dagblog - Comments for "Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare"

House GOP documents outline

artappraiser — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:59:16 +0000

In reply to Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare

House GOP documents outline plan to replace Obamacare

February 16 BY Lisa Desjardins

Policy documents given to PBS NewsHour indicate GOP House members want to phase out Medicaid expansion and expand and enhance health savings accounts. Continue reading →

Can anyone help me grapple

artappraiser — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:48:05 +0000

In reply to Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare

Can anyone help me grapple with the analysis about the employer mandate conundrum that is addressed in this Boston Globe op-ed by Jeff Jacoby about the Bernie Sanders CNN town hall, excerpt below. Let me be clear about first, though, about how I want to limit any conversation. I know the long-term answer is single payer (I myself would actually prefer national health.) Let's not get into that, though, because that's absolutely not going to happen short term. I'm interested in thinking about what the smart short term way to go on this should be. Everyone else can certainly talk about whatever they like related, of course, but I am not interested in participating if you want to talk about what is pie-in-the-sky for the near future.

What Obamacare’s drafters could have learned from a hairdresser

[....] “We employ between 45 and 48 employees,” she began, explaining that she wanted to open more salons and employ more people. “However, under Obamacare, I am restricted, because it requires me to furnish health insurance if I employ more than 50 people. Unfortunately, the profit margin in my industry is very thin, and I’m not a wealthy person. . . . My question to you, Senator Sanders, is how do I grow my business? How do I employ more Americans without either raising the prices to my customers or lowering wages to my employees?”

Here was a real-world example of Obamacare’s impact. By compelling companies with 50 or more workers to offer health insurance to everyone they employ, the law creates a powerful disincentive for business owners to expand beyond 49 employees. A business owner like Hunter faces an impossible dilemma: Either give up on growing her enterprise, or try to make ends meet by charging customers more and paying workers less.

The onerous employer mandate is one of the Affordable Care Act’s worst defects. The Obama administration repeatedly delayed its effective date; Republicans want it repealed altogether. Sanders must know Hunter’s predicament is not uncommon, and the CNN debate gave him the chance to explain how Democrats propose to address it. But his explanation amounted to: Tough.

“Let me give you an answer you will not be happy with,” Sanders said. “I think that for businesses that employ 50 people or more, given the nature of our dysfunctional health care system right now, where most people do get their health insurance through the places that they work, I’m sorry, I think that in America today, everybody should have health care. And if you have more than 50 people, you know what? I’m afraid to tell you, but I think you will have to provide health insurance.” [....]

What hit me that I can't really get my brain around: hey, wait a minute, do we really need an incentive for these small businesses to grow bigger for the health of the economy and jobs? Maybe it's better to have many more under 50 employee businesses competing? When I didn't work for myself, nearly every job I ever had was an "under 50" type of employer (one was part of a multi-national but their New York office where I worked was probably under 50 as well and was probably registered as an individual business.) I definitely preferred those jobs, always shuddered at the thought of working at a big bureaucracy, i.e., Dilbert land. Especially anything with a Personnel Dept., fuggeaboutit.

On the other hand, those are often the jobs where you don't have to work as hard for better salary and benefits than when the boss is always worried about making it and competing the guy across the street and town. This incentive thing is a tough one to even think about what the ramifications really are. For: quality of life. Not GDP. One thing I am pretty sure about: millenials as a whole don't seem to cotton to the idea of working for a big corp. Even if it's for the infamous Google campus, they don't want to stay for long.

Today in Obamacare: Trump’s

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:41:47 +0000

In reply to White House Proposes New

Today in Obamacare: Trump’s big new Obamacare regulation, explained

Updated, by Sarah Kliff @ VOX. COM, Feb 15, 2017, 4:10pm EST

Edit to add: read this instead of both of the above, it's way better! She's Ezra Klein's replacement on topic and just as good as him on it if not better.

Now You Can Do Your Taxes

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:11:35 +0000

In reply to Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare

Now You Can Do Your Taxes Without Filling Out the Insurance Question

By Margot Sanger-Katz @ New York Times Upshot blog, FEB. 15, 2017

If you want to keep your health insurance status a secret from the I.R.S., the Trump administration just made it a little easier.

The policy change, confirmed by the I.R.S. on Wednesday after elements were reported by the libertarian magazine Reason, does not do away with the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all Americans who can afford it obtain health insurance or pay a fine. But it might make it a little harder for the I.R.S. to figure out who is breaking the rules.

The I.R.S. recently notified tax preparers that it will not reject tax returns that omit information about whether a filer had health insurance during the previous year. That’s actually a continuation of an informal Obama administration policy, but because of the way the decision was announced, it is likely to have broader effects on how many people report their insurance status to the government and how many people end up paying penalties for staying uninsured.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order on the day of his inauguration asking agencies to reduce burdens related to compliance with the health law. In its statement, the I.R.S. indicated that this policy was related to that instruction [....]

White House Proposes New

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:07:32 +0000

In reply to Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare

White House Proposes New Rules to Steady Insurance Markets Under Health Law

By Robert Pear, New York Times, Feb. 15

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration proposed new rules on Wednesday to stabilize health insurance markets roiled by efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by big increases in premiums and by the exodus of major insurers.

The move came a day after Humana announced that, starting next year, it would completely withdraw from the public marketplaces created by former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

The proposed rules, backed by insurance companies, would tighten certain enrollment procedures and cut the health law’s open enrollment period in half, in hopes that a smaller but healthier consumer base will put the marketplaces on sounder financial footing and attract more insurance companies in states with limited choices.

But part of the market’s problem stems from President Trump’s determination to repeal the health law while the White House and Congress struggle to find a politically acceptable replacement. Even as the Department of Health and Human Services worked to answer insurance company concerns, the Internal Revenue Service and Congress were taking steps that could add uncertainty to the jittery insurance economy.

On Capitol Hill, conservatives declared that they are not about to accept a health law replacement that remotely resembles the Affordable Care Act. And the I.R.S. adopted a policy for the coming tax season that could weaken the requirement for people to have insurance. The tax agency said it was reversing one aspect of an Obama administration plan after Mr. Trump, on his first day in office, issued an executive order instructing agencies to reduce burdens imposed by compliance with the Affordable Care Act wherever legally possible.

The proposed rules signal the Trump administration’s urgency in trying to keep other insurers from fleeing the market after Humana’s departure [.....]

Accurate forecasting cannot

NCD — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:53:19 +0000

In reply to The takeaway from what I said

Accurate forecasting cannot add to it.

The takeaway from what I said

artappraiser — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:07:02 +0000

In reply to No matter what they do it's

The takeaway from what I said should be this: the disaster is going to happen no matter what they do, even if they do nothing, and that's going to happen on their watch. If they do nothing by April, then early next year during open enrollment when people go to the exchanges to renew, there will be hardly any insurers there and the rates being offered by the insurers that are left will be much higher. The insurers need answers about what's going on by April

No matter what they do it's

artappraiser — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:48:12 +0000

In reply to Doubts are on "complete

No matter what they do it's going to be a disaster. It was on a path to a train wreck for more than a year. Romneycare DOES need some serious fixing, I know, I use it, I am not insured by an employer. And was stuck in the mess as a user of co-op Health Republic when it went belly-up. Romneycare was on a path to start deconstructing after about a year more as prices skyrocket and more and more insurers decide not to participate because they cannot predict anything. What caused the acceleration of the spiral downward that was bound to happen: when the GOP Congress under Obama removed the three-year "risk-corridor" fund for insurers whose game plan went bad. Romneycare requires having the government hold private insurers backs for a period of time while they test out what works to at least break even if not profit. Without that guarantee, it's very risky for them to participate. They will just deal with business from large employers and stay away from anything else until they have a better bead on wassup. And that in itself will cause prices to go up as there will be more uninsured running up unpaid hospital bills, etc.

Another point: I notice some red state GOP finally realizing it's real dumb of them to change the way Medicaid is paid to the states. Almost hilarious.

Doubts are on "complete

NCD — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:39:41 +0000

In reply to Doubts grow that GOP can repeal Obamacare

Doubts are on "complete repeal".

Republicans are like the Monty Python race of the twits. Inept ideological incompetents/idiots all trying to save their own re-election and necks and running in different directions. One thing they all do well is breaking things.

They will not be able to resist 'reconciliation' repealing the 3.8% tax on investments on the wealthiest Americans that pays for much of the subsidies.. That is one thing they can all agree on.

They will eat away at the funding, create confusion in the markets - with Price at HHS hating even Medicare not to mention Obamacare (his HHS is the enforcer of the law).

Insurers, like Humana today, will gradually leave or boost prices a lot, and funding and big parts of Obamacare will slowly fade away region by region.

Dependent mainly on much money the GOP adds to upcoming huge deficits to keep 'the best parts" on life support thru the next election.

The results will be described by GOP as inevitable 'as it was a disaster anyway', they 'restored choice'.

Voters won't buy this in enough numbers to avoid what I hope is retribution in 2018 at the ballot box.

You are a mensch. Now let's

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:44:57 +0000

In reply to Just for the record, I called

You are a mensch. Now let's dream for the stars - see if you can call for zero emissions gravity-powered cars, an end to warfare, a cure for all illness - I'll give you a couple months more to figure it out...