Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2017, 03:25:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105402 Posts in 2394 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* 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 ... 32 33 [34] Print
Author Topic: The Politics of Health Care  (Read 408468 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41417


« Reply #1650 on: October 13, 2017, 08:39:04 PM »



President Donald Trump signed a new executive order on Thursday that moves health care a step in the right direction.

The executive order instructs the secretaries of treasury, labor, and health and human services to propose regulatory changes that would increase choice and competition in health insurance.

This is the right course of action. In the absence of congressional action to address Obamacare’s damage, Trump is right to seek ways within his power to help those hurt by Obamacare’s skyrocketing premiums and the reduced access to quality plans.

Trump’s executive order addresses three problems that hinder people’s access to the insurance and care they need.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

First, small business employees and the self-employed are most hurt by Obamacare. The percentage of workers at small firms receiving coverage through their employer has declined from nearly half in 2010 to about one-third in 2017. They face skyrocketing premiums and reduced choice in plans.

One challenge small businesses face is that, under current interpretations of a federal employee benefit law, they are limited in their ability to band together and secure coverage similar to plans offered by larger employers.

Obamacare exacerbated that problem by imposing costly new benefit mandates on small employer plans, but not on large employer plans. Thus, Trump is right to ask the Department of Labor to help by exploring ways to update this interpretation.

A change of this sort could allow small businesses and the self-employed to escape Obamacare’s costly benefit mandates and access new options run by associations that they have a stake in.

It could also help more small employers offer coverage to their workers. Newly enrolled individuals could save money—up to 20 to 50 percent on the cost of their insurance—by taking advantage of the tax break for employer-provided health insurance.

Second, President Barack Obama’s administration sharply reduced access to a low-cost option known as short-term, limited duration insurance.

These plans are often one-third of the cost of the cheapest Obamacare plans, yet typically feature broad provider networks and high coverage limits. That makes it harder than it should be for people between jobs to access a low-cost insurance plan.

As a result, people between jobs face suboptimal choices such as buying Obamacare’s heavily regulated and expensive plans, or going on Medicaid.

To address this, Trump rightly asks the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to consider reversing Obama’s decision.

Third, the Obama administration issued regulations limiting the ability of businesses to offer their employees coverage through “Health Reimbursement Arrangements,” in order to force such plans to comply with Obamacare’s standardized, one-size-fits-all benefit design.

Yet the whole point of those plans is to give businesses and workers a tool for customizing their health benefits according to their own needs and preferences.

Thus, Trump has rightly asked the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to explore ways to revise those regulations so that employers and workers have more flexibility and choices for health benefits.

While Trump’s executive order on health care is a step in the right direction, he needs Congress to get back to work in order to more fully improve our health system. The administration can only do so much, as it has to work within the confines of exiting law, including Obamacare.

For instance, the administration likely has sufficient authority to revise the regulations on health reimbursement arrangements so that employers have new options to give workers tax-free contributions to buy the individual market coverage of their choice.

But the potential benefits of that policy change will remain largely unrealized, so long as the law prevents insurers from offering anything other than Obamacare’s limited menu of standardized, overregulated, overpriced individual market plans.

Thus, Congress needs to do its job, fully undo Obamacare’s damage, and offer broader relief to all Americans struggling with rising premium costs and reduced choice of plans.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41417


« Reply #1651 on: October 14, 2017, 07:10:32 AM »

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/355374-on-cutting-obamacare-funding-trump-has-the-law-on-his-side
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7518


« Reply #1652 on: October 14, 2017, 08:55:33 PM »

and I pay subscriptions has become a branch outlet of the Huffington Post:

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2017/10/why-acp-must-speak-out-against-discrimination.htm

What the hell does this have to do with health care or representing my interests ?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15273


« Reply #1653 on: October 14, 2017, 09:21:04 PM »

and I pay subscriptions has become a branch outlet of the Huffington Post:

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2017/10/why-acp-must-speak-out-against-discrimination.htm

What the hell does this have to do with health care or representing my interests ?

Nothing at all. The left does to organizations what a virus does to a healthy cell.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41417


« Reply #1654 on: October 15, 2017, 02:31:51 PM »

The ObamaCare ‘Sabotage’ Meme
The solution for illegal health subsidies is a bipartisan trade.
Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander in Washington, Jan. 18.
Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander in Washington, Jan. 18. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 13, 2017 7:10 p.m. ET
369 COMMENTS

By our deadline Friday the world had continued to spin without interruption—planes taking off and landing; men and women commuting home after another week at work—and if you’re reading this then you survived the ObamaCare subsidy apocalypse of 2017. We’re referring to the political meltdown over the Trump Administration’s decision to end extralegal payments to insurers.

The White House leaked Thursday night that the government will stop making “cost-sharing” payments, which are ObamaCare subsidies for insurers that defray the cost of deductibles or co-pays for some folks below 250% of the poverty line. President Trump unloaded on Friday in one of his predawn tweets that “The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding” and “subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped.” Why he chose to swamp his Thursday health-care executive order with this fresh controversy is a mystery.

In any event, first order of business: The payments are illegal. The Affordable Care Act leaves the subsidies contingent on an annual appropriation, but since 2014 Congress has declined to dedicate the funding. The Obama Administration wrote the checks anyway, and the House of Representatives sued. Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer last year ruled that the Obama Administration had violated the Constitution, and an appeal is pending.

Mr. Trump continued the payments on the hope that Republican health-care reform would repeal ObamaCare and moot the subsidy dispute. That did not happen. Now the Administration has decided to follow the Constitution, and fidelity to the law should trump the policy merits or political risks.

The left is accusing Mr. Trump of—this is a partial list—sabotaging the Affordable Care Act; conspiring to harm the poor; sending a wrecking ball into the American health-care system; killing people. One frequent citation is a Congressional Budget Office report from August that predicted premiums would increase if the subsidies ended, which is true.

Yet CBO also noted that the added expense would be covered by subsidies for individuals that increase with premiums. The market would continue to be stable by CBO’s report, and the change won’t invite the ObamaCare death spiral that Democrats would love to pin on Republicans. More generous individual subsidies mean the insurers now predicting Armageddon will still get paid.

But more uncertainty and turmoil could still drive some users from the exchanges, and the solution is straightforward: Congress can appropriate the money in a legal fashion. Republicans have an incentive to compromise, lest they have to take responsibility for rising premiums. Democrats could in exchange agree to liberalize the insurance markets—e.g., by repealing the individual or employer mandates, or allowing more flexibility on state waivers.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander has tried to work a deal with Democratic Senator Patty Murray, but Democrats have refused to allow states any running room to experiment, aside from de minimis paperwork exemptions. Chuck Schumer has said for months that he’d negotiate once repeal was off the table, and now we’ll find out. If Democrats really care about the poor—and fixing a problem they helped create by violating the separation of powers—then they’ll compromise.

Meantime, the insurers will uphold the great American tradition of litigation and try to force the government to fork over the money. Mr. Trump deserves credit for upholding the Constitution, but this messy episode is one more consequence of the GOP’s failure in Congress to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41417


« Reply #1655 on: October 19, 2017, 07:44:35 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7518


« Reply #1656 on: October 19, 2017, 08:29:50 PM »

and they had a national health care system to tell us all what to do.

But they have no problem taxing cigarettes in Britain like here
Why not make them illegal and put smokers in jail?

Why not tax those with BMIs over 30 and those over 40 double tax and those over 50 -> jail.

What about all the drunks in England and Ireland?  Refuse them care if they don't stop drinking.

I suppose gender re assignment surgery is covered.
What about all the people spreading STDs?  Talk about irresponsible behavior.  (can't blame it on Reagan he's dead)
I could think of other examples

Make it LAW ->  1) all people must exercise for 30 minutes a day for 6 days a week

2 )  Sweets banned

3)  limit red meat to 8 oz per week per person
4 )  you must prove you are eating your greens and fruit and nuts daily

Otherwise your labeled a deplorable and SJW have the right to decide your fate.


(PS my BMI is about 26)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 09:48:03 PM by ccp » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15273


« Reply #1657 on: October 19, 2017, 08:43:34 PM »

and they had a national health care system

But they have no problem taxing cigarettes in Britain like here
Why not make them illegal and put smokers in jail?

Why not tax those with BMIs over 30 and those over 40 double tax and those over 50 -> jail.

What about all the drunks in England and Ireland?  Refuse them care if they don't stop drinking.

I suppose gender re assignment surgery is covered.
What about all the people spreading STDs?  Talk about irresponsible behavior.
I could think of other examples

Make it LAW ->  1) all people must exercise for 30 minutes a day for 6 days a week

2 )  Sweets banned

3)  limit red meat to 8 oz per week per person
4 )  you must prove you are eating our greens and fruit and nuts daily

Otherwise your labeled a deplorable and SJW have the right to decide your fate.

Most socialist paradises have been very successful at ending obesity in the general population.


Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7518


« Reply #1658 on: October 19, 2017, 09:42:15 PM »

GM,
Yes and
Venezuela is a more recent example
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 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!