JTA wrote:My pops is gonna be screwwwweeddd if they dismantle the ACA.
It'll be interesting. Sure, they'd like to honor their dogmatic ODS 7-year repeal meme, but folks will be really pissed off if they make things worse.
Medicare can't come soon enough, but I'll bet they raise the age when I'm 6 months out.
The voucher system they propose for the elderly to purchase their own insurance isn't sensible, because the insurance system isn't sensible in old age.
I think the best analogy is if car insurance had to cover car repairs. The older your car is, the more likely it is to break down, and likelihood of expensive repairs increases dramatically. No car insurance company would want to cover your thirty year old beater car without an expensive premium. I feel like the same applies to the elderly and health insurance.
The irony of doing away with medicare and implicitly privatizing the fabled Obamacare "death panels" would be hilarious if it wasn't for this pesky empathy of mine getting in the way.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
The cause of all that angst about coverage is because the insurance companies aren't required to calculate their risk in the way it really works. Sure, a person who is 60 is likely to have more health issues than one who is 30. Maybe. Maybe not. But if you're the one who's paying, it's the cost of the condition that matters, and a bout with cancer is going to cost about the same no matter the age. The insurance company's risk isn't about individuals, or even a carved out group of high or low risk people. Their risk is the entire group of everybody who is covered. And when you get more than 1000 or so in a pool, overall risks are going to balance out. You'll have some healthy old people; you'll have some young people crash their bikes on the mountain and break their pelvis and back. With millions of people in the pool, the insurance company can predict with high confidence what their total exposure will be. They'll know what percentage of that population is going to get cancer, what percentage will have babies, and what percentage of those babies will end up in crisis. The company knows by actuarial standards what their costs will be. If they charge more for carved out "high risk" individuals, that's just extra profit. If they were required to sell the same policy to everyone who came in the door with a check, at the same price, and had to calculate that price on their actuarial-determined costs, the coverage problem would be solved. Sure, some younger people would end up with higher premiums, but hey - if they're lucky they'll eventually be old. And young notwithstanding, can they really guarantee they won't get a catastrophic illness or injury? Everybody pays the same; everybody gets the same coverage; medical providers get paid; insurance companies still make a reasonable profit. Simple solution; simple legislation. Why don't they do that? Oh yeah, there's the insurance lobby thing that owns a bunch of Congressmen.
O Really wrote:The cause of all that angst about coverage is because the insurance companies aren't required to calculate their risk in the way it really works. Sure, a person who is 60 is likely to have more health issues than one who is 30. Maybe. Maybe not. But if you're the one who's paying, it's the cost of the condition that matters, and a bout with cancer is going to cost about the same no matter the age. The insurance company's risk isn't about individuals, or even a carved out group of high or low risk people. Their risk is the entire group of everybody who is covered. And when you get more than 1000 or so in a pool, overall risks are going to balance out. You'll have some healthy old people; you'll have some young people crash their bikes on the mountain and break their pelvis and back. With millions of people in the pool, the insurance company can predict with high confidence what their total exposure will be. They'll know what percentage of that population is going to get cancer, what percentage will have babies, and what percentage of those babies will end up in crisis. The company knows by actuarial standards what their costs will be. If they charge more for carved out "high risk" individuals, that's just extra profit. If they were required to sell the same policy to everyone who came in the door with a check, at the same price, and had to calculate that price on their actuarial-determined costs, the coverage problem would be solved. Sure, some younger people would end up with higher premiums, but hey - if they're lucky they'll eventually be old. And young notwithstanding, can they really guarantee they won't get a catastrophic illness or injury? Everybody pays the same; everybody gets the same coverage; medical providers get paid; insurance companies still make a reasonable profit. Simple solution; simple legislation. Why don't they do that? Oh yeah, there's the insurance lobby thing that owns a bunch of Congressmen.
What a goddam load of librul socialist bullshit! You elitist motherfuckers . . . .
O Really wrote:The cause of all that angst about coverage is because the insurance companies aren't required to calculate their risk in the way it really works. Sure, a person who is 60 is likely to have more health issues than one who is 30. Maybe. Maybe not. But if you're the one who's paying, it's the cost of the condition that matters, and a bout with cancer is going to cost about the same no matter the age. The insurance company's risk isn't about individuals, or even a carved out group of high or low risk people. Their risk is the entire group of everybody who is covered. And when you get more than 1000 or so in a pool, overall risks are going to balance out. You'll have some healthy old people; you'll have some young people crash their bikes on the mountain and break their pelvis and back. With millions of people in the pool, the insurance company can predict with high confidence what their total exposure will be. They'll know what percentage of that population is going to get cancer, what percentage will have babies, and what percentage of those babies will end up in crisis. The company knows by actuarial standards what their costs will be. If they charge more for carved out "high risk" individuals, that's just extra profit. If they were required to sell the same policy to everyone who came in the door with a check, at the same price, and had to calculate that price on their actuarial-determined costs, the coverage problem would be solved. Sure, some younger people would end up with higher premiums, but hey - if they're lucky they'll eventually be old. And young notwithstanding, can they really guarantee they won't get a catastrophic illness or injury? Everybody pays the same; everybody gets the same coverage; medical providers get paid; insurance companies still make a reasonable profit. Simple solution; simple legislation. Why don't they do that? Oh yeah, there's the insurance lobby thing that owns a bunch of Congressmen.
Didn't they own obama too?
A simple glance at other countries, or a look at how little we pay to provide care for the elderly (our sickest). A few cents more and everybody is covered, insurance company employees go to work for Medicare for all and the big ins companies disolve
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
A simple glance at other countries, or a look at how little we pay to provide care for the elderly (our sickest). A few cents more and everybody is covered, insurance company employees go to work for Medicare for all and the big ins companies disolve
I'd go for that.
As to Obama, maybe not owned, but undoubtedly held a substantial share of ownership. He caved on some things he could have gotten with a bit more directed effort while he still had the majorities.
There were also some Dem defectors, too. But actually, the ACA was never terrible. Just portrayed as such by the scumbaggy Republicans who had no real interest in improving the system unless it also involved making Obama look bad.
O Really wrote:There were also some Dem defectors, too. Baucus, Ben Nelson, Lieberman - Big Insurance shills. :cussing:
But actually, the ACA was never terrible.
Depends on one's definition. It improved access but did nothing for affordability, and its penalties are so small that low risk, non-poor folks haven't joined in the numbers they need to in order to keep premium costs lower for higher risk, non-poor folks like me.
Just portrayed as such by the scumbaggy Republicans who had no real interest in improving the system unless it also involved making Obama look bad.
Agreed, they have never tried to improve it.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Vrede too wrote: Agreed, they have never tried to improve it.
Or come up with a replacement, as promised, while wasting ginormous amounts of time and money voting 472 pointless times to repeal it, in almost 7 fucking years. Less time than we spent fighting WWII.
Of course, replacing it was never any more of an option than single player.
Man celebrating vote to repeal Obamacare learns he is on Obamacare
Can't testify to the veracity of this. I have seen it in a dozen places, but only as a graphic with names redacted. Still, it lines up with some of my own, personal experiences talking with these simple minded droolers.
I've had the very same discussion a while back, minus the aggressive profanity, with a niece and her husband, who insisted that, "I ain't stoopit, and I think you're wrong." I admitted to the possibility that I was wrong without commenting on their degree of stupidity, and invited them to research it and check it out for themselves. Never heard back. Don't expect to.
I've had the very same discussion a while back, minus the aggressive profanity, with a niece and her husband, who insisted that, "I ain't stoopit, and I think you're wrong." I admitted to the possibility that I was wrong without commenting on their degree of stupidity, and invited them to research it and check it out for themselves. Never heard back. Don't expect to.
They checked it out on fox. Chances are they were told that your fact is out weighted by some much more factual opinion.
I've had the very same discussion a while back, minus the aggressive profanity, with a niece and her husband, who insisted that, "I ain't stoopit, and I think you're wrong." I admitted to the possibility that I was wrong without commenting on their degree of stupidity, and invited them to research it and check it out for themselves. Never heard back. Don't expect to.
They checked it out on fox. Chances are they were told that your fact is out weighted by some much more factual opinion.
... “My first response to that is show me the dead Canadians. Where are the dead Canadians?” former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, once asked during his own push to allow for importation....
President-elect Donald Trump is putting the finishing touches on an Obamacare replacement plan that aims to provide "insurance for all," he told The Washington Post.
Also, he will demand that drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid and lower their prices, saying they will no longer be "politically protected."
Trump did not reveal any details of how he'd accomplish this daunting task ...
Trump is making some big promises: His insurance reform will cover more people and cost less money.
"We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
"[They] can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better," he said.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised he would "take care of everybody" and that Americans can't let "people die on the street." He also said he would press for Medicare to be allowed to negotiate drug prices. He acknowledged all these were not very Republican things to say.
Congressional Republicans have shied away from saying how many people their replacement plan will insure, preferring to use the term "universal access" versus the Obamacare's "universal coverage" goal. Some 20 million people have gained coverage under Obamacare and the nation's uninsured rate has dropped to 8.9% in the first half of 2016, from 14.4% in 2013, before the Affordable Care Act's exchanges opened and Medicaid expansion took effect.
Trump's promises could also set up potential conflicts between him and his health secretary nominee. Price, a Georgia representative who chairs the House Budget Committee, has authored his own replacement plan that does not have universal coverage as its primary goal....
Leaving aside the fact that he's a serial liar and raging lunatic that has no idea how he'll do this, excellent goals. Making drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid to lower their prices alone would be YUGE.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
He's the Jerry Maguire of healthcare.
Making drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid to lower their prices alone would be YUGE.