Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

GOP Healthcare Plan is a Liberal Conspiracy. Follow

#1 Mar 09 2017 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts

Thanks Trump voters, I really appreciate this gift.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2 Mar 09 2017 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
I'm curious about their methodology though. The key bit I could garner was that the Obamacare subsidy varies by geography and premium rates, while the Trump plan is a flat tax credit based on age. Given that one of the problems with Obamacare was that it resulted in significantly increased premiums, the on paper value of the subsidies will appear inflated (um... but are also one of the components of the "death spiral" that has made this program untenable in the long run). Comparing those inflated costs to more normal ones is unfair at the very least.

If, as a result of changing incentives and payment structures, premiums return to more normal numbers, than those projected cost benefits disappear. Ironically, what this map is really measuring is how much of a problem cost overruns are under Obamacare. It relies on the somewhat bizarre assumption that spending more dollars is always better. Making this a tax credit (presumably tied to actual health expenditures over a year), makes the program more efficient since it focuses dollars on where they are actually needed, and in theory creates at least some incentive to keep costs low. The subsidy program in Obamacare was more or less "we're giving you this amount to pay for your health insurance, whether you need it or not, or whether you use it or not". Which was basically a free gimme to the health industry and provided them incentives to find ways to artificially increase costs (the higher the costs, the bigger the subsidy, and thus the more money they could make for the same health care).

The negotiations on the bill are still ongoing, and I'm sure there are still many changes to make. I have no clue how good or bad the result will be, but one of the things I did find amusing was the degree of media coverage about "Divisions in the GOP" over healthcare. Um... What you're seeing right now is healthy debate about a bill. They're actually doing what they complained about the Democrats not doing. They're reading the bill. Then debating the bill. Then making changes to the bill. That's a huge contrast to Democrats who were told by their leadership to just put their heads down and support whatever came out of committee, and don't worry about bothering to read it or debate it.

This is actually how the process is supposed to work, yet somehow it's being painted as a negative. Funny.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Mar 09 2017 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The negotiations on the bill are still ongoing, and I'm sure there are still many changes to make

Er, no. They're ramming the bill through committees because the negotiations aren't ongoing and they're trying to force this bill through as soon as possible. They know that a delay and debate on it will be deadly for their chances of getting it passed. Ryan is pressing the Senate to pass it as is instead of passing their own bill.

Now, it might end up where this bill fails and they're forced to come up with something new but that's not the plan or intent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 09 2017 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Now, it might end up where this bill fails and they're forced to come up with something new but that's not the plan or intent.
Let's Select Your Adventure this. "It won't fail because --"
corrupt liberal media is lying about it and it's actually perfect.
corrupt liberal politicians are lying about it and it's actually perfect.
corrupt liberal analysts are lying about it and it's actually perfect.
corrupt liberal doctors and insurance companies are lying about it and it's actually perfect.
corrupt people pretending to be conservatives are lying about it and it's actually perfect.

There, I just saved you five pages.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Mar 10 2017 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be the point of all this legislation? Or has that gotten lost over the years? Seems like they're basically keeping the same broken program, just fiddling with some of the details a bit.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Mar 10 2017 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,889 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs.
You're not missing it, the price tag and all the analysis have been conveniently left out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Mar 10 2017 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs.
You're not missing it, the price tag and all the analysis have been conveniently left out.
Yay for democracy! Smiley: yippee

I mean, I know it's not a "finished product" or whatever, but I'd still feel more at ease if there was some serious backlash from the industry on this one. Many of the "no comment" and otherwise neutral responses from the health care companies lead me to believe they're not really doing much to address the excess bloat in the system.

Edited, Mar 10th 2017 11:01am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#8 Mar 10 2017 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Seems like they're basically keeping the same broken program, just fiddling with some of the details a bit.

Right, but now instead of a "coverage mandate", we have a "conditional tax credit".

Totally different!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Mar 10 2017 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You mean Obamacare will be 90% enshrined by Republicans who will now bear 100% of the blame for every rising premium or increased MRI bill?

The system works.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Mar 10 2017 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#11 Mar 10 2017 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,046 posts
I hear that the man who will do just about anything to get his named placed in gold letters on buildings, steaks and a fake university, is objecting to calling the GOP healthcare plan "Trumpcare."

Think about it.

Even the idiot in chief thinks this is a bad plan, while pushing for it's passing.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#12 Mar 10 2017 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
"TrumpCare" is an oxymoron anyway.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Mar 10 2017 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
******
49,889 posts
I like what Ryan Williams is saying about it, that it's the "care" part that sounds bad to people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Mar 11 2017 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,065 posts
Samira wrote:
"TrumpCare" is an oxymoron anyway.


I think it's just one of those phrases that you can only use ironically.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#15 Mar 11 2017 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Xsarus can you mod me so I can delete my own constant double posts?

I swear I won't abuse my power.

Heh, that's another one of those phrases. Good thing Xsarus can't read anything in small text.

Edited, Mar 11th 2017 12:24pm by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#16 Mar 11 2017 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Kavekkk wrote:
Xsarus can you mod me so I can delete my own constant double posts?

I swear I won't abuse my power.

Edited, Mar 11th 2017 12:24pm by Kavekkk

I'll get right on that, since you promised!
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#17 Mar 13 2017 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be the point of all this legislation? Or has that gotten lost over the years? Seems like they're basically keeping the same broken program, just fiddling with some of the details a bit.


Isn't finalized yet, but based on the bullet points the GOP wants, here's a few:

1. Removes the mandates for coverage. Meaning, you can choose to only cover things you think you'll need instead of "everything". This, by itself, is a major point of cost savings, since the introduction of such is what caused premiums, co-pays, etc to sky rocket to unsustainable levels under Obamacare. You could literally just roll that back and do nothing else and costs to consumers will go down.

2. If they can put in changes to allow purchase of insurance across state lines, this may also reduce costs. In many states, there's may only be one or two insurers, in some just one, and now thanks to Obamacare, some states are heading in the direction of having *none*. Creating competition is always a good thing. How much this may reduce costs is unknown, but if implemented, it at least could do so.

3. Tort reform. This has been an issue for the GOP all along. Again, there's some question as to whether they can get this put in, but this can be a huge cost increase for care. Health care providers are basically faced with choosing between over covering or risking lawsuits if someone get sick because they failed to do that extra test or check for that extra thing. And the extra coverage is easier to just pass right into the insurance system and back to the consumer, so that's often what they do.

Those are just three right off the top of my head. A number of other elements are possible as well. Again, just removing many of the mandates and regulations put in place by Obamacare can reduce costs. Changing *where* the coverage gaps are can make a huge differences as well. I suspect that one of the big problems with the ACA was that it attempted to eliminate the coverage gap (point where government subsidies don't cover enough, but the person can't afford to make up the difference themselves). The problem is that all it did was push that gap upward in the economic system. Which, ironically, meant that instead of an earnings pool made up mostly of single people in their 20s with no children being in the gap, it became an earnings pool mostly made up of working class families. As you shift money to pay more in subsidies to fill the gap, that results in a cost increase to everyone who was previously above the gap, and some of them will have some combination of employers dropping their coverage and themselves being no longer able to pay out of pocket for insurance. Combine that effect with coverage mandates which *also* increase costs, and the result is a large gap in coverage at a higher economic level.

Which is "BAD". Just undoing that helps out a ton.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Mar 13 2017 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Mar 13 2017 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!


By 2027?! Um... Seriously? You'll have to forgive me for taking that figure with a massive grain of salt.

I'm also curious what they're actually measuring here (seems like a recurring theme here, like "jobs created or saved"). Are these people who will no longer be under the exact same insurance provider in 10 years as they are today? Um... Is that unusual? I have no clue. Is this just counting people who are insured today, but who wont be in 10 years? Ok. Does that include people who are, you know, going to die of old age in the next 10 years, even with health care the whole time (I would assume they aren't counted in this, but you never know). Or is it counting the total number of people in our population today who are insured and then comparing it to some hypothetical number in 10 years and then doing subtraction? Er... Again, how do they know?

The problem with CBO calculations (as I've pointed out for years and years on a number of different topics), is that they have to calculate based on the assumption that the same actions are taken after a legal change as they are before that change. They treat everything as zero sum. If the bar for assistance dollars changes by X amount, they assume that everyone who was below the bar before, but now is above it, can't afford the thing it was providing. They assume that every dollar taken away or added to some program has the same weight as the dollars currently there. But the act of changing these things changes how the results are calculated. In many cases, that's precisely the reason for making the change.

Heck. It could be as simple as the GOP saying that if we remove the mandates, we will drive down the cost to employee people, which will result in greater hiring, which will result in greater economic growth, which, over the next ten years, will result in more people being employed in higher paying jobs, and thus being able to afford health care directly. Without a single dollar of assistance. That's a calculation that the CBO can't do though. It has to assume the same exact stratification of economic conditions across the population. Again, this is why they were so wrong with the scoring for the ACA. Their numbers assumed a similar rate (or a return to rates) of GDP growth, employment, etc that we enjoyed prior to the 2008 crash. Except that we didn't get those growth numbers. Not even remotely close. And at least some of that lack of growth was directly attributable to the passage of the ACA itself.

It's the same age old issue. Democrats tend to want to treat the symptoms of problems, while Republicans want to fix the problem itself. Where the CBO scoring fails is that it can't calculate "more people making more money" into its equation. And it also can't calculate "more people making less money" either. So yeah, I'm going to assume they're just as wrong with this calculation as they were with the ACA itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Mar 13 2017 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,065 posts
If you didn't take everything with so much salt, you wouldn't be such a salty motherfucker.

Just accept that conservatives are evil subhumans and that liberals are perfect. Why do you have to be so stubborn?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#21 Mar 13 2017 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!

By 2027?! Um... Seriously? You'll have to forgive me for taking that figure with a massive grain of salt.

Ignoring inconvenient stuff is kind of your forte so you're forgiven.

People who championed Ryan's "I had the Heritage Foundation score it!!" budget lose the right to comment about the CBO Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Mar 13 2017 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,065 posts
What other rights do you want to take away from the American people, Jophiel? Will there be any rights left, after your kind are through?

I thought not.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#23 Mar 13 2017 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!

By 2027?! Um... Seriously? You'll have to forgive me for taking that figure with a massive grain of salt.

Ignoring inconvenient stuff is kind of your forte so you're forgiven.


Well, let's start with the accuracy of the CBO scoring of the ACA, shall we? Or is that a bit too "inconvenient" for you.

Ironically, that score was wrong for the exact same reasons I just spoke of. And those reasons were brought up by conservatives at the time, and also ignored then. It's almost like you'd think that in a sane world, you'd start realizing just how often conservatives are right about these sorts of things, and the liberals are just plain dead wrong.

Quote:
People who championed Ryan's "I had the Heritage Foundation score it!!" budget lose the right to comment about the CBO Smiley: laugh


While you're at it, how about people who defended the birther movement for years? They lose the right to comment about it too, right!

You're not even aware when you do this, are you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Mar 13 2017 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The White House's own estimates are 26,000,000 -- so I guess you got the CBO there!

Spend more time whining about how "don't even know I'm doing this" to cover for your basic lack of facts and usual flailing to try and defend the GOP Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Mar 13 2017 at 11:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
If you didn't take everything with so much salt, you wouldn't be such a salty motherfucker.

____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#26 Mar 14 2017 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,889 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The White House's own estimates are 26,000,000 -- so I guess you got the CBO there!
The best part is that the first 14m to lose their insurance will be by 2018 is a little detail that seems to be lost by both sides of the argument. Well, that and how in the decade of being told just how much better the GOP plan was for "the people" this is what they came out the gate with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CST
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (53)