Healthcare... America and the rest

[Seth]

Looks like Sanders just woke some Trump supporters. More people need to cop on to what a lying, crooked, thieving scumbag he is so they can get rid of the menace and his robber baron friends.

By which "what a lying, crooked, thieving scumbag he is" clearly you mean Sanders.

We agree!

[Seth]

{bilge}

John Oliver is a fuckwitted leftist Brit comedian purveyor of fake news, so nothing he says is credible.

[Tero]

Oliver: truth 80% Comedy 20%
Trump: fake news

[Forty Two]

This is the map and it has the values as quoted by John Oliver:
http://kff.org/interactive/tax-credits- ... ctive-map/

Unbenannt.png

42 will conveniently ignore this post..

It's interesting, and indeed, I put in age 60 and $50k income and mouse-overed to Woodward County Oklahoma and I will acknowledge that the numbers are what Oliver reported. The BS meter goes really high, though, for a couple of reasons. This map purports to project a credit to 2020. However, if you use the Kaiser Foundation's calculator for subsidies for 2017, a $50k income for a 60 year old single person merits $0 in subsidies -- not a few grand, nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch nada. Even a family of 4 headed by the 60 year old making $50k gets only about $2350 - nothing anywhere close to $13,000.

So, my question is - where is the KFF getting their numbers from? What is changing from 2017 to 2020 that increases a single person's subsidy from $0 to $13,000 in 2-3 years? Does that sound reasonable?

Also, if you check the map, and enter in $75,000, the single 60 year old making $75k gets $13,000 too. Also, enter in $100,000 and the same single guy gets almost $10,000 in subsidies under Obamacare.

So, according to this map, people making $100,000 -- which is the top 5 or 6% of income earners, are getting nearly $10,000 in subsidies for health insurance, and people making $75k, which is about the top 10% of income earners -- get over $13,000 in subsidies in 2020? That's what this projection is trying to tell us? That "the rich" are getting their health insurance almost entirely paid for by the government in 2020?

I posted the link to Kaiser's current calculator showing what subsidies people are entitled to by income, family size, and zip code, etc. Nobody making $75k or even $50k gets a subsidy, but for some reason two years from now, they're all getting subsidies, and not just a help, but enough to pay most or all of Silver or Gold policies?

Obamacare subsidies are a sliding scale, offered to people who make from 100% to 400% of the poverty level. If you make over 400% of the poverty level, you don't get a subsidy. Is this supposed to change in 2018, 2019, or 2020? The 2016 poverty guidelines show that $12,071 is the poverty threshold for a one-person household. Based on these numbers alone, 100 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level for a single person would be $12,071 to $48,284. However, this person may or may not be eligible for a premium tax credit. http://www.healthedeals.com/articles/wh ... -subsidies

So, it's not possible for a 60 year old making $50k to get a tax credit for 2017. Unless the poverty line goes up considerably -- like to $50k, so he's making 100% of the poverty level, he would not be entitled to a subsidy of $13000.

Take this article by the Kaiser Family Foundation -- http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie ... x-credits/

Take, for example, a person age 40 with income of $30,000, which is 253% of poverty. At this income, the person’s specified percentage of income is 8.28% in 2017, which means that the person receives a tax credit if he or she has to pay more than 8.28% of income (or $2,485 annually) for the second-lowest-cost silver premium where he or she lives. If we assume a premium of $4,328 (the national average benchmark premium for a person age 40 in 2017), the person’s tax credit would be the difference between the benchmark premium and the specified percentage of income, or $4,328 – $2,485 = $1,843 (or $154 per month).

So, person aged 40 making only $30k (much less than the $50k in Oliver's video) -- The $50k in oliver's video is like 421% of poverty, while $30k is only 253% over poverty level. Even that person, making far less than in Oliver's example, only gets about $1,843 in subsidy. So, what's this person going to get in 2020? According to the Kaiser map page you linked to - that person gets $13,350 in subsidies in 2020. So, he goes from $1845 this year to $13,350 in 2020. Really?

And doesn't it at all smell funny to you that every income bracket on that map gets $13,350 up to the $100,000 mark, and the $100,000 mark gets just under $10,000? Even someone only making $20k per year in Woodward County Oklahama gets the same subsidy as someone making $75,000 per year. Do you really think that's how Obamacare operates? A flat subsidy for people making $20,000 to $99,000 and then a couple grand less for those in the top 5% of income?

It's not accurate.

Now take a look here - also from Kaiser -- http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie ... x-credits/ Scroll down to Table 2. According to that table, nobody making over $40k gets any subsidy at all. A $50k per year 60 year old under Obamacare would get $0 tax credit, yet the map projects that the person would get $13,350 whether he or she makes $20k or $75k? Something is wrong with that.

Note this -

Unlike the ACA, the replacement plan provides tax credits to people over 400% percent of the poverty level (phasing out around 900% of poverty for a single person), as well as to people current buying individual market coverage outside of the marketplaces

Thus, the Kaiser Foundation flat out says that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) does not provide tax credits to people over 400% of the poverty level, but the new replacement act (Ryancare) has subsidies up to 900% of poverty. How does that square with the suggestion of the map that says a person making $50k or $75k would get $13,350 in subsidies. Add to that the blurb that says that 40 year old making $30k per year would only get about $4100 in subsidies. He's going to go from $4100 to $13,350, along with everyone making up past $75k?

And, again a person in 2020 making $100k per year is going to get nearly $10,000 in subsidies? What's changing? Is Obamacare raising the poverty level to $25,000 or $30k per year? Or, is Obamacare raising the percentage over poverty level at which subsidies are granted to 7 or 8 time poverty? What's going on to make these numbers work?

Something is off about those projections.

[Tero]

Neither Obamacare or Trumpcare is going to lower costs. This will only happen when the pricing for services is simplified and all the insurance companies take to using the same claim form. Then the doctors can reduce office staff.

This is going to gappen when have some 20-30% of the population covered by the plan,

When we have achieved this, employee provided plans will follow the simplification measures. Many employers already offer only a single plan.

[Forty Two]

Neither Obamacare or Trumpcare is going to lower costs. This will only happen when the pricing for services is simplified and all the insurance companies take to using the same claim form. Then the doctors can reduce office staff.

This is going to gappen when have some 20-30% of the population covered by the plan,

When we have achieved this, employee provided plans will follow the simplification measures. Many employers already offer only a single plan.

Are you still unclear how Obamacare works? What do you mean 20-30% of the population covered by "the plan?" Obamacare is not an insurance plan or policy. It's requirement that people buy insurance from private insurance companies. There is no claim form used by Obamacare subsidy receivers that is somehow different than the claim forms used for people not receiving Obamacare subsidies. The procedures for billing and claims for plans covering people receiving subsidies are not any different than those for billing and claims for plans covering people not receiving subsidies.

[Tero]

Whatever plan comes into effect needs to regulate thehealthcare industry. Forms and clains. Actual procedures are of course free to develop and claim forms need to be revised every year.

It can be a separate law.

[Forty Two]

Whatever plan comes into effect needs to regulate thehealthcare industry. Forms and clains. Actual procedures are of course free to develop and claim forms need to be revised every year.

It can be a separate law.

So, again, this "once we get 20% to 30% of people on "the plan" is really inaccurate from the get go. There is no "plan" to which 20% of the population would all be on.

Can you link me to the Democrat plan to reduce insurance costs by streamlining the billing process? I'd love to see what the smart people are coming up with.

[Seth]

Whatever plan comes into effect needs to regulate thehealthcare industry. Forms and clains. Actual procedures are of course free to develop and claim forms need to be revised every year.

It can be a separate law.

Actually, we need to DE-regulate health care. Regulation is what got us the disaster of Obamacare.

Competition in health care (as opposed to "health care insurance") is what will bring down costs.

[Seth]

Neither Obamacare or Trumpcare is going to lower costs. This will only happen when the pricing for services is simplified and all the insurance companies take to using the same claim form. Then the doctors can reduce office staff.

This is going to gappen when have some 20-30% of the population covered by the plan,

When we have achieved this, employee provided plans will follow the simplification measures. Many employers already offer only a single plan.

No, what's going to lower costs is to let the market for actual health care regulate itself through free-market competition and let insurance companies do what they do WITHOUT government interference...like selling across state lines and eliminating "certificates of need" to open a health care facility.

Deregulation of the health care industry will make health clinics as ubiquitous as 7-11s and you'll be able to pick and choose whatever provider gives you the biggest bang for the buck. Those who overprice or provide poor service will simply go out of business, as they should, and won't be propped up by government.

Insurance companies will have to compete as well and prices will go down.

It's the government reporting bureaucracy that is driving up costs for physicians for paperwork compliance. Get rid of government-paid health care and people can pay for their own health care or insurance as THEY see fit in a market that will respond as free markets always respond when left alone to function properly.

And no, this does not mean eliminating regulations about the QUALITY of care that regulate the medical field.

[Tero]

It's the government reporting bureaucracy that is driving up costs for physicians for paperwork compliance.

so says the conspiracy theorist. It is actually the healthcare industry together with insurance that are out there maximizing what they can charge you. because they can. It's almost like cable TV, except you do not die giving up that.

[Alan B]

The Guardian

House Republicans pass healthcare bill in first step toward replacing Obamacare

By ONE vote! 20 Republicans voted against.

House Republicans narrowly approved a controversial plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Thursday, taking a significant first step toward fulfilling a seven-year promise to repeal and replace the 2010 law that served as a landmark overhaul of the US health care system.

Republicans passed the American Health Care Act with one vote to spare, following a dramatic series of negotiations that exposed deep fissures between the party’s moderate and conservative wings over how to replace Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment.

The bill passed 217 to 213, with 20 Republicans voting against and no Democrats voting for.

After it passed, Democrats sang the 60s hit Na Na Hey Hey (Kiss Him Goodbye) – appearing to suggest Republicans would lose their seats if the repeal proved unpopular.

It now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to face serious difficulties.

Donald Trump announced that he planned to celebrate with Republicans in the rose garden at the White House. Before the vote took place, the president tweeted: “If victorious, Republicans will be having a big press conference at the beautiful Rose Garden of the White House immediately after vote!”

[Animavore]

Utter scum.

[Svartalf]

you mean the basic politico?

[Tero]

Senate will be difficult for Trump:
A slew of medical groups and health care advocates lined up to pan the latest version of the GOP proposal, including the American Medical Association, the AARP and the American Cancer Society, which said it failed to protect people with preexisting conditions.

Senators have some sense.