The Reluctant Townie: Rodney Davis voted for your death panel

The Reluctant Townie: Rodney Davis voted for your death panel

There are more than 300 million people living in the United States of America.

Recently, a mere 217 men and women made the decision to strip health care protections from those 300 million people, as well as take away medical coverage from an estimated 24 million people who will be unable to afford it after the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) and its subsidies are dismantled.

A mere 217 men and women voted to take $880 billion from Medicaid — a program that provides health coverage to the poor and disabled — to deliver an $883 billion tax cut, $274 billion of which will go directly to the richest 2 percent of Americans. (Again, for emphasis, they voted to take $880 billion from poor and disabled Americans and give $274 billion of it to the absolute richest people in the country.)

A mere 217 men and women voted to allow states to opt out of regulations requiring insurers to offer affordable coverage for pre-existing conditions such as cancer, asthma and diabetes.

A mere 217 men and women voted to allow insurance companies to charge their elderly customers five times as much as they charge their younger customers. (Obamacare capped the amount at three times as much.)

That law, the American Health Care Act (otherwise known as the Republican plan to force financial eugenics on the American population) barely passed the House of Representatives, by a vote of 217-213.

The vote fell largely along party lines, but it should be noted that 20 Republicans voted against the bill.

To further boil down the math: Of the mere 217 who voted to end the consumer protections of Obamacare, its fate was ultimately decided by two Republican congressmen who chose to put the interests of their party over the interests of the country.

Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois' 13th Congressional District (that's you, mighty people of Champaign-Urbana) was one of the 217 who voted against your best interests by supporting the AHCA. Furthermore, as a "moderate" Republican who campaigned to protect ACA's coverage of pre-existing conditions, it can be argued that he was one of only two people — out of a country of 300 million — in the unique position to save us from the American carnage of the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

As it is written, the American Health Care Act will kill more Americans than ISIS or terrorism could ever dream. And what did the 217 Republicans do after passing this cruel, transparently awful bill? They celebrated with beer in the White House Rose Garden, slapping each other's backs for a job well done.

If you don't believe me, just ask your congressman, Rodney Davis. He was right there in the Rose Garden, congratulating himself along with his cohorts.

You can even spot him in the group photo Donald Trump has currently posted as his Twitter banner — top right-hand corner, very back row, clinging to one of the White House's porch pillars like a wallflower at the sock hop, afraid to approach his crush and ask for a dance.

People of the 13th Congressional District, Congressman Davis is directly responsible for the tragedy that is coming down the pike. He is one of two people in this country who could have stopped it, who could have tipped the scale, who could have put an end to this cynical redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top.

Rodney Davis showed none of the courage of his 20 Republican peers who voted against the bill. He was but a spineless follower, a political lemming the president will gladly march into the mouth of an active volcano, dopey smile and all.

When your loved ones get sick and die because they can't afford the coverage they need, when you're putting them in the ground, don't forget to send a thank-you note to Davis, one of two people who will have made it possible.

How confident is Rodney Davis in his vote for the AHCA? So confident that he refuses to hold a town hall to hear his constituents' complaints. Perhaps he fears for his personal safety. Perhaps he's right to; people are furious.

Rodney Davis' vote for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is an act of terrorism against all but the wealthiest in our country, and it has threatened the health and safety of people I love. This is personal for me and, I suspect, for everyone who will be affected.

As a congressman, Davis will be paid $174,000 this year (of your money) to rip away health care from the poor, the sick and the elderly. He should be scared. He should be ashamed. He should be looking for another job.

The voters will not forget. The voters will not forgive.

Ryan Jackson reminds you that midterm elections will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018. He can be reached at thereluctanttownie@hotmail.com.

Sections (1):Living

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Common Sense wrote on May 14, 2017 at 8:05 am

What a pile of crap. Nowhere does he make any mention of the disaster that is Obama(non)care. No mention of the millions of people with deductibles so enormous that they essentially have no health care. No mention of the skyrocketing premiums for most of these same people. No mention of the removal of hundreds of billions from Medicare by OBAMACARE. Also no mention that all of that garbage was passed with a margin of just one or two votes, with no Republicans supporting that disaster.

If Rodney Davis is to be criticized, it should be for supporting a bill that keeps way too much of Obamacare intact.

  

787 wrote on May 14, 2017 at 11:05 am

Of course, people like Ryan easily forget that Obamacare was passed by all democrats, in the middle of the night, on Christmas Eve... 

Then he uses words like "terrorism" to descrbe a health care bill.   Could you grow up sometime, please?

I don't mind being a N-G subscriber... but it is painful to have to pay for rubbish like this.   What a load of sensationalist crap.  The Huffington Post would be the perfect place for this.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 am

ACA may have been passed by Democrats, but they let Republicans help write the law.

Can't say the same about Trumpcare.

Annotator wrote on May 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm

"ACA may have been passed by Democrats, but they let Republicans help write the law."

The quote from Obama was "I won, go away."

Joe Schmo wrote on May 14, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Wow, does the writer think that the huge jumps in insurance premiums, sky-high deductibles, and insurers that are giving up on the unrealistic Obamacare exchange markets are fake news?  Or is he even aware of those realities that show that Obamacare is so broken that it couldn't survive even a few years successfully??    

Obamacare was in a SERIOUS death spiral, and was wrought with wasteful spending and all sorts of insane levels of taxes and reporting boondoggles.  To call the effort to do something different = the creation of death panels, is over the top overreaction (but sadly has been a talking point by many people on the foaming at the mouth "resistance".

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 6:05 am

GOP sabotaged Obamacare by refusing to pay insurance companies the risk corridor payments designed to offset losses in the original ACA. That talking point never seems to come up with Paul Ryan or his heartless gang of economic terrorists. They are directly responsible for insurers pulling out of the exchange. The average American isn't aware of that.

The AHCA will not bring costs down in any significant way, all it succeeds in doing is stripping away consumer protections (like no lifetime max, no discriminating against pre-existing conditions; etc) and giving hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the absolute wealthiest people in the country.

Trumpcare actually INCREASES THE AMOUNT that insurers can charge their customers.

I challenge anyone to explain the virtues of Trumpcare. I imagine I will be a long time waiting. But MAGA, obviously.

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 8:05 am

Do you even understand anything you write about? The simple fact that there is a risk corridor deficit program for taxpayers and profitable companies to bailout the others should tell you something is wrong with the original plan to begin with. The deficits ballooned from $2.5 Billion for 2014 to over $5.8B in 2015. 132% increase with projected 2016 losses to push the total to nearly $14B. Any program that consistently sees increasing year over year losses is seriously flawed. And your blame game is flawed, since the Obama administration has been "illegally" funneling money (to the tune of $10B) to the risk corridor program. So the insurance companies are getting their taxpayer bailout for the moment and they are still leaving the exchanges. Now that is somehow Paul Ryan's fault?? All ACA did was tank the market for the rest of us. Just like the housing market, just like higher education. But go ahead and keep playing up the "rich vs poor" in an effort to what, win an election again? You sure like to demonize those "rich" people that you so dearly need to pay for all your moonbeam social programs. Good luck.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 am

Risk corridor payments were initially for three years, 2014-2016, and designed to help cover losses for insurers while they figured out pricing with influx of new policy holders. Republican-controlled states chose not to expand Medicaid to cover healthcare for low income citizens, thus putting extra burden on exchanges and risk corridor repayments. In 2014, Marco Rubio put a poison pill in reconciliation bill to put hard limit on how much insurers could be reimbursed through risk corridor repayments.

You presented no evidence that the risk corridor payments would continue to balloon in size, or at an exponential rate. And anyway, risk corridor is functioning in place of Medicaid for all, or a single payer option that would allow for a cheaper, less complicated healthcare market for consumers.

You also make assumptions about me which are foolish -- namely, that writing this column is what I do for a living, or that I get my insurance through the exchanges with help of Obamacare subsidies.

Who are you? What do you do for a living? How do you pay for your insurance?

Hell, I don't even know your name.

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

Every time you suggest that a government-run program would be cheaper and less complicated I want you to go visit a VA hospital. For that matter, any federal government office that provides a service.

Rubio's "poison pill" is moot, since Obama paid anyway.

I'm nearly sure you don't actually utilize the ACA that you are stumping for, if you did you wouldn't be stumping for it.

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

Ryan,

There's no "figure out pricing" for insurance companies, when they are told to cover high risk people at premiums way too low to cover the claims they make. The only "figuring out" for insurance companies is to skyrocket premiums for everyone else and "hope" thats enough to cover not only the high risk people they have been forced to insure at rates way too low, but also some of the other benefits that were previously excluded from covering (like birth control pills) that they now must cover.  And as some insurance companies have figured out, even jacking up the prices on everyone else is not enough to sustain their business since some of them have pulled completely out of markets in various states.

It's really simple.  When you give a small portion of the population a huge break on their costs, then everyone else has to pay for it.  And that is wrong.  Why should 92% of Americans subsidize insurance costs for 8%?  

If you are in the 8%, then I can see how you'd be upset and whining.  But this bill helps the majority of Americans.  

Liberalism always try to benefit small minority groups, at the expense of the majority. And that's why they are completely out of power, and will remain so for a long long time.  

They don't understand economics. They don't even understand the concept of "for the greater good". You're still playing this class warfare angle, but you got it wrong. It's really the vast majority of tax paying health insurance buying citizens vs a small group of underpriced free loaders.

Honestly, I'm surprised these politicians are as spineless as can be. They want to give everything to everyone. That is why the prexisting conditions thing was still KEPT in Trumpcare, even when it should be taken out. We need politicians with the guts to say "I am voting for the greater good. If you are in the 8% of high risk people with grave pre-existing conditions, then there's nothing I can do for you other than you have to pay your fair share for the services that you use.  We can set up high risk insurance pools that you can buy into. We are not going to continue to have our entire population subsidize this group". 

 

 

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 8:05 am

Nothing new here...same old class warfare and statistical misrepresentation from a leftist. Maybe try writing an article where you don't sound like a baby crying for your toy. Rodney Davis will have no trouble staying in office, because the majority of his constituents actually work for a living. And by work, I don't mean sitting around pontificating about how oppressed they are, or writing a bunch of inane drivel.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

Cool story bro

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

Another profound editorial...

CallSaul wrote on May 15, 2017 at 9:05 am

Scared little Rodney is quaking in his boots, afraid to meet the voters face to face in public and on the record.

He should be afraid.

He'll hear us in 11/2018.

Trumpcare is a tax giveaway to the already extremely wealthy and a boondoggle for the insurance executive and administrators that control Davis like a puppet. 

The ACA is more popular than ever now that people realize that the Party of Trump is serious about taking healthcare away from millions of people and making it unaffordable for millions more.

And that's not even to mention Rodney's support for Trump's attempt to obstruct justice by firing the FBI director in charge of the investigation into Trump's collusion with Russia.

After 11/2018 Rodney won't have to keep running away from the voters anymore...

Annotator wrote on May 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm

"He'll hear us in 11/2018."

You do realize that all of the Democratic socialists in C-U are less than 10% of the voters in the 13th Congressional District, right?

"The ACA is more popular than ever now that people realize that the Party of Trump is serious about taking healthcare away from millions of people and making it unaffordable for millions more."

Ask the ACA subscribers in Arizona, how popular their new premiums and their health care bills are when the ACA refuses to pay out contributions to those bills.

"And that's not even to mention Rodney's support for Trump's attempt to obstruct justice by firing the FBI director in charge of the investigation into Trump's collusion with Russia."

The director of the FBI isn't in charge of any investigations, the attorneys and agents are in charge of gathering the evidence.  The director of the FBI presents the evidence to the Assistant Attorney General.  The Assistant AG presents his recommendation to the Attorney General to further prosecute or drop the case based on legal interpretation of the evidence.

"After 11/2018 Rodney won't have to keep running away from the voters anymore..."

You've been wrong since the November 2016 election.  Nothing has changed.

CallSaul wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 pm

What's your definition of 'Democratic socialists in C-U'?

What's your source for claiming that they make up 10% of cowardly Davis's constituents?

The ACA's popularity has unquestionably risen since the Party of Trump has been trying to 'repeal and replace' it: https://www.google.com/search?q=aca+popularity+rising&oq=aca+popularity+rising&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7583j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The head of the FBI most certainly can control the direction, scope, zeal, duration and every other aspect of investigations. Why do you think Trump demanded Comey pledge personal loyalty to him?

And about 11/2016: you do remember --- and accept --- that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, don't you? 

You do remember --- and accept --- that he's only the president because the anti democratic electoral college, put in place to mollify the racists slaveholders, instilled this loser in office, right?

wykhb wrote on May 16, 2017 at 9:05 pm

Yet "scared little Rodney" uses his real name and conducts his business in public for all to see.   What's your excuse, suffering from chronic cowarditis I would say.   Davis held a public meeting, after years of crying you did not bother to attend, I guess we should all blame you for failure.    Go ahead and rant, it's just entertainment to me. 

Common Sense wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 am

You write "Trumps collusion with Russia" as though it is fact. Do you have one bit of evidence to support that in any manner? Of course not, because there is none. However, we do need to investigate because the liberals want to distract, right? 

Now with health insurance. What most talk about is not insurance, but just plain welfare. If you are going to force an insurance company to cover someone with pre-exsting conditions, that ceases to be insurance and becomes a handout. Do you require home insurance companies to cover losses after they occur, or auto insurers to cover damages after an accident, if the person did not previously have insurance? Of course not, so why do we with health insurance? If that's what you want, then call it what it is, and stop calling it insurance.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 am

You realize that Trumpcare is a handout to the extremely wealthy, yes?

Also, are you and Common Senseless the same poster or are the two of you engaged in some sort of ideological conflict? Just wanted to know if I should address you separately?

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

Um, not taking someone's money to begin with is not exactly a handout, but that kind of thinking displays your socialist tendencies. If you are so jealous of the "rich", develop a better product (or version of yourself) that you can capitalize on in a free market. The sky is the limit, so they used say.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

You're conflating issues, I'm not jealous of anyone's wealth.

And you didn't answer my question: Are you the same person posting from two separate accounts on this article?

CommonSenseless wrote on May 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

I'm not conflating anything...you are perpetuating the us vs them mentality between rich and poor. Clearly using the "rich" as a scapegoat for society's ills. Allowing someone to keep the spoils of their labor is not a handout, so quit labeling it as such. You however, are free to donate whatever percentage you like from your own pocket.

To answer your other question: No

CallSaul wrote on May 15, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Multiple investigations are just gearing up --- why do you think Trump and the other Republicans are working so hard to quash the investigations...?

But the evidence they will turn up will never be enough for the True Believers like you I bet.

You probably still insist Nixon was guilty of nothing and the tinpot fascist Joe McCarthy was just unfairly malaigned by all the commies.

You don't seem to understand the concept of insurance at all. 

But, as Dunning & Kruger show, people who are the ignorant concerning a certain topic are too ignorant to be able to realize just how ignorant they are.

I'm sure you'll come back and provide yet more unwitting support for their contentions... 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 15, 2017 at 5:05 pm

All major industrialized countries have health care for their citizens.  They are different from the U.S. in that the governments have their citizens pay into health care, and retirement. 

Two things that are completely different in the U.S. are attitudes, and money.  The attitude of health being dependent on personal wealth is prevalent among some Americans.  "Some one has to pay for it, and I don't want to be taxed for it !" is a common rant.  The attitude of American Capitalism requiring private insurance companies would be hurt with a tax payer system would hurt business. 

Regardless of constant political bantering, and ranting; the problem exists.  A country's citizens that are becoming poorer each day with inequity will turn to violent means in order to provide food, shelther, and health. 

Annotator wrote on May 15, 2017 at 8:05 pm

"They are different from the U.S. in that the governments have their citizens pay into health care, and retirement."

Actually I paid into the U.S. version every day I went to work.  It's called Medicare and Social Security!  Before I retired, I carried health insurance in some form by paying out of pocket for it.  It is the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, not the U.S. government by taking from someone who the government deems "rich".

"A country's citizens that are becoming poorer each day with inequity will turn to violent means in order to provide food, shelther, and health."

Like the citizens of Venezuela are doing now?  Their socialistic government promised the citizens all of the things, and considerably more, included in the ACA.  Now, those promises have disappeared, after their socialistic dictator stole everything of value.  Now, the Venezuelan dictator (in his socialistic ideology) has begun "nationalizing" the businesses of their former business partners from other nations.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 15, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Venezuela is a fun, cherry-picked example.

How do you explain away the other developed nations who manage to offer universal coverage without the cost of toilet paper inflating to a thousand dollars per roll?

Here's some reading on that:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think...

Annotator wrote on May 16, 2017 at 5:05 am

"How do you explain away the other developed nations who manage to offer universal coverage without the cost of toilet paper inflating to a thousand dollars per roll?"

"Economic freedom"?  Just how much of a citizens earned income cost, post taxes?  That economic freedom is 25% of the average middle class workers earned income!  For your edification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe

Notice the chart in your citation.  The data in the Forbes article is for 2012.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 16, 2017 at 9:05 am

Your views will not change.  Your hung up with what benefits only you, not others.  Yes, Europeans pay more in taxes, but they gain more in education, free tuition, health care, and the other basic needs.  They do not have a bunch of religious right nuts, cheap "Me, me" types, and fear mongers.  They move forward, not backwards.

Did you inherit money, or Daddy's business?  You sure do not sound like a blue collar worker.  What brought you to such rabid republicanism?  Was it just ignorance, or greed?

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

Ryan,

Compare the costs of medical services in those countries, to the US.  It simply can't be done.  Until the costs of medical services are brought down in the US (thru decrease regulations, taxation, fee schedules, price controls) then it's impossible to even consider.

In India, a heart surgery cost $6,000.  In the US, it costs $100,000.  Having the government take over an industry is not going bring costs down.  It never has in any industry. 

Now, if you wanted to somehow regulate healthcare in a way similar to a public utility (like an electric company or water company) - then we could start to see whether it could work. I'd be much more open minded to that, seeing if it could drive costs down by fixed rate setting for medical supplies/procedures, etc....

The govt can HELP to bring costs down in SUBTLE WAYS.  Single payer -absolutely not.   But shifting the responsibility/blame to insurance companies and telling them to "figure it out" - which is code for - "jack up the premiums on everyone else to pay for the people we are now forcing you to insure" only helps about 8% of the population.  It does nothing to solve the problem.

The problem is the high cost of medical services. The problem is not who pays for it. 

justthefacts wrote on May 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm

The real issue in the health care debate is this: Is access to a basic level of health care a human right or is it a consumer good? I suspect that CommenSense and Rodney Davis view health care as a consumer good. Access to consumer goods is determined solely by economic status. Health care is certainly not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Others, like Ryan Jackson, probably view access to basic health care a human right which society, acting through government, should guarantee to its citizens, regardless of its standing as a constitutional right. 

I doubt that any argument or presentation of facts will change the attitude of either side in the debate. One fact which is indisputable, however, is that US health care costs more than in other develped nations and has mediocre to poor results compared to other developed nations. In other words, we are not getting what we pay for. 

IlliniwekMerica wrote on May 16, 2017 at 8:05 am

"A mere 217 men and women voted to allow insurance companies to charge their elderly customers five times as much as they charge their younger customers. "

I haven't read much about this bill, because it likely won't get passed through the Senate and therefore is really not worth the time. People on the left say it's terrible and people on the right say it's better than ACA, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

But the above quote out of the article doesn't sound bad or wrong at all? Isn't the whole point of insurance to underwrite risk? It will be cheaper on the whole if we can actually charge people some sembelance of an actuarial risk. 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 16, 2017 at 10:05 am

If you have not read much about the bill, why are you commenting on it?

Private insurance companies exist to make money.  The actuarial risk for the elderly, and the disabled are much higher than for the young, and non-disabled.  The cost of private insurance is beyond what the elderly, and the disabled can pay due to their income being much lower.  So what is the answer?  A real National Health Care supported like Social Security; or lining the pockets of politicians paid by the major donors.  That is where Rodney gets his money.  Rodney votes the way his health insurance, and health care donors tell him to vote.

This country is corrupt from the bottom to the very top of the barrel.  Politicians depend on money for their retirement, and re-elections.  They vote the way they are told.  They govern the way they are told.  The country does not belong to the people.  The people only rent their time here.

IlliniwekMerica wrote on May 16, 2017 at 10:05 am

   "If you have not read much about the bill, why are you commenting on it?"

To learn more about it? It's a sign of strength to admit when you don't know something and to seek out the knowledge, instead of acting like an expert when you have no business acting like one.

I know the elderly have a much higher actuarial risk than young people, which is why capping the expense at 3x is a little strong and ends up raising the costs for everyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this new bill doesn't change much with Medicare? So anyone 65 and over will not be affected much outside of any changes to supplemental insurance offerings.

I try to make all my political opinions based on rational economic principles and leave the moral and other more complicated things to others. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes sense to underwrite and charge higher risk people more for health insurance. Same as other types of insurance. Obviously there needs to be some limits or else people will be completely priced out of coverage, but I'm not a self proclaimed health insurance expert like a lot of people here are claiming to be so I'm not sure what those limits should be; but 5x sounds better than 3x. 

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 16, 2017 at 12:05 pm

"I haven't read much about this bill, because it likely won't get passed through the Senate and therefore is really not worth the time... "

I imagine your rationale is the very reason Rodney Davis felt comfortable voting for the AHCA, and against the best interest of his constituents. He's betting that Illinois' 13th congressional district is too stupid and/or distracted to pay attention to the details.

I implore you to prove him wrong.

"... I'm not a self proclaimed health insurance expert like a lot of people here are claiming to be so I'm not sure what those limits should be; but 5x sounds better than 3x."

1-to-5x ratio sounds better if you're on the low end of the spectrum. Better enjoy those savings now, as you won't stay young forever.

But imagine a world where insurers used the expanded 1-to-5x ratio not to push the price of the 1x down, but to push the price of the 5x up. Lowering costs for no one and raising costs for some of the most vulnerable. I know it's pretty hard to imagine such an outlandish scenario, because the free market has our best interests at heart. But stranger things have happened!

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Your comment to him is based on morality.  He has no morality.  He does not care about others.  He only cares about himself.  Most all of the anti-Affordable Care Act commentors do not care about morality.  Oh,..they may care about abortions, but that is due to their political and "my God is the only God" religious beliefs.  The Right Wing has no morality, only greed.

The Trump Health Care defenders are a small minority compared to the number of citizens opposed to Trump's Ryan Health Care.  Will Trump Care pass thru Congress?  Yes, it will pass due to the special interest payoffs in campaign donations to the corrupt Congress.  As long as this corrupt system continues with Red versus Blue distractions, the country will continue toward a massive change.  You can only kick a dog so long before it bites.

IlliniwekMerica wrote on May 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm

I have my own morals and feel very comfortable with them. I do not expect my representative to agree with every single one of my opinions and I certainly don't want my representative legislating on morals rather than good public policy. So most of your laundry list of hot button issues you claimed to know my opinion on are wrong, as well as being none of your business.

IlliniwekMerica wrote on May 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Health insurance is a product offsetting the costs of Healthcare; the service. Doesn't it make sense to charge higher premiums to the people who are using the service more? And yes, I'm young so my insurance would be cheaper than a 60 year olds, but I also am in good health and never use the services and would be underwriten at a very low rate if the rates were determined actuarially.  I also have the ability to save and plan for my old age expensive health insurance time (as well as control my health to a certain extent), but I know not all can do that.

And the strawman of "they'll just raise the cost for the lowest plan so they can charge more for the higher ones" is not what I said. It could be argued that could be controlled through price controls enacted by further legislation, it could be controlled by increased competition in the insurance market, it could be controlled by a lot of things.

All that being said, I'm not claiming to have the answers to the nation's healthcare woes. I'm not even waging an opinion on this whole bill, because i'm not a public policy expert and have no intention to become one. I'm saying that it makes sense that health insurance should be underwritten in a way where the people using the service are paying more than 3x that of a person who hasn't stepped foot in a doctors office outside annual checkups in years. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 17, 2017 at 1:05 pm

I hate to be the one to break it to you, kid; but you will get older, and you will develop some type of illness over time.  The idea that you can save enough money to pay for your "old age expensive heath insurance time" is ignorant.  A heart valve, cancer, orthopedic injury, or other problems develop with the young also.  Basically, your saying that you have no opinion, yet you are offerring one based on greed.

Hopefully, you will have enougn money, or Daddy's money to pay for health insurance.  Yeah, "it could" as you said; but it will not due to excessive capitalist greed.  Now, put your head back into the sand.

 

IlliniwekMerica wrote on May 17, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Alright I tried to be civil.

You're telling me that as each year passes by, I'll become older? And that I will have more health issues as I become older? Gee willikers Prof. Saltfork, where do you have your PhD from?

What I'm saying is, that I have a good enough career and earnings potential that I will have the capacity to pay the highest insurance premiums that will realistically be charged. And I understand that the vast majority of people will not be able to say that.  And a good way to bring down costs overall is to actually underwrite the person for insurance, instead of arbitrarily limit premiums of the highest risk to only 3x the amount of the healthiest. It's pooled risk, if we can't accurately insure and charge premiums akin to the pool's risk, then it's going to raise costs for everyone.

One persons misunderstood "capitalist greed" is another person's more efficient marketplace. I'm not just going to assume there will be massive price collusion that a regulatory body can't control.

And I won't dignify your "daddy's money" comment with a full retort. You couldn't be more wrong, but go ahead and keep assuming people's allotment in life is given not earned. 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 18, 2017 at 8:05 am

"I have a good enough career and earnings potential that I will have the capacity to pay the highest insurance premiums that will realistically be charged".  "One person misunderstood capitalist is another person's more efficient marketplace".

Face it kid, the flaw is "realistically be charged".  You will get older, and develop illnesses with the on going time.  Your personal plan will take changes due to family responsibilities; but you will probably be single in old age.  Other than that, you have shown yourself to be greedy and immoral.  Your motto like so many others is "ME, ME, ME".

The country needs a National Health Insurance that controls costs, and it paid for with expanded Social Security/Medicare coverage for all.  Everyone would be required to pay into it.  Even the cheap, little b@stards. 

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

Ryan,

Why shouldn't people that use insurance more often, be charged higher premiums than people that never use it?

Again, do you think bad drivers should receive the same car insurance rate as good drivers?  Should the rates for good drivers be jacked up in order to pay for all the accidents that bad drivers have? 

Should property insurance rates be the same too?  Should people in Illinois have a higher property insurance rate, in order to subsidize the people that own property on the beach in a hurricane zone?

Do you even have a clue how insurance works?  I'm honestly wondering.  Because everything you write makes you sound ignorant.  Simply saying "everyone should have cheap health insurance, so lets force the rich to pay for it"...is just stupid.  It makes no economic sense and it's not even possible anyway.  The problem is not even health insurance.  The problem is high medical costs themselves. The issue is not even who pays for it, because someone ultimately has to pay. You want lower costs for every health insurance buyer?  Figure out a way to lower medical costs.  Obamacare certainly did not do that. 

Younger healthier people should pay a way lower rate for insurance that they hardly will ever use. And you are correct - they won't be young forever. But while they are young, and receiving lower rates - the money that they are saving should be invested for future health care expenses. That is why HSA's are a great plan for many young people.  

 

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

Sid,

Why would the elderly and disabled want to buy private insurance?  They are already covered by either Medicare or Medicaid.  What the hell are you talking about?  We need lower medical costs for average working Americans ages 18-65.

Under Obamacare, those people (the MAJORITY of tax paying citizens) have had their premiums skyrocket. That is why Obamacare was repealed.  Obamacare is an absolute disaster for everyone except about 8% of the population who otherwise were able to get insurance at much lower rates than they otherwise would be able to get.

I can't support any Healthcare Bill that is meant to benefit the 8% at the expense of the other 92%.  If you are in the 8%, sure vote your own interest.  I'm not. I'm voting my own interests.

 

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 17, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Medicare pays currently 80% of "approved" medical costs.  Most elderly people who were workers in the past do not want to become so poor that they are forced onto Medicaid.  Many do not qualify for it until they are in their last months of life.  I am talking about care facilities.  Medicare stops after 30 days in a care facility.  Medicaid starts at that time, or until the person has no other resources.

You say that lower medical costs are needed for "average working Americans ages 18-65"; but they are born with pre-existing conditions, and develop illnesses also.  You have your percentages backwards also.  The drastic Affordable Care Act re-do has to be done prior to the planned tax cuts in order to find the money to reduce the taxes of the top 10% of the population. 

Watch the news on more than one channel, and read more than fake news blogs.

Oh by the way, tell Mom and Dad along with Grandma and Grandpa your views on the elderly.  Many of them put their butts on the front line so you could speak against them now.

Ryan Jackson wrote on May 17, 2017 at 7:05 am

Still waiting for that full-throated defense of the AHCA...

Anyone?

CommonSenseless wrote on May 18, 2017 at 8:05 am

You may be waiting a while. The only good thing the AHCA has going for it is the incremental reduction in the bad things of ACA. A classic case of negative reinforcement...

Citizen1 wrote on May 17, 2017 at 8:05 am

Do any of the commentors work for private businesses?  Any small business employing less than 50 people are not required to provide health insurance to their employees.  Most are facing health insurance costs that have increased by 60% or more per year under Obama care.  They have been waiting for the thing to implode so that there is relief from this nonsense.  If Obama care continues, most small businesses will be forced to drop health insurance for their employees basically forcing them to Obama care which can't provide for the people on it now.  Trump's plan is not a benefit for the very wealthy, it is the salvation of working class people employed by small businesses.  Working class people are paying for Obama care out the nose with extremely high health insurance costs.  That must stop.

honor9chief wrote on May 17, 2017 at 9:05 am

I have cancer. I didn't know at first because I couldn't afford my out of pocket expense for tests. . I'm going to die. Go to hell Obama and the rest of you socialist b@stards.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 17, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Well, we do have something in common.  Sorry to hear about your illness.  I have the same problem with out of pocket expenses, and medication.  Medicare does not pay for some necessary medications due to the drug companies' pricing.  I have chosen to not continue tests, and medications.  I am making the most of the time I have.  I encourage you do so also.  Yeah, we have our bad days; but we have some good ones also.  Keep fighting for what you believe in even though we will disagree.

Yeah, from a socialist b@stard to a facist; "Do not go gently into the good night....".

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

Just another Socialist LibTard that has no concept of economics or insurance for that matter.  Let me "dumb it down" so that perhaps you may understand:

First, insurance companies collect premiums in order to pay the claims that you make as a buyer of that insurance.  As medical costs increase at the provider level, the cost of claims becomes higher.   As the cost of claims become higher, the insurance company must charge you higher premiums.  Are you with me?

Now, it gets even worse for the insurance companies - because under Obamacare, and even under TrumpCare - pre-existing conditions are still excluded from being considered in the underwriting process.  This means, that the insurance companies are not allowed to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher premiums despite those people costing those insurance companies way more in claims, than what they inevitably pay in thru premiums.  So in order for the insurance companies to stay in business, they need to overcharge everyone else or pull out of the market altogether - as some have already done.

It is not a sustainable business model. Should a bad driver get the same auto insurance rates as a good driver?  Of course not.  Neither should a person with pre-existing conditions, receive the same health insurance rates as an otherwise healthy person. Makes no economic sense.

So the entire concept of telling insurance companies how to run their business, and forcing them to cover people with pre-existing conditions without charging a much higher premium for them - is a business model doomed to fail. It can't sustain itself.

Every American should want health care that is affordable.  However, the reason that health care is expensive is due to the higher costs at the provider level. It has nothing to do with insurance companies or even who is "covered" thru insurance.  A hospital is obligated to treat anyone with a life threatening situation regardless of their ability to pay.  So therefore, no one has ever "died" because they did not have insurance.  The problem with health care in this country is simply the costs.  Why does a heart surgery in the US cost $100,000, while the same heart surgery performed at the same level of expertise in India cost $6,000?  If you can alleviate some of those costs (such as high taxation and regulations) at that level, that will at least help to bring costs down for the consumer.

Trumpcare will bring costs down for the majority of those buying insurance.  The people buying insurance thru the exchanges, - their costs will go up.  And they should.  Their premiums are extremely underpriced and subsidized given their health risks.  Why should 92% of insurance buyers have to subsidize 8%?  Let the 8% pay their fair share also.

Bottomline, if you are a regular insurance buyer, your premiums will go down.  If you are someone that was buying thru the exchange - yours will go up.  I think any bill that benefits 92% of insurance buyers (and even more people than that since it removes the individual mandate of young healthy people being forced to buy insurance or otherwise be penalized) is a good thing.

Tax breaks for 92% (if you want to call them that when their prices go down) and an increase cost for the 8% - yeah, I'll drink to that too. I'm in the 92%. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 17, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Best explanation of greed, immorality, and ignorance given so far in the comments on the article.  Thanks for commenting.

One litlle piggie cried "Me,Me, Me" all the way home.  Make sure you tell Grandma, and Grandpa how you feel about pre-existing conditions, and the elderly.  Keep a copy of your comments for reading at age 70.

Oh, do you work in the Insurance Industry?

JamBam wrote on May 17, 2017 at 5:05 pm

Sid,

How can you consider it to be "greedy" when all you are asking is for people to pay their fair share? This bill will benefit 92% of insurance buyers. 8% will pay more, and SHOULD pay more

This should not be a strange concept.  People with pre-existing conditions will file more insurance claims. This is a fact. They will go to the Doctor more often than healthy people. This is a fact. Since they are going to be using more services, why shouldn't they be charged more for their health insurance premiums?

AGAIN..I use other examples of insurance.

Should good drivers be charged higher car insurance premiums just so they can subsidize the accidents that bad drivers have? How is that fair?

Should property insurance rates be higher in Illinois, just so the insurance companies can have enough premiums to pay claims in hurricane zones? Is that fair?

This is America. Personal Responsibility.  You pay for what you use.  You don't have someone else pay it for you.

And I don't know why you are blabbering on about people over 70.  They already got 80% of their care already paid for.  And given what they paid in to the system, and what treatments cost today, it's quite likely they are getting more treatment than what they actually prepaid for thru-out their life. And if they needed to buy a private insurance policy to cover the other 20%, then they had their entire lives to save up money and buy that policy.  Again, personal responsibility.  The govt does not owe you anything. Your fellow man does not owe you anything.

Nothing is for free in this world. Someone has to pay for it.  In my opinion, if you use something, you pay for it. If you are more likely to use health insurance, then you should pay more for it.

What you call "ignorance" is common sense to 90% of people. It helps explain why the snowflakes such as yourself have no political power whatsoever anymore.  Other than sharing your uneducated opinions on forums like this, and watching professionals like myself explain things to you in the most elementary of ways that even a monkey should be able to understand.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 18, 2017 at 9:05 am

Thank you for your comment.  It defines the lack of morality, and greed of those in the right-wing.  "Snowflakes" like me do have political power.  Your comment "your uneducated opinions on forums like this, and watching professionals like myself explain things to you in the most elementary of ways that even a monkey should be able to understand" Is priceless.  Read the polls on the health care/insurance issue in Congress.  Your "common sense to 90% of people" is false.  

One fortunate thing is the delay in the right-wing bill in Congress due to having to deal with Trump.  After that is finished, the bill will be handled by Congress.  That gives more time to expose it.  The Huge Tax Break will be handled after that.  I doubt that the country is going to be overwhelmed by anything associalted with Trump.  Even the right-wing in Congress will be dropping the new plan.  

Thank you Master for allowing this humble, uneducated peon to speak up.  I am in awe of your elitist facism.  

honor9chief wrote on May 18, 2017 at 10:05 am

Thanks Sid for your support. I wish nothing but the best for you and family. Regardless of our political differences we are still human and hurt and bleed just like everyone else. Good Luck in your endeavors

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 18, 2017 at 12:05 pm

You too, honor9chief.  My father used to tell me that all we have are family, and friends.  Now as the end approachs, I realize that more and more.  Thanks for your comment about still being human.  That means more than politics.  Take care, my friend.

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

...and Oskee Wow Wow to you, Sidd.