IGX

So I am watching some TV ad telling me that the Repubs have got a schnizzle of a plan that's going to be less filling/tastes great/covers more people, etc. Says so right there in the TV.

The ads have been launched by the American Action Network, a conservative advocacy group linked to House GOP leadership. These materials say the unidentified plan will create a health insurance system that has “more choices,” “better care,” and “lower costs” than the ACA. ... the new ads suggest such a plan exists and that it will not only maintain coverage under the ACA, but it will be much better than Obama’s signature healthcare law. On top of improving quality and reducing costs, the advertised solution will “provide peace of mind to people with pre-existing conditions” and get rid of “senseless regulations” that hamper new cures, according to the ad. “House Republicans have a plan to get there without disrupting existing coverage,” it says.

Where is it? I've had to listen to 8 years of this whiny republican shit, them spending all that congresstime repeatedly voting and failing to repeal it, and want to see some results.

Show me Republicare, beeyotches.

repeal and replace.

shuck and jive.

Rand Paul has bill already written. It's good IMO. Google it

Herv100 wrote:Rand Paul has bill already written. It's good IMO. Google it

What he says is, "I want to expand upon Obamacare."

Which isn't exactly repeal and replace.

Wrong, partisan hack

seeahill wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Rand Paul has bill already written. It's good IMO. Google it

What he says is, "I want to expand upon Obamacare."

I know nothing about Paul's bill, but a little about Rand Paul. He won't be "expanding Obamacare," unless by "expand" you mean "shrink until it's unrecognizable."

quick google re the paul plan suggests a coupla things, including expansion of (1) health savings accounts and (2) plans that provide less coverage than are required by obamacare.

option (2)--plans that provide less coverage--could reduce rates for some. here's an example: no coverage for pregnancy, childbirth, birth control, and breastfeeding. if an older couple, like my wife and i, could shop for a less-comprehensive plan, we should pay less. i expect that a number of us here do not need the pregnancy coverage. our wives are not getting pregnant. not nohow.

allowing a couple to choose a plan without babymaking coverage would reduce the pool of people that do get babymaking coverage. would that result in higher rates for the fertile set? i would win. the kiddie corps loses.

another way to lower the cost of coverage would be restrictions on prescription drugs that are covered. i don't know what savings that could achieve, but the new hep c drug is $84,000 for a course of treatment.

The worst thing obamacare did was outlaw cheap plans.

I believe Pauls plan includes keeping the pre-existing condition protection, which is good. I could be wrong on that though

Herv100 wrote:Wrong, partisan hack

You asked us to Google it. This is what I got (from Fox News):

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/201 ... acare.html

Paul: “Our goal, what President Trump has said and my goal is the same, is to insure the most amount of people at the least amount of cost. So, I want to expand upon Obamacare and have more people insured than are currently insured under Obamacare. And the way we do it is you have to lower the cost of insurance.”

Herv100 wrote:The worst thing obamacare did was outlaw cheap plans.

I believe Pauls plan includes keeping the pre-existing condition protection, which is good. I could be wrong on that though

on your first point, my question is: if you allow cheap plans--with less coverage--does that reduction in the overall risk pool drive up costs for those who want broader coverage? i'm not implying any value judgment. just asking.

The Paul plan, as I understand it, proposes a lot of things that will be difficult to pull off.

1. It allows insurance sales across state lines (specifically, it takes away the ability of states to determine whether to allow it)-- it raises the question of who pays in the case of an insurance company failure. Currently, primary responsibility falls to states, and state insurance regulators and state laws have mechanisms to handle it; this effectively shifts the responsibility to federal ones. State regulators are far more capable than federal ones, as the last six years have shown, but there isn't much they can do outside state lines. In general, hospital margins are way too thin to handle a major health insurance provider default-- unless there is a guarantee that they get reimbursement quickly (which state systems do, while the feds are notoriously slow payers). Again, not an argument that the idea is bad, it's that federal regulators have never demonstrated the competence to manage something like this. Also, there's the adverse selection issue, which would probably get worse.

2. It maintains preexisting condition coverage as long as you maintain continuous coverage, increases the breadth of HSAs, and makes insurance premiums more deductible-- these are nice ideas for people currently making six figure family incomes, but probably require much higher subsidies to be workable for everybody else. The Obamacare high deductible experiment has been a failure and the Paul plan doesn't seem to learning from that. Also insurance actuaries are much smarter than than 20 somethings when it comes to looking at future costs and risks-- so you'll probably be fine but your kids won't.

3. Block grants and insurance pools-- basically a way for the federal government to fuck over state ones. The feds are likely to keep passing rules that make health care more expensive (because that's their history and Paul isn't proposing any serious bureaucratic reform) while slowly cutting off funding. Expect your state taxes and your health care costs to go up.

nafod wrote:Where is it? I've had to listen to 8 years of this whiny republican shit, them spending all that congresstime repeatedly voting and failing to repeal it, and want to see some results.

Show me Republicare, beeyotches.

I was watching the opening monologue on Hannity last night, and he pretty much said the same thing as I did above, with the same spirit. Wonder if he is monitoring IGx?

nafod wrote:

nafod wrote:Where is it? I've had to listen to 8 years of this whiny republican shit, them spending all that congresstime repeatedly voting and failing to repeal it, and want to see some results.

Show me Republicare, beeyotches.

I was watching the opening monologue on Hannity last night, and he pretty much said the same thing as I did above, with the same spirit. Wonder if he is monitoring IGx?

Saw that as well and felt the same way. 8 years of platitudes for political gains and, when they get the chance to finally do something, they're either not prepared or they're frozen in fear. Probably both.

Hannity said that they need to start moving at "the speed of Trump" which I thought a funny way to highlight their frightened fecklessness.

johno wrote:

seeahill wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Rand Paul has bill already written. It's good IMO. Google it

What he says is, "I want to expand upon Obamacare."

I know nothing about Paul's bill, but a little about Rand Paul. He won't be "expanding Obamacare," unless by "expand" you mean "shrink until it's unrecognizable."

This much we know.....Paul for better or worse has never played footsie about his intention.

Turd, did you get that from a write up or your own reading of the plan?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turd, did you get that from a write up or your own reading of the plan?

That's my reading of the summaries of the Paul plan that I've read- to be honest I haven't read much from anyone outside of libertarian circles that takes it seriously.