Conservatives fret GOP is blowing Obamacare repeal

[INVAR]

Reform the exchanges to offer more choices.

You cannot possibly be that ignorant.  Deceptive is probably more likely.

You cannot "reform the exchanges" when the mandates for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and other stupid shit not applicable to the insured is levied by bureaucrats.  Blue Cross is about to be the only major insurance provider left once Humana pulls out next year.

So your utopian fantasy of offering more choices is as empty as promises made by a Democrat.  What you gonna do - force companies at gunpoint to participate in a failed effort?

Let consumers make their own decisions about what and how much to insure. 

We had that BEFORE ObamaCare.  Whenever you get government involved, you ensure the consumer has no liberty to make any decisions about what is best for themselves.  Bureaucrats in rooms with no windows will always make that decision for them. 

But you knew that being the massive proponent of Big Government Statism that you are.

Let individuals insure themselves the way businesses do - by tax deductible spending coupled with stop loss insurance.

Cannot have that when government is involved in mandating coverage, limits and care.  You're living in fantasyland.  Again.  Attempting to sell Liberal Statism/Progressive Marxism as common sense.

Encourage doctors to offer special pricing for cash transactions.   

Cannot have that when government is involved with any aspect of healthcare and especially mandates individual coverage.  Government does not permit competition when it is involved in mandating coverage

Separate at least some of the chronically sick from the general insurance pool by forming risk pools funded with general tax revenues.

So what agency in the federal Beast is going to database and catalogue the entire population and determine whom is chronically sick and with what?  What criteria will be established by bureaucrats to determine who is eligible for being in tax-subsidized risk insurance pools??   You sound just like a typical giant Liberal Marxist with this utopian pie-in-the-sky government provisos, you know?

Incentivize employers to turn over their employees to the exchanges so they can inject the marketplace with dollars and healthy lives.

What a bunch of liberal/'regressive' gobbledygook that sounds good to the emotionally-based clueless Joe Sixpack.  ObamaCare already 'incentivized' employers to DUMP their employee health insurance plans to force their workforces into  the exchanges, where they get no care, for ridiculously high premiums and deductibles for less-than healthy lives than we had before people like you thought it was a great idea to get government put in charge of healthcare.

You're simply cheerleading what ObamaCare already achieved.

[Smokin Joe]

Well said and succinct to the point!

Yep.

[Cyber Liberty]

Got the other fool to respond

I've seen you get pretty upset when you've been called a liberal, and here you are calling a couple of upstanding members of TBR "fools." 

Nice. 

Every time I read your exchanges with others, I get the feeling you're just trolling the place.  You're not interested in discourse, you're interested only in lecturing the fools.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I've seen you get pretty upset when you've been called a liberal, and here you are calling a couple of upstanding members of TBR "fools." 

Nice. 

Every time I read your exchanges with others, I get the feeling you're just trolling the place.  You're not interested in discourse, you're interested only in lecturing the fools.

Actually you're wrong, Jazzhead wrote a pretty long and detailed post the other day. Was surprised at the effort he put into it.


You may not agree with him, but he's not just interesting in trolling.

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually you're wrong, Jazzhead wrote a pretty long and detailed post the other day. Was surprised at the effort he put into it.


You may not agree with him, but he's not just interesting in trolling.

I saw it.  It was a lecture, a one-way exchange of information.  Maybe not a troll, but sure acts like one.

[Jazzhead]

I've seen you get pretty upset when you've been called a liberal, and here you are calling a couple of upstanding members of TBR "fools." 

Nice. 

Every time I read your exchanges with others, I get the feeling you're just trolling the place.  You're not interested in discourse, you're interested only in lecturing the fools.

You're right, I'm not particularly interested in discourse with fools.  But there are plenty of thoughtful folks here,  and I've enjoyed being a member of the board.   If you can't find examples of serious discourse,  then you're not looking.  Care to discuss some of the ideas I noted in my posts #38, 100 and 123?     

[Cyber Liberty]

You're right, I'm not particularly interested in discourse with fools.  But there are plenty of thoughtful folks here,  and I've enjoyed being a member of the board.   If you can't find examples of serious discourse,  then you're not looking.  Care to discuss some of the ideas I noted in my posts #38, 100 and 123?   

Maybe, but I doubt it.  I've had discussions with you before and I've gotten nothing out of them.

[Jazzhead]

One could argue—and I hold this belief—that the reason the ACA/Obamacare is such a debacle is because it was a botched attempt at compromise. Remember: Obamacare, as originally proposed, had a public option. THAT would have set the stage for a path to single-payer. The public option was stripped from the finished bill in a desperate attempt to get the majority of votes to pass it.

So, as of now, there isn't really a path forward to go from the ACA to a single-payer system. The gulf is just as wide now as it was before the bill was passed. The groundwork for it is not in place.

I agree.   The ACA WAS a botched compromise, a compromise among leftist Dems and blue dog Dems.   The blue dogs wouldn't support single payer,  and signed on to a private sector approach that preserved the role of insurance companies within the framework of individual and employer mandates intended to broaden the pool of the insured.   But there was no serious attempt to control costs,  and "choice" with respect to policies on the exchanges was limited to the size of the deductibles and copays.   Meanwhile,  insurance companies were forbidden to price insurance according to the age-based risks involved,  and forced the young and healthy to pay more so the old and infirm could be charged less.   

And the young and healthy have stayed away, causing insurers to raise premiums and narrow provider networks.   

On the employer side,  the mandates have stifled employment growth by smaller employers,  and forced even the largest employers to raise the co-insurance they charge their employees.  Why?   Because group plans can no longer control costs by imposing reasonable annual and lifetime limits,  must cover a host of things for free (thereby spiking utilization), and must provide parity in benefits for mental illness.

The core structural change that needs to happen -and it will take time - is to divorce health coverage from employment.  Employers who don't have to run health care plans can use that money for higher wages and more jobs.   Some employers will want to run health plans to attract the best workers, but they shouldn't be forced to do so.    One simple fix, at least for the time being, would be to permit employers to satisfy the mandate by contributing $3,000 for each full-time employee to a health reimbursement account that the employee can use to purchase individual coverage from an ACA exchange.   Employers will prefer that to spending $8,000 per employee on a group health plan.   And the employees will bring their dollars and healthy lives to the exchanges,  allowing insurers to spread risks and lower costs. 

 

[Jazzhead]

I saw it.  It was a lecture, a one-way exchange of information.  Maybe not a troll, but sure acts like one.

Well, I appreciate that you took the time to read it,  even if it only inspired you to name-call.   

[Sanguine]

You're right, I'm not particularly interested in discourse with fools.  But there are plenty of thoughtful folks here,  and I've enjoyed being a member of the board.   If you can't find examples of serious discourse,  then you're not looking.  Care to discuss some of the ideas I noted in my posts #38, 100 and 123?   

@INVAR rebutted those points.  What is there to add?

[Night Hides Not]

I've seen you get pretty upset when you've been called a liberal, and here you are calling a couple of upstanding members of TBR "fools." 

Nice. 

Every time I read your exchanges with others, I get the feeling you're just trolling the place.  You're not interested in discourse, you're interested only in lecturing the fools.

For the record, this fool will not be lectured to...

I have a wife for that.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I saw it.  It was a lecture, a one-way exchange of information.  Maybe not a troll, but sure acts like one.

No, he's just a moderate. You disagree with him, therefor he's a troll. Standard fare around here.

[Jazzhead]

@INVAR rebutted those points.  What is there to add?

He responded with name-calling, not rebuttal. 

[Bigun]

Maybe, but I doubt it.  I've had discussions with you before and I've gotten nothing out of them.

@Cyber Liberty

I have gotten plenty out of my discussions with him!  What I got was that he isn't worth me wasting another second of my time with!

[Cyber Liberty]

I have gotten plenty out of my discussions with him!  What I got was that he isn't worth me wasting another second of my time with!

Dittos.   

[Jazzhead]

The forum is what you make of it.  I'm pleased that I do not appeal to those who want this place to be an echo chamber, and whose preferred method of "argument" is name-calling and labeling.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

No, he's just a moderate. You disagree with him, therefor he's a troll. Standard fare around here.

You would think people would be thankful that someone is around here to actually challenge us to think our positions through at the least. This holier/more conservative than thou nonsense is starting to get on my nerves.

Maybe it's because I like a good discussion/argument.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, he's just a moderate. You disagree with him, therefor he's a troll. Standard fare around here.

When I watch a thread about abortion run for three days and somebody's argument runs around in little circles the whole time, I start to come to the conclusion that poster just might be a troll.  Your mileage may vary. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You would think people would be thankful that someone is around here to actually challenge us to think our positions through at the least. This holier/more conservative than thou nonsense is starting to get on my nerves.

Maybe it's because I like a good discussion/argument.

 

[Bigun]

When I watch a thread about abortion run for three days and somebody's argument runs around in little circles the whole time, I start to come to the conclusion that poster just might be a troll.  Your mileage may vary.

Tiny tiny circles!

[Jazzhead]

Thanks,  Idaho Cowboy and WTF.   

[Cyber Liberty]

You would think people would be thankful that someone is around here to actually challenge us to think our positions through at the least. This holier/more conservative than thou nonsense is starting to get on my nerves.

Maybe it's because I like a good discussion/argument.

I rather enjoy good discussions and arguments.  What we often get looks more like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[INVAR]

He responded with name-calling, not rebuttal.

You whine and cry just like a typical Liberal baby who cannot stand when anyone calls you out on your leftist argumentations.  Clearly did not read the rebuttal in reply 125.

[Jazzhead]

From The Hill

 This is from a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and echoes some of what I've been saying about simple fixes for the ACA:

Now that Dr. Tom Price has been confirmed as HHS secretary, the hard work of replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can begin in earnest.

While Speaker Ryan has promised a full Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal and replace package by the end of the first quarter 2017, Price and Congress should take heed of the surgical maxim, “the enemy of good is better” and quickly enact two reforms: removing the ACA limits on age-based risk adjustment and eliminating the ACA essential benefits requirement.

This will attract the young, healthy, low-cost, uninsured people whose failure to buy ACA insurance threatens the financial stability of the market.
 

The ACA attempted to transfer wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick by overcharging the young and undercharging the old for health insurance.

Health insurance premiums have always been higher for older people to reflect their poorer health status and higher utilization of healthcare — the typical adjustment prior to the ACA was about 5:1. But the ACA caps the adjustment for consumers 64 and older at 3 times the rate for 21 year olds so that the young subsidize the old.

The result? The young and healthy balked at buying overpriced health insurance.

The young also refused to buy more insurance than they wanted or needed. Before the ACA, states set their own health insurance coverage requirements resulting in a broad range of available plans.

The ACA required health insurance plans sold in small group and individual markets, on and off the ACA exchanges, to cover a comprehensive essential health benefits package including many “preventive services” that were to be provided without any out-of-pocket costs. But young people weren’t interested in expensive insurance with all the bells and whistles.

Their health needs are usually few. They are more interested in cheap plans that will cover them for catastrophic expenses.

The result is that the ACA brought in sicker, more expensive patients while healthy, low-cost patients remained uninsured. The ACA’s individual mandate had no significant impact on getting young, healthy people to enroll because it contains too many exemptions and the penalties for remaining uninsured were too low compared to premium costs.

Claims and costs were higher than anticipated, forcing many plans to incur losses. Insurers have fled the market and those that have remained have increased premiums by 25 percent on average for 2017.

This downward spiral can be mitigated by removing ACA strictures on age-based risk adjustment. If insurers can return to the pre-ACA 5:1 risk adjustment for age, premiums for the young and healthy will fall leading more of them to obtain health insurance.

In addition, if the federally mandated essential benefits package is abolished, and regulatory oversight is returned to the states, less comprehensive, cheaper and more attractive plans will become available for young people to purchase.

[geronl]

end the mandate and the subsidies