quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Nancy Pelosi calls 911 because she's in tremendous pain in her stomach. The wambulance rushes her to the ER. X-rays are taken of her abdomen. After about an hour, an ER doc comes out, looking at the x-ray.

"What is it, Doctor?? Doctor, what is it??", pleads Pelosi.

The doctor tosses the x-ray down and says "Well, it looks like bullshit to me, but you're going to have to pass us so we can see what's in it."

Stolen

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Nancy Pelosi calls 911 because she's in tremendous pain in her stomach. The wambulance rushes her to the ER. X-rays are taken of her abdomen. After about an hour, an ER doc comes out, looking at the x-ray.

"What is it, Doctor?? Doctor, what is it??", pleads Pelosi.

The doctor tosses the x-ray down and says "Well, it looks like bullshit to me, but you're going to have to pass us so we can see what's in it."

stolen

Twice

That's an original, BTW. Oh, wait, I see a typo. I'll correct it.

This bill is better than the first one, and I am glad to see it pass so that we can get this show on the road.

Very interested in the Senate now.

If it passes as is, I am hopeful that tweaks will come as it rolls out and some things may not work as planned.

I am also hopeful that the states will be able to get in on this and take some control over the pre-existing condition thing. I know they threw $8B at it, but I don't see why the states can't get involved and run their own pools of high risk people.

Let's keep rollin'!

quote:

Originally posted by Paragon:I am also hopeful that the states will be able to get in on this and take some control over the pre-existing condition thing. I know they threw $8B at it, but I don't see why the states can't get involved and run their own pools of high risk people.

I generally like the idea, but wonder about states like yours with high populations of older residents. Do you think it would overwhelm the risk pool or are most of them old enough to be on Medicare to eliminate the issue?

Will they need 51 or 60 votes in the Senate ?

This bill will be a huge win for Upstate NY if it passes the Senate with the block of Federal reimbursement of County raised Medicaid funds intact.

Around 44% of our property tax is driven by the local share of Medicaid.

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
Will they need 51 or 60 votes in the Senate ?

Using reconciliation, 51, but it also potentially opens it up for amendments.

quote:

Can anyone say whether this is a good or bad bill?

Meh, Some of each...

So, why did this bill pass?
For two reasons: first, conservative Republicans didn’t want the blowback of voting down a second attempt at supposed Obamacare repeal; second, moderate Republicans wouldn’t vote for actual Obamacare repeal. Both had an interest in voting for a repeal that wasn’t a repeal, in other words, just for different reasons.

Ben Shapiro:

On Thursday, House Republicans prepared to take final ownership over Obamacare, slapping a giant “T” atop the edifice of legislative manure and declaring victory. This follows Republicans embracing Barack Obama’s budget priorities in their newest budget bill, which did not fund Trump’s wall but did fund refugee resettlement, Planned Parenthood, and Obamacare. Republicans have apparently become the David Copperfield of garbage: they can take Obama’s garbage and turn it into Trump’s garbage right before your eyes!

To be fair, not everything in the Republican bill is bad. Here’s what’s good:

1. Medicaid Reform. This was always Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s big priority. Instead of need-based grants to the states for Medicaid, Trumpcare would give block grants to the states, saving a trillion dollars over the next ten years by estimates. These savings could be used for the tax reform bill Congress will approach next. They also prevent the states from throwing more and more people onto Medicaid, knowing the feds will pick up the tab.

2. It Eliminates Most – But Not All – Of Obamacare’s Taxes. Trumpcare would kill the medical device tax, the health insurer tax, the 3.8 percent tax on investment income. It wouldn’t kill the so-called Cadillac tax, which taxes people with employer-provided, top-end plans.

3. It Gives States Options They Didn't Have Under Obamacare. States have the option to opt out of Obamacare's pre-existing conditions regulations under the House bill. That likely won't be the case in the Senate bill, and virtually no states will take advantage of this, given the political blowback. But it's an improvement in the letter of the law.

Now, here’s the bad stuff:

1. It Doesn’t Repeal Pre-Existing Conditions Coverage. As Avik Roy has pointed out, the vast majority of health coverage in America already prevents insurance companies from ignoring those with pre-existing conditions:

[P]rior to Obamacare, the vast majority of Americans with health insurance were already in plans that were required to offer them coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. Employer-based plans were required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. So were Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs like the VA. Employer- and government-based plans, prior to Obamacare, represented 90 percent of Americans with health insurance. The other 10 percent were people buying coverage on their own, on the individual market. In most—but not all—states prior to Obamacare, people buying coverage on their own could, in theory, be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition.

But the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions for everyone dramatically shifts the burden in the individual market, creates incentives not to get health coverage at all until you are sick, and destroys the profit margins for insurance companies, which is why they have been dropping out of Obamacare altogether. This bill doesn’t really change that. It offers the fig leaf of granting state governments the ability to opt-out of the pre-existing conditions provisions, but it’s hard to imagine governors actually doing it, since they would now have the affirmative political burden of rejecting Obamacare’s most popular provisions.

2. The Mandate Remains. The mandate is formally repealed, but the bill still requires insurance companies to levy a 30 percent surcharge on those who skip a year of coverage. So instead of you paying a fine to the government, you pay a fine to the insurance companies, mandated by the government. Great.

3. It Funds People Not To Buy Health Insurance While Healthy. In order to woo moderate Republicans who were upset with the pre-existing conditions state opt-out possibility, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) came up with an amendment that would give states $8 billion over the next five years to fund high-risk pools, adding to the $130 billion in temporary funding already headed to the states. His amendment would essentially pay people’s fine if they skip a year of coverage.

4. It Retains The New Ryan-Trump Entitlement Program. The bill still provides refundable tax credits to buy health insurance, which amounts to a new entitlement program.

Here’s the bottom line: by stepping into the muddy waters of healthcare policy with a giant overhaul instead of a simple Obamacare repeal, followed by piecemeal passage of popular provisions relieving particular burdens, the Republicans own the system Obama built. They’ll be blamed for whatever comes next. And because they’re not repealing Obamacare, that means they’ve now transformed Obama’s legacy into their own.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...wnership-ben-shapiro

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Paragon:I am also hopeful that the states will be able to get in on this and take some control over the pre-existing condition thing. I know they threw $8B at it, but I don't see why the states can't get involved and run their own pools of high risk people.

I generally like the idea, but wonder about states like yours with high populations of older residents. Do you think it would overwhelm the risk pool or are most of them old enough to be on Medicare to eliminate the issue?

Good question. We have plenty of 55+ communities here, so I would guess they are not on medicare.

We also don't have a state income tax due to our tourism.

There has to be a solution. We just need the guts to find it and implement it.

quote:

2. The Mandate Remains. The mandate is formally repealed, but the bill still requires insurance companies to levy a 30 percent surcharge on those who skip a year of coverage. So instead of you paying a fine to the government, you pay a fine to the insurance companies, mandated by the government. Great.

Which IMO will still do nothing to those who wait until they until they need insurance to buy it as in after their house burns down. Not much of a disincentive at all. Will be interesting to see how this goes in the senate. The incentive used to be avoiding selling all your assets and claiming bankruptcy or a huge change in lifestyle.

quote:

Which IMO will still do nothing to those who wait until they until they need insurance to buy it as in after their house burns down. Not much of a disincentive at all.

Right.

The mandate to cover pre-existing conditions for everyone dramatically shifts the burden in the individual market, creates incentives not to get health coverage at all until you are sick, and destroys the profit margins for insurance companies, which is why they have been dropping out of Obamacare altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Which IMO will still do nothing to those who wait until they until they need insurance to buy it as in after their house burns down. Not much of a disincentive at all.

Right.

The mandate to cover pre-existing conditions for everyone dramatically shifts the burden in the individual market, creates incentives not to get health coverage at all until you are sick, and destroys the profit margins for insurance companies, which is why they have been dropping out of Obamacare altogether.

We need to stop calling it health insurance. It's not insurance at all. It's a GD entitlement program. Insurance covers things that aren't likely to happen but are very expensive when they do. Examples: Cancer, surgery, heart transplants, the big stuff. For Doctors visits, contraceptives, check ups, these are all known costs and are predictable, you PLAN for them and save accordingly and you avoid activities that will lead to higher costs (wash hands, don't eat rancid food, don't sleep with questionable people, wear a helmet when you ride a bike, etc.)

What we have here is the government telling companies how to operate their businesses/policies which is not how a free market capitalistic society works, not even close. Just a bunch of socialistic BS. What if I am responsible enough to plan for the day to day stuff, but just want a policy that covers if I get in a car wreck or have a heart attack? Does the government not trust me to set aside enough money for the small stuff and make prudent decisions? Do they not think I am smart enough to shop for and read about what I am buying? I don't need my government to be my baby sitter, I need it to protect my boarders, protect me from criminals, and protect us from war. Other than that I don't really ask much of them.

These stupid pre-existing condition mandates are complete BS. Cover people with pre-existing conditions if they have had continuous coverage, presto change 90% of problems are solved. People will cling to their coverage and keep it at all costs, the insurance companies will make the money on the front end when the people aren't sick, then pay it out on the back end when they are sick. COBRA coverage sucked, but people bought it to protect their insurability and it worked, not perfect, but it did.

Anything named insurance involves underwriting. If they can't underwrite the insured, it's more like a prepaid medical program mixed with entitlement program. If you are old you SHOULD pay more, if you are sick you SHOULD pay more. No reason Mary with 5 DWIs should pay the same as John with a spotless record for car insurance, and no reason Mary should pay the same as John if John is healthy and Mary has cancer for health insurance.

Stop hurting everyone to help a very few, it doesn't make any freaking sense. AND it's really, really expensive.

quote:

We need to stop calling it health insurance. It's not insurance at all. It's a GD entitlement program. Insurance covers things that aren't likely to happen but are very expensive when they do.
Anything named insurance involves underwriting. If they can't underwrite the insured, it's more like a prepaid medical program mixed with entitlement program.

Frustrating isn't it, Jesse?
I think people know what insurance is... and yet a majority seem to want to move in this direction. If the .gov has to mandate what's in it, and who gets it... it's welfare or an entitlement program but it's NOT insurance.
The slow slide towards socialism continues.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
[QUOTE]Which IMO will still do nothing to those who wait until they until they need insurance to buy it as in after their house burns down. Not much of a disincentive at all.

Right.

These stupid pre-existing condition mandates are complete BS. Cover people with pre-existing conditions if they have had continuous coverage, presto change 90% of problems are solved. People will cling to their coverage and keep it at all costs, the insurance companies will make the money on the front end when the people aren't sick, then pay it out on the back end when they are sick. COBRA coverage sucked, but people bought it to protect their insurability and it worked, not perfect, but it did.

Stop hurting everyone to help a very few, it doesn't make any freaking sense. AND it's really, really expensive.

Yep. We paid COBRA for son and daughter to tune of at least $20,000 over the past in order to make sure they had continuous coverage. That certainly hurt but was a top priority for us. A 30 percent surcharge is a freaking joke. If there are no real consequences then there is no real concern either by those who game the system.

I have had continuous health insurance since I was born even though I never went to the Doctor for decades at a time. Then at age 62 the bottom fell out and I was in the hospital twice for a total of three weeks stays within 12 months in 2012 and 2013.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
We need to stop calling it health insurance. It's not insurance at all. It's a GD entitlement program.

Charles Krauthammer predicted Thursday that healthcare in the U.S. is headed toward a single-payer system. I can't say I disagree. The terms of the debate have shifted. The House bill is as good as it's going to get. Why? Well, the House is much more conservative than the Senate. The electorate seems to have moved in that direction.



Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer predicted Thursday that healthcare in the U.S. is headed toward a single-payer system.

“The terms of [healthcare] debate are entirely on the grounds of the liberal argument that everybody ought to [have insurance] -- once that happens, you're going to end up with a single-payer,” Krauthammer said on Fox News’s “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

“Republicans are not arguing the free market anymore,” he said. “They have sort of accepted the any commodity. It's not like purchasing a steak or a car. It is something people now have a sense that government ought to guarantee."
"I would predict that in less than seven years we'll be in a single-payer system. I think that's the great irony of this."

House Republicans on Thursday took the first step in overhauling the nation’s healthcare system, passing legislation aimed at repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where Republicans have already signaled they will make changes to the plan.

Krauthammer said that the Senate will not likely accept the healthcare legislation as it stands.

The GOP can only lose two votes in the Senate and still pass the plan.

"[The Senate] will come up with the plan of its own and go to conference, but who knows where it's going to end up but it's going to be a rickety arrangement," he said.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Which IMO will still do nothing to those who wait until they until they need insurance to buy it as in after their house burns down. Not much of a disincentive at all.

Right.

The mandate to cover pre-existing conditions for everyone dramatically shifts the burden in the individual market, creates incentives not to get health coverage at all until you are sick, and destroys the profit margins for insurance companies, which is why they have been dropping out of Obamacare altogether.

We need to stop calling it health insurance. It's not insurance at all. It's a GD entitlement program. Insurance covers things that aren't likely to happen but are very expensive when they do. Examples: Cancer, surgery, heart transplants, the big stuff. For Doctors visits, contraceptives, check ups, these are all known costs and are predictable, you PLAN for them and save accordingly and you avoid activities that will lead to higher costs (wash hands, don't eat rancid food, don't sleep with questionable people, wear a helmet when you ride a bike, etc.)

What we have here is the government telling companies how to operate their businesses/policies which is not how a free market capitalistic society works, not even close. Just a bunch of socialistic BS. What if I am responsible enough to plan for the day to day stuff, but just want a policy that covers if I get in a car wreck or have a heart attack? Does the government not trust me to set aside enough money for the small stuff and make prudent decisions? Do they not think I am smart enough to shop for and read about what I am buying? I don't need my government to be my baby sitter, I need it to protect my boarders, protect me from criminals, and protect us from war. Other than that I don't really ask much of them.

These stupid pre-existing condition mandates are complete BS. Cover people with pre-existing conditions if they have had continuous coverage, presto change 90% of problems are solved. People will cling to their coverage and keep it at all costs, the insurance companies will make the money on the front end when the people aren't sick, then pay it out on the back end when they are sick. COBRA coverage sucked, but people bought it to protect their insurability and it worked, not perfect, but it did.

Anything named insurance involves underwriting. If they can't underwrite the insured, it's more like a prepaid medical program mixed with entitlement program. If you are old you SHOULD pay more, if you are sick you SHOULD pay more. No reason Mary with 5 DWIs should pay the same as John with a spotless record for car insurance, and no reason Mary should pay the same as John if John is healthy and Mary has cancer for health insurance.

Stop hurting everyone to help a very few, it doesn't make any freaking sense. AND it's really, really expensive.

I disagree with several of your points and assumptions.


Healthcare is frustrating. Its almost as if every politician and most people are misinformed, not truthful or dont accept reality and live in a fantasy land. At some point, I hope people making policy can come together and be honest with the people and explain what they are doing and why.

quote:

I disagree with several of your points and assumptions.

Very valid points, you have convinced me, I have changed several of my points and assumptions.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

I disagree with several of your points and assumptions.

Very valid points, you have convinced me, I have changed several of my points and assumptions.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Well I disagree with your comparison between someone getting DUI's and paying more and someone getting sick and paying more. You generally dont choose to get life altering illnesses. You also make a point about keeping coverage at all costs. Frankly, thats not always possible and you know it. Sometimes life happens....you lose your job and can't choke down 1800/month cobra while your sick and can't work. The pre-existing thing became a big issue because of the way insurance companies were treating people and the misery they put them through.

They can make all these changes and we'll see where premiums go. Something tells me not down though. The American people in general are being given a raw deal from the health care industry and the politicians that represent us.

quote:

ere’s the bottom line: by stepping into the muddy waters of healthcare policy with a giant overhaul instead of a simple Obamacare repeal, followed by piecemeal passage of popular provisions relieving particular burdens, the Republicans own the system Obama built. They’ll be blamed for whatever comes next. And because they’re not repealing Obamacare, that means they’ve now transformed Obama’s legacy into their own.

Yep. They should have repealed and started over... and hopefully the new plan would never have passed.

quote:

Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer predicted Thursday that healthcare in the U.S. is headed toward a single-payer system.

This was the goal all along. Not so much that Obamacare was designed to fail outright, but that it was the first step in moving to the single payer model over time.

Both sides, both parties, want to control you. Almost any politician wants power and control. WHAT they want to control is different, and maybe why, but they all want control.

quote:

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

-- Daniel Webster