Posted on 01/28/2017 3:54:17 AM PST by DoodleDawg
If the government is telling insurance companies that you will sell insurance over state lines regardless, then how is that free market reforms? If the government is telling insurance companies that you will insure people with pre-existing conditions then how is that free market reforms? If the government is giving subsidies to buy insurance then how is that free market reforms?
It doesn't take years to put the industry's SOPs in place, it's been figured out for centuries.
"The plan" has been in existence for years and is called:
The "Empowering Patients First Act"
It's creator, Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) is the Trump nominee for Secretary of the Dept of HHS. No doubt he will address and correct any wrongful practices the providers are currently engaging in, which cause them to gouge paying patients in order to pay for all that "free healthcare".
They're telling them they can. Employer groups were always that way.
If the government is telling insurance companies that you will insure people with pre-existing conditions then how is that free market reforms?
They're not, that's the way it is now (guaranteed issue) and look what it did. They will be covered with a different funding mechanism than healthy people. It worked before, it will work again.
If the government is giving subsidies to buy insurance then how is that free market reforms?
If that is the (privatization) MediCaid reform...paying premiums is way cheaper than paying claims...and the hospitals get reimbursed at market rates.
The only caveat is: the subsidies should on a sliding scaled based on income....up to zero.
Also, all healthy pool premiums should drop radically.
How, exactly, did they do that?
and now you’re whining about “fallout” from getting rid of it?
You have a legit gripe there.
They need some serious constituent @$$-kicking. Letters, phone calls, getting shouted down at town meetings (coming right up by the way)
If the government is mandating portability then they are saying that they will.
They're not, that's the way it is now (guaranteed issue) and look what it did. They will be covered with a different funding mechanism than healthy people. It worked before, it will work again.
The proposals that are being floated say that the companies will. But even if they are covered by government sponsored insurance pools then how is that free market?
Also, all healthy pool premiums should drop radically.
Why? If the government is subsidizing premiums then they are setting a floor on prices. If people get a $500 subsidy then insurance companies know that they can set their premiums at no less than $501, because people will see their insurance cost as only a buck. Subsidies guarantee higher premiums, they don't discourage them.
While I cannot give a detailed outline of the relevant points, I can tell you I had a very good, employer provided health care plan that remained fairly static in its ability to cover my family without undue financial burden for roughly 25 years. With the advent and implementation of "the affordable healthcare act" I have seen steady erosion of my coverage, along with a steady increase in my out-of-pocket costs, leading to a new requirement to update my plan annually (as opposed to much longer contract periods in times past) and culminating in a 120% increase in my premiums this year over last year which were already orders of magnitude higher than those I've paid for the previous twenty-some years.
So while I'll readily admit I cannot prove a straight-line causal relationship; given my understanding of market dynamics, governmental regulatory history, and OVERWHELMINGLY "coincidental" anecdotal evidence, I am convinced a causal relationship does in fact exist.
And you have a problem with portability.
if they are covered by government sponsored insurance pools then how is that free market?
The most successful HRPs are initiated by government and then privately funded by the carriers. It's in the insurers best interest to keep them healthy and solvent.
>> all healthy pool premiums should drop radically <<
Why?
Because a company's premiums are directly based on claims load. If they have a bunch of healthy people who occasionally have a claim, like a birth, injury or illness, the claims will be low and the premiums will be low.
The whole point IS the bottom line.
Huh. That is an interesting position. Governments, in your view, can’t foster free markets or encourage them? Interesting.
Yeah, they didn't have enough members to defeat it. Now they do.
Not a single Republican voted for it.
Only by staying out completely.
Nor did they provide a single obstruction (witness the democrats strident opposition to anything "Trump") by word or deed despite the numerous legally questionable tactic used by the Obama administration to secure the bill's passage.
Ted Cruz and others did.
They also thought it would be stopped at the Supreme Court...then traitor Roberts justified it.
Really? What is it that they "did" beside proclaiming their opposition to it?
They blew up the DNC headquarters, and axe-murdered several democRAT Congressmen and Senators in the chambers of the Capitol.
What did you expect them to do, they had no power.
I expected them to do precisely what liberals do in such cases: go on a PR offensive.
Furthermore, they could have brought suit against the administration for all the Obama payoffs to reluctant democrat legislators. They could have been MUCH more strident in bringing multiple suits against the Constitutionality of the bill. And they could have told us BEFORE the mid-term elections there was nothing they could do about ACA if that were true, instead of promising to stop it dead in its tracks.
Hyperbole aside, what's your next excuse?
You seem to be under the impression that they had willing conservative media cameras and reporters at their disposal.
Republicans don’t threaten the opposition with death threats, however, I’m sure the Rs were threatened on a daily basis by the very same people that are whacking out today.
Remember when Pelosi shut down the House, and Republicans stayed behind and were tweeting from inside the chamber?
No coverage.
Just like “The March for Life”...if the media doesn’t cover it...it didn’t happen.
Probably ought to contact your local Republican Congressman to get the actual war stories about what they tried to do, with zero results.
Donald Trump’s rise to power is the living proof of Republican ineptitude and timidity in promoting “their” message.
You can choose to excuse their incompetence: I do not.
Let me also add it is my opinion that Republican opposition to Trump is further proof of their duplicity.
They would have rather brought Trump down than risk him proving what they claimed they had no power to do could is in fact doable.
Whatever.
Leaked recording?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.