Affordable Care Act

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Petty bickering has no place in an RD thread. It would be good to remember this, particularly when one is deciding whether to start an RD thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Perfection]

I am surprised how many liberals are behind subsidy payments to Big Insurance. Odd. There was a decent cartoon. Note the daintily extended pinky finger.

They help lower my insurance premiums.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I am surprised how many liberals are behind subsidy payments to Big Insurance. Odd. There was a decent cartoon. Note the daintily extended pinky finger.

IRS will no longer enforce the Obamacare Mandate
Trump has ended insurance subsidies
But insurance cannot deny pre-exisiting conditions

Note: This is fantastic, just buy insurance get treatment then leave the market place afterwards

 

[Zkribbler]

They help lower my insurance premiums.

Me too.

 

[onejayhawk]

They help lower my insurance premiums.

Trickle down did work. How about that.

Do you have only one option, or is there a cafeteria of choices? Nothing is perfect, but the logic of the new plan is pretty compelling. Almost everyone belongs to some sort of an association.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

Trickle down did work. How about that.

Government mandate forcing people to purchase something is now trickle down ? Or just the subsidy part ?
Anyways Red States are reaping what they sowed with their tax tickle down experiments

 

[Perfection]

Trickle down did work. How about that.

Do you have only one option, or is there a cafeteria of choices?

There's a few insurers in the market. Last year 3 offered gold plans. The huge thing is they by law must cover pre-existing conditions.

But really, I'm only concerned with how many plans there are in the marketplace insofar as they improve plan quality. Having 20 plans available that all suck is not acceptable - having 1 plan that is good is acceptable.

Nothing is perfect, but the logic of the new plan is pretty compelling. Almost everyone belongs to some sort of an association.

J

What plan are you talking about? The one allowing people to get health insurance through non-work groups? I am exceedingly skeptical of that, and I'm not a member of any qualifying association. My suspicion is they will have the same sort of plans as contract agencies do, that is expensive plans with crap coverage.

The logic of the new plan is to screw me over and pretend it's in my interest.

 

[danjuno]

Trickle down did work.

Wat

Do you have only one option, or is there a cafeteria of choices? Nothing is perfect,

Hmmm..... 20 options of feces or the breadline at a gulag? I prefer cold weather anyway.

 

[JollyRoger]

Trickle down did work. How about that.

Do you have only one option, or is there a cafeteria of choices? Nothing is perfect, but the logic of the new plan is pretty compelling. Almost everyone belongs to some sort of an association.

J

So, by the Republicans trying to get rid of the estate tax, they are trying to get rid of trickle down?: After all, you have a choice - you can subject yourself to the estate tax or go tax free by trickling it down on your husband who gets married after you die and trickles it down on his new husband . . . etc. Or you can trickle it down onto charities.

 

[onejayhawk]

So, by the Republicans trying to get rid of the estate tax, they are trying to get rid of trickle down?: After all, you have a choice - you can subject yourself to the estate tax or go tax free by trickling it down on your husband who gets married after you die and trickles it down on his new husband . . . etc. Or you can trickle it down onto charities.

Are you trying to get off point? What has estate tax to do with insurance company subsidies? The trickle down is a payment to a company that gives a purchaser a lower price.

There's a few insurers in the market. Last year 3 offered gold plans. The huge thing is they by law must cover pre-existing conditions. But really, I'm only concerned with how many plans there are in the marketplace insofar as they improve plan quality. Having 20 plans available that all suck is not acceptable - having 1 plan that is good is acceptable.

What plan are you talking about? The one allowing people to get health insurance through non-work groups? I am exceedingly skeptical of that, and I'm not a member of any qualifying association. My suspicion is they will have the same sort of plans as contract agencies do, that is expensive plans with crap coverage.

The logic of the new plan is to screw me over and pretend it's in my interest.

Any ACA complying plan is a gold plan, or at least solid silver. It's one of the law's biggest flaws.

I understand your misgivings concerning the new associations admitted, but the logic is sound. Almost any business is associated with a interstate or national group. For example, the American Dairy Association, The Bar Association, or the AFL-CIO. The employer is entitled to provide coverage through the footprint of the organization, not just through the insurers of the state where the business resides. This is big advantage in low population states. Allowing non complying plans to be offered will save a lot on premiums. Granted, it is at the expense of coverage, but an ACA compliant plan will always be an option. Just not the only option.

There will be kinks and problems, but this is a much more workable approach than ACA itself.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Are you trying to get off point? What has estate tax to do with insurance company subsidies? The trickle down is a payment to a company that gives a purchaser a lower price.
J

That is not the understood definition of trickle down. Trickle down is generally understood as a tax cut to the wealthy under the misguided theory that the wealth will then spend more, thus having a ripple effect through the economy.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is not the understood definition of trickle down. Trickle down is generally understood as a tax cut to the wealthy under the misguided theory that the wealth will then spend more, thus having a ripple effect through the economy.

Relevance? This is not theory. This is a specific case where payments to the top resulted in savings at the bottom.

Since you bring it up, the specific case tends to support the theory and runs counter to your position. Facts can be inflexible that way.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

So by cutting subsidies, Trump is intentionally increasing costs to the bottom?

 

[onejayhawk]

So by cutting subsidies, Trump is intentionally increasing costs to the bottom?

No. That would imply there was no offset.

J

 

[tuckerkao]

So by cutting subsidies, Trump is intentionally increasing costs to the bottom?

With both the Republican controlling House and Senate, President Trump should easily pass his new health bills if they don't have obvious defects.

When the subsidies are cut, the insurance company will only earn less only if President Trump willing to define the new correct laws on them, otherwise the cuts are directed on the lower income workers because the insurance companies have the freedoms to raise the premiums.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Dont worry Republicans have a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare /s

The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding. Massive subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped. Dems should call me to fix!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2017

What is the Republicans game plan anyways ?
The Mandate is dead
Subsidies is dead
Medicare has been slashed
Only the pre-existing conditions provision remains and this cannot be sustained
Let Obamacare implode and blame Obama, would probably win the GOP one more round of elections. Then hand over this mess to the democrats to fix ? Hopefully single payer can be pass through and then take credit for it ?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Then hand over this mess to the democrats to fix ?

You just earned an A+ in US Political history for the past 4 decades...

On a related note... A friend pointed out to me recently that John McCain isn't getting any props for how he Maverick'ed the ACA fight... essentially saving Obamacare... twice.

Do folks think it was a pure middle finger to Trump over the mocking him for being captured? Or was it that the death bed bout with cancer put his legacy in perspective? Or was it just that McCain has a rare ounce of principle... and the brass balls to go with it?

I'm leaning towards the latter, but I wonder what my CFC pals think...

 

[Zkribbler]

Trickle down did work. How about that.

Do you have only one option, or is there a cafeteria of choices? Nothing is perfect, but the logic of the new plan is pretty compelling. Almost everyone belongs to some sort of an association.

J

Mine is a standard Blue Cross group policy, offered to LA County employees for years.

 

[Perfection]

Are you trying to get off point?

This whole thread line of conversation was because you brought up trickle-down economics as some sort of bizarre dig, despite he fact that it's a completely different concept. If Jolly is off point it's because of you.

Any ACA complying plan is a gold plan, or at least solid silver. It's one of the law's biggest flaws.

I understand your misgivings concerning the new associations admitted, but the logic is sound. Almost any business is associated with a interstate or national group. For example, the American Dairy Association, The Bar Association, or the AFL-CIO. The employer is entitled to provide coverage through the footprint of the organization, not just through the insurers of the state where the business resides. This is big advantage in low population states. Allowing non complying plans to be offered will save a lot on premiums. Granted, it is at the expense of coverage, but an ACA compliant plan will always be an option. Just not the only option.

There will be kinks and problems, but this is a much more workable approach than ACA itself.

J

Don't try to sell me a fairy tale. The plans, if I can obtain them, will be expensive and crap. I need insurance that actually covers stuff.

The ACA as it stands gives me viable options for a health plan and I will adamantly oppose any proposal that takes it from me in exchange for fairy dust baloney.

 

[metalhead]

You can ignore J. Really, he has no clue when it comes to this policy. The thing he is talking about - low premium plans which don't cover anything - were considered to be a huge problem back in the late Aughts. In fact, one of the many things driving the push for health reform was that people were buying these plans thinking they had insurance, and then trying to use their plans only to discover they don't actually cover anything.

It was little more than a scam, and everyone at the time agreed it was a problem that needed fixing. All this will do is drive up the cost of ACA compliant plans for those who wish to purchase them, taking away people's ability to obtain the coverage they want.

Of course, you can't get a straight answer out of J whenever you try to get him to admit that he doesn't believe everyone should have access to health coverage they can afford, but he certainly favors policy which has that outcome. I mean, this is just absurd - you want to sell people little coverage at a low cost, to make it so that other people who want insurance that actually covers things becomes too expensive. J, can you explain to me how this policy outcome is beneficial?