Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal

[sangha]

So what you are saying is the article in "The Hill," is a lie?

Yes. The facts are clear. Congress has never been exempted from ACA

That Congress now falls fully under Obamacare, that all members of congress get their insurance through the exchanges? That none of them, congress, took advantage of the Obama waiver?

Wrong. There is no Obama waiver. Never existed

It is truly incredible how you cling to this notion that there is an Obama waiver even though you can not identify it and proof of its non-existence has been posted.

 

[Mach]

Have you ever shopped at ALDI? In any market they are in, they are well represented in poorer areas. You can buy whole foods at them every bit as cheap as you can buy processed foods. Frozen vegetables, rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, chicken, turkey, frozen fish, legumes, even some produce like apples and oranges, are not that expensive. In fact, they are often cheaper than cooking with prepackaged processed foods.

I only just heard of those earlier this year, and that was our take-away, lower cost version of Whole foods/Sprouts type place.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I only just heard of those earlier this year, and that was our take-away, lower cost version of Whole foods/Sprouts type place.

Its a European chain. They are all over the East and Midwest though. Its affiliated with Trader Joes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Never heard of it. I usually shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joes.

Well if you shop at Whole Paycheck, then yes, its more expensive to eat whole foods. However, its not necessary to shop at Whole Foods to eat a good whole foods diet.

 

[Nilly]

Have you ever shopped at ALDI? In any market they are in, they are well represented in poorer areas. You can buy whole foods at them every bit as cheap as you can buy processed foods. Frozen vegetables, rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, chicken, turkey, frozen fish, legumes, even some produce like apples and oranges, are not that expensive. In fact, they are often cheaper than cooking with prepackaged processed foods.

Aldi meat and veg sucks.

For anything that isn't produce though, it's amazing. I used to live right near one when I was in college.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm going to disagree with you on the alcohol. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/alcohols-effects-body
Also, a lot of obese people have eating disorders that are easily seen, but not so in those that suffer with the flip side, but with the same devastating health problems as one ages. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19526739

1. You are commonly asked during a routine health assessment if you consume an average of more than 3 alcoholic drinks per day. If you do, then sure, pay a higher rate.

2. Yes eating disorders are a problem, but is a tiny fraction compared to obesity. Bulimics are not what are driving out of control health care costs.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Well if you shop at Whole Paycheck, then yes, its more expensive to eat whole foods. However, its not necessary to shop at Whole Foods to eat a good whole foods diet.

We have other places like Trader Joes and regular groceries sell whole foods but the price is much more expensive than those foods that are not organic and/or truly whole. I can see how people who live on a strict grocery budget would struggle.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Aldi meat and veg sucks.

For anything that isn't produce though, it's amazing. I used to live right near one when I was in college.

Our Aldi sells grass feed beef and organic free range chicken. Aldi is a lot different now than what it was even a few years ago.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

We have other places like Trader Joes and regular groceries sell whole foods but the price is much more expensive than those foods that are not organic and/or truly whole. I can see how people who live on strict grocery budget would struggle.

Eating healthy does not require that you eat organic. There is no nutritional difference between a non-organic avocado selling for a dollar each (sometimes aldi has them for 30 cents), and an organic avocado that sells for 2 or 3 dollars each. There is no nutritional difference between a bunch of fresh asparagus that sells for 2 dollars and an organic bunch that sells for 5 dollars.

 

[Fishking]

People who vote Republican have to be the stupidest people on earth.

People who don't realize that the Democratic Congress that pass the ACA and kept their congressional healthcare plans are actually quite a bit more stupid.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

1. You are commonly asked during a routine health assessment if you consume an average of more than 3 alcoholic drinks per day. If you do, then sure, pay a higher rate.

2. Yes eating disorders are a problem, but is a tiny fraction compared to obesity. Bulimics are not what are driving out of control health care costs.

Do you think people would be honest if they knew they would be paying a higher price?

Also, an eating disorder is an eating disorder and while it is easy to sniff out a heavy person it is nearly impossible to sniff out those who are average weight. I bring up average weight because on both sides of the family eating disorders run rapid and most of the people are all average weight. People would be shocked to learn of some of those who hide them so well. Imagine a heavy person who has to pay higher premiums because they are easy to see while those who don't show them get to go under the radar. It just doesn't seem a fair way to do it unless you had a way to really monitor people.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Eating healthy does not require that you eat organic. There is no nutritional difference between a non-organic avocado selling for a dollar each (sometimes aldi has them for 30 cents), and an organic avocado that sells for 2 or 3 dollars each. There is no nutritional difference between a bunch of fresh asparagus that sells for 2 dollars and an organic bunch that sells for 5 dollars.

For me, the dirty dozen is a must for organic. There are also a few other staples that I go organic. I think pesticides create all kinds of major problems in our eating supply.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Unless your elderly neighbor is 120 years old, they knew for the last 6 decades that smoking was terrible for them. So why on earth, given the massive costs they would at some point place on the Medicare system because of it, should they have paid the same Medicare tax rate and Medicare rate as a non-smoker.

As to a supplement, that is apples and oranges. If the supplement is legally sold and deemed safe, then its not your fault if it later turns out to be terrible for you, you can blame poor regulation for that.

However, the fact remains that one of the biggest drivers of out of control healthcare costs are preventable diseases due to smoking, obesity, and sedimentary lifestyle. So when it comes to Medicare solvency, a critical program for seniors, should everyone pay significantly more, or should those whose poor choices are causing much of the problem in the first place pay more?

In 2000, a quarter of our population still smoked. Nearly 1 in 5 are still smoking today. Here's how smoking has changed over the years. You're basically arguing for putting all the sick people in their own pool. I don't think we should tie health care to social shaming.

And that line about supplements: That's essentially the exact same situation smokers are in. Cigarettes are legally sold and promoted as safe for decades. The analogy is more like you take the supplements now. In five years they find out the supplements cause cancer. Then 30 years from now, when you're suffering from the effects, you're denied care because you've known for decades that it was bad for you.

 

[Vern]

Yeah, I'm sure friends and family who have it 'lied' to me about it. Personally it's affected my business dealing with the medical community negatively.

Wch, you hit the reply key but you didn't reply to what I posted. I am unconcerned about your vague and unspecific "anecdotal" stories concerning your friends and family so you can put away your "feigned umbrage". Your "feigned umbrage" was just a cowardly dodge to avoid discussing the ridiculous lies your conservative masters spoon fed you that you and yours obediently believed such as death panels, 100s of thousands of doctors will retire, 50-100 million will lose insurance. And speaking of ridiculous lies spoon fed to you by your conservative masters, you're still obediently posting the "dem congress gave itself an exemption to Obamacare" lie. If any of your friends or family told you that lie, you should speak to them about their integrity.

And, no. they tried to get an exemption.

Wch, I know you think your “nuh uh (repeat false narrative)” is an acceptable response and if this was a chat room, you’d be right. But this is a debate forum. Facts have been posted that disprove your “dem congress gave themselves an exemption to Obamacare”. Oh wait, you “massaged” your false narrative from “gave themselves an exemption” to “tried to give themselves an exemption”. do you even realize you did that? if yes, have your friends and family speak to you about your integrity.

Anyhoo, congress had employer sponsored healthcare. People with employer sponsored healthcare were unaffected by the Obamacare exchanges. the dem congress literally exempted themselves from their employer sponsored healthcare. That’s the opposite of exempting themselves from Obamacare. The fact that this proposal was just one of many petulant amendments the Republican Party spewed (proving once again they’re unfit to govern) is not really relevant to the conversation so we don’t need to discuss it. What we need is for you to explain in your own words this "exemption" you think dems gave themselves. “nuh uh (repeat false narrative)” doesn’t cut it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

In 2000, a quarter of our population still smoked. Nearly 1 in 5 are still smoking today. Here's how smoking has changed over the years. You're basically arguing for putting all the sick people in their own pool. I don't think we should tie health care to social shaming.

And that line about supplements: That's essentially the exact same situation smokers are in. Cigarettes are legally sold and promoted as safe for decades. The analogy is more like you take the supplements now. In five years they find out the supplements cause cancer. Then 30 years from now, when you're suffering from the effects, you're denied care because you've known for decades that it was bad for you.

It is not the same thing. Let's say that someone takes glucosamine today. In 5 years they find out that glucosamine greatly increases your odds of developing colon cancer. Thus you stop taking it. For it to be comparable to smoking would be for you not to stop taking it, but instead to continue to take it for decades.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

For me, the dirty dozen is a must for organic. There are also a few other staples that I go organic. I think pesticides create all kinds of major problems in our eating supply.

That is still chasing pennies and tripping over dollars. Even if with the worst case scenario for pesticides, the medical costs associated with them are a tiny fraction of what they are with smoking and obesity.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Do you think people would be honest if they knew they would be paying a higher price?

Also, an eating disorder is an eating disorder and while it is easy to sniff out a heavy person it is nearly impossible to sniff out those who are average weight. I bring up average weight because on both sides of the family eating disorders run rapid and most of the people are all average weight. People would be shocked to learn of some of those who hide them so well. Imagine a heavy person who has to pay higher premiums because they are easy to see while those who don't show them get to go under the radar. It just doesn't seem a fair way to do it unless you had a way to really monitor people.

An eating disorder that is causing health issues is easily revealed in a routine metabolic panel.

 

[JasperL]

I grew up in poverty, poor people eat crappy food for the same reason that everyone else does, they like it.

That's not what the data show, and it's unlike you to ignore evidence. Just for example, it's just fact that many low income urban neighborhoods have NO real grocery stores, or those that do have extremely poor and expensive 'whole food' options. We know this. It's also just fact - I see it in our own lives - that eating a whole foods diet is FAR more expensive than a crappy diet. It's an opinion that these barriers are sufficient to affect public policy.

You don't have micromanage people's lives. It's this simple, if you are clinically obese or a smoker, then you don't get the preferred rate. Drop 10% of your body weight, which from a health perspective makes a huge difference in outcomes, even if you are still obese, then you get the preferred rate.

But other than with smoking (and the ACA penalizes smokers), it's just NOT simple. You're setting up the question with people on the extremes, but most of us are somewhere in the gray zone. Above the cutoff is "clinically obese." Great, and someone overweight and an alcoholic shouldn't pay more? Up TO 'clinically obese' and there is no penalty? Etc.

The point is all that sound really good, but it's hard to put in place on a large scale, and the evidence I've seen is if they work at ALL, they only save money on the margins. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing if done right, but it's hard to do it right, and with employer plans, you're already 'weeding out' many of the toughest cases - those who aren't healthy enough to work a full time, middle class job. And a lot of those subjected to higher premiums just ARE going to be among the poorest in the population. Again, that might be OK, but you better have damn good data that the program WORKS and that's not clear at this point.

I don't have a problem with incentives for healthy behavior in principle - our insurance has had them for years, but they dropped most of it (except tobacco use) starting in 2017 because they found it wasn't working at all well. And if you're doing to condition insurance premiums on healthy behavior, the insurance has to make solutions accessible and affordable too. Just for example, if you have a clinically depressed person who cannot access or afford mental health treatment and is using food or drugs to self treat their depression, then no amount of premium incentives is likely to work because the underlying problem - the depression - goes untreated.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It is not the same thing. Let's say that someone takes glucosamine today. In 5 years they find out that glucosamine greatly increases your odds of developing colon cancer. Thus you stop taking it. For it to be comparable to smoking would be for you not to stop taking it, but instead to continue to take it for decades.

It basically comes down to this: Smokers don't deserve to get sick any more than coal miners or radiologists. Assigning blame is murky business and opens the door to leave just about anyone outside looking in.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It basically comes down to this: Smokers don't deserve to get sick any more than coal miners or radiologists. Assigning blame is murky business and opens the door to leave just about anyone outside looking in.

We have to have some kind of carrot and stick approach to encourage better personal health or we will never get out of control healthcare costs under control.

 

[WCH]

Wch, you hit the reply key but you didn't reply to what I posted. I am unconcerned about your vague and unspecific "anecdotal" stories concerning your friends and family so you can put away your "feigned umbrage". Your "feigned umbrage" was just a cowardly dodge to avoid discussing the ridiculous lies your conservative masters spoon fed you that you and yours obediently believed such as death panels, 100s of thousands of doctors will retire, 50-100 million will lose insurance. And speaking of ridiculous lies spoon fed to you by your conservative masters, you're still obediently posting the "dem congress gave itself an exemption to Obamacare" lie. If any of your friends or family told you that lie, you should speak to them about their integrity.


Wch, I know you think your “nuh uh (repeat false narrative)” is an acceptable response and if this was a chat room, you’d be right. But this is a debate forum. Facts have been posted that disprove your “dem congress gave themselves an exemption to Obamacare”. Oh wait, you “massaged” your false narrative from “gave themselves an exemption” to “tried to give themselves an exemption”. do you even realize you did that? if yes, have your friends and family speak to you about your integrity.

Anyhoo, congress had employer sponsored healthcare. People with employer sponsored healthcare were unaffected by the Obamacare exchanges. the dem congress literally exempted themselves from their employer sponsored healthcare. That’s the opposite of exempting themselves from Obamacare. The fact that this proposal was just one of many petulant amendments the Republican Party spewed (proving once again they’re unfit to govern) is not really relevant to the conversation so we don’t need to discuss it. What we need is for you to explain in your own words this "exemption" you think dems gave themselves. “nuh uh (repeat false narrative)” doesn’t cut it.

You don't know what you're talking about. People have been price out of their insurance, lost their doctors and business models were changed that have put people out of a job due to OC. Doctors have also quit taking medicare and gone into a preferred customer or cash only mode.

These are real people not some bureaucratic statistic. All your drawn out responses are nothing but hogwash.

 

[Greenbeard]

LOL. "Wolves". Your scare tactics don't actually work so well even though you may feel they do. As it is many people in need of treatment can't get treatment because they can't afford their deductible.

The funds Trump has been threatening to hold hostage lower deductibles. So best to make sure those funds keep flowing, eh?

No, they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. With the health care policy power returned to the states and the federal government allowing sales across state lines there is nothing stopping states from entering into agreements on minimum coverage levels for the residents of the states and then having insurers market the same plan to all the member states regardless of where the insurer resides.

Yes there is. The across-state-lines legislation itself prevents states from enforcing minimum coverage standards in their own markets. Doesn't matter if states enter into compacts with other states, insurers based in a non-participating state with lower standards can still sell in those states' markets and effectively deregulate them. A state's insurance commissioner is powerless to enforce any standard on sellers not based in his state (even as those sellers enter his state's market), and yet, bizarrely enough, is responsible for enforcing his state's regulation in other states. It's a muddled mess.

But what's certain is that it absolutely strips states of autonomy over their own markets.

 

[Vern]

You don't know what you're talking about. People have been price out of their insurance, lost their doctors and business models were changed that have put people out of a job due to OC. Doctors have also quit taking medicare and gone into a preferred customer or cash only mode.

These are real people not some bureaucratic statistic. All your drawn out responses are nothing but hogwash.

stop with the deflecting "feigned umbrage" WCH and try to focus. We are discussing your obedient and false narrative that the "dem controlled congress gave themselves an exemption" and your new and improved version "tried to give themselves an exemption". Please explain your narrative using the facts we know, how is democrats taking away their employer sponsored healthcare for themselves amount to "giving themselves an exemption to Obamacare".

Let me give you some personal advice WCH. Conservatives usually cut and run when their "narratives" blow up in their face. You can continue to "feign umbrage" and ramble on about other delusions you have about Obamacare but I simply going ignore your ramblings about and direct you back to the falsehood you posted. The real mystery is why it just not occur to you to admit you were wrong. For some reason, when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.

 

[Socrates1]

Congress and both parties have carved out special rules from themselves since the beginning.

Congressmen all seem to become millionaires on salaries of 174K & 194K house and senate respectively. It is what it is.

That's what politicians are ALL about !

 

[WCH]

stop with the deflecting "feigned umbrage" WCH and try to focus. We are discussing your obedient and false narrative that the "dem controlled congress gave themselves an exemption" and your new and improved version "tried to give themselves an exemption". Please explain your narrative using the facts we know, how is democrats taking away their employer sponsored healthcare for themselves amount to "giving themselves an exemption to Obamacare".

Let me give you some personal advice WCH. Conservatives usually cut and run when their "narratives" blow up in their face. You can continue to "feign umbrage" and ramble on about other delusions you have about Obamacare but I simply going ignore your ramblings about and direct you back to the falsehood you posted. The real mystery is why it just not occur to you to admit you were wrong. For some reason, when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.

I'd give you some advice but, my point total is getting up there. 8)