Trump will scrap critical Obamacare subsidy

[Taylor]

That's not quite true, really. The only year lower was 2006, which was right after the law changed, and there was a surge of bankruptcies in the previous year. And even the next lowest year of 2007 was at the top of a multi-generational credit and housing bubble.

Discussion here: Bankruptcy Filings Holding Steady for the First Half of 2017 - Credit Slips

Right, so it hasn't made back all the way down yet. Thanks.

 

[MTAtech]

4. Reduce expensive emergency room visits (it didn't)

The flip side of that is now there is insurance to cover people who go to the emergency room, which previously a large part went uncovered. Rural hospitals were going bankrupt before the ACA. The ACA has kept them solvent.

But again, these are just swipes at the ACA and nothing Trump is doing cures any of those failings.

 

[MTAtech]

That's not quite true, really. The only year lower was 2006, which was right after the law changed, and there was a surge of bankruptcies in the previous year. And even the next lowest year of 2007 was at the top of a multi-generational credit and housing bubble.

Discussion here: Bankruptcy Filings Holding Steady for the First Half of 2017 - Credit Slips

Right, so it hasn't made back all the way down yet. THanks.

Then kindly explain how Trump allowing policies that have lifetime caps and don't cover preexisting conditions is going to reduce bankruptcies?

 

[JasperL]

Right, so it hasn't made back all the way down yet. Thanks.

You provided a graph that's identical to my table, then ignored that the low in 2006 is clearly at least partly due to that surge of filings before the law changed, which is completely obvious in the table and your graph. That more than 500,000 surge in bankruptcy filings in 2005 above the 2001-2004 trend line is impossible to miss if you're being intellectually honest. Give me a break..... :roll:

It's also intellectually dishonest to compare bankruptcies in the current era to the year before the credit and housing bubble crashed. Lots of economic problems were papered over with bubble level asset prices and credit available to anyone who could make an X on a piece of paper backed by a house.

I haven't seen data on medical bankruptcies, so your point that the ACA might have had little to no effect is possibly true, but you haven't shown that with the data you present. Seems reasonable to conclude that getting millions of people on the low end insured has had a significant effect on personal bankruptcies, given that we KNOW medical costs contribute to many bankruptcies, but I don't have the data to prove or, nor you the data to disprove it.

 

[Moderate Right]

From politico.



Trump will scrap critical Obamacare subsidy - POLITICO

It seems that healthcare will once again become a political issue in 2018.

Well, with Obamacare imploding, what did you expect? No matter what, it was going to be an issue. That was a no brainer.

 

[JasperL]

Then kindly explain how Trump allowing policies that have lifetime caps and don't cover preexisting conditions is going to reduce bankruptcies?

They're content just throwing rocks at Democrats and the ACA. It's obvious the GOP have no actual ideas for making things better, so they've apparently decided to destroy which they're quite good at, then hopefully blame it on Democrats ahead of the 2018 elections. And it might work.

 

[Fenton]

So this quote from the article is true or false: "there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare,"?

Absolutely true. What the Obama admin did was illegal.

A GAO report back in 2015 ( i think, maybe 2016 ) exposed billions of dollars in illegal payments to struggling exchanges and even the IRS warned the Obama admin that these payments were illegal
The IRS warned Obama it was illegal to pay ObamaCare subsidies to insurance companies

The ACAs cost sharing mechanism was always dependent on a requisite number of healthy younger Americans buying policies on the exchanges.

The CBOs 2010 projection was 22 million on the exchanges by 2016, but under 10 million actually purchased policies in 2016 and disporportionate number of them were older sicker Americans.

The extra cost of covering these people was supposed to be shifted over to rhe younger policy holders, but with not nearly enough buying policies that cost was refelcted in higher premiums and deducibles which kept even more young people off the exchanges.

Insurers were bleeding money selling policies on the exchnages and started to bail. Obama provided illegal payouts to stabilize this mess, to slow the inevitable death spiral so it wouldnt happen under his watch

 

[Taylor]

Then kindly explain how Trump allowing policies that have lifetime caps and don't cover preexisting conditions is going to reduce bankruptcies?

Why? I don't think it will have much of an effect.

 

[Fletch]

They're content just throwing rocks at Democrats and the ACA. It's obvious the GOP have no actual ideas for making things better, so they've apparently decided to destroy which they're quite good at, then hopefully blame it on Democrats ahead of the 2018 elections. And it might work.

Then if democrats are so good at creating, why don't they put a plan on the presidents desk?

 

[vegas giants]

Then if democrats are so good at creating, why don't they put a plan on the presidents desk?

Excuse me....who is in power?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Absolutely true. What the Obama admin did was illegal.

A GAO report back in 2015 ( i think, maybe 2016 ) exposed billions of dollars in illegal payments to struggling exchanges and even the IRS warned the Obama admin that these payments were illegal
The IRS warned Obama it was illegal to pay ObamaCare subsidies to insurance companies

The ACAs cost sharing mechanism was always dependent on a requisite number of healthy younger Americans buying policies on the exchanges.

The CBOs 2010 projection was 22 million on the exchanges by 2016, but under 10 million actually purchased policies in 2016 and disporportionate number of them were older sicker Americans.

The extra cost of covering these people was supposed to be shifted over to rhe younger policy holders, but with not nearly enough buying policies that cost was refelcted in higher premiums and deducibles which kept even more young people off the exchanges.

Insurers were bleeding money selling policies on the exchnages and started to bail. Obama provided illegal payouts to stabilize this mess, to slow the inevitable death spiral so it wouldnt happen under his watch

thank you for your response. I would appreciate anyone who is objecting to this action by Trump to challenge this point.

 

[Athanasius68]

That's actually not obvious at all. The military requires federal subsidies to corporations to function, so do roads, ports, airports, Medicare, Medicaid, and nearly every other government service.

Those are payments for services rendered.

 

[Athanasius68]

They're content just throwing rocks at Democrats and the ACA. It's obvious the GOP have no actual ideas for making things better, so they've apparently decided to destroy which they're quite good at, then hopefully blame it on Democrats ahead of the 2018 elections. And it might work.

As it exists, obamacare is collapsing. The GOP is proposing to fix the problem at its source-- the ACA.

 

[vegas giants]

thank you for your response. I would appreciate anyone who is objecting to this action by Trump to challenge this point.

The article was from 2016 which said the subsidies copuls continue under appeal. What was the ruling of the appeal?

 

[vegas giants]

Absolutely true. What the Obama admin did was illegal.

A GAO report back in 2015 ( i think, maybe 2016 ) exposed billions of dollars in illegal payments to struggling exchanges and even the IRS warned the Obama admin that these payments were illegal
The IRS warned Obama it was illegal to pay ObamaCare subsidies to insurance companies

The ACAs cost sharing mechanism was always dependent on a requisite number of healthy younger Americans buying policies on the exchanges.

The CBOs 2010 projection was 22 million on the exchanges by 2016, but under 10 million actually purchased policies in 2016 and disporportionate number of them were older sicker Americans.

The extra cost of covering these people was supposed to be shifted over to rhe younger policy holders, but with not nearly enough buying policies that cost was refelcted in higher premiums and deducibles which kept even more young people off the exchanges.

Insurers were bleeding money selling policies on the exchnages and started to bail. Obama provided illegal payouts to stabilize this mess, to slow the inevitable death spiral so it wouldnt happen under his watch

What was the ruling of the appeal?

 

[Taylor]

You provided a graph that's identical to my table,

Well, duh.

then ignored that the low in 2006 is clearly at least partly due to that surge of filings before the law changed, which is completely obvious in the table and your graph. That more than 500,000 surge in bankruptcy filings in 2005 above the 2001-2004 trend line is impossible to miss if you're being intellectually honest. Give me a break..... :roll:

Add a few 100,000 to 2006 and take away a few 100,000 from 2005. Doesn't change my argument one iota. Thanks for the nothing point - ignored and now addressed.

It's also intellectually dishonest to compare bankruptcies in the current era to the year before the credit and housing bubble crashed. Lots of economic problems were papered over with bubble level asset prices and credit available to anyone who could make an X on a piece of paper backed by a house.

I see, but not intellectually dishonest to crop out all of the data prior to 2009, add an "ACA Signed into Law" at the peak, and make like the ACA is completely responsible for a dramatic decline in bankruptcy.

You guys are ridiculous.

 

[Athanasius68]

OK, fine. There is nothing easier than pointing to someone else's work and saying, "You suck."

The hard part is doing the hard work and come up with something better. Now the incompetent Trump administration along with the lazy and stupid GOP majority is nuking it without any plan for a system that works better.

That system which existed before worked better. It wasnt collapsing as is the current one.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Funny that you left off the part of the graph that shows that bankruptcies simply reverted back to where they were in the years prior to 2009 - you know, pre-recession and pre-aca.

Aside from 2006 and 2007, when the economy was on fire and distorted by the bubble and change in bankruptcy law, personal bankruptcy filings annually haven't been under 1 million since the early 90's.

 

[JasperL]

Add a few 100,000 to 2006 and take away a few 100,000 from 2005. Doesn't change my argument one iota. Thanks for the nothing point - ignored and now addressed.

Well, it does change it. Without 2006, 2017 is an all time low, and the previous low years of 2007 and 2008 were at the top of the biggest bubble most of us will see in our lifetimes.

I see, but not intellectually dishonest to crop out all of the data prior to 2009, add an "ACA Signed into Law" at the peak, and make like the ACA is completely responsible for a dramatic decline in bankruptcy.

I was trying to have a civil conversation with you, which is why I said this basically conceding a decent point:

"I haven't seen data on medical bankruptcies, so your point that the ACA might have had little to no effect is possibly true, but you haven't shown that with the data you present. Seems reasonable to conclude that getting millions of people on the low end insured has had a significant effect on personal bankruptcies, given that we KNOW medical costs contribute to many bankruptcies, but I don't have the data to prove or, nor you the data to disprove it."

Not sure why you clipped that then made that comment above....:roll:

 

[Taylor]

Aside from 2006 and 2007, when the economy was on fire and distorted by the bubble and change in bankruptcy law, personal bankruptcy filings annually haven't been under 1 million since the early 90's.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The drop was due to a change in the bankruptcy law.

 

[JasperL]

That system which existed before worked better. It wasnt collapsing as is the current one.

Except we had something like 40-50 million uninsured, and all the trends were going in the wrong direction. Costs were escalating, the number of people insured on non-government plans was declining, the number on employer plans declining, any serious illness effectively made you uninsurable outside the employer market, and more.

If you had a job with good health benefits, and were reasonably healthy, the pre-ACA system worked great. If your employer didn't offer insurance and you were poor or had any serious medical problem in your past, you were f'd, and the number without employer insurance was growing, not shrinking, so the number f'd or potentially forever f'd was growing as well.

 

[MTAtech]

As it exists, obamacare is collapsing. The GOP is proposing to fix the problem at its source-- the ACA.

Vox: The CBO's other bombshell: the Affordable Care Act isn't imploding

CBO:

Under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the nongroup market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference. The subsidies to purchase coverage combined with the penalties paid by uninsured people stemming from the individual mandate are anticipated to cause sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures for the market to be stable.

Translating from wonk-ese, the subsidies offered to lower-income people under ACA are scaled both to income and to the local price of health insurance. Which means that for heavily subsidized customers, the higher premiums don’t drive people out of the marketplace. And there are enough young and healthy people who qualify for generous subsidies to ensure a stable long-term risk pool.

 

[JasperL]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The drop was due to a change in the bankruptcy law.

So it's your contention that the low bankruptcy rates of 2007 and 2008 were NOT affected by the tail end of a credit bubble where anyone who could draw an X could borrow against the value of a house with an inflated by the bubble asset value? :roll:

 

[MTAtech]

Aside from 2006 and 2007, when the economy was on fire and distorted by the bubble and change in bankruptcy law, personal bankruptcy filings annually haven't been under 1 million since the early 90's.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The drop was due to a change in the bankruptcy law.

The bankruptcy law was changed in 2005, yet bankruptcies rose for the next five years following its change.

 

[Taylor]

So it's your contention that the low bankruptcy rates of 2007 and 2008 were NOT affected by the tail end of a credit bubble where anyone who could draw an X could borrow against the value of a house with an inflated by the bubble asset value? :roll:

So it's your contention that the drop in the bankruptcy rate was NOT affected by legislation passed the year prior with the stated purpose of making it "more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy"?

See what I did there?