime soon just because they still too often toe the party line even if they think it's trash.

I'm done, as long as the national DNC is just the GOP with less bible and a thin sheet over the racism they aren't getting another dime or another 5 minutes of phone banking, or even another vote from me, my black ass is staying home next election and then bailing on this police state in a few years.

The DNC and Democrats in the U.S. are far too greedy and cowardly to actually give a real push for single payer like a first world country.

I'd love to be proven wrong but I just got off a decade of "liberals" acting like single payer is turning the U.S. into nazi Germany.

With democrat shitbags like booker? No chance.

Heard it second hand yesterday and dismissed it as nonsense until this happened with a 97-2 vote.

I don't even have a source but the DNC have been so spineless as a whole the last 5 years that this seems like something they would be excited about.

It's ok the centrist "democrats" will do that plenty for them.

^That's him suggesting centrist Democrats were going to pin the Republican shootings on Bernie Sanders.

My lack of empathy would be the same of the targets were dems if the DNC senators trading healthcare for Russian sanctions is true.

Play with people's lives enough they will eventually play back especially in a country where guns are easy to find.

Advocating murder of Democratic Senators.

Ok, I've had enough. I can't dig further into this wormhole.

Other Anomalies:

Noted Assad Support:

Well I'm glad we are killing the only group in the region who has any hope of even a half assed stability in the next decade.

/s

Honestly if we are destroying the Syrian Airforce actual soldiers from different sides will eventually out number civilians at some point and there won't be any populace or country to save at all. That means another 18ish million bodies+refugees.

Your current (simplified) choices are:

Assad - Very Fucked
Literal Fucking ISIS - The Most Fucked
One of the US backed Muslim extremist groups that are basically ISIS lite - Somewhere in between very and the most fucked.

None of the US backed groups are even remotely sane past a few pieces of PR meant for western audiences.

Note: He also has a odd love affair with Reince Preibus:

Priebus might not have been "good" but by all accounts he wasn't a Russian stooge, was sane, and wasn't a sycophant.

That alone puts him at the top of anyone even remotely tied to this WH.


I don't like it but Priebus he is one of the only adults in the room who might do something if it had to be done in the worst of worse case Trump hissy fits.

This is baaaaad.

Probably the worst is his shitty comments about overweight people:

She only stands out as decent because the rest of cable news is a flaming fucking cesspool.

It's like winning a race among only 400+lb people. Congratulations you are faster than the guy who had a heart attack after 8 steps.

If she was oozing into his seat she can go fuck herself for not buying a second.

I had to get rid of my bike when I bought a house in the burbs.

Between lazy blobs playing pokemon go IN THEIR CAR WHILE DRIVING THE PARK, and middle aged "let me see ypur manager" types riding here is suicidal even in bike lanes or on park paths specifically for it.

So people who sit at a desk all day and eat garbage 24/7 can feel better about eating themselves into an early grave.

^The above was taken from a thread about superheroes having more normal body types. This is his thoughts on that subject.
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
I hate to be selfish, but my goal isn't better healthcare, it's my wife being a functional human being for the next 2-3 years. Can you pitch to me how your plan achieves this goal?

Hmmm, kind of hard to do without your details. I'll share mine instead. My wife had trouble breathing and we struggled to call an ambulance because we have a $3000 deductible. We finally did, and they gave her some O2 and took her to the ER. The ER kept her for 4 hours with some more oxygen and a steroid. That cost $5000 for the ER, and $1000 for the ambulance. My insurance "negotiated" the ER down to just under the deductible, and doesn't cover an ambulance. Now I'm on the hook for $4000 after paying $16000/year premiums. Fuck insurance companies and the decisions they make us struggle with to line their pockets.
 

Nipo

Member
Oct 7, 2013
3,509
1
305
How would a constitutional crisis be resolved in the case of the courts ordering the payment and both congress and the executive branch refusing? What law enforcement branch reports directly to the courts and not the AG? is there a military chain of command?
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
Okay sounds like your plan is not good for me then, sorry.

Lol, nice snip. How much do you pay in insurance? Is it more than the care received by your wife? If so, that should be supplemented with tax dollars or the cost of care regulated to a realistic amount. Your insurance company isn't keeping your wife alive, doctors are and should be paid directly.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Jun 10, 2004
8,238
0
0
PrivateWHudson, you sound like a sociopath.

Agreed. And you know what else with rile up their base?

ANYTHING THE REPUBLICANS LIE TO THE BASE ABOUT.

Which is like breathing to Republicans in office. Constant and inherent to their daily existence.
Precisely this. The sooner we stop giving a single shit about what "riles up conservatives" the better off we'll all be.
 

The Wart

Member
Dec 23, 2005
690
0
0
Lol, nice snip. How much do you pay in insurance? Is it more than the care received by your wife? If so, that should be supplemented with tax dollars or the cost of care regulated to a realistic amount. Your insurance company isn't keeping your wife alive, doctors are and should be paid directly.

Do you... understand what health insurance is...?
 

border

Member
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
21
1,660
How would a constitutional crisis be resolved in the case of the courts ordering the payment and both congress and the executive branch refusing? What law enforcement branch reports directly to the courts and not the AG? is there a military chain of command?



I had not considered that eventuality......one which seems increasingly plausible.

If the Trump administration simply refuses to pay off debts that are owed under a court order, we'd begin to see a total loss of trust in the US government. That could severely wreck the USA's ability to borrow or issue bonds. I'm not sure that's a line Trump would cross.

Moreover, I doubt that Congress is going to stiff the insurance companies. Those corporations have a lot of power, money, and influence. I'd like to think they will get funding even through a 2/3rds veto override.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
Lol, nice snip. How much do you pay in insurance? Is it more than the care received by your wife? If so, that should be supplemented with tax dollars or the cost of care regulated to a realistic amount. Your insurance company isn't keeping your wife alive, doctors are and should be paid directly.
And if what the doctors and hospitals ask for is too much...?
Yes that happens, quite often too.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
1
0
I'm convinced a big reason people soured on S2 of Mr. Robot is that it took the "LETS BLOW EVERYTHING UP" power fantasy and immediately confronted people with the incredibly unpleasant fallout such an event would actually create.

Oh fuck, I really need to get around to watching that.
 

JoeyJungle

Banned
Aug 24, 2011
4,421
0
0
Not sure how anyone, liberal or conservative, could be happy about this - literally your tax money going to go pay private insurance companies to fuel their profits.

It's actually to stop their losses, not fuel their profits. This was a crucial piece of the original Obamacare legislation, because the actuaries at insurers basically couldn't know what to expect when shifting from pre-ACA to post-ACA market. Before, denying coverage was an important way to keep the insurance companies stable and prevent them from promising coverage to patients they would obviously need to pay out healthcare bills for. In post-ACA, they would need to accept everybody, and if the population they insured ended up costing more money than they took in from the healthy insured, they would have no way of making profit other than massive rate increases.

Even then, you can only raise rates so much before the cost of insurance is literally unaffordable, and you're stuck with a a small group paying very high premiums and bringing in a guaranteed profit that is still much lower than you previously had.

So then the question was how the Obama admin planned to solve this problem.

They told insurance companies not to worry about their plans becoming completely lopsided - medicaid expansion would function as a high risk pool, taking in the poorest and often sickest members of the population.

The second piece was that risk corridors would mean that if the markets still became lopsided, with insurers paying out more for coverage than they were bringing in, the federal government would essentially stop their losses after a certain point, and prevent the insurer from taking a cataclysmic loss. After they reached a certain amount in the red, the federal government would begin paying for coverage, and prevent the insurance companies from taking enormous losses as they adjusted their rates to better match the amount they would be paying out in each state.

The third piece was obviously the healthcare mandate, so that the markets wouldn't be clogged with only sick people that insurers weren't allowed to deny coverage to, and healthy people would choose to forego health insurance until they developed an illness.

Of course, the federal government expected every state to expand medicaid, because it was basically free cash handed over to the poorest population of every state. Instead the supreme court ruled that the federal government could not force states to expand medicaid, and many states (mainly rural red states that have the most expensive healthcare because they have the lowest concentration of hospitals and doctors) chose not to accept the medicaid expansion. So then their poor/sick population that didn't qualify for medicaid under the old rules but would have qualified under the medicaid expansion program had to join the general insurance pool

Then a bill from congress spearheaded by Rubio shrank the amount spent on the risk corridor program, iirc the federal government ended up paying around $0.17 for every $1.00 that was originally promised. And of course, that was one of the main reasons that led to rates increasing so dramatically for 2017.

So, uh, yeah I hope you understand the purpose of the risk pool and why some people might support this given the importance of its role in keeping healthcare costs down and the significance it had in the original vision of Obamacare/ACA.

Vox has phenomenal healthcare coverage, iirc this is an article that covers pretty much what Obamacare needs to function and what would cause it to explode: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/1/15373372/obamacare-tennessee-zero-insurers
 

skullmuffins

Banned
Mar 22, 2010
1,909
0
0
steamcommunity.com
Yes, to get to single payer, or a true free market. Either will do, but with the real cost of premiums and deductibles hidden from those not looking, and insurance lobbies pulling strings, we are fucked for the foreseeable future.
Why do you think a "true free market" for healthcare would work or be in any way an improvement over the current system? A pure free market approach fundamentally does not work in healthcare. People cannot shop around for the best price when they're in the middle of dying, people tend to pay whatever the asking cost is if their life is on the line, and some people are so sick that they would never be able to afford care in a pure market-based system.
 
Aug 24, 2009
8,988
1
0
Why do you think a "true free market" for healthcare would work or be in any way an improvement over the current system? A pure free market approach fundamentally does not work in healthcare. People cannot shop around for the best price when they're in the middle of dying, people tend to pay whatever the asking cost is if their life is on the line, and some people are so sick that they would never be able to afford care in a pure market-based system.

Free-market types tend to forget you can't negotiate while unconscious.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
Lol, nice snip. How much do you pay in insurance? Is it more than the care received by your wife? If so, that should be supplemented with tax dollars or the cost of care regulated to a realistic amount. Your insurance company isn't keeping your wife alive, doctors are and should be paid directly.

I cannot afford to ensure my wife is a functioning human being in the absence of the current environment (subsidies, minimum coverage requirements, no pre-existing conditions) we currently receive. She is not legally eligible for Medicaid and would not be even if we made $0 and the Medicaid expansion does not impact me. She does not and will not receive employer-provided coverage and my employer charges an impossibly high amount of money to add her to my coverage. I don't care about what happens more than 3 years down the road because I don't anticipate being in the United States. How does your system work for me?
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
PrivateWHudson, you sound like a sociopath.


Precisely this. The sooner we stop giving a single shit about what "riles up conservatives" the better off we'll all be.

Not sure why you would say that. Can I really be the only one that thinks our current health insurance system is the largest contributor to the ridiculous cost of health care, and we may be better of with it? The fact that Obama needed their blessing to enact the ACA speaks volumes to me, but what do I know.
 

Slater

Banned
Oct 1, 2014
1,011
0
0
Not sure why you would say that. Can I really be the only one that thinks our current health insurance system is the largest contributor to the ridiculous cost of health care, and we may be better of with it? The fact that Obama needed their blessing to enact the ACA speaks volumes to me, but what do I know.
Not much
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Jun 10, 2004
8,238
0
0
Not sure why you would say that. Can I really be the only one that thinks our current health insurance system is the largest contributor to the ridiculous cost of health care, and we may be better of with it? The fact that Obama needed their blessing to enact the ACA speaks volumes to me, but what do I know.
Of course you're not the only one who thinks that. But your "solution" to that problem is devastating to millions of people so I'll leave you to think a little more about why I would say that's sociopathic. Would you prefer misanthropic instead?
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
Of course you're not the only one who thinks that. But your "solution" to that problem is devastating to millions of people so I'll leave you to think a little more about why I would say that's sociopathic. Would you prefer misanthropic instead?

I would go with optimistic. People dropping dead in the streets is not something I'm in favor of. I have faith in humanity that if everything were to be on the surface, and not hidden away behind premiums and subsidies and deductibles and copays and bronze through platinum tiers and copays and everything else, that we would be able to get a clear vision on how to best care for our sick and injured.
 

Slater

Banned
Oct 1, 2014
1,011
0
0
I would go with optimistic. People dropping dead in the streets is not something I'm in favor of. I have faith in humanity that if everything were to be on the surface, and not hidden away behind premiums and subsidies and deductibles and copays and bronze through platinum tiers and copays and everything else, that we would be able to get a clear vision on how to best care for our sick and injured.
Oh so your just obnoxiously naive and ignorant of how the GOP and the base both behave and think.

Cool
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
Oh so your just obnoxiously naive and ignorant of how the GOP and the base both behave and think.

Cool

More curious to see how they would think and behave without insurance companies lobbying them and being part of their stock portfolios.

As noted, trump thinks insurance is $12/month.
 

Armaros

Member
Sep 18, 2013
7,766
0
0
I would go with optimistic. People dropping dead in the streets is not something I'm in favor of. I have faith in humanity that if everything were to be on the surface, and not hidden away behind premiums and subsidies and deductibles and copays and bronze through platinum tiers and copays and everything else, that we would be able to get a clear vision on how to best care for our sick and injured.

Nice platitudes.

I'm sure cancer patients that are relying on the ACA right now will be right there with you as you cheer for the collapse of the exchanges.
 
Sep 21, 2007
8,709
0
1,305
Nice platitudes.

I'm sure cancer patients that are relying on the ACA right now will be right there with you as you cheer for the collapse of the exchanges.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. Some having everything, and others having hitting is not what I'm advocating.
 

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
6,403
2,315
775
I'd prefer to see them implode. Unfortunately this won't fully happen until insurance is decoupled from employers.

Me too. I know it's not a popular opinion to have here.

So millions can suffer? We don't need to let them implode to get to singlepayer, if thats what your hoping for.

Then millions lose their insurance and many die.

Once the ACA was enacted millions of people did not suddenly get better health care or suddenly save millions of lives. Basically what it has done is make all insurance plans now only valuable as catastrophic plans because the price of the premiums and deductibles are so high the majority are never going to be able to use them.

People keep preaching this false narrative that millions will die if they repeal this, that people without health insurance is bad etc. The way it's currently set up is terrible and hurts more people than it helps. You understand that someone making 40,000$ a year would have to spend around 10-12,000 a year (25% or more of their income) to be able to use insurance the way it is set up right now?

Unless of course you are lucky enough to work for a big company that provides it for you. But then you are still going to have to pay the deductible (but it might not be as high as if you were to purchase it yourself through the marketplace).

Not sure why you would say that. Can I really be the only one that thinks our current health insurance system is the largest contributor to the ridiculous cost of health care, and we may be better of with it? The fact that Obama needed their blessing to enact the ACA speaks volumes to me, but what do I know.

You aren't wrong.
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
May 16, 2014
4,135
0
0
Hmmm, kind of hard to do without your details. I'll share mine instead. My wife had trouble breathing and we struggled to call an ambulance because we have a $3000 deductible. We finally did, and they gave her some O2 and took her to the ER. The ER kept her for 4 hours with some more oxygen and a steroid. That cost $5000 for the ER, and $1000 for the ambulance. My insurance "negotiated" the ER down to just under the deductible, and doesn't cover an ambulance. Now I'm on the hook for $4000 after paying $16000/year premiums. Fuck insurance companies and the decisions they make us struggle with to line their pockets.

Guess what? Under your incredibly stupid 'plan', she'd be dead.
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
Me too. I know it's not a popular opinion to have here.

Once the ACA was enacted millions of people did not suddenly get better health care or suddenly save millions of lives. Basically what it has done is make all insurance plans now only valuable as catastrophic plans because the price of the premiums and deductibles are so high the majority are never going to be able to use them.

People keep preaching this false narrative that millions will die if they repeal this, that people without health insurance is bad etc. The way it's currently set up is terrible and hurts more people than it helps. You understand that someone making 40,000$ a year would have to spend around 10-12,000 a year (25% or more of their income) to be able to use insurance the way it is set up right now?

Unless of course you are lucky enough to work for a big company that provides it for you. But then you are still going to have to pay the deductible (but it might not be as high as if you were to purchase it yourself through the marketplace).

You aren't wrong.

No, ACA is not perfect. Nobody is saying that. Sure, some that liked their old situation may be worse off than before. But if ACA was so bad on the whole, there would not have been such a resistance to maintaining it like seen over the last few months.

What I do know, generally in GOP states, there has been a rejection of Medicaid expansion. Screwing millions of people out of an opportunity for more subsidies to get better plans. And obviously people will not literally fall in the streets if repealed. But I bet many will put off preventative screenings/checkups, let things get worse healthwise, then more frequently rely on emergency care to do an immediate intervention to save their life. Then declare bankruptcy when they get the bill. And some actually dependent on more affordable access to medicine/treatment they're getting now may very well actually drop dead if forced onto any Republican "plan."

I bet pregnancy rates go up because birth control is no longer free too.

Also, here's a link regarding finances. ACA contributed to reducing personal bankruptcies by 50%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-helped-make-a-50-dent-in-personal-bankruptcies-2017-05-03

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-bankruptcy-20170509-story.html
 

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
6,403
2,315
775
Guess what? Under your incredibly stupid 'plan', she'd be dead.

No she wouldn't. The hospital isn't going to reject care for someone. If he didn't have insurance his cost may have even been lower. He at least wouldn't have had to pay the premiums.

You do realize that he paid for everything in this exchange anyways and his insurance company paid nothing? Essentially just taking money and providing no services?

No, ACA is not perfect. Nobody is saying that. Sure, some that liked their old situation may be worse off than before. But if ACA was so bad on the whole, there would not have been such a resistance to maintaining it like seen over the last few months.

What I do know, generally in GOP states, there has been a rejection of Medicaid expansion. Screwing millions of people out of an opportunity for more subsidies to get better plans. And obviously people will not literally fall in the streets if repealed. But I bet many will put off preventative screenings/checkups, let things get worse healthwise, then more frequently rely on emergency care to do an immediate intervention to save their life. Then declare bankruptcy when they get the bill. And some actually dependent on more affordable access to medicine/treatment they're getting now may very well actually drop dead if forced onto any Republican "plan."

I bet pregnancy rates go up because birth control is no longer free too.

Also, here's a link regarding finances. ACA contributed to reducing personal bankruptcies by 50%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-helped-make-a-50-dent-in-personal-bankruptcies-2017-05-03

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-bankruptcy-20170509-story.html

You realize that the cost of preventative screenings/tests etc is much much cheaper than needing insurance? Seeing your GP is likely to cost you around 45-85$ without insurance. With insurance your still going to have to pay you co-pay which is going to be around the same price if not more. Me without insurance costs me around 65$ my wife with insurance from her job same thing she has to pay 120$. Because they bill insurance companies at a higher rate knowing they are going to negotiate and pay a percentage and then making the co-pay higher.

I am also dependent on expensive medicine, insulin. But it is cheaper to pay out of pocket for it then pay through an insurance company. The one thing that would be good for me would be if I worked for a big company that was forced to provide health insurance, but since i don't I have to brunt the cost.
 

Armaros

Member
Sep 18, 2013
7,766
0
0
Me too. I know it's not a popular opinion to have here.





Once the ACA was enacted millions of people did not suddenly get better health care or suddenly save millions of lives. Basically what it has done is make all insurance plans now only valuable as catastrophic plans because the price of the premiums and deductibles are so high the majority are never going to be able to use them.

People keep preaching this false narrative that millions will die if they repeal this, that people without health insurance is bad etc. The way it's currently set up is terrible and hurts more people than it helps. You understand that someone making 40,000$ a year would have to spend around 10-12,000 a year (25% or more of their income) to be able to use insurance the way it is set up right now?

Unless of course you are lucky enough to work for a big company that provides it for you. But then you are still going to have to pay the deductible (but it might not be as high as if you were to purchase it yourself through the marketplace).



You aren't wrong.

So all people the people that now rely in the ACA to get healthcare when they never had it before are fictitious?

I guess not going to the hospital or doctor because you couldn't afford it and didn't have health insurance was a better thing?

Or having the only plans available not even cover your health issues because they could deny you the coverage you needed because of pre existing conditions? Those are also a false narrative?

No she wouldn't. The hospital isn't going to reject care for someone. If he didn't have insurance his cost may have even been lower. He at least wouldn't have had to pay the premiums.

You do realize that he paid for everything in this exchange anyways and his insurance company paid nothing? Essentially just taking money and providing no services?


What in the hell are you taking about? The hospital would take care of her? No shit Sherlock that's not the topic. The issue is that he could be now bankrupt from the hospital bills without insuranc. In what universe do you come from where hospital bills do not exist?
 

JoeyJungle

Banned
Aug 24, 2011
4,421
0
0
You understand that someone making 40,000$ a year would have to spend around 10-12,000 a year (25% or more of their income) to be able to use insurance the way it is set up right now?

Neither of these are true.


https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/52849-hr1628senate.pdf (this is from the CBO score of BCRA, image is on page 49)

CBO doesn't have a $40,000 income bracket, but the $56,000 bracket is less than half of what you claim people on $40,000 pay under current law. (actuarial value = how much a plan on average covers the costs of members receiving that plan).

And even if the deductible hasn't kicked in, you're still getting the insurance-negotiated prices for healthcare.

thanks to vox for reporting on this doc a few months back https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/26/15876476/voxcare-cbo-report-bcra-senate-bill

edit:
And if you are on at least a silver plan, there are many copays not subject to the deductible.

Thanks! I thought that was the case but I wasn't sure.

Also, just to clarify, I don't think anyone's arguing that the current cost of healthcare is great. The issue is that literally every republican solution raises costs, sometimes dramatically, and most plans are expected to provide worse insurance. On top of the above CBO report above about BCRA, another example is this CBO report of the House's bill:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15688010/voxcare-cbo-report-ahca-devastating

Quote is from CBO, discussing states that would take waivers from ACA requirements.
People who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all — despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs.
 
Sep 16, 2006
16,156
0
1,460
Los Angeles
Neither of these are true.



https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/52849-hr1628senate.pdf (this is from the CBO score of BCRA, image is on page 49)

CBO doesn't have a $40,000 income bracket, but the $56,000 bracket is less than half of what you claim people on $40,000 pay under current law.

And even if the deductible hasn't kicked in, you're still getting the insurance-negotiated prices for healthcare.

And if you are on at least a silver plan, there are many copays not subject to the deductible.
 
Aug 24, 2009
8,988
1
0
You realize that the cost of preventative screenings/tests etc is much much cheaper than needing insurance? Seeing your GP is likely to cost you around 45-85$ without insurance.

Eh, seeing my GP is $120 w/o insurance. That's the most common price in the DFW area. Going to urgent care clinics or walk-in places around here is $160 with or without insurance. My insurance premiums are about 100/mo with a $3500 deductible.

As well, when I was in college, I was not eating healthy and lacked health insurance. Racked up a $40,000 bill for 3 days cause my gall bladder had to be removed. Didn't have Medicaid as my scholarship put me in a certain income bracket and Texas sucks. Didn't have insurance cause my parents were/are poor. Had to wait 7 years for that debt to fall off. $40,000 is more than combined premiums + deductible I've spent out over the past 4 years.
 

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
6,403
2,315
775
Neither of these are true.



https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/52849-hr1628senate.pdf (this is from the CBO score of BCRA, image is on page 49)

CBO doesn't have a $40,000 income bracket, but the $56,000 bracket is less than half of what you claim people on $40,000 pay under current law.

And even if the deductible hasn't kicked in, you're still getting the insurance-negotiated prices for healthcare.

I have used the market place. My cost was around 3500$ a year but with a deductible of 7,000$.

So all people the people that now rely in the ACA to get healthcare when they never had it before are fictitious?

I guess not going to the hospital or doctor because you couldn't afford it and didn't have health insurance was a better thing?

Or having the only plans available not even cover your health issues because they could deny you the coverage you needed because of pre existing conditions? Those are also a false narrative?


What in the hell are you taking about? The hospital would take care of her? No shit Sherlock that's not the topic. The issue is that he could be now bankrupt from the hospital bills without insurance. In what universe do you come from where hospital bills do not exist?

Why would he be bankrupt? He got lucky and the insurance company negotiated his price down for him? You do realize when you do not have insurance there is a massive price difference that you pay. Likely what they 'negotiated' anyways.

I have been hospitalized a handful of times and while the bills exist they are not always as ridiculous as you would assume.

But the real problem is the cost in the first place. Why should it cost 4,000$ for a ride in an ambulance and short stay in the hospital?

Not saying people shouldn't have a system in place, but the one we have is broken.

Eh, seeing my GP is $120 w/o insurance. That's the most common price in the DFW area. Going to urgent care clinics or walk-in places around here is $160 with or without insurance. My insurance premiums are about 100/mo with a $3500 deductible.

I live in DFW area. Last charge was 45$. Normally 65$.
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
Ok, and blood tests, etc. when you do an annual checkup? Or what if the diabetes gets out of control? A new medication is needed? It gets worse in general and more invasive treatments are needed? What if some unrelated and unknown medical issue or accident occurs?
 
Dec 2, 2014
9,306
14
0
Please, don't put words in my mouth. Some having everything, and others having hitting is not what I'm advocating.

You're advocating a system that does not exist.

You do not have a plan that is better.

The GOP does not have a plan that is better.

People have asked the GOP for a better plan if they replace this. It has not been given.

If the GOP did have a better system then there WOULD NOT BE resistance. It would be voted in fast.

However... there is no plan.