Trump and healthcare

[kscarbel2]

Everyone here has some good points. Everyone. But I suggest you all "step out of the box" for a moment, relax, and then continue.

"I'm not paying for dead beat losers to get cheap healthcare"

I completely agree. I don't want to support people, both the low AND wealthy upper class, who abuse the system.

But my own largest concern at the end of the day is for the middle class American family. We've all watched the cost of health insurance go thru the roof and to the moon.

[carlotpilot]

On 3/13/2017 at 11:14 AM, Dirtymilkman said:

Free healthcare for all!  Free college for all! Free cell phones, housing, food stamps. Where does this entitlement come from? I say the free things should be, vesectomys, condoms, abortions and adoptions. It won't help immediately but give it 20 years

and in some cases     outright castration

[Keith Pommerening]

On 3/15/2017 at 7:17 AM, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Again, lies: By law, pensions can not be funded by current participants like Social Security. Pension funds must be kept separate from dues and cannot be donated to any political candidate or party.

Where were you April 14, 2016?  Let me guess...  In front of U.S. Rep John Kline's office with the gang of teamster looking for tax payer money to bail out the failing Teamster Central States Pension Fund.  The fund wants to drop your $42,000 pension down to $12,000 in an effort to make it last for more then ten years.  Five proud members taking money out for every one paying in doesn't bode well. The pension has been using principal money to pay benefits since the 2000 stock market decline.  Lee Schafer had a wake-up call article in the POS StarTribune newspaper on June 2, 2016. Read it. Wouldn't want to put my future in the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.  Time will tell if all the money you paid into the Socialist Democrat Party will keep your pension solvent.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Keith, you don't know what you're talking about. There are dozens of Teamster pension plans and most of them are in good financial shape. The one you speak of is Central States, which was crippled by the bankruptcy of several freight companies and mismanagement of investments by Wall Street. I'm not in Central States and my pension fund is doing well, despite Hostess stiffing us for over a million dollars. The managers in Hostess' pension plan got nothing and the plan had to be rescued by PBGC, and they lost their company paid health insurance.

[Keith Pommerening]

You are probably right.  I don't know you or what pension nurses you, but your response is typical.  Union problems are never the union's fault.  It's always some company that fed and supported you for half your life that is at fault.  It's some invesing firm that didn't perform up to the unions unrealistic projections. It's goverenment regulations that screwd the unions, yes right.  And the only answer is get more government money from taxpayers. I can probably do with less so you can continue to get by with more.  Maybe you could do with a little less so your brothers and sisters could have a little more.  Not the way of cold hearted unions.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Keith, how are you subsidizing me?

[Dirtymilkman]

52 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Keith, how are you subsidizing me?

Isn't the USPS Teamster? 

[mowerman]

On 3/16/2017 at 1:46 AM, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Mowerman, you clearly don't know me. I'm currently debating a republican legislator on another forum who thinks he's entitled to a drug that's not even been tested or approved for treatment of the disease he has. Yup, I'm taking the conservative position, arguing for careful conservative spending of our limited health care dollars, and the republican legislator is arguing for entitlements. Nice try at pigeonholing and stereotyping me, buy I'm really an old school moderate who will fight for what's right, whether that position be liberal or conservative.

You know I always appreciate your two cents but the bottom line is a bunch of us are working 60 and more hours and we really don't feel like paying for dead weight that doesn't show any effort.
 

[Keith Pommerening]

2 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Keith, how are you subsidizing me?

Kinda hard for me to help you with that since I don't which pension fund that pays your rocking chair money.  Did you read the article?  Good luck while it lasts.

 

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

2 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

Isn't the USPS Teamster? 

No.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

9 hours ago, mowerman said:

You know I always appreciate your two cents but the bottom line is a bunch of us are working 60 and more hours and we really don't feel like paying for dead weight that doesn't show any effort.

You're not paying my bills, look to the military and especially the contractors if you want to see where most of your tax dollars are going. As for your latest attempt at character assassination, I'm old enough for Medicare but never used it, and could have retired on SSDI years ago but didn't. And yes, I contribute- I'm the small town volunteer who runs our small town water system as well as other volunteer work, and pay for expenses like delivering water samples to the lab 90 miles away out of my own pocket.

And instead of looking for scapegoats for your predicament, you need to ask "why am I working so hard and got so little to show for it?".

[RowdyRebel]

Just because I don't want to subsidize the lazy doesn't mean I only have a little to show for my hard work. The point is, I work hard for what I have, and as such I should be the one to enjoy the fruits of MY labor. If YOU want to partake in the enjoyment of the fruits of labor, do your own labor to produce your own fruit. It doesn't matter if my labor produces an abundance of fruit, or just enough for me to be happy, it is MY fruit from MY labor, and YOU are not entitled to any of it.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy, I haven't taken even a cent of yours. Who is taking the fruits of your labor?

[Dirtymilkman]

9 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Rowdy, I haven't taken even a cent of yours. Who is taking the fruits of your labor?

I can help answer this. We'll start with property taxes. Because we work hard and buy some land to enjoy, we are taxed for it. In my county, a lot of the taxes are going to welfare.

Social security tax. The money we pay for social security isn't going into an account for ourselves. I can look around my area and see the people getting SSI and welfare are very able bodied but just not willing to work. We have a large Somali population that is willing to stay pregnant to keep receiving assistance. 

Healthcare. We don't even need to start trying to figure out healthcare and where this money is going. 

And the list goes on. We had people that worked on our farm but wanted less hours..... Otherwise they'd lose their county assistance! How about you work more hours and forget about the county assistance! It's an epidemic. 

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, Dirtymilkman said:

I can help answer this. We'll start with property taxes. Because we work hard and buy some land to enjoy, we are taxed for it. In my county, a lot of the taxes are going to welfare.

Social security tax. The money we pay for social security isn't going into an account for ourselves. I can look around my area and see the people getting SSI and welfare are very able bodied but just not willing to work. We have a large Somali population that is willing to stay pregnant to keep receiving assistance. 

Healthcare. We don't even need to start trying to figure out healthcare and where this money is going. 

And the list goes on. We had people that worked on our farm but wanted less hours..... Otherwise they'd lose their county assistance! How about you work more hours and forget about the county assistance! It's an epidemic. 

The economic migrants heard European countries offered endless free handouts, so they came in by the hundreds of thousands.

The U.S. has the same problem, except the takers of our social welfare handouts are composed both of economic migrants AND existing U.S. residents.

The situation has gotten so far out of hand. There have been, are, and always will be a "few" that need and deserve a helping hand. But our government has created a system that is carrying millions, at the taxpayer's expense. The "entitled" masses.

[kscarbel2]

The Guardian  /  March 24, 2017

Republicans’ efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, looked a lot like a tall man trying to stay warm under a short blanket. When Republicans pulled in one direction, they lost coverage at the other end.

Hardline conservatives wanted to change regulations that define health insurance, such as a requirement that health plans cover maternity care. But when they got the concessions, the Republicans lost moderate members, who were concerned their constituents would lose basic services. That left the party leadership with no choice but to pull the bill or risk a humiliating defeat.

What would the bill have done if it had passed?

A late amendment to American Health Care Act struck at the heart of Barack Obama’s ACA, allowing states to define the health benefits that insurance policies must cover, called “essential health benefits”.

Just as they sound, these benefits define American health insurance. They require companies to cover the expense of having a baby, catching a cold, or breaking a leg.

Republicans argued that people should “choose” the coverage they want, but because health insurance is interconnected, such a policy was likely to harm all patients.

Think of the health insurance system as a tower of blocks – if you remove one from the middle, it makes the entire structure less sound. That is a good analogy for how removing essential health benefits works. Once one benefit is removed, it makes plans which continue to offer that benefit more expensive, meaning only really sick people will buy them – which further drives up the cost.

For example, before the protections were passed, 62% of insurance plans bought on the open market did not include maternity care, according to the health and human services department. Often, maternity care was offered as an expensive add-on. Another 34% of plans did not cover substance abuse (think: opioid crisis) [self-inflicted, why should/would it?], and 9% did not cover prescriptions (remember that cold?).

That kind of federal plan could be hard for states to decide on by January 2018, and could tempt them instead to certify “bare bones” plans as eligible for federal tax credits.

Hollowed-out protections for sick people

With the essential health benefits gutted, some experts believed insurance companies would have an incentive to offer a narrower list of benefits. Why?

Because Republicans maintained a requirement that insurance companies sell policies to even very sick people. Experts believed that would push companies to offer skimpy plans, to keep sick people off their rolls.

Imagine a world in which some health plans did not cover chemotherapy. Plans that that did would be much more expensive, because people who had cancer in the past, or whose family had a history of cancer, would be more likely to sign up and use those services.

The effect would be that so many sick people would sign up, the cost of coverage would increase for everyone under that plan.

But wouldn’t people still get help to buy insurance?

Yes – and that was one of the reasons the health plan was always going to be difficult for a broad base of Republicans to support. Giving Americans tax credits to buy health insurance looked to conservatives too much like Obamacare, while huge overhauls to Medicaid – public health insurance for the poor – left moderate Republicans worried about constituents who depend on those services.

[Why should the poor continually depend on Medicaid at the expense of the middle class? (You know the upper class, like Trump, weasels out of taxes) If Trump is going to create good paying jobs for the masses and the vast majority of the “poor” are able-bodied, this concern would be resolved].

Further, Republicans’ last-minute amendments actually increased the price tag of their bill, without insuring more Americans. A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that the changes still left 24 million Americans without insurance and reduced savings over the next decade, from $337bn in the first draft, to just $150bn.

The age tax

On the moderate end, the very powerful American Association of Retired Persons was upset at what it called the “age tax”. That was a plan to allow insurance companies to charge Americans aged over 50 five times more than the young.

Combined with Republicans’ plans to offer less financial help to the poor, it meant a 64-year-old earning $26,500 per year would pay $12,900 more every year for their insurance. Republicans added an $85 billion slush fund to the bill to try to counter these costs, but it was unclear how much that might have helped older Americans. Currently, insurance companies are allowed to charge older Americans three times more than the young.

Poverty penalties

Under the Republican plan, the less money you made, the worse off you would be. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that people who make less than $10,000 per year would have lost $1,400 per year because of cuts to Medicaid.

[Middle class] People earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would have seen a small tax break of about $60.

However, the very poorest would probably suffer the most. A vast $880bn cut to Medicaid would result in 14 million fewer people using the service, Congressional analysts found.

By contrast, rich Americans would have seen a significant tax benefit. People who earn $200,000 per year or more would see an average tax break of $5,640, or about 1.1% of their income. Nearly all of that is from tax breaks Republicans included in the bill.

But wouldn’t this bill spur competition?

Some analysts think it would, especially for young people. But it would still leave many more people, 52 million by the end of the decade, uninsured.

That is not just an inconvenience. Lack of health insurance could result in more than 44,000 deaths per year, researchers at the American Journal of Public Health found. That is more than kidney disease causes.

.

 

[grayhair]

Health care reform isn't going to happen any time soon.  Reason, it's about simple economics and graft.  Consider the following.

Allowing the insurance companies to compete across state lines was included in a future "phase 3" of the Republican's plan.  Why phase 3 instead of phase 1?

Duh,  the insurance companies do not want to have to serious, intense competition.  They are happy with things just as they are today.

The insurance companies heavily lobby our representatives.  i.e. "Make sure it is in phase 3 so it never happens."

Can't have competition!  What if new companies were formed and entered the market?  What if they brought innovations and improved efficiency?  Wow, can't have that.

It's about the money.  It's always about the money.

[RowdyRebel]

But who best to determine which coverages are "essential" than the consumer? I've got a friend who's in her early 30's. Her internal lady parts were removed due to cancer, and as a result it is physically impossible for her to get pregnant. Is coverage for child birth essential for her? Or is it a waste of money?  I don't really drink...might burn through a 6-pack a year, and I've never taken drugs. Do I really need substance abuse rehab coverage? I'm morally opposed to abortions, and wouldn't ever even consider it as an option. Why should I have to pay for THAT coverage?

As soon as somebody else starts telling you what you must buy, you can be certain you'll be buying more than you need. It really should be more like car insurance. Want collision? Buy collision. If not, don't. Same option for comprehensive and any other protections for your own assets. Own a home? You get to choose if you want "extra" coveragges for things such as floods, earth quakes, etc...nobody in government is forcing you to buy "essential" coverages. Sure, if you've got a loan out on the car or home the BANK might say what needs to be covered...to protect THEIR asset as a condition of them loaning you the money...but when you're the only one with skin in the game, your opinion on what may or may not be "essential" should be all that matters.

Insurance ought to be a-la-carte. Each coverage has a price, and you pick and choose which ones you're willing to pay for. Nothing should be "mandatory" to buy, because unlike auto liability, you aren't buying coverage to protect the assets of others from damage you might cause. The only assets at risk are your own, and as such, you have every right to choose if, what, and the extent of any and all coverages you might buy.

[Dirtymilkman]

I believe the best bet is scrap it all. The government can't run anything efficient or cost effective. Anything they dabble in is messed up. Let it be like before. I have a sister in law that is pure trailer trash. Smokes weed, two kids with two different losers, lives in her dad's basement and so on. The county takes good care of her and the kids. She also only works 15 hours a week at Walmart. But she got $9000 back in taxes! Well that $9000 could go right to the county to pay for her bennies

[41chevy]

2 hours ago, grayhair said:

It's about the money.  It's always about the money.

Both above and under the table!

I personally do not trust Ryan, He is sleezy and out for no one but him and not beneath throwing anybody under the bus to get his way. He definitely has a piss poor view of the American people and their wishes / needs.  "HIS" plan was a prime example.

Edited March 25, 2017 by 41chevy

[RowdyRebel]

Sure, the "mandate" would've been gone, but in its place a 30% "penalty" for a new policy to be bought by a previously uninsured individual. So, for someone like me who would buy a policy IF I could find one I liked for a reasonable price, it causes those reasonably priced policies to be once again beyond what I'm willing to pay for what they are, leaving me still uninsured.

The problem lies in the fact that they want to cover "pre-existing" conditions. That isn't insurance, though. Insurance is a risk management tool. There is a possibility of a given loss, so you buy a policy to cover that loss. The greater the risk of such a loss occurring, the higher the cost of the policy. If you have a "pre-existing" condition, then the loss has already occurred and the company selling the policy has a 100% chance of paying out on a claim. Try buying a flood insurance policy to cover THAT "pre-existing" condition as you're being rescued from your roof. Or a collision policy on your car to cover THAT "pre-existing" condition as the tow truck is unwrapping your car from around the tree. When the condition ALREADY exists, it ceases to be insurance and becomes a payment assistance service...or in any insurance segment OTHER than health, it's simply referred to as "fraud" when you try buying a policy to cover a "pre-existing" condition.

I'm currently healthy. It might be 30 or 40 years before I start having health issues. Or, I could have a heart attack or stroke tomorrow. That's why I want insurance..."just in case". The insurance company's risk is no greater selling me a policy today as a currently uninsured individual as they'd be taking on if I currently had a policy elsewhere, so why the penalty? Completely unnecessary, and has a discouraging effect on those who DON'T have insurance making it that much less likely for them to buy a policy.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Good to see that you guys are figuring it out- TrumpCare just gives more of our $$$ to the insurance companies!

[RowdyRebel]

And once again, you're full of it. I was never a fan of Ryan's "Obamacare Lite" plan, and would like to see the full repeal of Obamacare, and only replaced with policies which encourage the free market by empowering the consumer. I'm not sure what Ryan was thinking when he introduced his plan, or why Trump would back the plan knowing it didn't do what he said he wanted. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Sounds like you're back to being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious... And here you were almost starting to make sense.

[kscarbel2]

BBC  /  March 25, 2017

US President Donald Trump says he will turn to tax reform, following his failure to get his healthcare bill through Congress on Friday.

The draft bill would have scrapped the Affordable Care Act, which requires all Americans to have healthcare but offers subsidies to people on low incomes.

"I would say that we will probably start going very, very strong for the big tax cuts and tax reform. That will be next," said Trump at the White House.

However, the tax cuts were supposed to be paid for by savings from the withdrawn healthcare bill.

Without the spending cuts in the failed bill, any tax cuts will add to the federal budget deficit.

The president refrained from criticising Mr Ryan, whose job as speaker of the House involves rallying support for controversial bills.

"We learned about loyalty; we learned a lot about the vote-getting process," Trump said.

Obamacare has been troubled by increases in insurance premiums. It also imposes tax penalties on uninsured Americans - many of them low- to moderate-income earners.

However, it also bans insurance companies from denying health coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions and allows young people to remain on their parents' plans until age 26.

.

.