|
Reik posted:It said by 2026 the premiums will be about 10% lower than the ACA projection, but that's a terrible comparison. Because the AHCA removes the essential health benefits, the benefits covered under the two different plans will be completely different. They say that in the report and that it's a major driver of the lower premiums they project. They fully understand the mechanism they're talking about there, it's just that Republicans are going to be doing their best to erase that detail.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
call to action posted:Here it is, for whoever asked So, as predicted, you've decided to pretend that a post which mentions economic impact is excluding all other effects as unimportant. You can't think that's convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I believe that is all funding they're taking away from planned parenthood. That framing seems like a missed opportunity. There's no line item for Planned Parenthood, so how accurate is, "funding?" Medicaid pays for healthcare from healthcare providers. PP provides healthcare. It's not, "defunding PP." It's, "banning your healthcare provider."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Reik posted:If you're doing projections about health insurance and you don't project premiums, insurer paid amounts, and member liability amounts, you have no business doing those projections. Sure thing dude, I'll let the Congressional Budget Office, the best organization in the world at predicting the impacts of all forms of legislation, who have scored and evaluated every health care reform bill, know how poo poo they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's Trump & Co. so, what's the catch? No? CHCP does good stuff. AHCA also provides an increase in subsidizing write-offs to ERs in low-income areas. This won't make up for gutting Medicaid though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Boon posted:Uh... The costliest individuals won't be removed from the plans though? There's no meaningful control for anti-selection in this plan. The 30% non-continuous coverage surcharge is laughable. Also, as I stated, a premium comparison without a benefits covered comparison is worthless. Might as well be comparing the premiums to the average car or renters insurance premiums. Discendo Vox posted:Sure thing dude, I'll let the Congressional Budget Office, the best organization in the world at predicting the impacts of all forms of legislation, who have scored and evaluated every health care reform bill, know how poo poo they are. Anyone that looks at the AHCA and thinks it will provide a stable non-group insurance market is ignorant at best, delusional at worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
?
|
Accretionist posted:That framing seems like a missed opportunity. There's no line item for Planned Parenthood, so how accurate is, "funding?" We know this, they know this, but all the pro-lifers see is "Planned Parenthood loses funding".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:That framing seems like a missed opportunity. There's no line item for Planned Parenthood, so how accurate is, "funding?" They raise the amount of funding for them by whatever the latest data says PP got paid for heath care. Obviously it doesn't make logical sense, but it's their political attempt to insulate themselves from backlash over it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:That framing seems like a missed opportunity. There's no line item for Planned Parenthood, so how accurate is, "funding?" Planned parenthood runs free clinics under some federal programs so I assume they're talking about that. But it seems easy enough to bypass through some restructuring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
So who all here is worried their employer will stop offering insurance plans and/or lack the money to buy the insurance that has the coverage one needs? It just amazes me the illusion of choice offered to Americans, when it really comes down to those who are able to pay and those that can't. And who loving knows what coverage one needs in the future. What a sick twisted ideology Republicans adhere to. I'm worried my employer will stop offering insurance and I am in the low end, barely middle class income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They say that in the report and that it's a major driver of the lower premiums they project. They fully understand the mechanism they're talking about there, it's just that Republicans are going to be doing their best to erase that detail. I didn't see that in the report. I scanned all of the sections about premiums but saw no mention about the essential health benefits, only the minimum actuarial value. Where did you see it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The wealthy of america stood united behind a candidate whose explicit-as-laid-out-by-the-currently-top-ranking-democrat-in-America campaign strategy was to abandon the working class in favor of picking up the votes of suburban republicans. He accused her of being shrill, a nasty woman, a puppet of Russia, corrupt, a criminal, diseased, disgusting a slave to "special interests", and virtually every orher insult that went through his brain. He never once called her a puppet of the rich. That is just pure uncut projection on your part. Meanwhile, she attacked him for using his wealth to bully lower class workers, and not for his Republican views. How well did that work again? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Jesus loving Christ I can't imagine what would happen if 52 million people were uninsured. This would be devastating economically, socially, etc. That is actually lower than the uninsured % was before Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Reik posted:I didn't see that in the report. I scanned all of the sections about premiums but saw no mention about the essential health benefits, only the minimum actuarial value. Where did you see it? Page 14, section beginning with "Changes to actuarial value requirements". In short, although there's still essential health benefits, they can just stop offering insurance above about 60% actuarial value by, among other things, significantly increasing deductibles. edit: I think I misread your post but since when are those minimum requirements going away - I know they'd like to repeal those but iirc they can't be taken out by reconciliation. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Reik posted:I didn't see that in the report. I scanned all of the sections about premiums but saw no mention about the essential health benefits, only the minimum actuarial value. Where did you see it? Page 14? The ten are still mandated for insurers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So who all here is worried their employer will stop offering insurance plans and/or lack the money to buy the insurance that has the coverage one needs? It just amazes me the illusion of choice offered to Americans, when it really comes down to those who are able to pay and those that can't. And who loving knows what coverage one needs in the future. What a sick twisted ideology Republicans adhere to. None of the plans or subsidies involved impact employer-provided plans unless your employer has less than 50 employees and didn't offer anything before they were required to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So who all here is worried their employer will stop offering insurance plans and/or lack the money to buy the insurance that has the coverage one needs? It just amazes me the illusion of choice offered to Americans, when it really comes down to those who are able to pay and those that can't. And who loving knows what coverage one needs in the future. What a sick twisted ideology Republicans adhere to. The mandates on employers would need to be taken out with 60 votes. Democrats won't give them any votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Page 14? The ten are still mandated for insurers. You're right, I was incorrect that the AHCA removed the 10 EHBs for non-group insurance. It only removes the EHBs from the Medicaid benchmark starting in 2020. evilweasel posted:Page 14, section beginning with "Changes to actuarial value requirements". In short, although there's still essential health benefits, they can just stop offering insurance above about 60% actuarial value by, among other things, significantly increasing deductibles. I read somewhere that the 10 EHBs were going away but I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/841401250935635970
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The mandates on employers would need to be taken out with 60 votes. Democrats won't give them any votes. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:None of the plans or subsidies involved impact employer-provided plans unless your employer has less than 50 employees and didn't offer anything before they were required to. Well as much as I'm delighted by that news, I guess I care more about those that aren't as fortunate as me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is actually lower than the uninsured % was before Obamacare. Yes but that sudden loss over the next few years will have a effect because the markets adjusting to having more insured.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's Trump & Co. so, what's the catch? I can't speak for all of them of course, but CHCs seem to be an extremely cost effective use of health care dollars. The CHC I'm employed at not only gives a lot of people healthcare access, but we actually save the healthcare system we partner with a shitload of money (in the form of our patients now being funded by our program instead of their accounts being written off or sent to collections by the system). Legislatures seem to be realizing that it's more efficient to fund CHCs to save what would otherwise be medicaid or unpaid expenses. Also, I guess it's more palatable for conservatives to grant the money to CHCs instead of funding medicaid? Medicaid is a weird beast because it can be so different from state to state, not just in who qualifies for coverage, but also in how smoothly/competently their state medicaid program functions. In my state our medicaid program is wrapped in layers of bureaucratic inefficiencies and seemingly staffed by 90% bitter DMV-stereotype employees drained of all empathy to care for their fellow man. A lot of their coverage and prior authorization rules would have made sense 15 years ago, but now seem pointlessly inefficient. This is probably inefficiency by design since my state has had unified GOP governance for a fair while now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:I can't speak for all of them of course, but CHCs seem to be an extremely cost effective use of health care dollars. The CHC I'm employed at not only gives a lot of people healthcare access, but we actually save the healthcare system we partner with a shitload of money (in the form of our patients now being funded by our program instead of their accounts being written off or sent to collections by the system). Legislatures seem to be realizing that it's more efficient to fund CHCs to save what would otherwise be medicaid or unpaid expenses. Also, I guess it's more palatable for conservatives to grant the money to CHCs instead of funding medicaid? Again that funding is solely a fig leaf for the whole "defunding planned parenthood" thing. It might be good in isolation, but its not in there for good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is actually lower than the uninsured % was before Obamacare. Pre-ACA it hovered around 16%. Post-AHCA will be around 16%. Unless you've seen something I haven't seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Pre-ACA it hovered around 16%. Post-AHCA will be around 16%. Unless you've seen something I haven't seen. Post-AHCA in 2025 it will be about 15.5%. It hovered around 16% pre-obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Post-AHCA in 2025 it will be about 15.5%. It hovered around 16% pre-obamacare. Not to DnD you but what's your source? Was it in the CBO assessment? Bueno Papi fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
The bill is not an alligator, it's a crocodile!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
I think the problem is that Paul Ryan was bullied for being poor as a kid, and he internalized that poor = not fit to live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Not to DnD you but what's your source? Was it in the CBO assessment? CBO estimate of 54 million uninsured in 2025. CBO cites the U.S. census estimate of a national population of 345.05 million in 2025. Uninsured rate of 15.6%
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Unfortunately it looks like the report projects a decrease in the deficit. I was hoping it would increase as that would piss off the conservative wing even more; they don't give a poo poo about people losing coverage. The CBO estimates a $330 billion reduction in the deficit over 10 years, making the yearly reduction $33 billion, which makes the savings less than the cost of the $54 billion increase in DoD spending that Trump wants. Over 10 years it's a pittance compared to the cost of social insurance programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:I think the problem is that Paul Ryan was bullied for being poor as a kid, and he internalized that poor = not fit to live. I think that he's a Republican and they all think like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/841434618528178176
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
It's a tremendously poo poo bill, but read with caution any source that tells you it's taking insurance away from 24 million. Those losses come at 3 stages. 2018: 14 million total fewer insured Americans. The majority of these are voluntary and attributed to the repeal of the individual mandate. 2020: An additional 7 million Americans lose health care due to the Medicaid cuts. 2026: An additional 3 million Americans lose health care due to the Medicaid cuts. e: Saw the McConnell quote. The "three-prong" approach relies on 8 Democrats hopping the aisle in order to make the other two prongs work... or a wildly different definition of reconciliation, requiring massive overstep by Pence. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure why we should be worried about twisting numbers or lying after 8 years of being shown that it's a winning formula.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Just like I voluntarily don't have a retirement account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm not sure why we should be worried about twisting numbers or lying after 8 years of being shown that it's a winning formula. Because D&D is left-leaning enough I assume the bulk of readers are of a like mind and are looking to be informed? Wasn't aware this was the "Anti-Trumpcare" Strategy Thread. Message and spin all you'd like, but poo poo like this bill is what happens when you get high on your own supply. Arglebargle III posted:Just like I voluntarily don't have a retirement account. The only thing that will have changed in 2018 for (most of) those first 14 million people is that they are no longer required to purchase insurance. It may be a desperately stupid decision to not do so, but the CBO says few in that group are people who wish to continue purchasing insurance and are now unable to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Multiple people I work with said today they'll voluntarily drop insurance coverage if the penalty goes away and simply negotiate using the threat of bankruptcy or actually declare bankruptcy if they get hit with unforeseen medical expenses. One said she probably should do it regardless of the penalty since it's not that expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:CBO estimate of 54 million uninsured in 2025. CBO cites the U.S. census estimate of a national population of 345.05 million in 2025. I guess the estimates percentage I've been seeing are people using different population estimates. I've seen 19% to 14%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Because D&D is left-leaning enough I assume the bulk of readers are of a like mind and are looking to be informed? yes this. If i want propoganda I'll go somewhere else (cspam probably)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The CBO estimates a $330 billion reduction in the deficit over 10 years, making the yearly reduction $33 billion, which makes the savings less than the cost of the $54 billion increase in DoD spending that Trump wants. Over 10 years it's a pittance compared to the cost of social insurance programs. This explanation wouldn't even fit in a tweet there's no way it gains any traction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:35
|
|