Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
ACA repeal wheels in motion vs The Twilight Zone and railroad switch yards.....
If you want to say context matters, that's fine. Talking about balanced funds is a bit different from talking about one's portfolio. But neither context is the same as talking about insurance coverage.
Perhaps something closer to the mark: Is it fair to say that most people have life insurance (62%)? Is it misleading to say that most people buying individual health insurance buy it on exchanges (64%)?
Suggest you listen to how you yourself actually use it in daily speech, understand it when reading, and write it. Not a matter of 'fairness'. 'Most people have life insurance.' Ask your friends or family or kids or colleagues what they think that means.
You are just again auto-chopbusting here, seems to me. Whatever.
To return to the topic, even mooter, and worse: boons for the rich, and a gigantic f-u to women.
Most people who voted didn't vote for Hillary. Yup, I'll bet everyone thinks that means Trump got 80% of the vote. Well, not everyone, just most people
LATimes opinion column: "All of Obamacare’s taxes are repealed" KHN news headline: "GOP Overhaul Would Keep Obamacare’s ‘Cadillac Tax,’ But Delay It Until 2025"
I'll take the news straight up.
Hyperventillating opinion writers don't help when you already have solid facts on your side. Instead of exaggerating some facts, one could offer additional facts accurately.
For example, the ACA had cut subsidies to hospitals to pay for ER services to the uninsured, under the premise that fewer people were uninsured. (You rarely heard about this when investors talked about how hospitals were going to make out great because of all the new insurance out there.) I noticed that this proposal restores those subsidies. Wonder where that money will come from.
Here's the full text of the draft bill - it's only 123 pages, double spaced (legal ruled), so it ought to be relatively easy to find provisions of interest on your own. Though the legalize form of this, like any bill, is daunting (you either trust the section headings or go through the painful exercise of integrating it with existing statutes). http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3492570-GOP-s-Obamacare-replacement-plan-American-Health.html
The war on women continues. From the proposed act itself:
For the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, no Federal funds provided from a program referred to in this subsection that is considered direct spending for any year may be made available to a State for payments to a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the prohibited entity or through a managed care organization under contract with the State. PROHIBITED ENTITY .—The term ‘‘prohibited entity’’ means an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics— that, as of the date of enactment of this Act— is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code; (ii) is an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and provides for abortions...
That's the supposed Planned Parenthood "defunding". On the plus side, it's "only" for a year. On the minus side, it affects all healthcare providers, not just PP. (Otherwise it would look like a bill of attainder, albeit not criminalizing anything. Besides, why not get all the little fishes in the same net?)
Also, on the minus side is the fact that women use Planned Parenthood and other family planning services for a lot more than just abortions, but contraception, prenatal care, post-natal care, etc. The terrible irony is that by forcing women to bear children while simultaneously cutting back on Medicaid spending, the government will virtually ensure the cycle of poverty continues as many of the poorest people are young single mothers.
"the government will virtually ensure the cycle of poverty continues as many of the poorest people are young single mothers"
[sarc] How else are we going to insure that there's always "us" and "them"? If everyone was like "us", who would be left to do the menial work, especially once we deport all those others? Besides, it serves them right for fooling around outside marriage. [/sarc]
"...the government will virtually ensure the cycle of poverty continues as many of the poorest people are young single mothers."
As a former fetus, I do not believe the extermination of life is a cure for poverty though I suppose many governments (present and past) would disagree.
Here's an interesting discussion on the potential impact abortion has on crime rates (the theory that poverty necessitates crime).
IMHO, eliminating children so that they won't cycle into (poverty and crime) seems as uncivilized as it gets, but when you call it Planned Parenthood you can fool 'em almost every time.
@bee I'm not going to debate you about abortion. I'm talking about contraception, STD services, prenatal and post-natal care. Last I checked, abortion services accounted for 3% of Planned Parenthood's services while contraception accounts for 34%: npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money The only thing I will say is the government shouldn't hold a gun to the head of the organization over abortion rights by threatening to de-fund the entire program if it doesn't stop performing them. There are too many other valuable services the organization provides for everyone that go way beyond the abortion issue.
... it’s really about replacing relatively solid pillars with half-measures, severely and probably fatally weakening the whole structure. First, the individual mandate – already too weak, so that too many healthy people opt out – is replaced by a penalty imposed if and only if the uninsured decide to enter the market later. This wouldn’t do much. Second, the ACA subsidies, which are linked both to income and to the cost of insurance, are replaced by flat tax credits which would be worth much less to lower-income Americans, the very people most likely to need help buying insurance. Taken together, these moves would almost surely lead to a death spiral. Healthy individuals, especially low-income households no longer receiving adequate aid, would opt out, worsening the risk pool. Premiums would soar – without the cushion created by the current, price-linked subsidy formula — leading more healthy people to exit. In much of the country, the individual markets would probably collapse.
Just like Kansas is the laboratory for GOP fiscal ideas, Texas serves the same purpose for testing healthcare market notions, such as restricting access for prenatal healthcare. Texas now has the country's highest maternal death rate, and even higher than all other developed countries. A few years ago they also enacted tort reform for healthcare malpractice to reduce the cost of healthcare delivery. That didn't work either.
From a news site recently recommended by an MFO member:
"The GOP health care plan is in critical condition. The plan is going to have to fight a three-front war to survive: 1) conservatives are calling this “Obamacare-Lite” or “Obamacare 2.0”; 2) moderates want to keep Medicaid expansion and Planned Parenthood funding; 3) and powerful/influential industry groups, like AARP and the American Hospital Association."
How Republican opposition to healthcare reform is taking shape:
These are the five most important people or groups on the fence about the proposal so far: • House Freedom Caucus • Senate conservatives • Outside groups- These include the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Freedom Works and the Koch network-affiliated Freedom Partners. • Republicans concerned about Medicaid • Planned Parenthood
American Medical Association Opposes Republican Health Plan
"The American Medical Association, a powerful lobbying group representing the nation’s doctors, announced on Wednesday that it opposed the House Republicans’ proposed legislation to replace the federal health care law, saying it was concerned the bill “would result in millions of Americans losing coverage and benefits.”
Spicer's comment (paraphrase) was: sure it would be nice to get support from lots of groups, but it's not about paying off lots of beltway groups to get their buy-in. We [Trump et al.] are working for the American people, not these groups.
Oh, he added that doctors (as contrasted with the AMA) were involved in designing the plan. Tom Price, for one (33:25).
Here's the press conference; check it out starting at the 30:00 mark.
I believe the Republican health care plan has been titled the "We Just Don't Care" plan. IOW - screw you if you're old or poor and can't afford to pay for health care.
Three times the number of people who pay full freight have no coverage at all. Here's KFF's data page showing its latest data (2015). The figures don't change much from year to year.
I've adjusted the settings so that it shows only the US as a whole. You can also get the state-by-state breakdown.
That same 3x ratio applies when comparing the relatively small number of people who purchase individual insurance (on and off exchange combined) with the number covered through Medicaid. The current Congressional proposals affect all Medicaid recipients (because of block grants), not just those benefiting from the ACA expansion.
At some point, you have to recognize that most of the people affected by the "replace" proposals are indeed Medicaid recipients. Is 75% enough to count as "most"?
Sure, the 3% of people paying full ACA premiums aren't chopped liver (I'm among the few, the proud, the ... never mind, wrong slogan). But it's important to keep your eye on the ball. The bullseye is painted on the Medicaid 20%. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)
The article notes that one of the conservative desires was to eliminate the employer tax deduction for health care, but that didn't make it into the bill (though the Cadillac tax was not eliminated). This is one of the ideas floating around that I actually think has merit.
As noted, the effect would be to kill employer-sponsored insurance. While this wouldn't increase tax revenues (the stated objective of the change), it would address a couple of conservative objectives and a liberal one.
It would reduce the overhead of US companies, making them more competitive internationally (foreign countries don't don't rely on health coverage through employers). It would "level the playing field", allowing workers to go anywhere, including working for themselves or starting businesses, without being biased by health coverage concerns. (Say what you will, ACA individual plans are inferior to group plans.)
On the other side, instead of7% of the public on individual plans, you'd now have 57% on individual plans. A really large pool, and enough potential pressure to get this done right.
Comments
http://www.vox.com/2017/3/6/14829526/american-health-care-act-gop-replacement
http://www.vanguard.com/funds/reports/wellar.pdf (2009 annual report, p. 5, pdf p. 7)
Kinnel/M*: "Vanguard Wellington is just a great balanced fund. ... It's mostly in equities, but it's a smoother ride than you'll get from a pure equity fund." 60/40
http://beta.morningstar.com/videos/536969/Kinnels-Picks-for-IRA-Investors.html
If you want to say context matters, that's fine. Talking about balanced funds is a bit different from talking about one's portfolio. But neither context is the same as talking about insurance coverage.
Perhaps something closer to the mark: Is it fair to say that most people have life insurance (62%)? Is it misleading to say that most people buying individual health insurance buy it on exchanges (64%)?
Most, not the vast majority.
You are just again auto-chopbusting here, seems to me. Whatever.
To return to the topic, even mooter, and worse: boons for the rich, and a gigantic f-u to women.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-repeal-20170306-story.html
and lol
\\ The bill even does away with a provision meant to tax incomes of insurance executives that top $500,000.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/upshot/gop-health-bill-would-cut-funding-for-poor-and-taxes-on-rich.html
Looks as though its future may not be assured. One can hope.
LATimes opinion column: "All of Obamacare’s taxes are repealed"
KHN news headline: "GOP Overhaul Would Keep Obamacare’s ‘Cadillac Tax,’ But Delay It Until 2025"
I'll take the news straight up.
Hyperventillating opinion writers don't help when you already have solid facts on your side. Instead of exaggerating some facts, one could offer additional facts accurately.
For example, the ACA had cut subsidies to hospitals to pay for ER services to the uninsured, under the premise that fewer people were uninsured. (You rarely heard about this when investors talked about how hospitals were going to make out great because of all the new insurance out there.) I noticed that this proposal restores those subsidies. Wonder where that money will come from.
Here's the full text of the draft bill - it's only 123 pages, double spaced (legal ruled), so it ought to be relatively easy to find provisions of interest on your own. Though the legalize form of this, like any bill, is daunting (you either trust the section headings or go through the painful exercise of integrating it with existing statutes).
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3492570-GOP-s-Obamacare-replacement-plan-American-Health.html
[sarc] How else are we going to insure that there's always "us" and "them"? If everyone was like "us", who would be left to do the menial work, especially once we deport all those others? Besides, it serves them right for fooling around outside marriage. [/sarc]
Remember Foster Friess from Brandywine Funds: cbsnews.com/news/foster-friess-in-my-day-women-used-bayer-aspirin-for-contraceptives/
Look, I made this thread mutual fund related!
Here's an interesting discussion on the potential impact abortion has on crime rates (the theory that poverty necessitates crime).
IMHO, eliminating children so that they won't cycle into (poverty and crime) seems as uncivilized as it gets, but when you call it Planned Parenthood you can fool 'em almost every time.
abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe?
The only thing I will say is the government shouldn't hold a gun to the head of the organization over abortion rights by threatening to de-fund the entire program if it doesn't stop performing them. There are too many other valuable services the organization provides for everyone that go way beyond the abortion issue.
http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2016/01/09/635879798080355175-1256898049_KVRa7es_nQZemaZXK2NhPslmeqXiid_9FW3Y4FI0ulw1FdJfTk7xb3rk_IJMdi3rESEGU6sc2Dy4xMKd90_SE80qUhYNoDDEYdon4TUa1LiyL96YGqLtcRVJks1q-0QD9AUnEVBR
The same 3% for abortion as previous years. 97% of PP services are other healthcare.
As for total votes, yeah, HRC got 48%+, DT 46%+, 6%- going to others. No "most"s.
... it’s really about replacing relatively solid pillars with half-measures, severely and probably fatally weakening the whole structure.
First, the individual mandate – already too weak, so that too many healthy people opt out – is replaced by a penalty imposed if and only if the uninsured decide to enter the market later. This wouldn’t do much.
Second, the ACA subsidies, which are linked both to income and to the cost of insurance, are replaced by flat tax credits which would be worth much less to lower-income Americans, the very people most likely to need help buying insurance.
Taken together, these moves would almost surely lead to a death spiral. Healthy individuals, especially low-income households no longer receiving adequate aid, would opt out, worsening the risk pool. Premiums would soar – without the cushion created by the current, price-linked subsidy formula — leading more healthy people to exit. In much of the country, the individual markets would probably collapse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republican-health-care-bill-is-all-about-shortchanging-the-poor/2017/03/07/55cabf3a-0372-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-house-republicans-health-care-bill-is-a-thicket-of-bad-incentives/2017/03/07/de9477fc-035e-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html
"The GOP health care plan is in critical condition. The plan is going to have to fight a three-front war to survive: 1) conservatives are calling this “Obamacare-Lite” or “Obamacare 2.0”; 2) moderates want to keep Medicaid expansion and Planned Parenthood funding; 3) and powerful/influential industry groups, like AARP and the American Hospital Association."
How Republican opposition to healthcare reform is taking shape:
These are the five most important people or groups on the fence about the proposal so far:
• House Freedom Caucus
• Senate conservatives
• Outside groups- These include the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Freedom Works and the Koch network-affiliated Freedom Partners.
• Republicans concerned about Medicaid
• Planned Parenthood
American Medical Association Opposes Republican Health Plan
"The American Medical Association, a powerful lobbying group representing the nation’s doctors, announced on Wednesday that it opposed the House Republicans’ proposed legislation to replace the federal health care law, saying it was concerned the bill “would result in millions of Americans losing coverage and benefits.”
Oh, he added that doctors (as contrasted with the AMA) were involved in designing the plan. Tom Price, for one (33:25).
Here's the press conference; check it out starting at the 30:00 mark.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-wave-a-white-flag-on-health-care/2017/03/08/8f9e98f6-0365-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html
https://t.co/WfM8orEPl8
I've adjusted the settings so that it shows only the US as a whole. You can also get the state-by-state breakdown.
That same 3x ratio applies when comparing the relatively small number of people who purchase individual insurance (on and off exchange combined) with the number covered through Medicaid. The current Congressional proposals affect all Medicaid recipients (because of block grants), not just those benefiting from the ACA expansion.
At some point, you have to recognize that most of the people affected by the "replace" proposals are indeed Medicaid recipients. Is 75% enough to count as "most"?
Sure, the 3% of people paying full ACA premiums aren't chopped liver (I'm among the few, the proud, the ... never mind, wrong slogan
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-american-health-care-act-is-a-good-start/2017/03/09/37878876-0509-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html
Some of the comments are substantive.
\\That tax hike at the end is to a major extent about expanding health coverage; the GOP wants it reversed
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6kF2ANVoAEIQbG.jpg
And the wrapup, cartoon villains:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trumpcare-the-culmination-of-all-the-gops-health-care-lies.html
As noted, the effect would be to kill employer-sponsored insurance. While this wouldn't increase tax revenues (the stated objective of the change), it would address a couple of conservative objectives and a liberal one.
It would reduce the overhead of US companies, making them more competitive internationally (foreign countries don't don't rely on health coverage through employers). It would "level the playing field", allowing workers to go anywhere, including working for themselves or starting businesses, without being biased by health coverage concerns. (Say what you will, ACA individual plans are inferior to group plans.)
On the other side, instead of7% of the public on individual plans, you'd now have 57% on individual plans. A really large pool, and enough potential pressure to get this done right.