|
evilweasel posted:They could gut the bill it completely with an amendment and send it back as essentially a new bill even if there was "only one reconciliation bill may be introduced per legislative year" rule, so as long as they're willing to admit defeat I'm pretty sure they could just use this one for tax cuts instead and then the 2018 one for something else (maybe even repealing obamacare!!!!). The issue with using reconciliation for tax cuts is if a reconciliation bill increases the deficit then it must also sunset in 10 years. That's how they did the Bush tax cuts and it bit the rich in the rear end because if you don't keep control of both houses and the executive for a decade then any one of them can just sit back and let them expire like Obama did for the cuts on income above $400,000. And reconciliation can only deal with taxes or spending but not both so you can't cut spending to pay for your tax cut using the reconciliation process. That's why they need the $300 billion Medicaid cuts to pass in the 2017 reconciliation bill so the 2018 reconciliation bill (which they will do immediately) can give those $300 billion in cuts on health care for the poor directly to the rich. So technically yes they could use this one for tax cuts, but they don't want to because those cuts won't be permanent. They have to gut Medicaid first, and they have to pass both bills as soon as possible because they know this scheme will be hilariously unpopular and they need to have their consulting/lobbyist gigs lined up for when half of them get thrown out of office (and the other half stay and try to block Democrats from reversing the cuts forever). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 17, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah I get that (though I've never quite figured out how you use the $300b from 2017 to do more tax cuts in 2018 - wouldn't you still have to not increase the deficit compared to the new baseline?) Yeah I actually don't understand that part either, I suppose the baseline must not change somehow because otherwise the plan wouldn't work (maybe they still get to use FY 2016's baseline because they're passing both bills in 2017?) but I haven't looked into the details.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:on the other hand, what happened after the stimulus and obamacare was passed, both things that actually improved the material conditions of voters in pretty dramatic ways Obamacare didn't take effect (mostly) until 2014 (and by then Republicans managed to kill the Medicaid expansion in 40% of the country), and the stimulus was about 1/3 the size most economists said it needed to be to actually pull us out of recession. E: And then Democrats ran away from Obamacare. Kentucky just didn't tell everyone that their state exchange was Obamacare to get them to sign up, then whoops turns out no one knows they're on Obamacare so they vote for the guy promising to repeal it. That Obamacare never did anything for me, I'm on Kynect! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
blackmet posted:My bigger concern would getting hit with tons of people that have expensive health care needs coming from states that didn't take the Medicaid expansion or families bringing their severely disabled members to Colorado to get them on Colorado Care, having paid nothing in. If that happened, I would fear the taxes to pay for the program wouldn't be enough to cover the program. Why wouldn't you just do a two-year residency requirement or whatever like state universities do for tuition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Well if a plan is cheaper because it doesn't cover, say cancer, then everyone with cancer will want to buy the plan with cancer coverage. Which will push up the price, making it more attractive for people without cancer to buy the plan that doesn't cover it (because they know if they get cancer one day they can just switch plans). Which will make the risk pool of the plans that cover cancer even worse, which will increase the price, which will push more people out, etc etc. The rule that you can't charge people more for preexisting conditions becomes totally ineffective if an insurance company can just create a plan that doesn't cover that condition and charge less for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you can get 20% support for showing people pictures of Trump's inauguration and Obama's inauguration and asking if they agree Trump's had more people This is incredible. I still can't believe "we have a secret healthcare plan, whatever it is you want, that's exactly it" loving worked for 6 years
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The plan, AFAIK, is to grant waivers releasing people from the tax penalties associated with not having insurance, i.e. removing the individual mandate. Assuming the White House actually publicizes this and insurers take it into account while pricing plans, this should cause an immediate spike in premiums and deductibles. The side effect of this is that PPACA will now become much more expensive for the government due to subsidies going up; remember that subsidies take into account both your income level and how expensive the second cheapest silver plan in your state is. Fiscal responsibility strikes again! I don't see how that's going to benefit Trump and the Republicans. If premiums skyrocket, isn't that just going to make any Republican replacement like the ahca look worse because it caps the subsidies? He ran on having a secret plan to replace Obamacare that will totally work and be everything you want, because he's a smart businessman who knows how to do the business. If people start losing their insurance because he has no plan they are going to blame the people in power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
tekz posted:lmao It's mindboggling that anyone at all is willing to go to bat for the US health industry's profits. They will leave you to die in a second to save a buck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Max Baucus was able to dictate what could not be in the bill because he was one of the necessary votes. No Max Baucus, no 60 votes, same as with Liberman. To get 60 votes, you need red state senators. Liberman existing was intolerable because there's no reason a blue state should have a shithole senator, but when you're talking Montana, you take what you can get. I mean, you even had all the fact in front of you when you said there was a reason that the bill Baucus worked on is the one that emerged from committee: because Baucus was one of the wavering votes that had to be kept in line to get to 60. We should be careful about this kind of analysis. Rural white voters definitely trend socially conservative: God, guns, no abortions, no fags. But they're not very economically conservative: they don't want their Medicare and welfare and handouts cut, and they don't want corporations loving them over*. So while I understand "red state" politicians (I put red state in quotes because Montana elects Democratic governors pretty regularly and voted for Clinton in 1992 and Obama only lost it by 2 points in 2008) voting conservatively on social issues because that's what their voters want (even though I violently disagree), I don't think this excuses Democrats who are owned by corporations. Yes there may be a pragmatic argument for letting Baucus or Manchin buck the party line on social issues (whenever their votes aren't required for something to pass anyway), but I don't think there's a pragmatic argument for defending them selling out to big business. No voters want that, and assuming "red state" voters do want corporations to gently caress them because they also don't like abortions is a mistake: political identity is more complicated than that. For Max Baucus' seat the """pragmatic""" strategy of letting him help kill the public option turned out not to be so pragmatic. He won in a 45-point landslide in 2008. In 2014 the Republicans took the seat by 18 points and oh yeah it was the first time that seat went Republican in a century. We didn't even keep the damned seat so how exactly did Baucus benefit the party or America by making the ACA worse? *In fact Trump recognized and exploited this divide between the Republican establishment and their constituents by promising to hit corporations with tariffs and export taxes for offshoring, pull out of free trade agreements, never cut social security or medicare, and that the government would pay for everyone's health care. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Their meficare. Them. You add in minorities to this and they will burn the loving country to the ground rather than let a person two shades darker than them get any benefit. That's what you fail to realise - that economic issues are inherently social in a multiethnic society. Some of them sure, but those people are a lost cause by definition. You'll never get those people to vote Democrat, and the pragmatic strategy of letting corporations gently caress them a little bit isn't going to make single-issue white supremacist voters vote D either. But those people aren't the majority in Montana; if they were then Democrats wouldn't have had a senate seat to lose in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Boon posted:I don't really understand this kind of analysis, can you explain? It seems like hte textbook example of hindsight bias - how would anyone, especially Max Baucus, know he'd lose the seat based on a stance that seemed applicable to his position? Maybe (although I should think that a senator ought to know whether a public option would help his constituents), but even if we assume there's no way Baucus could possibly have known what huge electoral losses would result from the ACA, that's no reason for us not to learn from what happened and change our strategy going forward. Fulchrum posted:Once again the problem is you are reducing it to a binary distinction. They're either klan members or woke. You don't think there a little bit more to it than that? I do. You're the one saying there's no point trying to get elected in Montana because they're all klan members who will destroy their own medicare to spite black people. There are some people like that sure. But you don't even try to appeal to them, they will never vote for you because the Republicans are the bigot party and trying to be bigot-lite would be immoral. So you don't do that. Trying to triangulate on economic issues also doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me: every non klan-member who wants corporations loving the poor already votes Republican, and the klan members already vote R by definition. Seems to me a better strategy would be to propose policies that help the poor, the working class, and the middle class as much as possible and thereby peel of some of the bigots who are still self-interested enough to put their own well-being above their bigotry. Maybe I really hate BLM and slutslutslutsluts but poo poo I really need that affordable healthcare so I'll grumble a bit and vote D.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:Well yeah, but that's the heart of the matter. Strategy is insanely fickle and the first thing you learn about strategy is that it's incredibly situational. The second thing you learn is that the best strategy will fail, every time if you don't implement well. Possibly Democrats could have kept down the losses if they'd come out full force defending and trumpeting the ACA we'll never know, but even at the time it was known that a public option would be better for Americans, and obviously it's going to be easier to trumpet a better bill than a worse one. But I was responding to the argument that Democratic legislators from poor rural states should suck up to corporations because that's what "red state" voters want. I disagree with that. I'm open to the pragmatic argument that Democratic legislators from those states might vote against gun control or cast symbolic anti-abortion votes or something to pander on social issues that are actually popular among those voters. But sucking up to corporations and loving the poor aren't popular anywhere (except maybe among the affluent white suburbanites that Democrats always imagine will vote for them but never do), and just because rural white voters agree with Republicans on social issues doesn't mean they also agree with the Republican party line on economic issues (again Trump exploited exactly this divide by promising full on regressive and racist social issues along with universal healthcare and never cutting Medicare/Social Security ever, and again look what happened when Republicans tried to throw 25 million people off their insurance with AHCA). I don't think Democrats should be moving right on economic issues to appeal to those voters: if rural Democrats are protecting insurance industry profits then there's less benefit to voting for them instead of a Republican, and from the perspective of the rural white voter if the parties move closer together economically then the biggest differentiating factors become social issues where the Republican party appeals to them. And I think recent history bears this out. """"""Pragmatically"""""" Killing the public option did not save Max Baucus' seat for the Democrats. The next election saw a 65-point(!!!!) swing that delivered the seat to Republicans for the first time in a century. That's a stupefying loss. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Xae posted:The drug adjustment assumes companies just accept huge cuts, which they won't. They'll globally jack up prices to compensate. Yeah they can't do this. The prices are set by the governments in those countries, and the drug companies aren't going to "go Galt" and refuse to sell their drugs in Europe and Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:Countries have control over the price that consumers pay at retail, but the countries can't force drug companies to sell drugs at whatever price the state wants. Those countries are sovereign, they can just license local manufacturers' to make the drugs if the drug companies won't play ball. If the drug companies could get the Netherlands to pay more just by insisting on it really hard like you seem to think, they'd be doing it now. What is this Republican horseshit you're peddling, "you can't, like, regulate corporations maaaaan" *ignores, literally, an entire planetload of other countries successfully doing exactly that*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Xae posted:Republican Horseshit Drug companies are not going to pull out of Europe. They know it, Europe knows it, I know it, you know it. Europeans aren't going to side with the companies trying to extort them over their own governments. Patents are only worth something if a government uses its power to protect it; governments have drug companies over a barrel. Drug corporations are not charity outfits that chivalrously give Germany and the UK a break on prices out of the goodness of their widdle hearts because they already get "enough" money from America. There is no such thing as "enough" money to a corporation: they are legal entities that exist solely to enrich their owners. If they could bully European countries into paying American prices for drugs they would already be doing it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 01:03
|
|
.
|
Drug companies don't have "more resources" to shift from the US to get more money from other countries. The amount of resources they spend in the US is small compared to the profit they make here because Republicans already worship industry and it's relatively inexpensive to buy a few Democrats to sink proposals for drug reimportation and collective bargaining in Medicare. Shifting the lobbying money they pay to Cory Booker is not going to buy them a European market where the populace isn't full of Randians like you endlessly proclaiming that drug companies will go Galt on us if we don't give them enough money and make them feel good. Countries can dictate whatever prices they want and the companies have to take it. They know that and that's why they're terrified of Medicare negotiating drug prices: they know they can't just go ask Germany for more free money if they stop getting it from us, dupes like you are the only ones who think this. And no they can't pull out of a single country, no European country is going to happily agree to pay twice what their neighbors are paying. Also "virtue signaling".  Maybe I'm a beta cuck too.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Even a 10% increase on other developed countries would make a public option or single-payer easily affordable in the US if we were suddenly paying Canada+10% for drugs too. Xae's argument only works if you assume drug companies are demigods who will jack up everyone's prices to right-now-America levels if we dare use collective bargaining, ugh now the whole world is paying 10 times more for drugs and the companies are richer than ever <  > thanks Obama!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
How low do you think the cost estimates are. Are you proposing the difference is some nonzero but ultimately achievable amount like 10%. Or are you asserting that the drug companies and medical providers will "jack up" the global prices so high that no one will be able to afford public healthcare without Americans subsidizing them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
I'm willing to believe that there's some amount of slop there and European governments would accept some degree of price increases rather than go through the hassle and risk of threatening patents, but not so much slop that it's worth the risk and PR hit for drug companies to go maximum-hardball to get it. Sure. But if the pills are $25 versus $20 then that doesn't change the calculation that much: the United States could still easily afford a public option. It doesn't seem reasonable that the drug companies are leaving huge amounts of money on the table, and they could get $80 for that pill from Germany if they really wanted but they don't out of laziness/charity/whatever. It would be absurd for them to just relinquish profits on that scale. If you're arguing the former then fine I agree, but it's irrelevant to whether the US could afford UHC with taxes on the rich: it could. If you're arguing the latter then you're going to need to back up the claim that drug companies could just quadruple drug prices in Europe whenever they want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
The discussion was about affordability: specifically whether taxes on income above $500k would bring in an amount of money approximately on the scale it would take to afford UHC. The back of the envelope math shows that yes the money to do that is there. I could go back and quote the whole back-and-forth that started with someone claiming UHC is impossible without huge tax increases on the middle class, but you could just scroll up and read it yourself. I don't think it was meant to be a complete policy proposal that addresses every corner case of every drug everywhere. On the other hand, thanks for posting a source exposing that you were lying about prices only being so high in the US to pay for R&D your source posted:As a result of the substantially inflated prices for drugs in the U.S., Americans effectively subsidize research and development for new drugs worldwide, but that’s not all. Americans also pay for pharmaceutical firms’ large budgets for consumer advertising, which is not allowed in Europe, reports the Journal. Drug companies spend more on direct-to-consumer marketing (which is properly banned on Europe) than on R&D.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Xae posted:The discussion was about one person's analysis. I responded to that analysis by pointing out some pretty big flaws it had. And I am pointing out that those potential inaccuracies aren't large enough to change the overall conclusion that America has enough money to pay for UHC. I agree with you that they most likely exist to some degree, so unless you want to argue that they're significant to the analysis or offer some better numbers there's not much to discuss. Xae posted:I guess since your straw manning bullshit didn't work you have move to outright lying about what I said at this point. Okay. Xae posted:Remember that the marginal cost on drugs is incredibly tiny. If their R&D costs are covered, say by the largest drug market in the world, then they can accept very low prices because their cost per pill is pennies if they don't count R&D. Their cost per pill is virtually zero if they license production. "their cost per pill is pennies if they don't count R&D". Not true: marketing expenses are higher than R&D, they would need to "not count" both. Neglecting to mention the even larger advertising budget that has a larger effect on prices strikes me as pretty disingenuous, but I'm willing to believe that you probably just forgot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Xae posted:It is an analysis by some random webmaster trying to run a website for politics. That is it. Using at the basis for a discussion is pretty dumb. The analysis is too bad to use as a basis for anything. That was the entire point of my original post. You haven't shown that. All you've offered is some vague handwaving about how "pills will have to cost somewhere between $America and $Canada+1". Xae posted:What the gently caress? Do you have a problem comprehending basic arithmetic or something? For a drug company to profit, they must sell their drugs at a price high enough to cover all of the other expenses in their budget. If they didn't count R&D, they still wouldn't be able to sell their drugs for "pennies" to cover the manufacturing costs because the drug prices would still need to cover their advertising budget which is an even larger line item than R&D. No doubt you just totally forgot about the single largest expense of the pharmaceutical industry when you were claiming that R&D costs make up the difference between pennies per pill and tens or hundreds of dollars per pill. An expense that provides no benefit to anyone and could be eliminated immediately for massive savings, but which defenders of the drug industry always seem to forget about, for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You have gone pretty far down the rabbit hole. I have no idea why you think he is defending drug advertising to consumers. He was pointing out a problem with an argument made by a source. I didn't say he was defending drug advertising to consumers; re-read what I said. I said his claim that without R&D spending drugs would cost pennies is not true, and he was neglecting (either ignorantly or disingenuously) the advertising expenses that make up a greater proportion of drug prices than R&D. It's important because that wrong assumption underlies the whole "oh it's just impossible to change the status quo" argument and it's false: we could eliminate the largest portion of the sticker price immediately without touching R&D funding at all. Anyway, if we're evaluating what the effect of adopting price controls would be, then yeah the prices in other countries that have instituted those controls is actually the proper place to start. I'd love to see some numbers with deeper analysis than the source he's criticizing, but he doesn't have that. Just vague handwaving and arguments from ignorance that it's impossible to even ballpark the cost. I don't buy it. According to the argument, drug companies have so much power and are able to "jack up" prices globally by so much that what Europe pays today isn't even in the same ballpark anymore. But when I ask the obvious question: if they have that much power why are they leaving all that money on the table instead of squeezing Europe for US prices right now, the response is oh actually the price hikes wouldn't be that much really so small in fact that drug companies just don't bother. It can't be both. Either the drug companies have little power over European governments and therefore current European prices are a good ballpark figure of what US prices could be under similar policies; or drug companies have immense power to squeeze European governments in which case they should be paying much closer to what we pay because corporations don't just leave sums like that on the table out of a sense of charity or fair play.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The late senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) literally put amendments into the law so coal miners could claim black lung benefits faster. Appalachians did know about that, they believed Trump would help them with his promise of UHC paid by the government, and dismissed rhetoric about repealing the parts of the ACA that benefit them because "Trump and the Republicans won't cut the good parts that we need because people need that"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Noctone posted:Wait they're trying to roll back on pre-existing conditions now, too? Is this some kind of experiment to see if a policy can actually have a negative approval rating? Those who have died of treatable illnesses will raise themselves into an undead army with the sole purpose of voting against the AHCA in opinion polls. One weird necromancer trick: clerics HATE this!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:No no no! They can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions! They just make it so that companies can charge you whatever premiums they want based on those conditions. We're not denying coverage! You're denying yourself coverage because you wont pay the $15,000 a month premiums! If the poor can afford $15,000 a month for iPhones, they could choose to get their cancer treatment instead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
I don't see what choice they have, honestly. For 7 years they criticized Obamacare from the left and right with whatever would stick, actively sabotaged in the courts and in congress and in red state governments, and promised everyone they had a secret plan ready to go with great health care and low premiums for everyone on Day One of a Republican government. If they just fold up and don't do anything, the people who voted for them are going to be pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:I'd like to think this but I have my doubts. The only people who really care about repeal are the ideologues and republican donor class. I'm not talking about those people. I mean the ones who believed 7 years of Republican lies that they had a better healthcare plan to lower premiums and cover everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Nothus posted:Maybe for a week or two, but right wing media will just blame Democrats and refocus their attention on the next outrage. Yeah that works on an infuriatingly large number of people, but Republicans need more than the absurd partisans. 2008 is what happens when only the fools and fygm assholes who were still clinging to Bush show up to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Aren't they required to pay out 80 percent of premiums as healthcare anyway? How do they meet that standard while doing this? Presumably not doing this would require them to raise premiums to hit that same 20% overhead/profit margin and then they'd lose market share to insurers who keep premiums low by screwing a certain percentage of customers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yertle is the one Republican leader who is undeniably good at their job. Truth. How is Paul Ryan so loving terrible at his job? I guess he just came of age politically when all you had to do is fill a fake budget full of red meat for the Tea Party without worrying about what the wider public would do to you if they found out what was in it, because you can count on the Senate or the Democratic President to kill it without it even making the news. Then go back to your district and say you tried to do all this great stuff but obummer wouldn't let you. And now he thinks the same rules apply when you're in the majority, you can just slap something together with "America" in the title and no one will look at CBO scores or care what's in it. This is probably the leadership positions should only go to people who have been around long enough to have experienced being in government and in opposition E: wait poo poo, I just looked him up and Ryan first got elected in 1998. He's been in the majority under a Democratic and Republican administration, I guess he's just a loving idiot then, nevermind. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:43 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
You could stop proposing toxic garbage bills that do nothing but make America hate you for being too evil/not evil enough, and also make you look incompetent because your own party won't even vote for them, while the whole time the president blames you for not being able to craft the impossible bill he promised everyone. "The President has been meeting with insurance executives to develop a tremendous plan, just tremendous, that will lower premiums and deductibles for everyone while expanding coverage. We're excited to introduce the President's Obamacare replacement just as soon as he reveals it, we have no doubt it will be just as tremendous as he promised". Done and done. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:17 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
From what I understand they can't. Reconciliation can contain changes to spending or revenue but not both, and only one reconciliation bill is allowed per fiscal year.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:No, that's wrong. Oh I see, thanks. Hey do you happen to understand why getting rid of the ACA taxes in 2017 lets them cut even more taxes in 2018 via reconciliation without the 10-year sunset. I don't get that part.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
So I guess the idea is, like no-strings block grants, Republican states will just use the money for tax cuts?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Typo posted:if it passes the senate yeah ppl will care cuz there will be trump voters dying on tv to curable diseases and poo poo and that makes republicans look bad Idk sounds like a risky strategy, this is maybe the one thing that would get me to vote Republican
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I have a super expensive and super lovely Obamacare plan that I am obligated to buy. Will that part become fixed by this bill?  Why would you want to be uninsured.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If the choice is between a plan costing me hundreds per month + a large deductible or uninsured, I'll take uninsured. This is very short-sighted, because if you get sick without insurance, or you get sick under a pre-ACA plan and exceed the lifetime limit or get dropped then you die. And you can't predict in advance whether this will happen to you (hence the concept of "insurance") What is it, specifically, about the coverage of these older plans that you like better. Arkane posted:I'm bronze tier in Nevada with no subsidy! Thanks for asking! Nevada expanded Medicaid so the only way you could be ineligible for subsidies if your employer doesn't offer a qualifying plan is if you make over 400% of the poverty line, which is $48,240 for a single person or $98,400 for a family of four. How much is your plan. And do you want a subsidy, or are you complaining about the concept of insurance itself. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:54 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Highbrow Slick posted:Someone could be below 400% FPL & qualify for $0 subsidies if they were young and thus the premiums for the Second Lowest Cost Silver Plan were already considered affordable (below 9.69% income). But that would mean that person from NV would be paying a pretty affordable premium for a bronze plan. If he/she is over 400% & the premium of a bronze plan is not affordable (over 8.66%, yes I know that's a different number than the % from before), he/she would qualify for a waiver & not have to pay a penalty for going without coverage. I considered that, but paying less than 10% of your income in a low cost-of-living state like Nevada is actually pretty good unless you're at "Candles $3600/month" territory, so I assumed this wasn't the case. But if this guy is an actual irl literal millionaire then the essential health benefits and guaranteed issue provisions are huge wins for him
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
You're thinking of horrible rear end in a top hat Bill KristolEat a dick, Bill Kristol posted:The long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse—much worse.... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993#Criticism
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 13:20
|
|