• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators Propose Giving States Option to Keep Affordable Care Act

SouthernDemocrat said:
They would take the money currently used for the ACA, and instead purchase basic catastrophic plans with it that those without insurance are automatically enrolled in. Then if you don't want it, you just opt out. It's basic behavioral economics. Behavioral economics 101, make the preferred option the default option and let people opt out of it rather than giving someone a good option they can opt into. For example, if you want more people to fund their own retirement, automatically enroll them in 401k plans and then give them the option to opt out if they don't want it. If you want kids to eat better at school, make the healthy lunch option the default and give them the option to opt out and eat less healthy lunches if they choose to. Similarly, if you want more people to have health insurance, automatically enroll uninsured people into a basic catastrophic plan and allow them to opt out if they don't want it rather than trying to penalize people that don't choose to get insurance.
Click to expand...

Ok, you can option out.

Who is paying for this?
 
KevinKohler said:
Because workers deserve rights, and lack negotiating power. No government intervention, and we go back to a bad time in our history.
Click to expand...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Call your governor, or look in the mirror.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This plan has nothing to do with group plans that employers have. For that matter, the ACA had little impact on them. Its more of an issue with the individual market.
Click to expand...

Again, what has that to do with the issue?
 
Mac77 said:
There's that question again

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did Obamacare and the 30 hour mandate cause more part time employment?

Or more did more people wanting shorter workweeks lead to Obamacare?
Click to expand...

I choose A. Simple fact. If you can hire 60 hours of work part time for the same price as 40 hours of work full time due to government interference, only the stupid CEO would choose option B.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...ct-bill-cassidy-susan-collins-trump.html?_r=0

This actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, since its pragmatic and moderate in its approach, it probably stands little chance of getting anywhere. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

If the States find a way to fund it without Fed hand outs then more power to them

If they're banking on Fed Tax dollars to help them keep that abomination alive then hell no.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This plan has nothing to do with group plans that employers have. For that matter, the ACA had little impact on them. Its more of an issue with the individual market.
Click to expand...

Thats just not true. Our Employer group plan cost have risen exponentially since 2010, and yes, the increase in cost is directly related to the ACA.
 
jimbo said:
I choose A. Simple fact. If you can hire 60 hours of work part time for the same price as 40 hours of work full time due to government interference, only the stupid CEO would choose option B.
Click to expand...

Government interference usually cause unintended consequences

And always bad
 
Fenton said:
Thats just not true. Our Employer group plan cost have risen exponentially since 2010, and yes, the increase in cost is directly related to the ACA.
Click to expand...

Well ours has not. It has risen at the same rate it has for over a decade. The plural of anecdotal is not data.
 
Casper said:
You mean in states that have State exchanges.
Click to expand...

I worded that poorly. I mean they would take the federal money that currently goes towards subsidizing coverage for individuals purchasing through the exchanges and instead block grant that back to the states for the catastrophic plans.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I worded that poorly. I mean they would take the federal money that currently goes towards subsidizing coverage for individuals purchasing through the exchanges and instead block grant that back to the states for the catastrophic plans.
Click to expand...
Where does the Federal money come from?
 
Casper said:
Where does the Federal money come from?
Click to expand...

I hate Obamacare. I'm looking forward to its repeal and replacement. However, much of the damage has been done. The federal government has inserted itself into healthcare in such a way that it can not quickly (if ever) be fully extricated back to the way things were prior to the ACA. There will be federal funds dedicated to the ACA replacement. There is no way around that. Who knows where they will get it from, but you can't unring this bell.
 
Casper said:
Where does the Federal money come from?
Click to expand...

Taxation, the same place its coming from now.

Basically, this is how I see it. We have two choices here:

1. We can completely unwind the ACA and return the healthcare system and insurance market to what it was prior to the ACA. If we do that, we will have premiums going up significantly every year just like we do now and like we did prior to the ACA. We will have around 50 million Americans without any health coverage at all just like we did prior to the ACA, and will have unsustainable growth in healthcare costs just like we do now and just like we did prior to the ACA.

2. We can recognize that healthcare is a market failure. You can't just leave it to the free market because it doesn't adhere to the traditional laws of supply and demand. If a TV is too expensive, I don't buy it. In contrast, if I need cancer treatments then I have to pay whatever they charge because its either get them or die. Thus like in every fully developed nation on earth, there is a role for the public sector. Just because the ACA caused a lot of problems does not mean that we just throw our hands up and say screw it. It means we need to find a better solution. In my opinion, the proposal in the article in the opening post could be the basic framework for a better solution.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I hate Obamacare. I'm looking forward to its repeal and replacement. However, much of the damage has been done. The federal government has inserted itself into healthcare in such a way that it can not quickly (if ever) be fully extricated back to the way things were prior to the ACA. There will be federal funds dedicated to the ACA replacement. There is no way around that. Who knows where they will get it from, but you can't unring this bell.
Click to expand...
I agree, and there are times that I think ACA was just a way of paving the way towards something far more government controlled. I wonder if the end result will to simply put everyone on some sort of Medicare type plan, make everyone pay into like SS and let them buy their own supplemental insurance to cover the balance as is done with Medicare. Just rip off the darn scab and be done with it, kicking the can down the road is not doing anything but wasting time and money.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Taxation, the same place its coming from now.

Basically, this is how I see it. We have two choices here:

1. We can completely unwind the ACA and return the healthcare system and insurance market to what it was prior to the ACA. If we do that, we will have premiums going up significantly every year just like we do now and like we did prior to the ACA. We will have around 50 million Americans without any health coverage at all just like we did prior to the ACA, and will have unsustainable growth in healthcare costs just like we do now and just like we did prior to the ACA.

2. We can recognize that healthcare is a market failure. You can't just leave it to the free market because it doesn't adhere to the traditional laws of supply and demand. If a TV is too expensive, I don't buy it. In contrast, if I need cancer treatments then I have to pay whatever they charge because its either get them or die. Thus like in every fully developed nation on earth, there is a role for the public sector. Just because the ACA caused a lot of problems does not mean that we just throw our hands up and say screw it. It means we need to find a better solution. In my opinion, the proposal in the article in the opening post could be the basic framework for a better solution.
Click to expand...

The first thing you mention is simply not an option.

The second is a bandaide and not going to resolve the issue.

Time to get serious and just do what is going to be done in the end anyway.
 
Casper said:
The first thing you mention is simply not an option.

The second is a bandaide and not going to resolve the issue.

Time to get serious and just do what is going to be done in the end anyway.
Click to expand...

I think the whole system will have to collapse before there is the political will to do what really needs to be done.
 
Mac77 said:
I think the loss of ma ufacturing forced unemployed workers to take what they could find is n service jobs

But the loss of manufacturing was a political decision by people who are never hurt by the laws they enact
Click to expand...

Some of it was political, in that it was enacted by people who are paid too well not to enact it. But ultimately, politics isn't relevant, as automation will eventually kill more jobs than outsourcing. And Trump ain't gonna change that.
 
Casper said:
I agree, and there are times that I think ACA was just a way of paving the way towards something far more government controlled. I wonder if the end result will to simply put everyone on some sort of Medicare type plan, make everyone pay into like SS and let them buy their own supplemental insurance to cover the balance as is done with Medicare. Just rip off the darn scab and be done with it, kicking the can down the road is not doing anything but wasting time and money.
Click to expand...

There are a thousand ways to do it, but sadly federal taxpayers will pay a huge price when there were more reasonable approaches prior to the ACA. Massive tort reform could cut a huge amount of bulk from healthcare costs, reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance (how about this novel idea: do some research and choose your doctors carefully, rather than wait till something bad happens and sue them). Then follow that up with block grants to states to figure out a state specific way to address the preexisting conditions and maintain the insurance of those who have been able to get coverage. Not a federal issue, healthcare. But it is now a federal line item now and in the future.
 
jimbo said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Call your governor, or look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Read some history. Start about 2-3 decades before the new deal, and work your way forward.
 
jimbo said:
I choose A. Simple fact. If you can hire 60 hours of work part time for the same price as 40 hours of work full time due to government interference, only the stupid CEO would choose option B.
Click to expand...

Even easier and cheaper to just buy slaves.
 
KevinKohler said:
Because, it's one of the ways the ACA got health insurance to people. We are, and becoming ever more so, a part time worker economy. So, moving the bar the defines part vs full time became a part of that law. Without it, the costs will be significantly higher.
Click to expand...

the biggest driver of that was the 30 hour full time status. that is why a lot of employers cut back on hours their people worked.
it was stupid. it cut peoples pay checks by 5 or 6 hours a week easily.
 
MaggieD said:
The first thing I thought of is that insurance companies might not want to SELL those policies if there were other options. I think that's likely.
Click to expand...

insurance is all about mitigation of risks vs costs.
right now with obamacare there is a lot of risks and the costs are high.

there are tons of things that insurance companies have to pay for.
this new plan would mitigate those costs a lot better.
 
kamikaze483 said:
There are a thousand ways to do it, but sadly federal taxpayers will pay a huge price when there were more reasonable approaches prior to the ACA. Massive tort reform could cut a huge amount of bulk from healthcare costs, reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance (how about this novel idea: do some research and choose your doctors carefully, rather than wait till something bad happens and sue them). Then follow that up with block grants to states to figure out a state specific way to address the preexisting conditions and maintain the insurance of those who have been able to get coverage. Not a federal issue, healthcare. But it is now a federal line item now and in the future.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is not going away and going backwards is no longer an option, so the only real option is to move forward towards something that would work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom