Repealing the Individual Mandate Without Repealing ObamaCare Is Dumb
You have already heard me rant and rave about how the GOP tax bill is a tax hike on the middle class (primarily the professional middle class in large urban areas) to pay for tax breaks for the super-rich. The Senate version of the bill is no different in that respect — in fact, it’s worse, eliminating deductions for all property taxes without even the $10,000 cap included in the House bill. But the Senate version released yesterday comes with yet another stupid idea: repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate . . . without repealing ObamaCare.
You’ll find no more fierce opponent of ObamaCare than myself. It’s exactly the sort of Frankenstein monster you’d expect when central planners assume control over a huge of the economy. But you can’t fix the monster by giving him a new right arm, three new toes on his left foot, and tightening the bolts on his neck. The monster has to be destroyed.
The problem is not, as some might try to tell you, that ObamaCare “won’t work” if the individual mandate is repealed. ObamaCare won’t work and can’t work, period, no matter what — because central planning can’t work. What ObamaCare does is monkey with supply and demand for a product: health insurance. The law mandates it be supplied at prices that would be unavailable in a truly free market (guaranteed issue). This is effectively a form of price control, which generally creates a shortage. The law then tries to compensate for the effects of the price control by mandating purchase of the product by legal fiat.
The unpopular mandated purchase provisions do compensate somewhat for the popular price controls, but in the absence of a free market any such central attempt to balance prices is always doomed to fail. It’s hubris on the part of the central planners to think they can succeed. The key lessons of the failed experiments in socialism in the 20th century have not been learned — and probably never will be.
The market is a wondrous mechanism that ensures, almost as if by magic, that demand for goods is balanced by a supply of the desired goods. But thanks to various forms of government intervention, including federal tax policy and federal and state regulations, we had not had an actual free market in health care or health insurance for a long time, even before ObamaCare.
ObamaCare’s dog’s breakfast of mandates will never be a sustainable, functioning mechanism, and removing one mandate does not solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs and rising premiums. It will almost certainly make it worse. This is why previous efforts to repeal only the individual mandate while leaving the rest of ObamaCare in place have gone down to ignominious defeat. It’s horrendous policy, and no honest person can really dispute this.
But when it comes to doling out tax breaks to the rich, horrendous policy is just the ticket. Anything to provide a paper credit to balance the goodies handed out to big donors.
And the public will like it. Nobody will analyze this from first principles, the way I just did. They’ll just say: “hur hur, they’re gutting ObamaCare, hur hur, ah like it!”
Hooray for the GOP!
P.S. Increasingly, I don’t feel that bad about the prospect of the Democrats picking up another Senate seat in Alabama for three years. After all: genuine ObamaCare repeal has not happened and never will no matter who is in charge. Yes, Dems love to hike taxes, but Trump would probably veto their tax hikes while he would sign the GOP tax hike — so one more vote against the GOP version of a tax hike is fine by me. And the GOP will still have its majority to confirm good judges. Win-win! I’m not getting tired of all the winning yet! How about you?
[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]
IIRC correctly, having 60 senators, partly through election chicanery and partly through log-rolling and pork-barelling for Senators from carefully selected states, was how the Senate got Obamacare through and why we are still stick with it now is because there are not 60 Senators for the party that claims to wish to get rid of it.
So one of two things needs to happen, to change that–
Get rid of the filibuster for good
Get 60 Senators
Only one of these can be done now.
Frederick (64d4e1) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:24 am“to repeal only the individual mandate while leaving the rest of ObamaCare in place have gone down to ignominious defeat. It’s horrendous policy, and no honest person can really dispute this.”
Nothing written before this sentence supports the conclusion.
I think it is awesome to repeal the individual mandate and make Obamacare worse. If there isn’t the political will to do the “right” thing and repeal Obamacare (ACA) root and branch, then do the next best thing which is to cynically eliminate a politically popular weakness in ACA.
The Democrats did this when they enacted the ACA. It was doomed to fail and eventually lead to a single-payer program. I think that the Republicans should respond in kind.
I could take the principled position in this entire tax debate that no tax reductions should be passed UNTIL federal expenditures are reduced to a sufficient level to ensure that the deficit is not increased beyond the baseline projections. To do otherwise would be a horrendous policy, and no honest person can really dispute this.
But Patterico is willing to contemplate tax reductions that would make the deficit worse for pragmatic political purposes. Why not do the same for the ACA?
El Gipper (f1f816) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:45 amit’s a good step forward to get rid of the mandate
it makes me feel better
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:49 amMedicare Part D is an instructive example. In order to get an acceptable CBO score it had to have a huge deductible–but that would have meant most seniors would see no benefit, and we can’t have that.
So they created a “donut hole”, a deductible that takes effect after you have reached some level. This way every senior gets something. But a number of perverse incentives resulted, seniors avoided taking medication that would put them in the donut hole, because if you didn’t get all the way through the donut hole you didn’t get your drugs paid for again.
This has led to steady pressure to close the donut hole, which has been happening. Consequently the initial assumptions of cost are violated and that original CBO score it worthless.
Much like the annual “doc fix”, where CBO scores assuming doctors will get a severe rate cut and after the score Congress delays the rate cute. Been doing this for many years.
Frederick (64d4e1) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:52 amRepealing Obamacare Mandate Would Save $338 Billion, CBO Says
fiscal responsibility yay AMERICA!
maga maga all up in it!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:54 amYes but the one behind that Billy tauzin, ended up the head of the pharma lobby.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:58 amSo there is that to consider.
Repealing the mandate without doing anything else will punish people who want health insurance:
If you buy health insurance, prepare to be punished.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2017 @ 9:59 amI understand that goal. You may be paying a high price for it. I know I will.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:00 amRest assured that plan will fail and we’ll up with single payer anyways so relax.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:01 am“Increasingly, I don’t feel that bad about the prospect of the Democrats picking up another Senate seat in Alabama for three years.. And the GOP will still have its majority to confirm good judges.”
You are stating facts that are not in evidence. Collins, St. John and St. Jeff of AZ and Lisa with an “S” from Alaska have all shown no aversion to putting their own egos ahead of the good of the country. SCOTUS and the other Federal Courts are too important to let their future ride on Macy’s Parade Balloon sized egos such as those. To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton…”The courts…the courts…always the courts”.
If we already had another one or two Gorsuch-types on the bench I’d tend to agree with you.
Bill Saracino (ad0096) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:02 amWell Collins broke the cloture vote, veruca salt we don’t need to remind about
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:06 amas well as fideloflake and scorched cork.
Melania is the only one rocking the house.
mg (60b0f7) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:15 amThere won’t be any more Gorsuches. He was replacing Scalia but when it comes time to replace a liberal justice, the gloves will come off.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:17 amThey’re saying in all the newspaper articles, about 10%. (which is about the same or less as a year-to-increase often is)
The reason for raising premiums on the exchanges only by about 10%, is that most people who currently get insurance on the exchanges get subsidies – if they don’t get heavy subsidies they don’t buy it unless they are sick or have assets too protect.
Now this 10% estimate may be based on a different estimate of dropouts than the CBO score.
The current unrevised for now CBO score also assumes fewer people will apply for Medicaid. Now it is true, many people went to exchanges and were directed to Medicaid, but people on Medicaid won’t quit because there’s no longer a mandate, although there is some attrition fro Medicaid anyway.
It is not necessary for someone poor (and healthy) to get Medicaid in advance, because is the only kind of “insurance” that is retroactive.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:17 amWhen Roy Moore is senator we’ll have a dependable vote for doing repeal on obamacare (thank goodness)
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:22 amRepealing the individual mandate will lead to dysfunction in the exchanges. That will lead to more pressure to repeal the ACA, or at least introduce significant changes in a more market-oriented direction.
I live in CA and I have to purchase a non-group policy. I was informed that my “Silver” policy will not be renewed so I am impacted more than most in this debate.
El Gipper (f1f816) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:29 amThere are now some zero or near-zero premium policies being offered on the exchanges, thanks to the way other parts of the law interact with Donald Trump discontinuing the unauthorized payments to insurance companies for losses on their policies. (because the premium subsidies get higher.)
Maybe the co-pays are very high but the insurance costs nothing for many people. That’s a great selling point. (Premium subsidies are eared to the second lowest cost “silver” plan which is now higher.)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-aca-plans-to-come-with-no-premiums-in-2018-1509096602
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-qualifies-for-zero-premium-insurance-under-obamacare.html
Of course, that insurance is close to catastrophic. They’d have to self-insure, maybe relying on credit cards or a 401(k)..
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:29 amyes yes Mr. Finkelman!
getting rid of the mandate will also help obamacare re-price itself more realistically, bringing it closer to reflecting the free market price for its mandated offerings and features
a lot of the people who’ll choose to go without are the same people who currently drop out in the course of the year
yay free market!
yay individual mandate repeal!
yay Roy Moore!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:30 amHealthcare.gov has been on my case to renew for two weeks now, and all I’ve been thinking is how much it has poisoned my life for the last three years. I’ll take the half loaf and thank you very much!
nk (dbc370) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:31 amAnd watch their income, and make sure it doesn’t get too high. At least the reported income. But Obama anyway made it not necessary to check.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:31 amhappyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:30 am
Another thing the Republicans are proposing _ I think in he CHIP bill, (which requires the usual 60 votes in the Senate) is changing the grace period for insurance policies bought on the exchanges from three months to one month.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:34 amIt’s just a tax. Why would ending one small tax have any effect at all?
Xmas (3a75bb) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:36 amOne thing that repealing the mandate will do is open the market for non-Obamacare plans. If there is no penalty for purchasing an insurance plan that doesn’t cover everything that Obamacare requires, then new plans will come in to fill a gap of people who want plans but not ones that qualify. You don’t need to create new categories of plans that ARE allowed to receive subsidies etc., if there is no penalty for having plans that are not covered and provide only the care the purchaser wants but don’t receive subsidies.
In fact, this single act does kill Obamacare completely. It kills it by creating a market hole by removing a barrier to entry into that hole. The barrier was the tax being charged to those purchasing non-qualifying plans.
If this tax reform passes, watch me switch away from a plan that requires me to buy maternity care coverage for myself and my young children and a host of other unnecessary things I’m purchasing.
Infrequent Guest (21fe6a) — 11/15/2017 @ 10:55 amDRJ, at 13:
> He was replacing Scalia but when it comes time to replace a liberal justice, the gloves will come off.
The anger on the left regarding the treatment of Garland, and McConnell’s refusal to hold hearings on *any* nominee, is almost as great as the anger on the right regarding the treatment of Bork.
Unfortunately, my *anticipation* is that if the Democrats retake the Senate in 2018, no Trump nominees will be confirmed. The anger of the left will not allow any other outcome.
That’s actually part of why I was so angry at McConnell when he did it; it is now a semi-permanent part of our political culture that Justices can only be confirmed when the same party controls both the Senate and the Presidency.
I hope it was worth it.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:12 amXmas, at 22: the argument is that it will save money because people who (a) are only getting insurance because of the mandate and (b) are receiving subsidies will stop getting insurance, allowing the government to save money on subsidies.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:13 amLike the Biden rule in 1992, similar statements by schemer Obama and Hillary after 2000, for many of the same self serving reasons
narciso (d1f714) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:15 amNarciso, at 26: let me be clear; I think that the Democrats should not respond the way I know they are going to, because it will damage the fabric of the republic even more if they do. And I’ve argued it with Democrats until I’m out of breath, over and over again. It’s a losing argument, because the come back is basically “if we don’t do this then the permanent rule is Republicans don’t need joint control to get their nominees through, and Democrats do”, and they’re probably right in that.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:17 amThat is my hope too, Infrequent Guest.
nk (dbc370) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:24 amSo there is already precedent, podesta and co, did this kind of sabotage starting out.
narciso (ef9447) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:34 amWhile I have zero confidence in the Washington republicans being this clever, repealing the ACA mandate tax also repeals the Roberts justification for upholding the constitutionality of the ACA. Besides as often as Obama delayed the implementation date I’m not sure anybody ever had to pay the non-participation tax before this year anyway. The worst reason to repeal it is if it’s used by Alexander-Murray to make legal the previously illegal subsidies to participating insurers which is probably what they’re really up to.
crazy (d99a88) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:49 amhttps://www.cnn.com/video/…/3…gary-cohn-awkward-moment…cnn/index.xml
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:51 amjudicial trash like “hawaii judge” have gone a long way towards discrediting all democratic-appointed judges as a group
they’re just flat-out corrupt
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:54 amTrump, GOP tax plan: Gary Cohn has awkward moment with CEOs …
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-gary-cohn-bill-2017-11
This is priceless.
Trickle down economics does not work.
“Senator, don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” – Fletcher [John Vernon] ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ 1976
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:58 am> repealing the ACA mandate tax also repeals the Roberts justification for upholding the constitutionality of the ACA
It also repeals the entire basis for the argument that it was unconstitutional — the argument was that the tax had to originate in the House and didn’t.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:04 pm24. aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:12 am
That may actually have been the case for th last quarter of a century, but we didn’t quite notice it..
No Supreme Court justice has been nominated and confirmed when the Senate was controlled by the opposite party of the President since Clarence Thomas in 1991. (It’s partially happened that way by Justices timing their retirements.)
President Clinton nominated two Justices during the 103rd Congress in 1993-94, when the senate was controlled by the Democrats.
No Justice quite between 2001 and 2004 because the Supreme Court had helped determine who was president.
President Bush nominated two justices in 2005 when the Republicans controlled the Senate (Rehnquist decided not to quit, but then he died after Sandra Day O’Connor had already submitted her retirement message, so there were two in one year – they had planned to do it a year apart)
President Obama nominated two justices in 2009-2010 when the Democrats had control of the Senate.
In all three cases, the party of the president lost control of the Senate in the election after that.
But Justice Antonin Scalia died at a time on the political calendar when he would have ruled out retirement. And they also don’t usually quit in the middle of a term most of the time. That’s since Earl Warren in 1968. As it Hugo Black and John Marshal Harlan got sick between terms in 1971. Duglas was pretty much forced out – the other justices had agreed not to make any decision where his vote mattered)
The Justices already knew enough not to retire in the last year – or maybe even the next to last year – of a presidential term. I’m not sure they were looking at party control. It just worked out that in the first two years they could retire, the Senate was controlled by the same political party as that of the president.
This could mean long periods when a justice could not be replaced
If they also had a 60-votes-needed-to-break-a-filibuster rule for nominations, there’d be almost no situation when a Supreme Court Justice could be confirmed, so that surely had to go. Party control means they can hold or not hold hearings, so at least you can fill the vacancy when the Senate is of the same party as the president.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:06 pmErr, no, the argument was that it was a penalty for NOT engaging in an activity. Roberts saved it by adopting whatsisface’s Hail Mary that it was a tax.
nk (dbc370) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:14 pmBiden must be stopped!!!
Joe HillSlow JoeShe dreamed she saw Slow Joe last night
Alive as you and me
Says she “But Joe, you’re not VP”
“You want candy?” said he
“You want candy?” said he
“The Megan’s Law killed you Joe
They stopped you Joe” says she
“Takes more than laws to stop a perv”
Says Joe “My van… you want to see?”
Says Joe “My van… you want to see?”
“In Washington DC,” says she
Him standing by her bed
“They thought about a groping charge,”
Says Joe, “But I ain’t dead.”
Says Joe, “But I ain’t dead.”
And standing there as big as life
And leering with his eyes
Says Joe “What they can never kill
These hands that grope young thighs
These hands that grope young thighs”
From San Diego up to Maine
Colonel Haiku (993483) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:22 pmIn any place girls go
When hands can fondle young behinds
It’s there you’ll find Slow Joe
It’s there you’ll find Slow Joe!
Hat tip Joan Baez…
Colonel Haiku (993483) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:25 pmAs for government policy, dream on. It will lead to calls for more intervention.
I do think Infrequent Guest has an interesting argument. Does anyone know whether the insurance companies are legally allowed to offer non-compliant policies? If they are, I may be convinced I was wrong. If not, then the lack of a penalty may make no practical difference. I invite input on that question.
Patterico (cbe514) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:35 pmI really like it when someone leaves a comment that challenges my assumptions and causes me to ask: could I be wrong?
Patterico (cbe514) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:36 pmTed Cruz Is Pushing to Include Obamacare Mandate Repeal in Tax Bill
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:50 pmThe IC’s have sheared the sheep too closely. Alternative plans would be either unaffordable or unprofitable which brings the problem full circle. As long as the primary objective of America’s healthcare system is to turn a huge profits rather than provide affordable healthcare coverage, socialized medicine will continue to gain traction and be willingly accepted, especially as other nations in the industrialized world keeps demonstrating it works for them.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:53 pm@41. He’s such a healthy hunk of nitrated manhood, isn’t he, Mister Feet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/15/2017 @ 12:59 pmNonsense. They’ll analyze it from different first principles:
Does it anger liberals and get even with Obama? Then it must be supported without question.
Dave (445e97) — 11/15/2017 @ 1:00 pmwiscotrash senator ron johnson says he’s gonna do mccain all up on tax bill anyway
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/15/2017 @ 1:04 pm> This could mean long periods when a justice could not be replaced
that’s one of the big problems.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/15/2017 @ 1:59 pmIt has been getting harder and harder to name a Supreme Court justice.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 11/15/2017 @ 2:11 pmI think insurance companies are legally allowed to offer non-compliant policies, if the popolicy is approved by their state regulator, but they can’t list them on the exchanges and people buying them can’t get subsidies.
I think also there may be some requirements that they have to abide by, like allowing children to continue on their parent’s policy until the age of 26 (that is anyway the new norm – abolishing the law won’t end that)
Not sure if medical underwriting is mostly prohibited even outside exchange policies.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 11/15/2017 @ 2:19 pmWhat’s not clear to me is if the repeal of the Obamacare mandate would take effect beginning in 2018 (where policy premiums would already have been set) or in 2019.
The only thing I heard that takes effect in 2019 is the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 2019 to 2018. Everything else is January 1, 2018 except that the cutoff date for the limitations on deductibility of interest for new mortgages is November 2, 2017 or so.
Repealing the individual mandate gives the Senate more room for tax cuts, according to the CBO accounting, although it may not give them anywhere near as much money if they wait to pass a bill until next year. So that’s another argument for rushing the bill through now, before the CBO can change its calculations.
The Senate already put back into the law the student loan interest deduction, the adoption tax credit, and deductions for medical expenses over 10% of AGI, as well as an increase in the child tax credit from $1,600 in the House bill to $1,650 = mostly by eliminating any deduction for property taxes and postponing the corporate income tax cut by one year.
Now they will be able to do more, like going all the way up $2,000 for the child tax credit (it probably still reverts back to $1,000 plus in five years – $1,000 plus because now the original $1,000 of the child tax credit (but not the additional $600 or $650 or $1,000) is indexed to inflation for the first time.
Of course they are using chained CPI in orer to reduce the inflation indexing.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 3:19 pmInsurers are not allowed to sell non compliant plans. There are some exceptions for plans like Aflac that pay a benefit per occurrence and short term medical plans. Nothing similar can be sold on an individual basis.
Self funded employers on the other hand are free to sell non compliant plans which were actually very popular. They would satisfy the employer mandate but not the individual mandate.
Being honest and 25 years experience designing and managing plans a number of positive scenarios could result from the repeal of the individual mandate, one being catastrophic employer plans.
Nate Ogden (9fca1e) — 11/15/2017 @ 3:56 pmThe House of Representatives plans to pass its version of the bill tomorrow. (it does not, of course, contain the repeal of the individual mandate – that was added in the Senate bill.)
They don’t think there will enough Republican Congressmen from states with high income tax rates who plan to vote against the bill to defeat it.
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 5:10 pm@Nate Ogden. How does repeal of the individual mandate lead to catastrophic employer plans?
Sammy Finkelman (8e756e) — 11/15/2017 @ 5:11 pmThere is already a large market for MEC plans, Minimum Essential Coverage. They satisfy the employer requirement to offer coverage($2,000 penalty) but not the minimum value of 60%($3,000 penalty). For a short period of time you could design a MEC that meet minimum value but HHS guidance killed those.
These plans don’t provide enough coverage for employees, they generally look for more coverage but not necessary full blown coverage. One strategy was to combine a MEC plan with a limited Medical Plan, it was pretty well accepted in low wage industries like fast food, hotel, security, etc etc.
Participation and cost, not to mention the prior administrations dislike for these plans makes it complicated. If the millions of people that don’t want full coverage could buy a shinny plan from their employer it would be more attractive for employers to offer them.
If they became more mainstream the cost would come down as there was more competition. They are sold as a penalty avoidance scheme instead of a insurance solution for members most of the time. If they were treated more like legitimate insurance plans they could be designed more favorably for participants.
The individual mandate forces people to select from a very small and constrained market of plans. Prior to ACA there was a large market for catastrophic plans, repeal of the individual mandate would free people to once again buy what they want.
Nate Ogden (9ae4a6) — 11/15/2017 @ 7:08 pmThat’s what I suspected — and that seems to undercut the point of Infrequent Guest.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/15/2017 @ 7:11 pmDoing away with the individual mandate kills Obamacare. That’s why Patterico opposes it.
jcurtis (028437) — 11/15/2017 @ 11:48 pmThe law mandates it be supplied at prices that would be unavailable in a truly free market (guaranteed issue).
Obamacare does no such thing.
The prices that these policies are sold at are actuarially sound. The problem is that the poorest buyers have Uncle Sugar paying their premiums, and these users correlate strongly with the sickest buyers. Their heavy use drives the cost up TO THE UNSUBSIDIZED only, since no matter how high the premiums go, these heavy users do not pay a dime more.
The other buyers, such as the self-employed or early retired, DO have to pay these increased premiums. This sucks mightily, but the PREMIUMS are directly related to the company’s costs.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 12:25 amIf you buy health insurance, prepare to be punished.
Our insurance next year will cost more than our mortgage. It could hardly get worse. The Ryan plan, which our host denigrated, was the best plan offered this year since it removed considerable government intervention without fukking the self-employed. EVERYTHING else has been worse, including cold-turkey repeal.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 12:29 amInsurers are not allowed to sell non compliant plans
And this is the main reason that few plans were actually grandfathered. NO prior plan in California meets the current state requirements, which include coverage for elective sex-change surgery.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 12:38 amOT: Charlie Manson is in hospital. My tax money is being spent keeping him alive.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 12:43 amMy tax dollars are keeping the Clintons out of jail.
mg (60b0f7) — 11/16/2017 @ 3:20 amFew individual plans were grandfathered, some still are. I was talking to a guy yesterday who has an Anthem plan with national PPO paying 158 a month. His wife lost her coverage so his dilemma was pay more than twice as much but no plan had national coverage or add her to his plan with no maternity.
Millions are still covered by grandfathered and grandmothered small group employer plans.
Nate Ogden (9ae4a6) — 11/16/2017 @ 4:30 amBest bet for self employed is higher the wife and kids to qualify for a group policy.
Nate Ogden (9ae4a6) — 11/16/2017 @ 4:32 amMillions are still covered by grandfathered and grandmothered small group employer plans.
Almost no employer plan was seriously affected, other than coverage options, as the indigent and otherwise unemployed are not in their insurance pool, driving the pool’s risk through the roof.
This was by design — divide and conquer where 90% of Americans are insulated and do not understand the utter horror visited upon the individual marketplace. If what happened to us happened to most people, there would not be a Democrat left in office.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 9:49 amHere’s the thing about employer plans: they only cover employed people. Folks with serious illnesses are often no longer employed. This fact holds down the costs of employer plans.
Kevin M (752a26) — 11/16/2017 @ 9:51 amSo…. they give tax breaks to the middle class then they yank them back. Republicans are slashing Obamacare with these tax bills. Then they are eliminating deductions for things like healthcare expenses, state and local taxes, mortgage interest and on and on. Things that impact most of us regular joes.
Then what? They give the Trump children one to three billion dollars in tax cuts. Billion. With a “B”. Just for one family?
You gotta be shi**in me.
noel (b4d580) — 11/17/2017 @ 5:10 am