Repealing and replacing Obamacare: What kind of healthcare plan do you support?

They're no cheepo easy way about this. It is going to be costly

Remember with healthcare money always comes second...in a purely capitalist circumstance without coverage, the first question is, how much ya got?, then how much is you, or your child's well being worth?

Me myself..the best solution is Single payer....rhetoric prevented this from ever happening in America...but the ACA has now opened that door, Preexisting conditions are now by law covered....Once we got a sample of that...lets not turn back.

"Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_reform_for_beginners_th_1.html

 

Link please..Id like to see this non-since, I'm already planning on what imma do with that extra $1500

 

What is the $1500 tax credit supposed to do? Granted, I don't know any more about what they're thinking about than anyone else, but my initial response to that is negative. For one, you can't buy a year's worth of insurance for that. You can buy closer to one or two months worth. Secondly, if you give millions of taxpayers a $1500 tax credit, we add to the imbalance of the federal budget. I believe we are rapidly moving toward a fiscal crisis with the federal budget, and this is not the time to reduce federal income unless it is matched by an equal reduction in federal expenditures. Have they thought about that?

 

With a Congress and White House opposed to regulation and seeking to serve their masters? I think not.

 

Agree with some of your post but this really does matter.

Assume the state of Texohvanork (yeah, I made that up) with insurance lobbying passes the following rules:
1. All insurance disputes must be resolved via arbitration;
2. Arbitrators are chose by the State Insurance Board
3. The loser at arbitration pays all costs

Now, in a state that would pass this type of regulation, do you really think that the State Insurance Board and the arbitrators it appoints will be "consumer friendly?"

Companies relocating to that state could sell policies for less money because they're going to use the arbitration regulations to reduce expenses. What happens when the providers discover claims will not be paid?

 

The lower rates will make it more affordable by taking the high risk patients out of the risk pool you are in and then you will get some of that money back. $1500 would recoup about 1/3 of my policy premium on a $1500 deductible/$4500 cap policy so I would gladly take it.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't link you to my DVR so I guess you will just have to google Charlie Rose's interview with the Speaker. I assume that CharlieRose.com has or will have it in the near future.

 

Is this it?

[video=youtube;jIrhohrhXDI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIrhohrhXDI[/video]

 

Obamacare should not be replaced with anything.

The States are free to come up with their own solutions.

 

In other words, you can't formulate a cogent coherent response to Truth & Reality.

Which is exactly what Obamacare did. The States could have done that a long time ago, if people had pushed for it.

People with pre-existing conditions are going to have to pay their own way, just like everyone else.

States are free to set up their own exchanges for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

You need to move away from employer-sponsored health plan coverage.

Changes in the tax code could easily accomplish that.

People fail to recognize there's a difference between the employer providing health plan coverage and the employer paying for all or part of health plan coverage as a benefit.

That first requires each State to eliminate the 1,000s of mandates for coverage.

44 of the 50 States mandate coverage for autism, plus many other conditions and factors, like birth control.

States need to eliminate those mandates so that there is truly a Free Market and people can purchase their health plan coverage a la cart.

 

No, you do not, You have a single payer system. If you don't understand the difference, you need to learn.

You don't understand what it would cost.

Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statist...act-sheet.html

That is what Medicare currently spends.

The HI Payroll Tax generated $253,517,711,521 ($253.5 Billion) in 2016.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxquery.html

Since the HI Payroll Tax does not adequately fund Medicare, you need to increase the HI Payroll Tax to meet current obligations.

The new HI Payroll Tax Rate would need to be 7.2% -- 3.6% each for employer and employee to generate $646.2 Billion in payroll taxes funding Medicare 100%.

The problem is the cost of medical care in the US is $3.2 TRILLION annually:

NHE grew 5.8% to $3.2 trillion in 2015, or $9,990 per person, and accounted for 17.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

https://www.cms.gov/research-statist...act-sheet.html

Tripling the HI Payroll tax from 7.2% to 21.6% --- 10.8% each for employer and employee would generate $1.938 TRILLION which is only 60% of the $3.2 TRILLION the US spent on healthcare in 2015.

That's what you'd have to pay in taxes, and it still wouldn't finance it 100%.

No, they do not.

Britain, Sweden, Portugal and Spain have national healthcare systems, but France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and others do not.

Nothing of the sort will happen...you're just fear-mongering.

 

You kind of lost me. Can you explain that a little more?

To some extent, I agree with that. For example, let's say an insurance company offers insurance for health services, like office visits and screenings and tests. In a truly free market, the customer could be offered different levels of coverage at different costs. You want your insurance to pay 50% of that? Here's the cost. You want it to pay 60%? 80%? ... you get the idea.

On the other hand, if everything is a la carte, then we are going to increase costs in some regards. For example, no one would want pre-natal and birth insurance except women of child bearing age who intended to have children, making the insurance for that much higher. Coverage for a routine colonoscopy would not be wanted for anyone under 50 years of age. Women would not need any coverage for a prostate exam or treatment of a prostate problem. In fact, younger men wouldn't even need it, but they would when they got older, and the insurance to cover only 45+ year old men for that would be much higher if young men and all women were not in the insurance pool. Remember that insurance costs less overall when the risk is spread out. So it may seem ridiculous to have men in the insurance pool that covers childbirth, but by having them in that pool, it makes the cost lower, and the coverage better.

So I think it's helpful to have people in the insurance pool who have zero or a low likelihood of needing certain types of treatments. But where I like the a la carte idea is in choosing the amount of coverage you want and can afford. And I can definitely see employers competing with each other for employees by offering better plans in a salary package than their competitors do.

I think it is extremely important that whatever plan is settled upon by this new administration really works. And it must be paid for! And it must not leave people unable to get insurance. And I would like to see it where we are not subsidizing insurance except for the truly poor. I would like to see it where, if you work, you and your family has got at least basic care that is paid for by your labor through your employer. I would like to see employers incentivized to hire full time workers instead of part time workers. So anyways, I'm just sort of rambling and throwing out ideas, but these are my thoughts.

 

What do you think Insurance lawyers call pre-exsiting conditions?
And how is it you still do not see the problems associated with state line policys for something that impacts the whole nations so?

 

Yea we tried that...every insurance company in the world would move to that state that allows total unregulated insurance lawyers to run amok, just taking customers money and sending denial of coverage letters out.

If you are a CEO you would be fired for not making sure your policy holders are not making the most profit by not being in the most Insurance friendly state.

 

Go for single payer and listen to the screams of anguish from the insurance companies and enjoy. After all they have been screwing you for years. For once in your life put the squabbles of left and right on the back burner and do yourselves a uuge favour.

 

a sliding scale Tax refund on heath insurance cost a full refund if you are below the poverty level

 

I would suggest you should perhaps consider moving to Venezuela where everyone is covered equally and receives healthcare equally. But then...

But I guess my real question would be if you actually understand what you are trying to say? This whole dissertation is just one big logical fallacy. Insurance, by your inference, based on the stated faulty premise lies on a right to rob those that can for those that can't. This unwarranted assertion is that anyone, with no effort on their part whatsoever is entitled to have bills paid by others based on their excesses.

Insurance, by it's very nature, was designed to prevent financial ruin in case of a catastrophic disaster. To believe that one could somehow make something "affordable" by inserting middle-MEN]/b] into the equation is just pure idiocy. To somehow believe a doctor should provide his services at a loss because one does not want the responsibility to care for their own health now starts to border on plain stupidity.

But to the instant case, again a case of idiocy as the enrollment period for Odumbocare ends at the end of January. Those that enrolled have a plan contract for 2017 but if you didn't enroll, Trump just gave all the leeches a benefit of no penalty. And not to worry, the red team is now soliciting new bribes as to whom will benefit from their unconstitutional actions for 2018.

Oh, that constitutional thing doesn't really apply to those nice little citizens as you are bound by the actions of your agents as little citizens.

 

Wow, health care accounts, owned by the users, maintained and paid directly to the providers would be the bomb that stopped socialized medicine right in it's tracks. But that isn't going to happen.

 

No, you haven't and you cannot cite even one State as an example.

 

I agree with you! The Federal government should not be in the business of telling Americans what kind of health care plan - if any at all - they should have. That is up to the individual.

If states want to offer a plan to provide health care for lower-income citizens at low cost, they should be the ones who decide that - not the Federal government.

Inevitably, people will chime in about somehow health care insurance being a "right" - but that's just another nanny state Ponzi scheme the Feds can become embroiled in and screw up on a massive scale like they do everything else.

The Federal government likes to take a "one size fits all" approach, a la the ACA, and responsible people who had health insurance all along are always the ones getting stuck paying for subsidizing the "underprivileged".

Privileges are earned, people! Get off your entitlement nanny state horse and get with the program of holding individuals accountable for maintaining - first and foremost their own health period - and ultimately their health insurance.

Now, I do agree that reforms need to be made to the system that existed prior to the ACA. I can see the logic in keeping children on their parents' plans, and I can bite off on 26 as being the cutoff. By the time they're 26, they should have a clue about the kinds of responsibilities adults are supposed to take on.

As for pre-existing conditions, I'd say it depends on what the condition is and how they became ill/infected/fat/drunk/addicted etc.

No one with an ounce of common sense can say with a straight face that someone who ate themselves into chronic diabetes, drank themselves into cirrhosis of the liver, or who contracted HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis due to drug abuse or irresponsible sexual behavior should have the treatment for their "condition" subsidized by the taxpayer.

Yes - I know those conditions exist outside of the causes I mentioned, but the vast majority are exactly as I stated - their own fault.

Harsh? Maybe - if you're a bleeding heart, entitlement-minded lemming who cannot fashion a thought beyond "big daddy gub'ment should provide it".

However, how is rewarding bad behavior with free or nearly-free treatment the responsibility of the insurance companies and ultimately of the people who exercise personal responsibility and live clean lives as a matter of habit? It's not - period.


So what to do with them? Charities. Yes - charities!

Americans are by-and-large very generous people and most people support freely giving to worthwhile charities. However, forcing people to pay for someone else's poor decision making is tyranny...plain and simple.

Look at car insurance. It's a requirement to drive, yet no one gets their car insurance subsidized - and a person's bad driving record results in higher premiums for them - so they absorb that cost as a result. Why should health insurance be any different?

I am not a cold-hearted person. I feel sorry for people who have chronic illnesses and I can also empathize with people who are poor.

However, when you boil it all down - people usually end up in their place in life due to their own decision-making skills...or lack thereof. There are, of course, exceptions - and I'm not oblivious to this fact.

However, forcing the rest of the responsible citizens of our country to foot the bill for those who live life irresponsibly is just plain wrong!

Like I said - Americans are a generous people. Those who can give to charities...should give to charities. You might be surprised just how many actually do!

If our Federal government were to get into the habit of ASKING people to give to worthwhile causes, maybe it wouldn't have to force it on people...who may very well be the ones who give all along!


Does anyone else see the logic in this approach?

 

Interesting....Ask North Dekota about that...

"Impact of the Affordable Care Act in North Dakota

Thousands of North Dakotans have gained coverage, and hundreds of thousands more have had their coverage substantially improved

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released an extensive compilation of state-level data illustrating the substantial improvements in health care for all Americans over the last six years. The data show that the uninsured rate in North Dakota has fallen by 20 percent since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010, translating into 15,000 North Dakotans gaining coverage. And, in addition to residents who would otherwise be uninsured, hundreds of thousands more North Dakotans with employer, Medicaid, individual market, or Medicare coverage have also benefited from new protections as a result of the law.

“As our nation debates changes to the health care system, it’s important to take stock of where we are today compared to where we were before the Affordable Care Act,” said Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell. “Whether North Dakotans get coverage through an employer, Medicaid, the individual market, or Medicare, they have better health coverage and care today as a result of the ACA. Millions of Americans with all types of coverage have a stake in the future of health reform. We need to build on our progress and continue to improve health care access, quality, and affordability, not move our system backward.”

Highlights of today’s data release include:

Employer Coverage: 450,000 people in North Dakota are covered through employer-sponsored health plans. Since the ACA was enacted in 2010, this group has seen:

An end to annual and lifetime limits: Before the ACA, 253,000 North Dakotans with employer or individual market coverage had a lifetime limit on their insurance policy. That meant their coverage could end exactly when they needed it most. The ACA prohibits annual and lifetime limits on policies, so all North Dakotans with employer plans now have coverage that’s there when they need it. Personal edit: (aka Another lawyer friendly version of denial letters while still collecting premiums)
Young adults covered until age 26: An estimated 7,000 young adults in North Dakota have benefited from the ACA provision that allows kids to stay on their parents’ health insurance up to age 26.
Free preventive care: Under the ACA, health plans must cover preventive services — like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms – at no extra cost to consumers. This provision benefits 359,032 people in North Dakota, most of whom have employer coverage.
Slower premium growth: The average premium for North Dakota families with employer coverage grew 5.0 percent per year from 2010-2015, compared with 7.4 percent over the previous decade. Assuming North Dakota premiums grew in line with the national average in 2016, family premiums in North Dakota are $2,700 lower today than if growth had matched the pre-ACA decade.
Better value through the 80/20 rule: Because of the ACA, health insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of each premium dollar on health care or care improvements, rather than administrative costs like salaries or marketing, or else give consumers a refund. Americans with employer coverage have received more than $1 billion in insurance refunds to date.




https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/fact...ow-aca-is-working-for-north-dakota/index.html

And yes...any CEO of an insurance company would be fired for not having their company based in north dekota after such a customer unfrendly policy change like what you suggest passes.
I mean for example would you as a share holder not what to see profits increase?

"Libertarians name North Dakota “most free” state"

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/libertarians_name_north_dakota_most_free_state/

 

I like your sentiment but really, do you think that is going to happen?

What difference would this make? Changing master's makes one no less a slave. A free market always results in the best product for the lowest price. It is that protective blanket of government that drives prices up and the product delivered down because of their protectionist schemes. But the real truth of the matter, it's not the government, it's fear, pure primal fear that is at the root of the problems of this country. Healthcare is but one of the symptoms. While healthcare is small in itself, it doesn't take much to bring down the largest beast of pray when covered by burden ever increasing.

Really? I would suggest that perhaps you owe yourself to know what really happens. Do a little research on the relationship of the regulators, insurance companies and drivers with that mandated car insurance. Regulators, look at the fees; application fees, yearly license fees, taxes on proceeds (percent), after all there are all those employees that need to be paid. Insurance companies, do you believe they eat those fees?, and there has to be profits; your misery, their profits; that's fair isn't it? Driver, well you've paid all to this point, but how about the sweeteners, tickets (a pain all it's own) and here comes your new rates. To this point, you have done no damage but you sure paid. What about an accident, I'll let the reader figure that one out.

And you want to wish this for your healthcare? Do you really want your state to take on the responsibility for the subsidies on behalf or the indigent? Just how far up the state's rear end is the fed on Medicaid? How much of that load has the fed dumped on the state taxpayer? Now consider this eight year disaster whereby many lost what they liked, served by doctors they liked, all courtesy of the blue team, dumped on the state where you keep your family.

I wonder if small, doctor owned facilities would start to sell actual health care where medicine is used to treat symptoms until actual health is restored. Wonder if cutting out all the middle men would make thing affordable. Just a dream, nothing like this can ever happen in a society devoid of morality.

 

If you go back to the very beginning of it all, employers did not offer group-based health plan coverage.

The way it worked in the 1930s and 1940s is that you chose the hospitalization plan from a local hospital which offered health plan coverage, you presented your employer the bill, and your employer agreed to pay all or part of the cost of the plan as part of your benefits.

It was this ruling by the National War Labor Board that started to crow-bar health plan coverage onto employers...

"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."


Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.

Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.

FDR had levied a Wage & Price Freeze for certain jobs, occupations and industries. Your employer was not allowed to give you a pay raise, unless government first approved the pay raise (and government was denying pay raises so much that unions threatened to go on strike in early 1942).

To reward employees and attract new talent, employers did not provide health plan coverage, but they did pay all or part of the costs.

By 1946, unions started demanding that employers pay for health plan coverage as a fringe benefit. Unions negotiated plans with hospitals or private insurers.

That ended up at the Supreme Court with the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision.

Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees

Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."

September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (194

"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."

Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf‎

Now you have the big shift as employers start providing group health plan coverage.

Employer health plan coverage is basically a take-it-or-leave-it deal: You either purchase the health plan coverage your employer offers, or you seek your own private coverage and pay 100% for it yourself.

In accordance with the Free Market.

Then tax the snot out of employers who offer employer-based health plans and also employees who purchase employer-based health plans.

That drives everybody into State-wide Insurance Markets.

 

No one rational in America wants socialized medicine...We want a Single payer system.

"Socialized Medicine vs Single Payer vs What We Have Now"

" Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration.In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.

Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchasesall, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)"

http://www.newsweek.com/socialized-medicine-vs-single-payer-vs-what-we-have-now-212088

 

I would say that would be more like an opinion, that is unless you have something you forgot to add to back up your assertion.

But not to worry, you wouldn't buy from them would you?

And all the courts moved out also?

Actually, giving the federal government anything wouldn't be an extremely bad idea, it would be an extremely idiotic idea. All the poor souls crying, not because they understand what got them to this point, but in spite of it!