[Continuation] Trump "[health] insurance for everybody," Replacing the ACA Part II - Page 3

CapelDodger · 27th June 2017, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Make America sick again!

If the sick no longer linger the population gets healthier. It's a one-off boost, but can be entered on the Win List.

Delphic Oracle · 27th June 2017, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

I don't think it's magic but I do believe that, generally speaking, less regulation/taxation means lower prices and more choice.

What do you base this belief on?

In my experience, going for the lower price has not always meant a lower cost. In many cases, quite the opposite.

So is the mere fact it is done in the name of "lower prices" an argument in favor of something? I mean shipping all of our manufacturing jobs abroad to exploit 3rd world labor sure has lowered prices, too.

Quote:

To head off the army of strawmen that are surely coming my way, note that I did not say zero regulation/taxation. What we need is smarter policy.

Wonderful slogan.

Quote:

That's the problem: Define effective regulation/taxation. Beyond hardcore Libertarians, you aren't going to find many people that want absolutely nothing.

Correct, certainly for those in power who use that slogan you just used. They don't want nothing, they want campaign war-chest contributions and a nice retirement gig on a few charitable boards. We get lower prices, maybe a funny aftertaste in the water, too.

Quote:

Right. Rent-seeking is a problem in the business world in general. That's a problem we have to fight. ETA: A high-regulation atmosphere contributes to rent-seeking.

If the regulations protect an entrenched interest such that it can be that comfortable and complacent, sure.

Quote:

Why wouldn't we want to have as small a government as possible? Do we need them to do everything?

Same straw man you claimed you just had to shield yourself from.

Wanting a government that is active and responsive to commercial abuses (as if the idea that people will do anything for a buck is so outlandish) is not the same as saying you "need them to do everything."

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

CapelDodger · 27th June 2017, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I can imagine the job adverts, 15hr a week and we cover one kidney.

Which always turns out to be the other one if the evil day arrives.

CapelDodger · 27th June 2017, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Our exceptionalism keeps us from considering good ideas from other countries. This should be changed. Good beer does not have to served ice cold.

You guys are making some fabulous craft beers these days, and thanks to globalisation I can enjoy them right here in Cardiff. What an amazing world we live in.

CapelDodger · 27th June 2017, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Good news, sort of. The delay says they can't pass it. The delay might just be waiting for less attention on the issue so they can get it passed like the House did.

That can't be it. All the secrecy and short deadlines was about bouncing a measure through because they knew it would be toxic. The more time passes the worse it gets. This is them throwing their hands up and enjoying summer, because who knows what the political landscape will be like come fall? Who knew it would be like this in spring?

CapelDodger · 27th June 2017, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

That sounds like a reason to expand or redraw the boundary lines. If people can't get insurance because of the county they live in, and in the next county over they can, that's a problem. This stuff isn't carved in stone; it can be revised. And maybe those customers would choose a longer drive to a specialist rather than no coverage at all.

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

Quote:

In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas.

That was deemed unacceptable enough to be made illegal. Perhaps it should be extended to economic class as well.

Marcus · 27th June 2017, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

IRS Publication 974 covers the Premium Tax Credit. The income range is specified on page 4:

There are however other factors besides income that could make one ineligible for a Premium Tax Credit.

I was wrong in my earlier post, the Medicaid income cutoff is 138%, not 133%.

Here in Texas, we don't have expanded medicaid. If your income falls between 100% and 138% (?) you don't qualify for medicaid or Obamacare, basically just forget about having health insurance.

Dr. Keith · 27th June 2017, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

You guys are making some fabulous craft beers these days, and thanks to globalisation I can enjoy them right here in Cardiff. What an amazing world we live in.

It is a pretty good time to be alive. I hope we don't wreck all the things that make it so.

Marcus · 27th June 2017, 04:28 PM

Fortunately my income is not low enough to fall into the hole, where you make too much for medicaid and not enough to qualify for Obamacare, but I know a number of artists who do. The limit is only 12k for an individual but that is deceiving, when you are self employed lots of things are expenses, even a large bit of mortgage, utilities, etc., so that by the time you get to net income there is not much left.

Kestrel · 27th June 2017, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

That sounds like a reason to expand or redraw the boundary lines. If people can't get insurance because of the county they live in, and in the next county over they can, that's a problem. This stuff isn't carved in stone; it can be revised. And maybe those customers would choose a longer drive to a specialist rather than no coverage at all.

Region boundaries can be altered to fix problems. Or the state can work harder to convince an insurance company to serve and underserved region. Assuming of course that the state is interested in making the ACA work instead of making Obamacare fail for political reasons.

A list of where the 42 counties are might tell us a lot about the cause of the problem.

Kestrel · 27th June 2017, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Marcus

Here in Texas, we don't have expanded medicaid. If your income falls between 100% and 138% (?) you don't qualify for medicaid or Obamacare, basically just forget about having health insurance.

The Kaiser subsidy calculator is probably the best place to explore options.

A 45 year old person living in Austin, Texas with income of 115% of FPL would qualify for an enhanced Silver plan with a 94% actuarial value for $23 a month. A Bronze plan would have a $0 monthly premium.

With an income below the FPL this person would be screwed because Texas didn't expand Medicaid.

Delphic Oracle · 27th June 2017, 06:49 PM

What are people meaning when they say they "can't qualify for Obamacare?"

The ACA isn't a health coverage plan in and of itself.

If they mean they don't qualify for subsidies, that's a different matter.

Just one of many ways to subtly use language to make something that needs tweaking and adjusting into a condemnation of the entire system and that we simply have to abandon the whole thing.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Marcus · 27th June 2017, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

What are people meaning when they say they "can't qualify for Obamacare?"

The ACA isn't a health coverage plan in and of itself.

If they mean they don't qualify for subsidies, that's a different matter.

Just one of many ways to subtly use language to make something that needs tweaking and adjusting into a condemnation of the entire system and that we simply have to abandon the whole thing.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Obamacare is almost synonymous with the subsidies. There are people who buy on the exchange who don't qualify for subsidies but they are in the minority.

ETA: I'm very much in favor of keeping the system.
ETA2: The biggest mistake I see was making medicaid expansion optional.

Marcus · 27th June 2017, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The Kaiser subsidy calculator is probably the best place to explore options.

A 45 year old person living in Austin, Texas with income of 115% of FPL would qualify for an enhanced Silver plan with a 94% actuarial value for $23 a month. A Bronze plan would have a $0 monthly premium.

With an income below the FPL this person would be screwed because Texas didn't expand Medicaid.

My bad, it's people who make below the FPL but not low enough to qualify for medicaid that are screwed then.

zorro99 · 27th June 2017, 08:10 PM

Trump wants the government to pay for peoples' healthcare, and that is where he and congressional republicans differ.

marplots · 27th June 2017, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Marcus

Obamacare is almost synonymous with the subsidies. There are people who buy on the exchange who don't qualify for subsidies but they are in the minority.

ETA: I'm very much in favor of keeping the system.
ETA2: The biggest mistake I see was making medicaid expansion optional.

I seem to recall that the feds had no real shot at forcing states to expand medicaid, and trying to do so would have lost in the Supreme Court.

HoverBoarder · 28th June 2017, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Well it's not killing, so I guess we are fine then?

Sorry, wasn't sure if your statement was meant to be sarcastic or not.

I am assuming that you realize that kicking 22 million people off of insurance, and charging over 5 times more would result in a very large number of unnecessary deaths.

Based on the culmination of over 130 studies on the subject, the historical data shows that 1,300 people would die every year for every 1 million people without health insurance. In other words, the GOP "healthcare" plan would result in 28,600 unnecessary deaths every year for the 22 million uninsured.

Health Care Cuts Will Increase Odds Of Dying For The Uninsured, Medical Review Predicts

Pointlessly killing off Americans is bad enough, but what's worse is the blood money is not even going to really help any other Americans besides the super rich.

You can literally measure the number of people killed (mostly elderly, children, and the disadvantaged) that would be used to buy each new sports car from the extra money given to the super rich as a result of this bill.

3point14 · 28th June 2017, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by xjx388

Resources are limited and hard decisions have to be made.

But they're not really that limited in truth, are they? The trouble really isn't resource, it's allocation.

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=700&h=394

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1258895/original.jpg

thaiboxerken · 28th June 2017, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

But they're not really that limited in truth, are they? The trouble really isn't resource, it's allocation.

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=700&h=394

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1258895/original.jpg

Exactly. Capitalism is not being checked therefore most of the resources are going right to a few people and corporations.

Roger Ramjets · 28th June 2017, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by xjx388

To head off the army of strawmen that are surely coming my way, note that I did not say zero regulation/taxation...

Why wouldn't we want to have as small a government as possible?

Not zero, just 'as small as possible', huh?

Typical republican mantra.

"We tried cutting taxes and removing regulations, and things just got worse. So obviously we need more tax cuts and deregulation!"

"Eventually we will reach that magic spot where government is as small as possible but not quite zero, and everything will come up roses!".

The Great Zaganza · 28th June 2017, 03:30 AM

The Constitution never mentions a state-funded military: only militias.
So if you want to have a Small Government the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, get rid of the entire defense budget.

ponderingturtle · 28th June 2017, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The Constitution never mentions a state-funded military: only militias.
So if you want to have a Small Government the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, get rid of the entire defense budget.

Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control.

thaiboxerken · 28th June 2017, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control.

And a strong nuclear arsenal was part of the founder's plan as well.

Darat · 28th June 2017, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Which always turns out to be the other one if the evil day arrives.

I was assuming they'd already have had to sell a kidney to pay for their kid's leukemia treatment...

The Great Zaganza · 28th June 2017, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control.

That is the job of the Coast Guard, not a navy.

ponderingturtle · 28th June 2017, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

That is the job of the Coast Guard, not a navy.

The coast guard was never expected to act overseas. Look at the Tripolitan wars for how the navy was expected to operate

The Great Zaganza · 28th June 2017, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The coast guard was never expected to act overseas. Look at the Tripolitan wars for how the navy was expected to operate

and neither did the Founding Fathers think that they would build a navy to rival England. That was inconceivable.
At most, they wanted to curtail smuggling and have early warnings on enemy ships.

quadraginta · 28th June 2017, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Not zero, just 'as small as possible', huh?

Typical republican mantra.

"We tried cutting taxes and removing regulations, and things just got worse. So obviously we need more tax cuts and deregulation!"

"Eventually we will reach that magic spot where government is as small as possible but not quite zero, and everything will come up roses!".

Repeating the same action, expecting a different result.

ponderingturtle · 28th June 2017, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

and neither did the Founding Fathers think that they would build a navy to rival England. That was inconceivable.
At most, they wanted to curtail smuggling and have early warnings on enemy ships.

And protect commerce in foreign seas. See the Tripolitan wars.

The Don · 28th June 2017, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Repeating the same action, expecting a different result.

I'm not sure that the objective is wider success for the economy as a whole (though if it happens to come about then that's no bad thing), but instead the success for the individuals who are paying the piper.

ponderingturtle · 28th June 2017, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

I'm not sure that the objective is wider success for the economy as a whole (though if it happens to come about then that's no bad thing), but instead the success for the individuals who are paying the piper.

The claims being made is broader success, despite the stagnation of the middle class for the past 35 years.

Tero · 28th June 2017, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

That can't be it. All the secrecy and short deadlines was about bouncing a measure through because they knew it would be toxic. The more time passes the worse it gets. This is them throwing their hands up and enjoying summer, because who knows what the political landscape will be like come fall? Who knew it would be like this in spring?

It's complicated. Trump has to launder the Russian money he is donating to the future campaigns of the 5 hold out Republican senators.

Giordano · 28th June 2017, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Repeating the same action, expecting a different result.

Exactly: there are all those examples historically and even present day in the USA and other countries where cutting to the bone regulations, government, and safety nets has worked really well for the vast majority of the citizens. Well I can't think of one right now but I am certain that there are many! Whereas countries that are the opposite are horrible failures with horrible qualities of life. Right?

Emily's Cat · 28th June 2017, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Gee, maybe it's time to change them. Both the ACA and the AHCA are massive federal bills. County lines shouldn't carry much weight.

Go for it.

It might present a problem for regionally located staff-model systems though. Where would you define the boundaries?

Skeptic Ginger · 28th June 2017, 01:43 PM

Re dying without insurance, just found out today that one of the drugs I may need to take costs $10,000/month. Were I on Medicare (I'm not there yet) my share would be 33%, so $3,300/month for years or more.

A low income elderly person needing this drug would essentially be unable to buy it. Inadequate insurance coverage can indeed be a death sentence.

Emily's Cat · 28th June 2017, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Re dying without insurance, just found out today that one of the drugs I may need to take costs $10,000/month. Were I on Medicare (I'm not there yet) my share would be 33%, so $3,300/month for years or more.

A low income elderly person needing this drug would essentially be unable to buy it. Inadequate insurance coverage can indeed be a death sentence.

Low income elderly people can qualify for subsidies, as well as potentially qualifying or Medicaid that coordinates with Medicare.

Also, Drug coverage under Medicare varies by carrier, the 33% may be a good ballpark estimate, but many PDPs use copays rather than coinsurances.

Giordano · 28th June 2017, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Low income elderly people can qualify for subsidies, as well as potentially qualifying or Medicaid that coordinates with Medicare.

Also, Drug coverage under Medicare varies by carrier, the 33% may be a good ballpark estimate, but many PDPs use copays rather than coinsurances.

Yes, and the key points are "can" which usually means maybe depending on the program and the details, and the definition of "low income." I would be exactly in this situation if not for having a good insurance plan through my employer ( the drug pricing is very similar). I am by no means low income and justifiably I am not eligible for subsidies form the drug manufacturer or state. I am a senior citizen. Yet there is no way I could afford $120,000 for one drug.

We've got to do a lot better than this as a society, rather than worse as the Trumpcare bills seek .

Marcus · 28th June 2017, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Low income elderly people can qualify for subsidies, as well as potentially qualifying or Medicaid that coordinates with Medicare.

Also, Drug coverage under Medicare varies by carrier, the 33% may be a good ballpark estimate, but many PDPs use copays rather than coinsurances.

Subsidies? Do you mean from the drug manufacturer? To qualify for Medicaid you have to have a low income, in Texas below $23,522. Also. you must be pregnant,disabled or caretaker of someone with a disability, or over 65. https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1640

ETA: Or a parent of a dependent child under 19.

Emily's Cat · 28th June 2017, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Marcus

Subsidies? Do you mean from the drug manufacturer?

By subsidies, I mean Medicare Savings Program, Low Income Subsidies, and a couple of others.
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medica...ing-costs.html
https://www.ehealthmedicare.com/medi...ncome-subsidy/

Originally Posted by Marcus

To qualify for Medicaid you have to have a low income, in Texas below $23,522. Also. you must be pregnant,disabled or caretaker of someone with a disability, or over 65. https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1640

ETA: Or a parent of a dependent child under 19.

I don't know what the rules are for Medicare/Medicaid dual eligible. I believe they are different than for Non-Medicare-Eligible folks, but I'm fairly unfamiliar with them.

Meridian · 28th June 2017, 05:05 PM

The BBC says that nine republican (at least, that's presumably what they mean) senators have said they will not support the Senate bill, but that Trump is optmisitic that they'll "get over the line". They also report a survey by USA Today saying that only 12% of Americans support the bill. (Most don't know, rather than opposing it.) I wonder what the chances of the Senate passing some version of it are!

27th June 2017, 03:24 PM	#81
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 23,539	Originally Posted by lomiller Make America sick again! If the sick no longer linger the population gets healthier. It's a one-off boost, but can be entered on the Win List.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

27th June 2017, 03:27 PM	#83
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 23,539	Originally Posted by Darat I can imagine the job adverts, 15hr a week and we cover one kidney. Which always turns out to be the other one if the evil day arrives.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

27th June 2017, 03:35 PM	#84
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 23,539	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Our exceptionalism keeps us from considering good ideas from other countries. This should be changed. Good beer does not have to served ice cold. You guys are making some fabulous craft beers these days, and thanks to globalisation I can enjoy them right here in Cardiff. What an amazing world we live in.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 Last edited by CapelDodger; 27th June 2017 at 03:50 PM.

27th June 2017, 03:50 PM	#85
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 23,539	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Good news, sort of. The delay says they can't pass it. The delay might just be waiting for less attention on the issue so they can get it passed like the House did. That can't be it. All the secrecy and short deadlines was about bouncing a measure through because they knew it would be toxic. The more time passes the worse it gets. This is them throwing their hands up and enjoying summer, because who knows what the political landscape will be like come fall? Who knew it would be like this in spring?
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

27th June 2017, 03:58 PM	#86
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 23,539	Originally Posted by Bob001 That sounds like a reason to expand or redraw the boundary lines. If people can't get insurance because of the county they live in, and in the next county over they can, that's a problem. This stuff isn't carved in stone; it can be revised. And maybe those customers would choose a longer drive to a specialist rather than no coverage at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining Quote: In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. That was deemed unacceptable enough to be made illegal. Perhaps it should be extended to economic class as well.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

27th June 2017, 03:25 PM	#82
Delphic Oracle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 2,404	Originally Posted by xjx388 I don't think it's magic but I do believe that, generally speaking, less regulation/taxation means lower prices and more choice. What do you base this belief on? In my experience, going for the lower price has not always meant a lower cost. In many cases, quite the opposite. So is the mere fact it is done in the name of "lower prices" an argument in favor of something? I mean shipping all of our manufacturing jobs abroad to exploit 3rd world labor sure has lowered prices, too. Quote: To head off the army of strawmen that are surely coming my way, note that I did not say zero regulation/taxation. What we need is smarter policy. Wonderful slogan. Quote: That's the problem: Define effective regulation/taxation. Beyond hardcore Libertarians, you aren't going to find many people that want absolutely nothing. Correct, certainly for those in power who use that slogan you just used. They don't want nothing, they want campaign war-chest contributions and a nice retirement gig on a few charitable boards. We get lower prices, maybe a funny aftertaste in the water, too. Quote: Right. Rent-seeking is a problem in the business world in general. That's a problem we have to fight. ETA: A high-regulation atmosphere contributes to rent-seeking. If the regulations protect an entrenched interest such that it can be that comfortable and complacent, sure. Quote: Why wouldn't we want to have as small a government as possible? Do we need them to do everything? Same straw man you claimed you just had to shield yourself from. Wanting a government that is active and responsive to commercial abuses (as if the idea that people will do anything for a buck is so outlandish) is not the same as saying you "need them to do everything." Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

27th June 2017, 04:09 PM	#87
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835	Originally Posted by Kestrel IRS Publication 974 covers the Premium Tax Credit. The income range is specified on page 4: There are however other factors besides income that could make one ineligible for a Premium Tax Credit. I was wrong in my earlier post, the Medicaid income cutoff is 138%, not 133%. Here in Texas, we don't have expanded medicaid. If your income falls between 100% and 138% (?) you don't qualify for medicaid or Obamacare, basically just forget about having health insurance.
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835

27th June 2017, 04:13 PM	#88
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 15,795	Originally Posted by CapelDodger You guys are making some fabulous craft beers these days, and thanks to globalisation I can enjoy them right here in Cardiff. What an amazing world we live in. It is a pretty good time to be alive. I hope we don't wreck all the things that make it so.
	__________________ I once proposed a fun ban. Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

27th June 2017, 04:28 PM	#89
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835	Fortunately my income is not low enough to fall into the hole, where you make too much for medicaid and not enough to qualify for Obamacare, but I know a number of artists who do. The limit is only 12k for an individual but that is deceiving, when you are self employed lots of things are expenses, even a large bit of mortgage, utilities, etc., so that by the time you get to net income there is not much left.
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835

27th June 2017, 06:29 PM	#90
Kestrel Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,900	Originally Posted by Bob001 That sounds like a reason to expand or redraw the boundary lines. If people can't get insurance because of the county they live in, and in the next county over they can, that's a problem. This stuff isn't carved in stone; it can be revised. And maybe those customers would choose a longer drive to a specialist rather than no coverage at all. Region boundaries can be altered to fix problems. Or the state can work harder to convince an insurance company to serve and underserved region. Assuming of course that the state is interested in making the ACA work instead of making Obamacare fail for political reasons. A list of where the 42 counties are might tell us a lot about the cause of the problem.

27th June 2017, 06:38 PM	#91
Kestrel Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,900	Originally Posted by Marcus Here in Texas, we don't have expanded medicaid. If your income falls between 100% and 138% (?) you don't qualify for medicaid or Obamacare, basically just forget about having health insurance. The Kaiser subsidy calculator is probably the best place to explore options. A 45 year old person living in Austin, Texas with income of 115% of FPL would qualify for an enhanced Silver plan with a 94% actuarial value for $23 a month. A Bronze plan would have a $0 monthly premium. With an income below the FPL this person would be screwed because Texas didn't expand Medicaid.
	Last edited by Kestrel; 27th June 2017 at 06:49 PM. Reason: Add example

27th June 2017, 06:49 PM	#92
Delphic Oracle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 2,404	What are people meaning when they say they "can't qualify for Obamacare?" The ACA isn't a health coverage plan in and of itself. If they mean they don't qualify for subsidies, that's a different matter. Just one of many ways to subtly use language to make something that needs tweaking and adjusting into a condemnation of the entire system and that we simply have to abandon the whole thing. Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

27th June 2017, 07:38 PM	#93
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle What are people meaning when they say they "can't qualify for Obamacare?" The ACA isn't a health coverage plan in and of itself. If they mean they don't qualify for subsidies, that's a different matter. Just one of many ways to subtly use language to make something that needs tweaking and adjusting into a condemnation of the entire system and that we simply have to abandon the whole thing. Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk Obamacare is almost synonymous with the subsidies. There are people who buy on the exchange who don't qualify for subsidies but they are in the minority. ETA: I'm very much in favor of keeping the system. ETA2: The biggest mistake I see was making medicaid expansion optional.
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835	Last edited by Marcus; 27th June 2017 at 07:51 PM.

27th June 2017, 07:41 PM	#94
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835	Originally Posted by Kestrel The Kaiser subsidy calculator is probably the best place to explore options. A 45 year old person living in Austin, Texas with income of 115% of FPL would qualify for an enhanced Silver plan with a 94% actuarial value for $23 a month. A Bronze plan would have a $0 monthly premium. With an income below the FPL this person would be screwed because Texas didn't expand Medicaid. My bad, it's people who make below the FPL but not low enough to qualify for medicaid that are screwed then.
Marcus Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,835

27th June 2017, 08:10 PM	#95
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 622	Trump wants the government to pay for peoples' healthcare, and that is where he and congressional republicans differ.
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 622	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

27th June 2017, 11:26 PM	#96
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Marcus Obamacare is almost synonymous with the subsidies. There are people who buy on the exchange who don't qualify for subsidies but they are in the minority. ETA: I'm very much in favor of keeping the system. ETA2: The biggest mistake I see was making medicaid expansion optional. I seem to recall that the feds had no real shot at forcing states to expand medicaid, and trying to do so would have lost in the Supreme Court.

28th June 2017, 12:11 AM	#97
HoverBoarder Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,403	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Well it's not killing, so I guess we are fine then? Sorry, wasn't sure if your statement was meant to be sarcastic or not. I am assuming that you realize that kicking 22 million people off of insurance, and charging over 5 times more would result in a very large number of unnecessary deaths. Based on the culmination of over 130 studies on the subject, the historical data shows that 1,300 people would die every year for every 1 million people without health insurance. In other words, the GOP "healthcare" plan would result in 28,600 unnecessary deaths every year for the 22 million uninsured. Health Care Cuts Will Increase Odds Of Dying For The Uninsured, Medical Review Predicts Pointlessly killing off Americans is bad enough, but what's worse is the blood money is not even going to really help any other Americans besides the super rich. You can literally measure the number of people killed (mostly elderly, children, and the disadvantaged) that would be used to buy each new sports car from the extra money given to the super rich as a result of this bill.
	Last edited by HoverBoarder; 28th June 2017 at 12:13 AM.

28th June 2017, 02:28 AM	#98
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 15,178	Originally Posted by xjx388 Resources are limited and hard decisions have to be made. But they're not really that limited in truth, are they? The trouble really isn't resource, it's allocation. https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=700&h=394 http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1258895/original.jpg
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 15,178	__________________ Up the River!

28th June 2017, 02:33 AM	#99
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 29,025	Originally Posted by 3point14 But they're not really that limited in truth, are they? The trouble really isn't resource, it's allocation. https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=700&h=394 http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1258895/original.jpg Exactly. Capitalism is not being checked therefore most of the resources are going right to a few people and corporations.
	__________________ 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

28th June 2017, 03:24 AM	#100
Roger Ramjets Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 3,569	Originally Posted by xjx388 To head off the army of strawmen that are surely coming my way, note that I did not say zero regulation/taxation... Why wouldn't we want to have as small a government as possible? Not zero, just 'as small as possible', huh? Typical republican mantra. "We tried cutting taxes and removing regulations, and things just got worse. So obviously we need more tax cuts and deregulation!" "Eventually we will reach that magic spot where government is as small as possible but not quite zero, and everything will come up roses!".
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

28th June 2017, 03:30 AM	#101
The Great Zaganza Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 4,021	The Constitution never mentions a state-funded military: only militias. So if you want to have a Small Government the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, get rid of the entire defense budget.
	__________________ "When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"

28th June 2017, 03:56 AM	#102
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,454	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza The Constitution never mentions a state-funded military: only militias. So if you want to have a Small Government the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, get rid of the entire defense budget. Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th June 2017, 03:58 AM	#103
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 29,025	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control. And a strong nuclear arsenal was part of the founder's plan as well.
	__________________ 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

28th June 2017, 04:04 AM	#104
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 82,066	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Which always turns out to be the other one if the evil day arrives. I was assuming they'd already have had to sell a kidney to pay for their kid's leukemia treatment...
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

28th June 2017, 04:05 AM	#105
The Great Zaganza Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 4,021	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Likely just the army and airforce. A standing Navy was always understood to be of necessary to keep piracy under control. That is the job of the Coast Guard, not a navy.
	__________________ "When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"

28th June 2017, 04:07 AM	#106
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,454	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza That is the job of the Coast Guard, not a navy. The coast guard was never expected to act overseas. Look at the Tripolitan wars for how the navy was expected to operate
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th June 2017, 04:29 AM	#107
The Great Zaganza Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 4,021	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The coast guard was never expected to act overseas. Look at the Tripolitan wars for how the navy was expected to operate and neither did the Founding Fathers think that they would build a navy to rival England. That was inconceivable. At most, they wanted to curtail smuggling and have early warnings on enemy ships.
	__________________ "When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"

28th June 2017, 05:15 AM	#108
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 21,584	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Not zero, just 'as small as possible', huh? Typical republican mantra. "We tried cutting taxes and removing regulations, and things just got worse. So obviously we need more tax cuts and deregulation!" "Eventually we will reach that magic spot where government is as small as possible but not quite zero, and everything will come up roses!". Repeating the same action, expecting a different result.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it." "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

28th June 2017, 05:37 AM	#109
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,454	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza and neither did the Founding Fathers think that they would build a navy to rival England. That was inconceivable. At most, they wanted to curtail smuggling and have early warnings on enemy ships. And protect commerce in foreign seas. See the Tripolitan wars.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th June 2017, 05:40 AM	#110
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,003	Originally Posted by quadraginta Repeating the same action, expecting a different result. I'm not sure that the objective is wider success for the economy as a whole (though if it happens to come about then that's no bad thing), but instead the success for the individuals who are paying the piper.

28th June 2017, 05:41 AM	#111
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,454	Originally Posted by The Don I'm not sure that the objective is wider success for the economy as a whole (though if it happens to come about then that's no bad thing), but instead the success for the individuals who are paying the piper. The claims being made is broader success, despite the stagnation of the middle class for the past 35 years.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th June 2017, 06:57 AM	#112
Tero Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 1,183	Originally Posted by CapelDodger That can't be it. All the secrecy and short deadlines was about bouncing a measure through because they knew it would be toxic. The more time passes the worse it gets. This is them throwing their hands up and enjoying summer, because who knows what the political landscape will be like come fall? Who knew it would be like this in spring? It's complicated. Trump has to launder the Russian money he is donating to the future campaigns of the 5 hold out Republican senators.
	__________________ So Hillary sharing her email secrets with a server in her own basement was dangerous? But Trump spilling his guts to Russian agents that hold his pee pee tapes is not? http://karireport.blogspot.com/

28th June 2017, 07:39 AM	#113
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 14,528	Originally Posted by quadraginta Repeating the same action, expecting a different result. Exactly: there are all those examples historically and even present day in the USA and other countries where cutting to the bone regulations, government, and safety nets has worked really well for the vast majority of the citizens. Well I can't think of one right now but I am certain that there are many! Whereas countries that are the opposite are horrible failures with horrible qualities of life. Right?

28th June 2017, 12:48 PM	#114
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pacific Northwet Posts: 10,025	Originally Posted by Bob001 Gee, maybe it's time to change them. Both the ACA and the AHCA are massive federal bills. County lines shouldn't carry much weight. Go for it. It might present a problem for regionally located staff-model systems though. Where would you define the boundaries?
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

28th June 2017, 01:43 PM	#115
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 68,033	Re dying without insurance, just found out today that one of the drugs I may need to take costs $10,000/month. Were I on Medicare (I'm not there yet) my share would be 33%, so $3,300/month for years or more. A low income elderly person needing this drug would essentially be unable to buy it. Inadequate insurance coverage can indeed be a death sentence.