3rd Attempt: GOP/Trump Repeal & Replace ACA and Trump lie about pre-exist coverage

Yes, the transition will require great deal of planning, but it will come sooner or later, because the current system is just not sustainable.

 

Congrats to turtle! His attempts to make sure the system fails are yielding fetid fruit, his favorite kind.

 

moderate senators are fawned over by the media, but they are the easiest to buy off with cash (ACA was the same way)

a list of bribes for moderate senators in the latest senate bill

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/14/5-backroom-deals-inside-latest-senate-health-care-bill/

 

As opposed to buying off conservatives with the Cruz Amendment because it sounds good, despite the fact that everyone in the industry agrees that it can't actually work. Cruz and Lee are just concerned about checking Obamacare Repeal boxes instead of functional policy. The conservative AHIP along with BCBS are the latest to completely blast the plan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...4b0d6341fe9111c?4wz&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

...

The insurers noted that a key element in any market-based coverage system is “risk adjustment” ― basically, an arrangement in which insurers that end up with more healthy beneficiaries relinquish some of their income, while those with less healthy beneficiaries get an injection of funds. But risk adjustment “can only work when there are uniform benefit requirements across the market,” the insurers warned ― and, under the Cruz proposal, benefits would vary wildly in the unregulated part of the market.

...

But Friday night’s blast from the insurer groups is noteworthy because AHIP, in particular, has a relatively conservative outlook and tends to have close relationships with Republicans. Among health care groups weighing in on repeal proposals over the last few months, insurers have been among the more reserved ― generally offering a nuanced mix of support and criticism.

That changed Friday, just in time for a weekend when a handful of holdout Republicans have said they will study the bill and consider how to vote on it.

 

Ted Cruz is a real son of a b****. That guy. Why is the Republican Party always about screwing the have nots in favor of the haves? Whether it's taxes, health care, schools, voting, civil rights, etc. Just appalling.

 

of course insurance companies won't like a bill that forces them to compete in the marketplace, they enjoy an entrenched position

regulatory capture is a real thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

if competitors can offer alternative (i.e. cheaper) plans, that scares big insurers

as for AHIP being a conservative group, this is their CEO, she basically ran Obamacare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Tavenner

 

Except they can't. Smaller insurers aren't supporting this either. Guess what? If you take all the healthy people and give them cheaper plans and put unhealthy people in a separate pool, their insurance will be non-viable. Do you actually think that is not true?

Yet again, with around 200 countries around the world with all sorts of different economic philosophies, why can't you point to a single system that functions well the way you believe it should?

Beyond that, *no one* with any stake in this process supports this plan - not doctors, not hospitals, not insurers, not patient advocates, not states, not the general public, etc. Only you and Ted Cruz. If you think this plan is better for some group of people, who are those people and why don't they support it?

 

It seems like having cheaper plans available for the people who have low health care needs while those with greater health care needs have more expensive plans only makes logical sense. It also costs more to insure a Ferrari than a Honda Civic and a 10,000 sq ft house than a 1,500 sq ft house.

 

Major is arguing that giving insurers more freedom hurts them.

If the alternatives aren't profitable for the insurer, they won't be offered.

Big insurers want to be treated like a public utility, with a guaranteed stream of income and no threat of competitors offering alternatives. They want everyone forced to offer the same thing.

 

Nobody dies because they couldn't afford insurance on their Ferrari. In this case, the health care equivalent of buying a Ferrari is having a child with a brain tumor. The difference of course is buying a Ferrari is a choice while having a brain tumor isn't. Health care cannot be approximated to other insurance markets. I don't even understand why you don't understand that.

 

Your decisions on whether to purchase a house or car account for the cost of insurance - health insurance is not treated the same way. Perhaps you and Commodore want to live in a different type of society than the US, but we have made a decision a long time ago that health care is more of an essential good than a fancy car or a large house. Trying to equate the two is simply disingenuous or living in a fantasy world.

 

No - I'm arguing it hurts the public. Health care is not, and will never be, a free market - as a country, we've decided that is a ridiculous idea. It will always be regulated - you are just arguing for it to be regulated really poorly.

I've asked at least 8 times, so it's really pretty telling that you still can't answer the basic question of why you can't find a model health care system that works as well as you think your free market would. It's amusing that all you can really do to support your arguments are find tweets from others or one line statements from Libertarianism 101, without any knowledge of how to apply anything to the real world. You sound like the typical 18 year old that reads a few books and thinks they know everything, but can never make anything work in real life.