GOP defections to force a vote to extend Obama Care subsidies. BREAKING!

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I have never quite gotten why the "Affordable Care Act". needed subsidies in the first place . . .because the economy was shut down during the Covid panic? Well, if that is accepted as a justification . . . . now that the pandemic panic is over, why do we still need a subsidy at all?

All of this is directly attributable to the progressive left. How does any "blame" for this leftist fiasco fall on the Republicans?

Liken it to a person who doesn't vote. They are not allowed to debate/argue politics.

So, when the Party of No refused to offer any legislation on healthcare and invested their energies to tear down the other parties plan, they created the fiasco that you refer to.

Good legislation comes about when all sides have input.

I keep saying that. And MTG admitted y'all maggies haven't had a "concept of a plan" for many years.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Study more, and you’ll get it.

"Study" and "Maggies" are mutually exclusive terms.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bb1961

This UNaffordable care act is completely on the dems. ZERO support from the GOP and rightfully so.

President Trump tried to get the ACA repealed in his first term. That failed because three Republican Senators voted no. They were Sen Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen Susan Collins of Maine and the late Sen John McCain of Arizona.

So, you can't say there was never Republican support for the ACA.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I have never quite gotten why the "Affordable Care Act". needed subsidies in the first place . . .because the economy was shut down during the Covid panic? Well, if that is accepted as a justification . . . . now that the pandemic panic is over, why do we still need a subsidy at all?

All of this is directly attributable to the progressive left. How does any "blame" for this leftist fiasco fall on the Republicans?

The subsidies are in the original ACA legislation because it can be very expensive for the health insurance companies to sell a health insurance policy to someone that is "Already Sick" or has a pre-existing medical condition. Ex a person has high blood sugar or high blood cholesterol or has bad kidneys and needs dialysis treatment every day. If the health insurance company gets stuck with too many of these types of policyholders they won't make a profit and seek a increase in premium for the next year. Thus, Obamacare premiums have been increasing at an exponential rate ever since the Risk Corridor program of the ACA legislation was removed. This was led by Sen Rubio of Florida.

Read the sections on Individual mandate, Subsidies and Risk Management in the Wiki link below and it will explain why the subsidies were put in the legislation originally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

President Trump tried to get the ACA repealed in his first term. That failed because three Republican Senators voted no. They were Sen Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen Susan Collins of Maine and the late Sen John McCain of Arizona.

So, you can't say there was never Republican support for the ACA.

Yes he did.
And he never offered an alternative.
They never supported ANY comprehensive health care plan.
Just lied and said "concepts of a plan". That means there is no plan, just a concept.
And MTG stated that the maggies haven't had a plan for many years.

So, on a technical note of voting for ACA you can claim 3 voted for it. But put together and worked on a plan, an actual full blown plan, maggies well roundedly deserve the moniker Party of No.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The subsidies are in the original ACA legislation because it can be very expensive for the health insurance companies to sell a health insurance policy to someone that is "Already Sick" or has a pre-existing medical condition. Ex a person has high blood sugar or high blood cholesterol or has bad kidneys and needs dialysis treatment every day. If the health insurance company gets stuck with too many of these types of policyholders they won't make a profit and seek a increase in premium for the next year. Thus, Obamacare premiums have been increasing at an exponential rate ever since the Risk Corridor program of the ACA legislation was removed. This was led by Sen Rubio of Florida.

Read the sections on Individual mandate, Subsidies and Risk Management in the Wiki link below and it will explain why the subsidies were put in the legislation originally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

Insurance companies are not allowed to pick and choose who they insure. If so, those that really need insurace would never get it. And this has been proved with their actions with Ashkenazi Jewish women and the lawsuit they lost for black balling them.

[pxmcc]

House passes maintaining subsidies with 17 Republicans voting yes. the Senate will be a different story with the filibuster, which is a silly tradition.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/17-...-extension.amp

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Insurance companies are not allowed to pick and choose who they insure. If so, those that really need insurace would never get it.

That is correct. A person with a pre-existing medical condition can't be denied the opportunity to purchase a health insurance policy. As for the ACA health insurance companies are not required to sell health insurance policies on the Government marketplace exchanges AKA (HealthCare.Gov). Plus, the Health Insurance Companies (Aetna,BCBS, etc) can choose which states they want to sell ACA policies in. Yes, once they choose a state they are going to do business in they can't deny someone a policy due to a pre-existing condition.

This is why some states or certain counties within a state may only have one Health Insurance company to choose from at HealthCare.Gov. The first two years some health insurance companies lost money doing business at HealthCare.Gov. The Risk Corridor program required that the health insurance companies be reimbursed for their loss. Sen Rubio introduced a bill to have the Risk Corridor program removed. So, the health insurance companies just stopped selling ACA policies in states where they could not make a profit.

The link in Post #18 covers the Risk Corridor program and how it worked before Sen Rubio got the program removed.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Study more, and you’ll get it.

No he won't

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I have never quite gotten why the "Affordable Care Act". needed subsidies in the first place . . .because the economy was shut down during the Covid panic? Well, if that is accepted as a justification . . . . now that the pandemic panic is over, why do we still need a subsidy at all?

All of this is directly attributable to the progressive left. How does any "blame" for this leftist fiasco fall on the Republicans?

At its simplest, the issue has to do with the parts the Republicans were able to get declared unlawful (one of which was asserted to be a tax). The mandate portion, which actually drove the cost of ObamaCare down though widening the pool of persons that are part of ObamaCare was removed by Republicans meaning fewer people, hence higher costs. There are also defunding which Republicans were able to achieve when parts were budgeted. So, the higher costs are due to actions by the republicans who could not get ObamaCare repealed fully but the either filed suit and had parts removed or affected the funding mechanisms.

So regardless of your ignorance in calling it a "leftist fiasco", it is the actions of the right that have driven up some of the costs.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

I wish all on the Hill would get together and work on something that is much better that they know this country needs.

We have the ability to exceed the rest of the world on health care.

Absolutely. There was some slight chance that Thune's compromise with Democrats late last year would lead to real changes. Maybe something that would result in true competition, universal healthcare, better outcomes, and lower prices. But instead it looks like the pussy bastards in Washington are kicking the can down the road again.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^health savings accounts lol..

huge help to lower income folks affording coverage..

Au contraire

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/member/health...disave-savings

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Au contraire

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/member/health...disave-savings

Tiny, everything you posted is 100% valid and correct. but you're missing my point. poor people don't think in terms of medisave savings, any more than they think in terms of 401ks, Roth and regular IRAs, asset diversification, retirement planning, tax-exempt college savings accounts, tax minimizing strategies, etc., etc. it's just not realistic. they're worried about covering rent and putting food on the table.

if they can get Medicaid or insured affordably through Obamacare with subsidies, that's something tangible that they can reach for and hopefully achieve to protect their health and their limited finances. thinking that they have the wherewithal and/or the financial discipline to set aside substantial funds in tax-favored accounts is just not realistic for this particular population group.

a plan to address the healthcare needs of poor people and folks who are just barely getting by needs to meet them where they're at, not where we wish they were.

that said, i have no doubt that the many benefits of the programs you cite are super helpful for those, such as yourself, who are structurally in a position to analyze the programs and the financial discipline to take full advantage of them. in no way am i knocking the programs for those who, for a variety of reasons, are able to use them advantageously to help them address their healthcare costs with foresight and planning, and avoid unexpected financial shocks. medical debt is presently the leading cause of bankruptcies, which is unfortunate, and is another symptom of our broken healthcare system, imo.

feel free to correct me if i'm missing something though. i appreciate your thoughtful analyses.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Tiny, everything you posted is 100% valid and correct. but you're missing my point. poor people don't think in terms of medisave savings, any more than they think in terms of 401ks, Roth and regular IRAs, asset diversification, retirement planning, tax-exempt college savings accounts, tax minimizing strategies, etc., etc. it's just not realistic. they're worried about covering rent and putting food on the table.

if they can get Medicaid or insured affordably through Obamacare with subsidies, that's something tangible that they can reach for and hopefully achieve to protect their health and their limited finances. thinking that they have the wherewithal and/or the financial discipline to set aside substantial funds in tax-favored accounts is just not realistic for this particular population group.

a plan to address the healthcare needs of poor people and folks who are just barely getting by needs to meet them where they're at, not where we wish they were.

that said, i have no doubt that the many benefits of the programs you cite are super helpful for those, such as yourself, who are structurally in a position to analyze the programs and the financial discipline to take full advantage of them. in no way am i knocking the programs for those who, for a variety of reasons, are able to use them advantageously to help them address their healthcare costs with foresight and planning, and avoid unexpected financial shocks. medical debt is presently the leading cause of bankruptcies, which is unfortunate, and is another symptom of our broken healthcare system, imo.

feel free to correct me if i'm missing something though. i appreciate your thoughtful analyses.

Pxmcc, we (you and I and others) already discussed this here.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=3067575

Wealthy and poor benefit from Medisave in Singapore. Health care costs as a % of GDP are 1/3rd of USA costs, and outcomes are better. There were indications late last year that we might do something similar with HSA's for some people receiving Obamacare insurance. It doesn't look like it will happen now though. The politicians would rather double down on a failed system by just extending Obamacare insurance reimbursement for the better-off recipients, instead of putting part of the money into HSA's, where people could shop among providers (including insurance companies) for the best deals on price and quality. As a way of kickstarting this, I'd be OK with providing the same subsidies to people's HSA's as what government's providing to the insurance companies now, for a couple of years. It would be a great way to inject competition into the system, at least for a segment of the population. And if expanded could provide huge benefits.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

At its simplest, the issue has to do with the parts the Republicans were able to get declared unlawful (one of which was asserted to be a tax). The mandate portion, which actually drove the cost of ObamaCare down though widening the pool of persons that are part of ObamaCare was removed by Republicans meaning fewer people, hence higher costs. There are also defunding which Republicans were able to achieve when parts were budgeted. So, the higher costs are due to actions by the republicans who could not get ObamaCare repealed fully but the either filed suit and had parts removed or affected the funding mechanisms.

So regardless of your ignorance in calling it a "leftist fiasco", it is the actions of the right that have driven up some of the costs.

+1


Outstanding post 1B1. You are 100% correct. If the Republicans did not have the "Individual Mandate" and "Risk Corridor" pieces of the ACA removed, premiums & copays for Obamacare policy holders would not be growing exponentially!