The GOP plan on replacing the PPACA is no plan

Post Reply New Topic

Bye-bye to preexisting condition protection: The Republican plan pretends that it guarantees coverage for people with preexisting conditions, but only if the person is always covered. If there is a break in coverage — which is much more likely under their plan for the reasons explained above — then you can be denied coverage. And you can be charged higher premiums if you've been ill.

This plan is still in development, and even if the plan gets passed, they already said that they will write a superior bill that replaces the current piece of crap bill we have.

Adverse selection

When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out.

In order to cover pre-existing conditions even with a break in coverage, you must also have an individual mandate and subsidies; otherwise, the attempt falls apart due to something called adverse selection, where healthy people forgo buying insurance, leaving the insurance pools filled with sick people, which would cause a big rise in premiums (and which would not solve the problem anyway).

This is economics 101.

Insurance should be an option. I don't see why a "healthy" person should be forced to buy insurance only to be milked to provide for the "unhealthy", many of which are no doubt just hypochondriacs. Forcing people to buy a product sets a precedence.....

In order to cover pre-existing conditions even with a break in coverage, you must also have an individual mandate and subsidies; otherwise, the attempt falls apart due to something called adverse selection, where healthy people forgo buying insurance, leaving the insurance pools filled with sick people, which would cause a big rise in premiums (and which would not solve the problem anyway).

This is economics 101.

Welp, ObamaCare failed. Companies are reducing hours and laying people off, and good doctors are quitting their jobs, along with a lot of other astonishingly stupid unintended consequences that people just flat out deny. Considering Republicans have a better reputation with money (including neocons, oddly), and don't like to waste it on stupid stuff and stack unfair taxes on everyone, including people who are responsible for employees, without balancing the budget, cutting costs. and making sure we aren't in debt, I have more faith in them than a party filled with Socialists and Communists.

Also, there's a lot of different variations of economics, and many of it heavily influenced by a political philosophy. Certainly liberal economics has been a failure, considering that besides Bush, under Obama and Clinton, we've gotten massive debt and haven't recovered from the economic crisis. Neoconservativism is somewhat of a failure too, but Obama and Clinton make it look like brilliance.

Also, we need to pass the bill before we know what's in it. (Reference to the house minority leader)

I would not call it a failure. It is by no means perfect, but it at least puts on the right track.

The concept and consequences of adverse selection are widely accepted by economists.

Also, the deficit has declined quite a bit under the Obama Administration and also declined under the Clinton Administration (but ballooned during the Bush II Administration), but I'm not sure how discussion of that is even relevant here, considering we're talking about how to make sure access to affordable care is available to all Americans.

It's a disaster. Cancer patients losing access to doctors, and getting denied treatment? One of the WORST diseases in the world? That's pretty trashy if you ask me, and it isn't even a small degree, but a rather fairly large occurrence. This didn't put us in the right track; it added more debt, job loss, and healthcare complications. We shouldn't be penalizing people for not having healthcare either, that's wrong. We shouldn't even be taxing the employer class, because that just causes more problems. I will never understand how liberals believe that taxing people who pay and provide for employers, and run companies, is a good idea.

Also, Obama nearly doubled the debt we had under Bush, and his healthcare policies have a lot to do with it. Not a significant amount, but a lot.

Actually, I've heard about many people with pre-existing conditions that were serious and for which people were relying entirely on emergency room visits and about how they are now able to go to a doctor's office and get the tests and treatments they needed thanks to the subsidies and to the coverage of pre-existing conditions.



Source? As I understand it, after the first couple years, he greatly lowered the deficit.

It actually became more difficult to see my psychologist because of ObamaCare, and my sister's hours were reduced to an hour under the healthcare limit so the employers wouldn't have to pay, and the employers were actually struggling financially already.

This isn't my main source, it would take a long time to gather that stuff up, but I find this reliable enough.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Vs

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html

Also, I think this article kind of backs up this statement. How can the debt be better if this stuff happened?: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/ ... yment.aspx

Conceded on debt clock, though I don't think it is necessarily mismanagement. After all, we did have one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression.

As for me, I've got a very good plan on the PPACA that lets me see all the doctors I saw while employed (I'm now on disability) and reduces the out-of-pocket costs compared to when I was employed. It takes effect in March; until then, I have a catastrophic plan.

To amend my statement on the debt clock, it gives "On this day in 2008" on that 2008 link you have, so that is the debt clock for February 11, 2008. Bush was still in office then, and would remain in office for almost a year. Late 2008 was when the economy started to fall apart and the first bailouts were passed. Obama did not take office until January 20, 2009.

I would like to see it from 2009, as it would be right around the time Obama took office. Unfortunately, http://www.usdebtclock.org/2009.html leads to a 404 error.