|
Peven Stan posted:Why not just repeal the employer mandate and the token tanning bed tax and call it a day GOP? Give them an inch and they'll try and take a mile, the crazy bastards Democratic Incrementalism - Make money off increasingly progressive values Republican Incrementalism - Make money off evil now and forever
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Why not just repeal the employer mandate and the token tanning bed tax and call it a day GOP? Give them an inch and they'll try and take a mile, the crazy bastards There's literally no plan, no matter how benevolent, malevolent, or ineffectual, that the current GOP congresscritters could ever agree on. Some of them wouldn't be happy unless every state that expanded Medicaid was forced to un-expand it and every requirement that health insurance actually provide meaningful coverage was rescinded. Some of them wouldn't be happy if their own state's Medicaid expansion was negatively affected in any way, shape, or form. Nearly all of them campaigned on "repealing Obamacare", which to most of their voters means "ending the individual mandate". - if you end the individual mandate, you have to give the insurance companies SOMETHING because otherwise their lobbyists will flood your swamp with their crocodile tears - if you don't end the individual mandate, you're at risk of being primaried because you didn't "repeal Obamacare" - if you don't mangle Medicaid, you will lose votes - if you do mangle Medicaid, you will lose votes
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:There's literally no plan, no matter how benevolent, malevolent, or ineffectual, that the current GOP congresscritters could ever agree on. Some of them wouldn't be happy unless every state that expanded Medicaid was forced to un-expand it and every requirement that health insurance actually provide meaningful coverage was rescinded. Some of them wouldn't be happy if their own state's Medicaid expansion was negatively affected in any way, shape, or form. Nearly all of them campaigned on "repealing Obamacare", which to most of their voters means "ending the individual mandate". Trump should just push a bill to allow drug imports and call it a day
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Why not just repeal the employer mandate and the token tanning bed tax and call it a day GOP? Give them an inch and they'll try and take a mile, the crazy bastards They cant. They have all the power but a failute to repeal the ACA would betray 7 years of campaigning. It is literally the only thing most of these guys campaigned on besides tax cuts. They are caught between a rock and another rock that they put there themselves and now its got Obamas face on it and will grind them into bonemeal. Theyre hosed and this is not good (for them). The aca like most dem stuff actually helped people and now they have to pull that rug out from a big piece of the country
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Sure, but if things come down to the wire won't the hardcore repeal guys settle for Ryan's "Obamacare Lite" or something close to it? I mean if the alternative is nothing passing, they'll go for it, right? This whole situation feels like the germs trying to get into Mr. Burns kinda situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Sure, but if things come down to the wire won't the hardcore repeal guys settle for Ryan's "Obamacare Lite" or something close to it? I mean if the alternative is nothing passing, they'll go for it, right? This whole situation feels like the germs trying to get into Mr. Burns kinda situation. They haven't before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Why not just repeal the employer mandate and the token tanning bed tax and call it a day GOP? Give them an inch and they'll try and take a mile, the crazy bastards This probably would have been the best possible thing they could have done to have any real chance of successful passage. They also could have scaled back the minimum coverage requirements for plans on the exchange as at least then they could claim greater choice being offered to consumers and lower premiums (on dogshit plans that don't cover anything). Doing that won't satisfy the rabid base though, and it definitely wouldn't do anything to relieve Paul Ryan's raging hate-boner of Medicaid (beyond which everything else in this bill is just window dressing). The greatest mystery to me is the proposed 30% penalty when obtaining coverage if you didn't have it before. It's almost impressive how incredibly stupid this idea was. It does the opposite of what it should do (instead of punishing people for not having coverage, it actually punishes people who don't have coverage but are trying to obtain coverage). After running for years and mounting endless legal challenges on the evils of the Obamacare mandate, they propose to replace it with...a slightly different mandate? Who actually came up with and is actively supporting this thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:The greatest mystery to me is the proposed 30% penalty when obtaining coverage if you didn't have it before. It's almost impressive how incredibly stupid this idea was. It does the opposite of what it should do (instead of punishing people for not having coverage, it actually punishes people who don't have coverage but are trying to obtain coverage). After running for years and mounting endless legal challenges on the evils of the Obamacare mandate, they propose to replace it with...a slightly different mandate? Who actually came up with and is actively supporting this thing? It seems like it was written primarily to discourage young healthy people from buying or maintaining health insurance. The only beneficiaries of this bill are those rich enough to get part of the giant tax cut and pigheaded, selfish young libertarians who never go to the doctor anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
It really is so poorly designed that it seems almost impossible that it wasn't intended to fail to pass because they know they backed themselves into a corner by making mutually exclusive promises (well, mutually exclusive unless they want to repeal and replace with something to the left, but that obviously won't happen). And yet, they need it passed in order to get the tax cuts they want, so that can't be the case. The real answer of course is that Paul Ryan is both a deeply evil human being and also incredibly bad at crafting policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Sure, but if things come down to the wire won't the hardcore repeal guys settle for Ryan's "Obamacare Lite" or something close to it? I mean if the alternative is nothing passing, they'll go for it, right? This whole situation feels like the germs trying to get into Mr. Burns kinda situation. They're not big on compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
You can't just repeal the individual mandate and call it a day because you risk causing a death spiral in the health insurance markets if people drop coverage and only pick it up when they become sick en mass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Zikan posted:You can't just repeal the individual mandate and call it a day because you risk causing a death spiral in the health insurance markets if people drop coverage and only pick it up when they become sick en mass. Ultimately Republicans are A-OK with socializing losses via bailouts so this is probably what some of them will want to do. Just rescue the insurance companies when they get in trouble, and use that as an excuse to tear down the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:The greatest mystery to me is the proposed 30% penalty when obtaining coverage if you didn't have it before. It's almost impressive how incredibly stupid this idea was. It does the opposite of what it should do (instead of punishing people for not having coverage, it actually punishes people who don't have coverage but are trying to obtain coverage). After running for years and mounting endless legal challenges on the evils of the Obamacare mandate, they propose to replace it with...a slightly different mandate? Who actually came up with and is actively supporting this thing? You can't repeal the mandate without repealing the other stuff people like (the preexisting condition stuff), but they've been raging against the mandate as an assault on freedom for years. Hence the need to get rid of it without actually getting rid of it. Naturally they want any penalty to go to business rather than government (paying fees to business is freedom, paying them to the government is tyranny) and this is what's left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:
Just wanted to say that this is great
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Zikan posted:You can't just repeal the individual mandate and call it a day because you risk causing a death spiral in the health insurance markets if people drop coverage and only pick it up when they become sick en mass. You are saying this like the Republicans would consider it a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You are saying this like the Republicans would consider it a bad thing. It hurts business interests so of course they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It hurts business interests so of course they do. I don't think the Obamacare plans are particularly profitable to health insurance companies, judging by how many of them have pulled out, so they probably see it as a good thing to lose business they aren't making money on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think the Obamacare plans are particularly profitable to health insurance companies, judging by how many of them have pulled out, so they probably see it as a good thing to lose business they aren't making money on. But we're talking about repealing the mandate without repealing the preexisting condition part, which is absolutely bad for business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think the Obamacare plans are particularly profitable to health insurance companies, judging by how many of them have pulled out, so they probably see it as a good thing to lose business they aren't making money on. Health Insurance companies largely aren't losing money on ACA plans my dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think the Obamacare plans are particularly profitable to health insurance companies, judging by how many of them have pulled out, so they probably see it as a good thing to lose business they aren't making money on. Aetna and Humana pulled out of the individual market in some states as a personal gently caress you to Obama for blocking their merger. They made money on the plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't think the Obamacare plans are particularly profitable to health insurance companies, judging by how many of them have pulled out, so they probably see it as a good thing to lose business they aren't making money on. Can you trust insurance companies to be honest about it? http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/investing/aetna-obamacare-humana-merger/ (link to article about what is described by Xae)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of Obamacare plans were profitable for insurers (and some of those 15% were loss-leaders for the companies that they provided to be able to access the exchanges, so not a total loss.) The issues that some insurers have with Obamacare are that: - There is a high degree of uncertainty about revenues and participants (people drop in and out, their subsidy amount might change, they can't screen participants, etc) - They are profitable, but not as profitable as other plans (catastrophic plans and comprehensive plans to screened individuals using an actuarial analysis to determine price) - They are limited in how much they can raise prices overall and on certain groups. Those 3 things combined means that even though they were making money, it was more work and more uncertainty about how steady the profits would be compared to other plans. Some of them were nervous about rising costs and the limitations on their ability to raise prices could lead to them getting locked in to a losing business plan for a year or more. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Can you trust insurance companies to be honest about it? A number of insurance companies did lose money because this was an entirely new market for them and they didn't really know what the risk profiles would be. And because of how the market works - people mostly shop on price - whoever guessed wrongest got the most customers, and Republicans sabatoged the program by cutting the "risk corridors" funding that was intended to correct for this foreseeable problem. It's a temporary problem that will go away provided that the current repeal effort fails as they get the data on the actual risk profile they're looking at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? If the mandate is removed but not the coverage obligations, death spiral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? Dramatically higher premiums or deductibles. If you can go without insurance until you need it, then that is what people will do. Employer plans will be largely unchanged, but the individual market will go into a spiral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? Very bad. Some states had tried this pre-ACA (pre-existing coverage ban, no mandate). They had broken individual health insurance markets where coverage was unaffordable or nonexistent. There is a reason Obamacare had the individual mandate, and it wasn't that anyone was dumb enough to think it'd be popular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Shot https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/842494190990901248 and chaser https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/status/842763614004109314
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? Put Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UHC, and other insurers on a one-click put order and smash that motherfucking button when this happens
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
quote:House Republicans will vote Thursday on Speaker Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill, two senior GOP sources told POLITICO. One week left! Politico suggests that this means that they're confident they have the votes, but I'm pretty sure they just agreed to print that in exchange for getting the date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? As someone who prices these plans for a living, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't offer them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Shot This article from The Hill explains what he's talking about and confirms that Politico Thursday date. e: eh, bit much to quote there. They're looking at tinkering with work requirements, block grants, and tax credits. Work stuff to appease the loons, tax credit alterations because some realize totally loving over young-olds is not good politics. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Reik posted:As someone who prices these plans for a living, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't offer them. I don't see how anyone could be expected to offer such a plan. Its what irritates me so much about the insistence on letting free market's drive insurance, but then bitching about the inevitable actuarial realities that entails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
quote:Get hosed Aetna
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Re Aetna: Remember how we didn't get a public option because Obama took it off the table to make sure the insurance companies were on board?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
The single biggest boost to small business that can be made is the open enrollment of Medicaid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamcancryn/status/842763734280036354 It's like he doesn't realize we can all still hear him. What kind of depraved monster openly admits to "dreaming" of loving over poor sick people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I don't think it's explicitly about loving over poor people, though they definitely get hard at the thought of it. It's more about ensuring an ever-increasing level of precarity in the workforce, so workers have less and less leverage with which to demand higher wages or better protection. Lack of healthcare is a positive motivator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I'm afraid I already know the answer, but is any of that actually illegal or just intensely lovely? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
call to action posted:I don't think it's explicitly about loving over poor people, though they definitely get hard at the thought of it. It's more about ensuring an ever-increasing level of precarity in the workforce, so workers have less and less leverage with which to demand higher wages or better protection. Lack of healthcare is a positive motivator. About that... Employer-Backed Insurance Could Take a Huge Hit from GOP Healthcare Plan quote:With tax credits for workers earning up to $215,000, the Republicans' health care plan would push the incentives for companies not to offer benefits further up the income spectrum, said Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. Good point here - the high earners are going to want to buy from the individual market since they get their free $4000 tax credit each year. If a worker can choose to go to the individual market over their employer plan, the employer plans might just die off. Or the business owners might not offer coverage and then their workers are stuck with the individual market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:19
|
|