• 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!

Trump Endorses Repeal-First Strategy if Health Care Deal Not Reached

Greenbeard said:
Do you know what a death spiral is?
Click to expand...

Yes. A death spiral is when there are zero insurers left in the excahanges as Nevada has already announced is the case for 2018 in their rural counties.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yes. A death spiral is when there are zero insurers left in the excahanges as Nevada has already announced is the case for 2018 in their rural counties.
Click to expand...

Nevada's situation is political: Prominence and Anthem are pulling out of those rural counties because the administration indicated it may arbitrarily not pay them money they're owed. While it's true that empty counties are inherently difficult to insure, a death spiral is when good risks leave the pool, leading to an escalating deterioration of the risk pool as the resulting premium increases drive out more good risks.

1) It's not even clear that can happen in a market where 90% are getting income-and-price-linked subsidies. If premiums go up, the value of the tax credits increase and the individual's required contribution for a benchmark plan remains the same. In other words, there's a natural dampening that prevents a customer exodus if premiums rise.

2) That isn't what's been happening. HHS reported just last week that the risk pool has been stable.

Risk scores were stable in the individual market and decreased in the small group market. There were a number of reasons to believe that risk scores would be higher for the 2016 benefit year relative to the 2014 benefit year. The average enrollee was enrolled for more months in 2016 relative to 2014. Total claims volume is higher when individuals are enrolled for longer periods of time, leading to increased numbers of reported diagnoses, higher risk scores, and greater paid claims amounts per member, even when the risk profile of the membership is held constant. Further, in the third year of operation, issuers would have more experience submitting claims to the EDGE server and properly capturing diagnoses for purposes of risk adjustment. All of these factors would cause an increase in average risk score (the measure of actuarial risk) without representing an increase in the actuarial risk of the membership. Despite these factors, risk scores were stable in the individual market and decreased by 4 percent in the small group market.
Click to expand...

If a death spiral were happening, by definition risk scores in the exchanges would be increasing.
 
Greenbeard said:
Nevada's situation is political: Prominence and Anthem are pulling out of those rural counties because the administration indicated it may arbitrarily not pay them money they're owed. While it's true that empty counties are inherently difficult to insure, a death spiral is when good risks leave the pool, leading to an escalating deterioration of the risk pool as the resulting premium increases drive out more good risks.

1) It's not even clear that can happen in a market where 90% are getting income-and-price-linked subsidies. If premiums go up, the value of the tax credits increase and the individual's required contribution for a benchmark plan remains the same. In other words, there's a natural dampening that prevents a customer exodus if premiums rise.

2) That isn't what's been happening. HHS reported just last week that the risk pool has been stable.



If a death spiral were happening, by definition risk scores in the exchanges would be increasing.
Click to expand...

Nevada's situation (and many other Obamacare situations) are political because Democrats rammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote and yet they expect Republicans to completely back a system they were shut out of. It wasn't a bipartisan plan in the first place so they shouldn't expect bipartisan cooperation. That's the fault of those who rammed it through, Republicans be damned.
 
Moderate Right said:
Nevada's situation (and many other Obamacare situations) are political because Democrats rammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote and yet they expect Republicans to completely back a system they were shut out of. It wasn't a bipartisan plan in the first place so they shouldn't expect bipartisan cooperation. That's the fault of those who rammed it through, Republicans be damned.
Click to expand...

Trump chasing insurers out of those counties is the fault of Trump, no one else. If he implements the law, those 8,000 people will be fine.
 
Greenbeard said:
Trump chasing insurers out of those counties is the fault of Trump, no one else. If he implements the law, those 8,000 people will be fine.
Click to expand...

As I said, Obamacare was passed with zero Republican votes so Democrats shouldn't expect Republicans to rescue Obamacare. The left were so arrogant at the time (actually still are) that they believed Republicans would never regain power so they didn't have to worry about future Obamacare failures because they could be easily fixed. If Democrats wanted a bipartisan plan then they should have done it in 2009 and then Republicans would have helped them if things needed tinkering with.
 
cuban smokes said:
Trump Endorses Repeal-First Strategy if Health Care Deal Not Reached

Trump Endorses Repeal-First Strategy if Health Care Deal Not Reached - NBC News


WASHINGTON — As Senate negotiations continue over the stalled Republican health care bill, President Donald Trump Friday morning called on senators to pass a simple repeal of Obamacare now and focus on replacing it later this year if no deal is reached.

Trump's tweet came just after Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., sent a letter to the White House urging the president to support a repeal-first, replace-later strategy if there is no agreement by the time senators return from their week-long Fourth of July recess on July 10.

The idea has been floated by some Republicans since a planned Senate vote on the GOP Better Care Reconciliation Act was postponed Tuesday because leaders were unable to secure the 50 GOP votes needed to pass it.

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

Looks like the GOP leadership is as lame as it gets; maybe some Viagra for you jerk offs?

Two FAILED attempts at screwing Americans on health care by the Greedy Old Phucks

We REALLY DO have a complete bastard of a bitch as POTUS

Donald Duck would have been a better POTUS than the crap we have right now ................. God help US all ............
Click to expand...

But... healthcare is haaaaard. :boohoo:

Who knew it would be this hard? Ummm, pretty much everyone else. :roll:
 
Moderate Right said:
Yes. A death spiral is when there are zero insurers left in the excahanges as Nevada has already announced is the case for 2018 in their rural counties.
Click to expand...

Actually a death spiral is the result of a structurally collapsing marketplace. Generally it's due to the fact that healthy people stop signing up for insurance, leaving the insuree base higher risk, so premiums go up, which drives more healthier insurees away, etc. until the market collapses. That's not really what's going on in Nevada. Insurance companies are pulling out because they've had issues with payouts on programs under the ACA and they have to weigh pricing in an ACA repeal because they have to submit pricing plans and plan structures a year in advance.
 
Moderate Right said:
Nevada's situation (and many other Obamacare situations) are political because Democrats rammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote and yet they expect Republicans to completely back a system they were shut out of. It wasn't a bipartisan plan in the first place so they shouldn't expect bipartisan cooperation. That's the fault of those who rammed it through, Republicans be damned.
Click to expand...

Democrats didn't really ram it through. Republicans actually had quite a bit of input on the bill, but unfortunately they couldn't support it for political reasons, not reasons inherent with the bill or program. Everyone recognizes this is a political football and not actually about providing care. If it was about the latter the Republicans would actually have a plan, but they haven't for years as to what to replace it with, and Democrats would freely discuss the weaknesses of the ACA, which they are unable to do for fear of sounding anti-ACA. It's so politicized it's impossible to actually sit down in DC and have a discussion about what healthcare should actually look like and that's sad.
 
Cardinal said:
Which means the legislative filibuster goes kaput.
Click to expand...

LOL if the GOP wiped out all the brakes on getting bills through the senate they are going to be very unhappy when they are no longer in control.
 
Moderate Right said:
As I said, Obamacare was passed with zero Republican votes so Democrats shouldn't expect Republicans to rescue Obamacare. The left were so arrogant at the time (actually still are) that they believed Republicans would never regain power so they didn't have to worry about future Obamacare failures because they could be easily fixed. If Democrats wanted a bipartisan plan then they should have done it in 2009 and then Republicans would have helped them if things needed tinkering with.
Click to expand...

Obamacare doesn't really need rescuing. It actually wasn't even implemented in its desired form which has caused problems. As I've said before, ACA is a government program. If you deny adequate funding to a government program, it's going to have problems. Discussing "rescuing" programs that don't have adequate funding is disingenuous as it incorrectly implies structural problems with the program, when in reality it simply needs to be funded as originally intended. It's a common trick of corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle to defund a government program or department, and then point to how poorly it's working as a means of justifying its dissolution. That's exactly what Republicans are doing with ACA. ACA simply needs to actually be implemented as intended and it would operate much better. Not perfect, because it definitely has flaws, but much better.

As for your comments about the left being arrogant, I don't really think that's a fair characterization. I would say, and hope you agree on this point, that over the past decade politics in DC in general have become so polarized that it's been tough to reach across the aisle to get anything done. And we're also now seeing that with the AHCA, where, unlike Democrats (who allowed Republican input into ACA which moved it very far center from where it started), Republicans refuse to even allow Democrats in to discuss the bill. I simply can't believe that you could call the left arrogant for ACA, which had quite a few hearings and a lot of Republican input, and not recognize how messed up current Republican political strategy around healthcare has been.

As for what Democrats were thinking, I don't think they believed Republicans wouldn't ever regain power. I think what they were thinking was that, if they implement it, by the time Republicans are in control, it will be entrenched in the system. Indeed, if you remember, at the time the Republican party seemed to be in shambles, and seemed that way all the way up to Trump's election. I'm sure the Democrats were thinking that by the time Republicans have a say, people will like ACA too much for Republicans to be able to touch it, like other crucial government programs. They were obviously stupidly wrong, because they were delusionally thinking that establishment politics would still work. That's why they idiotically nominated Hillary instead of Bernie. They just didn't/don't get it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Actually a death spiral is the result of a structurally collapsing marketplace. Generally it's due to the fact that healthy people stop signing up for insurance, leaving the insuree base higher risk, so premiums go up, which drives more healthier insurees away, etc. until the market collapses. That's not really what's going on in Nevada. Insurance companies are pulling out because they've had issues with payouts on programs under the ACA and they have to weigh pricing in an ACA repeal because they have to submit pricing plans and plan structures a year in advance.
Click to expand...

I'd say when there are no insurers left then that is a structural collapse.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Any plan presented by an R congress will be panned as bad.
Click to expand...

Because it ****ing is.

They cried and screamed and wailed and kicked and rolled around on the floor like a wounded Walrus for 8 years about Obamacare... And in that time they couldn't actually come up with a plan that wasn't hideously toxic or **** the poor so ****ing hard their ancestors and descendants would feel it.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Because it ****ing is.

They cried and screamed and wailed and kicked and rolled around on the floor like a wounded Walrus for 8 years about Obamacare... And in that time they couldn't actually come up with a plan that wasn't hideously toxic or **** the poor so ****ing hard their ancestors and descendants would feel it.
Click to expand...

How many wounded walruses have you seen? I saw a wounded hippo on Nov.9th last year. You should wait to see what the plan is, we might actually know instead of passing it so people can read it like Obamacare.

Partisan hackery alive and well.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There are five states with one insurer in 2017, all of which declined to expand Medicaid or create a state marketplace.
Click to expand...

That doesn't have anything to do with anything. Medicaid expansion or no medicaid expansion doesn't effect how many insurers are in the market. And, what difference does it make if a state made their own marketplace or used the federal exchange?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom