Trump accused the Freedom Caucus of 'saving' Obamacare. Its leader said it's not over.

[XenaLee]

My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.

Enough of this.   Define, specifically, your idea of what "free riders" constitutes.

[INVAR]

Why do you feel such inflammatory drama helps you @INVAR ? 

I do not recall asking for help. I post what I do because it's the truth.  I do not care that it is seen as inflammatory or dramatic.  It is what it is.  Deal with it. 

Or not.

I happen to agree with many of your "principles".

I do not find too much evidence of that in a lot of your postings.

I'm just asking you to go about achieving your goals in a smarter way---take 75-80% of what you want today. 

I reject that premise.  The ACHA was less than 10% of what was promised and no telling what would happen to that percentage once it got to reconciliation with the Senate who largely have no intention of repealing ANY of Obamacare based on their statements.

I'm done with supporting politicians and ideas that compromise with evil and tyranny over a hope for breadcrumbs that never come as the fist of tyranny grows tighter and tighter.

I'm done prostrating before the throne of big government with yet another olive branch petition.

You'll ultimately have much more support and respect.

What makes you think I want any?  I'm not running for office.  I'm not selling tracts or books.  I do not have a radio or TV show that I need ratings for.  I'm not interested in having a following.

I wash feet, serve a persecuted people and draw the sword to cut down those things anathema to righteousness and liberty that threaten to force itself upon myself or others in this country.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So..... if you're a healthy 60 year old that has never done drugs, smoked, indulged in alcohol or overeating.... let's say maybe even a health nut.... you think it's fair for, under RyanCare, insurers to be able to charge you five times higher premiums than someone in their 30's that may or may NOT be as healthy as you.... and all based solely on how many more years you have managed to be on planet earth?

Wait a minute. If you repealed ObamaCare, insurance companies would be perfectly free to do exactly that.  They could charge older people whatever they wanted.

Do you support that?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In that case, it's dishonest to say "the individual mandate is gone." 

No, it's not gone.  It's still there, only payable to the insurance companies instead of the government.

Not true.  The individual mandate taxed people if they didn't buy insurance.  Under the AHCA, you were neither taxed nor required to pay anything to insurance companies if you chose to opt out of insurance entirely.

Under the AHCA, you only paid that extra to the insurance company if you chose to go without insurance, and then chose to sign up later.  That's to prevent people from free riding by only buying insurance after they get sick.

But i still agree with you that should be left up to the insurance companies.  They'd all do it anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[driftdiver]

My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.

@Jazzhead

Text of the bill in reference to the forced 30% penalty

"“SEC. 2710A. ENCOURAGING CONTINUOUS HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

“(a) Penalty Applied.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2701, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall, in the case of an individual who is an applicable policyholder of such coverage with respect to an enforcement period applicable to enrollments for a plan year beginning with plan year 2019 (or, in the case of enrollments during a special enrollment period, beginning with plan year 2018), increase the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such individual for such coverage during each month of such period, by an amount determined under paragraph (2).

“(2) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—The amount determined under this paragraph for an applicable policyholder enrolling in health insurance coverage described in paragraph (1) for a plan year, with respect to each month during the enforcement period applicable to enrollments for such plan year, is the amount that is equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such applicable policyholder for such coverage during such month.

[driftdiver]

Wait a minute. If you repealed ObamaCare, insurance companies would be perfectly free to do exactly that.  They could charge older people whatever they wanted.

Do you support that?

@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share?  Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?

How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture.   reduce some regulations.   Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.

[txradioguy]

@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share?  Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?

How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture.   reduce some regulations.   Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.

QFT

[Cyber Liberty]

Not true.  The individual mandate taxed people if they didn't buy insurance.  Under the AHCA, you were neither taxed nor required to pay anything to insurance companies if you chose to opt out of insurance entirely.

Under the AHCA, you only paid that extra to the insurance company if you chose to go without insurance, and then chose to sign up later.  That's to prevent people from free riding by only buying insurance after they get sick.

But i still agree with you that should be left up to the insurance companies.  They'd all do it anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the meaning of "dishonest."

[driftdiver]

QFT

Whats that mean?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@driftdiver @txradioguy

@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share?  Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?

How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture.   reduce some regulations.   Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.

I agree completely.

 I was just pointing to @XenaLee that the complete repeal he/she advocates actually would permit insurance companies to charge more than five times higher premiums to older people.

It seems like some folks are all for the free market until it adversely impacts them.  If you want to restrict insurance companies from raising your rates because you're older, then you should support retaining that element of ObamaCare.

And to be clear, I'm for the free market, regardless of how it raises rates for older people, for the reasons you gave

[Cyber Liberty]

Whats that mean?

Quoted For Truth.

[INVAR]

I marvel at the fact that the discussion among those advocating compromise instead of repeal, rarely discuss ending big government statism, but rather argue how much we must accept and compromise with it while denouncing the free market sans government regulation.

[Cyber Liberty]

@driftdiver
I agree.  I was just pointing to @XenaLee that the complete repeal he/she advocates actually would permit insurance companies to charge more than five times higher premiums to older people.

It's true.  If an insurance company wants to charge 50X, they can.  Of course, with a functioning market those insurance companies would promptly collapse because the entire senior sector would take a hike to a more reasonable company advertising more reasonable rates.  Having Uncle Sugar setting the rates short-circuits that market effect.

Reminds me of a Steve Martin routine:  "I like to imagine I can charge the 1,000 people here $1,000,000 per ticket.  One show and GOODBYE!"

[Idaho_Cowboy]

My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.

You mean those who were unlucky let their insurance lap due to a losing set of life's lotto numbers?

[XenaLee]

Wait a minute. If you repealed ObamaCare, insurance companies would be perfectly free to do exactly that.  They could charge older people whatever they wanted.

Do you support that?

Um.... did you not know that RyanCare allowed insurers to charge older persons not three times more, but FIVE times more, than folks in their 30's, for instance?  Hell no I don't support that.  Get government the HELL out of it completely and let the damned free market readjust back to normal.  It will work out .... like once it is back to what it was before.   And I don't buy the BS that it can't or won't ever be able to get back to like it was before.

Employer-based healthcare offered in the good ole days was NOT based on how old or how young you are.  Everyone paid the same damned premium.  That is how it should be.
 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Text of the bill in reference to the forced 30% penalty

"“SEC. 2710A. ENCOURAGING CONTINUOUS HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

“(a) Penalty Applied.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2701, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall, in the case of an individual who is an applicable policyholder of such coverage with respect to an enforcement period applicable to enrollments for a plan year beginning with plan year 2019 (or, in the case of enrollments during a special enrollment period, beginning with plan year 2018), increase the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such individual for such coverage during each month of such period, by an amount determined under paragraph (2).

“(2) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—The amount determined under this paragraph for an applicable policyholder enrolling in health insurance coverage described in paragraph (1) for a plan year, with respect to each month during the enforcement period applicable to enrollments for such plan year, is the amount that is equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such applicable policyholder for such coverage during such month.

Thanks, driftdiver, for that clarification.  I would prefer that insurance companies be allowed but not required to charge higher premiums (no more than designated amount).   But I can't say I have an ounce of sympathy for free riders.   If they choose to game the system, they should pay the price so those who play by the rules don't have to.   

[XenaLee]

It's true.  If an insurance company wants to charge 50X, they can.  Of course, with a functioning market those insurance companies would promptly collapse because the entire senior sector would take a hike to a more reasonable company advertising more reasonable rates.  Having Uncle Sugar setting the rates short-circuits that market effect.

Reminds me of a Steve Martin routine:  "I like to imagine I can charge the 1,000 people here 1,000,000 per ticket.  One show and GOODBYE!"

Also reminds me of another Steve Martin con routine.  Kind of like how they're trying to pass off repealing ObamaCare.  "How to make a million dollars.  First... get a million dollars.  Then....all you have to do is...."

[Jazzhead]

Um.... did you not know that RyanCare allowed insurers to charge older persons not three times more, but FIVE times more, than folks in their 30's, for instance?  Hell no I don't support that.  Get government the HELL out of it completely and let the damned free market readjust back to normal. 

 

You sure that's what you want?   Then insurance companies will be charging even more to older folks.     

[chae]

@Jazzhead

you really don't understand how the free market works, or as suggested on another thread you're really just a liberal troll.

[XenaLee]

You sure that's what you want?   Then insurance companies will be charging even more to older folks.   

That's BS.  Before ObamaCare.... ie before the leftists forced government controls down our throats, the free market system worked and insurers were not charging more for older folks for health insurance provided through your employers.  Everyone paid the same damned rate/premium, no matter your age. 

Nice try.  No ceegar.

[XenaLee]

@Jazzhead

you really don't understand how the free market works, or as suggested on another thread you're really just a liberal troll.

I posit that it's both.

[driftdiver]

Thanks, driftdiver, for that clarification.  I would prefer that insurance companies be allowed but not required to charge higher premiums (no more than designated amount).   But I can't say I have an ounce of sympathy for free riders.   If they choose to game the system, they should pay the price so those who play by the rules don't have to.

@Jazzhead
How about people who lost their job or otherwise couldn't afford insurance?   Your continued use of the term 'freerider' is quite laughable.    Any other products  you'd like to force people to buy?

[Smokin Joe]

I marvel at the fact that the discussion among those advocating compromise instead of repeal, rarely discuss ending big government statism, but rather argue how much we must accept and compromise with it while denouncing the free market sans government regulation.

I also marvel. It is the equivalent of debating how large or small the turd will be in the punch bowl.

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead
How about people who lost their job or otherwise couldn't afford insurance?   Your continued use of the term 'freerider' is quite laughable.    Any other products  you'd like to force people to buy?

Don't tempt him.

He's already a cheerleader for forcing businesses to cater to homosexual marriages and keeping death camps for killing infants open and available because shutting them down is forcing a woman to procreate in his sick twisted estimation.

Oh, and then there's the 'reasonable' regulation of the Second Amendment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's BS.  Before ObamaCare.... ie before the leftists forced government controls down our throats, the free market system worked and insurers were not charging more for older folks for health insurance provided through your employers. 

And neither did the AHCA.  The five-times premium permitted by the AHCA - versus three times under the ACA, and unlimited prior to the ACA - applies only to the individual market.

So, to the extent you believed that the AHCA was going to apply that "5" multiple to employer-based policies, you are mistaken.