|
I'm a credentialed Actuary and have been working for a major health insurer for close to 5 years, including pricing ACA plans. This healthcare bill is a loving dumpster fire.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
They really have nothing to stand on to defend this bill. It raises costs, lessens coverage, replaces the mandate with a slightly different thing that functions even worse, and really does leave in place most of Obamacare. They somehow cobbled together a design by committee bill that will benefit seemingly no one. Seemingly all elements of the health care industry are united in declaring it a terrible idea. It's a bill that exists only so they can pretend that Obamacare was "repealed and replaced" just like they promised their voters. And to satisfy Paul Ryan's raging fetish for block grants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
But guys, Paul Ryan is a wonk! He's a numbers guy! This poo poo reads like a final project assigned at the beginning of the semester but written on the bus the day it was due.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:They really have nothing to stand on to defend this bill. It raises costs, lessens coverage, replaces the mandate with a slightly different thing that functions even worse, and really does leave in place most of Obamacare. It repeals the 3.8% capital gains tax on >250k earners, who are the only constituency Republicans care about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
And repeals the cap on deductions for insurance industry execs making over $500,000/yr.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
And repeals the extra 0.9% Medicare tax on incomes over 250k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
gently caress the GOP, the money-grubbing assholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress the GOP, the money-grubbing assholes. Actually, healthcare isn't about money at all. You're being very crass by even bringing money into the equation. quote:Asked about estimates showing large increases in premiums for many older and low-income Americans under the Republican Health Bill on "Good Morning America," Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, "Our goal is to make certain costs come down."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Actually, healthcare isn't about money at all. You're being very crass by even bringing money into the equation. Nonsense, he was quite clear about his goals: "Our goal is to make certain costs come down. Specifically, tax costs. Of the rich. No, not ones related to health care, what a silly question, their overall taxes."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
As someone who pays a significant percentage of my otherwise generally comfortable income on healthcare on a regular basis, those first three things are basically all I think about in terms of healthcare. Half the time you don't even get much choice of doctors or treatments anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Actually, healthcare isn't about money at all. You're being very crass by even bringing money into the equation. Christ what an artful dodge on the question. "Actually cost doesn't matter at all." Without actually saying it of course, because that would be suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:They really have nothing to stand on to defend this bill. It raises costs, lessens coverage, replaces the mandate with a slightly different thing that functions even worse, and really does leave in place most of Obamacare. it drops subsidies for young people and raises it for old people, it's the Republicans transferring wealth to their voter base
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Typo posted:it drops subsidies for young people and raises it for old people, it's the Republicans transferring wealth to their voter base Jokes on you it only helps rich old people and rich in general (with the removal of tax increases from ACA funding) That's why AARP doesn't like it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Typo posted:it drops subsidies for young people and raises it for old people, it's the Republicans transferring wealth to their voter base It raises subsidies a little for old people in some cases but not others, but raises premiums a lot for all old people. It's not a transfer of wealth to old people. Its a transfer of wealth from old people to wealthy people, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
So, watching Paul Ryan on CNN. He wants getting healthcare to be like shopping for a car. Like it wasn't bad enough to start with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Did he sleep through the first day of Econ 101 when they talked about elastic vs inelastic demand? Does he not realize there are no sticker prices on major procedures and that doctors don't give out estimates? Numbers guy! Wonk!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Healthcare price haggling also works differently than buying a car because you negotiate after the service has been performed, and you can't repossess a surgery. I don't see how any system that reduces coverage or makes people more responsible for their own medical costs will do anything other than result in more hospitals getting stiffed by people who can't afford to pay and figure if the bill is $30k and they only have $2k to their name, gently caress it I won't pay anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
It's okay for a car salesman to have an incentive to sell as many cars as possible. It's bad for a hospital to have an incentive to perform as many MRIs as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/citizencohn/status/839884883015118849
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
He also suggested that the Federal government subsidize individual states to cover people with pre-existing conditions. This means that people without pre-existing conditions won't have to subsidize them. But that sounds to me like they will be through their Federal Taxes, which makes me ask the question, why not just make the whole thing Federally funded?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:He also suggested that the Federal government subsidize individual states to cover people with pre-existing conditions. This means that people without pre-existing conditions won't have to subsidize them. But that sounds to me like they will be through their Federal Taxes, which makes me ask the question, why not just make the whole thing Federally funded? Go back to pre-ACA individual insurance where insurers can underwrite, but make it so they can only deny coverage according to new federal underwriting guidelines. If someone is denied coverage in this manner, make them immediately eligible for medicaid or medicare. Subsidized single payer system for the people that it doesn't make sense to offer insurance in a typical commercial fashion, and inexpensive insurance designed to cover catastrophic losses and prevent bankruptcy for the people where it does make sense. Reik fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
quote:"Most Americans don't think of healthcare in terms of deductibles, premiums, or how much will the government give me. They want to pick a doctor they trust and select the treatment options that they want." So I assume the new bill allows patients to keep their trusted doctor if they move to a new plan without worrying about if the doctor is "in-network?" And it also requires that insurance companies cover a wide range of treatment options? I must have missed those parts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Oh my god OH MY GOD
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
I guess that explains the difficulties the GOP had with all this. They just fundamentally do not comprehend how insurances work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
"Every employer plan"? What about insurance in general? How could any kind of insurance work if not for the pool of uninjured/undamaged payers "subsidizing" the injured/damaged? Is it that these people are unable to see insurance as anything but a savings account, hence accounting for their endless braying about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
It really is a shame that Alan Grayson turned out to be a huge piece of poo poo wife-beater or whatever, because his firebrand speech about the Republican Health Care plan from 2009 is really excellent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I guess that explains the difficulties the GOP had with all this. They just fundamentally do not comprehend how insurances work. Yep. So many conservatives whine about 'paying for pregnancies' or 'ob visits' when they 'don't have a vagina.' Um, those women are paying for your loving diabetes and obesity. That's how insurance loving works y'all. You pay for sick people when you're healthy. Healthy people pay for you when you're sick. Horrible 2D thinking, steeped in selfishness and Randian horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"Every employer plan"? IT'S THE loving SINE QUA NON OF THE VERY CONCEPT OF INSURANCE HOLY poo poo Edit: gently caress mdemone fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Something's happened in the markup session: https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839905011895320576 edit: dammit, start there and click through to read the rest. A major Medicare shift to try to appeal to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Wait poo poo https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839908151164026882 https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/839908377308368896 Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:That's one fine looking piece of pizza. Just found out the sun is going supernova to subvert my great great healthcare plan that would help America bigly. This is a new low. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Wait poo poo So now they're bringing it to the House floor without even that meager sop to older citizens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I guess that explains the difficulties the GOP had with all this. They just fundamentally do not comprehend how insurances work. They do. What Paul really wants to say, but knows he can't, is that the rich should not subsidize the poor. But he's a good enough politician to not say it out loud, but because he was thinking it at the time he produced that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
People keep saying this bill "isn't anything" but the GOP plan to changing health insurance has been refundable tax credits forever. It was going all the way back to McCain 08, at least. It only looks stupid because a plan was implemented that went so much further than what they offered eight years ago, and they're still arguing as if we're still under the old model of healthcare when this bill would have at least been a small, ever so tiny incremental step in improving things. But gently caress that poo poo now, Republicans failed to block an entitlement and once people taste the mana of a public service they try to preserve it. They should either keep the tax credits but keep Medicaid as-is, or drop Medicaid expansion but keep/expand the current subsidy model to cover lower incomes (Republicans would like that latter one since it increases the amount of free money the government is throwing at big businesses, just like when they let private insurers into Medicare.) Or just tweak the exemption on businesses that don't have healthcare upward but leave the funding systems as it is. I think they really don't know what the hell they're in for when they bring job lock back to the economy and entrepreneurship tanks (all these Uber drivers etc over the past five years happened because health care was less connected to being a full time employee). But you can't go back to someone working at a big huge national hardware store, working around hammers and nails and saw blades all day, and not giving them insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:So now they're bringing it to the House floor without even that meager sop to older citizens? I'm pretty sure that amendment was to make things even worse, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm pretty sure that amendment was to make things even worse, actually. Correct; the Barton amendment would have forced the medicaid rollbacks to occur on Jan. 1 2018, rather than 2020.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
That was the amendment to end the Medicaid expansion two years earlier then planned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep saying this bill "isn't anything" but the GOP plan to changing health insurance has been refundable tax credits forever. It was going all the way back to McCain 08, at least. It only looks stupid because a plan was implemented that went so much further than what they offered eight years ago, and they're still arguing as if we're still under the old model of healthcare when this bill would have at least been a small, ever so tiny incremental step in improving things. But gently caress that poo poo now, Republicans failed to block an entitlement and once people taste the mana of a public service they try to preserve it. The GOP plan has always been nothing. GOP members have proposed plans, but there has never been any sort of "GOP Plan" until now. Why conservatives are furious is that they were never going to sign onto those assorted plans: they understood them to be a talking point that would never be implemented.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
The best part of all of this is that we have to defend Obamacare as something else than a complete handout to insurance companies, lie about how premiums TOTALLY NEVER WENT UP FOR ANYONE EVER, etc. just because the alternative is worse
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:23
|
|