JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THINGS COULD GET NO WORSE

On January 17, the Health and Human Services Department announced proposed rule changes for ACA -- otherwise known as Obamacare.  Hundreds of pages long, and written in the most obtuse language possible, these proposed rule changes were impossible for your humble observer to figure out. But since this was coming from the Trump administration, I presumed that the proposed changes boded no good to the every day citizen.

Four days later, an article by Robert Pear confirmed my fears. I reprint it below:

The New York Times

January 21, 2019

Trump Proposals Could Increase Health Costs for Consumers

By Robert Pear

Consumers who use expensive brand-name prescription drugs when cheaper alternatives are available could face higher costs under a new policy being proposed by the Trump administration.

The proposal, to be published this week in the Federal Register, would apply to health insurance plans sold under the Affordable Care Act.

The administration is proposing several other changes that could increase costs for consumers.

Under the proposal, fewer people would qualify for federal subsidies, and those who qualify could be required to spend a larger share of their income on insurance premiums.

The Trump administration estimated that the changes would save the government $900 million annually in subsidies in 2020 and 2021 and $1 billion a year in 2022 and 2023. In addition, it predicted that 100,000 fewer people would have coverage through the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act.

The administration said that some of the 100,000 people might buy short-term insurance policies, which do not have to cover pre-existing conditions or provide all the benefits required by the health law. But, it said, most are “likely to become uninsured.”

Either way, the administration said, “these individuals will be bearing a larger share of the costs of their own health care consumption.”

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, described the new proposed rule as “Trump’s latest attempt to sabotage health care.”

Commenting on these proposals,  Don McCanne writes: "There would certainly be rule-making under Single Payer Medicare for All, but the rules would be designed to benefit patients rather than designed to satisfy the whims of the right-wing, anti-government ideologues who are also rewarding their friends in the health care corporate world with our tax funds."

The opponents of Single-Payer would like to frighten us with all sorts of tales of the terrible; whereas this blog is trying to show that not only is the current system unsustainable, it is daily deteriorating.  As we detail the greedy excesses of the for-profit model of healthcare, making it look worse and worse (it's not hard to do this), our hope is that Single-Payer will look better and better, to encourage you to think: WE CAN'T GO ON LIKE THIS! Because the Trumpians haven't yet plumbed the depths of their depravity.  Bless their hearts, they'll keep trying. 

Dio

If you'd like to comment (and I hope you will), simply click on the number of comments area, and share your thoughts in the "comment box" that appears. Thanks!