House Republicans release ObamaCare replacement bill

[Orbitus]

Lemme guess 8 years of Obama and zilch, suddenly he's gone and jobs are dime a dozen, strange.

- - - Updated - - -



Problem is healthcare has never hurt as much as it does now.

You obviously aren't American, otherwise you wouldn't be this fucking blind to reality. Oh what the fuck am I saying, Trump supporters are this fucking blind to reality. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you were this ignorant of the truth.

[Wells]

I mean, this is the party that refers to Newt as a "Big thinker", pretty sure most of their monikers are ironic.

They're lost the ability as a party to govern. Its bee literally over a decade since the GOP has undertaken any kind of serious legislative effort.

[Wyrt]

Ryan now says that this bill is "as good as it gets". Wow, do they suck.

Let's just keep the ACA then, shall we? If "the best you can do" is cut insurance for the poor and pay out huge tax gifts to the wealthy, perhaps the GOP should just STFU.

Maybe that was their plan all along. They only opposed the ACA because it was the Democrats that presented it.

[Surfd]

You know telling someone most people are unlikely to need major healthcare and that this individual will definitely need 50k surgery is kind of contradictory. But hey, keep on being condescending while not knowing shit about how to calculate probability weighed costs

It's not contradictory in anyway. Its a simplistic, napkin math example to explain how insurance companies work to maintain profitability. But I guess you were too smart to figure that out. And yes, hate to point it out to you, but most people paying into a health insurance policy are unlikely to require major healthcare expenses for the majority of the time they are paying into the plan. Which is why the few people who DO require them can be easily covered by the plan without bankrupting the Insurance co. I would try not to be so condescending, but I find it terribly difficult to do when it is entirely justified.

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I saw a comment elsewhere that really nailed it, and it's too good not to share here.

"The Deplorable Care Act"

[Gestopft]

It's not contradictory in anyway. Its a simplistic, napkin math example to explain how insurance companies work to maintain profitability. But I guess you were too smart to figure that out. And yes, hate to point it out to you, but most people paying into a health insurance policy are unlikely to require major healthcare expenses for the majority of the time they are paying into the plan. Which is why the few people who DO require them can be easily covered by the plan without bankrupting the Insurance co. I would try not to be so condescending, but I find it terribly difficult to do when it is entirely justified.

I think that poster's point was more that most of the people paying in, in hindsight, would've been better off saving their money instead. Obviously, insurance is about contingency: you never know when you're going to need it, and that's why people buy in when most of then end up getting almost nothing out of it in a particular year.

This fundamental dissonance in how the system functions is only one of many reasons we need to move past it.

[Surfd]

I think that poster's point was more that most of the people paying in, in hindsight, would've been better off saving their money instead.

Except that that is pretty much never the case, as the times when you truly need your healthcare plan to pay out (major medical expenses) are the times when your purchasing power as a single individual is pretty much never going to cut it compared to the value provided by the insurance collective. Sure, the average person could cover simple medical things like routine flue shots or minor injuries out of pocket fairly easily instead of paying for insurance, and then pulling out of the insurance to cover it, but that simply wont work for major incidents, unless you have been intentionally saving into a dedicated personal "Medical Emergency" side account since pretty much the moment you got a job.

Not to mention that if everybody decided to "save their money" instead of putting it into insurance, it would pretty much kill the individual insurance industry over night. It would literally become impossible for an individual to get insurance because it would be impossible to maintain any kind of profitability.

Also, you would never be better off in hindsight saving the money anyway, but that is an entirely different argument which comes back to the "Health Insurance" VS "Health Care" mentality thing I mentioned earlier in the thread, which is usually what has most of the rest of the civilized world constantly looking at Americans and wondering what the hell is wrong with them.

Pretty much the only people who would be better off saving their money are the ones who are wealthy enough to cover major medical expenses out of pocket without impacting their savings, which is going to be literally the top 10% or so of people in the country.

[paralleluniverse]

"Ryan: The whole idea of Obamacare is...the people who are healthy pay for the...sick. It's not working, & that's why it's in a death spiral."

Video: https://twitter.com/davidmackau/stat...90397019127808

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Firstly, ACA isn't in a death spiral, enrollments are stable, subsidies fully cancel out premium hikes (unlike Trumpcare, which will create a death spiral).

But wow, dumb idiot Paul Ryan doesn't even understand how insurance works!

In car insurance, people who don't crash their cars subsidize people who crash their cars. In health insurance, people who are healthy subsidize people who are sick. That's how it works. In fact, it's the only way it can work.

Paul Ryan was always an idiot, a phony that pretends to be a policy wonk, but now he has publicly humiliated himself. Sad!

[Barnabas]

"Health Care Choice Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Health Care Choice Act is a bill that proposes allowing health insurance companies to sell health insurance across U.S. state lines."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, allow insurers to sell across state lines. That will fix everything!

Here are some facts for you. The ACA already allows insurers get approval to sell across state line (although Trumpcare doesn't despite all Trump's bullshitting). And will selling across state lines solve? Nothing. It probably won't hurt, but it won't help either.

Keep your eyes on the fucking prize: Adverse selection. The entire enterprise of health insurance is about adverse selection. More specifically, how to fix adverse selection. ACA does it with a mandate and subsidy. Trumpcare is an adverse selection nightmare: cuts to subsidies will drive the healthy out, the 30% penalty will discourage healthy people from signing up again, the result is an increasingly sicker risk pool and hence a price death spiral. Every healthcare proposal must be judged on what it does to adverse selection.

Well we do have a third option. We could just let the 5% of sick people that are the real burden on healthcare costs to die and everyone else wins? Subsidized insurance from the government is just bad business and opens itself to fraud just like ACA has experienced for the past 8 years. If you think people didn't abuse enrollment periods to get the best subsidies you are dreaming. This new obamacare lite is making the same mistake and is unsustainable.

[Wyrt]

Well we do have a third option. We could just let the 5% of sick people that are the real burden on healthcare costs to die and everyone else wins? Subsidized insurance from the government is just bad business and opens itself to fraud just like ACA has experienced for the past 8 years. If you think people didn't abuse enrollment periods to get the best subsidies you are dreaming. This new obamacare lite is making the same mistake and is unsustainable.

So you just want to let cancer patients die for being a burden? How are republicans not cartoon villains again?

[Deleted]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Firstly, ACA isn't in a death spiral, enrollments are stable, subsidies fully cancel out premium hikes (unlike Trumpcare, which will create a death spiral).

But wow, dumb idiot Paul Ryan doesn't even understand how insurance works!

In car insurance, people who don't crash their cars subsidize people who crash their cars. In health insurance, people who are healthy subsidize people who are sick. That's how it works. In fact, it's the only way it can work.

Paul Ryan was always an idiot, a phony that pretends to be a policy wonk, but now he has publicly humiliated himself. Sad!

As much as I'd like to think they are just ignorant, I fear they actually understand this. But by saying this now they can turn around and say "See, we said so" when it crashes, which is probably their plan. To destroy the system to the point where it implodes and then blame Obama and people will buy into it.

[Breccia]

I have yet to see any successful defense of this bill that deals with the two major aspects of the ACA.

1) Forced enrollment of individuals in insurance under penalty of tax, and
2) Forced acceptance by companies based on pre-existing conditions.

These two key features were always hand in hand. Forcing enrollment meant nothing if you could be blocked or kicked out; and forced acceptance without forced enrollment would only damage the risk pool.

Trumpcare, Ryancare, Deplorablecare, whatever you want to call it has only one of these: the second. It does nothing but load up the risk pool with a minimal penalty (30% extra for one year is NOTHING when compared to paying for cancer yourself), and does next to nothing to flatten it back out.

There are enough other problems to be concerned, but this still seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ACA actually did in broad strokes.

[Allerius]

It's not contradictory in anyway. Its a simplistic, napkin math example to explain how insurance companies work to maintain profitability. But I guess you were too smart to figure that out. And yes, hate to point it out to you, but most people paying into a health insurance policy are unlikely to require major healthcare expenses for the majority of the time they are paying into the plan. Which is why the few people who DO require them can be easily covered by the plan without bankrupting the Insurance co. I would try not to be so condescending, but I find it terribly difficult to do when it is entirely justified.

I mean you can't even read well enough to get the point. The only justification for your condescension is your delusional and unsubstantiated views.

PS. If there are 'winners' who get more from insurance than they pay in (which there are) then there must be 'losers' who pay in more than they use if the system is to be cost neutral. So there are plenty of people who are losing money by paying for insurance. Add in insurance company costs and profits and the number of losers only increases.

[Rad1um]

OP do you have any clue how to run or business or what the new healthcare plan even entails ?

OP:

[Zan15]

Well we do have a third option. We could just let the 5% of sick people that are the real burden on healthcare costs to die and everyone else wins? Subsidized insurance from the government is just bad business and opens itself to fraud just like ACA has experienced for the past 8 years. If you think people didn't abuse enrollment periods to get the best subsidies you are dreaming. This new obamacare lite is making the same mistake and is unsustainable.

so instead of fixing the loopholes in the last 6 years they just filed 125 repeals of the ACA.

imagine if they spent the same kind of effort fixing the bad parts of the ACA and moving forward where we would be right now?

but once they named it OBAMACARE they could not possibly fix it.

imagine something as successful as MEDICARE, but with the moniker OBAMACARE. Republicans would be haunted for 100's of years.


don't believe it? then why does 75% of the republican plan keep what is in Obamacare.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean you can't even read well enough to get the point. The only justification for your condescension is your delusional and unsubstantiated views.

PS. If there are 'winners' who get more from insurance than they pay in (which there are) then there must be 'losers' who pay in more than they use if the system is to be cost neutral. So there are plenty of people who are losing money by paying for insurance. Add in insurance company costs and profits and the number of losers only increases.

Here is the bigger kicker.

there is no language in the new bill that say insurance companies HAVE to sell you insurance.

They have enough data so they know which states and which area's of the country they can make money off and not make money off. So you end up with a system like we have in the US for broadband. No one will touch those area's.

Some states are inherently sicker then others, thus why you have 1 carrier today in the ACA marketplaces.

NOTHING in the republicans plans change this. there is no incentive for them to start selling insurance in those marketplaces. even the 30% does not cover the cost. Even the additional rates for the older people don't cover the cost.


Republicans talk about access, this will not increase access to health insurance or health care

[Nazrark]

My favourite part of the Republicans version of ACA. It covers less people and your insurance premiums are still going to go up. If you didn't realize, this bill is so that insurance companies can make more money while not covering people who would need it.

The stupidity of the American government never ceases to amaze me.

[Kujako]

My favourite part of the Republicans version of ACA. It covers less people and your insurance premiums are still going to go up. If you didn't realize, this bill is so that insurance companies can make more money while not covering people who would need it.

The stupidity of the American government never ceases to amaze me.

It's also about tax breaks for the wealthy, don't forget that part.

[Glorious Leader]

It's also about tax breaks for the wealthy, don't forget that part.

Paul ryan was BLATANT about this. He was on tucker carlsons show and when asked about it shrugged and said meh

[Zan15]

well another major analysis in....and from the powerhouse AARP. not looking good with how pissed they are.
Can't say enough to these old uneducated Trump voters, Told You So.


http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp...ch-07-2017.pdf



According to the 2016 Medicare Trustees report, the Medicare Part A Trust fund is solvent until 2028 (11 years longer than pre-Affordable
Care Act (ACA)), due in large part to changes made in the ACA



We have serious concerns that the American Health Care Act repeals provisions in current law that have strengthened Medicare’s fiscal outlook, specifically, the repeal of the additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on higher-income workers. Repealing this provision could hasten the insolvency of Medicare by up to 4 years and diminish Medicare’s ability to pay for services in the future.[1]


We have serious concerns that the bill under consideration will dramatically increase health care costs for 50-64 year olds



premiums for current coverage could increase by up to $3,200 for a 64 year old.

increase premium costs for a 55-year old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year.

For a 64-year old earning $25,000 that increase rises to more than $4,400 a year,

more than $5,800 for a 64-year old earning $15,000.

premiums for older adults could increase by as much as $3,600 for a 55-year old earning $25,000 a year

$7,000 for a 64-year old earning $25,000 a year

up to $8,400 for a 64-year old earning $15,000 a year



Seems like they hate every part of the new bill

In providing a fixed amount of federal funding per person, this approach to financing would likely result in overwhelming cost shifts to states, state taxpayers, and families
unable to shoulder the costs of care without sufficient federal support. This would result in cuts to program eligibility, services, or both – ultimately harming some of our nation’s
most vulnerable citizens. In terms of seniors, we have serious concerns about setting caps at a time when per-beneficiary spending for poor seniors is likely to increase in
future years.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we hating this bill yet?

Oh how about now?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ot-health-plan


The 400 highest-earning households in the country will get an average tax break of $7 million per year under the Republican plan.


these tax cuts constitute an estimated $346 billion giveaway over ten years to households making $200,000 a year or more.

[Mafic]

The problem isn't just on the side of the insurance industry. The hospitals and doctors in the U.S. engage in price gouging as well, which in turn forces insurance companies to be scrouge like and reciprocate with price gouging on their customers. So, it is not fair to make the insurance companies out to the be villains when fraud is a big problem too (eg current Governor of Florida Rick Scott) that insurance companies must combat.

Having heath insurance in the U.S. is in essence having a broker negotiate a lower payment from the hospital. Hospitals and insurance companies are always bargaining on prices and then pass it onto the consumer.

The problem is that there is no oversight.

This is one problem the "free markets" can not solve or be resolved on its own.

Either the U.S. goes to a full public healthcare like Canada or UK or a mixed system like the Swiss have.