Warren's big healthcare plan relies on big assumptions

[RideJocky]

27 minutes ago, samran said:

No, this is where you a fundamentally wrong. I'll just address just one of your points.

 

How convenient 

 

27 minutes ago, samran said:

 

Markets work very well when a number of things happen:

 

- Many sellers, and a market easy enough for them to enter into: So there is competition amongst this group to sell for the best price
 

 

I agree, but we have many sellers in the US, and you seem to be insisting we only have one.

 

27 minutes ago, samran said:

- Well informed buyers: People more or less know what they are purchasing, and because of the price signals set out from sellers, know what the prices are.

 

I agree. People are too detached from the actual cost. Single payer will improve this how? 
 

It won’t, it will make it worse.

 

27 minutes ago, samran said:

- Choice and ability to substitute: Don't like what this person is offering? Go elsewhere.
 

 

We can this in the US, you think we should only have. one choice.

 

27 minutes ago, samran said:

- A defined budget: You know roughly what money you have to spend.

 

To give an easy example. You need transport.

 

- You can't afford a Merc? Buy a Toyota. Not enough cash for a new Toyota? Buy second hand.

- Don't like what this dealer is offering? Go up the road and see what the next dealer is selling

- Not sure or this model? Read up on it a bit.

- Still can't afford a car, or decide you don't 'really' need one. Then walking, the bus, a bike or the train are still options.

 

So in a well functioning market you have all the ingredients: Many sellers, Well informed buyers, Choice, a decent substitute and a budget you can stick to.

 

In the end You get to where you want to go.
 

 

 

We can do this now in the US. If you have good insurance you can go where you want. 
 

If you don’t any you’re old enough, you can go to the places that charge less.

 

If you have no money you get on Medical or Medicaid or some-such. 
 

If you’re rich you can go anywhere you want.

 

27 minutes ago, samran said:

 

Next question: Do these preconditions exist in medical care? Lets see:

One can make most of the same arguments for food or water or shelter.

 

in any event, I agree the healthcare market is not competitive enough and believe it is over regulated. But I would rather see it deregulated and more competitive, not more heavily regulated and less competitive. 
 

Where are you from again?

[samran]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

How convenient 

 

 

I agree, but we have many sellers in the US, and you seem to be insisting we only have one.

 

 

I agree. People are too detached from the actual cost. Single payer will improve this how? 
 

It won’t, it will make it worse.

 

 

We can this in the US, you think we should only have. one choice.

 

 

We can do this now in the US. If you have good insurance you can go where you want. 
 

If you don’t any you’re old enough, you can go to the places that charge less.

 

If you have no money you get on Medical or Medicaid or some-such. 
 

If you’re rich you can go anywhere you want.

 

One can make most of the same arguments for food or water or shelter.

 

in any event, I agree the healthcare market is not competitive enough and believe it is over regulated. But I would rather see it deregulated and more competitive, not more heavily regulated and less competitive. 
 

Where are you from again?

So we disagree, that's fine. 

 

You can structure the solution in a number of ways. But wishing, hoping for 'competition' to be the panacea isn't one of them. Cause as I said, competition wont work. The preconditions for a successful competitive market just don't exist with a 'product' like medical care.

 

I never said you don't have a range of doctors/sellers. What I have said that as a group, they enjoy a large amount of market power. The economic term is 'oligopoly'.

 

One interesting thing I've noticed in this debate. And its only American's who really do this. Why is it important to know where I am from? Is it really so you can go 'ah ha! there, you understand nothing?'. I mean really?

 

What I'm saying - basic economic fundamentals and the evidence behind it - doesn't change depending on where you are from. 

[RideJocky]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I read Samran's reply carefully and it seems to me that his position was plainly clear . "Health insurance is not the same as other markets" as you claimed. 

I think he made a compelling argument.  What is your rebuttal , or do you concede the point and change the subject??

If you read his post carefully you know he only chose to address ONE of my points, yes? 
 

I read his argument and understand his position. I also agree on several points. 
 

What I don’t understand is how eliminating competition is going to improve things. 
 

How much does lasik cost in the US?  

[olfu]

Warren promise something?

Promises and reality is/are two different things.

comrade Trump promised fix illegal immigration--after 3 years the number of illegal entries is absolutely same.

I listen to empty talking about fixing healthcare nonstop from every President. Reality? Things are same.

[samran]

21 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

If you read his post carefully you know he only chose to address ONE of my points, yes? 
 

I read his argument and understand his position. I also agree on several points. 
 

What I don’t understand is how eliminating competition is going to improve things. 
 

How much does lasik cost in the US?  

Competition, when it works, allows a fair negotiation between buyer and seller.

 

What you have in the US isn't 'regulation' affecting competition. it is basically the result of leaving medical care 'to the market' and what you end up is an noncompetitive outcome. Buyers and sellers are never equal.

 

Unless you can figure out a way to train a doctor fully in one year or less and only need a high school diploma to get into med school, and develop a medical treatment that can be dispensed at a corner store, then it is likely to remain that way.

 

Interesting you bring up Lasik. It is a product for which people can chose. They can get cheap-<deleted> glasses if they can't afford it, contacts if they don't want laser beams shot at their eyes, or they can squint.

 

Plenty of choice/options there and an area of 'health', where you can have the market more or less do its thing.

 

For other stuff, the critical, non-negotiable stuff, the market fails and fails regularly. A bit like the military, interstates and critical infastructure, you need a single entity to step in an mobilise the resources to deliver that outcome in a better way. Unpalatable for a subsection of Americans. I get it.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[RideJocky]

2 minutes ago, samran said:

So we disagree, that's fine. 

 

You can structure the solution in a number of ways. But wishing, hoping for 'competition' to be the panacea isn't one of them. Cause as I said, competition wont work. The preconditions for a successful competitive market just don't exist with a 'product' like medical care.

 

I never said you don't have a range of doctors/sellers. What I have said that as a group, they enjoy a large amount of market power. The economic term is 'oligopoly'.

 

One interesting thing I've noticed in this debate. And its only American's who really do this. Why is it important to know where I am from? Is it really so you can go 'ah ha! there, you understand nothing?'. I mean really?

 

What I'm saying - basic economic fundamentals and the evidence behind it - doesn't change depending on where you are from. 

It’s been my experience that virtually anything (popular) that is sold on the open market where people pay for what they get directly is good value. 

It’s likely only Americans ask because most people not from the US (and people from EU countries in particular)  most always seem to have a view of the US they learned on CNN. 
 

You know nothing about our medical healthcare system but what you see on the news, which would have you believe we have poor quality healthcare, and it you don’t have insurance you’ll be left to bleed out in  the street after an accident, which is ridiculous. 
 

You don’t want to say where your from, don’t.

 

So again, we spend more than most on education, out outcome is worse than most, any the government runs it, Why wound we expect healthcare to be any different? 
 

 

[Curt1591]

After looking at so many memes, of people living in squalor, it dawn on me that most of these people are living under programs provided by the government. This is the same government that wants to "provide" all the necessities for the entire nation!

[RideJocky]

9 minutes ago, samran said:

Competition, when it works, allows a fair negotiation between buyer and seller.

 

Can I negotiate the price of food at the grocer? 

 

Quote

 

What you have in the US isn't 'regulation' affecting competition. it is basically the result of leaving medical care 'to the market' and what you end up is an noncompetitive outcome. Buyers and sellers are never equal.
 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth, and the ACA made it even worse. 

 

Quote

 

Unless you can figure out a way to train a doctor fully in one year or less and only need a high school diploma to get into med school, and develop a medical treatment that can be dispensed at a corner store, then it is likely to remain that way.
 

 

The number of doctors is held down by the AMA. License more medical schools, let more people go to medical school and we’d have more doctors. 
 

let people buy medicine from the pharmacist and you’d need fewer.

 

Quote

 

Interesting you bring up Lasik. It is a product for which people can chose. They can get cheap-<deleted> glasses if they can't afford it, contacts if they don't want laser beams shot at their eyes, or they can squint.
 

 

Yes, choice and competition, both reduced/eliminated with single payer,

 

Quote

 

Plenty of choice/options there and an area of 'health', where you can have the market more or less do its thing.

 

For other stuff, the critical, non-negotiable stuff, the market fails and fails regularly. A bit like the military, interstates and critical infastructure, you need a single entity to step in an mobilise the resources to deliver that outcome in a better way. Unpalatable for a subsection of Americans. I get it.

 

 

 

Are you “taking the <deleted>?” (just kidding) 

 

I see see a big difference between interstate, infrastructure and military, but even in these cases, the government builds virtually none of this, it’s all let out to bid by the private sector, yes? 
 

Every infrastructure and defense contractor has hundreds or thousands of sub-contractors. 
 

Would you rather fly in an aircraft built by Boeing (or even Airbus) or the government? 
 

 

 

 

[samran]

41 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Can I negotiate the price of food at the grocer? 

 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth, and the ACA made it even worse. 

 

 

The number of doctors is held down by the AMA. License more medical schools, let more people go to medical school and we’d have more doctors. 
 

let people buy medicine from the pharmacist and you’d need fewer.

 

 

Yes, choice and competition, both reduced/eliminated with single payer,

 

 

Are you “taking the <deleted>?” (just kidding) 

 

I see see a big difference between interstate, infrastructure and military, but even in these cases, the government builds virtually none of this, it’s all let out to bid by the private sector, yes? 
 

Every infrastructure and defense contractor has hundreds or thousands of sub-contractors. 
 

Would you rather fly in an aircraft built by Boeing (or even Airbus) or the government? 
 

 

 

 

economically, those sectors (military, critical infrastructure, public services) aren’t too much different to medical care. 
 

You don’t choose your national defense strategy in the lounge room. It’s made with bigger things in mind.

 

Funny you accuse me about not knowing too much about the American medical system. Seems you’re pretty much in the dark about how the rest of the world works. 
 

What, for instance.  makes you think that doctors and hospitals under single payer models have to be public servants? A lot of this stuff can be done by private entities, but they have to negotiate with one buyer.

 

as for the AMA (the doctors union I call them) being a obstacle, yep I agree. But it isn’t the panacea.

Edited November 8, 2019 by samran

[Umber]

On 11/2/2019 at 6:45 PM, Crazy Alex said:

Because government sucks at reducing the costs of anything. Specifically to Warren's proposal, there are a plethora of flaws. The most obvious is dumping tens of millions if not more people into a system that up until now people paid into for decades without receiving benefits.

 

For example, a hypothetical Medicare recipient: at age 65, becomes eligible for benefits. Begins benefits with tens of thousands of dollars vested over decades.

 

New Medicare recipient: eligible now with little to nothing vested.

 

Pretty big financial hole to plug up. Going after evil rich people won't cut it.

Americans pay more money in tax towards government health care than almost all other nations.

 

The difference is mostly that working tax-paying Americans pay a bit more in tax towards health care, and also have to get insurance. Because the government healthcare in the US mostly do not cover working taxpayers. Americans like it that way I think, they pay twice as much as everyone else for fairly poor care, to avoid having to cover the whole population.

 

Anyway, have worked in the US and Norway; differences in personal tax rates are small. The notion that Scandinavian taxes are higher than the US is mostly build on Danish and to a lesser degree Swedish tax rates.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Umber

[Umber]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

It’s been my experience that virtually anything (popular) that is sold on the open market where people pay for what they get directly is good value. 

 

Markets are not that simple. Even Adam Smith, back in ye olde "Wealth of Nations" noted that some areas are not suited for market provision. He named contract arbitration and national defense. As in so many things, he was right. There are many things that can lead to market failure. ironically, it was an American, Kenneth Arrow, that founded the branch of economics known as "Health care Economics" during the work on uncertainties which won him the Nobel prize in Economics. The seminal work, "Uncertainties and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care" is available online in pdf, and quite readable for Nobel prize winning work.

 

The field have moved on since 1963 of course, and none of the theory or real world experience has indicated that the market is functional as a provider of most kinds of health care. Health care just has too many of the features that lead to market failure. 

 

Now in my personal opinion, the biggest one is lack of price elasticity. Which means the purchasers ability to refuse the product if it is too expensive is nonexistent for medically necessary things. In sub-areas such as liposuction, nosejobs, Lasik etc, the market works well. For cancer, diabetes, pulmonary issues etc, it collapses. There is a reason the US healthcare sector costs so much, delivers substandard results and do not get adopted by any other nations.

 

There are many other issues of course. Information asymmetry, barriers to entry, people being both the custodians of their health and consumers, the customers most in need of the product being the leas attractive customers (for insurance provision), et, etc. Its a big field.

 

https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf

Edited November 8, 2019 by Umber

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

If you read his post carefully you know he only chose to address ONE of my points, yes? 
 

I read his argument and understand his position. I also agree on several points. 
 

What I don’t understand is how eliminating competition is going to improve things. 
 

How much does lasik cost in the US?  

Eliminating competition is not how costs will be reduced, Costs will be reduced by eliminating the profit factor , elimination of multiple operating officers, and centralised purchasing and hiring, 

   But without getting in to the specifics and arguing specific points.

It will be accomplished the same way it is accomplished by every other country in the developed world. 

We actually have an advantage over them, we don't need to invent the system, simply adapt the pest part of each one of them. 

[Cryingdick]

The problem with this thread is it is now a debate about whether or not universal healthcare in general is good or bad. We should stick to the topic which is Warren's utterly unrealistic plan to try to force it on everybody. 

 

What they do in Sweden isn't what this topic is about. So can we please keep it to Warren's plan? 

 

The good thing is now she is the frontrunner it doesn't matter what is said here, not that it ever did. Bloomberg is about to get involved in this and show what a fool Warren is.

 

Saw a clip of Bill Gates wondering about taxes and he was being nice about it. Warren tweets that he could meet her and she would be willing to talk to him even if they don't see eye to eye on it. About an hour later she shows up mocking Bill for crying about taxes. She almost started cackling. 

 

The "squad" went to Bernie, Hillary says Warren's plan will never ever be put into law, Biden knows it is all make believe as under Obama they attempted less radical solutions that went nowhere. 

 

As Buttigieg said she seems more concerned about the fight than the result. Day by day more articles against Warren's plan surface and in more liberal papers like NYT, WAPO, etc.

 

So as things stand the main problem with Warren's plan is that it never ever will get through both chambers and become the law. All debates about it's merit are merely hypothetical, it's like debating if superman can beat up batman.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Cryingdick

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, samran said:

economically, those sectors (military, critical infrastructure, public services) aren’t too much different to medical care.

 

How’s that, they all cost money? You could make the same argument for any service industry. 

 

1 hour ago, samran said:

You don’t choose your national defense strategy in the lounge room. It’s made with bigger things in mind.
 

 

Not sure how this addresses anything I said. Do you believe that I think a couple generals get together over drinks and scratch it out on a napkin? 

 

1 hour ago, samran said:

 

Funny you accuse me about not knowing too much about the American medical system. Seems you’re pretty much in the dark about how the rest of the world works.

 

What, for instance.  makes you think that doctors and hospitals under single payer models have to be public servants? A lot of this stuff can be done by private entities, but they have to negotiate with one buyer.

 

Why is that funny? I never claimed (in this thread)  to know anything about the rest of the world, while you on the other hand seem to “know” a lot of things about the US system that are just wrong. 

 

I never said said that doctors and hospitals under single payer had to be public servants, you just made that up. But if the government is paying them, they really only have one customer.  

 

1 hour ago, samran said:

 

as for the AMA (the doctors union I call them) being a obstacle, yep I agree. But it isn’t the panacea.

Call them what you will, but you indicated that getting more doctors would be very difficult. It’s my position that getting more doctors would not be difficult if you accredited more medical schools, and the AMA stands in the way of that. 
 

Seems to me the only “panacea”. being promoted here is single payer.

 

So far, the argument seems to be the government will take over the healthcare insurance industry, provide everyone with (I assume) unlimited services at no cost to the individual, and reduce costs by paying the hospitals less. That about it?

 

So what country do you think has the best system?

 

 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, Umber said:

Americans pay more money in tax towards government health care than almost all other nations.

 

The difference is mostly that working tax-paying Americans pay a bit more in tax towards health care, and also have to get insurance. Because the government healthcare in the US mostly do not cover working taxpayers. Americans like it that way I think, they pay twice as much as everyone else for fairly poor care, to avoid having to cover the whole population.

 

Anyway, have worked in the US and Norway; differences in personal tax rates are small. The notion that Scandinavian taxes are higher than the US is mostly build on Danish and to a lesser degree Swedish tax rates.

So what kind of healthcare did you receive while you were working in the US?

[RideJocky]

51 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Eliminating competition is not how costs will be reduced, Costs will be reduced by eliminating the profit factor , elimination of multiple operating officers, and centralised purchasing and hiring, 

   But without getting in to the specifics and arguing specific points.

It will be accomplished the same way it is accomplished by every other country in the developed world. 
 

 

51 minutes ago, sirineou said:

We actually have an advantage over them, we don't need to invent the system, simply adapt the pest part of each one of them. 

Yes, I wonder why everyone doesn’t do that. 
 

So who’s system do you think is best? 
 

 

[RideJocky]

14 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The problem with this thread is it is now a debate about whether or not universal healthcare in general is good or bad. We should stick to the topic which is Warren's utterly unrealistic plan to try to force it on everybody. 

 

What they do in Sweden isn't what this topic is about. So can we please keep it to Warren's plan? 

 

The good thing is now she is the frontrunner it doesn't matter what is said here, not that it ever did. Bloomberg is about to get involved in this and show what a fool Warren is.

 

Saw a clip of Bill Gates wondering about taxes and he was being nice about it. Warren tweets that he could meet her and she would be willing to talk to him even if they don't see eye to eye on it. About an hour later she shows up mocking Bill for crying about taxes. She almost started cackling. 

 

The "squad" went to Bernie, Hillary says Warren's plan will never ever be put into law, Biden knows it is all make believe as under Obama they attempted less radical solutions that went nowhere. 

 

As Buttigieg said she seems more concerned about the fight than the result. Day by day more articles against Warren's plan surface and in more liberal papers like NYT, WAPO, etc.

 

So as things stand the main problem with Warren's plan is that it never ever will get through with chambers and become the law. All debates about it's merit are merely hypothetical, it's like debating if superman can beat up batman.

I think Warren’s plan of not raising taxes (except on the greedy rich) is brilliant. 
 

We provide healthcare to everyone, and save money by making it free. 
 

There is not debate. If Batman ever goes to bed at night and dreams about selling wolf tickets to Superman, he better wake up and apologize!!!!

[Cryingdick]

Just now, RideJocky said:

I think Warren’s plan of not raising taxes (except on the greedy rich) is brilliant. 
 

We provide healthcare to everyone, and save money by making it free. 
 

There is not debate. If Batman ever goes to bed at night and dreams about selling wolf tickets to Superman, he better wake up and apologize!!!!

 

You are that guy that won school president by giving out free pizza!!! Sir it is an honor to be in your presence.

[Umber]

39 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I think Warren’s plan of not raising taxes (except on the greedy rich) is brilliant. 
 

We provide healthcare to everyone, and save money by making it free. 
 

There is not debate. If Batman ever goes to bed at night and dreams about selling wolf tickets to Superman, he better wake up and apologize!!!!

52 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

 

So who’s system do you think is best? 
 

 

This is actually theoretically possible. The US system overspends by so much that if you can bring costs down even close to what other nations spend, there is plenty of economic room to do both. I say theoretically because any such huge system overhaul would be very ticklish to actually pull off.

 

The US currently spends about 3.2 trillion $ on healthcare. About 10 000 per citizen. Other nations spend roughly 5 000. Thats a total difference of 1 600 billion. The US military expenditure is less than 400 billion per year. Total world biomedical research is about 330 billion.

 

As for best... whats the definition of best? Health per dollar spent? Best public health results? Fastest response time? Best preventive care? Best coverage of specialists? Different systems do well in different areas.

 

[Umber]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

So what kind of healthcare did you receive while you were working in the US?

Something provided by the company I was there for. I had a medical examination, I remember. It was the 80s and I was indestructible in the way you are when young.

 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

It will be accomplished the same way it is accomplished by every other country in the developed world. 

We actually have an advantage over them, we don't need to invent the system, simply adapt the best part of each one of them. 

Taiwan, I think, made a very through examination of the worlds UHC systems, strong and weak points, short and long term consequences, a few year back when planning out their own UHC system. I am sure the US could have a copy of the report for the asking. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Umber

[sirineou]

28 minutes ago, Umber said:

Something provided by the company I was there for. I had a medical examination, I remember. It was the 80s and I was indestructible in the way you are when young.

 

Taiwan I think made a very through examination of the worlds UHC systems a few year back when planning out their own. I am sure the US could have a copy for the asking. 

and you got your first "Like" in this forum, one of many to come  I am sure

Welcome to the forum.

Edited November 8, 2019 by sirineou
typo, one of many to come I an sure LOL

[RideJocky]

7 hours ago, Umber said:

Something provided by the company I was there for. I had a medical examination, I remember. It was the 80s and I was indestructible in the way you are when young.

 

 

So did you actually use it or no? 
 

You claimed our system was of poor quality, I was wondering how you knew that.

[RideJocky]

7 hours ago, Umber said:

 

Taiwan, I think, made a very through examination of the worlds UHC systems, strong and weak points, short and long term consequences, a few year back when planning out their own UHC system. I am sure the US could have a copy of the report for the asking. 

I would rather see us try more of a free market system. 
 

[bristolboy]

With Medical Bills Skyrocketing, More Hospitals Are Suing for Payment

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/hospitals-lawsuits-medical-debt.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

[bristolboy]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Trump Is Trying Hard To Thwart Obamacare. How's That Going?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/14/768731628/trump-is-trying-hard-to-thwart-obamacare-hows-that-going

The Trump administration’s latest steps to undermine the Affordable Care Act, explained

"All the new Trump policies are working in tandem to drive up the costs of Obamacare — as did the president’s decision to end Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers last year and the Republican repeal of the individual mandate in the tax law. Premiums are still rising by the double digits on average across the country because of Trump’s and the GOP’s actions."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/12/17561214/obamacare-open-enrollment-2019-premiums-trump

[RideJocky]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump Is Trying Hard To Thwart Obamacare. How's That Going?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/14/768731628/trump-is-trying-hard-to-thwart-obamacare-hows-that-going

The Trump administration’s latest steps to undermine the Affordable Care Act, explained

"All the new Trump policies are working in tandem to drive up the costs of Obamacare — as did the president’s decision to end Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers last year and the Republican repeal of the individual mandate in the tax law. Premiums are still rising by the double digits on average across the country because of Trump’s and the GOP’s actions."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/12/17561214/obamacare-open-enrollment-2019-premiums-trump

But-but-but Trump 

Of course it’s all Trump and the republican’s fault. 
 

it was working perfectly and premiums were plummeting until the evil orange one was elected. 
 

Didn’t get to keep my plan

Deductible more than doubled  

Premium went up 35% the first year

It was a little easier to get it free for a few people that were already getting it free. 
 

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

But-but-but Trump 

Of course it’s all Trump and the republican’s fault. 
 

it was working perfectly and premiums were plummeting until the evil orange one was elected. 
 

Didn’t get to keep my plan

Deductible more than doubled  

Premium went up 35% the first year

It was a little easier to get it free for a few people that were already getting it free. 
 

 

Unfortunately for Americans, once the Republicans got control of the House, any improvements were not going to be made. But in fact rates are going down again and would be going down a lot more if it weren't for Trump. Instead, he's okayed terrible policies that don't cover pre-existing conditions and don't do much to protect the people who buy them. Back to the bad old days.

[Crazy Alex]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Unfortunately for Americans, once the Republicans got control of the House, any improvements were not going to be made. But in fact rates are going down again and would be going down a lot more if it weren't for Trump. Instead, he's okayed terrible policies that don't cover pre-existing conditions and don't do much to protect the people who buy them. Back to the bad old days.

So rates are going down under the Trump administration and the best you can do is speculate that they'd be going down even further if not for Trump- despite Obamacare increasing instead of decreasing rates. I'm having trouble understanding the mental gymnastics one needs to believe such hilarious rubbish.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

So rates are going down under the Trump administration and the best you can do is speculate that they'd be going down even further if not for Trump- despite Obamacare increasing instead of decreasing rates. I'm having trouble understanding the mental gymnastics one needs to believe such hilarious rubbish.

It's not speculation. For one thing, Trump cut funds for insurance companies to subsidize rates. 

"Last October, Trump cut off what are known as "cost-sharing reduction" payments, which go to insurance companies to cover deductibles and co-payments for low-income policyholders.

The Congressional Budget Office said eliminating the cost-sharing payments would raise premiums by 20 percent next year and 25 percent by 2020, and trigger higher subsidies that would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion over 10 years."

https://www.nj.com/politics/2018/08/7_ways_trump_and_the_republicans_are_sabotaging_ob.html

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's not speculation. For one thing, Trump cut funds for insurance companies to subsidize rates. 

"Last October, Trump cut off what are known as "cost-sharing reduction" payments, which go to insurance companies to cover deductibles and co-payments for low-income policyholders.

The Congressional Budget Office said eliminating the cost-sharing payments would raise premiums by 20 percent next year and 25 percent by 2020, and trigger higher subsidies that would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion over 10 years."

https://www.nj.com/politics/2018/08/7_ways_trump_and_the_republicans_are_sabotaging_ob.html

OK, so it's the CBO speculating. My bad.