Akallabeth (2234 posts)January 11, 2017 at 1:56 pm
If Obamacare Is Repealed, Advocates Expect "Meaner and Skimpier" Replacement
Leaner and meaner indeed!
In describing the GOP’s goals of a leaner, meaner health insurance program as part of their road to dismantlement of the healthcare safety net, PNHP co-founder Steffie Woolhandler explained how Americans will have to maintain continuous insurance coverage without missing a single bill by even one day, to keep pre-existing condition coverage. (Otherwise, they likely will lose insurance coverage of claims while still having to pay for six months or more to prevent people buying coverage when they are sick but not when they are healthy – “free riding”.) This will guarantee that the most costly first few months of serious illnesses will be borne financially in toto by the poorest and increase the chance that they will be bankrupted before the insurance pays a single penny.
(Free riding is a health insurance industry term for people buying health insurance only when they are sick and need it.)
andEnthusiast, glinda, LiberalElite and 1 otherLynetta like this"Out of many, one"
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
1 month ago #6
1 month ago #9
pinduck (628 posts) (Reply to original post) January 11, 2017 at 2:31 pm
1. Which is leaner&meaner: Medicare with a 3% overhead or for-profit insurance
with a 15% to 18% overhead?
Leaner & meaner for the American people; not so for the corporRats.
Abakan (2135 posts) (Reply to original post) January 11, 2017 at 2:35 pm
2. You can bet that whatever they do…
It will be meaner, more evil than we can think.
I’m just hoping if we all survive until the next election they get what’s coming to them.
I think this will piss more people off than they think.
I have much to say, so I talk to birds. They are truly the only ones who listen.
Akallabeth (2234 posts) (Reply to Abakan - post #2) January 11, 2017 at 2:52 pm
3. Next election won't be able to change it
Unless we pay a kings ransom in money for nothing.
The “expected lost profits” of the health insurance industry. You can find the exact procedure if you look up GATS Article XXI.
Because of the 1998 “standstill” clause and this GATS lock-in. “Progressive liberalisation” is one way only.
Like a fish trap, or “ratchet”. We go in but we can’t go out.
Treaty says so.
This is why it was so important that Bernie win. Its going to cost each of us at least an extra two thirds of a million dollars because of the loss just on health care alone. (VERY conservative estimate based on old year 2000 data for lifetime distribution of health care costs per capita rising by the CPI for everything, from then until now -not healthcare CPI which is MUCH higher but which I don’t know. For example, many Rx drugs have increased in cost several hundred percent in the last few years alone..)"Out of many, one"
RufusTFirefly (802 posts) (Reply to original post) January 11, 2017 at 3:24 pm
4. Oh swell! Mine is already pretty mean and skimpy
It’s got an astronomical deductible that renders it virtually useless.
Not only that, but the premiums recently doubled.
I’d be better off paying a protection racket.
I hate when we’re put in the position of defending the indefensible. It reminds me of people who felt they had to vote for Hillary.
Akallabeth (2234 posts) (Reply to RufusTFirefly - post #4) January 11, 2017 at 4:15 pm
5. Business needs stability.
Its not about us.
The United States is open for business.
What if you could afford insurance that paid for everything – assuming you qualified when you first applied and maintained continuous coverage, but there was one condition, to get care you would have to receive any costly procedures or extended treatments in the Republic of Bananastan.
And any disputes between you (or your survivors) and the providers about the quality of care were preempted into the Bananastani court system?"Out of many, one"
RufusTFirefly (802 posts) (Reply to Akallabeth - post #5) January 11, 2017 at 4:18 pm
6. I have friends and close family members who live in "civilized" countries
I realize our health care headaches are utterly needless.
Akallabeth (2234 posts) (Reply to RufusTFirefly - post #6) January 11, 2017 at 5:08 pm
8. They had public healthcare not commercial systems
like us.3.13 GATS51.SCOPE AND DEFINITIONOn completion of this section, the reader will be able:•to evaluate whether a particular measure is covered by the GATS;•to assess whether, in a particular situation, there is “trade inservices”;•to identify each of the four modes of supply of services;•to prepare a claim or a defence on the fundamental question ofwhether or not the GATS applies in a particular dispute settlementcase.This section of the Module examines discuss the scope of application of theGATS. Article II:1 of the GATS expressly provides that it applies to “anymeasure covered by this Agreement”. The Appellate Body, inCanada – CertainMeasures Affecting the Automotive Industry(“Canada – Autos”)2, stated thata threshold question, for a panel in any case involving claims under the GATS,is whether the measure is within the scope of the GATS by examining whetherit is a measure “affecting trade in services” within the meaning of Article I ofthe GATS.3The relevant part of Article I reads as follows:1. This Agreement applies to measures by Members affecting trade in services.To understand fully the meaning of Article I:1 each element of the phrase“measures by Members affecting trade in services” must be examined sparately.To do so, it is necessary to understand certain definitions contained in ArticlesI and XXVIII of the GATS.1.1Measures by Members Affecting Trade in ServicesThe phrase “measures by Members affecting trade in services” is defined inArticle XXVIII of the GATS. The definition states as follows:(c) “measures by Members affecting trade in services” include measures inrespect of(i)the purchase, payment or use of a service;(ii)theaccess to and use of, in connection with the supply of aservice, services which are required by those Members to beoffered to the public generally;(iii)the presence, including commercial presence, of persons of aMember for the supply of a service in the territory of anotherMember;ObjectivesArticle IScope and DefinitionArticle XXVIIIDefinitions2Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted on 19 June 2000.3Ibid.
, para. 152This definition, in and of itself, does not provide a precise meaning to thephrase “measures by Members affecting trade in services”. It only provides alist of certain types of measures that will be considered as coming within themeaning of that phrase. It is important to note that this definition gives someexamples of the types of measures that would come within the scope of theGATS, but it is not an exclusive list.To give the expression a more precise meaning, it is essential to examine itsconstitutive elements individually.1.2Measures by MembersArticle I:3(a) of the GATS defines the expression “measures by Members”very broadly. According to this definition, the GATS covers virtually all levelsof government activity – central, regional or local as well as non-governmentalbodies that have powers delegated to them by governments. Article I:3(a)reads as follows:3. For the purposes of this Agreement:(a)“measures by Members” means measures taken by:(i)central, regional or local governments and authorities; and(ii)non-governmental bodies in the exercise of powers delegatedby central, regional or local governments or authorities.In fulfilling its obligations and commitments under the Agreement, eachMember shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it toensure their observance by regional and local governments and authoritiesand non-governmental bodies within its territory;The term “measure” is defined in Article XXVIII of the GATS as follows:(a)“measure” means any measure by a Member, whether in the formof a law, regulation, rule, procedure, decision, administrative action,or any other form;As a result of the combined effect of these two definitions, the obligations anddisciplines of the GATS apply to all forms of intervention by central, regionaland local governments as well as non-governmental bodies with delegatedgovernmental powers. A “measure” includes laws, regulations, rules anddecisions of courts and administrative authorities, but it also covers practicesand actions of governments or non-governmental bodies with delegatedgovernmental powers. Examples of measures would include legislation of aMember, by-laws of a municipal authority, and rules adopted by professionalbodies in respect of professional qualifications and licensing. All such measurescould potentially come within the scope of the GATS.It is important to note that each Member has an obligation to take reasonablemeasures to ensure that all “sub-national” levels of government and non-governmental bodies with delegated governmental powers within its territorycomply with the disciplines of the GATS. This obligation is similar to theobligation found in Article XXIV:12 of the GATT 1994 relating to trade ingoods.4The question of whether or not a particular action of a government constitutesa “measure by a Member” within the meaning of Article I:1 has not specificallyarisen as yet in any WTO dispute settlement case. However, there could becases in the future in which this issue could be important. For example, in acase involving actions of a non-governmental body, it could be disputed whetherthat body exercises governmental powers delegated to it by a government.The scope of the GATS, however, does not extend to actions of purely privatepersons or enterprises which do not exercise any delegated governmentalpowers.1.3Affecting Trade in ServicesThe phrase “affecting trade in services” has been interpreted by the AppellateBody. InCanada – Autos, the Appellate Body stated that “two key issuesmust be examined to determine whether a measure is one ‘affecting trade inservices’”. Those issues are:… first, whether there is “trade in services” in the sense of Article I:2; and,second, whether the measure in issue “affects” such trade in services withinthe meaning of Article I:188.8.131.52Trade in ServicesThe first issue to determine in a particular dispute settlement case is whetherthere is “trade in services”. Article I:2 of the GATS defines the concept of“trade in services” as “the supply of a service” within one of four defined“modes of supply”. It reads as follows:2. For the purpose of this Agreement, trade in services is defined as thesupply of a service:(a)from the territory of one Member into the territory of any otherMember;(b)in the territory of one Member to the service consumer of any otherMember;(c)by a service supplier of one Member, through commercial presencein the territory of any other Member;(d)by a service supplier of one Member, through presence of naturalpersons of a Member in the territory of any other Member.Article IScope and Definition4See theUnderstanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade 1994,paras. 13-15.5Report of the Appellate Body,Canada – Autos,supra
, note 2, para. 155"Out of many, one"
Major Hogwash (1166 posts) (Reply to original post) January 11, 2017 at 4:50 pm
7. Akin to a first aid kit; some band aids, a few aspirin, and some alcohol swabs.
Want to see a doctor, make an appointment. Want a healthcare insurance company to pay for it, ya gotta be kidding!!
Deductibles will double.
Akallabeth (2234 posts) (Reply to Major Hogwash - post #7) January 11, 2017 at 5:14 pm
9. The system has to be preserved, and expanded, nomatter what the cost is in human
Otherwise public health care will win.
And then the whole system falls apart. Poor people will get the same healthcare as rich people.
And live as long!
Even though 75% of the people in developed countries will be unemployed by mid century.
That will kill profits, instead of people."Out of many, one"