[kenberg]

WaPo of course reported on the new health care bill.

https://www.washingt...m=.f88ca9005270

I said there will be questions.

Quote

For instance, the measure does not eliminate the ACA’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance, although the penalty for not having coverage would be erased. In its place, insurers would be allowed to charge 30 percent higher premiums for one year to customers who have had a gap in coverage of roughly two months or more.

Is this accurate? I imagine myself as 30 years old and in good health, holding a job that does not help pay health insurance. So I have to pay for my own. It costs X dollars a year. But I am healthy. So I don't bother yo get it. In the first four months I save X/3 dollars by not having this insurance. The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes. Should that misfortune occur, I will then start paying the X dollars a year for my insurance, and the X/3 that I saved during the first four months will cover the penalty.

If the description is accurate, then surely this would be a sensible approach for 30 year old healthy me.This seems so obvious that I find it hard to believe that the reporting is accurate. But if it is accurate, it seems that the effect is this: There will be no substantive penalty for waiting until you are ill to buy insurance.

Tihs would be nuts. Of course I am 78, not 30. When I got Medicare years ago, the deal was this (I don't promise absolute accuracy, but basically this was the deal): Everyone gets one part, called, I think, part A. A person can opt ot have part B, which covers much more. But you must choose as soon as you are eligible. Maybe one vould still get part B later, but the penalty was very substantial. I, and everyone I know, got part B. We paid during the years we didn't need it, we use it when we do need it. This is sane. Allowing people to avoid insurance when they are healthy and then requiring insurers to insure them when they are sick, with a minor penalty, is insane.

Surely I misunderstand the provision.

Now that's on policy. I have to add another note. I see the Ds were chanting "hey, hey, hey, goodbye".

My conclusion? We have elected total morons to handle the country's business. These people have to go home and have dinner with their kids, do they not? I just don't get it.

[Al_U_Card]

The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes.

We are talking insurance. You pay when you don't need it so that it is in force (and obstensibly) paid for when you do.

I paid into our governmental healthcare plan all of my working life. Apart from a couple of visits to the outpatient emergency room for an elbow fracture and physical exams by a doctor every 10 years or so, I have never made use of the system. Since I retired and left my company's group insurance plan, I now pay about $600 a year to the governmental plan for prescription drugs. So far my need has also been 0.

Should you also only start paying your house insurance once the smoke starts?

Government healthcare insurance is a business and an inefficient one at that. Costly but necessary according to the social will. At least here it is.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-05, 06:11, said:

WaPo of course reported on the new health care bill.

https://www.washingt...m=.f88ca9005270

I said there will be questions.


Is this accurate? I imagine myself as 30 years old and in good health, holding a job that does not help pay health insurance. So I have to pay for my own. It costs X dollars a year. But I am healthy. So I don't bother yo get it. In the first four months I save X/3 dollars by not having this insurance. The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes. Should that misfortune occur, I will then start paying the X dollars a year for my insurance, and the X/3 that I saved during the first four months will cover the penalty.

If the description is accurate, then surely this would be a sensible approach for 30 year old healthy me.This seems so obvious that I find it hard to believe that the reporting is accurate. But if it is accurate, it seems that the effect is this: There will be no substantive penalty for waiting until you are ill to buy insurance.

Tihs would be nuts. Of course I am 78, not 30. When I got Medicare years ago, the deal was this (I don't promise absolute accuracy, but basically this was the deal): Everyone gets one part, called, I think, part A. A person can opt ot have part B, which covers much more. But you must choose as soon as you are eligible. Maybe one vould still get part B later, but the penalty was very substantial. I, and everyone I know, got part B. We paid during the years we didn't need it, we use it when we do need it. This is sane. Allowing people to avoid insurance when they are healthy and then requiring insurers to insure them when they are sick, with a minor penalty, is insane.

Surely I misunderstand the provision.

Now that's on policy. I have to add another note. I see the Ds were chanting "hey, hey, hey, goodbye".

My conclusion? We have elected total morons to handle the country's business. These people have to go home and have dinner with their kids, do they not? I just don't get it.

You don't get it because you are looking at this as a healthcare bill when in fact it is an administrative move to remove taxes from the wealthy in order to prepare the way for even more tax cuts for the wealthy. My understanding is that the Republicans have been done in by their own rules so they have to offset any tax reduction plan with spending cuts - this bill cuts spending, which was primarily paid for by taxes on wealthier Americans. Once the books are juggled, another round of tax cuts for the wealthy can be passed.

This is where populism collides with oligarchy.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 07:47, said:

You don't get it because you are looking at this as a healthcare bill when in fact it is an administrative move to remove taxes from the wealthy in order to prepare the way for even more tax cuts for the wealthy. My understanding is that the Republicans have been done in by their own rules so they have to offset any tax reduction plan with spending cuts - this bill cuts spending, which was primarily paid for by taxes on wealthier Americans. Once the books are juggled, another round of tax cuts for the wealthy can be passed.

This is where populism collides with oligarchy.

Ok, but I still have my question: Am I correct in understanding that a young person can decide to save 20X dollars by skipping insurance for 20 years, and then sign up as he gets older and/or sick, by paying a penalty of 30% of X dollars? If that is the plan, surely many will opt for it.

This bill could bring about much needed clarification on basic philosophy. What do we expect from our medical system and how do we intend to pay for it? I don't think that we, as a country, have answered this question. The ACA is one answer, but I am not so sure it will survive. This ill is another answer, I gather few think it will become law. This is what happens when we have not worked through our basic goals.

Dems plan to block this bill in the Senate. I imagine they will succeed, and I imagine some Reps are not all that fond of it anyway. But "Hey, hey, goodbye" does not help the cause of clarification. To slightly alter the advice Thumper received from his father, I would say to these Dems "If you can't say something without embarrassing yourself, don't say anything at all".

We can at least hope for better from those we have elected. I grant that we probably will be disappointed.

[Zelandakh]

I think the part you might be missing is that of pre-existing conditions, Ken. If the additional charge for this is high enough then waiting until care is needed ceases to be a realistic strategy. The 30% premium just looks to be a charge against being too poor to keep healthcare running continuously all of the time. On the surface, Winston appears to be correct that the nett effect of these changes is going to be positive for the rich and bad for the poor. No doubt Trump's supporters will hold it up as proof of his "draining the swamp" regardless though.

[jogs]

 Trinidad, on 2017-May-04, 02:19, said:

You don't represent the views of the majority of any people. The common people don't jog.

I really don't know what the two have to do with each other. The fact that the majority of a people did one thing does not mean that Zel doesn't represent their opinion on an entirely different thing.

You are saying that since Zel (supposedly, I didn't check) was a Bremainer, he is not allowed to state anything anymore, e.g. that the British like fish and chips.

If you sincerely think that makes sense, I would suggest that you don't represent the views of the majority of the US people.

Rik

Zel doesn't represent the opinion of all the British people. I doubt if any of the country folk would elect mayor Khan of London for dog catcher.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-05, 06:11, said:

Is this accurate? I imagine myself as 30 years old and in good health, holding a job that does not help pay health insurance. So I have to pay for my own. It costs X dollars a year. But I am healthy. So I don't bother yo get it. In the first four months I save X/3 dollars by not having this insurance. The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes. Should that misfortune occur, I will then start paying the X dollars a year for my insurance, and the X/3 that I saved during the first four months will cover the penalty.

You could also do this under the ACA. The tax penalty ("individual mandate") for not having coverage is the price of the cheapest plan or 2.5% of your income, whichever is lower; if you have coverage for part of the year, the penalty is pro-rated. So what you can do is drop coverage and pay the bronze rate while you're healthy, then when you get sick you buy a silver or gold plan, and you've saved the difference in prices.

However, one of the provisions of the AHCA is that states are allowed to drop the preexisting condition requirement. If you're in one of those states and you wait until you're sick to buy health insurance, they can jack up the rates, which could wipe out whatever you saved by not buying insurance for the first 4 months.

And for those of you Trump supporters, remember that he repeatedly said that his replacement for Obamacare would definitely keep the preexisting condition rule.

[jogs]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-05, 06:11, said:

WaPo of course reported on the new health care bill.

https://www.washingt...m=.f88ca9005270

I said there will be questions.


Is this accurate? I imagine myself as 30 years old and in good health, holding a job that does not help pay health insurance. So I have to pay for my own. It costs X dollars a year. But I am healthy. So I don't bother yo get it. In the first four months I save X/3 dollars by not having this insurance. The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes. Should that misfortune occur, I will then start paying the X dollars a year for my insurance, and the X/3 that I saved during the first four months will cover the penalty.

The individual insurance market is a ripoff. They should be allowed to be uninsured. Also medicaid should allow these people to join. Only they are required to pay for the services they use.

[barmar]

 jogs, on 2017-May-05, 08:46, said:

The individual insurance market is a ripoff. They should be allowed to be uninsured. Also medicaid should allow these people to join. Only they are required to pay for the services they use.

Are you EVER going to answer my question about that that means? The point of Medicaid is that you DON'T pay. What does it mean to join and also pay?

Does it just mean that the rate you pay for services is what the government would pay if they were covering you on Medicaid? So basically you're saying that hospitals and doctors should just drop all their fees for uninsured patients to the Medicaid rates, since everyone would just choose this option if it were available. Or in other words, the government gets to set health care prices.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-05, 08:29, said:

Ok, but I still have my question: Am I correct in understanding that a young person can decide to save 20X dollars by skipping insurance for 20 years, and then sign up as he gets older and/or sick, by paying a penalty of 30% of X dollars? If that is the plan, surely many will opt for it.

This bill could bring about much needed clarification on basic philosophy. What do we expect from our medical system and how do we intend to pay for it? I don't think that we, as a country, have answered this question. The ACA is one answer, but I am not so sure it will survive. This ill is another answer, I gather few think it will become law. This is what happens when we have not worked through our basic goals.

Dems plan to block this bill in the Senate. I imagine they will succeed, and I imagine some Reps are not all that fond of it anyway. But "Hey, hey, goodbye" does not help the cause of clarification. To slightly alter the advice Thumper received from his father, I would say to these Dems "If you can't say something without embarrassing yourself, don't say anything at all".

We can at least hope for better from those we have elected. I grant that we probably will be disappointed.

Ken,

I believe that would depend on what state he lives in - this bill allows states to choose to opt out of the rule to cover pre-existing conditions, so your hypothetical youth may not be able to buy coverage once he is ill.

Also, the CBO found on the previous version of this bill that the small savings in premiums for the young was at the expense of older Americans who would not be able to afford the premiums and just drop coverage - letting older and sicker people die is surely less costly than treatment.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-May-05, 08:46, said:

The individual insurance market is a ripoff. They should be allowed to be uninsured. Also medicaid should allow these people to join. Only they are required to pay for the services they use.

You do realize, don't you, that you are arguing for a tweak to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?

Quote

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 created the opportunity for states to expand Medicaid to cover nearly all low-income Americans under age 65.

https://www.medicaid...id/eligibility/

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-May-05, 08:42, said:

Zel doesn't represent the opinion of all the British people.

You wrote this already, almost word for word, so I will refer you to the answer I gave yesterday. Can we try to work on getting a comment that fits to the subject at hand on the next round please?

[StevenG]

 jogs, on 2017-May-05, 08:42, said:

Zel doesn't represent the opinion of all the British people. I doubt if any of the country folk would elect mayor Khan of London for dog catcher.

That is a repulsive post.

[rmnka447]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-May-05, 06:47, said:

The plan is that I will get the insurance if my health changes.

We are talking insurance. You pay when you don't need it so that it is in force (and obstensibly) paid for when you do.

I paid into our governmental healthcare plan all of my working life. Apart from a couple of visits to the outpatient emergency room for an elbow fracture and physical exams by a doctor every 10 years or so, I have never made use of the system. Since I retired and left my company's group insurance plan, I now pay about $600 a year to the governmental plan for prescription drugs. So far my need has also been 0.

Should you also only start paying your house insurance once the smoke starts?

Government healthcare insurance is a business and an inefficient one at that. Costly but necessary according to the social will. At least here it is.

You might want to start having yearly physicals and establish a relationship with a primary care physician. The physicals will establish a baseline for your health. That can be very useful to your doctors if you do, in fact, get sick.

[Winstonm]

What is truly weird to me is that so many Trump supporters - and they have posted here in the WC - brag about being one of the "deplorables" Hillary Clinton defined.

Do they even understand what Clinton said?

Quote

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

So, those who brag about being "one of the deplorables" are bragging about being either: sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic. Perhaps the deplorable among us like being "lifted up" from the rubbish pile of their lives?

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 10:20, said:

So, those who brag about being "one of the deplorables" are bragging about being either: sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic. Perhaps the deplorable among us like being "lifted up" from the rubbish pile of their lives?

I think this is similar to the point Steven was making a couple of posts ago. No doubt jogs can argue that he did not mean Khan in any rasist way but was simply naming any Labour politician. And yet somehow he was chosen rather than Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell, etc. I preferred to edit out the potentially inflammatory sentence rather than get drawn (which I suppose now I have been ). This is the real bone I have with debating against anyone from the American right. There is never any follow-through, so when you try to engage any in debate they just repeat what was said previously, respond on a different area of the subject and avoid the real issue, or just move onto something else entirely. In the end the whole exercise is pointless, other than in pointing out how deluded most of these people are. Thankfully jogs has at least stopped posting his pseudo-maths-based ideas and trying to pass them off as something substantial. There, as here, when challenged to produce evidence to support the claims he simply avoided the issue while continuing to maintain that he is correct. Hopefully, BBFers are less gullible than [49% of] the general American populace.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 10:45, said:

I think this is similar to the point Steven was making a couple of posts ago. No doubt jogs can argue that he did not mean Khan in any rasist way but was simply naming any Labour politician. And yet somehow he was chosen rather than Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell, etc. I preferred to edit out the potentially inflammatory sentence rather than get drawn (which I suppose now I have been ). This is the real bone I have with debating against anyone from the American right. There is never any follow-through, so when you try to engage any in debate they just repeat what was said previously, respond on a different area of the subject and avoid the real issue, or just move onto something else entirely. In the end the whole exercise is pointless, other than in pointing out how deluded most of these people are. Thankfully jogs has at least stopped posting his pseudo-maths-based ideas and trying to pass them off as something substantial. There, as here, when challenged to produce evidence to support the claims he simply avoided the issue while continuing to maintain that he is correct. Hopefully, BBFers are less gullible than [49% of] the general American populace.

These are indeed troubling times. It seems there are many people worldwide who cannot or refuse to look at consequences and instead look to personal negative emotion suppression as a justification for their viewpoints - there is really no other way to view the completely empty suit who sits now in the White House oval office - electing someone whose only expertise is in putting on a show to distract the masses from their own difficulties by rallying them against others is gut-wrenching to watch, but even worse to try to dialogue with.

When the sum total of a person's understanding of life can be summed up with: we good, libtards bad, it makes one understand the fear of democracy held by those who formed the U.S. experiment is self-rule.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 11:01, said:

These are indeed troubling times. It seems there are many people worldwide who cannot or refuse to look at consequences and instead look to personal negative emotion suppression as a justification for their viewpoints - there is really no other way to view the completely empty suit who sits now in the White House oval office - electing someone whose only expertise is in putting on a show to distract the masses from their own difficulties by rallying them against others is gut-wrenching to watch, but even worse to try to dialogue with.

When the sum total of a person's understanding of life can be summed up with: we good, libtards bad, it makes one understand the fear of democracy held by those who formed the U.S. experiment is self-rule.

I wonder if the French aristocracy felt the same way toward their public? They probably held to their opinions right up to the guillotine.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-05, 11:19, said:

I wonder if the French aristocracy felt the same way toward their public? They probably held to their opinions right up to the guillotine.

It is ludicrous - and disingenuous - to make this comparison.

[Winstonm]

http://www.alternet....sham-presidency