Posted on 03/16/2017 11:33:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ultimately it is Government Takeover of Health Care
They just need to add Comprehensive to the title, that will sell it.
Comprehensive American Health Care Act
CAHCA
They keep calling it “care”; it is not care. Care is provided by hospitals, clinics, etc. This is insurance that may or not be accepted by a healthcare provider.
Votes.
Anything in the same arena will be heading in the same direction.
It all needs to be chloroformed and placed into a 4,000 degree incinerator.
Control. Plain and simple.
Control. Plain and simple.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Indeed, Ryancare seeks to preserve all those federal agencies and their access to your medical records to retain control of all healthcare.
Control healthcare, control the people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/health-care-repeal-affordable-care-act.html
House Budget Committee Endorses Health Care Repeal Bill
In the article it notes the WH and Ryan are working to include modifications to quell disquiet.
A measure discussed is to accelerate Medicaid expansion cuts earlier than 2020. Such a change would not run afoul the Senate Parliamentarian, which in the end is the only unavoidable obstacle.
Dont confuse “health care” with “Health Insurance company premiums”. Health care is found at the ER if you need it . Health insurance premiums are just a thing you buy — like a car— or a vacation or an Iphone or $100 a month internet service. The Constitution does NOT allow any of that to be taken at gun point from one set of people and handed to other people, FOR FREE or with checks from the IRS!! That is COMMUNISM!!
Nothing in the excerpt about reducing the cost of healthcare.
The twofold purpose is to 1: keep health insurance companies flush in exchange for the contributions they make to the various pols. 2: Have a giant overwhelming entitlement with which politicians can justfiy their usefulness and thus justify the voters voting for them.
Or by a doctor and as Dr. Marc Siegel of Fox News said: “What good does health insurance do if you don’t have a doctor that will see you?”
The purpose is control!
It is to embed the federal government so deeply into the control and rape of its citizens that the citizens have no choice but to go along.
Federal government control of healthcare epitomizes the worst in Administrative State. Federal government control of healthcare sets up it's own economic structure within our government. It is ILLEGAL!
Here is the current structure under ObamaCARE
Here is the new defined structure under RinoCARE
A neighbor down the road has that ACA thing - closest doctor/clinic that would take it is in Idaho. I live in the Seattle area. The clinics in my area either are not taking new patients (hang on to the one you have) or not taking Medicare or any state/federal insurance.
To keep on allowing the collusion between the insurance industry and medical industry in price fixkng, monopolies, and trust activities that are illegal but remain unprosecuted.
Probably for a reason.
Healthy folks dont generally like paying premiums that are the size of car payments
Even the ones that get it don’t really get it. Try the size of house payments, not car payments. Until hubby turned 65 in January our health insurance premiums were $1400 per month. That’s more than our house payment was. We recently paid the house off thank God.
Though no one appears to want to comment on the article itself, it’s actually a good summary of the two ends of the spectrum.
One thing I think the House should consider is allowing insurance companies to restore maximum lifetime caps on a health condition to their policies. That could bring down premiums considerably.
Congress could still specify a bare minimum, say a lifetime cap of $250,000 per condition, and then allow individuals to price policies that increased the cap, but the minimum offered would be $250,000. If I had the means and wanted to purchase a $500,000 cap, I’d be able to do so, and the insurance company could charge me for the privilege.
The other place I think the House bill should be changed concerns that 30%, one-time, penalty for signing up after going uninsured for a time. The initial enrollment period (grace period) should be a one-time event. If I don’t sign up during the grace period, I should bear the entire risk of going uninsured, not just the threat of a 30% penalty. I’d save the money I’d normally be spending on premiums, but bear the risk of major health expenditure, as it should be. That would also put downward pressure on premiums because if they were too high, people would tend to pass on insurance.
The problem now, is too many people are likely to pass anyway, figuring that a 30% one-year penalty isn’t that onerous, especially if they’re fairly young and unlikely to become sick. Those that finally do sign up will probably already be sick and then you’ve got the adverse selection process underway. In fact, that could happen from the very start, which would make the premiums excessive, as with Obamacare. I’ve seen little or no discussion along these lines, which sort of surprises me.
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.