Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > ObamaCare
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

ObamaCare Discuss As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Surly Employer provider healthcare is still in the US healthcare system. If you really want to look ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 08-05-2017, 04:57 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,870
Thanks: 1,418
Thanked 2,073 Times in 1,632 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surly View Post
Employer provider healthcare is still in the US healthcare system. If you really want to look at it like that instead of a large group of employees, we need to have the largest group possible one giant group of American Citizens.
The largest group is the American People, not just the American Citizens that are a subgroup of the American People, but we're not employed by the United States government. The American People, permanent resident citizens and non-citizens alike, are the employers of the United States government.

Employer provided group health insurance is possible because the employer actually earns more profits by funding the health insurance as a component of the employee compensation package. Applying a total cost-benefit analysis to the costs of the insurance to the employer results in a positive financial benefit to the employer. The improved retention of their employees and their job knowledge as well as the benefits of having healthier workers creates a more productive workforce for the employer and that generates more profit per man-hour of labor for the employer.

The greatest gain that I can see is by addressing the health care (insurance) needs of part time employees where only 21% currently receive health insurance. The employers would fund insurance based upon a proportionate scale. Instead of subsidizing the individual for higher priced individual health insurance (based upon benefits provided) through Obamacare the government could subsidize the lower cost (based upon benefits provided) group health insurance provided for by the "part time" employer. The employee would receive the best possible insurance with the best benefits and the lowest possible insurance premium cost and the lowest possible government cost for the subsidy. At the same time the "part time" employers would benefit financially because of the improved health and retention of the employee.

Once again, employer provided group health insurance is far superior to the benefits provided for by Medicare/Medicaid and when Bernie Sanders calls for "Medicare for All" he's really setting a very low standard based upon high cost government funded health insurance providing low quality health care services for the American People.
__________________
“No Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 07:47 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Between Oz and a hard place
Posts: 9,901
Thanks: 7,692
Thanked 6,262 Times in 4,081 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surly View Post
Someday we will have single payer, we just have to try everything else first.
While I agree with your statement at it's face value, I DON'T want single payer, but that is likely where we will end up.

You do realize how much control over people's lives you will be handing over to a group (regardless of claimed political affiliation) that really doesn't give a **** about people's lives?

At least with multiple 'for profit' groups involved, one has the illusion of being able to make a choice, including not participating in 'insurance' at all. Once control of health care is handed over to the government, decisions can and will be made in the best interest of the government, not the citizens.

Piss someone in the government off? *click*, no necessary meds for you. You have reached a particular age, and have a condition that they deem too expensive considering the number of viable years you have left? *click* no treatment for you. I've seen it in action with my MIL, on Kiaser-Permenente (sp?) in California. She worked for the State.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 12:20 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 14,630
Thanks: 7,378
Thanked 8,226 Times in 5,128 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
This is one of the most ignorant of right-wing talking points. Insurance creates a pool of insured individuals where those that don't use the insurance benefits fund the expenditures of those that require the insurance benefits. So yes, "A" pays for "B's" medical needs because it's an insurance pool.



Another ignorant right-wing talking point. The CSR provided temporary funding to the insurance companies while the insurance pool was being created. This was a short term re-imbursement that allowed the insurance companies to provide the anticipated insurance premiums based upon the future insurance pool that would include both those that required benefits as well as those that didn't require benefits.

The CSR was the "low cost" alternative to having the insurance companies establish much higher rates where the federal subsidies would have been significantly higher. As noted for 2017 the CSR was anticipated to be about $7 billion and without the CSR the increased funding of subsidies based upon higher premiums would have been over $9 billion. The CSR's reduced federal spending.
Ignorant talking points? Look in a mirror.

Voluntary insurance pools funds on the basis of risk management Obamacare is nothing like that. Obamacare prohibits underwriting on the basis of risk, pre existing conditions. It is like insisting the home owner with a house on fire must be charged the same premium as everyone else.

But wait, Obamacare also prevents formation of a loss pool by requiring insurance companies to pay out 80% or more of their premiums in benefits. Obamacare needs the CSR to offset its politicized meddling in the market. It is yet another example of government meddling creating a problem Democrats propose to fix by plundering the Treasury.

Propping up insurance companies damaged by Obamacare's toxic meddling with a CSR subsidy is not a short term solution. It is an ongoing problem thanks to Obamacare's failure. No wonder the "solution" cannot be evaluated for a decade or more after the rosey promises of a loss pool are forgotten.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 12:30 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,870
Thanks: 1,418
Thanked 2,073 Times in 1,632 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
While I agree with your statement at it's face value, I DON'T want single payer, but that is likely where we will end up.

You do realize how much control over people's lives you will be handing over to a group (regardless of claimed political affiliation) that really doesn't give a **** about people's lives?

At least with multiple 'for profit' groups involved, one has the illusion of being able to make a choice, including not participating in 'insurance' at all. Once control of health care is handed over to the government, decisions can and will be made in the best interest of the government, not the citizens.

Piss someone in the government off? *click*, no necessary meds for you. You have reached a particular age, and have a condition that they deem too expensive considering the number of viable years you have left? *click* no treatment for you. I've seen it in action with my MIL, on Kiaser-Permenente (sp?) in California. She worked for the State.
Typically with single-payer the insurance companies remain to provide supplemental coverage above and beyond what the government offers. This option is obviously only available for those with money that will always receive the best health care.

Once again the primary problem with single-payer is that it destroys the foundation for the best insurance being provided to the majority of working age Americans - Employer provided group health insurance that's accepted by all medical professionals and that covers not just health and prescriptions but also vision and dental that can be cost prohibitive to lower income households.
__________________
“No Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 01:23 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Between Oz and a hard place
Posts: 9,901
Thanks: 7,692
Thanked 6,262 Times in 4,081 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Typically with single-payer the insurance companies remain to provide supplemental coverage above and beyond what the government offers. This option is obviously only available for those with money that will always receive the best health care.

Once again the primary problem with single-payer is that it destroys the foundation for the best insurance being provided to the majority of working age Americans - Employer provided group health insurance that's accepted by all medical professionals and that covers not just health and prescriptions but also vision and dental that can be cost prohibitive to lower income households.
Unless the 'employer based health insurance' platform is drastically revamped, it will, just as the PPACA did, put the weight of employee costs on the employer. Not only with the actual costs of premiums, but the administrative burden on employers for businesses that have high turnover.

It's time to revamp the entire system, and stop making insurance the goal, but improve not only the delivery of healthCARE, but remove the dependence on insurance as a means of payment for the average working person.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 02:41 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,870
Thanks: 1,418
Thanked 2,073 Times in 1,632 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Voluntary insurance pools funds on the basis of risk management Obamacare is nothing like that. Obamacare prohibits underwriting on the basis of risk, pre existing conditions. It is like insisting the home owner with a house on fire must be charged the same premium as everyone else.
The "pool" includes all people from low to high risk to pre-existing conditions.

There are no complaints from the insurance companies related to the risk pool established under the ACA. The insurance companies are merely waiting for the individual mandate and government marketing (that Trump nefariously ended after it was already paid for wasting $5 million) to fill the insurance pool. It will probably take ten years before the insurance pool if fully filled to where it's self-maintaining.

The question has to be asked why "Republicans" are concerned about the insurance company risk pool when the insurance companies aren't finding any real problem related to it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
But wait, Obamacare also prevents formation of a loss pool by requiring insurance companies to pay out 80% or more of their premiums in benefits.
A "loss pool" is created over time and a requirement for insurance companies to pay out 80% benefits does not prevent the insurance company from creating a loss pool.

Once again no complaints from the insurance companies so why are Republicans fabricating a problem that the insurance companies haven't identified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Obamacare needs the CSR to offset its politicized meddling in the market. It is yet another example of government meddling creating a problem Democrats propose to fix by plundering the Treasury.
A market only exists when there are customers but those predominately being insured by Obamacare were not customers because they couldn't afford the insurance.

The CSR only cover up to 80% of the losses by an insurance company and insurance companies are not interested in losing money under Obamacare. This is a short term measure until the Individual Mandate fills the insurance pool adequately to off-set the losses caused by those with existing health problems being the first to sign up for insurance. Once again it can logically be estimated that the insurance pools will be filled with the balance of high cost participates and low cost participants within ten years and the CSR's disappear.

While the Insurance companies support the temporary CSR's to keep premiums reasonable the insurance companies are not complaining about any interventionism in the markets by the government.

There's no plundering of the Treasury so long as the taxation is in place to fund the CSR's. Of note "average" Americans are not responsible for the funding of Obamacare so why are rank-in-file Republicans complaining about taxes that they don't even pay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Propping up insurance companies damaged by Obamacare's toxic meddling with a CSR subsidy is not a short term solution. It is an ongoing problem thanks to Obamacare's failure. No wonder the "solution" cannot be evaluated for a decade or more after the rosey promises of a loss pool are forgotten.
Once again the insurance companies are not interested in losing money and then collection the CSR's. The insurance companies are involved in Obamacare to make money, not lose money, and the CSR's are not a long term proposition.

We could shorten the length of time that the CSR's are required by two measures working together.

1. Significantly increase the subsidies that will reduce the monthly premium costs to the households under Obamacare. Simply raising the tax 1% on income above $250,000 for a couple ($200,000 for individual) would provide the funding and 99% of the American people wouldn't be paying a dime for the higher subsidies. Less cost to the insured will increase enrollment.

2. Dramatically increasing the penalty for not enrolling in Obamacare so that the cost of not enrolling soon exceeds the cost of enrolling.

We could logically cut the filling of the "insurance pool" that's required to end the CSR's from 2024 down to 2020 or 2019 if we're aggressive enough to fill the insurance pool.

Once again none of this is being complained about by the insurance companies or even the participants in Obamacare. These are fabricated arguments that aren't addressing any of the actual problems.
__________________
“No Tribe has a right to sell, even to each other, much less strangers.... a country. Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Tecumseh Shawnee
The Native Americans understood the Natural Right "Of Property" that John Locke attempted to explain. No person can own the land, the air, or the water because they belong to all people. We can only use the land, the air, and the water.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2017, 07:46 PM
Surly's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midwest
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,628
Thanks: 2,075
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,844 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

It is, truly, an illusion, at least with politicians you can vote them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
While I agree with your statement at it's face value, I DON'T want single payer, but that is likely where we will end up.

You do realize how much control over people's lives you will be handing over to a group (regardless of claimed political affiliation) that really doesn't give a **** about people's lives?

At least with multiple 'for profit' groups involved, one has the illusion of being able to make a choice, including not participating in 'insurance' at all. Once control of health care is handed over to the government, decisions can and will be made in the best interest of the government, not the citizens.

Piss someone in the government off? *click*, no necessary meds for you. You have reached a particular age, and have a condition that they deem too expensive considering the number of viable years you have left? *click* no treatment for you. I've seen it in action with my MIL, on Kiaser-Permenente (sp?) in California. She worked for the State.
__________________
Originally Posted by MrLiberty View Post
Geez surly, are you that blind or just that dumb.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Surly For This Useful Post:
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2017, 11:41 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 730
Thanks: 994
Thanked 600 Times in 325 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surly View Post
It is, truly, an illusion, at least with politicians you can vote them out.
And with a private company, you can drop them and sign on with a different one. And you don't have to wait until the next election to do so. Also, you may only vote out the one that represents your district, and he/she may be of like mind with you. Then what? You are at the mercy of the rest of the country and their opinions based on their personal circumstances.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2017, 11:54 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,774
Thanks: 8,635
Thanked 3,423 Times in 2,250 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

This all points to a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, as regarding the proper role of government.

Ever since FDR, those to the left of center have seen government as a sort of Santa Claus, distributing goodies to the American people. Government, according to this model, is truly beneficent.

The opposite view is that government--even the very best government--is inherently evil. But most conservatives are not anarchists. We simply view government as a necessary evil--far better than the chaos that would certainly result from anarchy.

We conservatives would far prefer that government just get out of the way, and not even attempt to do any good for the American people.

The closer we can get to nineteenth-century-style American government, the better, I believe.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2017, 01:30 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Between Oz and a hard place
Posts: 9,901
Thanks: 7,692
Thanked 6,262 Times in 4,081 Posts
Default Re: As Trump Threatens Obamacare, Bipartisan Group of House Members Plots a Fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surly View Post
It is, truly, an illusion, at least with politicians you can vote them out.
I don't believe it would be the 'votable' politicians who would be making those decisions, that would make it too easy.....
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bipartisan, fix, group, house, members, obamacare, plots, threatens, trump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0