Government will spend $33 billion more to cover 8.9 million fewer Americans, as premiums soar Those fiscal geniuses in the White House and Republican-controlled Congress have managed to do the impossible: Their sabotage of the Affordable Care Act will lead to 6.4 million fewer Americans with health insurance, while the federal bill for coverage rises by some $33 billion per year. Also, by the way, premiums in the individual market will rise by an average of more than 18%. Heck of a job. These figures come from the Urban Institute, which on Monday released the first estimate of the impact of two GOP initiatives. The first is the elimination of the individual mandate, which is an offshoot of the GOP tax-cut measure signed by President Trump in December. The measure reduced the penalty for not carrying insurance to zero as of next Jan. 1. The second is Trump's plan to expand short-term insurance plans, which don't comply with many of the ACA's essential benefits requirements and allow insurers to reject or surcharge people with preexisting medical conditions or histories. The Urban Institute broke down the impact of Trump and Republican policies thusly: -- Eliminating the individual mandate, combined with such lesser acts of vandalism as eliminating cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers last year and eviscerating the outreach and advertising budget for the 2017 ACA open enrollment period: 6.4 million more people uninsured than under previous law, as the uninsurance rate climbs to 12.5% of the nonelderly population from 10.2%. -- Expansion of short-term non-compliant policies: 2.5 million more Americans without minimum essential coverage. Short-term policies, which were limited under the Obama administration to three months maximum and no renewals, would be expanded under Trump to last up to a year. Under the law, short-term policies don't count as real Obamacare insurance. -- Premiums in the individual market: Higher by 18.2% in 2019 in "full-impact states" (41, plus the District of Columbia, which allow short-term policies under some circumstances.) Eight other states prohibit or limit the expansion of short-term policies, so their premium increases will be lower on average. Nationwide, premiums will rise by 16.4%. In Texas, North Dakota, Alabama, Nebraska and Arizona, the increases will exceed 20%. -- Because government premium subsidies rise in tandem with premium increases, the cost of subsidies borne by the government will rise by $33.3 billion next year, or 9.3% — to $391.4 billion from $358.1 billion under existing law. The mechanism by which the GOP policies will crater the individual insurance market isn't hard to understand. Both major initiatives — eliminating the individual mandate and offering bare-bones policies — siphon younger, healthier consumers out of the individual market. David Anderson, a health insurance expert at Duke University, understands why short-term policies will look like a good deal to young consumers feeling hale and hearty. Others, such as with preexisting conditions, won't even be eligible to buy those plans, guaranteeing that higher-risk patients stay in the ACA pool. Anderson posits a 23-year-old earning $35,000. That consumer would think a full-scale Obamacare plan is a good deal only if he or she has "a significant medical history or reasonable probability of pregnancy." The economically rational response for the healthy in that segment would be to pay $100 or less a month in premiums and barely use any services over the course of the year. The danger, of course, is that anyone can get hit by a bus or find themselves holding an unexpected cancer diagnoses. Then they're screwed. "Those affected by these large premium increases would be disproportionately middle-income people with health problems," the Urban Institute researchers said. That's because "they prefer health insurance that covers essential health benefits, are unlikely to have access to medically underwritten short-term limited-duration policies, and are not financially protected by the ACA's premium tax credits." Millions of others, including the U.S. taxpayer and families who need treatment and have incomes too high to be subsidized, also are screwed. That includes families with household incomes approaching or exceeding 400% of the federal poverty line: $48,560 for an individual and $100,400 for a family of four. The damage estimate can't be restricted to the immediate impact on individuals and families, the researchers observed. "As healthier enrollees exit for short-term plans, insurers will by necessity reexamine the profitability of remaining in the compliant markets. This may well lead to more insurer exits from the compliant markets in the next years, reducing choice for the people remaining and ultimately making the markets difficult to maintain." In other words, the Republican sabotage will continue to undermine health coverage in the U.S. The only alternative, it becomes clearer with every day, is some form of single-payer, Medicare-for-all coverage. That's increasingly becoming part of Democratic Party orthodoxy, and it's about time.
We also need some slogans that we can chant like robots or use as (what we think are) clever talking points.
When we subsidize horrible food instead of good food you'll see a change. When we get rid of food deserts we'll see a change. It's hard to buy expensive food that is good for you. Right now we scream up and down how broke this country is (completely untrue. We are FLUSH with cash.) but we throw away 51% of our food while people go hungry. That's literally some Hunger Games type shit. I think the food stamp program should be expanded to include us all, and restaurants should be allowed to accept them. We know every dollar spent generates $1.70 in economic stimulus. Everyone should get to eat.
Those aren't counterpoints. Those are positives. Oh wait, Hillary is gonna be indicted any day now. And we all know Obama was born in Kenya.
I eat healthy. Very healthy. Legumes, organic produce, whole grains, fruit, nuts, occasional chicken/fish. I don't smoke. I exercise daily. Very light alcohol consumption. I use no fragrance products or chemical cleaners and my garden uses no pesticides/herbicides. I've been sick since January and need more testing; two doctors and three rounds have ruled out everything but a cancer for which I am at very low risk. But statistics teaches that if the probability of an event is greater than zero it will occur somewhere in the universe. And I will need to pay for my own health insurance for about a year. This is not abstract. So stop trying to blame people who get sick for needing health care because I don't fucking want to hear it.
What’s interesting in the not too distance future is Lab-grown meat like the ones being researched by Memphis meats. The meat is not only more ethical in that you don’t need to kill for it, but it also comes at a lower energy cost. It will take about 2% of the energy to Lab-grow a steak then it would to raise cattle for slaughter. But-it will also result in cheaper meat for the masses that will be much healthier. Once we are able to fully grow a steak correctly then we can turn on/off genes to adjust the fat-content or even what type of fat is produced. Imagine getting a steak that includes healthy omega-3 fatty acids. We are only a few years out. And once that switch occurred the price will drop due to economics of scale, All the cattle grazing land will be able to convert either back to their original state or switched to veggies. Meat could be grown ethically in very condensed properties greatly reducing the territory required.
Sounds cool in theory. But so does alternative fuels. Though I'm not sure if I'm keen on watching children hit puberty at the age of 5.
Meh. As we speak we can make clean burning food with hemp biomass. We could replace oil within 5-10 years if we were aggressive enough. Coincidently, that is also the reason why it won't happen.
Not aggressive enough because ''''''''''''''special interest groups'''''''''''''' or sorry, superpacs. aka big oil, etc. Will pay off candidates to keep this from happening. As it would effect their bottom line. Hm. Or the storyline behind Cars 2 would come to fruition. Similar with food. They don't care what is ate, as the demand says people are hungry. So there will always be people willing to eat less than quality food which effects their health. Edit. Sorry @dviss1 I'm not trying to derail your topic. Will stop.
I don't want a healthy steak. I want one with great marbling and a nice amount of fat around the outside that I can burn on the grill as I cook my steak charred, medium rare. Open a nice bottle of red to go with it and a baked potato and I'm pretty much in heaven. However, I don't eat steak all that often and, when I was able, worked out like a dog. I also eat pretty healthy the rest of the time. So, don't rag on me
