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

In Trump's America, 100% of 23 million is 10 million.

 

Finally, we are debating issues 10x more meaningful than that Russian nonsense.

I'd be honest, I have no idea how to fix the current healthcare system. All I know is it is a huge mess. The ACA is a joke, my current premium and deductible are so damn high that I avoid seeing doctors as much as possible, or I just pay cash, avoid going through insurance and the prices for office visit and lab work are much much cheaper. This is so messed up, why I am buying insurance then? I paid more for less care.

BTW, I think the new bill looks no better either. Doesn't look like it solves anything. I demand all the congressmen and senators use same healthcare as our ordinary folks do and then maybe there will be real changes.

 

This is a mistake by the Republicans.

The majority of the complaints under the ACA will still exist; a number of people will be tangibly worse.... and the Republicans will take all the blame.

 

I think this is something we all can agree on. These people are playing with lives of tens of millions of people and it doesn't resonate with them because they will never feel the pain (note: the Senate's bill removes the ban on lifetime spending caps, but exempts members of Congress from this provision).

If they pass laws that affect us, they should be subject to them, too.

 

If they project 14 million more uninsured in 2018, and 8 million of those would not enroll "because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated" and there would be fewer subsidies, it sure seems like the CBO thinks it is true.

 

Quite clear where the priorities are.

Republicans eye billions in side deals to win Obamacare repeal votes
The White House and Senate GOP leaders have nearly $200 billion in savings to divvy up among senators’ priorities to secure votes for the imperiled bill.

 

Why would you ignore Medicaid expansion? And why did you eliminate the second half of the clause that you quoted:

Fewer people would enroll in the nongroup market because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated and, starting in 2020, because the average subsidy for coverage in that market would be substantially lower for most people currently eligible for subsidies.

Instead of taking numbers out of context and putting your own spin on it, let's start with the fact that the CBO said 22 million fewer people would be insured.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/cbo-senate-health-care-bill-239967?lo=ap_a1

The agency said that 15 million people would be newly uninsured as the result of phasing out generous federal funding for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and capping the entire program’s funding for the first time.

About 7 million fewer people would buy their own insurance in the individual market, the CBO projected. Overall, the bill provides less generous financial support to purchase private coverage compared with Obamacare, and patients would cover more out-of-pocket expenses. In particular, the uninsured rate among older, low-income Americans would spike as the result of much higher premiums.

So, starting with 22 million, you've got:

15 million kicked off Medicaid

Of the other 7 million, some will be due to less generous subsidies, making insurance not viable - in particular, for older Americans. And then some will be due to choice (a choice they can make now, with a small penalty). You have no info in the CBO that distinguishes between those two groups.

So, how do you conclude that the people who are no longer being forced to purchase insurance they don't want to buy won't do it, and that is the bulk of the growth in "uninsured" as compared to the PPACA?

Do you think the majority of the 15 million being kicked of Medicaid didn't want it? In addition, you think the vast majority of the 7 million losing insurance in the private market are people that just didn't want it, as opposed to people who won't be able to afford it to due to substantially lower subsidies?

 

They really didn't endorse any of the policy aspects. They endorsed it because it ensures funding for the next several years instead of Trump's "will I, or won't I" game with each month's subsidies, and it throws more money at them in the short term so the GOP doesn't have to hear about all the problems it's causing:

“We believe the Senate discussion draft will markedly improve the stability of the individual market and moderate premium increases” because it appropriates billions of dollars in short-term funding to shore up the exchanges, provides cost sharing reduction (CSR) funds, and eliminates a tax on health insurance plans, Anthem said in a statement.

And because it cuts a tax that's not even really related to the individual market. So they are really only endorsing the next 4 years when not much changes, and that's because the bill adds $50 billion in funds for the individual market.

 

I am retiring in a couple of weeks. In the old days, COBRA was almost a laughable option. Today, if I continue my insurance under COBRA, my monthly payment will be about $800 less than what similar coverage would be in the marketplace.

 

This is a total tangent to everything we're talking about here. But the 'keep your doctor' stuff really irks me. Sure, I get it that people develop relationships with their doctors and there is an issue of trust to be considered when talking about your health with a doctor. But, the allegiance to doctors costs a lot of money. That stickiness to a doctor ends up meaning you use certain hospitals, certain labs, certain affiliated specialists. And since they have their customers captive through the doctor relationship, the customer doesn't shop and is price inelastic, and there is little competitive force to drive efficiency in the marketplace. Imagine the margins if a clothing store had this kind of allegiance. Doctors should be treated like a commodity, and swapped out like you might swap out your lawn service. Idolizing your relationship with your doctor is part of the cost problem.

 

Expect a surge in bankruptcy filings in the next two decades if this bill is passed.

 

What stocks should I buy?

 

hospital chains?

 

Do hospitals like this? The more uninsured means the more people being billed for out of pocket expenses which means the more people who can't foot the bill which means more hospitals have to compensate which means premiums for those who do have health insurance goes up. It's a **** cycle that is so damn obvious.