The President is convinced that under his plan, the premiums for Health Insurance will go down. He has cut the subsidies to the insurance companies at the present time. The solution is to establish reasonable premium levels for the single and family income groups and those with pre-existing conditions etc. If the premiums exceed the established reasonable premium table, the insured with get a tax rebate from the government for the difference, Since the President is convinced competition will increase among insurance companies bringing premiums down, that being the case, it will cost the government zero.
Cost of care and claims filed affect premium. Nothing trump is doing will have any effect what so ever
Not worried about Trump's effect, I think it is a way to protect ordinary citizens, If there is a tax table that produces premium cut off and ordinary folks are reimbursed beyond that, he should be all over that since he believes premiums will head down due to increased competition. This way we don't have 18 million out of healthcare in 2019 as one analyst claimed this morning. The only exercise here would be the creation of that table which could be lumped into his tax reform package. I think it will cost the government something, I guess you do as well but Trump is the one issuing executive orders so let's see if his money is where his mouth is, so to speak!
This illegal Big Insurance Back Door Bailout was not authorized by Congress OR Obamacare. The Court ruled that they were unconstitutional. Trump gave Congress plenty of time to authorize them, should they choose to do so, and then ended them. If you didn't accomplish this with Obamacare, you likely blew your opportunity. You can't just much around like a blind spastic with folk's healthcare. You got your bite at the apple, if you blew it, you blew it. All President Trump did was following a federal court decision that ending the unconstitutional “subsidies” (bribes) to health insurance companies that President Obama instituted, with no constitutionally-mandated appropriation by Congress. The payments are illegal. The Affordable Care Act leaves the subsidies contingent on an annual appropriation, but since 2014 Congress has declined to dedicate the funding. The Obama Administration wrote the checks anyway, and the House of Representatives sued. Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer last year ruled that the Obama Administration had violated the Constitution https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obamacare-sabotage-meme-1507936225 Democrats sabotaged Obamacare by designing it to fail, and propping it up with illegal bribes to insurance companies. You can’t “sabotage” a collapsing bridge.
Unfortunately I had nothing to do with Obamacare, nor do I propose resurrecting a dead horse, although I will say the Trump administration's constant death knell rhetoric is contributing to its' demise. Having said that, I am taking the Trump executive order at face value and trying to find a solution which I outlined above. I would think any Trump supporter would be 120% in favor of what I have outlined at the beginning of this thread because if Trump is correct, it will cost the government nothing.
Your opening post is propaganda. * Obamacare does not appropriate the illegal back door bribes to insurance carriers. * The Constitution does not authorize the President to do so without Congressional appropriation. * Trump after ample warning to Congress to authorize the payments should they wish to do so, ended them. You can't build a strong position on a lie. That's been the whole trouble with Obamacare from the start, far too many lies!
Okay I've got it that you are 400% against Obamacare... Obviously the President believes premiums will go down as he stated emphatically...so start from there. Down from what, what they are today one would assume, use that as the benchmark although I think they are inflated (insurance companies afraid of what happen, the end of subsidies, some raised, some didn't) but for argument sake, start there. Anything in excess charged by the insurance company to the consumer become an automatic refundable tax break. Now everyone is insured and according to the President, premiums going down, costs the government zero.
No. Let's start here with YOUR opening post: "He has cut the subsidies to the insurance companies at the present time." He is not authorized to make those payments by either Obamacare or the US Constitution. Would you like a link to the Judge's decision on the case?
Obviously you have a comprehension problem...you start where you like, I am only interested in trying to go from here and now and looking for a solution.
Actually it's very straightforward and you online name hints at at least remedial legal training so I'll make it simple for you with two yes/no questions: i) Are the backdoor insurance bailouts appropriated in Obamacare? ii) Is the President authorized by the Constitution to make backdoor bailout payments to Big Insurance without appropriation by Congress?
Yes, single-payer -- BUT with some very strict guidelines in its foundation. I suggest: Bottom line: we need a "single-payer" system where all participants make up the largest customer-base in the world. Everyone who is part of the single-payer system pays their own premiums for the coverage offered by the heath insurance company or companies that provided the lowest prices and best care during a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BIDDING PROCESSES every three to five years! That's right -- the health insurance companies would BID for our business! They would have to compete for our business! That would mean lower premiums, better coverage, and much lower "co-pays" and "deductibles". Prescriptions should be included, too, and there the costs could be very greatly reduced. But, for it to be financially sustainable, each person who is part of the system must pay his/her own premiums! No welfare, no subsidies, no tax-deductions. Anybody who wouldn't want to be a part of the single-payer system could go get his/her own health insurance to suit themselves, or, if they said they they were too poor, then they could always enroll for Medicaid, which would continue to exist as an entirely separate entity! But, nobody would be FORCED to buy anything, as in a "mandate". That "mandate" nonsense was always wholly unconstitutional and illegal in the first place!
I have no idea and could care less... I am interested in a solution not the misappropriations...I believe the Thread stated SOLUTION - Healthcare You have made your point now try looking for a solution or start another thread slamming Obamacare.
It's your claim, right here, from your opening post. "He has cut the subsidies to the insurance companies". I'm willing to discuss your claim: i) Are the backdoor insurance bailouts appropriated in Obamacare? ii) Is the President authorized by the Constitution to make backdoor bailout payments to Big Insurance without appropriation by Congress? A simple yes/no to each will suffice. You can't build a strong position on a lie, so, you're welcome!
The problem with that is that it would not incentivize insurance companies to cut premiums because it would guarantee them the premium payment they want and avoid some people from dropping coverage or transferring to a competing company because their cost is stabilized and increases covered. There is no effective substitute for national healthcare and socialized medicine.
There is a problem with that idea. The tax rebate is basically financially equivalent to subsidies to help people pay with the subsidies. The problem with subsidies is that if people get tax rebates this will result in less revenue for the government and that revenue loss will have to be made up with extra taxes. A tax cut combined with a tax increase to pay for the cost of subsidies basically means nothing except a more complex tax system. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A simpler solution is to just increase the income tax to pay for subsidies that people can directly pay for their extra healthcare costs with. Now you say that the extra competition with insurance companies will reduce the cost eliminating most needed tax rebates for extra costs. First off what is a reasonable level of healthcare cost and what is it for poor families? And how much does it compare to what they are currently paying? Insurance companies are not the only cost producers and hospitals, drug companies, healthcare executives, doctors, technology, research, and middle-men also add to that cost as well. What reforms would you impose to create this increased competition? Another issue is that paying for all healthcare costs above a certain level will encourage people to get expensive plans since the government will pay for everything past a certain level, and insurance companies and hospitals will charge more since they know the government will pick up the slack and won't lose customers from higher prices. Other countries use price controls and negotiation directly with healthcare companies to get low prices.
The way to lower health care costs, cut out the insurance for routine care. Pay cash for routine care and have a catastrophic care insurance plan for unexpected emergencies.
Thanks...I don't have any good ideas regarding reforms, it was the President who said the premiums would go down due to increased competition so I assume he would have a plan to make that happen.
1. Catastrophic coverage is insurance so this doesn't cut out insurance, it only reduces it. 2. Catastrophic coverage will mean that if you get sick you will have to pay a crazy high deductible. 3. It will also discourage cheaper preventative care by making people pay the full cost instead of having it 100% covered like we have today, less preventative care means more expesive care when conditions get bad and less health. 4. It doesn't fix much of the cost problem because a lot of the cost and cost increase comes from the very sick and expensive health conditions. 5. Hospitals initially bill costs that are far above the actual cost in order to get as much profit as they can. Insurance companies negotiate massive cuts to this cost due to their negotiation power with a larger customer base being better. They actually get better deals than individuals paying with cash because of their larger base. Cutting insurance out will mean high overall cost and less coverage to pay for it. 6. Hospital often don't tell you how much something will cost until it happens. Its a lot harder to negotiate a lower out of pocket expense when the hospitals know you owe them and have already used their services. 7. If this is combined with cutting Obamacare subsidizes, Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicaid expansion then it means healthcare being a lot less affordable for the old, sick, and poor due to paying to pay the full premium and out of pocket. 8. If this is combined with not mandating insurance only provide catastrophic then there is no reason to believe that insurance companies and people will choose this as they didn't before Obamacare became the law and catastrophic only was legal. 9. If young and healthy people can choose catastrophic only and this becomes widespread for them while the old and the sick have to pay for full coverage this will result in a much higher healthcare premium for them because the customer base paying for full coverage will be smaller and sicker.
There are some downsides to national healthcare as well, e.g. wait times. I would agree it can be the fairest system for all citizens. Can be expensive as well.
He also promised that healthcare costs would be a fraction of the cost, there will be no cuts to government healthcare programs, and everyone will be covered. He also said he would be able to get this passed in his first 100 days in office. He was obviously lying.
Wait times are not a problem; not in Canada, not in Scandinavian countries. And NO other system is as expensive as ours per capita. the per-capita cost of ours towers above all others by 40-60%. None can beat ours for cost.
