ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Affordable Care Act , AHCA , donald trump , health care issues , health insurance issues , obamacare , Trumpcare

Reply
Old 19th June 2017, 03:59 AM   #3481
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,133
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And.... how do you pay for public services?
You pay for them directly - that's how the marketplace works!

Anything else is socialism communism pure evil.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 04:42 AM   #3482
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Remember when Hillary was criticized for holding health care reform meetings in secret?

Ending Its Secrecy, White House Lists Health-Care Panel
Hell they criticized Obama for his being done in secret even though it wasn't and had a large number of republican amendments made to it. Odds of any democratic amendments being added to this bill?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 05:58 AM   #3483
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 62,889
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You pay for them directly - that's how the marketplace works!

Anything else is socialism communism pure evil.
Oh, ok. I hadn't spotted the sarcasm in the previous post.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:51 AM   #3484
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Conservatives complain that the fact that employer health insurance are generally not treated as taxable income distorts the insurance market and reduces incentives to shop for a better deal. Question: Apart from the increased taxes on the recipient, what would be the likely impact of taxing health benefits? Would employers just give people the money and get out of the insurance business? Would employees really be likely to turn down the employer's group insurance to find something else? Would insurers become more competitive? Etc.
Depends. There are two parts to the tax shelter here - the tax on the recipient (the covered life) and the tax on the employer.

If the tax on the employer is removed, it will depend on the employer. The most likely outcome would be that employers contribute less toward the premium on behalf of their employers, or that they would select leaner benefits (or of course a combination of the two). A surprising number of mid-sized to large employers are quite paternalistic when it comes to health care. Smaller employers often don't have the capital to do the same, they're much more sensitive to the cost overall.

It's possible that some employers would provide a stipend and drop coverage... although that's less feasible as long as ACA is in place. ACA imposes penalties on employers if they drop coverage for their employees. I'm not sure how big exactly, but my vague recollection is that it's substantial enough to make dropping coverage not reasonable in most cases.

If both the employer and the employee tax benefits were removed, it's possible that some employees would turn down their employer coverage and shop on their own... but again it depends a lot on the size of the employer. Most mid and large employers contribute substantially more toward premium on behalf of their employees that the tax would be. In general, it might be more feasible the smaller the employer, and less feasible the larger the employer.

The tax benefit enjoyed by employers and employees with respect to their health care is unlikely to have any material impact on the competitiveness of insurance carriers. I'm sure there are some scenarios that would have this impact, but I can't think of any that make sense.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:11 AM   #3485
xjx388
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,853
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Depends. There are two parts to the tax shelter here - the tax on the recipient (the covered life) and the tax on the employer.

If the tax on the employer is removed, it will depend on the employer. The most likely outcome would be that employers contribute less toward the premium on behalf of their employers, or that they would select leaner benefits (or of course a combination of the two). A surprising number of mid-sized to large employers are quite paternalistic when it comes to health care. Smaller employers often don't have the capital to do the same, they're much more sensitive to the cost overall.

It's possible that some employers would provide a stipend and drop coverage... although that's less feasible as long as ACA is in place. ACA imposes penalties on employers if they drop coverage for their employees. I'm not sure how big exactly, but my vague recollection is that it's substantial enough to make dropping coverage not reasonable in most cases.

If both the employer and the employee tax benefits were removed, it's possible that some employees would turn down their employer coverage and shop on their own... but again it depends a lot on the size of the employer. Most mid and large employers contribute substantially more toward premium on behalf of their employees that the tax would be. In general, it might be more feasible the smaller the employer, and less feasible the larger the employer.

The tax benefit enjoyed by employers and employees with respect to their health care is unlikely to have any material impact on the competitiveness of insurance carriers. I'm sure there are some scenarios that would have this impact, but I can't think of any that make sense.
Most large employers who are trying to attract top employees offer good insurance as a perk; tax incentives are just gravy.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2017, 06:07 AM   #3486
Tero
Muse
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 967
It's just so American, insuring healthy work age middle class folks. Part time? Nothing. Wal Mart? A few minimal benefits. Once you get sick you go on disability for 6 months. Six months us up, you are fired. You can buy long term disability insurance. I had it through a professional organization.
__________________
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2017/...hould-get.html
And we are going right back to the Hillary/Obama progression of things once we get rid of Trump. The last Republican president this century. Face it, with population growth and more urban people, the future is more Sesame Street than Little House on The Prairie.

Last edited by Tero; 20th June 2017 at 06:11 AM.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:19 AM   #3487
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,559
It appears the Senate has decided to make the house bill worse.

Quote:
The Senate health care bill, which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said will be released on Thursday, will contain optional state waivers of some Affordable Care Act insurance regulations, according to two senior GOP aides. But those waivers may not end up in the final bill — because they could get stripped out for violating Senate budget rules.

Here's why: The Congressional Budget Office has to give its cost estimates for the bill before Republicans can argue their case to the Senate parliamentarian that the waivers should be allowed. (The bill has to comply with Senate budget rules, and she decides whether it does.) And there's a good chance that she'll rule that the waivers, including essential health benefits, have to come out. One of the aides described the parliamentarian as "skeptical."

...

So that means Republicans may only be able to make the ACA's current state waivers more flexible. It's unclear how many members know this, but conservatives — who were pushing to waive even more of the ACA regulations than the House did, or even require states to opt into the regulations rather than out — will surely be disappointed.
If they actually pass this cruel legislation, America could end up voting for single payer in a backlash.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:51 AM   #3488
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,386
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:55 AM   #3489
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
It appears the Senate has decided to make the house bill worse.



If they actually pass this cruel legislation, America could end up voting for single payer in a backlash.
Well they have certainly shown how to get a bill through congress despite all the medical lobbying being against it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:56 AM   #3490
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
This is completely unprecedented. The ACA was debated for months and had more than a hundred republican amendments added to it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:57 AM   #3491
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,559
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
It's true.

Quote:
Despite reports Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is attempting to bring the bill for a vote before the week-long July 4 recess, there remains no public text of any proposed legislation, and therefore no Congressional Budget Office score. There have also been no public hearings on changes made to the House version of the bill.

While a core group of GOP senators is working on the bill, it appears that not all*Senate Republicans even know what could be in it.

McConnell is likely able to keep the bill under wraps until days before a final vote. By all indications that is the path the Republicans will take to try to ensure its passage.

The secretive process has drawn the ire of Democratic lawmakers and activists, who have argued that Republicans attacked Democrats for "backroom deals" on the Affordable Care Act, the law known as*Obamacare, despite that bill getting dozens of hearings and hundreds of amendments from both sides.*
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 05:59 AM   #3492
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,769
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
While it is not uncommon for bills to be done in secret, for a bill affecting so many people it is a valid complaint. Also, the Democrats had public debates on the ACA for over 100 days with 133 Republican amendments. Despite this fact, the Republicans lied and complained that it was done in secret and rammed through quickly.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 06:00 AM   #3493
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,224
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
While a lot of what goes on in congress occurs behind "closed doors," the biggest complaint about this process is that the exact same people who are negotiating this one in secret and refusing to have any public hearings were among those who howled the loudest about the "secrecy" of the ACA, despite the fact that it was far, far, FAR more transparent and public than this is.

We have their statements from 2010 complaining. Now they are doing exactly what they complained about, and to an even greater extreme.

Moreover, they have been clear about why. They know if they details of the plan got out, it would be ripped to shreds and lots and lots and lots of people would complain. McConnell's statement about it is, "We aren't stupid."
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 06:05 AM   #3494
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,559
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Moreover, they have been clear about why. They know if they details of the plan got out, it would be ripped to shreds and lots and lots and lots of people would complain. McConnell's statement about it is, "We aren't stupid."
IIRC, the statement was from a GOP staffer not McConnell.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 06:32 AM   #3495
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I've seen some grumbling on Facebook etc. from various posters that the Senate bill has not been consulted on, debated etc. and has basically been developed 'in secret'.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?

The entire purpose of having a "deliberative" body such as our Congress, and the way it was intended, is to deliberate upon the merits of a proposed law. To allow the representatives of the various constituencies to evaluate the bill, consider how it will affect the people they are there to represent, and if needed to propose changes.

Then to decide if they believe that law is in the best interests of the public.

Openly. In full view of the public. So that the actions and behavior of those elected representatives can be judged by their constituencies, And if found wanting those representatives can be held to account at the next election.

That is what the two chambers of Congress are for.

Bypassing the deliberative process, writing bills in secret with only a relative handful having any idea what is in them, intentionally withholding all knowledge of the bill's specific content and wording from everyone else, including those responsible for enacting the law, until the very last possible minute before calling for a vote;

That is the antithesis of the process.

It is more than a "valid complaint".
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 06:45 AM   #3496
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 17,439
dup
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 21st June 2017 at 07:16 AM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 07:14 AM   #3497
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
IIRC, the statement was from a GOP staffer not McConnell.

Right.

McConnell's own statements are worse. He says that since it's been talked about for a long time, everybody should already know what's in this bill.
Quote:
“Look, we’ve been dealing with this issue for seven years,” McConnell tells the New York Times. “It’s not a new thing.” McConnell adds that there have been “gazillions of hearings on this subject” over the years.
Yeah, he thinks the American public is that stupid.

Sadly, all indications are that he might be right about enough of them.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 10:53 AM   #3498
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,266
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
Senate bills being developed in "secret" used to be common and just how things were done, but it pretty much always involved both sides of the aisle. The argument being that it allowed senators from both sides of the aisle work without having to deal with short term backlash and could make better compromises. That sort of thing ended around the 70s with a push for more transparency.

So this is uncommon for modern times and is also uncommon to exclude the other party entirely.

Last edited by bonzombiekitty; 21st June 2017 at 10:56 AM.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 11:42 AM   #3499
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,133
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
the biggest complaint about this process is that the exact same people who are negotiating this one in secret and refusing to have any public hearings were among those who howled the loudest about the "secrecy" of the ACA,
There is no hypocrisy here. The ACA was created by Democrats, so any complaints were justified.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 12:59 PM   #3500
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
Senate bills being developed in "secret" used to be common and just how things were done, but it pretty much always involved both sides of the aisle. The argument being that it allowed senators from both sides of the aisle work without having to deal with short term backlash and could make better compromises. That sort of thing ended around the 70s with a push for more transparency.

So this is uncommon for modern times and is also uncommon to exclude the other party entirely.

Even then the the final bill itself was not held in secret from the general body of Congresscritters up to almost the very moment of the vote, as is being done here.

They haven't been hiding it just from public comment, they have been hiding it from nearly all the Senators who are supposed to be able to vote on it knowledgeably.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 04:07 PM   #3501
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
The entire purpose of having a "deliberative" body such as our Congress, and the way it was intended, is to deliberate upon the merits of a proposed law. To allow the representatives of the various constituencies to evaluate the bill, consider how it will affect the people they are there to represent, and if needed to propose changes.

Then to decide if they believe that law is in the best interests of the public.

Openly. In full view of the public. So that the actions and behavior of those elected representatives can be judged by their constituencies, And if found wanting those representatives can be held to account at the next election.

That is what the two chambers of Congress are for.

Bypassing the deliberative process, writing bills in secret with only a relative handful having any idea what is in them, intentionally withholding all knowledge of the bill's specific content and wording from everyone else, including those responsible for enacting the law, until the very last possible minute before calling for a vote;

That is the antithesis of the process.

It is more than a "valid complaint".
On the plus side... maybe these ridiculous shenanigans will get a lot of these idiots out of congress. That would be refreshing. Still pretty pyrrhic though
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 04:17 PM   #3502
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,942
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
...I'm totally unfamiliar with the US system - does that sound like a valid complaint or is it just people nitpicking the process?
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
Senate bills being developed in "secret" used to be common and just how things were done...
According to Donald Ritchie that's not how things were done. Who is Donald Ritchie?
Quote:
The level of secrecy in crafting the Senate's health care bill has not been seen since before World War I, according to esteemed Senate historian emeritus Donald Ritchie. Ritchie, who worked in the Senate Historical Office for nearly four decades, told the Los Angeles Times that the upper chamber has not drafted such a major piece of legislation behind closed doors since a tariff reform effort during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

He added that Senate Democrats tried the move again during the Great Depression, but they were derailed when rank-and-file senators were unwilling to go along with the maneuver. Link to Time magazine article
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 04:30 PM   #3503
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,942
It's really getting scary.
Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there is nothing out of the ordinary about the way Republicans are working on the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Nobody’s hiding the ball here,” he said recently. “You’re free to ask anybody anything.” Link
Not exactly.
Quote:
The Senate is restricting journalists’ ability to question Republicans about their secret health care bill. Reporters at the U.S. Capitol were shocked to learn on [June 13th] that they’re not allowed to film interviews with senators in the halls of the U.S. Capitol, as they have done for years. Hallway interviews are allowed only if reporters get permission—not only from the senator, but from the Senate Rules Committee as well. Link

newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 05:11 AM   #3504
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
On the plus side... maybe these ridiculous shenanigans will get a lot of these idiots out of congress. That would be refreshing. Still pretty pyrrhic though
This is what they ran on, this is what their supporters wanted.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 05:13 AM   #3505
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,560
McConnell is an obscenity in vaguely human form: a smirking, hypocritical, treasonous, and thoroughly corrupt avatar for everything that is wrong with American democracy today; a toxic parasite who should be expelled from the body politic directly into Hell.

Sadly, I catch myself sometimes hoping that he gets his way and that many of the people who keep voting him into office suffer, badly, as a result. That's a terrible thing to wish for.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 10:14 AM   #3506
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Well the Senate version is out.

On the scale of party in the rose garden to being mean, mean, mean, what do people think Trumps reaction will be?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 12:02 PM   #3507
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,559
Trump does realize there are tapes of him promising to cover everyone, cut deductibles, and lower premiums? Because this bill doesn't do that. On the other hand if you're making $200,000 a year and can't afford a 3.8% tax on investment income, 14 million people are losing Medicaid to help you.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 12:12 PM   #3508
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53,781
Local news is showing Trump lying again - first about medical and next about the Big Fail Wall. Needs a good enema - will wash the insides out (well, he is completely and clearly full of ****) so he can safely be folded up and hidden with other bad ideas in American History!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 12:13 PM   #3509
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,992
Cruz is holding forth about how he wants insurers to be able to offer "catastrophic" health insurance policies. How is a "catastrophic" policy different from a "high-deductible" policy? Would a catastrophic policy only cover specified maladies (cancer, heart disease, massive trauma)? Or would it cover all medical treatment above a dollar value ($10,000, $25,000, pick a number)?If the insured had to pay before insurance kicked in, presumably he would be charged at the insurance company's negotiated rates, right? Or would he get stuck for the full retail cost?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 12:43 PM   #3510
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,872
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If both the employer and the employee tax benefits were removed, it's possible that some employees would turn down their employer coverage and shop on their own... but again it depends a lot on the size of the employer. Most mid and large employers contribute substantially more toward premium on behalf of their employees that the tax would be. In general, it might be more feasible the smaller the employer, and less feasible the larger the employer.
Are there any, like, actuaries advising Congress? That they pay attention to? You post on this forum, clarify issues in a few paragraphs. IMO it would be helpful for lawmakers to read similar thumbnail overviews. Unless they are not interested, and prefer soundbites to feed their constituents.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 12:47 PM   #3511
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,872
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
According to Donald Ritchie that's not how things were done. Who is Donald Ritchie?
A shill for the Deep State.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 01:15 PM   #3512
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 37,778
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Are there any, like, actuaries advising Congress?
Yes, that is why the house had to get the bill passed before the actuaries could look at it. See CBO.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 01:18 PM   #3513
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,743
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Are there any, like, actuaries advising Congress? That they pay attention to? You post on this forum, clarify issues in a few paragraphs. IMO it would be helpful for lawmakers to read similar thumbnail overviews. Unless they are not interested, and prefer soundbites to feed their constituents.
The Congressional Budget Office is rather good at crunching numbers and predicting the impact of legislation. On matters of science they have the National Academy of Sciences. For medical issues they have the National Academy of Medicine.

The current Congressional leadership doesn't seem at all interested in getting advice from these sources.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 01:40 PM   #3514
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,743
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Cruz is holding forth about how he wants insurers to be able to offer "catastrophic" health insurance policies. How is a "catastrophic" policy different from a "high-deductible" policy? Would a catastrophic policy only cover specified maladies (cancer, heart disease, massive trauma)? Or would it cover all medical treatment above a dollar value ($10,000, $25,000, pick a number)?If the insured had to pay before insurance kicked in, presumably he would be charged at the insurance company's negotiated rates, right? Or would he get stuck for the full retail cost?
My pre ACA insurance plan had a $5,000 deductible. As long as I used the provider network in the plan, I was charged at the negotiated rate. To give one example, a surgery center charged me $3,500 instead of the list rate of $17,500.

For most American families, the current $7,150 individual and $14,300 family maximum deductibles are basically catastrophic plans. They still include certain cost effective preventive procedures such as vaccinations and birth control at zero additional cost. But these don't add a lot to the cost of the insurance.

A small fraction of the top 1% might be interested in much higher deductibles. (The few that don't have a corporation to pay for their health insurance). But at this income level premiums for a high deductible ACA plan are essentially small change. They could just pay for the cheapest Bronze plan even if they don't intend to use the services.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:21 PM   #3515
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,159
Let's put aside whether the plan is good or not;the way that McConnell is trying to shove it down people's throats stinks on ice.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 04:04 PM   #3516
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Are there any, like, actuaries advising Congress? That they pay attention to? You post on this forum, clarify issues in a few paragraphs. IMO it would be helpful for lawmakers to read similar thumbnail overviews. Unless they are not interested, and prefer soundbites to feed their constituents.
Prior to ACA, several actuarial organizations provided expert opinion and advice to congress. The didn't really listen very well
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:47 AM   #3517
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,942
McConnell unveiled the secret healthcare bill yesterday to a decidedly mixed review.
Quote:
Senate Republicans...unveil[ed] a bill to make deep cuts in Medicaid and end the law’s mandate that most Americans have health insurance. The 142-page bill would create a new system of federal tax credits to help people buy health insurance, while offering states the ability to drop many of the benefits required by the Affordable Care Act, like maternity care, emergency services and mental health treatment.

“We are extremely disappointed by the Senate bill released today,” the medical school association [Association of American Medical Colleges] wrote. “Despite promises to the contrary, it will leave millions of people without health coverage, and others with only bare-bones plans that will be insufficient to properly address their needs.”

Democrats and some insurers say Mr. Trump has sabotaged the Affordable Care Act, in part by threatening to withhold subsidies paid to insurers so they can reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for millions of low-income people. news link
Four major Republican senators -- Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin -- immediately announced they cannot support the bill as written. Even Donnie seems uncomfortable with the billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, calling them "mean." Another controversial feature of the Republican program is a prohibition against using federal tax credits to buy healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.

The problem facing Republicans has not changed: How to draft a bill that is extreme enough that Tea Party members will support it, without making it so severe more moderate Republicans will not.
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:21 AM   #3518
Tero
Muse
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 967
"The Better Care Reconciliation Act isn't a bill to reform healthcare. This is a bill to notionally repeal Obamacare while propping the insurance market up through the next election. It's an exercise in political box-checking and a**-covering."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2626882

Well it is that, plus a huge tax cut.
__________________
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2017/...hould-get.html
And we are going right back to the Hillary/Obama progression of things once we get rid of Trump. The last Republican president this century. Face it, with population growth and more urban people, the future is more Sesame Street than Little House on The Prairie.

Last edited by Tero; Yesterday at 04:24 AM.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:40 AM   #3519
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,560
The so-called "moderates" who say they are "uncomfortable" with the bill are playing a cynical game. They get to put on a show of standing up for their unhappy constituents and will get some relatively trivial changes which they can say "address their concerns" so they can vote for it. A couple in the most vulnerable places may even be allowed to vote against it, but under no circumstances will more than two GOP senators vote against it, so that that Michael (spit) Pence can cast the deciding vote. The "can't supporters" on the right are don't the same thing, but from a different direction.

All the talk about how they're "concerned" is absolute BS. They don't care about how awful the bill is, they don't care about the rotten and anti-democratic the process is, and they don't care how many of their nominal constituents are going to lose healthcare as a result. The only things they care about are getting their base to vote again for them, even if they are dying of manageable chronic conditions, and giving fat tax breaks to their real constituency, the richest 1% of Americans.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:56 AM   #3520
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Even Donnie seems uncomfortable with the billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, calling them "mean."
Meh, whatever he says about something today, he'll say the opposite in the near future. If it seems like the bill will pass then it'll be the best thing ever (as was the House bill a few short weeks ago), if not then it'll be the worst thing ever......
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.