The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

what is you proposal?

 

lay out your and I will tell you what mine is

Ben Carson has been absolutely brilliant in this area, though I've modified his proposal to improve it further:

 

- Every American, when they are born, is issued an HSA along with their social security number.

 

- The government then gets out of the way and opens up the market for actual competition, which in every other industry drives down prices.

 

- In regards to the disadvantaged, the government at various levels (local, state, federal) can make contributions directly into these accounts.

 

- All accounts can be funded, with no cap, with individual and employer contributions with a 100% tax deduction.

 

- These accounts can only be used for qualified health care expenses with no exceptions, and cannot be passed down as inheritance or leveraged by creditors.

 

- They are subject to a 100% estate tax which pays directly back into a fund which subsidizes the accounts for the disadvantaged.

 

This encourages patients to actually responsibly shop for their own care, and for actual prices to materialize in the direct heath care market.

 

I would couple this with a national pool for catastrophic care.

 

(edited for bullet points)

Edited August 27, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

Baskin HC proposal:

 

1. Get rid of employer paid HC

2. HC is a "single payer" - with revenues developed by a GST. This way all imports pay for tax - as they should. Our employers are off the hook and are now 16 percent more competitive. Also our exports are now 16 percent cheaper since HC costs are taken out. Nothing will be a bigger boost to US based employees than this.

3. The government gives all citizens a voucher to go get HC. Providers must provide a minimum level of care for the value of this voucher.

4. There should be 3-5 HC providers available in any geography. This will provide competiton

5. HCP are now have every incentive to get costs down by keeping people healthy - since they only get XX dollars per person - they make money by people not getting diabetes etc - instead of getting money by treating diabetes...

6. Healthy people probably get a bonus from their provider

7. Medicaire, Medicaid, VA all gone, also government out of business providing HC to its workers

 

Best I can come up with blending actuarial theory and fee market competition.

 

 

My comment on the above proposals is that it is impossible to single parties to negotiate and you have to pool the risk - you simply have to pool the risk

Edited August 27, 2015 by baskin

[IDBillzFan]

Baskin HC proposal:

 

1. Get rid of employer paid HC

2. HC is a "single payer" - with revenues developed by a GST. This way all imports pay for tax - as they should. Our employers are off the hook and are now 16 percent more competitive. Also our exports are now 16 percent cheaper since HC costs are taken out. Nothing will be a bigger boost to US based employees than this.

3. The government gives all citizens a voucher to go get HC. Providers must provide a minimum level of care for the value of this voucher.

4. There should be 3-5 HC providers available in any geography. This will provide competiton

5. HCP are now have every incentive to get costs down by keeping people healthy - since they only get XX dollars per person - they make money by people not getting diabetes etc - instead of getting money by treating diabetes...

6. Healthy people probably get a bonus from their provider

7. Medicaire, Medicaid, VA all gone, also government out of business providing HC to its workers

 

Best I can come up with blending actuarial theory and fee market competition.

 

 

My comment on the above proposals is that it is impossible to single parties to negotiate and you have to pool the risk - you simply have to pool the risk

 

Single payer. Spoken like a true conservative.

 

Note: HCP can have all the incentives they want. If people don't want to lead healthy lives, they won't, and there is not one single thing HCP can do to change that.

[Chef Jim]

Ben Carson has been absolutely brilliant in this area, though I've modified his proposal to improve it further:

 

- Every American, when they are born, is issued an HSA along with their social security number.

 

- The government then gets out of the way and opens up the market for actual competition, which in every other industry drives down prices.

 

- In regards to the disadvantaged, the government at various levels (local, state, federal) can make contributions directly into these accounts.

 

- All accounts can be funded, with no cap, with individual and employer contributions with a 100% tax deduction.

 

- These accounts can only be used for qualified health care expenses with no exceptions, and cannot be passed down as inheritance or leveraged by creditors.

 

- They are subject to a 100% estate tax which pays directly back into a fund which subsidizes the accounts for the disadvantaged.

 

This encourages patients to actually responsibly shop for their own care, and for actual prices to materialize in the direct heath care market.

 

I would couple this with a national pool for catastrophic care.

 

(edited for bullet points)

Explain the estate tax. Are you meaning all that is left goes to the government? Believe it or not I don't have an issue with that especially if it keeps its triple tax advantage (tax deductible, tax deferred, tax free withdrawals). And there likely won't be much left. Major medical for a retired couple over their two lives is about $250k now.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Explain the estate tax. Are you meaning all that is left goes to the government? Believe it or not I don't have an issue with that especially if it keeps its triple tax advantage (tax deductible, tax deferred, tax free withdrawals). And there likely won't be much left. Major medical for a retired couple over their two lives is about $250k now.

Exactly. All that is left in this one specific account type goes to a fund, separate and unleveragable against, from the general fund which is used exclusively to fund future HSAs.

 

[FireChan]

Baskin HC proposal:

 

1. Get rid of employer paid HC

2. HC is a "single payer" - with revenues developed by a GST. This way all imports pay for tax - as they should. Our employers are off the hook and are now 16 percent more competitive. Also our exports are now 16 percent cheaper since HC costs are taken out. Nothing will be a bigger boost to US based employees than this.

3. The government gives all citizens a voucher to go get HC. Providers must provide a minimum level of care for the value of this voucher.

4. There should be 3-5 HC providers available in any geography. This will provide competiton

5. HCP are now have every incentive to get costs down by keeping people healthy - since they only get XX dollars per person - they make money by people not getting diabetes etc - instead of getting money by treating diabetes...

6. Healthy people probably get a bonus from their provider

7. Medicaire, Medicaid, VA all gone, also government out of business providing HC to its workers

 

Best I can come up with blending actuarial theory and fee market competition.

 

 

My comment on the above proposals is that it is impossible to single parties to negotiate and you have to pool the risk - you simply have to pool the risk

You do realize that HCP's can't control patient behavior, right?

[B-Man]

PREDICTABLE: Obamacare Enrollment Tumbles as Huge Price Hike Looms.

 

In its

latest enrollment report

, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says 9.9 million were still enrolled in ObamaCare exchange plans.

 

T

hat’s almost 2 million fewer than the administration claimed in the spring, when it bragged that

11.7 million had signed up

, and way below the Congressional Budget Office’s earlier forecast of 13 million.

A

nd if this year is anything like last year, that 9.9 million will dwindle further as the year goes on. . . .

Earlier this year, insurers started putting in rate requests for 2016, and in many cases they were gut-wrenchingly high — with some above 50%. Ob

ama told the public not to worry, that state insurance regulators would knock them down to size.

But like every other promise he’s made about his namesake law, this one was phony.

In state after state, insurance commissioners are approving huge rate hikes, based on the fact that the people who’ve signed up for ObamaCare are older and sicker than insurers hoped.

By one estimate, the average rate hike in Oregon — a state that eagerly embraced ObamaCare — is above 24%. Average approved rates are 20% or higher in Alaska, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas.

An analysis by

Agile Health Insurance

found almost a third of all plans being sold through the federal Healthcare.gov exchange — which covers 36 states — had double-digit rate hikes.

 

 

 

 

This is why we passed a partisan law and divided the country– a mere increase in 9.9 million new private insurance enrollees, who are forced–at the pain of a mandatory tax–to buy increasingly expensive insurance? It’s not even close to the “universal” coverage the Democrats touted.

 

 

If this is President Obama’s “legacy”–combined with the so-called Iran “deal”–this is pitiful.

[IDBillzFan]

PREDICTABLE: Obamacare Enrollment Tumbles as Huge Price Hike Looms.

 

I think this is where the SoProgs show up to explain how Obama shoulda gone with single payer.

[DC Tom]

I think this is where the SoProgs show up to explain how Obama shoulda gone with single payer.

And then they rush to point out that he coukdn't, because with the White House and both hiuses of the legislature, the Democrats still couldn't get it past the Republicans.

[B-Man]

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? : Health Insurance Deductibles Outpacing Wage Increases, Study Finds.

[B-Large]

Ben Carson has been absolutely brilliant in this area, though I've modified his proposal to improve it further:

 

- Every American, when they are born, is issued an HSA along with their social security number.

 

- The government then gets out of the way and opens up the market for actual competition, which in every other industry drives down prices.

 

- In regards to the disadvantaged, the government at various levels (local, state, federal) can make contributions directly into these accounts.

 

- All accounts can be funded, with no cap, with individual and employer contributions with a 100% tax deduction.

 

- These accounts can only be used for qualified health care expenses with no exceptions, and cannot be passed down as inheritance or leveraged by creditors.

 

- They are subject to a 100% estate tax which pays directly back into a fund which subsidizes the accounts for the disadvantaged.

 

This encourages patients to actually responsibly shop for their own care, and for actual prices to materialize in the direct heath care market.

 

I would couple this with a national pool for catastrophic care.

 

(edited for bullet points)

Essentially single payor with deductible, I think it's a great plan. Insurers probably won't like it, and it would be hard to essentially dissolve an entire industry.

 

Here the question, how is this that much different than what we have with the ACA? For example my wife and I pay $500/mo. ( which under Carson plan would be a levied tax I assume to fund the National Cat Pool) and have a 6k deductible in which we have an account. My wife gets a Breast MRI as screening every year that is not considered a covered service, so we pay in cash, but research providers. So the ACA has encouraged the behavior Carson advocates, and what we have is essentially Cat coverage...

 

And I assume his plan advocates funding an HSA for former Medicaid enrollees and they will be part of the single risk pool now?

 

Still has the same problems as any other plan, the young still subsidizing the old, etc..... But I love the potential efficiencies both medically and administratively this plan provides.. I wonder if Carson advocates a single EMR as we'll?

Edited September 23, 2015 by B-Large

[keepthefaith]

Some good ideas in the last couple pages, several of which run circles around Obamacare.

Edited September 24, 2015 by keepthefaith

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

It amazes me that this is not the NUMBER ONE issue for both citizens and elected officials - on both sides of the aisle. We pay 2x what the rest of the civilized world pays. Think about that 2x - at the end of the day it comes out of your pocket - and at this point I am sure that most of you see what your employer pays for you - and if you are like me - you are paying $20k a year because you are self employed.

 

If we had HC costs on par - most of Fed and State budget issues would be solved.

 

Are you telling me we are simply incapable of restructuring our HC delivery system in an "american" style to solve this issue?

 

Meanwhile - our top contender is in a Twitter fight with with a tv station

And why are health care costs so high? THE GOVERNMENT. The solution you liberals keep tossing around is MORE GOVERNMENT. Then you act all shocked when health care costs spiral up at a rate that is totally unfathomable.

 

Anyone with any intelligence and a basic knowledge of the health care system warned everyone against embracing Obamacare because it did NOTHING to fix the real problems with health care. Instead, the liberals pretended it was all sunshine and puppydogs said "don't worry, we'll fix whatever problems crop up."

 

Here's your big chance.

[Tiberius]

And why are health care costs so high? THE GOVERNMENT. The solution you liberals keep tossing around is MORE GOVERNMENT. Then you act all shocked when health care costs spiral up at a rate that is totally unfathomable.

 

Anyone with any intelligence and a basic knowledge of the health care system warned everyone against embracing Obamacare because it did NOTHING to fix the real problems with health care. Instead, the liberals pretended it was all sunshine and puppydogs said "don't worry, we'll fix whatever problems crop up."

 

Here's your big chance.

Holy simplicity Batman! Yes, government money is the attraction for people in industry innovating and creating new and--at first--expensive solutions. How terrible!

 

Oh ya, and there is the whole aging population thing. Government's fault

[IDBillzFan]

Holy simplicity Batman! Yes, government money is the attraction for people in industry innovating and creating new and--at first--expensive solutions. How terrible!

 

Oh ya, and there is the whole aging population thing. Government's fault

 

Except, y'know, it's not 'government money.'

 

I mean, it is to SoProg nutbags like you. But to thinking people, it's our money given to the government for very specific purposes. Pissing it away is not one of them.

 

Though I'm sure in your ridiculously simplistic mind, Obamacare and Solyndra would both be successful if only we threw more 'government money' at them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Except, y'know, it's not 'government money.'

 

I mean, it is to SoProg nutbags like you. But to thinking people, it's our money given to the government for very specific purposes. Pissing it away is not one of them.

 

Though I'm sure in your ridiculously simplistic mind, Obamacare and Solyndra would both be successful if only we threw more 'government money' at them.

No. It's the government's money because the Federal Reserve makes it, and the Federal Reserve is a government agency.

 

[/gatorman]

[IDBillzFan]

No. It's the government's money because the Federal Reserve makes it, and the Federal Reserve is a government agency.

 

[/gatorman]

 

You're right. I forgot. It has the word 'federal' in it, so that should have been my first clue.

[Chef Jim]

Holy simplicity Batman! Yes, government money is the attraction for people in industry innovating and creating new and--at first--expensive solutions. How terrible!

 

 

 

So inserting another level of management (the government) in to the process has nothing to do with increasing the costs?

 

Isn't this called the Affordable CARE Act? It did nothing in reduce the costs of healthcare. It's a misnomer. It is a health insurance act and nothing more.

[Keukasmallies]

 

So inserting another level of management (the government) in to the process has nothing to do with increasing the costs?

 

Isn't this called the Affordable CARE Act? It did nothing in reduce the costs of healthcare. It's a misnomer. It is a health insurance act and nothing more.

 

And, since it has driven many health practitioners out of their fields of practice, it has damn little to do with care at all; coupled with being a failure at the concept of insurance for the "masses."

 

Probably the best desription of the ACA can be found by Googling the word "boondoggle."

[Ozymandius]

From Zero Hedge, Obama's "Recovery in 9 charts":

 

Edited September 26, 2015 by Ozymandius