CBO on senate Healthcare out....and its just as bad as you figured

[Tyrianth]

Huh, imagine that. A for-profit healthcare system results in outrageous costs in the name of profit. Who'd have though?

[GreenJesus]

Without limiting prices of drugs/doctor vists/hospital stays any legislation will just be a shuffling of responsibility of costs from person to health insurance company to tax payers. All Obamacare did was subsidize costs not reduce costs.

Say the cost of a certain treatment is $10,000.
Ways it can work:

1) patient pays full $10,000
2) Health insurance pays 8,000, patient pays 2,000
3) Patient pays 100, health insurance pays 4,000, Government pays 5,900
4)... etc etc.

Either way the cost has to be paid by someone

[Tyrianth]

A good-sized majority of people either has Medicare (not changing), or employer sponsored health insurance (not changing). While this will solidify support of some against the Republicans, it will not make any actual health -care- reform any easier and any bills that come up at that time will likely go the way of the Clinton plan in the early 90's.


(Dated I know, but fairly close).



It can't be that hard, then, to be specific. Where would you cut, and what kinds of cost savings will it give you?

Surely, you must be for the Senate bill which controls Medicaid costs by pinning the rate of growth to the inflation rate.

How about cutting the middle man? Health insurance industry is a fucking abomination. A persons health and life should not be in the hands of for-profit industries. How about banning direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals? Something all but two countries already do. That way pharmaceutical companies wont have to spend billions on marketing (more so than they do R&D).

[Breccia]

Regulate the god damn price of medications

Trump did say he wants to do this, but, not to the effect you were implying.

[Gestopft]

You think Democrats in Congress would do something decent if they had the majority? You realize most Dems are also against anything that would actually qualify as a solution to the healthcare issue right? But sure, keep making it a Democrats vs Republicans fight instead of a the people vs politicians fight. Would a Democrat bill likely be better than this? Yeah. However, slightly less stinky shit is still shit.

Until we get policies that reduce the influence of money in politics and campaigns, it's going to be hard to get the current politicians to go directly against such a massive lobby. However, I'd say it depends on how much Democrat voters pressure and/or primary their representatives in 2018 and 2020. GoP is never going to put forward an actual solution- pressure is going to come from the left on this.

[Jimmy Woods]

Id rather not be forced to buy health insurance just because someone else cant afford it so i gotta pay into their stupid system. How about leave me alone. If this bill gets rid of the stupid tax i have been paying the past 2 years then good riddance.

Fun Fact: You've been paying about $5k in taxes every year you've paid taxes going towards socialized medicine.

Obama looked at the rest of the world that pays less of their tax dollars towards healthcare and gets "better" results and said why can't we do that in the US? But if you like paying more of your tax dollars to the government to cover people who can't afford healthcare and then pay more out of pocket than any other nation on the world by A LOT when you actually need HC, I'm sure Trump and the Republicans Wealthcare is a good fit for you.

[Garnier Fructis]

Moreover, the report said, premiums for older people would be much higher under the Senate bill than under current law. As an example, it said, for a typical 64-year-old with an annual income of $26,500, the net premium in 2026 for a midlevel silver plan — after subsidies — would average $6,500, compared with $1,700 under the Affordable Care Act. And the insurance would cover less of the consumer’s medical costs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ort/ar-BBDilQ4

You see that? If this passes, we'll get to see whether old people cannibalize the GOP or not.

And this:

The Senate proposal for a waiting period could also have problems. For someone with cancer or a severe illness, a six-month waiting period could be a death sentence.

could be a political death sentence for some politicians in purple areas.

[Breccia]

or employer sponsored health insurance (not changing). .

The CBO disagrees with you four million times. Perhaps dumping the mandate for employers to get their workers health care, will cause employers to stop getting their workers health care?

[beanman12345]

Hopefully enough Republican senators have the balls to say, "Fuck this shit. I'm not signing off on the deaths of millions of Americans."

It's more likely some republicans nay this bill because it doesn't kill enough Americans and the tax break isn't big enough.

[ati87]

Id rather not be forced to buy health insurance just because someone else cant afford it so i gotta pay into their stupid system. How about leave me alone. If this bill gets rid of the stupid tax i have been paying the past 2 years then good riddance.

so what will you do when you are 60+ and get cancer? It's a system that everybody has to pay into or else it doesnt' really work out you know

[Eggroll]

Reminds me of John Oliver about gun control - What makes a politician successful

[paralleluniverse]

Without limiting prices of drugs/doctor vists/hospital stays any legislation will just be a shuffling of responsibility of costs from person to health insurance company to tax payers. All Obamacare did was subsidize costs not reduce costs.

Say the cost of a certain treatment is $10,000.
Ways it can work:

1) patient pays full $10,000
2) Health insurance pays 8,000, patient pays 2,000
3) Patient pays 100, health insurance pays 4,000, Government pays 5,900
4)... etc etc.

Either way the cost has to be paid by someone

WRONG. ACA contains many cost saving measures such as fee for outcome instead of service, free preventive care that has reduced healthcare costs, not just shuffled them around or onto the government. Thanks to ACA's cost saving measures, healthcare inflation is at a record low.



- - - Updated - - -

I predicted that Trumpcare will put a gun to the head of state governments threatening: "kill protections for preexisting conditions or else I will send your market into a death spiral":

Also, essential health benefits can indeed be waived away, which as I explained above, means that protections for pre-existing conditions are gone.

This actually sets up a no-win situation for states because the mandate is removed and replaced with nothing:
- Keep protections for pre-existing conditions and the individual market will enter a price death spiral because the mandate is gone.
- Or states can choose to waive essential health benefits so that protections for pre-existing conditions are effectively gone.

Either way, people get screwed and die.

Today, CBO confirms it:

Market Stability. In CBO and JCT’s assessment, a small fraction of the population resides
in areas in which—because of this legislation, for at least for some of the years after
2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be
offered only with very high premiums. In the first case, the elimination of cost-sharing
subsidies for low-income people and the greater share of income that older people pay
toward premiums would shrink the demand for insurance compared with that under
current law, and it would probably not be profitable for insurers to bear the fixed costs of
operating in some markets. In the second case, because the total subsidy per person under
the legislation would be substantially smaller than under current law, the fraction of
purchasers who are subsidized would fall. Among the unsubsidized population, less
healthy people are more likely to purchase insurance—and the higher costs for them
would put upward pressure on premiums. As unsubsidized people became a greater
fraction of the purchasers, that pressure would be greater and could result in very high
premiums in some markets—mainly during the second half of the coming decade, when
much less federal funding would be provided to reduce premiums. In both cases,
instability in a given market would probably be resolved within a few years by states’
actions: States could obtain a waiver that would allow changes to certain market
regulations for the purpose of reducing premiums; they could reduce premiums directly
using funding obtained through the waiver process; they could obtain a greater share of
the funding from the State Stability and Innovation Program to directly reduce premiums;
and they could spend their own funds to directly lower premiums.

[Mayhem]

Free market doesn't work when applied to healthcare. Unless the market is so free, extortion is legitimate.

Free market doesn't work most of the time because the consumer doesn't have all the information that is required to make an informed decision. I agree with you that it can't work when applied to healthcare as the consumer doesn't/can't have a say in it.

[ati87]

Free market doesn't work most of the time because the consumer doesn't have all the information that is required to make an informed decision. I agree with you that it can't work when applied to healthcare as the consumer doesn't/can't have a say in it.

Free market doesn't work for healthcare period since you really don't have that many options in a emergency.

I really can't ask a quotation when I need appendix surgery now can I (had this a month ago) I can't go online or call them and ask them ''what are you charging for xyz'', this isn't plastic surgery.

[paralleluniverse]

To summarize CBO on the Trumpcare death bill:
-It rips healthcare from 22M to give tax cuts to the rich.
-It will send markets in some states into "death spirals".
-People will pay more, for worse plans with higher deductibles, especially the poor.
-In fact, the deductibles will be so high and subsidies so low that many poor people won't even get insurance.
-The amount of money people will spend on healthcare will increase despite average premiums decreasing because lowering the benchmark plan from 70% AV to 58% will mean most people have higher deductible plans, with massively slashed subsidies, exploding out-of-pocket costs, and the cost of expensive treatments or just essential benefits will not be covered thanks to the waivers.
-Price-discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and annual and lifetime limits are back.

[Draco-Onis]

Hopefully enough Republican senators have the balls to say, "Fuck this shit. I'm not signing off on the deaths of millions of Americans."

They have held back healthcare reform for years, they have no problem with killing millions of Americans for tax cuts for the rich. If you look at it mathematically only 2 so far have said they won't sign on because of this the other 4 are upset it doesn't kill enough people.

[Mayhem]

Free market doesn't work for healthcare period since you really don't have that many options in a emergency.

I really can't ask a quotation when I need appendix surgery now can I (had this a month ago) I can't go online or call them and ask them ''what are you charging for xyz'', this isn't plastic surgery.

Exactly!

10char

[JohnBrown1917]

So this is why the Koch brothers donate so much to Republicans. How is this not bribery? and how has nobody killed them yet?

[Ivanstone]

Say the cost of a certain treatment is $10,000.
Ways it can work:

1) patient pays full $10,000
2) Health insurance pays 8,000, patient pays 2,000
3) Patient pays 100, health insurance pays 4,000, Government pays 5,900
4)... etc etc.

The problem is that because of a lack of cost controls the treatment is $10000 in the first place. And how much of that $10000 is going to some grifter (ex overpaid executives).

[Breccia]

I predicted that Trumpcare will put a gun to the head of state governments

Hey Parallel, how do you feel about the red/blue split on those states?