In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare

[arthur wouk]

https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh

In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare

By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017

SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.

But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.

'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.

Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

[mg]

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

[El Castor]

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

[mg]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

[mg]

On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.

I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
funding sources:

1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.

2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.

3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

Did you know, incidentally, that payroll taxes, which partially fund
Obamacare are not indexed for inflation? That means, of course, that
government revenues will increase as time goes by. Someday, for
example, a teenager working during the summer at McDonald's will be
helping to pay for Obamacare. And that teenager, and his parents,
probably won't even know it, by the way. Evidentally, it will be
listed on his W2 as a Medicare contribution.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.

Hitler had a different plan, carefully crafted, of course. He
didn't succeed because he couldn't eliminate other factors, such
as "common decency" as we 21st century Euro-Americans see
it, that have also "evolved" in the human mind over the ages.

Of course Hitler's own ideas sprang from the same forces
as everybody else's, but Hitler's formulation just wasn't as
successful at taking over the 20th century as the very similar
(IMV) formulation by the masters of Rome had been in taking
over the world at the time of "the grandeur that was Rome".

Post by mg
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.
Did you know, incidentally, that payroll taxes, which partially fund
Obamacare are not indexed for inflation? That means, of course, that
government revenues will increase as time goes by. Someday, for
example, a teenager working during the summer at McDonald's will be
helping to pay for Obamacare. And that teenager, and his parents,
probably won't even know it, by the way. Evidentally, it will be
listed on his W2 as a Medicare contribution.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.

Hitler had a different plan, carefully crafted, of course. He
didn't succeed because he couldn't eliminate other factors, such
as "common decency" as we 21st century Euro-Americans see
it, that have also "evolved" in the human mind over the ages.
Of course Hitler's own ideas sprang from the same forces
as everybody else's, but Hitler's formulation just wasn't as
successful at taking over the 20th century as the very similar
(IMV) formulation by the masters of Rome had been in taking
over the world at the time of "the grandeur that was Rome".

With an estimated 4 million Muslims dead since the start of the war
on terrorism and about 60 million refugees, I see the killing that
we are engaged in, in the Middle East and Africa, as similar to
Hitler's killing of the Jews, incidentally. As I recall, Hitler
killed more than 4 million Jews, though.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.
Did you know, incidentally, that payroll taxes, which partially fund
Obamacare are not indexed for inflation? That means, of course, that
government revenues will increase as time goes by. Someday, for
example, a teenager working during the summer at McDonald's will be
helping to pay for Obamacare. And that teenager, and his parents,
probably won't even know it, by the way. Evidentally, it will be
listed on his W2 as a Medicare contribution.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

[mg]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded. In regards to how much money is collected from the various
sources, I think the funding of Obamacare still remains mostly a
mystery, though, at least to the average person. However, the total
cost of Obamacare has been reported to be $1.7 trillion/10 years and
the total revenue from the individual mandate has been estimated to
only be about $46 billion. I see the individual mandate as a highly
regressive tax on low-income people who can't afford it, by the way.
Here's an excerpt from an article on the subject:

-----------------

"The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) slashed their
estimates for how many people will pay the individual mandate tax
penalty in 2016 by a third — to 4 million from 6 million — citing
exemptions granted by the Obama administration, including exemptions
for people whose plans were cancelled because they did not meet the
Affordable Care Act’s requirements.

That’ll lead to $4 billion in revenue in 2016 and $5 billion a year
after that — a drop of about $3 billion a year. It will still
generate $46 billion over a decade, the CBO said Thursday.

CQ Roll Call’s Rebecca Adams has reported extensively on this issue,
noting that the IRS isn’t expected to do much to enforce the mandate
anytime soon."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html

Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html#ixzz4aTlAdUUC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

Post by mg
In regards to how much money is collected from the various
sources, I think the funding of Obamacare still remains mostly a
mystery, though, at least to the average person. However, the total
cost of Obamacare has been reported to be $1.7 trillion/10 years and
the total revenue from the individual mandate has been estimated to
only be about $46 billion. I see the individual mandate as a highly
regressive tax on low-income people who can't afford it, by the way.

Those who can't afford insurance, get subsidies. The biggest problem is those who can afford it who choose not to carry insurance.

Post by mg
-----------------
"The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) slashed their
estimates for how many people will pay the individual mandate tax
penalty in 2016 by a third — to 4 million from 6 million — citing
exemptions granted by the Obama administration, including exemptions
for people whose plans were cancelled because they did not meet the
Affordable Care Act’s requirements.
That’ll lead to $4 billion in revenue in 2016 and $5 billion a year
after that — a drop of about $3 billion a year. It will still
generate $46 billion over a decade, the CBO said Thursday.
CQ Roll Call’s Rebecca Adams has reported extensively on this issue,
noting that the IRS isn’t expected to do much to enforce the mandate
anytime soon."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html#ixzz4aTlAdUUC

[mg]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate. However,
I don't think the numbers add up with that assumption. If one were
to divide the total cost of Obamacare by the total number of young
people who don't have insurance, but can afford it, I wonder what
the answer would be?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
In regards to how much money is collected from the various
sources, I think the funding of Obamacare still remains mostly a
mystery, though, at least to the average person. However, the total
cost of Obamacare has been reported to be $1.7 trillion/10 years and
the total revenue from the individual mandate has been estimated to
only be about $46 billion. I see the individual mandate as a highly
regressive tax on low-income people who can't afford it, by the way.

Those who can't afford insurance, get subsidies. The biggest problem is those who can afford it who choose not to carry insurance.

Post by mg
-----------------
"The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) slashed their
estimates for how many people will pay the individual mandate tax
penalty in 2016 by a third — to 4 million from 6 million — citing
exemptions granted by the Obama administration, including exemptions
for people whose plans were cancelled because they did not meet the
Affordable Care Act’s requirements.
That’ll lead to $4 billion in revenue in 2016 and $5 billion a year
after that — a drop of about $3 billion a year. It will still
generate $46 billion over a decade, the CBO said Thursday.
CQ Roll Call’s Rebecca Adams has reported extensively on this issue,
noting that the IRS isn’t expected to do much to enforce the mandate
anytime soon."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/the_disappearing_individual_mandate_in_obamacare.html#ixzz4aTlAdUUC

[Josh]

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of insurance has
gone up because the young and healthy are opting out and those with
pre-exisiting conditions get the same price as everyone else. That
problem - which is the biggest problem - has nothing whatsoever to do
with the funding for the Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

[mg]

Post by Josh

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of insurance has
gone up because the young and healthy are opting out and those with
pre-exisiting conditions get the same price as everyone else. That
problem - which is the biggest problem - has nothing whatsoever to do
with the funding for the Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

I wasn't talking to Jeff. I was responding to your statement, which
I don't think is true, where you said that "It is likely that very
few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had
insurance."

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg

Post by Josh

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of insurance has
gone up because the young and healthy are opting out and those with
pre-exisiting conditions get the same price as everyone else. That
problem - which is the biggest problem - has nothing whatsoever to do
with the funding for the Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

I wasn't talking to Jeff. I was responding to your statement, which
I don't think is true, where you said that "It is likely that very
few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had
insurance."

I was sloppy in my wording. By "funding" I meant the money necessary to
keep the insurance industry afloat (the problem Jeff described).

[mg]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:48:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg

Post by Josh

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of insurance has
gone up because the young and healthy are opting out and those with
pre-exisiting conditions get the same price as everyone else. That
problem - which is the biggest problem - has nothing whatsoever to do
with the funding for the Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

I wasn't talking to Jeff. I was responding to your statement, which
I don't think is true, where you said that "It is likely that very
few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had
insurance."

I was sloppy in my wording. By "funding" I meant the money necessary to
keep the insurance industry afloat (the problem Jeff described).

It's now been about 7 years, I guess, since Obamacare was passed and
I, for one, don't understand the budget numbers. I don't think very
many people do. The total cost is, I think, roughly $2 trillion for
10 years, with roughly half of that going for the expansion of
Medicaid and the other half going to the insurance companies.

Exactly where all of the money comes from and which money goes where
is somewhat of mystery to me, also. Money is fungible, as the old
saying goes. However, as a mental exercise, if we were to take the
cost of the subsidies going to insurance companies ($1 trillion/10
years) and divide it by the number of young people who don't have
insurance, but can afford it. (For the sake of argument, let's say
that number is 6 million people, then the arithmetic goes like this:

$1 trillion/6 million people = $166,667

Then dividing by 10 and getting a yearly figure, that's $16,667 from
each young person, per year, who doesn't have insurance, but can
afford it. That's obviously an unrealistic figure.

If we expect those young people to pay for all of Obamacare, and not
just the subsidies to insurance companies, the number would be
approximately double that, or $33,333 per year.

That's assuming, of course, that my calculations are correct and
that's also assuming that there are in fact 6 million young people
in the US, who don't have insurance, but can afford to buy it, and
that's also assuming that the cost of Obamacare is actually only $2
trillion/10 years. (There are some indications that the cost is
going to go up).

If, on the other hand, and just hypothetically speaking, if we were
to tax all 300 million people, in the US, equally to pay for
Obamacare, the cost per person would be roughly $666/per year, per
person.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:48:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg

Post by Josh

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make?
Obamacare's greatest flaw is forcing insurance
companies to unconditionally accept pre-existing
conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the
way, regardless of how the logic is twisted, no
Republican voted for Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't
think it would make sense to exclude people with
pre-existing conditions. If, they did that, they
would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have
you ever heard of a welfare program going bankrupt?
I think the cost of Obamacare will always be paid for
one way, or another. Here are some possible funding
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees
and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of
non-Obamacare policies to compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses
pass the cost along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have
the young and healthy carry health insurance. The
recipients of the welfare aspects of Obamacare aren't
just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and old
being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going
bankrupt, I was speculating on where additional funds
might come from in the future, rather than recapping how
the program is currently being funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be
needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is,
that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but
too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty
for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought
that Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual
mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of
insurance has gone up because the young and healthy are opting
out and those with pre-exisiting conditions get the same price
as everyone else. That problem - which is the biggest problem
- has nothing whatsoever to do with the funding for the
Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

I wasn't talking to Jeff. I was responding to your statement,
which I don't think is true, where you said that "It is likely
that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and
healthy had insurance."

I was sloppy in my wording. By "funding" I meant the money
necessary to keep the insurance industry afloat (the problem Jeff
described).

It's now been about 7 years, I guess, since Obamacare was passed and
I, for one, don't understand the budget numbers.

My (badly-worded) statement ("it is likely that very few additional
funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance") has
nothing whatsoever to do with how Obamacare (Medicaid and subsidies) is
paid for. So, all of your analyses below is besides the point.

Post by mg
I don't think very many people do. The total cost is, I think,
roughly $2 trillion for 10 years, with roughly half of that going for
the expansion of Medicaid and the other half going to the insurance
companies.
Exactly where all of the money comes from and which money goes where
is somewhat of mystery to me, also. Money is fungible, as the old
saying goes. However, as a mental exercise, if we were to take the
cost of the subsidies going to insurance companies ($1 trillion/10
years) and divide it by the number of young people who don't have
insurance, but can afford it. (For the sake of argument, let's say
$1 trillion/6 million people = $166,667
Then dividing by 10 and getting a yearly figure, that's $16,667 from
each young person, per year, who doesn't have insurance, but can
afford it. That's obviously an unrealistic figure.
If we expect those young people to pay for all of Obamacare, and not
just the subsidies to insurance companies, the number would be
approximately double that, or $33,333 per year.
That's assuming, of course, that my calculations are correct and
that's also assuming that there are in fact 6 million young people in
the US, who don't have insurance, but can afford to buy it, and
that's also assuming that the cost of Obamacare is actually only $2
trillion/10 years. (There are some indications that the cost is going
to go up).
If, on the other hand, and just hypothetically speaking, if we were
to tax all 300 million people, in the US, equally to pay for
Obamacare, the cost per person would be roughly $666/per year, per
person.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:48:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg

Post by Josh

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:13:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:10:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

In response to Jeff's speculation about the program going bankrupt,
I was speculating on where additional funds might come from in the
future, rather than recapping how the program is currently being
funded.

It is likely that very few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had insurance. That is, that's the way Obamacare was *supposed* to be funded, but too many young and healthy have opted out and the penalty for not carrying insurance is too small.

At the time, I think most people (including myself) thought that
Obamacare would be funded mostly by the individual mandate.

You are missing Jeff's point which was that the cost of insurance has
gone up because the young and healthy are opting out and those with
pre-exisiting conditions get the same price as everyone else. That
problem - which is the biggest problem - has nothing whatsoever to do
with the funding for the Medicaid expansion or the direct subsidies.

I wasn't talking to Jeff. I was responding to your statement, which
I don't think is true, where you said that "It is likely that very
few additional funding would be needed if the young and healthy had
insurance."

I was sloppy in my wording. By "funding" I meant the money necessary to
keep the insurance industry afloat (the problem Jeff described).

It's now been about 7 years, I guess, since Obamacare was passed and
I, for one, don't understand the budget numbers. I don't think very
many people do. The total cost is, I think, roughly $2 trillion for
10 years, with roughly half of that going for the expansion of
Medicaid and the other half going to the insurance companies.
Exactly where all of the money comes from and which money goes where
is somewhat of mystery to me, also. Money is fungible, as the old
saying goes. However, as a mental exercise, if we were to take the
cost of the subsidies going to insurance companies ($1 trillion/10
years) and divide it by the number of young people who don't have
insurance, but can afford it. (For the sake of argument, let's say
$1 trillion/6 million people = $166,667
Then dividing by 10 and getting a yearly figure, that's $16,667 from
each young person, per year, who doesn't have insurance, but can
afford it. That's obviously an unrealistic figure.
If we expect those young people to pay for all of Obamacare, and not
just the subsidies to insurance companies, the number would be
approximately double that, or $33,333 per year.
That's assuming, of course, that my calculations are correct and
that's also assuming that there are in fact 6 million young people
in the US, who don't have insurance, but can afford to buy it, and
that's also assuming that the cost of Obamacare is actually only $2
trillion/10 years. (There are some indications that the cost is
going to go up).
If, on the other hand, and just hypothetically speaking, if we were
to tax all 300 million people, in the US, equally to pay for
Obamacare, the cost per person would be roughly $666/per year, per
person.

666 -- an interesting number. So a retired couple, 70 years old sees
their taxes go up $1,332 to pay for Obamacare. Hmmm. An unemployed
woman and two kids on welfare gets a tax bill for $1,998. A 30 year
old couple with three kids, and good employer health insurance sees
their taxes go up $3,330. Hmmm. Oh well, just tax the rich.

[billbowden]

Post by mg
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:48:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I was sloppy in my wording. By "funding" I meant the money necessary to
keep the insurance industry afloat (the problem Jeff described).

It's now been about 7 years, I guess, since Obamacare was passed and
I, for one, don't understand the budget numbers. I don't think very
many people do. The total cost is, I think, roughly $2 trillion for
10 years, with roughly half of that going for the expansion of
Medicaid and the other half going to the insurance companies.
Exactly where all of the money comes from and which money goes where
is somewhat of mystery to me, also. Money is fungible, as the old
saying goes. However, as a mental exercise, if we were to take the
cost of the subsidies going to insurance companies ($1 trillion/10
years) and divide it by the number of young people who don't have
insurance, but can afford it. (For the sake of argument, let's say
$1 trillion/6 million people = $166,667
Then dividing by 10 and getting a yearly figure, that's $16,667 from
each young person, per year, who doesn't have insurance, but can
afford it. That's obviously an unrealistic figure.
If we expect those young people to pay for all of Obamacare, and not
just the subsidies to insurance companies, the number would be
approximately double that, or $33,333 per year.
That's assuming, of course, that my calculations are correct and
that's also assuming that there are in fact 6 million young people
in the US, who don't have insurance, but can afford to buy it, and
that's also assuming that the cost of Obamacare is actually only $2
trillion/10 years. (There are some indications that the cost is
going to go up).
If, on the other hand, and just hypothetically speaking, if we were
to tax all 300 million people, in the US, equally to pay for
Obamacare, the cost per person would be roughly $666/per year, per
person.

Someone mentioned the other day that it would take a long time to count to a
trillion. You have to pronounce each number in order such as "One million,
467 thousand, 8 hundred and fifty nine." and then the next, and so on to a
trillion. Any idea how long that would take?





.

[El Castor]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.

You forgot the method as designed by Obamacare: have the young and
healthy carry health insurance. The recipients of the welfare aspects
of Obamacare aren't just the poor. They are all of us who get sick and
old being subsidized by the young and healthy.

But the young and healthy are finding that caring for the pre-existers
is more costly than dropping out and paying the fine. What now. Beat
those 20 and 30 somethings into submission with enormous fines? Single
payer? Tax the rich! That is what you want.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible

Here is the pre-existing condition bankruptcy mechanism...

1. Insurance companies are required to take pre-existers at normal
rates.
2. Those pre-existers are exceedingly expensive since almost all are
suffering from some dire condition.
3. The idea was that the costly pre-existers would be paid for by
healthy 20 and 30 somethings who would be forced to sign up (by a fine
called a tax), and pay into the system in sufficient numbers to
finance the pre-existers.
4. It didn't work because the tax was too little to force the 20
somethings in, but the pre-existers had to be cared for, so the
insurance companies (who are guaranteed a 12% profit) were forced to
raise rates on the young and healthy. Those rates have outdistanced
the "fine" and the healthy found dropping out and paying the fine a
cheaper alternative.
5. The system is in melt down, rates are shooting up in many areas,
insurance companies are dropping out of the worst markets, and it's
getting worse. All of this was predicted from the beginning.

Sooner or later the solution will be some form of single payer.
Islander will be dancing in the street, and we will be stuck with long
waiting lines, endless broken promises, and the inevitable socialist
mess.

Post by mg
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.
Did you know, incidentally, that payroll taxes, which partially fund
Obamacare are not indexed for inflation? That means, of course, that
government revenues will increase as time goes by. Someday, for
example, a teenager working during the summer at McDonald's will be
helping to pay for Obamacare. And that teenager, and his parents,
probably won't even know it, by the way. Evidentally, it will be
listed on his W2 as a Medicare contribution.

[mg]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 01:58:16 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 02:33:25 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:26:46 -0800, El Castor

Post by mg

Post by arthur wouk
https://nyti.ms/2lEfrgh
In Red-State Utah, a Surge Toward Obamacare
By ABBY GOODNOUGH MARCH 3, 2017
SALT LAKE CITY - From the moment the Affordable Care Act passed
in 2010, most elected officials in this sturdily Republican state
have been eager to squash it.
But something surprising is happening here. Despite deep
uncertainty about the law's future, Utah recorded one of the
biggest increases of any state in residents who signed up for
coverage under the act this year. Now, the state is seeing a
surprising burst of activism against repealing the law -
including from Republicans.
'I'm naturally a really quiet person, but if I sit and do nothing
and they take it away, how can I live with that?' asked Kim
Nelson, 54, a Republican second-grade teacher who buys coverage
through the Affordable Care Act marketplace and was recently
treated for breast cancer. She has been calling and writing her
congresswoman.
Many Utah residents still detest the law, but the activity here,
and in other politically conservative states, highlights the
challenges Republicans and the White House face as they struggle
to come up with a palatable replacement...

The reason that Republicans like Obamacare is that it is a
Republican program.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html

Not.

As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system. And by the way,
regardless of how the logic is twisted, no Republican voted for
Obamacare -- period.

Obamacare is primarily a welfare program. So, I don't think it would
make sense to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. If, they
did that, they would simply have to cover those people under some
other welfare program.
I don't think the program will ever go bankrupt. Have you ever heard
of a welfare program going bankrupt? I think the cost of Obamacare
will always be paid for one way, or another. Here are some possible

Here is the pre-existing condition bankruptcy mechanism...
1. Insurance companies are required to take pre-existers at normal
rates.

I don't think it would be correct to say insurance companies are
charging "normal rates". Instead I would say that the rates for
everyone are raised higher than normal because there are people with
pre-existing conditions in the pool.

Post by El Castor
2. Those pre-existers are exceedingly expensive since almost all are
suffering from some dire condition.
3. The idea was that the costly pre-existers would be paid for by
healthy 20 and 30 somethings who would be forced to sign up (by a fine
called a tax), and pay into the system in sufficient numbers to
finance the pre-existers.

I believe that was a propaganda fairy tale. I don't think the plan
was ever for young, healthy people to pay a significant part of the
cost of Obamacare. The cost is simply to large and the money that
the government can squeeze out of them is simply to small. My guess
is that the largest, single part of the funding came from cuts to
Medicare.

Post by El Castor
4. It didn't work because the tax was too little to force the 20
somethings in, but the pre-existers had to be cared for, so the
insurance companies (who are guaranteed a 12% profit) were forced to
raise rates on the young and healthy. Those rates have outdistanced
the "fine" and the healthy found dropping out and paying the fine a
cheaper alternative.

The total cost of Obamacare is roughly $2 trillion/10 years and the
subsidies to insurance companies is about $1 trillion/10 years.
That's a huge sum, of course, and any idea that young people would,
or could, pay that much just doesn't make sense.

Post by El Castor
5. The system is in melt down, rates are shooting up in many areas,
insurance companies are dropping out of the worst markets, and it's
getting worse. All of this was predicted from the beginning.

According to the following article, insurance companies are now
"making a killing" off Obamacare:
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/making-a-killing-under-obamacare-the-aca-gets-the-blame-for-rising-premiums-while-insurance-companies-are-reaping-massive-profits/

Post by El Castor
Sooner or later the solution will be some form of single payer.
Islander will be dancing in the street, and we will be stuck with long
waiting lines, endless broken promises, and the inevitable socialist
mess.

Health care has become unaffordable. I have a couple of relatives
who had "good insurance" from an employer, who are making medical
bill payments large enough to buy a new car (and a very nice one at
that). One of them took out a second mortgage to pay for his wife's
bout with cancer about 5 years ago and now the husband just came
home from the hospital after major heart surgery.

What the medical industry needs is a large dose of free enterprise.
One suggestion that I made a long time ago was to park hospital
ships from India, and other countries, off our shores.

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
1. Increased government borrowing, or increased fees and taxes.
2. Insurance companies raising the cost of non-Obamacare policies to
compensate for losses.
3. Increased cost of goods and services as businesses pass the cost
along to consumers.
Did you know, incidentally, that payroll taxes, which partially fund
Obamacare are not indexed for inflation? That means, of course, that
government revenues will increase as time goes by. Someday, for
example, a teenager working during the summer at McDonald's will be
helping to pay for Obamacare. And that teenager, and his parents,
probably won't even know it, by the way. Evidentally, it will be
listed on his W2 as a Medicare contribution.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 01:58:16 -0800, El Castor

{snip}

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
Here is the pre-existing condition bankruptcy mechanism...
1. Insurance companies are required to take pre-existers at normal
rates.

I don't think it would be correct to say insurance companies are
charging "normal rates". Instead I would say that the rates for
everyone are raised higher than normal because there are people with
pre-existing conditions in the pool.

Post by El Castor
2. Those pre-existers are exceedingly expensive since almost all are
suffering from some dire condition.
3. The idea was that the costly pre-existers would be paid for by
healthy 20 and 30 somethings who would be forced to sign up (by a fine
called a tax), and pay into the system in sufficient numbers to
finance the pre-existers.

I believe that was a propaganda fairy tale. I don't think the plan
was ever for young, healthy people to pay a significant part of the
cost of Obamacare.

You keep on confusing "the cost of Obamacare" and the cost of covering
those with pre-exisiting conditions. The former are the direct payments
from the government to cover the Medicaid expansion and subsidies to
lower-middle class working people who make too much to be eligible for
Medicaid. The latter are costs imposed on insurance companies for
covering sick people, and Jeff's explanation is 100% correct. Namely,
those costs are not covered by government dollars, but by insurance
premiums from the young and healthy.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

[billbowden]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.
That way you can't just walk in and demand health insurance. Another idea is
tort reform so you can't collect a million for some minor mistake. The
average liability insurance for an ER doctor is about 30K in California.
Plus the average medical school outstanding loan is 150K. But on the
brighter side, investments in the health care industry are averaging 8% for
the last 6 years. So, go buy an investment in health care to pay your
expenses. SWHFX is up over 100% in 8 years.

[Josh]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

Post by billbowden
That way you can't just walk in and demand health insurance. Another idea is
tort reform so you can't collect a million for some minor mistake.

It's probably a fantasy that but for tort reform, health care costs
would be so much lower that the sick could afford insurance.

[billbowden]

Post by Josh

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

I was thinking the insurance companies with the lowest rates would get the
fewest assigned risk subscribers. If you want to raise your rates, you get
more high risk customers. It's not rocket science.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

I was thinking the insurance companies with the lowest rates would get the
fewest assigned risk subscribers. If you want to raise your rates, you get
more high risk customers. It's not rocket science.

You haven't solved the problem. The sick get higher rates that they
can't afford. So, they go without insurance.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

I was thinking the insurance companies with the lowest rates would get the
fewest assigned risk subscribers. If you want to raise your rates, you get
more high risk customers. It's not rocket science.

You haven't solved the problem. The sick get higher rates that they can't
afford. So, they go without insurance.

The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

I was thinking the insurance companies with the lowest rates would get the
fewest assigned risk subscribers. If you want to raise your rates, you get
more high risk customers. It's not rocket science.

You haven't solved the problem. The sick get higher rates that they can't
afford. So, they go without insurance.

The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by
the states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if
you have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford
insurance even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the
criteria for receiving Medicaid.

[islander]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Well, we can start with an assigned risk program similar to auto insurance.

How does that work? Who pays for the insurance that will cover the sick?

I was thinking the insurance companies with the lowest rates would get the
fewest assigned risk subscribers. If you want to raise your rates, you get
more high risk customers. It's not rocket science.

You haven't solved the problem. The sick get higher rates that they can't
afford. So, they go without insurance.

The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by
the states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if
you have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford
insurance even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the
criteria for receiving Medicaid.

In addition, Medicaid under Obamacare increased the eligibility level to
130% of the poverty level. Repealing Obamacare would restore Medicaid
eligibility levels to their previous lower level, leaving a lot of
people without coverage.

Interestingly, I've just finished compiling figures for insurance
coverage in 2015. Liberal states show an average of 5% to 8% of the
population without health insurance. Conservative states show an
average of 8% to 12%. This is a big change since the last time that I
did this in 2008. The major difference is that conservative state
refusal to sign up for the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare biases
their averages much higher.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden
The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by the
states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if you
have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford insurance
even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the criteria
for receiving Medicaid.

Maybe the solution is to include Medicaid in the assigned risk category?
That would level the field a bit between insurance companies and the
states.Premiums would go down while state costs would go up.
.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden
The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by the
states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if you
have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford insurance
even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the criteria
for receiving Medicaid.

Maybe the solution is to include Medicaid in the assigned risk category?
That would level the field a bit between insurance companies and the
states.Premiums would go down while state costs would go up.

In other words, the taxpayer would foot the bill for those with
pre-exisiting conditions. I think Jeff is right; single-payer is an
eventuality.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden
The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by the
states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if you
have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford insurance
even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the criteria
for receiving Medicaid.

Maybe the solution is to include Medicaid in the assigned risk category?
That would level the field a bit between insurance companies and the
states.Premiums would go down while state costs would go up.

In other words, the taxpayer would foot the bill for those with
pre-exisiting conditions. I think Jeff is right; single-payer is an
eventuality.

This just in. The Ryan Replacement plan permits insurance companies to
levy a 30% surcharge on those who have at least a 60-day lapse without
insurance each year, but does not permit them to charge more for people
with pre-exisiting conditions. Will that convince the young and healthy
to carry insurance? Or, will they continue to stay uninsured until they
get old/sick and incur the one-time 30% surcharge?

[billbowden]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden
The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by the
states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if you
have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford insurance
even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the criteria
for receiving Medicaid.

Maybe the solution is to include Medicaid in the assigned risk category?
That would level the field a bit between insurance companies and the
states.Premiums would go down while state costs would go up.

In other words, the taxpayer would foot the bill for those with
pre-exisiting conditions. I think Jeff is right; single-payer is an
eventuality.

This just in. The Ryan Replacement plan permits insurance companies to
levy a 30% surcharge on those who have at least a 60-day lapse without
insurance each year, but does not permit them to charge more for people
with pre-exisiting conditions. Will that convince the young and healthy
to carry insurance? Or, will they continue to stay uninsured until they
get old/sick and incur the one-time 30% surcharge?

I was just looking at some of the mandatory services under the ACA and I
don't think I need most of them. I don't think I need depression screening
or obesity screening since I only weigh 155 pounds. I don't need sexually
transmitted disease screening, or syphilis screening, or birth control
pills, diet counseling , HIV screening, and a lot of other stuff. Get rid of
the silly screening stuff and insurance premiums will come down. The states
will save money and the individual health insurance subscriber pays less.

https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/

"Preventive care benefits for adults
All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following
list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.
This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.

IMPORTANT These services are free only when delivered by a doctor or other
provider in your plan’s network.

1.. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages
who have ever smoked
2.. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3.. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of
certain ages
4.. Blood pressure screening
5.. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7.. Depression screening
8.. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from
countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not
vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8%
or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11.. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for
everyone born 1945 – 1965
12.. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased
risk
13.. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and
recommended populations vary:

a.. Diphtheria
b.. Hepatitis A
c.. Hepatitis B
d.. Herpes Zoster
e.. Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
f.. Influenza (flu shot)
g.. Measles
h.. Meningococcal
i.. Mumps
j.. Pertussis
k.. Pneumococcal
l.. Rubella
m.. Tetanus
n.. Varicella (Chickenpox)
14.. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer
because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15.. Obesity screening and counseling
16.. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults
at higher risk
17.. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18.. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for
tobacco users "

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden
The sick who can't afford assigned risk insurance go on Medicaid. It's a
state problem, not the federal government. 10th amendment.

Firstly (a small point), Medicaid is a federal program administered by the
states as prescribed by federal law. Secondly (a large point), if you
have a pre-exisiting condition, you will not be able to afford insurance
even if you make a healthy salary that puts you far beyond the criteria
for receiving Medicaid.

Maybe the solution is to include Medicaid in the assigned risk category?
That would level the field a bit between insurance companies and the
states.Premiums would go down while state costs would go up.

In other words, the taxpayer would foot the bill for those with
pre-exisiting conditions. I think Jeff is right; single-payer is an
eventuality.

This just in. The Ryan Replacement plan permits insurance companies to
levy a 30% surcharge on those who have at least a 60-day lapse without
insurance each year, but does not permit them to charge more for people
with pre-exisiting conditions. Will that convince the young and healthy
to carry insurance? Or, will they continue to stay uninsured until they
get old/sick and incur the one-time 30% surcharge?

I was just looking at some of the mandatory services under the ACA and I
don't think I need most of them. I don't think I need depression screening
or obesity screening since I only weigh 155 pounds. I don't need sexually
transmitted disease screening, or syphilis screening, or birth control
pills, diet counseling , HIV screening, and a lot of other stuff. Get rid of
the silly screening stuff and insurance premiums will come down. The states
will save money and the individual health insurance subscriber pays less.
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/
"Preventive care benefits for adults
All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following
list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.
This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.
IMPORTANT These services are free only when delivered by a doctor or other
provider in your plan’s network.
1.. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages
who have ever smoked
2.. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3.. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of
certain ages
4.. Blood pressure screening
5.. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7.. Depression screening
8.. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from
countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not
vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8%
or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11.. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for
everyone born 1945 – 1965
12.. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased
risk
13.. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and
a.. Diphtheria
b.. Hepatitis A
c.. Hepatitis B
d.. Herpes Zoster
e.. Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
f.. Influenza (flu shot)
g.. Measles
h.. Meningococcal
i.. Mumps
j.. Pertussis
k.. Pneumococcal
l.. Rubella
m.. Tetanus
n.. Varicella (Chickenpox)
14.. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer
because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15.. Obesity screening and counseling
16.. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults
at higher risk
17.. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18.. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for
tobacco users "

All of these "silly" services have been shown by evidence to be
effective, and often saving money.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden
I was just looking at some of the mandatory services under the ACA and I
don't think I need most of them. I don't think I need depression screening
or obesity screening since I only weigh 155 pounds. I don't need sexually
transmitted disease screening, or syphilis screening, or birth control
pills, diet counseling , HIV screening, and a lot of other stuff. Get rid of
the silly screening stuff and insurance premiums will come down. The states
will save money and the individual health insurance subscriber pays less.
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/
"Preventive care benefits for adults
All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following
list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.
This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.
IMPORTANT These services are free only when delivered by a doctor or other
provider in your plan’s network.
1.. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages
who have ever smoked
2.. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3.. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of
certain ages
4.. Blood pressure screening
5.. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7.. Depression screening
8.. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from
countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not
vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8%
or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11.. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for
everyone born 1945 – 1965
12.. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased
risk
13.. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and
a.. Diphtheria
b.. Hepatitis A
c.. Hepatitis B
d.. Herpes Zoster
e.. Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
f.. Influenza (flu shot)
g.. Measles
h.. Meningococcal
i.. Mumps
j.. Pertussis
k.. Pneumococcal
l.. Rubella
m.. Tetanus
n.. Varicella (Chickenpox)
14.. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer
because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15.. Obesity screening and counseling
16.. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults
at higher risk
17.. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18.. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for
tobacco users "

All of these "silly" services have been shown by evidence to be effective,
and often saving money.

Well, maybe to some people, but why should I pay for services I don't want?
I need Colorectal cancer screening since I had cancer but I don't need the
obesity screening or the HIV and depression screening and birth control
pills. Why should I pay for stuff I don't want? But actually it's all free
at the VA.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden
I was just looking at some of the mandatory services under the ACA and I
don't think I need most of them. I don't think I need depression screening
or obesity screening since I only weigh 155 pounds. I don't need sexually
transmitted disease screening, or syphilis screening, or birth control
pills, diet counseling , HIV screening, and a lot of other stuff. Get rid of
the silly screening stuff and insurance premiums will come down. The states
will save money and the individual health insurance subscriber pays less.
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/
"Preventive care benefits for adults
All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following
list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.
This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.
IMPORTANT These services are free only when delivered by a doctor or other
provider in your plan’s network.
1.. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages
who have ever smoked
2.. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3.. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of
certain ages
4.. Blood pressure screening
5.. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7.. Depression screening
8.. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from
countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not
vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8%
or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11.. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for
everyone born 1945 – 1965
12.. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased
risk
13.. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and
a.. Diphtheria
b.. Hepatitis A
c.. Hepatitis B
d.. Herpes Zoster
e.. Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
f.. Influenza (flu shot)
g.. Measles
h.. Meningococcal
i.. Mumps
j.. Pertussis
k.. Pneumococcal
l.. Rubella
m.. Tetanus
n.. Varicella (Chickenpox)
14.. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer
because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15.. Obesity screening and counseling
16.. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults
at higher risk
17.. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18.. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for
tobacco users "

All of these "silly" services have been shown by evidence to be effective,
and often saving money.

Well, maybe to some people, but why should I pay for services I don't want?
I need Colorectal cancer screening since I had cancer but I don't need the
obesity screening or the HIV and depression screening and birth control
pills. Why should I pay for stuff I don't want?

Because that's the way insurance works. I don't need open heart
surgery, but somebody us, and I am subsidizing it.

[El Castor]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Single payer! That's the liberal ticket! Right? Probably won't happen
right away, but sooner or later some form of socialist crap care is
inevitable.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Single payer! That's the liberal ticket! Right? Probably won't happen
right away, but sooner or later some form of socialist crap care is
inevitable.

I hope you are right, noting that Socialist crap = Medicare for all.
But since that won't happen right away, what happens in the meantime?

[El Castor]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
As a Republican, what do you dislike most about Obamacare?

What difference should Republican or Democrat make? Obamacare's
greatest flaw is forcing insurance companies to unconditionally accept
pre-existing conditions. It's bankrupting the system.

How are those with pre-exisiting conditions going to get health care?

Single payer! That's the liberal ticket! Right? Probably won't happen
right away, but sooner or later some form of socialist crap care is
inevitable.

I hope you are right, noting that Socialist crap = Medicare for all.
But since that won't happen right away, what happens in the meantime?

Flopping and floundering will happen. Actually, I accept the
inevitability of single payer, but I also accept that it will be
crappy for the same reasons that doctors are dropping out of Medicare,
VA doctors can't find the time to treat their patients, and the
beneficiaries of the UK's socialized dental care are pulling their own
teeth. Just in case the US version of single payer is as bad as I
suspect it will be, I would hope that those that can afford it will be
allowed to buy supplemental insurance that will insure a higher
standard of care. Is that OK with you? The idea horrifies Islander.