• 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!

23 million fewer Americans insured under House GOP bill, says CBO

Fenton said:
Its as much of a falsehood as " if you like your dr and insurance yoy can keep them "
A exemption written by the HHS who at the tano knew 40-67 percent would lose their exemption status annually

Since HHS had the option of changing the regulations to ensure more people would qualify for the exemption but didnt, its obvious it was just a sales pitch, and not a honest one.
Click to expand...

You seem confused by this whole concept. Grandfathering means you can keep the plan you had when the law passed if you want to. The law itself is clear about that:

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on March 23, 2010.
Click to expand...

Your counterexample is of normal insurance market churn, where people get ditch their existing plan and buy a new one instead. Guess what? If you ditch your (grandfathered) plan after 3/23/10 and buy something else, that new one isn't a grandfathered plan. By definition and by common sense.

You can't just exempt any plan bought at any time from a law. At that point you don't have a law.

People had the option to keep their plans when the ACA passed. Seems like lots of people didn't want to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It was perfect except that it lacked any funding. ;)
Click to expand...

Vermont paid MIT's Jonathon Gruber and Harvards William Hsiao 400k a piece to run the numbers for them, to make sure it was feasible, and they returned a report that claimed it would save the State 1.6 billion over 10 years. Vermont's entire revenues for 2017 were projected to be around 1.7 billion, and " Green mountain care " was going to cost an extra 2.6 Billion.

The tax increases needed to generate that kind of revenue ( 151% increase ) would have collapsed their economy, and driven out business and capital investment so it was never implemented. Back to the two asshat academics that delivered the report stating it would save the state over a billion over 10 years. Single payer isn't about providing the best care, covering more Americans or lowering cost or cutting the deficit, its part of a agenda that wants to implement its ideology by any means necessary, and that includes delivering BS reports to States who shelled out 400k each for a objective analysis on Single payer, or just lying to the America public. Its about empowering the Federal Govt over the individual, and making Americans more reliant on the State.

The ACA debacle proves that Democrats and the Left will defend their initiatives to the end no matter their impact on every day Americans, no matter how destructive they become and Single payer would be much much worse. It would celebrated by the Left, and defended by the Democrats and any real oversight would be impossible. Cost rise to unsustainable levels, longer and longer waiting times, people lost in the system and not getting the care they needed, corrupt bureaucrats ( VA ), etc, it wouldn't matter, it would still be hailed a great success and the consumer would have zero recourse over a corrupt and broken system.

No one has been held accountable for the VA scandal, and if thats how our Govt treats our Vets think how they're going to treat the average American.
 
Greenbeard said:
You seem confused by this whole concept. Grandfathering means you can keep the plan you had when the law passed if you want to. The law itself is clear about that:



Your counterexample is of normal insurance market churn, where people get ditch their existing plan and buy a new one instead. Guess what? If you ditch your (grandfathered) plan after 3/23/10 and buy something else, that new one isn't a grandfathered plan. By definition and by common sense.

You can't just exempt any plan bought at any time from a law. At that point you don't have a law.

People had the option to keep their plans when the ACA passed. Seems like lots of people didn't want to.
Click to expand...

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - NBC News

" Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. "

" The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs."

“One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo. "



So the WH didnt dispute the fact that many in the individual markets would lose their coverage, but tried to justify this by stating tax credits would offset the increased cost for a policy with more coverage, a policy dictated by the Fed Govt. Hows that working out for the average consumer ? Its so not working out.
Lol..its like the Democrats gathered up a team of morons to write this law, people who had no concept of how markets work whatsoever.
 
Erod said:
People come from everywhere to get the best healthcare here. Canadians do it all the time.

Obamacare was cratering from within. It was dying on the vine because it is financially incapable of supporting itself. THAT is what you are trying to ignore.
Click to expand...

Give us the statical validation you have.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are confusing 2 different things. Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements. Supplements pay what Medicare Parts A, B, and D do not pay. Medicare Advantage is private sector administered form of Medicare where you choose between different plans administered by different insurance companies, those plans offer equivalent coverage to Medicare Parts A, B, and D, but they replace them. It was / is an experiment to see if the private sector could administer Medicare cheaper than the government could. The problem is, that the private sector could not. So while the program is still around, it actually costs taxpayers more than traditional Medicare. Some seniors prefer Medicare Advantage because some of those plans also cover things like vision. However, they are more expensive to the taxpayer just the same.

https://www.medicare.gov/what-medic...antage-plans-cover-all-medicare-services.html
Click to expand...

I suppose you will never get it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I suppose you will never get it.
Click to expand...

Who will manage Medicare if the government doesn't? Do you not realize that the only organizations capable of managing it other than the government are health insurance companies?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Who will manage Medicare if the government doesn't? Do you not realize that the only organizations capable of managing it other than the government are health insurance companies?
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
JamesBY said:
That was not the point and does not count.

What standards did your policy not meet? That is the real issue.
What you think that the federal government can and can't do with health insurance plans is only your assumption.

So the government did not change your plan. You refused to accept the minimal standards and went elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's minimal standards that did not exist before that bastard bill known as Obamacare passed. And I do not accept that the government has any right to tell me I have to buy insurance, much less how mush and by what standards. Obama said in front of the tv cameras at least 15 times: "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy."
 
ObamacareFail said:
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Do you know how insurance works? Do you know how our health system works? If you want to privately manage Medicare, then the only way to do it is for insurance companies to do it. They are the only organizations with the expertise, networks, and negotiated rates with providers to do it. Moreover, if you took the government completely out of the picture other than for auditing, then you also take the purchasing and negotiating power of Medicare and split it up, thus increasing costs.

No offense, but I think you are under a lot of illusions as to how our health care system works and thus you have this notion of how you think it ought to work, but its not based in reality. In terms of the high costs of our healthcare in this country, insurance companies are largely not to blame and neither is Medicare. Its the providers. In the last 20 years an entire consulting industry has emerged whose sole purpose is to tell providers how to maximize their billing to the furthest extend of the law. Large purchasers like Medicare right now are the only hedge against escalating healthcare costs. Providers bitch about Medicare reimbursement rates. It's not that they don't make money off of Medicare reimbursement rates, its that they gouge Medicare quite the to extent that they can gouge the smaller insurers. Thus the orthopedist with a lot of Medicare patients make 700k a year rather 800k a year. My wife works in insurance defense, she sees medical records and billing all day every day, if it was any other industry we would call it fraud and extortion.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
We have the best doctors, the best medical equipment, the best medical procedures in the world.
Click to expand...

We certainly have some of the best doctors, equipment, and procedures. I never disputed that. I said our healthcare system was not the best in the world.



Nope they are horrible and you get charged huge sums of money for bad healthcare. So why would I want that?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "bad healthcare?" Who are you referring to? On top of that, no country charges more per capita than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita


Which is why it takes 20 weeks to get a surgery or see a doctor.
Click to expand...

Links, please.

France has way more doctors way less people and they charge lots of money.
Click to expand...

Still less than the United States.

Of course what you fail to mention is that France only cover 70% of the bill
You have to cover the other 30%. You also need eye,dental and prescription.
Click to expand...

And your point is...?

That costs you even more money.
Click to expand...

Let's see the numbers.


Also all their doctors work for the state. We got rid of indentured servitude in the US.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?! So public school teachers are indentured servants? Are you kidding me?!



I will because that is where it is important too most people. How much money are you going to take from their families.
To pay for it. You tell a medium income family that they are going to lose 40% of their check in taxes then have to buy supplement insurance to over the gap and that their doctor won't accept it.
Click to expand...

My point is on overall costs. The overall cost of healthcare in the USA is higher than it is in more socialist countries like France. You say USA citizens pay less. Well if citizens pay less, and the government pays less, then who is paying for the highest per capita rate in the world?


Doctors are already dropping or not taking Medicaid and Medicare patients. The number is growing.
Why? THe government isn't paying enough to cover their cost.
Click to expand...

And yet we still somehow pay more per capita than any other country.

Since I posted about 6 or so articles they do in fact match the statistics?
lol who ranking are garbage.
They have been for a while.

Under WHO rankings quantity is better than quality.
Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System

Supporting that
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...-americans-poor-life-expectancy/#70f782632b98
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes, Pacific Research Institute. "Champions of Free Market Policies." No conservative bias there, at all.

Forbes article has nothing to do with my argument.


As I said how is waiting 20 weeks or more to see a doctor or get surgery better care?
Click to expand...

The average wait time for elective surgery in France is 33 days, not 20 weeks.
http://www.healthpolicyjrnl.com/article/S0168-8510(13)00175-9/fulltext?cc=y=


And when it comes to the United States:

There are no centralised statistics for waiting times in the US but that doesn’t mean there isn’t data out there – including some comparisons with other countries showing that plenty of Americans wait quite a while to be seen. For example, the consulting firm Merritt Hawkins, which regularly tracks how long people in 15 major US cities wait for non-emergency appointments across five different specialties, including primary care, found wide disparities between specialties and between locations. In the city of Boston it took on average 66 days – more than two months – to get an appointment to see a family doctor.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/25/gp-appointment-waiting-times-in-us-worse-than-nhs
 
Last edited:
Look, I think everyone realizes that ACA would eventually 'devolve' into single payor. I believe that was the goal of dems all along.

Most people, including myself, can't afford the monthly premiums so their only other option is to go on medicaid..Or not see a doctor. That makes, in my estimation, not 20 million thrown off health care with the GOP's healthcare plan but 300 million thrown off with the ACA healthcare plan. That's 15/16 of the American population (which is approximately 320 million, not including undocumenteds). Twenty million consititutes approximately .0625 or 1/16 of the population.

So, the previous healthcare system was DESTROYED for 1/16 of the American population??
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Look, I think everyone realizes that ACA would eventually 'devolve' into single payor. I believe that was the goal of dems all along.

Most people, including myself, can't afford the monthly premiums so their only other option is to go on medicaid..

The US is approximately 320 million (not including undocumenteds). Twenty million consititutes approximately .0625 or 1/16 of the population.
So, the previous healthcare system was DESTROYED for 1/16 of the American population??
Click to expand...

It was crap before, it was crap after, that's just who we are.
 
cabse5 said:
Look, I think everyone realizes that ACA would eventually 'devolve' into single payor. I believe that was the goal of dems all along.

Most people, including myself, can't afford the monthly premiums so their only other option is to go on medicaid..

The US is approximately 320 million (not including undocumenteds). Twenty million consititutes approximately .0625 or 1/16 of the population.
So, the previous healthcare system was DESTROYED for 1/16 of the American population??
Click to expand...

What part of the previous healthcare system was destroyed?
 
straykatz said:
What part of the previous healthcare system was destroyed?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, I can't afford the premiums and deductibles so I can't see a doctor (unless I make a whole lot less per year).
Religious groups have to provide services that are against their religious beliefs.

Yeah, I'd say destroyed.
 
cabse5 said:
Well, for one, I can't afford the premiums and deductibles so I can't see a doctor (unless I make a whole lot less per year).
Religious groups have to provide services that are against their religious beliefs.

Yeah, I'd say destroyed.
Click to expand...

My rates were steadily rising every single year during GWB 2 terms....the rate of increases for me and my employer has come to almost a halt since the ACA was passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom