Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Trumpcare- Passed the House and onto the Senate; will it pass there? And what will it finally look like? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Dedfin
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
What taxes are you referring to? There's a .9% tax that went into affect for those over the $250,000 mark that is going to medicare. Cadillac tax (which I think has been eliminated? Sorry, don't remember) is on group plans that provide really good coverage, but the employer pays that and doesn't start paying that until 2020. There is a provision that moves the medical expense write-off from 7.5% to 10%....that what you're talking about?
None of these seem to be taxes where the funds specifically target the people BnB is referring to.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Even a moron (unless they're an elected official) knows that 5% of the population can't carry another 5% of the population. This (xxxxxCare) doesn't work until you pull in the 50% to help carry the load.
Quez
Footballguy
Judiciary Committee letter to #Lynch seeking answers on her political interference of FBI investigation on Clinton https://t.co/igRWD4SxgQ https://t.co/RygUiH5vb9
The Commish
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I'm fairly certain the top 5% of American earns can carry 5% of the population. If you don't understand that, perhaps you should refresh yourself on what the top 5% of earners are bringing home compared to the very bottom 5%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I wasn't referring to the top 5%. I was referring to the 5% of the population that are relatively healthy and paying for individual policies.
matttyl
Footballguy
This, for whatever it's worth, is what I was talking about in the other thread about the new proposed healthcare bill when talking about the number of pregnancies financed by Medicaid. Currently, over half of births in this country are funded by Medicaid - so when looking at the charts at the start of your video, that's roughly about the population in the two blue sections of the chart (which you can barely even see on the bar chart at 1:07 of the video).
Meaning this problem (if you believe it is a problem, and I think you and I both do) is only getting worse, and quickly.
matttyl
Footballguy
2018 rate increases requests for Indiana - a shockingly low 7.65% (though that assumes CSRs will be paid, and an enforced individual mandate). The reason, though, that number is so low - is that it's only for the 1/3rd of the market that will keep their plan (though the range on that ranges between 9.1% price cut and a 117.7% increase). The other 2/3rds of the market will have their plan terminated at end of year as both Anthem BCBS and MDWise are leaving the market. So all of those people will need to obtain new coverage, which may be much higher than the policy they currently have.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Well Obama was technically right. If you like you plan you can keep your plan.....no one likes their individual plan anymore.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I can't figure out what Repubs really want. Great health insurance for some and no affordable insurance for others? From an admittedly simplistic perspective, it would seem that running insurance companies out of certain areas isn't going to win them any new voters. If anything, it would seem to be something that would hasten the growing public support for transitioning to a single payer plan.
The Commish
Footballguy
They can't either. All they know is "Obamacare = Bad". It appears that's all the thought they've put into it at this point. It's one thing to be there simply to prevent someone from doing something. It's another to lead. It's pretty clear they suck at leading right now. Funny thing is, the public is pretty much telling them which way to go and they still can't figure it out.
Insomniac
Footballguy
The harm the GOP does by suspending the payments to insurance companies will benefit them politically. They will use it as proof that Obamacare is a failure. This will be constantly parroted by the right-wing media bubble and the 40% of the country that pulls out their pray rugs 5 times a day and face Mar-a-Log will believe it and look no further. The people on the left will claim that the GOP is deliberately sabotaging healthcare. Most of the non-political types won't go to the effort to examine the facts and will probably agree with what the last person that expressed an opinion told them to think. The balance of that favors the GOP gaining votes. Simplistic attacks on "Socialized Medicine" worked for all of my lifetime, there's no reason to think they'll stop now.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
For some clarity on this - these payments are ones that happen FROM insurance companies TO insurance companies (with the government being the middleman/referee/accountant for the transaction). So if their suspension causes some carriers to raise their rates (because they didn't receive their payments), it would thus have to mean other carriers lowering their rates (because they didn't make their payments). There are no additional monies coming from the government.The Commish said:
Here is a good read about what these payments (risk adjustment) actually are, and what they've done in the past. Also, article talks about how this could have been resolved in the past, but wasn't. In the end, much like my thoughts on risk corridors, this may have been just another good intentioned idea that didn't work out as planned - and could have done more harm than good in the end.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I was reading a bit about this and it's really confusing to me. Is this "rollback" simply the government saying "hey, that law we passed that you have to pay other insurance companies X amount of dollars, well, you don't have to do that now"? If that's the case, then why is the bold true? Wouldn't the insurance companies who don't have to pay simply pocket the money and keep rates as they are?
matttyl
Footballguy
Well, possibly, but the 80/20 rule could prevent them from doing that (they'd still have to pay back to customers monies to be in compliance with the 80/20 rule).
With the above, I just meant to say that if carriers are going to use this as a reason to increase rates for 2019 (which was the claim in your article), then regulators will also use it as a reason for other carriers to not raise their rates as much, or possibly lower them for next year. Risk adjustment is a zero net sum. It's something like $5B going from some carriers, and that same $5B going to other carriers. That's actually why it's claimed to be ~$11B by some....they are counting both sides of the ledger.
The Commish
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Honestly, it's getting tougher and tougher. I'm a commission based sales guy, and they've been dropping and dropping. At least in the individual market (which this whole risk adjustment ordeal is about), my area now has 1 carrier (as is the case for about 90% of Virginia, and about 50-60% of the counties in the country) - and that one carrier pays me on a per contract basis, not a per person basis. Selling a gold tier policy to a family of 5 that might cost $2k a month gets me $9 for each monthly premium they actually make....which I then split with my agency. Yeah me! I've worked what I net per hour of actual work out of the whole ordeal, and it's getting to be not worth being in the individual market anymore, which is why lots of agents don't even mess with it anymore.I don't know how you do this for a living....good info as always
The Commish
Footballguy
Where are we at with this?
The Commish
Footballguy
First glimpse of a "proposal" (yes, that word is doing some heavy lifting....I get it)
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-to-issue-executive-order-protecting-americans-from-medicare-for-all.html
The most interesting part of this whole position is the framing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-to-issue-executive-order-protecting-americans-from-medicare-for-all.html
The most interesting part of this whole position is the framing.
ffldrew
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I haven't seen a good summary of this yet and I don't feel like wading through the order itself, but my understanding is that it
- Allows Medicare Advantage plans to deviate further from traditional Medicare by offering service that traditional Medicare cannot, including services that are health related but not really under the traditional healthcare umbrella. (A good deal of this has already been happening).
- Allow those receiving Social Security to not be enrolled in Medicare Part A in order to allow them to continue to fund HSAs. In other words a tax shelter for those wealthy enough to not need hospitalization coverage.
- Allows "wellness programs" in Medicare. Similar to the recent announcements for the individual market. Basically an end around to shift costs to sick people and/or weed those sick people out of the pools.
Maybe this is wrong as like I said I haven't seen a particularly good summary so maybe I'm missing the boat. But first impressions...
Mile High
Footballguy
I guess I'm not understanding how this will stop Medicare for all. Let's say Sanders is the nominee and wins, can't he just undo this Executive order with one of his own?
The Commish
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
My wife started drawing SS while still working and being covered by her employer's health plan. Part A was never going to pay anything, but she had to have it, which killed her ability to fund an HSA. Being "Wealthy" had nothing to do with it; if we were wealthy, she would have waited to draw her SS.
Similar threads
