Once you get past the headline in the article, the actual plan could be functional while being more inline with fiscal conservative principles. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-package-235343 My quick summary and thoughts Replace income based subsidies with tax breaks based on age - obviously, this helps you if you're above a certain income and I'll more likely to personally benefit (fan of) but it's likely worse for individuals that needs the help the most which goes against my progressive alignment (not a fan) Implementation of the "Cadillac Tax" - Not a big fan of this (largely liberal) way of collecting the taxes. If it means more out of the pocket, I'm "ok" with. If it means the changes in most plans would be raising the cap or uncapping total employee contribution or capping total actual dollars the insurance covers, I'm not a big fan of. Insurance is suppose to help in catastrophes. Give me a cost that a can budget around while protecting me from the truly bad. Use the money above to create a high risk pool/state innovation grants - likely meaning lower cost for lower risk individuals while still covering most of the pre-existingcondition folks (on paper sounds ok). Rollback Medicaid Expansion - once again it's likely worse for individuals that needs it the most. Personally likely to benefit me right now but goes against my progressive political alignment. Remove planned parenthood fund - come on guys, seriously this -ish again? Allow insurers to charge older customers up to five times as much as their younger counterparts, not sure if I like this. I wonder how that compares with the: The Affordable Care Act will, as of 2014, expand employers' ability to reward employees who meet health status goals by participating in wellness programs--and, in effect, to require employees who don't meet these goals to pay more for their employer-sponsored health coverage It's actually a personal responsibility/accountability version of health care (which should be a Conservative principle). Penalties for individuals who fail to maintain coverage continuously. If their coverage lapses and they decide to re-enroll, they would have to pay a 30 percent boost in premiums for a year - Actually a really big fan of this. Overall, the changes seems to keep key parts of what a "safety net" government can do, while allowing for more variance on how to pay and how much government helps. I think on a high level this plan could work just as well if not better than the current system but let's see what really gets passed.
This is a horrible idea. It asks poor people to front money that they don't have to get insurance, on the promise that they'll get back in April of the following year. The end result in reality is people just having to skip insurance. And the amounts aren't tied to the actual cost of insurance, so most people won't actually be able to afford it as insurance costs go up well beyond any inflation measure they might put in there. Cadillac tax is fine, and economists on both sides agree it would help bend the cost curve. Two problems: it already was implemented (to be phased in) and everyone hated it. But it makes insurance most like you describe - helping in catastrophes. The overly generous benefit plans just provide more up front (free doc visits, no deductible, etc). There's still overall spending caps on most or all of these plans to protect from catastrophe. Again, horrible. We had high risk pools in lots of states prior to Obama. They sucked and don't work. There's no "innovation" there - these are people that are really expensive to cover. There's no way around that. It's great on paper - but it just means that the government is going to pay for all the unhealthy people. 100% opposite of a fiscally conservative solution. And "pre-existing condition" is a really vague term that doesn't work so simply. I sprained my ankle maybe 10 years ago. Prior to Obamacare, insurers would cover me but not my ankle. Am I high-risk? Or do I just get insurance but no ankle coverage? Do I get high-risk ankle coverage? It's just not as simple as throwing all those people into a separate pool. I'm generally OK with this. But it doesn't change Obamacare in principle. It's just a random number factor - going from 3 to 5. This is a really poor substitute for a mandate, and doesn't really work. A healthy 20 year old is still incentivized to skip insurance and just pay that extra 30% if something catastrophic happens and he or she needs care, and will still come out ahead. Basically, this plan sucks all around. Healthcare coverage is about 2 things: cost and access. This plan doesn't improve either in any way, and actually makes both worse. It tries to keep the popular parts of Obamacare without the unpopular ones, but there's a reason those unpopular ones were included. It's the only way the thing works. It's not like they stuck taxes or rules in there just for fun.
Meh, this plan is not market driven enough. This is basically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Obamacare was an absolute travesty and this is only slightly better. Any sustainable plan should be market driven, encouraging competition. Where are the ideas about buying insurance across state lines? Also, while we may still not have all the details, I see nothing about tort reform. A market driven plan with strong tort reform is the best way to go. Another thing is "Cadillac" taxes are stupid. Why punish people and/or companies for providing good healthcare plans. This should be encouraged. Also, time to get this economy cranked up. Time to cut taxes and regulations. Once we finally get this economy really rolling, as opposed to artificially propping it up with quantitative easing and low interest rates, jobs will come. With better jobs come better healthcare plans.
I'll get to dissecting this plan in a second but one thing I have to point out- Free market capitalist Republicans (what is left of them anyways) need to push their representatives drawing up both this replacement plan AND immigration reform to include incentives for expanding our health care provider base that includes an influx of health care professionals incentivized to come from overseas. Trump Immigration reform will likely create further reduction in health care professionals in our health care workforce which further drives up the price of healthcare for all of us. Talk to anyone that works in health care recruitment and they will tell you firsthand that they just don't have the bodies to fill needs especially in middle America where very few choose to live. If you believe in free market capitalism in health care driving down costs due to competition the workforce issue needs to be addressed. Competition in the workforce is a big part of free market capitalism that makes that system work. The Republicans want to push their agenda in one area, and then undermine it in another area. Makes no sense to me, and the ACTUAL Free Market Capitalist Republicans that are left need to be speaking up, or they will just continue to undermine their own agenda with conflicting political & economic ideologies. Here's some reading material if you don't want to take my word for it- https://www.scientificamerican.com/...an-worsen-u-s-doctor-shortage-hurt-hospitals/
Can we get rid of the old calls for plans of TORT reform, and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines? Tort reform has been shown to not significantly if at all lower the costs of healthcare. And why would a patient in Texas have any use for a plan that required them to drive to New Mexico to be seen by a doctor because the insurance company could get better rates in NM? It really is a silly idea.
This has been the least effective presidency I have ever seen, up to this point. They have accomplished almost nothing, with both houses of Congress on their side!
Bobby can't stop living in the past. Topic: Trump does something Bobby: Let's not talk about Trump, let's talk about what Obama did.
Just reminding people that they are whining about things that aren't new. Providing context. I don't expect you to understand or follow along, you not eating the crayons is about as much as I hope for from you.
To someone as limited as yourself? No, there's nothing valuable you could glean from context or history. Fortunately we do have people here who operate on a much higher level than you are capable of and they can get something out of it.
But ... but ... but ... Doctor Red Duke left a message on my home phone twenty years promising that tort reform would fix health care in the great state of Texas. Are you now saying Dr Red Doctor was nothing but lying political huckster?
How would you know? Hey Bobster the Not-As-Great-As-He-Thinks-He-Is, drop the condescension. It really got old around the second time you tried it.
Not really, Ah yes, so much was being done during the Obama administration before the evil Republicans took over congress and forced a little bit of fiscal responsibility upon the Obama. That's when all of the problems started. Before that they were doing amazing things like passing a healthcare bill that is set to collapse only a few years after it was fully instituted and......oh yeah nothing else. It will be fair to criticize the Trump administration if nothing gets passed during the first 2 years or if the only thing passed is such an awful thing that it becomes one of the major problems facing the next administration, but don't forget that Obama essentially did nothing other than hand down a problem piece of legislation. Crying about Trump not fixing the mess that Obama created just a month into his time in office isn't really fair though IMO.
