SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the or-we-could-have-the-coverage-congress-has dept.
Trump Signs Executive Order That Could Effectively Gut Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate
President Trump signed an executive order late Friday giving federal agencies broad powers to unwind regulations created under the Affordable Care Act, which might include enforcement of the penalty for people who fail to carry the health insurance that the law requires of most Americans.
The executive order, signed in the Oval Office as one of the new president's first actions, directs agencies to grant relief to all constituencies affected by the sprawling 2010 health-care law: consumers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, states and others. It does not describe specific federal rules to be softened or lifted, but it appears to give room for agencies to eliminate an array of ACA taxes and requirements.
[...] Though the new administration's specific intentions are not yet clear, the order's breadth and early timing carry symbolic value for a president who made repealing the ACA — his predecessor's signature domestic achievement — a leading campaign promise.
[Continues...]
Congressional Budget Office: Obamacare Repeal Would Be Catastrophic
U.S. Uncut reports
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its official analysis of the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare, and top Republicans hate it.
The CBO based its findings[1] on H.R. 3762 (the Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act), which was the 2015 Affordable Care Act repeal bill that passed the House of Representatives. The nonpartisan budgetary agency determined that within one year of President Obama's signature healthcare reform law being repealed, roughly 18 million people would lose their health insurance. In following years, when the expansion of Medicaid codified into the Affordable Care Act is also eliminated, the number of uninsured Americans would climb to 27 million, then to 32 million.
Additionally, for those remaining Americans who didn't lose their health coverage from the initial repeal process, health insurance premiums would skyrocket by as much as 25 percent immediately after repeal. After Medicaid expansion is taken away, premiums costs would have gone up by roughly 50 percent. The costs continue to climb, with the CBO estimating a 100 percent increase in premium costs by 2026.
CBO analysts particularly focused on H.R. 3762's repeal of the health insurance mandate that requires all Americans to have health insurance, and the bill's elimination of subsidies for low-income families that make health insurance more affordable. The CBO found that pulling out those cornerstones of the Affordable Care Act would "destabilize"[2] the health insurance market, leading to a dramatic increase in premium costs.
[1] PDF Google cache
[2] Duplicate link in TFA.
House majority leader says no set timeline on Obamacare replacement
The republican party still has no plan to put into place as a replacement for the ACA. In fact:
Asked how soon House Republicans could unite behind a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, McCarthy said Friday in a "CBS This Morning" interview, "I'm not going to put a set timeline on it because I want to make sure we get it right."
But McCarthy promised that an ACA substitute will be "one of the first actions we start working on."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @06:50PM
You have a very odd definition of "extremely high". Me, I'm exempt from that nonsense but my friends who aren't have seen their premiums and deductibles go through the roof. Some even dropped insurance all together and paid the tax because it was a whole lot cheaper.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @06:54PM
Anonymous hyper-partisans telling stories that sound great to other hyper-partisans online don't count as friends.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:01PM
You're projecting. Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around you lot or even around the Internet in general. I have a larger circle of friends and family than I even want sometimes. Which is why cute little flamebaiters like you are utterly incapable of getting my goat.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:44PM
> I have a larger circle of friends and family than I even want sometimes.
One person does not make a circle.
> Which is why cute little flamebaiters like you are utterly incapable of getting my goat.
Which is why you were compelled to write a response that was nothing but goat.
Denying you have a problem that nobody actually accused you of having is a dead giveaway that you have that problem.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Saturday January 21 2017, @09:05PM
One person does not make a circle.
Some persons do ;-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday January 22 2017, @02:09PM
you must be referring to Girthers... ;)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @11:39PM
Awe, look at the cute little AC trying to play with the big boys. Golf clap, everyone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:41AM
And you still can't help yourself.
Look at you defending your ego to an anonymous coward.
What an utterly pointless exercise for you.
Just how insecure are you?
It is great though, just like your god emperror you've made it all about yourself as a way to deflect from the fact that these "friends" of yours who had to cancel their obamacare are complete fiction.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:10PM
I reply to pretty much everyone who speaks to me. It's a thing I do. Don't get to feeling special; you still gots lots of dues to pay and an account to create if you want to props for good flaming/trolling.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:25PM
Look at you defending your ego to an anonymous coward.
You could always get an account, if you're so concerned about Buzz's poor overinflated ego. But I guess that would make sock puppets a bit of a pain to maintain.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @07:01PM
Second that.
Last year the cost for silver tier for me and my wife was around $450 after our great $40 or so deductible, we had to cancel it around August/September because we could just no longer afford to pay it every month.
This year, the cheapest, lowest tier bronze HMO plan would have cost us about that same amount, plus an increased $6,300 deductible before insurance even kicked in, so my plan this year is to hope and pray.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @09:43PM
For a family of 3 from ~2000 to 2010 (4th went off it at the 22 year old cutoff a year or two before the 24 year old extension happened)
For reference the rates were ~150 each upon retirement, and rose to 750 and 350 alternating first on risk based on existing conditions, and then moving to age based.
Just paying the premiums severely impacted the family. This was a sole provider household, but even factoring in 4 minimum wage jobs that would have been a huge cost, before factoring in other living expenses. Anyone low income would have had a hard time affording the 350 dollar a month insurance even before actually needing a doctor's visit or urgent medical care. The 750 would bankrupt almost anyone since that is as much as rent was in the area, before utilities.
The system *WAS* broken before ACA, ACA DID make it worse rather than better, but both republicans and democrats are to blame for letting it happen. And I can only hope both groups and their voting constituents get held over the fire for it in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:18AM
> my plan this year is to hope and pray.
Funny, that's the same plan the Republicans have in store for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:25AM
The Reactionaries' plan as described by The Congressman With Guts. [google.com]
[1] Having been redistricted out of office via Republican gerrymandering, he ran again and won again, this time in FL-08.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @07:17PM
I suppose it is a matter of perspective. The point of insurance is to pool risk, such that the actuarial value of the entire pool in dollars is less than the amount of premiums coming in. The problem with pre-existing conditions is that they increase the risk of the pool and the amount of money it has to pay out. This means that the only way to decrease the risk is to expand the pool to include more people of low risk. The point of the individual mandate is to increase the pool by making it so that either the low risk people enter the pool directly or pay the costs of the higher premiums indirectly with the penalty. The only real way to fix this entire thing is by creating one giant pool that includes everyone, which every pays into and to decouple routine care from emergency or life-sustaining care.
One free market solution to the problem of rising costs is to require medical providers post prices in advance. Sure, not everyone will comparison shop for everything, but some people, like the poor and those getting elective or expensive procedures might. Plus, with prices more public, there can be other incentives for shopping around. For example, my father got a $500 check in the mail for using a cheaper provider for his colonoscopy.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:05PM
Damned fine idea, that. I don't do routine care visits. If I'm healthy, I do not need to see a doctor. If I'm ill or injured and it's not going to kill or maim me, my immune system will take care of it for free. So why should I have to let others waste my money?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday January 22 2017, @02:19AM
Um, ok. Meanwhile, back in reality, providing free routine preventative health care ends up saving billions of dollars in avoidable emergency care costs. Soooo... helping pay for other people's routine doctor visits is kind of like the exact opposite of "wasting" your money, since it will significantly decrease the overall costs of paying for health care in general.
And let's not even talk about the total quagmire of attempting to decide exactly where to draw the line between "routine" care and "emergency" care. In the end, once you go round and round in infinite circles between physicians and bean counters, health care is health care. Period. In the real world, it is actually much cheaper to provide the sort of healthcare that certain macho morons seem to think is "frivolous", wasteful and unnecessary.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @06:16AM
If that were true, then prices today would be lower than they were back in the day when catastrophic-only coverage was a pittance affordable by those working for minimum wage.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday January 22 2017, @09:05AM
"Meanwhile, back in reality, providing free routine preventative health care ends up saving billions of dollars in avoidable emergency care costs."
You have auto insurance, at least, if you have a car. Your auto insurance does not pay for routine oil changes. If you fail to change your oil, you will destroy your engine. Yet people still change their oil regularly.
Why is it so difficult to create a similar mentality for health care? It's your body, you only get one - take care of it. If you fail to take care of it, it's your problem and no one else's. Insurance is for the case when "shit happens" that you cannot control.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:33PM
Because some people are poor and can't even afford routine physicals. Healthcare is another arena where it takes money to save money.
I'm even seeing commercials for auto coverage moving in the health insurance direction where people pay a small monthly fee and then the company collecting the fee pays for any service.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:25PM
Only if you waste money on doctor visits you do not need thinking it is an emergency. Being sick is not an emergency unless it actually threatens your life or limb. Man the fuck up, take some Robitussin or Pepto, and carry your ass to work.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:20PM
Um, ok. Meanwhile, back in reality, providing free routine preventative health care ends up saving billions of dollars in avoidable emergency care costs.
If that were true, then health insurance would be all over it. But maybe finding expensive problems to treat is not the cost saving measure it is purported to be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @07:37PM
No, I don't have a weird definition of extremely high. The rates had been increasing by 12% per year, if you were lucky, previous to the current system. Under the current system, the increases have been less than what they were previously.
Paying for health insurance is expensive. I was paying nearly $300 a month when I was in my late 20s, so that $450 a month is not nearly as high as you're suggesting. What's more, the current premiums are restricted to being used for the purposes of health care activites with no more than 20% of the premiums for individual policies being allowed for overhead. As a result the rates have been leveling off, which meant that at some point, the between the cost dipping from the efficiency incentives to the inflation devaluing money, that the real rates were going to be much lower than they have been.
Just because you don't understand how the economy works, doesn't change how it works. Bottom line is that the rates are already increasing at a decreasing rate due to the ACA and yes, there are people that still can't afford to pay the rates, but you're a liar if you're saying that ACA has anything to do with that. Because it doesn't, the rates were already increasing by more than what they're currently increasing.
If you think the current rate increases are bad, just wait until the healthy folks are able to just opt out until they get sick.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @07:54PM
Wow, that is the biggest load of stupid I've read all week. Congrats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @10:42PM
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and rather than do some research and learn something, you insist upon making an ass of yourself.
Your friends would have dropped the coverage either way. Rates were increasing by double digit percentages every year and without any guarantee that you'd be able to get a new plan if the current one lapsed. They have the luxury of paying the tax now because of Obamacare. If they get sick, they'll be able to buy back in. However, under the previous system, if they waited too long to buy back in, they'd be out of luck. The care wouldn't be covered.
Either, we're going to have pre-existing conditions covered, in which case everybody needs to be in the pool or we're not going to force people to buy coverage and the whole system will implode. You're ability to deliberately ignore that reality is rather stunning. This isn't a matter of speculation, the system was well on the way to collapse prior to Obamacare and removing the individual mandate will cause it to implode without a few years, if we're optimistic. If we're not optimistic I give it 2 years.
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @11:48PM
Rates I've seen didn't increase by double digits. They increased by triple digits. Nobody I've asked is paying under double what they were and their deductible may be as much as 10x what it started out as.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:08AM
That's a load of crap. Obama care has been on the books long enough that those double digit increases have compounded to a doubling. You're completely full off shit to suggest that wouldn't have happened anyways.
What's more, the quality of coverage is better and they have to spend the money on health care related activity. Jesus you're retarded.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:16PM
Think what you want then. Actual data has never convinced libtards of anything; they're all about the feelz.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:33PM
$300/month is way too high for a person in their late 20s. $450 is simply outrageous. We must address the problem of simple medications that cost $0.03 to make costing $10. Do that and insurance premiums can be more like $45 a month. THAT is affordable healthcare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:58PM
The high cost of insurance isn't paying for the $0.03 pill or the $100 EpiPen. It's paying for the $50,000 a year state of the art biologics or $16,000 a year Truvada.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KiloByte on Saturday January 21 2017, @09:51PM
or $16,000 a year Truvada
From Wikipedia:
The wholesale cost in the developing world is about 6.06 to 7.44 USD per month.[5] In the United States, as of 2016, the wholesale cost is about 1415.00 USD per month.[8]
And here is everything you need to know about United States' medicine problems. You do have way more efficient manufacturing (modern technology, benefits of scale) and insanely better distribution network (reliable electricity everywhere, good road network, etc) so the cost should be a small fraction of what it is in the developing world, not 200 times as much.
But then, who would pay for marketing, congresscritter campaign donations, lawyers and stock price manipulation funds? Second point alone makes any reform unlikely.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @10:45PM
I completely agree. But, the other plans weren't that much cheaper.
Medication is a large part of the problem, as is excessive testing. Tort reform won't make much of a dent, however, if people are no longer forced to sue in order to have coverage for their injuries, you may see that part of the bill come down somewhat.
Around here, the people voted for something like Obamacare or Romneycare back in the early '90s, but the health insurers had their bribes in and the legislature removed the portions necessary for it to function. Eventually the whole system collapsed requiring that things be put back sort of like they were before hand.
I wonder what all these people supporting the repeal of Obamacare would do when they no longer can buy health insurance and their company can't afford to pay for it either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @09:36PM
I share your experience. No insurance, exempt from the mandate. All plans I looked up are over 200/mo or just catastrophic care for $120-150. Not a deductible under 2200, bad ratings. Still pay for doctor's visits out of pocket. Don't meet the 16k maximum for medicaid, either. Subsidy ends at like 30k/y and its still the same shitty plans. IRS sending letters that this is the year for the fine and to sign up now. Thanks trump, you saved me $700 the first day.
Insurance should be forced to cover those pre-existing conditions anyway, they're rich. They don't need to make it off of my back and act like they're doing me a favor.
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 21 2017, @11:45PM
Heh, my best friend's deductible went from $500 to $4500 over two years. Tell me that ain't some shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.