Sidebar

Senate Healthcare Bill Released (zombied for now)

CharminTide

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

CharminTide said:
It's designed to fail. Even a superficial look at the changes makes that obvious. It's clear that the true GOP constituents are the wealthy elite; this (retroactive) tax cut bill is meant for them, not for any of us. The scary thing is, it might actually pass.
Click to expand...
Right on queue, now the Koch brothers are saying the cuts to Medicaid (i.e. tax cuts for the Kochs) aren't deep enough:

Chief lieutenants in the Koch brothers’ political network lashed out at the Senate Republican health care bill on Saturday as not conservative enough, becoming a powerful outside critic as GOP leaders try to rally support for their plan among rank-and-file Republicans.

Tim Phillips, who leads Americans For Prosperity, the Koch network’s political arm, called the Senate’s plans [to slash Medicaid spending] “a slight nip and tuck” of President Barack Obama’s health care law, a modest change he described as “immoral.”

No outside group has been move aggressive over the yearslong push to repeal Obama’s health care law than the Kochs’, who vowed on Saturday to spend another 10 years fighting to change the health care system if necessary. The Koch network has often displayed a willingness to take on Republicans — including President Donald Trump — when their policies aren’t deemed conservative enough.

Network spokesman James Davis said the organization would continue to push for changes to the Senate health care bill over the coming week.
Click to expand...

They then proceed to flex their lobbying muscle. But I'm sure VP Pence, who just had a private meeting with the Kochs, treats the concerns of this small group no differently than yours or mine. I guess we'll see whether it's the millions of poor Americans or this tiny group of rich donors who get the changes they want over this next week.

The comments came on the first day of a three-day private donor retreat at a luxury resort in the Rocky Mountains. Invitations were extended only to donors who promise to give at least $100,000 each year to the various groups backed by the Koch brothers’ Freedom Partners — a network of education, policy and political entities that aim to promote small government.

“When I look at where we are at the size and effectiveness of this network, I’m blown away,” billionaire industrialist Charles Koch told hundreds of donors during an outdoor evening reception. His brother, David Koch, looked on from the crowd along with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

The network’s wishes are backed by a massive political budget that will be used to take on Republican lawmakers, if necessary, Phillips said.

He described the organization’s budget for policy and politics heading into the 2018 midterm elections as between $300 million and $400 million. “We believe we’re headed to the high end of that range,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
92tide

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,314
45,172
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

CharminTide said:
Right on queue, now the Koch brothers are saying the cuts to Medicaid (i.e. tax cuts for the Kochs) aren't deep enough:



They then proceed to flex their lobbying muscle. But I'm sure VP Pence, who just had a private meeting with the Kochs, treats the concerns of this small group no differently than yours or mine. I guess we'll see whether it's the millions of poor Americans or this tiny group of rich donors who get the changes they want over this next week.
Click to expand...
this is why conservatives are winning, they are directing their policies and messages to quell the economic anxieties of the working class.
 
B

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,601
2,259
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

CharminTide said:
Thank you for the thoughtful and in-depth response. I've never doubted that we shared the same ultimate goal; as usual, our differences lie in the how.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I appreciate the back-and-forth. I think there's much on which we agree, and on the rest we can just agree to disagree and still respect where each other is coming from on the subject.

Again, I think this is an overly idealistic and entirely impractical view. You can't actually institute these kinds of policies based on utopian assumptions and expect a functional outcome. I didn't go into how I think your ideal vision conflicts with basic human nature, but I absolutely agree with chanson on that point.
Click to expand...
We have different definitions of idealism and concepts of human nature. My first course of study was political philosophy, and the starting point for that is understanding human nature. Once you determine what people are capable of, the type of system to govern them then follows. I’ve read the works of dozens of political philosophers throughout Western civilization (ancient Greeks, early Christians, Germans, French, Founding Fathers, etc.), so I’m very familiar with the varying concepts of human nature. What I propose is not idealism or a utopia. I believe the political philosophers that got it right, and the view I advocate, are this country’s founders. Most people can be self reliant if they aren’t encouraged/coerced by the government to be underachievers. Unfortunately, today government encourages and coerces people to be underachievers.

Your view of human nature is quite cynical IMO. If you think people are little more than adult infants who can’t take care of themselves, then you require a massive nanny state to take care of the people. This is the statist/collectivist view; it’s a largely Hobbesian concept of the relationship between people and government. Statists want big government - a levitation.

There are glaring contradictions in such a view. One is that people are more than adult infants; most people can actually take care of themselves. The second contradiction is that who comprises the government? If people are pathetic and incompetent and in need of constant supervision, who is doing the supervising? More pathetic and incompetent people. But this time with the force of government behind them. If this view of human nature is correct, then there is nothing but a death spiral waiting for such a country.

My point was that expensive medical care is anything but rare. A C-section with a basic, uncomplicated birth costs around $50k. How many 25-year-olds saddled with college debt would have that kind of money saved up? Medical care is expensive. You can make the argument that it's too expensive and I certainly wouldn't disagree. But that's an entirely different conversation, and you can't simply ignore reality to justify an ideal.
Click to expand...
My wife had a c-section, and even factoring in the cost of 11 years of inflation, it was only a fraction of the cost you describe. I’m not sure if this is a California thing or what is causing the disconnect in our two costs. At any rate, hopefully the woman in your example didn’t take on massive debt obtaining a pointless degree for a low paying career before making the decision to have a baby. Hopefully she was responsible enough to marry the father of her child and together they worked a little on their careers ahead of time to build a stable foundation for child rearing.

It's very fortunate that you two were able to save that kind of money for you mom's needs later in life, and I'm genuinely happy that was possible for you and your family. But I think it's a bit naïve to assume that over 300 million Americans will also be able to make a significant amount of money off real estate or other investments, to the point where they can comfortably retire and confidently tackle both expected and unexpected medical bills. It sounds like your mother has been relatively healthy over the past 70 years, which is fantastic. But what if she were like countless other mothers over 50, and required more than just routine or preventative care? That medical fund you've been saving, if it still existed, would be considerably smaller.
Click to expand...
My Mom’s situation is not one of fortune. She didn’t win the lottery or hit it big at a casino; she didn’t inherit from a rich uncle. To say she was lucky diminishes what she accomplished. What she has achieved is the logical result of hard work and pursuing a plan to have a comfortable retirement. She’s worked hard to build her business. I’ve worked hard and stuck to the plan to add to her investments. (This is aside from the insurance she has. I'm not advocating no insurance, just more intelligent use of it.)

In insurance terms, your plan forces people into lifetime limits, defined primarily by their own income.
Click to expand...
There is no lifetime limit. My Mom did not save up a pile of money, put it in a bank account and slowly draw it down to cover her expenses. (That would be a dangerous plan, obviously.) Her investments will spin off quarterly and monthly income for generations. (Again, this is aside from the insurance she has.)

I get that you want a system that promotes personal responsibility, and I'm not philosophically opposed to that. I get that you (as mentioned in a separate thread) don't want to be on the hook to cover what you consider to be others' poor choices, and I'm sympathetic to that.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

But IMO, you're extrapolating your own good fortune in terms of health issues onto the whole population in an unrealistic way, you're vastly underestimating the cost of healthcare in America today, and you're proposing a system that runs counter to basic human nature. It's a wonderful ideal, but completely impractical.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t describe my situation as one of good fortune. Initially it was a lot of hard work and trial and error. And learning from my mistakes. But, like I said, I’m nothing special. It’s nothing that millions of people don’t already do, so I don’t see it as being impractical at all.

What is impractical is to expect government to solve the problem. Government doesn’t solve anything. I see daily the waste and bad decisions. In this thread I’ve discussed the waste and fraud. And no one who advocates government is disputing this reality. How do you stop people from abusing the system? How do prevent government waste? You can’t. Government is waste, and government programs exist to be abused. Billions upon billions of dollars of waste, fraud, abuse. Why do we want more insanity?
 
Last edited:
B

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,601
2,259
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

I've seen a few posts that criticize my ideas for being pipe dreams or pie in the sky. I agree in the sense that the government will never relinquish control over our money and freedom. But, I believe the ideas themselves are far better than what we currently have and where we are headed. Maybe I wasn't clear, so let me try to summarize.

I’m not advocating self-insurance solely; I'm advocating for a better use of insurance plus simple forward planning. For example, you wouldn’t advise a loved one to not plan for retirement because they have Social Security. You would advise them to invest as well. That’s what I’m arguing for. The money to do this is already there for most people (and that's what I think a lot of people are missing). Most people have insurance through their jobs, and they pay premiums and taxes with every paycheck. I’m saying that most of this money is wasted due to the nature of government and the argument that basic health care shouldn’t go through insurance because one grossly overpays. Take that money and invest it and buy insurance for catastrophic and long term care.

So, people could easily have three sources of investing. One, put away some of your disposable income. Maybe keeping up with the Joneses is not the best strategy.

Two, per above, invest some of the money that is otherwise wasted on insurance. (Of course, we'd have to get government permission to change the rules.)

And three, don’t have the government waste Social Security. (Again the government is not going to allow this.) Forty years of investing at market rates will provide hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions). Compare that with the government plan, which has a negative return. The government is ripping everyone off big time and crushing the opportunity to be self sufficient.
 
B

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,601
2,259
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

A lot of people will still insist on trusting the government. Where does this blind faith come from? I can’t even recall an incident that involved the government doing something efficiently and that didn’t have adverse consequences.

So, what does the government do?

It provides mediocre primary education and encourages people to take on massive student loan debt for secondary education (to cover the sky rocketing costs it causes).

It encourages people to play the lottery and even uses public funds to advertise the worst concept of personal finance.

It takes a sizeable chunk of people’s income (12.5% IIRC from the individual and the employer) for 40 years and gives it back at a negative return.

It has “affordable housing” policies that force many people to pay 20% more for their house than they otherwise would.

Arlington National Cemetery can’t even bury veterans in the correct place.

The way the VA treats veterans is criminal. The one place above all other whose job it is to honor and take care of veterans causes misery and death.

The government apparently pays for half the births in this country. So, about 2M x $10k (this number is probably low) is $20,000,000,000.

The IRS can stop itself from passing out $21,000,000,000 in bogus tax refunds. Think about that. They know waste is going on, but they can't stop it. What other entity on the planet accepts that kind waste so passively?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/11/tax-...billion-and-theres-little-the-irs-can-do.html

And so on and so on for countless more examples. That's waste in the hundreds of billions of dollars in just my handful of examples. And that's not counting the salaries of the people that waste our money. The real total has to be more that trillion! $1,000,000,000,000 +. Every freaking year!

And some people want more government? And they want government in charge of their health care? I'm sorry, that's all sorts of crazy.
 
Last edited:
CharminTide

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

I appreciate the back and forth, Bodhi. I think we've both explained our views adequately and will have to just accept some disagreements.

I came across this tweet yesterday. It's from a nurse and mother of a 2-year-old son born with a number of syndromic organ defects. He's needed four open heart surgeries so far, and she posted the bill for his most recent operation:





I'll save you the math: it's $231k without the ACA. Multiply by four, take into account his non-surgical care, and you're over a million. What's your solution for this for this woman? Do you wag your finger and say she should have invested in bitcoin 10 years ago to fund his care? That if only she had invested more each month, the invisible hand would help her reach her own bootstraps? Even if she had catastrophic coverage, as you suggest, these continual visits would still leave her on the hook for $50k-100k minimum.

And just a quick note on catastrophic coverage: I'm in favor of keeping it as an option, as the ACA does. But you argue that it should be baseline for everyone. Thing is, it just doesn't work for very poor people. If your pre-tax income is $10,000 annually, a plan with a $7k deductible is completely useless, no matter how low the monthly payments are. These people will just say screw it, live without insurance, and we'll end up paying their bills through EMTALA.
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

Here are some rational, seemingly non-political thoughts about the Senate bill (and the House bill by comparison):

http://www.realclearhealth.com/arti..._the_senate_gops_health_care_bill_110647.html

Those bellowing that tens of millions will lose insurance coverage, consigning myriad Americans to sickness and death are also blowing smoke. The dire predictions on coverage compare hazy predictions of hypothetical laws with impossibly optimistic expectations of the current law. And in America, the uninsured have not gone without care, though the financing of that care has been messy. In addition, economic research has established a much weaker connection between coverage and health than intuition might suggest.
Click to expand...
Like the ACA, neither the BCRA nor the AHCA tackles the real problems of American health care. The ACA promised lots of care to tens of millions of newly insured people and quite a bit of free stuff to hundreds of millions of previously insured people. But the law did not appreciably increase the supplies of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, and so forth. Nor did it markedly change how we use those resources. The ACA redistributed care and money from some people to other people. For the most part, the BCRA and AHCA do the same.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CharminTide

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

CBO score is released. LINK

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
Click to expand...
Under the Senate bill, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 20 percent higher in 2018 than under current law, mainly because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up... Those premiums would be about 10 percent higher than under current law in 2019... In 2020, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 30 percent lower than under current law. A combination of factors would lead to that decrease—most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums.

Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on health care even though benchmark premiums would decline, on average, in 2020 and later years. Because nongroup insurance would pay for a smaller average share of benefits under this legislation, most people purchasing it would have higher out-of-pocket spending on health care than under current law. Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers... Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.
Click to expand...
 
CharminTide

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

Tide1986 said:
I assume the CBO continues to use their own special brand of "math". In other words, they base their numbers on some hypothetical number of future insureds under existing law.
Click to expand...
Lacking time travel, I do believe these numbers are projections based on current data and past observations.
 
Jon

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,648
12,576
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released

Why indeed

Here's a dark fact: Every single GOP senator who calls him or herself pro-life who votes for the Republican health care bill knowingly will be voting for legislation that will kill tens of thousands of Americans per year.

Specifically, the Obamacare "repeal and replace" bill that's currently before the Senate could result in at least 26,500 additional dead Americans per year, according to researchers.
Click to expand...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...pushing-bill-that-will-kill-thousands-w489867
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom