Thread: Paul Ryan’s repeal and replace allows restraint of trade and price fixing to continue

I'm a happy camper because it eliminates the individual and business mandates while preserving the prohibition of pre-existing conditions. If you're claiming Paul Ryan is responsible for that, then fine, I'll give him full credit for it.

Originally Posted by MW

This is his puppy. I seriously doubt President Trump really knows anything about what would or wouldn't constitute an acceptable replacement plan.

I think Trump is being snow jobbed by Ryan with his "phase two" and reconciliation bull crap. Ryan has no intention to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. He is bought and paid for by the insurance industry and he doing a rope-a-dope job on Trump!


JWK

Originally Posted by Judy

Johnwk, I buy into the budget reconciliation argument because .

Judy,

Have you forgotten how Obamacare, the entire ball of wax, taxes and regulations, was forced through Congress? Have you forgotten that Republicans now control both the Senate and House?

Additionally, if Paul Ryan were sincere about ending the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption, which was one of Trump's original promises regarding "repeal and replace", Ryan would already have introduced a clean Bill to do so and have it voted upon before his repeal and replace Bill. This is not rocket science, Judy, Paul Ryan is flimflamming Trump, or, Trump is now part of the problem.


JWK

Originally Posted by Judy

I'm a happy camper because it eliminates the individual and business mandates while preserving the prohibition of pre-existing conditions. If you're claiming Paul Ryan is responsible for that, then fine, I'll give him full credit for it.

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?


JWK

Johnwk, I don't know what Paul Ryan's position is on McCarran-Ferguson. I've never heard him speak of it one way or the other. I personally don't think he's the driver on this deal. Trump, Price and and Kevin Brady are the ones driving this bill to get it through quickly so employers are freed from the mandate and can start hiring and expanding and individuals are free of the personal mandate and can stop paying that tax penalty.

We'll just have to keep the pressure on and hope for the best. I know from the campaign that Trump is committed to doing everything he can to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. I hope it happens, because it will make a very positive difference in how consumers and citizens are treated by all insurance companies in all 50 states. The administrative savings alone for insurance companies now operating 50 little subsidiaries of their companies to avoid Sherman Anti-Trust is very expensive and convoluted and these silly costs are passed on to all consumers, employers as well, in the premiums they pay.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?


JWK

No, I'm not. I don't think it's fair to consumers with health issues or their families, and it doesn't make any business sense to do that to begin with. The whole health care industry exists because of sick people. If you didn't have any sick people, there would be no health insurance industry. To me it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's a really stupid policy by insurance companies that has led to the present situation we're in. I think this stupidity is an outcropping of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the smaller state by state pools. When the pools are national and enormous in size, it's just a competitive numbers game. Whatever it is, it is, without individual victims to punish or exclude.

Originally Posted by Judy

I know from the campaign that Trump is committed to doing everything he can to repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

Then why has this commitment disappeared from the core principles of Trump’s repeal and replace?

During the daily press briefing on 3/7/17, https://youtu.be/Y9L49P6UkqM?t=1889 the five core principles of Trump's repeal and replace plan were given by Spicer, which did not include purchasing across state lines.

Now, here are Trump's original five core principles for repeal and replacement of Obamacare

“Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions are guaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-care exchanges.

Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax credits and expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well as flexibility about the design of their plans.

Give states "the resources and flexibility" in their Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaid covers primarily poor people.

Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "from unnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down the price of high-cost drugs.

Creating a national insurance market place that allows insurers to sell health plans across state lines.”


Judy,

We are being had and it appears Trump has been flimflammed by Paul Ryan and his swamp creatures which includes Brady who I have found to be giving inaccurate information on a number of occasions!

JWK

Take Medicare as an example of a huge national pool. Medicare is funded with payroll taxes and small retiree premiums depending on income. Medicare hasn't needed a funding increase in 30 years. No payroll tax increase to cover the "rising cost of health care" over 30 years. Why can Medicare manage its pool costs better than private insurance companies when Medicare is serving the most elderly, disabled, fragile and sickest population of insureds and private insurance companies are selling the same services to the healthiest members of society?

Size. Volume. No discrimination. No "pools". No games that lose. No tricks that back-fire. No corruption. No excess administrative costs to try to dodge Sherman Anti-Trust Laws or comply with income tax laws. No nonsense. It just is what it is.

Private insurance companies need to study the Medicare model and understand for themselves how national underwriting with a nationwide customer base will not only streamline their business, simplify and improve their services, increase their ability to negotiate rates with vendors, reduce costs and result in higher more sustainable profits and companies while still serving a contented customer base that is treated like a valued client instead of an enemy.

Additionally, the whole medical costs issue which is a separate cost matter needs to examine the negative impact of 501 C 3 hospitals pricing schemes. I just don't think that's worked out well at all for the American People. There may have been a time when these facilities were needed, were proper, were somehow in our best interest, but today, I just don't see that at all. I think we should pass the FairTax which treats all businesses including 501 C 3 businesses the same.

I think repealing McCarran-Ferguson will end many of the schemes that have led to this total disaster that's robbed Americans of so much. Health care spending should not be 17.8% of the US GDP. That is just outrageous and so off the mark of what it should be. It should be half of that, certainly no more than 10%.

Judy, I don't know if Medicare is a good example. Medicare does not cover everything and a lot of doctors will not take Medicare patients. I have Senior Advantage on top of my Medicare to cover everything. I know I had been quoted a $90 premium for Senior Advantage, but as soon as Obama Care kicked in that premium jumped to $250 a month. So my husband and I each pay $120 for Medicare and $250 each for Senior Advantage for a total of $740 with a $20 co-payment.

Having dealt with my mother and mother in law's Medicare I have seen a lot of games played by Medicare, so I wouldn't use them as a model.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?

JWK

I certainly don't! Many of these "preexisting conditions" were brought on by a lifestyle choice, i.e., smoking, overeating, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, homosexuality, etc. Why shouldn't those people pay more? Why should you or I be punished because of someone else's lifestyle choice?