The unofficial Obamacare thread...

[Cavatt]

That's just flatly false. There are people who paid a tax under Obamacare , who made less than $500k, who would not have to pay any tax at all now.

My brother in law bought catastrophic on the side, in a non-qualifying plan. He had to pay the ObamaCare tax for not having coverage. This bill would eliminate that tax payment.

I paid the tax the first year. Waaaay cheaper than buying insurance. The 1200 dollars or so I paid was far outstripped by the subsidy I got the following year.

 

[Cavatt]

There is a contract provision in a CBA I negotiated that provides for a 0.75/Hr. wage increase if the employer mandate is repealed. So while those workers aren't getting a tax savings, they will get more money in their pocket. They weren't getting health care under Obamacare, either.

Oh, we'll also be moving about 150 people from 27.5 hrs/wk to 37/5 hrs./week if that bill passes.

Those guys are going to get more money in their pocket and more will come out of their pocket for deductibles and premiums, except they won't get to pay those tax free. Que Sera Sera. That is 1560 dollars over the course of the year if they worked 40hrs/52 weeks, except they won't get health insurance? I am genuinely asking. I can't afford health insurance for 156o a year and I have 0 health issues and never go to the doctor.

 

[Huber.]

\
The same thing that happened to the type writer repair men

Bad comparison. Health insurance agencies make the USA go around.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

And what would happen to the millions employed by the health insurance industry?

If you ever did go to a single payer system I would think there would still be a need for a lot of these workers as someone still has to process claims. The only way to truly cut a lot of the middle man out is if the government owned and ran the hospitals like the do for VA.

Those guys are going to get more money in their pocket and more will come out of their pocket for deductibles and premiums, except they won't get to pay those tax free. Que Sera Sera. That is 1560 dollars over the course of the year if they worked 40hrs/52 weeks, except they won't get health insurance? I am genuinely asking. I can't afford health insurance for 156o a year and I have 0 health issues and never go to the doctor.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like they don't offer health insurance anyway. Basicly if the company does not have to pay the fine to the government they will give that fine to the workers instead. That's how I took it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I paid the tax the first year. Waaaay cheaper than buying insurance. The 1200 dollars or so I paid was far outstripped by the subsidy I got the following year.

There are a whole lot of people who make less than $500k who do not qualify for subsidies.

 

[buzzdog]

Just spit-balling here...

This is something that occurred to me as I was watching Rand Paul talk about scrapping the whole Republican replacement plan and moving to something that enables people to buy into group insurance plans via collectives (example, AARP could adopt a group insurance option for their members, etc.).

I think something along these lines could work, with one caveat. In the name of true competition, and to turn this concept into something that could be bi-partisan, I would do what Paul says but add an option for people to buy into Medicare as one of the competing groups to choose from. If this were done in a way that the Medicare option premiums reflected the true cost with no subsidies (while benefiting from the efficiencies and buying power that come with something as big as Medicare), then I think both sides of the aisle could support such a system.

The free market people could choose from the group plans Paul describes, and the single payer proponents could choose the Medicare option as long as it doesn't weaken existing Medicare. It could even possibly be structured in a way the strengthens Medicare. This part is key, the Medicare option premiums would absolutely have to be set high enough that this would completely fund itself without subsidies.

The Medicare option would only exist as one of the competitors in an otherwise free health care insurance market.

Theoretically all of this competition would be aligned in putting downward pressure on costs of actually providing health care.

If Rand Paul's theory is correct that private insurance groups can actually provide better insurance options for less money, people will naturally gravitate to the private side and reject the Medicare option.

Okay, blast away.

 

[Cavatt]

There are a whole lot of people who make less than $500k who do not qualify for subsidies.

I know. The info I have seen says these guys will be worse off under this new plan. If you just want a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, just say so.

This is going to make insurance more expensive probably for everyone.

I'm confused why you would buy catastrophic insurance and pay the penalty. That has got to add up to more than just buying insurance.

 

[Cavatt]

Bad comparison. Health insurance agencies make the USA go around.

Doing what? Not paying out?

They are a middle man, and there is always more cash available to the consumer by eliminating the middle man.

Anyway I don't believe in keeping coal jobs either. We can't keep the candle makers in business.

I can never tell when a conservative if into the free market and when they aren't. Depends on what benefits them.most. personally I believe that when the money incentive is in the direction of not providing your service like in health insurance that is not a good use of the market system.

 

[Kyrieville]

Single payer or bust. Medicare for all would suffice. You prevent the issue of moral hazard by designing a single payer plan with copays and deductibles. The foundation is already set; it makes too much sense.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

Single payer or bust. Medicare for all would suffice. You prevent the issue of moral hazard by designing a single payer plan with copays and deductibles. The foundation is already set; it makes too much sense.

This is always going to be hard because of the amount of new taxes it would take to fund this. You also have a large part of the population who does not think it is the government role to prove insurance or healthcare for all Americans.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

Doing what? Not paying out?

They are a middle man, and there is always more cash available to the consumer by eliminating the middle man.

Anyway I don't believe in keeping coal jobs either. We can't keep the candle makers in business.

I can never tell when a conservative if into the free market and when they aren't. Depends on what benefits them.most. personally I believe that when the money incentive is in the direction of not providing your service like in health insurance that is not a good use of the market system.

This is like saying don't shop at a department store, call up a factory and buy all your items direct. This is not feasible and most Americans lack the desire or the skill set to negoatie with hospitals and healthcare providers on costs.

 

[Kyrieville]

This is always going to be hard because of the amount of new taxes it would take to fund this. You also have a large part of the population who does not think it is the government role to prove insurance or healthcare for all Americans.

It is essentially what Obamacare and Trumpcare do anyways.

As long as the government does not own and operate the hospitals, I am fine with it. They already dictate how hospitals run, why not eliminate the middle man that drives up pricing? At this point, it is akin to private prisons and publically funded charter schools... just funneling money from the middle class to select rich corporations.

I am ok with new taxes to fund it because I know it would be cheaper than paying the current insurance premiums that I pay. Medicare has 2-5% administrative fees, private insurance has 35% administrative fees. Eliminate that overhead.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

It is essentially what Obamacare and Trumpcare do anyways.

As long as the government does not own and operate the hospitals, I am fine with it. They already dictate how hospitals run, why not eliminate the middle man that drives up pricing? At this point, it is akin to private prisons and publically funded charter schools... just funneling money from the middle class to select rich corporations.

I am ok with new taxes to fund it because I know it would be cheaper than paying the current insurance premiums that I pay. Medicare has 2-5% administrative fees, private insurance has 35% administrative fees. Eliminate that overhead.

It is a huge change in thinking and how people value. Take company A, they offer the same insurance to all of their employees from the college grad in a entry level job, to the executive. The cost the employer and the employee pay is the same for each person. In a government run system what you pay is now based on what you make because it is a tax. How is that fair to those who make more money? That's the shift that people will struggle with.

 

[buzzdog]

Why not open up Medicare so individuals can buy in at a price that reflects the true cost of the insurance, which would be roughly equivalent to whatever the tax increase would be under a single payer system?

Then allow people to opt in or out, and give them the other option to buy into private insurance collectives as Rand Paul suggests?

Let the government run insurance compete honestly against private companies either with no subsidies, or if subsidies are given they're equally available for either the public or private insurance options?

Then, whichever system is truly better, cheaper, more efficient would provide fair competition for the other. And, people would have the choice of either the private, for-profit collective buying groups that Paul suggests, or they could buy into the Medicare option without being mandated or forced one way or the other?

I'm not seeing anyone respond, I assume because people are generally locked in to either one side (all public option only) or the other (free private market only).

I've always said that Obamacare was nothing other than a huge blow job given by the government to the insurance companies and the AHCA does look like Obamacare light, and to me it looks destined to be a train wreck.

What I propose is radically different, and could conceivably be bi-partisan, giving both systems and ideologies a chance to compete without cramming anything down anyone's throat.

 

[buzzdog]

To add to the above... I see over-reliance on employer based health care insurance as a problem because it creates a financial and administrative burden on employers. What I describe above would allow employers to have more options to either continue with the status quo, or to join larger buying groups, or to just pay out a stipend for employees to buy into thier own choice, or they could still just choose to pay nothing towards this if they are able to find employees without providing such benefits. Again, no mandates, just people and companies making their own choices on a more level playing field.