Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Danny Bateman]

I'm sure Langsford felt like he more than met expectations with that email. When the head clowns running the show can only use phrases like "liberate the American people from the nightmare that is Obamacare" and "kill Obamacare," the bar has been set so pitifully low for any other person trying to explain what they're doing that almost any other explanation sounds positively brilliant.

[zoogs]

It occurs to me that the Langsdorf and Langsford clans diverged at some point many years ago, probably as the result of a typo.

[Danny Bateman]

Coming soon, to a market near you!

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm so sick and tired of these two groups in Washington acting like children and not addressing the problems. So, I'm throwing out an idea that came to me. I would love to see what the cost to tax payers would be compared to the current ACA system.

 

Two major issues exist.

 

a) We need to mandate preexisting conditions can not be used as an excuse to lose coverage. However, that is a huge expense for insurance companies which drive up premiums.

 

b) Nobody is addressing the cost issues in the system.

 

So, if we are stuck with dealing with insurance premiums instead of actual cost of healthcare, here's what I would like to see studied.

 

How about if we do away with the mandate to insurance companies that they are required to insure people with preexisting conditions. Along with that, allow those people to sign up for medicare. So, if you can't get coverage because of a preexisting condition, then you are allowed to be covered under medicare prior to being 65 years old.

 

One thing that comes to mind is that....well....then all the insurance companies would do is drop anyone who is costing them money. So, I would put in a system where they are required to document why they can not cover this person. If they do not meet certain criteria for that category, then the insurance company is required to cover them.

[zoogs]

We've come up with a basic framework for how to address the burdens of mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage. It's colloquially called Obamacare.

 

To your proposal, it sounds like a free pass for people to not get coverage until they have a condition -- and then, to get Medicare.

[funhusker]

I'm so sick and tired of these two groups in Washington acting like children and not addressing the problems. So, I'm throwing out an idea that came to me. I would love to see what the cost to tax payers would be compared to the current ACA system.

 

Two major issues exist.

 

a) We need to mandate preexisting conditions can not be used as an excuse to lose coverage. However, that is a huge expense for insurance companies which drive up premiums.

 

b) Nobody is addressing the cost issues in the system.

 

So, if we are stuck with dealing with insurance premiums instead of actual cost of healthcare, here's what I would like to see studied.

 

How about if we do away with the mandate to insurance companies that they are required to insure people with preexisting conditions. Along with that, allow those people to sign up for medicare. So, if you can't get coverage because of a preexisting condition, then you are allowed to be covered under medicare prior to being 65 years old.

 

One thing that comes to mind is that....well....then all the insurance companies would do is drop anyone who is costing them money. So, I would put in a system where they are required to document why they can not cover this person. If they do not meet certain criteria for that category, then the insurance company is required to cover them.

And then, to help minimize costs, the government could create a public option available to healthy people too. Assuming it is relatively inexpensive, it could jump start some competition in the market places.

[BigRedBuster]

We've come up with a basic framework for how to address the burdens of mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage. It's colloquially called Obamacare.

 

To your proposal, it sounds like a free pass for people to not get coverage until they have a condition -- and then, to get Medicare.

You act like Obamacare is a great program with no major issues.

[funhusker]

 

We've come up with a basic framework for how to address the burdens of mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage. It's colloquially called Obamacare.

 

To your proposal, it sounds like a free pass for people to not get coverage until they have a condition -- and then, to get Medicare.

You act like Obamacare is a great program with no major issues.

 

Maybe that would be a time when a true penalty could be enforced for not previously being covered. Like A co-pay for a significant percentage of the first years treatment, high deductible or something similar.

 

Instead of "taxing" a healthy person for being healthy, we could tax a person who tried to beat the system and lost.

 

For example: with my family medical history, it's not a question of if I have heart problems or cancer, it's more a question of when. I would be more than happy to pay $300 a month for an insurance policy (remember I'm still healthy and young) than get stuck paying half of a $1,000,000 bill when I'm diagnosed with cancer and begin treatments.

[TGHusker]

 

I just received this eml from Senator Langsford from Okla. His form letter explanation on where we are at :

 

Affordable Care Act and Healthcare Facts:

• Healthcare insurance premiums have increased 76 percent on average for Oklahoma residents on the Obamacare federal exchange. Oklahoma is one of five states to only have only one insurer on the exchange Blue Cross Blue Shieldin 2017, joining South Carolina, Alaska, Alabama and Wyoming.
• Since 2013, health insurance premiums have risen 105 percent, from an average of $2,784 in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017 on the federal exchange (an increase of $2,928), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In Oklahoma, the situation is much worse, with premiums skyrocketing by 201 percent$4,968 higher since 2013.
• At least 44 counties across America are projected to have no exchange insurer in 2018. That number will likely climb higher in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Most Americans receive their healthcare insurance through their employer. Although a much smaller percentage of Americans receive insurance through Obamacare exchanges, the law created regulations and taxes that impacted most employer-based insurance plans. CLICK HERE for a summary of where most Americans get their healthcare insurance.
• The Affordable Care Act individual mandate was designed to force healthy people to buy insurance coverage, however, it has not accomplished that goal. Many healthy people have decided they would rather pay the IRS penalty than buy Obamacare coverage. According to the IRS, for 2015, 6.5 million people paid the individual mandate penalty and another 12.7 million claimed one of the various exemptions from paying the penalty. In fact, 95,910 families paid $20.9 million in Obamacare penalties in 2014, with the vast majority of these households making incomes of less than $50,000 a year.
• Members of Congress and their office staffs have to buy health insurance through the Obamacare insurance exchange.
• The first amendment after Tuesday’s ‘motion to proceed’ was a vote on an updated version of Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). I voted for the amendment, but it failed by a vote of 43-57. CLICK HERE to read some information on the BCRA. This week, there will be many, many more amendments voted on and offered by both Republicans and Democrats.

Thank you for passing Sen. Langsford's propaganda along. It's helpful to know what misinformation is being foisted on the American people and we can frequently count on it being posted on HuskerBoard.

 

This letter is another attack on Obamacare, showing the rising costs (in Oklahoma, that's because there's no competition in the marketplace thanks to, among other factors, monopolies and Aetna throwing a tantrum after their merger was denied by the Obama administration), but it offers NOTHING by way of an explanation of how to fix the problem.

 

Langford does nothing to explain how Trumpcare is going to fix costs.

 

He does nothing to explain why the GOP is attempting to force the demise of Obamacare at the expense of tens of millions of people who rely on it for healthcare.

 

He does nothing to explain why the GOP is giving the wealthy a tax cut at the expense of middle-class Americans.

 

He does nothing to explain why the GOP is hiding everything about Trumpcare from the public via closed-door meetings and squelching open debate.

 

He does nothing to explain why the GOP sold us the line that Obamacare was "rammed down our throats" in a process that was 300x more transparent than what Republicans are doing.

 

 

 

 

All he's doing is showing statistics with zero explanation of the machinations causing them to be.

 

 

It's a good thing folks on HuskerBoard are smart enough not to just accept misinformation like this. It's unfortunate that many of the recipients of that email will not.

 

Good points Knapp. I suspect that the form letter was used by other senators as well. They all have their talking points that appeal to the dumbed down voters. Here is an example:

 

I received a campaign mailer (in the mail of course ) from a young state senator running to fill the Okla 1st district seat that will become vacant in 2018. The guy is a real decent guy, hard working and respected. He has accomplished a lot at his young age and will most likely be a favorite to win the seat. HOWEVER, in reading his campaign literature - it sounded like the same song by a different dog. Howling over the same Republican talking points that I have heard over and over again in years pass. Yes, one of those talking points was Obama Care. I swear - our political system is raising up robots without an original thought. I was so discussed wt the flier that I immediately threw it away because all of the these talking points accomplish nothing. If you want my vote - show some original thought, in depth planning, and an ability to work with others not with a R behind their name or treating the other side as 'the enemy'. Of course this all plays to the 'robotic' response of voters who only think along party lines. We have created dumb downed voters who vote for dumbed down politicians who do the beckoning of the party or their largest donor. This past election broke me out of this 'trance'' - viewing the world through the filter of one party or even one ideology (liberalism or conservatism).

[zoogs]

I did say "basic framework" -- I didn't say there are no areas it can't be modified for the better.

 

What you're proposing is a quite alternative framework. I don't quite see how it even addresses what Obamacare addresses imperfectly. Like, how do you avoid driving up premiums when you offer an even stronger incentive to stay off health insurance until you need it (guaranteed Medicare?) How does that drive down costs? How does "insurance company, just document why you won't insure this person" get enforced and not taken advantage of as a huge loophole?

[BigRedBuster]

I did say "basic framework" -- I didn't say there are no areas it can't be modified for the better.

 

What you're proposing is a quite alternative framework. I don't quite see how it even addresses what Obamacare addresses imperfectly.

The problem is that insurance companies take these people in and cover the cost by drastically increasing the premiums on healthy people. Insurance for my family shouldn't cost over $30,000 per year. So, there is something seriously wrong with the current system.

 

The degrees of changing framework, I guess is your opinion. I really don't care if we keep the present framework or change it drastically as long as what gets done is done right and for the right reasons and drastically decreases the cost ALL of us pay for healthcare.

 

You act like you were shocked/offended that I would dare say Obamacare needs to be changed to the degree I suggested. Again, I really don't care how much it's changed as long as it accomplished the desired goals.

 

In my mind, my system would take out the profit level and cushion insurance companies put in to everyone's premiums to pay for these people. The tax payer would then be on the hook for them BUT...at the actual cost of providing the care and not some inflated figure.

[NM11046]

 

I just received this eml from Senator Langsford from Okla. His form letter explanation on where we are at :

 

Affordable Care Act and Healthcare Facts:

• Healthcare insurance premiums have increased 76 percent on average for Oklahoma residents on the Obamacare federal exchange. Oklahoma is one of five states to only have only one insurer on the exchange Blue Cross Blue Shieldin 2017, joining South Carolina, Alaska, Alabama and Wyoming.
• Since 2013, health insurance premiums have risen 105 percent, from an average of $2,784 in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017 on the federal exchange (an increase of $2,928), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In Oklahoma, the situation is much worse, with premiums skyrocketing by 201 percent$4,968 higher since 2013.
• At least 44 counties across America are projected to have no exchange insurer in 2018. That number will likely climb higher in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Most Americans receive their healthcare insurance through their employer. Although a much smaller percentage of Americans receive insurance through Obamacare exchanges, the law created regulations and taxes that impacted most employer-based insurance plans. CLICK HERE for a summary of where most Americans get their healthcare insurance.
• The Affordable Care Act individual mandate was designed to force healthy people to buy insurance coverage, however, it has not accomplished that goal. Many healthy people have decided they would rather pay the IRS penalty than buy Obamacare coverage. According to the IRS, for 2015, 6.5 million people paid the individual mandate penalty and another 12.7 million claimed one of the various exemptions from paying the penalty. In fact, 95,910 families paid $20.9 million in Obamacare penalties in 2014, with the vast majority of these households making incomes of less than $50,000 a year.
• Members of Congress and their office staffs have to buy health insurance through the Obamacare insurance exchange.
• The first amendment after Tuesday’s ‘motion to proceed’ was a vote on an updated version of Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). I voted for the amendment, but it failed by a vote of 43-57. CLICK HERE to read some information on the BCRA. This week, there will be many, many more amendments voted on and offered by both Republicans and Democrats.

 

TG - Propublica is working with Vox and Kaiser and is still accepting (and wanting) copies of letters/communications like these coming back from our representatives. They're collecting and fact checking. Website below makes it super easy to submit. Taking a guess that OK folks aren't as participatory in this sort of thing as some of the blue blue blue states so your info may be really needed. I did it and it took no time at all.

 

https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/item/help-us-fact-check-members-of-congress-on-the-affordable-care-act?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1501090989

[zoogs]

BRB, I'm not opposed to a demonstrably superior approach than how Obamacare tackles this problem. I'd encourage you to keep fleshing out your idea. I'm certainly not shocked or offended by it. I'm simply trying to poke holes into it.

 

Tbh, I don't understand how you can have such a dim view of the ACA while having an apparently positive view of your idea. How does guaranteed Medicare when you need it address the issue of healthy people opting out of the insurance markets? How does your second prong, indeed, reconcile with your first? Do away with the pre-existing conditions mandate, but then impose a soft "costly customer" mandate for insurance companies? .... not to mention, the 'cost of providing healthcare' issue about which you frequently criticize Obamacare doesn't appear to be even touched here.

 

But perhaps I'm missing your point.

[Red Five]

Off the top of my head, if we flood Medicare with all of these unhealthy people, who ends up paying for it?

 

1) Taxes would have to go up, no?

 

2) One of the reasons that group/individual premiums are high is that Medicare reimbursement to docs is lower than group/individual rates. So if more people switch to Medicare the docs will raise prices on the group/individual business to make up the shortfall.

[TGHusker]

 

 

I just received this eml from Senator Langsford from Okla. His form letter explanation on where we are at :

 

Affordable Care Act and Healthcare Facts:

• Healthcare insurance premiums have increased 76 percent on average for Oklahoma residents on the Obamacare federal exchange. Oklahoma is one of five states to only have only one insurer on the exchange Blue Cross Blue Shieldin 2017, joining South Carolina, Alaska, Alabama and Wyoming.
• Since 2013, health insurance premiums have risen 105 percent, from an average of $2,784 in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017 on the federal exchange (an increase of $2,928), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In Oklahoma, the situation is much worse, with premiums skyrocketing by 201 percent$4,968 higher since 2013.
• At least 44 counties across America are projected to have no exchange insurer in 2018. That number will likely climb higher in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Most Americans receive their healthcare insurance through their employer. Although a much smaller percentage of Americans receive insurance through Obamacare exchanges, the law created regulations and taxes that impacted most employer-based insurance plans. CLICK HERE for a summary of where most Americans get their healthcare insurance.
• The Affordable Care Act individual mandate was designed to force healthy people to buy insurance coverage, however, it has not accomplished that goal. Many healthy people have decided they would rather pay the IRS penalty than buy Obamacare coverage. According to the IRS, for 2015, 6.5 million people paid the individual mandate penalty and another 12.7 million claimed one of the various exemptions from paying the penalty. In fact, 95,910 families paid $20.9 million in Obamacare penalties in 2014, with the vast majority of these households making incomes of less than $50,000 a year.
• Members of Congress and their office staffs have to buy health insurance through the Obamacare insurance exchange.
• The first amendment after Tuesday’s ‘motion to proceed’ was a vote on an updated version of Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). I voted for the amendment, but it failed by a vote of 43-57. CLICK HERE to read some information on the BCRA. This week, there will be many, many more amendments voted on and offered by both Republicans and Democrats.

 

TG - Propublica is working with Vox and Kaiser and is still accepting (and wanting) copies of letters/communications like these coming back from our representatives. They're collecting and fact checking. Website below makes it super easy to submit. Taking a guess that OK folks aren't as participatory in this sort of thing as some of the blue blue blue states so your info may be really needed. I did it and it took no time at all.

 

https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/item/help-us-fact-check-members-of-congress-on-the-affordable-care-act?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=1501090989

 

Done