CNBC: Republicans have a new plan to repeal Obamacare — and here it is

[NightFox]

There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid.

Based on what provision of the U.S. Constitution does the federal government have the authority to mandate that a private enterprise provide insurance to anybody? I mean other than a heavily bastardized interpretation of Article I Section 8 "commerce clause" . Strikes me as both unconstitutional and immoral for the federal government to tell any individual or private enterprise that they MUST sell their services to anybody or face punishment, let alone forcing them to sell their services at an artificially deflated price and thereby increase the prices for everybody else (aka just another form of theft).

Let the market devise a system for offering those with "pre-existing conditions" insurance at rates that are justified by the actuarial risks.

 

[Doc1]

There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid.

Unenforceable. Can you imagine that bureaucracy? Hell they can't THIS system straight.

Unenforceable? There already is a provision for preexisting medical conditions. All I am proposing is that, as of a certain date, currently insured people would be able to roll over their coverage into a private plan without penalty. After that date, people would have to voluntarily enroll in an insurance plan or else rely on Medicaid for the indigent.

"There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid."

Looking at this statement, as worded you have one person on TWO plans.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude, you noted this from the proposed amendment:

Insurance Market Provisions
The MacArthur Amendment would:

• Reinstate Essential Health Benefits as the federal standard
• Maintain the following provisions of the AHCA:
• Prohibition on denying coverage due to preexisting medical conditions
• Prohibition on discrimination based on gender
• Guaranteed issue of coverage to all applicants
• Guaranteed renewability of coverage
• Coverage of dependents on parents' plan up to age 26
• Community Rating Rules, except for limited waivers

....But you omitted this:

Limited Waiver Option
The amendment would create an option for states to obtain Limited Waivers from certain federal
standards, in the interest of lowering premium costs and expanding the number of insured persons.
States could seek Limited Waivers for:

• Essential Health Benefits
• Community rating rules, except for the following categories, which are not waivable:
• Gender
• Age (except for reductions of the 5:1 age ratio previously established)
• Health Status (unless the state has established a high risk pool or is participating in a
• federal high risk pool)

Limited Waiver Requirements
States must attest that the purpose of their requested waiver is to reduce premium costs, increase the number of persons with healthcare coverage, or advance another benefit to the public interest in the state, including the guarantee of coverage for persons with pre-existing medical conditions. The Secretary shall approve applications within 90 days of determining that an application is complete.​

I don't think I've recently seen a more comically impotent piece of legislation. What is the point of "reinstating" provisions that can be eliminated by merely asserting that by removing the provision, premium costs would be lower and the request for the waiver is, not accurate or factually probable, but merely "complete?" What that last sentence means is if a state asks for the waiver, so long as they properly, completely, filled out the form requesting the waiver, they'll receive it.

It's going to be fun -- literally fun and funny, if I'm honest -- to see whether people, Congresspeople in particular see this amendment as a solution. If it is accepted as one, woe are we the American people. Just how stupid can one be to think one is passing a good bill when that bill says, in effect, these are the provisions health insurance policies must include, except if the state in which one lives asks that they not include those provisions

 

[NightFox]

What budget? You mean the faux one that's currently running over a half a trillion dollars a year in the red and doesn't even address the gigantic future obligation problems with entitlements? What the heck, if you're going to impoverish future generations might as well do it full tilt..... warp speed captain! spend, borrow, print ! buy votes, screw the dollar!

As far as the insurers go, this just makes their predicament worse, they are still forced to provide coverage to all applicants yet won't even be able to rely on the (weak) individual mandate incentive and risk corridors to mitigate the effects of this idiotic scheme.

Right, so far as I've heard, this only makes the problem of congressional approval worse.
I'm not there, though. They may have something in the works, but where are the improvements.

"Improvements"? Do you really expect "improvements" from Washington? After all WASHINGTON created the lions share of the problems in the health insurance and provisioning markets in the first place. This whole Obamacare->Trumpcare imbroglio is just an example of politicians attempting to cure the cancer they caused with more cancer.

Do yourself a favor and don't expect any "improvements" to the current mess, just expect that you'll get a bigger mess with a different label stuck on the front of it, that way you won't be disappointed.

What is "provisioning markets?"

Healthcare provisioning, the part of the market that actually PROVIDES healthcare, aka doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc..,

I don't understand what you're saying.

For starters how much do you figure all the regulations, taxes and currency manipulation that is undertaken by the federal government costs both the insurance and provisioning markets? Not to mention the mis-allocation of capital it causes via short-circuiting of the pricing mechanism thus wasting resources and hampering innovation.

The primary reason medical care is so damn expensive and price inflation is so high is that every particle of the healthcare market is heavily regulated and taxed while at the same time having demand artificially inflated (via price controls and subsidies) and supply artificially deflated (via capital mis-allocation and legal barriers to entry).

The current system is completely bass-ackwards from an efficiency standpoint.

 

[jwoodie]

"There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid."

Looking at this statement, as worded you have one person on TWO plans.

Succinct statements often require some acumen on the part of the reader.

 

[Doc1]

"There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid."

Looking at this statement, as worded you have one person on TWO plans.

Succinct statements often require some acumen on the part of the reader.

Actually it needed to be written more clear, you missed the boat there.

 

[whitehall]

As the late great Yogi Berra would say, "it's deja-vu all over again. The desperate criminal enterprise known as the mainstream media is using the same old tired playbook of breathless editorials based on unidentified and unverified alleged "informants" allegedly "deep in the Trump administration" to promote anger and resentment for an administration that is barely 3 months old and is still setting up. The problem for the mainstream media is that Americans are better informed today and the people who are interested in politics scoff at editorials disguised as information allegedly gleaned from unidentified "informants"

 

[busybee01]

People will still lose coverage. Basing subsidies on age rather than income will put insurance out of the reach of low income people. There apparently is no change in the subsidies. Republicans want to pass this because they want to use the money to pay for tax cuts.

 

[bendog]

Right, so far as I've heard, this only makes the problem of congressional approval worse.
I'm not there, though. They may have something in the works, but where are the improvements.

"Improvements"? Do you really expect "improvements" from Washington? After all WASHINGTON created the lions share of the problems in the health insurance and provisioning markets in the first place. This whole Obamacare->Trumpcare imbroglio is just an example of politicians attempting to cure the cancer they caused with more cancer.

Do yourself a favor and don't expect any "improvements" to the current mess, just expect that you'll get a bigger mess with a different label stuck on the front of it, that way you won't be disappointed.

What is "provisioning markets?"

Healthcare provisioning, the part of the market that actually PROVIDES healthcare, aka doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc..,

I don't understand what you're saying.

For starters how much do you figure all the regulations, taxes and currency manipulation that is undertaken by the federal government costs both the insurance and provisioning markets? Not to mention the mis-allocation of capital it causes via short-circuiting of the pricing mechanism thus wasting resources and hampering innovation.

The primary reason medical care is so damn expensive and price inflation is so high is that every particle of the healthcare market is heavily regulated and taxed while at the same time having demand artificially inflated (via price controls and subsidies) and supply artificially deflated (via capital mis-allocation and legal barriers to entry).

The current system is completely bass-ackwards from an efficiency standpoint.

The current system is inefficient because HC providers are rewarded for providing more care rather than for producing healthy patients. But its never going to be a consumer regulated market, and shouldn't be, because no consumer has the ability to choose the "best" artificial heart or surgeon.

The tea party movement pretty much ended any debate we were having about how to reform the market. Some like Benson in Utah proposed basically setting a dollar value for caring for each person, and letting markets figure out how to do that. They got primaried by idealogues like Mike Lee. The reason Obamacare isn't getting repealed is because when the dems opened up Medicaid expansion, people got coverage, and gop states don't want to end that now. Gop states also got waivers to allow them to use federal dollars for varying insurance policies. And most dems are not happy because single payer has some advantages in efficiency. For example, in Britain primary care docs get a better pay scale compared to "specialists" than they get here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump and the GOP are just putting mayonnaise on a shit sandwich, because, hey,

who doesn't love mayonnaise!??

 

[bendog]

Trump and the GOP are just putting mayonnaise on a shit sandwich, because, hey,

who doesn't love mayonnaise!??

It covers up the nasty taste of the veggies on the Sammy!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The box the GOP got themselves into was that they ran on a slogan, repeal and replace, which after the years of propaganda bashing the ACA for this or that, sounded awesome,

but then the truth behind the slogan hit. There is no GOP plan (i.e. a plan that Republicans can vote for) that will be seen more favorably than the ACA is now.

 

[jwoodie]

Basing subsidies on age rather than income will put insurance out of the reach of low income people. There apparently is no change in the subsidies.

OxyMoron?

 

[NightFox]

"Improvements"? Do you really expect "improvements" from Washington? After all WASHINGTON created the lions share of the problems in the health insurance and provisioning markets in the first place. This whole Obamacare->Trumpcare imbroglio is just an example of politicians attempting to cure the cancer they caused with more cancer.

Do yourself a favor and don't expect any "improvements" to the current mess, just expect that you'll get a bigger mess with a different label stuck on the front of it, that way you won't be disappointed.

What is "provisioning markets?"

Healthcare provisioning, the part of the market that actually PROVIDES healthcare, aka doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc..,

I don't understand what you're saying.

For starters how much do you figure all the regulations, taxes and currency manipulation that is undertaken by the federal government costs both the insurance and provisioning markets? Not to mention the mis-allocation of capital it causes via short-circuiting of the pricing mechanism thus wasting resources and hampering innovation.

The primary reason medical care is so damn expensive and price inflation is so high is that every particle of the healthcare market is heavily regulated and taxed while at the same time having demand artificially inflated (via price controls and subsidies) and supply artificially deflated (via capital mis-allocation and legal barriers to entry).

The current system is completely bass-ackwards from an efficiency standpoint.

The current system is inefficient because HC providers are rewarded for providing more care rather than for producing healthy patients. But its never going to be a consumer regulated market, and shouldn't be, because no consumer has the ability to choose the "best" artificial heart or surgeon.

You're basing that assumption on what evidence? If the consumer can't make the choices with respect to how he or she spends his/her own resources on healthcare who can? the folks that can't manage to balance their own checkbook in government? The rest of the economy runs just fine when consumers make their own choices why is it that you appear to think that healthcare is some sort of a magical commodity which defies all known market forces?

The tea party movement pretty much ended any debate we were having about how to reform the market.

Ummm.. no they didn't because they were captured by the same mindset that prevails today, namely that the federal government needs to remain deeply embedded in the healthcare market which is simply saying "let's do the same thing that hasn't been working only we'll do it while wearing a different shirt".

As long as we continue to operate in the current mode nothing is going to improve, it's only going to continue to decay. You want positive change in healthcare quality, availability and prices, get the federal government out of the picture.

"You don't fight the market" -- Danny Argyropoulos, Rogue Trader

 

[bendog]

What is "provisioning markets?"

Healthcare provisioning, the part of the market that actually PROVIDES healthcare, aka doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc..,

I don't understand what you're saying.

For starters how much do you figure all the regulations, taxes and currency manipulation that is undertaken by the federal government costs both the insurance and provisioning markets? Not to mention the mis-allocation of capital it causes via short-circuiting of the pricing mechanism thus wasting resources and hampering innovation.

The primary reason medical care is so damn expensive and price inflation is so high is that every particle of the healthcare market is heavily regulated and taxed while at the same time having demand artificially inflated (via price controls and subsidies) and supply artificially deflated (via capital mis-allocation and legal barriers to entry).

The current system is completely bass-ackwards from an efficiency standpoint.

The current system is inefficient because HC providers are rewarded for providing more care rather than for producing healthy patients. But its never going to be a consumer regulated market, and shouldn't be, because no consumer has the ability to choose the "best" artificial heart or surgeon.

You're basing that assumption on what evidence? If the consumer can't make the choices with respect to how he or she spends his/her own resources on healthcare who can? the folks that can't manage to balance their own checkbook in government? The rest of the economy runs just fine when consumers make their own choices why is it that you appear to think that healthcare is some sort of a magical commodity which defies all known market forces?

The tea party movement pretty much ended any debate we were having about how to reform the market.

Ummm.. no they didn't because they were captured by the same mindset that prevails today, namely that the federal government needs to remain deeply embedded in the healthcare market which is simply saying "let's do the same thing that hasn't been working only we'll do it while wearing a different shirt".

As long as we continue to operate in the current mode nothing is going to improve, it's only going to continue to decay. You want positive change in healthcare quality, availability and prices, get the federal government out of the picture.

"You don't fight the market" -- Danny Argyropoulos, Rogue Trader

I'm basing my opinion on the known effects of pharmaceutical advertising. Consumers make choices on factors that have nothing to do with treatment effectiveness. If you need a new knee, you have no educational background to judge the effectiveness of a particular knee for your body or injury. Whoever sold you on that claptrap needs to be punished.

What was possible, before the gop walked away from negotiating because the TPM sold a minority of voters in some states on the notion that gummint shouldn't be in HC, despite the fact they it's been in HC since at least 1942, was a market based approach. Get rid of all employer sponsored care and Medicaid for people who are only there because of financial status, and give each person X dolllars, and have HMO's "bid" on providing comprehensive care. And advertise which HMO offers the most with the fewest bad outcomes.

But it's done now Fox. The states took the Medicaid money, and they don't want to give it back. We'll never get 51 senators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There should be a grandfathering provision for existing medical conditions, but new medical conditions should be covered by voluntary insurance or Medicaid.

No. And no catastrophic health insurance provisions, either.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress is proposing what it does best.......name changes of existing laws.

Eight years of, "nothing but repeal"; merely to get, "Obama Care lite"?

 

[NightFox]

I'm basing my opinion on the known effects of pharmaceutical advertising. Consumers make choices on factors that have nothing to do with treatment effectiveness. If you need a new knee, you have no educational background to judge the effectiveness of a particular knee for your body or injury.

That's what I hire experts for and in the information age discerning between well qualified experts with a good track record and those that are mediocre is easier than ever before if one takes personal responsibility for doing so, you already have HEAVY government regulation of the health care market, how's that working out? If consumers are forced to and given the opportunity to make their own informed choices (as well as bearing the FULL consequences of poor choices) they'll do just fine, if we continue down this road of offloading the responsibility to government then we'll continue to get worse and worse results.

You're arguing for a continuation of the failing system that we have today and thus refusing to think outside the ever shrinking box of ... "People can't think for themselves thus need government to do their thinking for them". At the very least we need to free up the States to experiment with Co-Op markets that are free from Federal interference and let consumers decide if they want to opt into them, let's see how well they compete with the hyper-regulated market, I'm betting they'll blow the doors off the government run system.

 

[Claudette]

They should kick the whole thing back to the private sector where it belongs.

 

[nat4900]

They should kick the whole thing back to the private sector where it belongs.

....sure, the private sector was doing a "stellar" job before with their death panels while ensuring that HC insurers CEOs got yearly new Lear jets.......How fucked up you right wingers must be....but you must already know that. LOL