RE: King v Burwell

RE: King v Burwell (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 6:38:31 PM)
double post

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 6:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So you approve of the opportunity for the insurers and providers to collude. Thanks for showing yourself. They are 2 different parts of the same supply chain. This isn't collusion. Collusion is what we have now. If a payer OWNS a provider. That organization has nothing to gain from raising rates on itself. There is 1 bottom line: A monthly fee paid by the consumer. WHich is usually less than if they were separate, because there is no markup. Geez, Ds, you make me sound like a corporatist here. If there is one company that owns both the insurer and the hospitals (or even if the insurers own the hospitals), there certainly is an incentive to raise prices. If you get to keep 20% for Administrative costs and profits, would you rather do that with a gross income of $1M or $1B (numbers are examples only; any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental)? Plus, if you're required, as a non-profit hospital, to give out 2% (or whatever the % is) of your gross as "charity care," wouldn't it behoove you to have higher prices, so you can claim a higher %? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We'll have to see how this all plays out. You may be right. You may also be wrong. There are no strategies for reducing the cost of services and procedures in Obamacare. The only reduction in costs can only be from reducing the number of procedures or services, or the potential for less expensive options rather than more expensive options (ie. starting treatment for a disease in the early stages rather than the later stages). That's it. Until the actual cost of providing care goes down (unless you think providers are raking in too high of profits), the cost of insurance is going to stay high. If we could reduce the cost of care, the cost of insurance will drop along with it (which is why I do approve of the 80% rule in Obamacare). No strategies except: The creation of ACO's, which I have elaborated on for many paragraphs now. Providers band together and share revenue and savings, and compete against payers (at an advantage) And, we shall see how it all pans out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 6:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 First of all, What incentive would that be? A tax deduction? If one is making a lower middle class or middle middle class income, a tax deduction is going to incentivize someone to pay $1k/mo for health insurance? The GOP plan usually includes a mandate to purchase, but pairs it with a deduction for dollars spent. It also usually includes deductions for dollars spent by businesses for employee health care. If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. quote: Secondly, this whole Republican meme of "a la carte" insurance is ridiculous. There has never been a "pick which service you need, and we'll tailor a policy for you". This is not Auto Insurance. (Certainly not in the Employer market) (Maybe around the margins in the private market). The bottom line is there has never been such a thing as a "single male policy". In the private market, in your area, you pick what you can afford. The insurance companies package up what they want to cover and charge you what they think they can get. There is little competition. Yes you MAY be able to save money on a high deductuible policy that may not have some coverages that you don't need, but that's not the same as a Progressive Insurance style, "pick your coverage" Bottom line is: The private insurance companies have ALWAYS done what Obamacare is accused of doing. All Obamacare did was apply a minimum standard. You can't take an already packaged policy and say "I don't need this, so take it off the menu" And we have millions LESS uninsured, due to Obamacare. And, if a person could tailor his/her policy to his/her needs? Wouldn't that reduce the cost of that policy to him/her? We have millions less uninsured, but we still have millions uninsured.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 7:00:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The GOP plan usually includes a mandate to purchase, but pairs it with a deduction for dollars spent. It also usually includes deductions for dollars spent by businesses for employee health care. If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Usually includes a mandate? Show me a single GOP plan with an individual mandate (other than Mitt Romney's) *If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k.* That would be a full tax credit. Not a deduction. That would be insane, even for tax and spend Republicans. Show me a single GOP health plan that offers a dollar for dollar tax credit. Basically paying 100% of my policy with a full tax credit. *And, if a person could tailor his/her policy to his/her needs? Wouldn't that reduce the cost of that policy to him/her?* It would. And it is a great idea. But the Republican meme that the concept existed, and was later killed by Obamacare, is pure nonsense (and propaganda)

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 7:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The GOP plan usually includes a mandate to purchase, but pairs it with a deduction for dollars spent. It also usually includes deductions for dollars spent by businesses for employee health care. If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Usually includes a mandate? Show me a single GOP plan with an individual mandate (other than Mitt Romney's) I was wrong. I thought someone (might have been Romney?) had renewed the Heart Act of 199. quote:* *If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k.* That would be a full tax credit. Not a deduction. That would be insane, even for tax and spend Republicans. Show me a single GOP health plan that offers a dollar for dollar tax credit. Basically paying 100% of my policy with a full tax credit. Some call for a deduction, some for a deduction/credit/alternative way. There is even an option of a standard insurance deduction. quote: *And, if a person could tailor his/her policy to his/her needs? Wouldn't that reduce the cost of that policy to him/her?* It would. And it is a great idea. But the Republican meme that the concept existed, and was later killed by Obamacare, is pure nonsense (and propaganda) The funny thing is, there very well could have been plans that allowed for more a la carte offerings. Obamacare definitely nixed those, if they were there. I don't know any individual males that purchase their own insurance off the private market, so I can't even ask anyone. Employer plans have everything, but, that's mostly because the employer is in one risk pool for all employees, so there has to be coverage for all "basic" things.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: King v Burwell (6/28/2015 9:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Some call for a deduction, some for a deduction/credit/alternative way. There is even an option of a standard insurance deduction. A deduction just reduces one's AGI, not dollar for dollar one's tax liability. Totally different concept. There is no plan that would pay you dolla for dollar in a full tax credit. quote: The funny thing is, there very well could have been plans that allowed for more a la carte offerings. Obamacare definitely nixed those, if they were there. I don't know any individual males that purchase their own insurance off the private market, so I can't even ask anyone. Employer plans have everything, but, that's mostly because the employer is in one risk pool for all employees, so there has to be coverage for all "basic" things. There could have been a lot of things. The idea that there was such a thing, and it was commonplace, is Republican propaganda.

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (6/29/2015 2:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Some call for a deduction, some for a deduction/credit/alternative way. There is even an option of a standard insurance deduction. A deduction just reduces one's AGI, not dollar for dollar one's tax liability. Totally different concept. There is no plan that would pay you dolla for dollar in a full tax credit. Thus, the start of my last post with "I was wrong." quote: quote: The funny thing is, there very well could have been plans that allowed for more a la carte offerings. Obamacare definitely nixed those, if they were there. I don't know any individual males that purchase their own insurance off the private market, so I can't even ask anyone. Employer plans have everything, but, that's mostly because the employer is in one risk pool for all employees, so there has to be coverage for all "basic" things. There could have been a lot of things. The idea that there was such a thing, and it was commonplace, is Republican propaganda. I don't recall anyone ever saying it was commonplace. I guess I missed those GOP talking points memos. [8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: King v Burwell (6/29/2015 6:35:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The GOP plan usually includes a mandate to purchase, but pairs it with a deduction for dollars spent. It also usually includes deductions for dollars spent by businesses for employee health care. If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Usually includes a mandate? Show me a single GOP plan with an individual mandate (other than Mitt Romney's) Talk about cherry picking. Show you an example, except the actual example? This should be a comedy site.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: King v Burwell (6/29/2015 9:39:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The GOP plan usually includes a mandate to purchase, but pairs it with a deduction for dollars spent. It also usually includes deductions for dollars spent by businesses for employee health care. If you were to spend $1k/month on premiums and care, you'd be reducing your tax liability by $12k. Usually includes a mandate? Show me a single GOP plan with an individual mandate (other than Mitt Romney's) Talk about cherry picking. Show you an example, except the actual example? This should be a comedy site. Perhaps it should be. I love comedy. Mitt Romney, after declaring that his plan was a model for the nation, changed his mind when he ran for President, and said it was only right for Massachusetts. So Romney's plan is no longer a GOP plan for the nation. <bad cherry, putting it back>

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (6/30/2015 1:50:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Perhaps it should be. I love comedy. Mitt Romney, after declaring that his plan was a model for the nation, changed his mind when he ran for President, and said it was only right for Massachusetts. So Romney's plan is no longer a GOP plan for the nation. <bad cherry, putting it back> Romney's plan is instituted by the State, which has different authorities than the Federal Government (which has no authority to administer health insurance).

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: King v Burwell (6/30/2015 8:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Perhaps it should be. I love comedy. Mitt Romney, after declaring that his plan was a model for the nation, changed his mind when he ran for President, and said it was only right for Massachusetts. So Romney's plan is no longer a GOP plan for the nation. <bad cherry, putting it back> Romney's plan is instituted by the State, which has different authorities than the Federal Government (which has no authority to administer health insurance). Very true, about Romney's plan, but irrelevant to my point.

DesideriScuri -> RE: King v Burwell (7/1/2015 2:54:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Perhaps it should be. I love comedy. Mitt Romney, after declaring that his plan was a model for the nation, changed his mind when he ran for President, and said it was only right for Massachusetts. So Romney's plan is no longer a GOP plan for the nation. <bad cherry, putting it back> Romney's plan is instituted by the State, which has different authorities than the Federal Government (which has no authority to administer health insurance). Very true, about Romney's plan, but irrelevant to my point. It is completely relevant. Romneycare was only right for Massachusetts because it's a State plan. Each State gets to come to the conclusion for what works for the Citizens of that State. Romneycare may have been a model for the Nation, but, a model for each State in the Nation, not the Nation as a whole.

MercTech -> RE: King v Burwell (7/1/2015 8:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Obamacare won http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf Sigh... now we are still stuck with a legal requirement to pay outrageous sums for worthless insurance and nothing at all is done about making health care affordable. Smoke and mirrors to hide the pickpocket.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125