Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 26, 2017, 05:37:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102425 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Politics of Health Care
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print
Author Topic: The Politics of Health Care  (Read 357368 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1550 on: March 22, 2017, 10:01:41 PM »

The rinos love to act as the Washington Generals as the dems play as the Globetrotters.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/biden-defends-obamacare-hill-republican-leaders-hunt-votes-n737086

The problem is with the Republicans

major majority and still probably can't get bill passed .  OF course *every single crat* is against.

I would like for it to pass for the sake of the party .  i don't love the bill but we need to get this first step passed.

As far as my point of view as a physician I have no care one way or another though .  It is all back and forth BS with me plodding on.



There sure are a lot of "Republicans" (cough)... from Blue (or almost Blue) states in the list of 29 who don't support the rest of the GOP.

Here are the House Republicans who are either against the bill or leaning against it. NBC News will update this list:

Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Mark Meadows (R-NC)

Justin Amash (R-MI)

Dave Brat (R-VA)

Raul Labrador (R-ID)

Mo Brooks (R-AL)

Rob Wittman (R-VA)

Thomas Massie (R-KY)

Tom Garrett (R-VA)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

Leonard Lance (R-NJ)

Mark Amodei (R-NV)

Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)

Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

John Katko (R-NY)

Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

Walter Jones (R-NC)

Ted Budd (R-NC)

Mark Sanford (R-SC)

Rick Crawford (R-AR)

Ted Yoho (R-FL)

Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)

Warren Davidson (R-OH)

Paul Gosar (R-AZ)

Rod Blum (R-Iowa)

Andy Harris (R-MD)

Dan Donovan (R-NY)

Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)

David Young (R-IA)

Bold being solidly BLUE, Underlined being generally Blue except for the last presidential election, and italicized being true battleground states, showing at least 14 very problamatic people on that list that are either bold or underlined.



Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #1551 on: March 22, 2017, 10:04:31 PM »

The rinos love to act as the Washington Generals as the dems play as the Globetrotters.


Yes they do.... I'm curious what the demographic particulars of their individual districts look like.

I almost don't even have to look it up... but since I'm bored and the wife isn't home...  grin grin grin
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 10:10:29 PM by DDF » Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1552 on: March 22, 2017, 10:11:09 PM »

The rinos love to act as the Washington Generals as the dems play as the Globetrotters.


Yes they do.... I'm curious what the demographic particulars are of their individual districts look like.

I almost don't even have to look it up... but since I'm bored and the wife isn't home...  grin grin grin

I don't think it's the demographics as much as it's the DC uniparty power structure.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1553 on: March 23, 2017, 09:14:43 PM »

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325568-trump-tells-gop-to-take-it-or-leave-it-on-obamacare-repeal
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1554 on: March 24, 2017, 06:42:33 AM »

The doctor who during a meeting I was in who said he thought the Repubs would not be ABLE to repeal Obamster  care because of this simple phrase:  "20 million people will lose their insurance"

Ryan terrified and inept at dealing with this is giving as a lite alternative that makes EVERYONE unhappy.

Just wait till we get to  the tax cut issue.  We will not be able to access the internet or turn on a TV without hearing "tax cuts for the rich" on the wall to wall liberal MSM day and night.

Why can I not be justifiably angry that so many people in this country are getting something for nothing while I struggle for 5 months a year to pay for it.  Why do I NEVER have a voice?  Why is there no one who will stand up for me?  Why am I always taken for granted? 

Rush Limbaugh acknowledged a caller last week made a GREAT point as to why he thought Trump has such strong backing from a group of people..  These are the people who day in and day out pay INTO a system and never get ANYTHING back and are constantly forced to hear about everyone else's sob stories.  All the other "victims" and identity BS.

Trump was the closest thing to giving us for the first time in 29 years a voice.  (flawed for sure but at least a voice nonetheless)  Including us in "America".  Not the world but us here all together in America. 

And then Ryan Republicans just refuse to fight for this concept.
Instead we get Republican social engineering which is a loser anyway.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1555 on: March 24, 2017, 10:53:39 AM »

ccp:  The doctor who during a meeting I was in who said he thought the Repubs would not be ABLE to repeal Obamster  care because of this simple phrase:  "20 million people will lose their insurance"

An exchange on this thread Oct-Nov, 2016:
Gruber:"The main goal of Obamacare was two-fold. One was to cover the uninsured, of which we’ve covered 20 million, the largest expansion in American history. The other was to fix broken insurance markets where insurers could deny people insurance just because they were sick or they had been sick."

Crafty: Name me a Rep who answers this cogently and tell me what he says.
-----------------------------------------------------

It was 100% foreseeable and unavoidable all along that you would be accused of taking health insurance away for 20 million if you "repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel".

Any pure conservative, libertarian or federalist can see that health insurance is not the domain of the federal government for a host of reasons.  And any honest historian can tell you that we have not only never ended a major entitlement after it is in effect, have we ever even cut the growth rate of one?!   CBO was wrong on Medicaid by 17-fold as it grew and expanded.

At the very minimum, moving forward on repeal/reform requires consensus of 50% plus one vote of the House, 50 Senators and the White House.  A pure view that the federal government has no business at all in health care may be exactly right but isn't going to ever reach that threshold, no matter what Ted Cruz and the Freedom caucus say.  Do any of them say they have the votes?

Pointing out that the 20 million is really 10 million, http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1411.msg102499#msg102499, or that more than 20 million lost their policies because of Obamacare doesn't make the question go away, what are you going to do about the 20 million (that is really 10 million) that will lose their healthcare if Obamacare is repealed?

Republicans propose tax credits - violation of our principles, new entitlement.  Another option is a transition period, two year delay or phase-out.  It still begs the question, what are we going to do with the 20 million (10 million)?

It partly comes down to policy and it partly comes to surrendering the war of messenging over the last over the last 8 (or 100) years.

To the naysayers of the Ryan and Trump plan, you better do something because doing nothing is worse and will truly lead to socialized medicine if not stopped now.

And to the writers of the Ryan and Trump 3-part plan, this better be good - and prove the naysayers wrong.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 11:03:45 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1556 on: March 24, 2017, 12:03:52 PM »

Addressing another point from ccp: 
...Why can I not be justifiably angry that so many people in this country are getting something for nothing while I struggle for 5 months a year to pay for it.  Why do I NEVER have a voice?  Why is there no one who will stand up for me?  Why am I always taken for granted? ...


ccp, You (we) will NEVER win the political argument that taxes are unfair to the productive and relatively well-paid.  It has to be won on the other side of it.  Big government and all these spending programs are hurting the beneficiaries.  Look at the inner city, the war on poverty and the cycle of dependence and perpetual low income created.  With SSI, Section 8, food stamps, FAFSA and on and on including Obamacare, recipients essentially enter a contract with the government to stay poor or lose benefits.  As the benefits get larger and larger, the contract to be permanently low income becomes unbreakable.

People on the cusp of receiving or losing benefits face a far higher than a 100% marginal tax rate, making the earning of the next dollar of income a very bad economic decision.  They can make $500 or a thousand more and lose tens of thousands of benefits.  They would need to more than double or triple their income to replace what they will lose, and that is not instantly possible.  Crucial rungs of the economic ladder just above them were torn out by our entitlement system.  Obamacare, unrepealed, brings permanent dependency to millions more people.  The rich will need to make more and more to pay for it or it folds and people with currently lower incomes get locked into lower incomes long term.  Who does that help?

The poor in America had free health care before Obamacare - and after it, if repealed.  Obamacare was aimed primarily at the second quintile, to subsidize comprehensive healthcare for those who work for modest incomes and don't get employer healthcare.  It was also aimed at taking the opportunity to enact an irreversible federal government takeover of the whole system that would eventually lead to whatever you want to call it, single, federal government payer, universal care, socialized medicine.

How do you explain to those losing their O'care subsidy is in their best interest?  That where they were paying $100 of an $800 policy, and now will pay 799 because of some minor deregulation will help them?  It is a tough sell.  That is why you look for a wedge in the opposite direction of the ones planted by the left. 

You must make it possible and desirable for them to make more income and rise out of subsidy.  The rising tide, JFK called it.  You make it beneficial for them to make more and more income, not punishing at the lower end (or at the high end).  You make it legal and possible for them to buy less expensive healthcare policies to cover basic needs while they raise their incomes to pay for larger plans if they want them.  You take the part of the cost out of it that is paying for someone else's care, young paying for the old etc.  Your policy cost covers you and your risks, not the ills of the system.  We need to message better.  We are not replacing a system that works; we are replacing a system that already failed, is unfunded and in a death spiral. 

Create an environment where people want to be off the dole, not on it.  If we can accomplish that in less than 100 years, we are doing better than anyone thought possible.  In the meantime, dismantle this new entitlement the best you before it gets any further entrenched.

This isn't going to be easier later.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1557 on: March 26, 2017, 11:34:28 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/house-revolt-revolting/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1558 on: March 26, 2017, 02:28:10 PM »

Bill developed behind closed doors with a couple of add-ons patched on. Ryan introduced the bill before the CBO had scored it.  CBO's number of 24 million to lose coverage was devastating (also assertion the Ocare was not imploding)-- Reps had no political response.  Sec HHS Price said next to nothing about what he would do for Phase Two and no one said anything specific about Phase Three.  The bill had 17% support from the public.

Now the devastation that comes should be laid at the feet of those responsible for Ocare.

==========================

https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/healthcare-obamacare/house-freedom-caucus-endorsed-rand-paul-obamacare-replacement-bill/

« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 02:37:03 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1559 on: March 26, 2017, 07:32:19 PM »

Second post

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-little-death-spiral-that-couldnt/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITODAY&utm_campaign=032217
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1560 on: March 28, 2017, 12:19:03 AM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-27/forget-obamacare-ryancare-or-any-future-reformcare-healthcare-system-completely-brok
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #1561 on: March 28, 2017, 11:55:48 AM »


Why can I not be justifiably angry that so many people in this country are getting something for nothing while I struggle for 5 months a year to pay for it.  Why do I NEVER have a voice?  Why is there no one who will stand up for me?  Why am I always taken for granted?  

[...]These are the people who day in and day out pay INTO a system and never get ANYTHING back and are constantly forced to hear about everyone else's sob stories.  All the other "victims" and identity BS.


Hear, hear.

Addressing another point from ccp: 
...Why can I not be justifiably angry that so many people in this country are getting something for nothing while I struggle for 5 months a year to pay for it.  Why do I NEVER have a voice?  Why is there no one who will stand up for me?  Why am I always taken for granted? ...


ccp, You (we) will NEVER win the political argument that taxes are unfair to the productive and relatively well-paid.  It has to be won on the other side of it.  Big government and all these spending programs are hurting the beneficiaries.  Look at the inner city, the war on poverty and the cycle of dependence and perpetual low income created.  With SSI, Section 8, food stamps, FAFSA and on and on including Obamacare, recipients essentially enter a contract with the government to stay poor or lose benefits.  As the benefits get larger and larger, the contract to be permanently low income becomes unbreakable.


Nature's Law... "Produce or get smashed."

Take away every safety net and let Nature run its course.

I'm saying that knowing that I full well, paid for years, to support my political opponents. I have no wish in doing so, and I'm not apologetic about it. I worked two full time jobs for over a year, in the States, only to never see my daughter and have most of it seized in taxes, to go support a breeding factory that gets compensated accordingly for being more productive, who will all grow into votes that are cast directly against my interest. No thanks.

Let them find work of starve. Everyone on this thread has to. I have no pity and it isn't because I've worked here. It's just common sense. By the way, I purposely left race out of that. I don't care who it is.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 12:01:55 PM by DDF » Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1562 on: March 28, 2017, 02:04:35 PM »

From somewhere in my readings this morning, these are the votes in the House that the Ryan-Trump-GOP bill did not win, 15 in 'Freedom' caucus, 10 'moderates' and 8 'other'.  There is no way to perfectly measure because they never took the vote.

All accounts either blame the Freedom Caucus ("far right") for not agreeing to what they don't strongly oppose, or blame Speaker Ryan for failing to get consensus.  But a 216 vote consensus was not possible when people strongly disagree with each other at both ends and the middle.

[Doug's proposal here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1411.msg102574#msg102574]

The Freedom caucus does not want a new entitlement or anything that would accurately be labeled Obamacare-Lite.  They (correctly) believe in market solutions, government's role if they have one is in the safety net, not to design and run the system.  I agree, but do THEY have 216 votes?  No one asks them, see Jim Jordan on Fox News Sunday, because it is obvious they don't.

Moderates worry about the political (and human) consequences that they will be blamed for keeping 24 million people off of coverage.  See false CBO report - that is required to bring the bill to a vote.  (Change that rule!)

Put in even fewer subsidies and write a purer, market oriented billl for the right and you lose more votes on the left.  Leave it they way it is now and all Republicans (and all Americans) are screwed.
 
So what next for reform?  What force moves the needle or tips the balance?  Hopefully they are reading the polls in the aftermath of this and figuring out an answer.  If they wait until after the mid-terms to primary and challenge each other, the majority will be lost along with the once in a lifetime opportunity to end this disaster.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:27:04 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1563 on: March 28, 2017, 07:50:57 PM »

Here is how I see it:

A) Insurance is for catastrophic events, but what we have now and what informs people's sense of things is analogous to thinking car insurance should pay for gas, oil, tires, windshield wipers, detailing, everything!

B) This creates a situation where the user/consumer does not pay for what he consumes; he does not care about price.  Surprise!  Prices rise faster than inflation!

C) Surprise!  This results in a market where prices are unknown, and virtually unknowable, even for the most diligent. Those outside of the bulk discounts achieved by insurance companies get anally raped by prices lacking sanity or the discipline of market forces.

D)  These means pretty much EVERYONE is terrified of being left responsible for paying for their medical care; thus they demand that insurance cover everything and the vicious feedback loop continues.

When I come back from the gym, I will offer what I believe to be the conceptual basis of the solution.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #1564 on: March 29, 2017, 08:35:31 AM »

I have no ideas other than my basic instincts (which is every man for himself).

Interested to see what GC's take is on it.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1565 on: March 29, 2017, 10:36:45 AM »

http://fortune.com/2013/05/23/what-tummy-tucks-can-teach-us-about-health-care-reform/

What tummy tucks can teach us about health care reform
Shawn Tully
May 23, 2013

Despite growing demand for cosmetic surgery, prices are rising more slowly than inflation.

Fortune -- We’re constantly hearing why the market forces that bring us great deals on cars, cellular phones, and houses can never work in health care.

One leading myth is that each patient is so different, and every procedure so tailored, that doctors can’t determine the cost, or tell patients the price, in advance. Hence, providing consumers with prices they can compare is totally impractical. Another holds that medicine is so sophisticated that consumers are incapable of choosing deals that combine low cost with the promise of excellent outcomes. A third is the concept that -- in contrast to every other area of the economy -- new technology inevitably makes everything more expensive.

Those oft-repeated beliefs are wrong. And the best evidence is the ultra-competitive field of cosmetic surgery and minimally invasive treatments.

A new paper from conservative think tank the National Center for Policy Analysis, shows just how the industry’s dynamics follow the patterns that prevail everywhere else. The author, economist Devon Herrick, collected and analyzed data from the annual statistical surveys of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and the trends he has identified are extraordinary.

Over the past two decades, U.S. medical prices –– not total spending –– have been rising at around 5% per year, or twice the increase in the CPI. By contrast, prices for cosmetic surgery are inching forward at just 1.3% a year, or a full 1.2 percentage points lower than inflation.

The reason is that patients spend their own money on cosmetic treatments, and in doing so behave just like consumers everywhere else. They shop for the best deals and love doing it. In every other medical field, costs are largely covered by third parties, employers, insurers, or Medicare and Medicaid.

Consumers pay just 11 cents for every dollar in care they consume. The rewards for seeking the most favorable prices are nil.

It’s just the opposite in cosmetic surgery: Whatever you can save on a facelift or Botox treatment is money you get to spend on a vacation or your kid’s tuition. Doctors compete vigorously to win business using steep discounts. Websites such as Groupon (GRPN, -1.14%) and LivingSocial regularly offer “deals-of-the day” for cosmetic procedures. The average cost of Botox, Herrick found, dropped from $500 in 2007 to $365.

The growth in cosmetic procedures outstrips virtually every other area of health care. The volume of surgical procedures, such as facelifts and liposuction, is rising at 8% a year, while minimally invasive treatments like hair and spider vein removal with lasers are increasing 28% annually.

Yet the explosive demand has not been accompanied by big prices. The keen competition forces doctors to prize efficiency. Most of the procedures are conducted in clinics where costs are far lower than in hospital surgery rooms. The supply of practitioners and facilities is highly elastic -- a great argument for why allowing manpower to freely follow the market works in medicine just as everywhere else.

For example, nurses and aestheticians perform many of the minimally invasive treatments, including teeth-whitening and chemical peels. Physicians don’t need to be board certified plastic surgeons to do chin implants. And OB/GYNs are becoming experts in tummy tucks.

Doctors are also touting enhanced and advanced procedures to garner premium prices. A case in point is Lasik eye surgery. The going rate for basic Lasik was $2,100 per eye in 1999. By 2011, the price had dropped 18% to $1,630. So ophthalmologists developed Custom Wavefront, a laser procedure that better customizes the surgery to the exact shape of the patient’s eye.

Custom Wavefront commands a premium price of $2,151 per eye –– about the same rate standard Lasik cost over two decades ago. As Wavefront grows in popularity, it’s likely that competition will hold down its price, just as it did for basic Lasik. In eye care, it’s clear that new technology coupled with stiff competition leads to reasonable, and even declining prices, but still gives doctors an incentive to get at least a temporary premium through innovation.The market will work in medicine. Rules that lavishly subsidize demand and at the same time shackle supply are not the answer. Follow the lessons from facelifts and tummy tucks: The more consumers spend their own money, the more efficient health care will become.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 03:12:05 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1566 on: March 29, 2017, 03:12:54 PM »

GM's tummy tuck post makes the point I make.

Here is how I see it:

A) Insurance is for catastrophic events, but what we have now and what informs people's sense of things is analogous to thinking car insurance should pay for gas, oil, tires, windshield wipers, detailing, everything!

B) This creates a situation where the user/consumer does not pay for what he consumes; he does not care about price.  Surprise!  Prices rise faster than inflation!

C) Surprise!  This results in a market where prices are unknown, and virtually unknowable, even for the most diligent. Those outside of the bulk discounts achieved by insurance companies get anally raped by prices lacking sanity or the discipline of market forces.

D)  These means pretty much EVERYONE is terrified of being left responsible for paying for their medical care; thus they demand that insurance cover everything and the vicious feedback loop continues.

E) The solution as I see it, and Dr. Ben Carson was my starting point here, is to 
a) limit health insurance to true catastrophes after a pretty big deductible; 
b) take the money used to everything-is-covered health insurance use it to fund Health Savings Accounts for low income folks, and
c) require prices be known.

Thus, market discipline is brought to prices and consumption of services, and the cost of insurance comes way down.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 03:17:55 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1567 on: March 30, 2017, 11:21:56 AM »

For as far as it goes, Crafty has this exactly right IMHO for how a successful American healthcare system needs to work - as a long term solution.  The ONLY forces that contain costs are market competition and the budget constraints of the customers, of which we now have neither.  One legitimate role for government is to make providers provide transparent pricing wherever possible.

Can such a program alone (described below) win 216 votes in the House right now, 51 (or 60) votes in the Senate and get signed by the President?    - No.  Why not?  Republicans will be (falsely) accused of putting 24 million people out of healthcare.  100 million adults plus nearly all children under 16 don't work.  That fact doesn't change instantly and doesn't change much over time.  It will take time to repeal the Obama era caps on growth and then take time for incomes and workforce participation to grow and for costs to be contained.  Meanwhile, new cures for ailments will be developed, be expensive and people will demand them. 

There needs to be a plan for the transition to a market system.  10 million people are receiving an average of 3600/year subsidy not counting government healthcare in Medicaid, Medicare, VA, government employee plans, etc.  Very few representatives will support any kind of pure, market solution that leaves them open to criticism of being heartless and leaving real people without coverage.  (cf. The freedom caucus plan had far less support than the Ryan-Trump plan.)

We need a plan that can: 1) pass now, 2) provide adequately for the transition, and 3) leave us in the end with a privatized, market system where consumers have at least as much power as providers and government.

We also need the other reforms, especially of the tax and entitlement systems, that are necessary to grow national income and reduce program dependency or we aren't going to ever grow past rampant government dependency.  Income is an essential component in affordability.

All bills that address a healthcare transition will be flawed, and socialistic, and Obamacare Lite-like, but the consequences of passing none of them right now will be catastrophic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Crafty's plan: 
a) limit health insurance to true catastrophes after a pretty big deductible; 
b) take the money used to everything-is-covered health insurance use it to fund Health Savings Accounts for low income folks, and
c) require prices be known.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1568 on: March 30, 2017, 12:42:47 PM »

Without the persuasive articulation of the big picture we offer, we will fail to get there.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1569 on: March 30, 2017, 01:22:46 PM »

Imagine if we had such a system for food distribution ?

Might help with the obesity rate.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1570 on: March 30, 2017, 02:42:24 PM »

It has worked that way for Venezuela  , , ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1571 on: March 31, 2017, 12:49:43 AM »

Hat tip to our Objectivist:

IMHO Ann Coulter is a very uneven writer-- sometimes brilliant, sometimes glib and specious while drifting into nastiness and performance art, but when she is on she is on.

A HEALTH CARE PLAN SO SIMPLE, EVEN A REPUBLICAN CAN UNDERSTAND!
March 29, 2017 – Ann Coulter.

It's always impossible to repeal laws that require Ann to pay for greedy people, because the greedy run out on the streets wailing that the Republicans are murdering them.

Obamacare is uniquely awful because the free stuff isn't paid for through income taxes: It's paid for through MY health insurance premiums. This is unfortunate because I wanted to buy health insurance.

Perhaps you're not aware -- SINCE YOU EXEMPTED YOURSELVES FROM OBAMACARE, CONGRESS -- but buying or selling health insurance is illegal in America.

Right now, there's no free market because insurance is insanely regulated not only by Obamacare, but also by the most corrupt organizations in America: state insurance commissions. (I'm talking to you, New York!)

Federal and state laws make it illegal to sell health insurance that doesn't cover a laughable array of supposedly vital services based on bureaucrats' medical opinions of which providers have the best lobbyists.

As a result, it's illegal to sell health insurance that covers any of the medical problems I'd like to insure against. Why can't the GOP keep Obamacare for the greedy -- but make it legal for Ann to buy health insurance?

This is how it works today:

ME: I'm perfectly healthy, but I'd like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more.

INSURANCE COMPANY: That will be $700 a month, the deductible is $35,000, no decent hospital will take it, and you have to pay for doctor's visits yourself. But your plan covers shrinks, infertility treatments, sex change operations, autism spectrum disorder treatment, drug rehab and 67 other things you will never need.

INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER ANN'S PLAN: That will be $50 a month, the deductible is $1,000, you can see any doctor you'd like, and you have full coverage for any important medical problems you could conceivably have in a million years.

Mine is a two-step plan (and you don't have to do the second step, so it's really a one-step plan).

STEP 1: Congress doesn't repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: "In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.”

The end. Love, Ann.

There will be no whining single mothers storming Congress with their pre-printed placards. People who want to stay on Obamacare can. No one is taking away anything. They can still have health insurance with free pony rides. It just won't be paid for with Ann's premiums anymore, because Ann will now be allowed to buy health insurance on the free market.

Americans will be free to choose among a variety of health insurance plans offered by willing sellers, competing with one another to provide the best plans at the lowest price. A nationwide market in health insurance will drive down costs and improve access -- just like everything else we buy here in America!

Within a year, most Americans will be buying health insurance on the free market (and half of the rest will be illegal aliens). We'll have TV ads with cute little geckos hawking amazing plans and young couples bragging about their broad coverage and great prices from this or that insurance company.

The Obamacare plans will still have the "essential benefits" (free pony rides) that are so important to NPR's Mara Liasson, but the free market plans will have whatever plans consumers agree to buy and insurance companies agree to sell -- again, just like every other product we buy here in America.

Some free market plans will offer all the "essential benefits" mandated by Obamacare, but the difference will be: Instead of forcing me to pay a premium that covers Mara Liasson's special needs, she'll have to pay for that coverage herself.

I won't be compelled to buy health insurance that covers everyone else's gambling addiction, drug rehab, pregnancies, marital counseling, social workers, contact lenses and rotten kids -- simply to have insurance for what doctors call "serious medical problems.”

Then, we'll see how many people really need free health care.

Until the welfare program is decoupled from the insurance market, nothing will work. Otherwise, it's like forcing grocery stores to pay for everyone to have a house. A carton of milk would suddenly cost $10,000.

That's what Obamacare did to health insurance. Paul Ryan's solution was to cut taxes on businesses -- and make the milk watery. But he still wouldn't allow milk to be sold on the free market.

Democrats will be in the position of blocking American companies from selling a product that people want to buy. How will they explain that to voters?

Perhaps Democrats will come out and admit that they need to fund health insurance for the poor by forcing middle-class Americans to pay for it through their insurance premiums -- because otherwise, they'd have to raise taxes, and they want to keep their Wall Street buddies' income taxes low.

Good luck with that!

STEP 2: Next year, Congress formulates a better way of delivering health care to the welfare cases, which will be much easier since there will be a LOT fewer of them.

No actual money-making business is going to survive by taking the welfare cases -- the ones that will cover illegal aliens and Mara Liasson's talk therapy -- so the greedy will get government plans.

But by then, only a minority of Americans will be on the "free" plans. (Incidentally, this will be a huge money-saver -- if anyone cares about the federal budget.) Eighty percent of Americans will already have good health plans sold to them by insurance companies competing for their business.

With cheap plans available, a lot of the greedy will go ahead and buy a free market plan. Who wants to stand in line at the DMV to see a doctor when your neighbors have great health care plans for $50 a month?

We will have separated the truly unfortunate from the loudmouthed bullies who simply enjoy forcing other people to pay for their shrinks and aromatherapy.

And if the Democrats vote against a sane method of delivering health care to the welfare cases, who cares? We have lots of wasteful government programs -- take it out of Lockheed Martin's contract. But at least the government won't be depriving the rest of us of a crucial product just because we are middle class and the Democrats hate us.

There's your health care bill, GOP!

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1572 on: March 31, 2017, 08:29:41 AM »

Without the persuasive articulation of the big picture we offer, we will fail to get there.

That sums up what happened on the last go-around.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1573 on: April 05, 2017, 07:22:49 AM »

Same as adults. Everyone wants health care insurance but just that some one else should pay for it.  Their parents , the "government".  Just not out of their pockets:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Poll-Young-Americans-Health-Overhaul/2017/04/05/id/782588/

In many respects it is socialism that exemplifies peoples' selfishness and greed more then capitalism.

People feel they are entitled to so much and others should pay for it.   What can be more selfish then that?  This is a far more selfish concept then those who work hard and take responsibility earn fair and square these things.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1574 on: April 05, 2017, 08:59:20 AM »

Obamacare required young people to pay for the health care of old people. Wouldn't it be enough to ask the young and healthy to pay for catastrophic coverage for their own risks?  

We already had a federal program of healthcare for the old, Medicare, and health care for the poor, Medicaid, and other programs and state programs. But no, we had the mess up, prohibit, ban, the right to just buy a policy that covers your own risks. We defined poor as people making 4 times the poverty level and created a system of incentives for all these people to limit their work and keep their incomes low forever. What could possibly go wrong?

Even a monopoly insurer can't make money under this atrocious system!  And the Republicans great idea after sweeping the elections is to fight with each other and leave it all in place.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 09:01:07 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1575 on: April 05, 2017, 08:43:13 PM »

IF I recall Scott Gottlieb had worked with George Gilder on the biotech report:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/health/fda-gottlieb-background-qualifications/index.html


Here it is :

https://www.forbes.com/2002/08/06/0806watch.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1576 on: April 06, 2017, 10:15:19 AM »

IF I recall Scott Gottlieb had worked with George Gilder on the biotech report:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/health/fda-gottlieb-background-qualifications/index.html
Here it is :
https://www.forbes.com/2002/08/06/0806watch.html

Betsy DeVos was opposed by Democrats for being too inexperienced and lacking knowledge.  Gottlieb is opposed by Democrats for being too experienced and knowledgeable.  Go figure.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1577 on: April 06, 2017, 10:25:57 AM »

"Health care spending as a share of program spending and health care
spending as a share of the economy, shows clearly that the recent period
of 1998 to 2015 saw provincial governments increase health care spending
at an unsustainable pace. "
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/sustainability-of-health-care-spending-in-canada.pdf

Falling short on efficacy measures too:
"It’s performing poorly across a range of indicators including wait times, access to medical technologies and supply of doctors."
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/momentum-building-for-health-care-reform-sean-speer-in-the-montreal-gazette/

Coverage is not universal for:  drugs, dental, and out-patient services.
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/17456/

Throw those in and the whole system collapses - sooner.
--------------------------------------

My first objection to government-run health care is that innovation, as we knew it, essentially ends. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1578 on: April 06, 2017, 11:17:12 AM »

My objection to government run healthcare is that it is a failure everywhere it's tried and ultimately acts as a form of control over the population.


"Health care spending as a share of program spending and health care
spending as a share of the economy, shows clearly that the recent period
of 1998 to 2015 saw provincial governments increase health care spending
at an unsustainable pace. "
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/sustainability-of-health-care-spending-in-canada.pdf

Falling short on efficacy measures too:
"It’s performing poorly across a range of indicators including wait times, access to medical technologies and supply of doctors."
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/momentum-building-for-health-care-reform-sean-speer-in-the-montreal-gazette/

Coverage is not universal for:  drugs, dental, and out-patient services.
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/17456/

Throw those in and the whole system collapses - sooner.
--------------------------------------

My first objection to government-run health care is that innovation, as we knew it, essentially ends. 

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1579 on: April 21, 2017, 06:10:43 AM »

I get it for free:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2618610?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2616408
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1580 on: May 07, 2017, 12:48:20 PM »

I can guarantee you one thing. There were very few , if any women who had much to do with Obama's health care act.
Look at the policy research published in medical journals .  The academics who come up with these "fixes".  I don't recall any of them being women.

So Olympia Snow was a Senator involved.  All the others were men.  And I believe all white men.   Why was that not an issue when it is a coat bill?:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/07/andrea-mitchell-price-white-men-cutting-heath-care-women/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1581 on: May 08, 2017, 02:57:40 PM »

I can guarantee you one thing. There were very few , if any women who had much to do with Obama's health care act.
Look at the policy research published in medical journals .  The academics who come up with these "fixes".  I don't recall any of them being women.

So Olympia Snow was a Senator involved.  All the others were men.  And I believe all white men.   Why was that not an issue when it is a coat bill?:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/07/andrea-mitchell-price-white-men-cutting-heath-care-women/

Imagine any other group being blamed.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1582 on: May 10, 2017, 08:28:40 AM »

# 1 the amount of "waste" from "overtreatment" of the dying is disgusting.  

  me - >  What is correct treatment of a dying person is subjective not objective and every case is unique to some extent?

So this statement is a over simplification

# 2 said he would prefer Medicare for all. "I would police it pretty hard to keep out the fraud,
Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) Vice Chairman Charlie Munger told CNBC on Monday the U.S. health-care system is "ridiculous" in its complexity.

me - >  At the same time he says the government is not very good at doing things

# 3 US companies are at disadvantage due to competing with other nations that have single payer government health care

me ->  ( I presume he means we need government single payer too).  So he feels tax payers should have no choice but to go into a single payer system.

--------------------------

Munger:

"The amount of waste from overtreatment of the dying is just disgusting," the 93-year-old Munger said on " Squawk Box ," speaking alongside billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. "There's a lot wrong with the system."

Munger said the current health system gives U.S. companies a big disadvantage in competing with other manufacturers.

"They've got single payer medicine and we're paying it out of the company," he said.

Instead, Munger, a Republican, said he would prefer Medicare for all. "I would police it pretty hard to keep out the fraud," he said. "There's a lot of fraud and abuse in the workman's comp system. And the only way to keep it out is to be very tough on it all the time. And, of course, the government isn't very good at that."

Munger's comment came two days after he addressed some 40,000 attendees at Berkshire's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

On Thursday, the House narrowly passed a bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. House Republicans had made a series of last-minute amendments to appease both moderate and conservative lawmakers. The bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 09:20:49 AM by ccp » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1583 on: May 10, 2017, 09:12:42 AM »

This country can't run the VA or IHS well. let's add everyone! That should fix it!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1584 on: May 14, 2017, 10:21:35 AM »

What is the IHS?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1585 on: May 14, 2017, 10:49:42 AM »

What is the IHS?

Ihs.gov

The Indian Health Service

Known as the leading cause of death on the reservation.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #1586 on: May 14, 2017, 12:13:13 PM »

Every now and then I see an ad in medical journals for jobs posted for IHS.  Don't know much about it or anyone here who has worked for them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1587 on: May 23, 2017, 09:56:22 AM »

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/334620-divisions-emerge-in-the-senate-on-pre-existing-conditions
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1588 on: May 23, 2017, 10:05:58 AM »

Every now and then I see an ad in medical journals for jobs posted for IHS.  Don't know much about it or anyone here who has worked for them.


http://azdailysun.com/underfunded-indian-health-service-means-rationed-care-malpractice/article_7b6fc67f-be14-5fde-b10c-0d45b3a26f3a.html

What single payer looks like.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1589 on: May 24, 2017, 04:22:19 PM »



http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/335000-cbo-obamacare-repeal-bill-would-leave-23m-fewer-people-with-insurance
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1590 on: May 24, 2017, 04:29:11 PM »


Your medical bills are yours, not mine. Get your hand out of my pocket.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1591 on: May 24, 2017, 09:05:13 PM »

Correct, but politically inadequate.

How about:

a) Of course the number goes up--that  is what happens when purchase is not compelled by law;

b) CBO must use the numbers given it-- hence "non-partisan"  rolleyes  Here the numbers assume Obamacare levels across the time frame (10 years?) when Obamacare is insolvent now (e.g. rates have doubled since inception in 2013-- project that forward etc etc) 

Also, note that apparently because the CBO says the House bill reduces the deficit, it remains eligible for reconciliation (i.e. majority, not 60 votes)
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #1592 on: May 24, 2017, 09:49:25 PM »

The federal government can't do VA healthcare right, how can they do it for the whole country? Let California do single payer, and watch the collapse.


Correct, but politically inadequate.

How about:

a) Of course the number goes up--that  is what happens when purchase is not compelled by law;

b) CBO must use the numbers given it-- hence "non-partisan"  rolleyes  Here the numbers assume Obamacare levels across the time frame (10 years?) when Obamacare is insolvent now (e.g. rates have doubled since inception in 2013-- project that forward etc etc) 

Also, note that apparently because the CBO says the House bill reduces the deficit, it remains eligible for reconciliation (i.e. majority, not 60 votes)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1593 on: May 25, 2017, 05:53:53 AM »

Don't repeal-replace Obamacare? 330 million people will lose their healthcare!

Real and Replace - CBO!

If you like your Bankrupt Country, you can keep your Bankrupt Country.

CBO is Wrong - As Always!

Crafty said sound bite, not bumper sticker.
Today's headline says 'House GOP’s health bill would leave 23 million more uninsured, CBO says'
Political show host asks generic Republican lawmaker to respond.  We write the answer...
-------------------------------------------

CBO is wrong.  This is a false choice.  The wrongly named Affordable Care Act is falling on its own weight, losing insurers, losing choices, losing states, accelerating costs, losing people and losing money.  CBO has consistently overestimated ACA enrollment and underestimated its costs.*  You can't make a 10 year comparison to something that won't last 10 months.

The Republican bill scored by CBO is one part of a 3 part plan.  It can't be meaningfully 'scored' by itself.  If that was the whole plan, we would vote against it too.

Any people 'losing' healthcare are doing so by choice as a result of repealing the admittedly unconstitutional individual mandate.  (They put it through the Supreme Court as a tax.) In reality, the simplification of plans, removal of artificial minimums in coverage, removal of penalties, and introduction of more competition and choices will make more insurance and better healthcare available to all.

*  http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/dec/cbo-crystal-ball-forecast-aca
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 07:56:14 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1594 on: May 25, 2017, 10:31:17 AM »

Good post.

"CBO is wrong.  This is a false choice.  The wrongly named Affordable Care Act is falling on its own weight, losing insurers, losing choices, losing states, accelerating costs, losing people and losing money.  CBO has consistently overestimated ACA enrollment and underestimated its costs.*  You can't make a 10 year comparison to something that won't last 10 months."

This is good talking point statement.

"The Republican bill scored by CBO is one part of a 3 part plan.  It can't be meaningfully 'scored' by itself.  If that was the whole plan, we would vote against it too."


This too is good talking point statement.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1595 on: May 25, 2017, 11:34:57 AM »


WaPo quoting CBO:

The CBO projects that the number of uninsured Americans would jump by 14 million in the first year after the House bill became law. Direct quote from the report: “Although the agencies expect that the legislation would increase the number of uninsured broadly, the increase would be disproportionately larger among older people with lower income—particularly people between 50 and 64 years old with income of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

"-- 850 percent: “That's the CBO's estimate of how much insurance premiums would rise for elderly, poor people over the next decade if the second version of this Republican bill became law,” Amber Phillips notes. “In a report filled with brutal numbers for Republicans, this may be the most brutal. (Just like it was in the first estimate.) Republicans said their bill will make health insurance cheaper. Except, they'll have to figure out a way to explain why, under Obamacare, 64-year-olds making $26,500 a year are on track to pay $1,700 in annual premiums in 2026. And under the GOP bill, they would pay anywhere between $13,600 to $16,100." Here’s a breakdown:"

"-- One-in-six Americans could lose coverage for pre-existing conditions: “Amendments in the bill allow states to opt out of key ACA provisions such as protections for people with preexisting conditions. The CBO predicts that states accounting for about half the U.S. population would take advantage of these, and similar, opportunities to roll back the ACA,” Kim Soffen and Kevin Uhrmacher report. “As part of those changes, states would be able to change what benefits marketplace insurance plans must offer. Under the ACA, these ‘essential health benefits’ range from covering hospitalizations to mental-health care to prescription drugs. One-sixth of the population resides in states that the CBO expects to drastically alter the preexisting-condition requirement. Predictably, in states that shrink or eliminate that requirement, insurance plans are expected to provide narrower coverage. In other words, the value of insurance, measured as the percentage of a person’s medical expenses that are covered by insurance, would go down.”

"Mitch McConnell has begun to temper expectations, telegraphing that a big bill might never materialize. “I don’t know how we get to 50 [votes] at the moment, but that’s the goal,” the Senate Majority Leader told Reuters earlier in the day. “Exactly what the composition of [our legislation] is, I’m not going to speculate about because it serves no purpose.”

MARC:  Politically, this is unmitigated disaster!

Sen. Lindsay Graham:  With today's news, the 'Collapse and Replace' of Obamacare may prove to be the most effective path forward.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 11:39:26 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1596 on: May 25, 2017, 11:37:39 AM »

Thank you Crafty.  Regarding talking points, first shoot down the false premise question and then pivot to where the focus of a good healthcare system must be.  Minimize third party pay.  Maximize patient and plan choices.  Unleash competition and innovation.  Force costs down for all but the most experimental of leading edge treatments.

Having the young pay for the old by penalty of law is not a healthcare plan for the young.  Having the Secretary of HHS make the most important decisions is not choice.  Killing off growth in the economy and in incomes to pay for healthcare is wrongheaded.  Subsidizing does not equal affordability as costs and pricing explode.  Giving subsidies to people making 400% of the poverty line for basic living expenses is unsustainable.  For a country $19 trillion in debt to pour more and more hundreds of billions of borrowed money into collapsed 'risk corridors' is bankrupting.

People living in a free country should not be forced into a government healthcare system.  Obamacare was sold on lies and designed to fail.  The voters have already voted it down in the House, Senate and Presidential elections.  The Supreme Court also should have shot it down.  This 3-part plan is the best we have to replace it.  'If you, the liberal media and politicians, have a better plan that accomplishes these objectives, now would be the time to bring it forward!'  The ACA wasn't it and every honest observer knows it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1597 on: May 25, 2017, 11:50:19 AM »

The CBO projects that the number of uninsured Americans would jump by 14 million in the first year after the House bill became law. Direct quote from the report: “Although the agencies expect that the legislation would increase the number of uninsured broadly, the increase would be disproportionately larger among older people with lower income—particularly people between 50 and 64 years old with income of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

Again, they figure off of a budget reconciliation bill without figuring in ANY of the improvements contained in the 3-part plan.  False and meaningless numbers, unless your goal is to shoot down any attempt to rid ourselves of a horribly failed system.

No mention or apology by CBO of their previous errors, or the 36 million that Obamacare left behind, even with a mandate?  Did they mention what the cost will be for millions more Americans to continue switching from working to not-working, from full time to part time work and from private to government paid healthcare until there is no one left to pull the wagon?

Was this Newt's biggest failure, along with baseline budgeting, to leave a failed CBO to score all new reforms under static economic rules?  We are reforming healthcare so that costs will go down and so that we can grow the economy and incomes, tax reform too, but they cannot figure in reduced costs or increased incomes in a 10 year BS analysis of affordability.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40030


« Reply #1598 on: May 25, 2017, 12:04:46 PM »

Valid points all  AND  politically, this is unmitigated disaster!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #1599 on: Today at 09:20:18 AM »

It's not worthless, it's a valuable, deceptive, political product.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/the-cbos-analysis-of-the-gops-health-care-bill-is-worthless.php
MAY 25, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN HEALTH CARE
THE CBO’S ANALYSIS OF THE GOP’S HEALTH CARE BILL IS WORTHLESS
Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the current version of the House health care bill that was trumpeted by Democrats because it projected that 23 million people would “lose” their health insurance if the law went into effect. However, as Guy Benson points out, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/05/25/no-the-republican-healthcare-bill-would-not-cause-23-million-people-to-lose-insurance-n2331434 this claim is false, since “the large bulk of those who are said to be ‘losing’ coverage do not currently have coverage.” Further, to the extent that some who currently are forced to buy health insurance by Obamacare decide it isn’t worth the cost to them, and choose not to purchase it, that is rightfully their decision.

Then, too, there is the fact that the CBO’s predictions about Obamacare have been ridiculously bad, as illustrated by this graphic:



Why should we believe an agency on a topic where its past projections have been wildly off the mark?

There is another, more subtle reason why the CBO’s analysis is worthless. As far as I know, it has been pointed out only by my colleague at Center of the American Experiment Peter Nelson, one of the country’s top health care experts. Peter points out that the CBO has uncritically relied on articles by a former Obama administration official who apparently failed to read the GOP bill and existing regulations carefully. Peter writes:

[T]he CBO appears to have relied on a couple of articles posted on the Brookings Institution website to analyze the impact of allowing states to waive certain Obamacare regulations. The articles were written by Matt Fiedler, former Chief Economist of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama Whitehouse. One article focused on how waiving the essential health benefit (EHB) requirement could impact protections against catastrophic losses for people enrolled in large employer plans. The other article assessed how waiving community rating regulations—the regs that restrict insurers from pricing premiums based on health status—for people who failed to maintain continuous coverage would impact individual insurance markets.

The Brookings analysis of the EHB waiver is flat out wrong and Fiedler’s analysis on waiving community rating, to say the least, exaggerates the possibilities. Nonetheless, the CBO touts the same two positions without any qualification.

Here’s what the CBO says about how a state waiving EHBs could lower protections against catastrophic losses:

For the large-group market, which generally consists of employers with more than 50 employees, current regulations allow employers to choose the EHB benchmark plan of any state in which they operate. Because of those regulations, a large employer operating in multiple states, including one that elected an EHB waiver, could base all of the plans it offers on the EHB requirements in a state with the waiver. That decision could allow annual and lifetime limits on benefits not included in the state’s EHBs.

Wrong. If a state chose to specify its own EHBs under a waiver, that choice would not be available to a large employer under current regulations. Presently, a state may choose an EHB from among a set of benchmark plans. While this gives states a choice, it also sets a minimum standard for the federal EHB across the country. Also under current regulations, for the purposes of the annual and lifetime dollar limit restrictions, a large employer may choose from among “one of the base-benchmark plans selected by a State.” Nothing in the regulations suggests an employer could choose from anything but a benchmark plan. Thus, an employer could not choose from an EHB specified by a state under a waiver. It would not be a benchmark plan.

The second issue, relating to state waivers of community rating, is more complicated and is hard to excerpt. You should read it all, but here is the key conclusion:

This scenario the CBO imagines for one-sixth of the population is, well, preposterous. At its core, the CBO believes that a state waiving community rating will allow healthy people to choose from one of two insurance pools, the community rated pool and the underwritten pool. Given the freedom, a healthy person will always choose to base his premium on his health underwriting and, thus, leave less healthy people behind in the community-rated pool.

Why is this scenario preposterous? If a state went the direction the CBO imagines, it would be the state’s choice. The waiver gives states the freedom to choose several different directions. Why would the CBO assume a state would choose this direction when no state ever chose this type of regulatory structure before Obamacare? Why choose this direction when, as the CBO points out, there are such obvious pitfalls?

Moreover, while the language of the bill could be much more clear, it’s also reasonable to read the House bill to limit the application of underwriting to only high-risk people, which would stop healthy people from choosing the underwritten pool…. This reading makes much more sense in the context of allowing states to establish different ways to cover people with pre-existing conditions that don’t burden the rest of the nongroup market with their high costs. That certainly appeared to be the intent of the waiver.

The Congressional Budget Office is generally touted as “non-partisan,” which is technically true. But non-partisan does not equal reliable. With respect to both Obamacare and the House bill that would repeal and replace it, the CBO’s work product has been shoddy and unreliable.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!