Single Payer medical insurance in the United States has not yet gotten to be a Single Payer system. It will be a long time before medical insurance and treatment services are handled as a utility, rather than a for-profit business.
2
The boomer generation wants Social Security benefits that they did not pay for, but that young people will pay and never receive.
The boomer generation wants the "young healthy" Americans to pay for their healthcare.
Selfish.
I prefer NOT to have our children and grandchildren pay for our healthcare, and our social security and the 20 Trillion in national debt we have accumulated.
It is remarkable that anyone who wants our generation to be fiscally responsible and NOT pass the bill to our children is considered mean.
Grow up. No doctor and no health plan will change the fact that we all get old, we all get sick, and we all will die. Do we do that with honor or with embarrassing, whimpering, whining dishonor?
The boomer generation wants the "young healthy" Americans to pay for their healthcare.
Selfish.
I prefer NOT to have our children and grandchildren pay for our healthcare, and our social security and the 20 Trillion in national debt we have accumulated.
It is remarkable that anyone who wants our generation to be fiscally responsible and NOT pass the bill to our children is considered mean.
Grow up. No doctor and no health plan will change the fact that we all get old, we all get sick, and we all will die. Do we do that with honor or with embarrassing, whimpering, whining dishonor?
Whether we are talking about families or an entire nation, the young should care for the old. It's not selfish to ask that. It's the right thing to do.
Starting a generation war is not the answer, Older people paid into Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Politicians changed the social security trust and raided it for the general budget. POLITICIANS ARE THE PROBLEM. That being said let's make substantial cuts to the military. Why do we need more weapons than the next 7 countries combined? We're secure. There are far better uses for that money - healthcare, education, Social Security, infrastructure, the environment, etc.
1
We are going back to what we had before. Affordable insurance for the young and healthy. Everyone else will be priced out or even denied. Same old, same old. These high-risk insurance pools are just a talking point for Republicans in order to get the bill passed. States don't even have to have them, and those who do, will find them unaffordable. Insurance companies will use them to cherry pick the healthiest and leave the rest to scramble. No mental health care. No substance abuse care. Hard to believe this is making America great again.
5
While we argue about the intricacies of health insurance, no real progress will be made until the root of the problem is addressed: the exorbitant prices of prescription drugs and hospital care. These massive companies in the medical industry are exploiting the U.S. system and ultimately driving the ludicrous costs for medical care. The United States spends 40% more on prescription drugs than the next highest spender, Canada. The U.S. must regulate prices, enforce cost transparency, and open the market to competitive imports.
6
Very soon after the election there was a proposal in the house by the dems to allow Medicare and Medicaid to use their considerable financial clout to bargain over drug prices....which was soundly rejected by the majority (repubs of course...).no one protested...I saw no news articles etc. because everyone was paying attention to the megalomaniac in chief...so much can slip past this way...in fact it would be nice if the media could provide a short list daily of proposed legislation before the votes or shortly thereafter. In this way, the public who cannot, or will not access the legislative websites and spend the considerable time necessary to troll for pending bills or current votes can see the dismantling of their government by the current majority. Resistance needs knowledge (old saw..knowledge is power)
3
"Knowledge is power," except for those currently in power, the key to maintaining power is to keep those they duped into voting for them ignorant. However, the Trump administration's lies about healthcare will only take them so far. In the end, people will understand that Trumpcare, Ryancare, whatever you want to call it, will cost more and cover less.
1
It would seem to me that states would allow insurance companies to offer cafeteria plans--from a bare bones plan, you choose options you want. Otherwise, with what we have now under the ACA, many of the requirements for coverage are not insurance, but pre-paid healthcare, usually pre-paid with other people's money.
Back to emergency rooms for health care
That's progress for you. How about taking away
Health care for the Freedom Caucus. We taxpayers have been footing the bill for them. I would rather pay for those who will lose their access because of
the lack of compassion and foresight of these
Men
That's progress for you. How about taking away
Health care for the Freedom Caucus. We taxpayers have been footing the bill for them. I would rather pay for those who will lose their access because of
the lack of compassion and foresight of these
Men
6
Questions: Are post-menopausal women required to buy coverage that includes pregnancy coverage? Are men? Would their individual policies be more affordable if women were offered the opportunity to opt-out of pregnancy coverage and essentially self-insure for any (presumably) unintended pregnancy experienced during the policy year?
1
when people discuss opting out of medical conditions because they don't apply to them, they are showing a lack of understanding of how insurance works. So, lets say that maternity care is allowed to be removed from certain policies. That can only have 2 outcomes. either premenopausal women will have to pay MUCH higher insurance premiums, or they will lower their premiums by opting out of , lets say , prostate care. Now, the men who saved money on opting out of maternity, would have to pay more for prostate care (or the post menopausal women you describe will pay for more of their osteoporosis problems which the younger women opt out of.), making the whole issue a wash. The point of insurance is that money is pooled to protect us against having to bear the whole burden of unforeseen illness. if you are allowed to limit certain coverage, you will simply be reducing the pool of people whose money is pooled to pay for yours. Finally, which women will be able to "self insure" for pregnancy? The ones who are sure that they could never be bed ridden for 6 months to protect their pregnancy? The ones who know they won't have a stroke during child birth, or a pulmonary embolus after, and have to go to the icu for 2 weeks or more?
10
In other words, the Republicans are going to RESTORE CHERRY PICKING - the Bain of the system that existed BEFORE ACA.
Sounds like going backwards to me.
Sounds like going backwards to me.
6
Watching Fox News, one would think health care reform means winning over the Freedom Caucus, made up of libertarian-type Republicans in very safe red districts. They never mention or interview someone from the so-called Tuesday Group, made up from Republicans who stand a real chance of losing their seats in the midterms. Heck, I didn't even know about the Tuesday Group until it was mentioned in the NYT as Reps. tried to put over the ridiculous excuse of legislation called the AHCA. As long as the Rep. party is at war with itself, Dems. can wait in the wings. However, I think the reluctance of Democrats to run on a platform of creating a taxpayer-supported Medicare-type plan for those unable to get group health insurance could cost votes from more progressive factions. I'm not sure if Bernie Sanders' calculations about tax-funded insurance coverage are correct but at least he has the courage to stand up for what ultimately will have to happen if we want to unburden individuals who are facing soaring premiums and deductibles and thus are at a patently unfair disadvantage compared to those getting group health coverage through employers. Whether the Freedom Caucus or the Tuesday Group succeeds in really fixing the grand gesture called Obamacare may decide the fate of the Republican party in 2018. I would tend to bet on the more-hidden Tuesday Group, but the noisy Freedom Caucus is still holding sway over Pres. Trump.
6
I too have experienced State high risk pools. They don't provide a good option for a lot of us with chronic conditions. Expensive insurance with very high deductibles if you can get it. Many people will not be able to afford the high risk pools, but will still have too many resources for Medicaid. This plan will allow the Republicans to say that everybody has access to health insurance. Unfortunately not everybody who needs it will be able to afford it. Again the doctor of choice for the uninsured will be the emergency room. At least so far, emergency rooms are required to treat and stabilize. Who's going to pay the bills? Those of us with insurance.
5
What is interesting about the GOP proposal is that it would create a number of experiments, starting with those States that chose to essentially keep ObamaCare. Will insurers continue to evaporate in these States? Will costs continue to rise? And then there will be states that opt out of certain aspects of ObamaCare. How will they fare? Will there be more competition among insurers? Will insurance costs and deductibles decline? Will there be people who are completely left out of coverage? By tracking and studying the way states deal with the issues perhaps we can get to a place where we have a reasonable system.
1
yes, all well and good, until the people choosing to be uninsured have a major issue and are treated at hospitals for free (or almost free, since they will be bankrupted long before the bills are paid) . Guess where the cost of the uninsured goes? to the insurers, who then will raise YOUR rates. Or , we could choose to live in a country that will not treat un and underinsured. That will allow for some real competition for insurers, but is that really the country you want to live in? One where people lose their jobs, and their insurance along with it, and then can not get treated because they "choose" to be uninsured?
2
I don't understand why the Republicans aren't pushing universal healthcare coverage or Medicare for all given the huge burdens and crushing costs healthcare extracts on small and middle sized businesses. Overall employer sponsored healthcare programs are a great hinderance to the competitiveness of American business, as such it should be managed by the government on behalf of the American people.
1
The underappreciated counterpart of not allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions is the degree to which it facilitates better insurance for everybody by preventing rescissions (getting dropped from your insurance).
Many people pay for insurance for years and years without using it much with the understanding that it would be there if they develop a major illness. However, before the protections of the ACA, individual insurance applications often included lengthy and complicated questionnaires screening for pre-existing conditions. When people with individual insurance got diagnosed with an expensive condition, insurance companies had a strong incentive to review those lengthy questionnaires for inaccuracies, because if they found that the applicant had provided inaccurate information they could often cancel the policy claiming fraud on the application. A House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee in 2009 reviewed three large insurers and found 19,776 rescissions over a five year period, saving the companies $300 million.
So, in addition to protecting people with pre-existing conditions get insurance, bans on discrimination against pre-existing conditions helps people who don’t believe they have pre-existing conditions preserve the promise of insurance if they ever need to use it.
Many people pay for insurance for years and years without using it much with the understanding that it would be there if they develop a major illness. However, before the protections of the ACA, individual insurance applications often included lengthy and complicated questionnaires screening for pre-existing conditions. When people with individual insurance got diagnosed with an expensive condition, insurance companies had a strong incentive to review those lengthy questionnaires for inaccuracies, because if they found that the applicant had provided inaccurate information they could often cancel the policy claiming fraud on the application. A House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee in 2009 reviewed three large insurers and found 19,776 rescissions over a five year period, saving the companies $300 million.
So, in addition to protecting people with pre-existing conditions get insurance, bans on discrimination against pre-existing conditions helps people who don’t believe they have pre-existing conditions preserve the promise of insurance if they ever need to use it.
5
One of my many concerns with the up and coming GOP Wealthcare legislation is that Congress will have better coverage not availible to ordinary Americans.
I explained to my GOP Senator that if Congress did so, even Trump devotees will feel cheated. Trumpists seem to love the president's bait-and-switch, but they don't like it when their legislators do it to them.
I explained to my GOP Senator that if Congress did so, even Trump devotees will feel cheated. Trumpists seem to love the president's bait-and-switch, but they don't like it when their legislators do it to them.
2
This "plan" amounts to abolishing Obamacare without abolishing Obamacare. Since the core provisions can be waived, there will be nothing left of it.
9
@MainLaw: Not sure how you got to your conclusion. If you think ObamaCare works on the national level, why wouldn't it work on the State level?
TO: Louis Genevie
Because the states can obtain a waiver of the essential provisions of Obamacare, thereby gutting it -- just as the article says.
Because the states can obtain a waiver of the essential provisions of Obamacare, thereby gutting it -- just as the article says.
If they could add some kind of COLA to reduce costs to the retired it might work, but as it is the retired will be charged more and more as they grow older at the same time their fixed incomes are being eaten up by inflation.
1
At the core of this debate is the role of the federal government versus state's rights, a debate that has been a part of the American dialogue since the founding of our nation. If I understand correctly, nothing will change in Massachusetts if this new American Health Care Act is passed -- they have a state plan that covers everyone. And every other state can pass a Massachusetts like law. Other states may try a different approach, perhaps similar to "Healthy Indiana" -- which may or may not be idle but at least it is a state level experiment not dictated by DC. Vermont can try again to pass its single payer plan, or others can mirror Utah - which has the best overall health at the lowest cost of any state. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has documented the variations on how health resources are used across the US -- experiments at the state and local level.
Perhaps we should accept that health care delivery, the practice of medicine, and health insurance is a local issue and is best handled at the state level. When we compare our system to Sweden, for example, we should remember Sweden has about as many people as New Jersey. The best outcome for America may simply be to let the states decide.
Perhaps we should accept that health care delivery, the practice of medicine, and health insurance is a local issue and is best handled at the state level. When we compare our system to Sweden, for example, we should remember Sweden has about as many people as New Jersey. The best outcome for America may simply be to let the states decide.
3
One of Trump’s many bizarre comments during the campaign that is stuck in my mind was, “I love the poorly educated” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0). His addled base are easy pickings for this psychotic, treasonous, predator, and the current GOP – and it’s the very reason they can peddle such garbage. This administration, backed by the GOP, is doing everything possible to victimize the American people and pillage the land.
10
He loves the poorly educated because they are the easiest to con.
7
Apparently the only way to get the "Freedom" Caucus on board was to make it even more cruel in the name of "fiscal responsibility" - and I heard an interview with a congresscritter for the original plan where he insisted that the point was to save money, and, after a pause and almost under his breath, he added,"for the federal government."
Which is their point, of course - cut government spending (except for giant tax cuts for the wealthy and defense, natch) and let everyone else fend for themselves.
Which is their point, of course - cut government spending (except for giant tax cuts for the wealthy and defense, natch) and let everyone else fend for themselves.
9
@Jerry: it is hard to see your point. States that want ObamaCare can basically keep it. States that want to lower insurance costs for the vast majority and subsidize those who are left out can do that. What is the problem?
1
In addition to hurting those most in need, this proposal shows the cowardice of the Republicans who are afraid to face their own angry constitutents who will . loudly object to removing coverage for preexisting conditions, maternity coverage, and emergency care coverage. Instead, the propisal passes the buck to state officials, who can apply for waivers to these provisions in the relative stealth of an administrative process.
5
@Donna: where is the stealth? States that want ObamaCare can have it, along with its high cost for the majority. States that want out of it can get out, with the provision that they create funding, subsidized by the Federal Government, to deal with people who are left out. Take a close look at the program. It just might make sense.
1
Giving states the option to get waivers is just a way of providing cover for spineless congress people who will be able to say "We did something" about healthcare. States should push back on this. Why would they want to assume parallel bureaucracies and duplicative administrative costs, with funding from the feds that is sure to be insufficient? People who didn't like the ACA did not want the government telling them what to do when it came to health care. Now there is the potential that we could have 50 state governments telling us what we can and cannot have for healthcare coverage. Can your family pick one of the 10 Essential Benefits that nobody in the family will ever need?
3
@FH: 50 State governments? You only live in one and one State government and one state law for all is surely better than one law for the entire country.
If this bill is such a good idea then why aren't our darling politicians willing to extend it to themselves? Oh that's right, it's so awful they won't subject their families to it. But they're more than happy to punish us with it. Yay America.
11
As a republican I am ready for single payer with medical price controls or negotiated rates. The system is in place and everyone knows the rules. Taking Medicaid especially from special needs populations to fund these changes is cruel. The waitlist for these folks can be 5-10 yrs.
As a 64 yr old paying $1100 a month premium for myself I am coming the days to my birthday l.
As a 64 yr old paying $1100 a month premium for myself I am coming the days to my birthday l.
4
Why don't these people talk about the Medicare mess? The tp price for Medicare is a joke. People making more than $250,000(or some similar number) should pay market rates for that insurance.
It is a bankrupt system that has to be dealt with.
It is a bankrupt system that has to be dealt with.
Your cost for Medicare goes up with your income. The part B has a sliding scale starting at $134 for a minimum even on people only getting $800 or less a month. The more income you have the more you pay.
This is worse than what was proposed by GOP before! I hope this bill never turns into a law.
11
This Freedom Caucus-approved revision to the ACA will dead upon arrival at the Senate. The Senate is now the last remaining 'adult chaperone" in the current GOP circus in DC and Senators Graham, Collins, McCain, Sasse , Flake and the few other remaining responsible GOP senators will almost surely stop this latest version from passing. God Help Us All if they cave-in to pressure from Trump, McConnell and Ryan.
12
As a surgeon in practice for over 40 years I know with great certainty that this Republican lead Healthcare Plan will cause needless suffering and make life miserable for many Americans. This is reprehensible.
55
Many old, poor, and white Americans voted for Trump. It seems they will soon reap what they sowed
15
I suppose we can only speculate why some policymakers so faithfully hew to magical thinking. Our speculations would likely have more actuarial reliability than does any version of the AHCA, though. Take just two examples:
First, states' experiments with high risk pools have consistently failed: they have produced inadequate coverage, at a very high price...and the people who are most likely to fall into the high risk pools are often the people who are least able to afford the vastly higher premiums. No matter what some Republicans think, this is the evidence. These are the facts.
Second, Essential Health Benefits are just that: essential. The National Academy of Medicine, among others, rigorously evaluated the evidence of the ACA's Essential Health Benefits on the basis of whether coverage of them contributed to demonstrably better health outcomes for patients and the entire population. Giving Texas or Alabama, for instance, the opportunity to ditch the Essential Health Benefits will clearly lead to their populations' already poor health (and higher mortality rates) only getting poorer (and higher). Those are also the facts -- the real, honest to goodness evidence.
We Marched for Science -- for the scientific method, for rationality, for honest use of the evidence -- this past weekend. Once upon a time, the Republican Party also embraced science, and evidence-based policymaking. Alas, that is no longer so.
First, states' experiments with high risk pools have consistently failed: they have produced inadequate coverage, at a very high price...and the people who are most likely to fall into the high risk pools are often the people who are least able to afford the vastly higher premiums. No matter what some Republicans think, this is the evidence. These are the facts.
Second, Essential Health Benefits are just that: essential. The National Academy of Medicine, among others, rigorously evaluated the evidence of the ACA's Essential Health Benefits on the basis of whether coverage of them contributed to demonstrably better health outcomes for patients and the entire population. Giving Texas or Alabama, for instance, the opportunity to ditch the Essential Health Benefits will clearly lead to their populations' already poor health (and higher mortality rates) only getting poorer (and higher). Those are also the facts -- the real, honest to goodness evidence.
We Marched for Science -- for the scientific method, for rationality, for honest use of the evidence -- this past weekend. Once upon a time, the Republican Party also embraced science, and evidence-based policymaking. Alas, that is no longer so.
16
GOP doesn't care about science and evidence. Fortunately, GOP voters will not evade scientific facts regardless of what they believe
3
The Freedom Caucus is on board because this plan would screw even more people more quickly and more badly than the previous version! Yea for Freedom!!!
11
Stay young..never get old. Stay healthy..never get sick. Have a job always...never lose or change. Finally, stay rich..never be poor. Follow these rules, every one is healthy and happy, and the added bonus, your health care premiums will be low. America will be great again before you know it.
17
And if it's not great here, it will be great on that cloud.
Although this is a terrible change I feel that Republicans should get their way and then the American people can decide how they like it. I assume most Americans won't like it. Younger healthier American will have cheaper policies if they bother to get insurance at all but everyone else will be pretty unhappy. Forgetting the real pain and suffering this will cause why isn't this good politically if you think Americans need to finally understand that Republicans could care less about them.
5
Younger people will be happy until they get sick (didn't we just see an article in the NYT about the rise of colon cancer in young people?) or have an expensive accident. Then they, also, will be in an unhappy state.
There is no one alive who is exempt from current and/or future need of health care (not insurance).
There is no one alive who is exempt from current and/or future need of health care (not insurance).
3
@Jeff: You really need to understand the GOP proposal better. The way it is set up, States that want to keep things as they are can do that. You're in CA so presumably you will essentially keep ObamaCare, and presumably you like it, with its high premiums, high deductibles and fewer and fewer insurers to chose from. Other States can opt out of certain ObamaCare requirements, creating lower premiums, lower deductibles and more insurers to chose from for the vast majority of people. For the 15% who will not be covered in this way, the States will have to set up a fund, supplemented by the Federal Government, to help them get coverage. What is the problem with this system?
I think it’s a move in the right direction, which the Senate will greet favorably: to allow different states to take different approaches, and they surely will. Red and blue can live in harmony.
2
What's so "harmonious" about charging people more for pre-existing conditions (i.e, even relatively minor ones such as allergies)? I can guarantee folks(those of us not getting the congressional bennies) will not be feeling so peaceful with this version.
1
We saw this coming. The new AHCA is a two-part plan. Part one: The Federal AHCA is a gift to those who want to tell constituents a great healthcare plan has been passed at very low cost. Part two: These campaigners don't have to tell constituents that the AHCA is optional: any state that wants healthcare can have it if they pay for it themselves; and any state that doesn't want healthcare can opt out if they can stomach the voter backlash.
Why aren't all Federal government benefits structured thus way?
Why aren't all Federal government benefits structured thus way?
2
Hopefully this cruel abomination will die a quick death in the Senate. Then, in 2018, the Representatives who voted for this will be voted out.
17
It doesn't take a political genius to predict that every Republican Governor will immediately seek a waver on TrumpCare's healthcare requirements. As long as politicians have a separate healthcare coverage plan, citizens will be subject to the political whims of Republican elected officials.
They win, we lose.
They win, we lose.
18
Good luck if you are poor, old, or female under this administration.
22
Another badly disguised Trojan horse plan. It's a roadmap for every state and every insurer how to cut and run. Time for another reality check for Republican Congressmen whose constituents are at risk.
6
This plan has a lot in common with the Patient Freedom Act proposed in the Senate, which I have supported. Each proposal lets Texas be Texas and California be California (if the House proposal keeps the health money flowing in today's amounts). In 2020 we will have a good idea how the different state systems are working.
I suggest my fellow Democrats keep the complaints to a minimum and let the Republicans own this. The Obamacare model will remain in many highly populated states awaiting nationwide revival down the road.
I suggest my fellow Democrats keep the complaints to a minimum and let the Republicans own this. The Obamacare model will remain in many highly populated states awaiting nationwide revival down the road.
3
The thing is, while you're "waiting" for all this to play out (by 2020), real people are suffering, and possibly dying.
8
On determining what basic health benefits will be offered: why not allow consumers to decide what they want based upon need?
2
Because if you understand the insurance industry, they are not interested in selling you what you need right now. You know the old joke about banks: 'they're eager to give loans to people who don't need them?' Same with insurers. They have profit margins to sustain, and sick people are not profitable.
Try getting a healthcare policy when you are first diagnosed with cancer. You're going to be unpleasantly surprised, I guarantee.
Try getting a healthcare policy when you are first diagnosed with cancer. You're going to be unpleasantly surprised, I guarantee.
11
Without the basic benefits included in the Affordable Care Act, there would be no point in buying insurance. People put into a High Risk Pool because of a pre-existing condition would find that premiums are not affordable and not all pre-existing conditions are covered. I am seizure disordered and had to do High Risk Pool Insurance for two years before becoming eligible for Medicare. My monthly premium was $1100 per month and I got three doctor appointments at a $30 co-pay. My deductible was about $5,000. High Risk Pool prescription plan was an additional plan with a $250 deductible. Cost for the prescription was much higher than cost of any prescription now. Yes, there are yearly price increases every year for insurance under any program. For those of you who are now paying a premium of $345 per month under the Affordable Care Act with free essential benefits, you need to do the math.
$345 per month vs $1100 per month.
$345 per month vs $1100 per month.
13
You can't fight for a state's right to choose which federal laws it wants to follow on the one hand, and then threaten to punish cities that don't want to fall in line on immigration policies on the other hand.
Oh, unless the whole "state's rights" thing has been disingenuous this whole time, and it never really had anything to do with a stance on federalism.
Oh, unless the whole "state's rights" thing has been disingenuous this whole time, and it never really had anything to do with a stance on federalism.
15
If you voted for Trump or any of the representatives in Congress that back the proposed health care bill, you have lost the right to complain when you or a family member gets sick and cannot afford healthcare.
9
It will trickle down...
I'm frankly surprised that it took the Republicans (you know, the "states' rights" party) this long to come up with such an idea. The consequences, I think, are rather predictable: the blue states and at least some, perhaps many, purple states will not exercise any waivers, while most red states will. It will largely mirror which states took the Medicaid expansion and which ones didn't. The bottom line, as usual, is: Don't get sick if you live in a red state.
6
It seems like the best solution is for the red states to secede. I would love to not have to deal with Republican cruelty and greed anymore.
7
You had your chance. Blame Abraham Lincoln if you don't like America today.
1
I think they meant to say "Some Americans should never be denied..."
2
I have pondered these proposed changes overnight. If you apply the Republican principles towards healthcare in the public education realm, kindergarteners should find employment and pay their own way. That´s ridiculous you say; just as ridiculous as expecting very ill or older, but not eligible for Medicare, citizens to be able to pay for expensive insurance that actually covers the full range of needs.
This is not a bill, it´s a shill for Trump to say that he accomplished something in his first 100 days.
This is not a bill, it´s a shill for Trump to say that he accomplished something in his first 100 days.
7
Laughable! You want to see healthcare get fixed? You only need to establish ONE provision: The plan applies to ALL members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, AND their dependents, and REPLACES any plan they have in place now. Just watch the rest of the details fall into place.
20
The heartlessness of these people is disgusting. All to appease the American Freedom Caucus. Freedom from what? Creating health options that don't cover any real health needs that people have? Just so they can repeal "Obamacare"? How shallow and callous can they be? They don't care about anyone, as long as they can put a check mark next to " Repeal "Obamacare". Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No! Is is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, as these conservative lunatics would have you believe? NO WAY! The way the government used to run was the Republicans and Democrats would meet about legislation, both sides would compromise and a viable bill would be created and eventually become law. The clowns who run Congress now, and this includes many Democrats as well as Republicans, just look to block any legislation proposed by the other side, without looking at the merits of the legislation. How did we end up here?
11
Please STOP calling it Obamacare unless you will from here on forward call it TRUMPDONTCARE.
It's the ACA, and the GOP want to make it the UN affordable care act.unless you are in congress where you will have a Cadillac health care plan.
It's the ACA, and the GOP want to make it the UN affordable care act.unless you are in congress where you will have a Cadillac health care plan.
9
Come on, Ms Sanger-Katz, you can't state that the Republican bill "would keep much of the American Health Care Act in place," but then list how the ACA would be gutted through "waivers."
Let's be honest, shall we? The Republican proposal will destroy the Affordable Care Act. Period.
Let's be honest, shall we? The Republican proposal will destroy the Affordable Care Act. Period.
9
The most incredibly hypocritical part about all of this is that the GOP slipped a provision into the plan to exempt Congress from all of the state waivers. They will never be denied because of previous conditions, nor will they pay more because they are ill (not that they pay anyway), nor will they pay more as they grow older. It's just disgusting. The GOP has no problem cutting off the less fortunate as long as they take care of themselves. I hope that the Democrats will point this out, but really, who knows.
13
This is called passing the buck to the states, to get off the hook for making hard decisions.
7
What a cruel and ugly worldview this proposal reflects.
10
The Republicans are in control of all branches of government, and today they will pass a one week funding plan, because they can't figure out how to run the government. Paul Ryan has not even passed a REAL budget. He can't pass anything. Republicans need to go away and live in North Korea with Kim Jung UN.
3
The Republicans are making it obvious that they don't know how to govern. The contempt that the Republican party has held the government and governing in for so long has returned to bite them. Learning to make effective public policy decisions is a skill lile any other. That's why so many people who have become president had previous experience as State governors. The Republicans have chosen to hold government in contempt and now their so-called governing is contemptible.
1
Thieves!
5
sociopaths also!
2
Trump's going to end up laying 'Whack a Vote". The No votes he whacks down on one side will force No votes to pop up on the other side.
1
So, let me understand this: The Freedom Caucus is fine with states gutting health care for their citizens (essential benefits) and covering practically nothing, gutting care for anybody with an existing health problem, which is just about everybody, and screwing old people. And they will be very excited to pass the blame to the "moderate" Republicans, who were the ones who wanted this stuff last time, but were themselves fine with kicking 24 million people off their health insurance. And this back door rush job was all orchestrated by the #45 chief of staff so that no one passes the blame to #45 by Saturday when he reaches 100 days in office. Imagine if President Harry Truman had had a sign on his desk that said, "The buck never stops here." Would he be famous for that? Or, to quote another famous American saying, "Have they no shame?"
9
In other words what they have brilliantly come up with is the exact opposite of Health Insurance: Instead of Spreading the Risk among the Many they are Narrowing the Risk Down to the Few Most Vulnerable! A Most "Conservative" or a Most "Freedom" oriented approach is that I wonder?
6
Seems odd to offer $4,000 subsidies when it would be less expensive to simply capture employer contributions and cover everyone. Why not fund healthcare for all rather than insurance companies, especially when the costs are so similar?
7
You're right. But insurance companies, at least in my state, are major political contributors. Any system that threatens the dominance and profitability of health insurance companies will never have Republican support.
This healthcare plan has the exact same problem Obamacare had – it’s too complicated. This is why I won’t buy health insurance. It’s too complicated for me to understand. And I don’t buy things I don’t understand. I figured if it made sense, the government wouldn’t give me the option to pass.
1
This isn't a 'health insurance plan.' It's a termination notice.
5
I'm a financial advisor. Although every investor has different needs, if a client's situation and risk tolerance is close to mine, I own the same products I recommend and sell. I can't imagine doing otherwise.
So I agree with others who call for members of Congress to use the same plan(s) they are "recommending" for others. If that were to happen, this health care act would look very different.
But Congress is of the mind - "Do as I say, not as I do." Shameful, really.
So I agree with others who call for members of Congress to use the same plan(s) they are "recommending" for others. If that were to happen, this health care act would look very different.
But Congress is of the mind - "Do as I say, not as I do." Shameful, really.
15
IN our state we were able to do some long-term claims research on two cohorts of insured. The bottom end of the ACA-defined adult population, ages 21-25, and the upper limit of the ACA-defined adult population, ages 60-64.
IN 2014-2016, the 60-64 cohort used 714% as much claims dollars as the 21-25 year old cohort. In addition, the 60-64 year old cohort is significantly larger than the 21-25 year old group.
This implies that keeping age rating at 3:1 is giving an enormous discount to the 60-64 year olds at the expense of the 21-25 year old group. In fact, we estimated that the younger group's premiums are at least 75% higher than they should be for a balanced risk pool. Even moving the age rating to 5:1 implies a significant economic discount to the older group.
The fact that lobbying groups like AARP who represent people my age continue to call fixing this tragedy an "old age tax" and spending $millions lobbying against it has encouraged me to dump my membership. At age 56, I want nothing more to do with their taking advantage of the political process to fix this zero sum game.
WR
IN 2014-2016, the 60-64 cohort used 714% as much claims dollars as the 21-25 year old cohort. In addition, the 60-64 year old cohort is significantly larger than the 21-25 year old group.
This implies that keeping age rating at 3:1 is giving an enormous discount to the 60-64 year olds at the expense of the 21-25 year old group. In fact, we estimated that the younger group's premiums are at least 75% higher than they should be for a balanced risk pool. Even moving the age rating to 5:1 implies a significant economic discount to the older group.
The fact that lobbying groups like AARP who represent people my age continue to call fixing this tragedy an "old age tax" and spending $millions lobbying against it has encouraged me to dump my membership. At age 56, I want nothing more to do with their taking advantage of the political process to fix this zero sum game.
WR
4
None of these plans are intended to provide good health care to Americans. The whole point is to keep health care private and run for profit by the insurance companies. The insurance companies make money by NOT providing care. Every time you go to the doctor you help an insurance executive buy a yacht. It has nothing to do with your health and everything to do with protecting and expanding private wealth.
9
The Republican Party's ideal is that no one pays for anything for anyone else. Who knows how close they'll get to their ideal: it's the opposite of insurance.
4
I think the law should be changed to offer a basic insurance plan for people that want coverage only in the event of an extreme event like an accident, a terminal illness, etc. Why do I need to pay maternity coverage, drug rehab coverage, etc.? This would make insurance much more affordable for many. If you need or want maternity coverage then by all means pay for it. If I want to drive a Toyota then why do I have to pay for the Lexus?
2
It's called the "public good." Your Federal taxes may be used to build a highway that you never use but if taxpayers had the right to decide willy-nilly which roads get built, some highways would not be funded. With regard to insurance--health care, auto, home, and more--it's only available at affordable costs based on everyone paying into the "pool." Your home must be insured for fire, your auto for uninsured drivers. Insurance, to a great extent, is based on everyone paying for coverage that may personally never be used.
11
Yes and spreading that risk over the greatest possible heterogeneous population of insures is the ONLY way to keep costs lowest for ALL of the participants. That has always been the model for effective insurance plans. It has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism just basic economics.
9
According to this logic, when insurance companies start demanding genetic testing to calculate risk, others might find that they don't share the same genetic risks as you do, or that you didn't contribute enough to your own health with exercise, proper nutrition (whose definition changes constantly), stress reduction classes, or other factors. What if others suggest that unless you live the lifestyle that they decide is right that you don't deserve insurance coverage at all? Don't think that companies are not thinking of ways to implement these measures now - they are. Is that the kind of society we want?
3
The "Freedom Caucus" is yet another example of a group adopting a patriotic name to mask its heinous agenda. I'm reminded that the Revolutionary Tribunal during the Reign of Terror went by the benign name of "The Committee of Public Safety".
Everything these people do seems to be motivated out of cruelty. The value of a bill is measured by the pain it inflicts.
Everything these people do seems to be motivated out of cruelty. The value of a bill is measured by the pain it inflicts.
6
So basically, if you live in a red state, you can almost be assured that the state in question will be gunning for those waivers. It's easy to "attest" something. The big question that needs to be answered is what happens when those promises turn out to not be so?
There really is a simple solution to all of this. A single payer plan paid by taxes. Yes, the tax bill will go up, but that would be balanced by people no longer worrying about premiums, deductibles, or copays.
Just once, GOP, do the right thing.
There really is a simple solution to all of this. A single payer plan paid by taxes. Yes, the tax bill will go up, but that would be balanced by people no longer worrying about premiums, deductibles, or copays.
Just once, GOP, do the right thing.
4
Simplicity somehow is a non-sequitur in Washington.
1
As has become usual, the Republicans have crafted a bill that ignores what Americans need and provides benefits for the wealthy and their political masters. They don't work for us.
3
I do wish The NY Times would stop referring to the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare". That moniker was assigned by those who opposed it to somehow discredit the law and sever it from its roots in the republican / conservative / Heritage Foundation healthcare policy proposal largely adopted by Romney in Massachusetts.
While the moniker has fallen into somewhat common usage and could be justified in your paper's style guide, the fact that polls have shown that some portion of the population is in favor of the ACA but not Obamacare shows that severing the policy from one of the many who had a role to play in the law's adoption would be the correct convention.
While the moniker has fallen into somewhat common usage and could be justified in your paper's style guide, the fact that polls have shown that some portion of the population is in favor of the ACA but not Obamacare shows that severing the policy from one of the many who had a role to play in the law's adoption would be the correct convention.
10
An important part of Obamacare is the mandate--that every adult must have health insurance or would have to pay a fine. Is this still in the AHCA? If the mandate goes out, Obamacare will collapse rather quickly.
2
It sounds like people can avoid buying insurance. However, who do you do you think is going to pick up the tab if that non-insurance buyer gets cancer or a chronic debilitating, expensive illness or gets into an accident requiring extensive hospitalization and rehab? Everyone loses with this piece of garbage bill.
2
Trump's health plan is a lot like his tax reform: it helps those who don't need it and hurts those who weren't smart enough to get filthy rich or die before insurance companies think they're too unprofitable to insure.
If Trump's scheme is enacted, Millions of Americans -- particularly in red states -- are going to head South to Mexico and sign up for their Single Payer system. (Yup, our poor, backward neighbors viewed by so many of Trump's ilk with utter contempt figured out Single Payer while the exceptional, beautiful and great again gringos up North think medical triage is a leading edge best practice.)
When the sons and daughters of the red state confederacy flood across the Rio Grande in their 4WDs and monster trucks, the Mexicans will panic and all those illegal workers will be pressed by the Mexican government into building an emergency wall to keep the gringos out of their healthcare system.
Trump will have kept his promise: build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. Trump knows leverage: drive a lot of older and sick Americans over the border and the Mexicans will deal.
Mexico will have a 30 ft high seamless wall covered in beautiful tile work the entire length of the border by Christmas. Not missing a beat, Trudeau will contract with Mexico to build a northern version to dissuade desperate Americans from looking North. In California, we plan to have our wall up by next Spring.
Health care may be hard. Getting a free wall is a piece of cake.
If Trump's scheme is enacted, Millions of Americans -- particularly in red states -- are going to head South to Mexico and sign up for their Single Payer system. (Yup, our poor, backward neighbors viewed by so many of Trump's ilk with utter contempt figured out Single Payer while the exceptional, beautiful and great again gringos up North think medical triage is a leading edge best practice.)
When the sons and daughters of the red state confederacy flood across the Rio Grande in their 4WDs and monster trucks, the Mexicans will panic and all those illegal workers will be pressed by the Mexican government into building an emergency wall to keep the gringos out of their healthcare system.
Trump will have kept his promise: build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. Trump knows leverage: drive a lot of older and sick Americans over the border and the Mexicans will deal.
Mexico will have a 30 ft high seamless wall covered in beautiful tile work the entire length of the border by Christmas. Not missing a beat, Trudeau will contract with Mexico to build a northern version to dissuade desperate Americans from looking North. In California, we plan to have our wall up by next Spring.
Health care may be hard. Getting a free wall is a piece of cake.
8
The Republicans are out of touch with most Americans and they lack basic compassion for their fellow citizens. When ideology is more important than constituents, we all lose. It is a shame that so many people who need subsidized health insurance were betrayed by the very people for whom they voted. I guess that is the penalty for being uninformed and wooed by slogans in lieu of substance.
4
Not making maternity care mandatory or even discussing whether it should be included or not - what a bunch of thankless people. Women have built and produced every single human being in this country and in return we are put down, constrained, paid less, ridiculed, called "unclean" by some religions, called "hosts" by some politicans and are soon to be forced to build human beings and have our medical coverage when we're building humans denied.
Republican men - you do it then. If you don't want maternity coverage as a right for women, you build and produce each American. Women would be happy to have you do the work for a change.
Republican men - you do it then. If you don't want maternity coverage as a right for women, you build and produce each American. Women would be happy to have you do the work for a change.
10
What a grand plan - insurance will be really affordable for those who are healthy and don't really 'need' it, but costly, if even accessible at all, for those who are ill. Any American is not and never will be sick or old should applaud that. Let me know if you find one of those.
43
I just can't figure out what it is about these people that will countenance suffering or financial misery (or both) in their fellow citizens. What higher value are they defending by creating worry and anxiety in hundreds of million people? Just look what Republicans have inflicted on Kansas when they are hold power, and what states like Kansas will do with the authority to deny their citizens adequate coverage. I can see one individual in his madness or stupidity coming up with such a plan, but to have nearly 300 people willing to inflict this kind of pain on human beings is incomprehensible.
87
The plan is absolutely brilliant. We all know that large corporations become more efficient when they break themselves down into 50 different pieces. Further it is obvious that each state should manage healthcare to their own special needs since the prevalence of various diseases is different from state to state. Not to mention that the best medical practices, medical training, and available drugs vary depending on location. And why stop there? Let's return to the Articles of Confederation and everything will work a whole lot better.
53
It's not clear whether or not this is sarcasm.
1
I'm so embarrassed that a NJ representative came up with this idea.
32
Tom MacArthur, a well-funded Republican in N.J.'s 3rd Congressional district has to pay back the insurance thieves who got him elected in the first place. See MacArthur's net worth of $52.9M as of 2014, balloon as a result of this heavy lifting to steal from the sick to give to the insurance companies.
Tom MacArthur, has to be remembered as the cruel enemy of the American middle class that he really is, on Tuesday, November 6, 2018.
Tom MacArthur, has to be remembered as the cruel enemy of the American middle class that he really is, on Tuesday, November 6, 2018.
7
This is Disgusting and heartless!
43
l wonder why these people even bother to call it a health plan. A better one? It's worse in every way. Why don't the Republicans just skip their complicated and contorted plotting and throw us back in the pre-Affordable Care Act water now. It's their ultimate goal. Talk about Death Lists!
47
Congress members should not get healthcare from the government. Instead give them a $10,000 per year raise which they can use to buy insurance on the exchanges. If they qualify for a tax credit they can get that too. Only if they are in the same boat will they devise a plan that works for the rest of Americans.
75
Considering most Americans who buy their health insurance on the exchanges probably didn't get a raise to do so, why are we giving Congress members a raise for that? It would seem, if we really wanted them in the same boat, we should fix their salaries at the current median income and then require 1% reductions every year for the next 20 years.
2
They apparently slipped through an amendment at the last moment that preserves ACA protections for Congress and their staff. In other words, they made sure they would be protected even if the rest of us get left in the freezing cold. Evil and beastly. There are not awful enough words to describe it.
6
Why give Congress members a raise? Will they then turn around and mandate a $10,000 raise for everyone for purposes of buying health insurance?
This is an irresponsible callous bill and a complete disregard for the people who need health care coverage. The clueless Grand No Party paid by paymasters passed sixty bills to kill the ACA in the past. Now, the clueless party cannot run the propaganda fake news machine since they are in power. One should read The wordings in the bill. Red states will Find ways to opt out. Alas, those States helped the con man pathological liar to win the election. Many Trump supporters also depend on welfare supported by tax payers. Time for those voters to open their blindfold and see how they were manipulated by cheap populist rhetorics.
32
An American without employer benefits is a goner, financially and medically. With more and more of us working independently, especially us undesirable older Americans, this is just cruelty.
124
In other words, Red States will be allowed to trash the program even further than they have already and Blue States will strengthen and protect its residents from the predatory changes proposed to their policies.
MEDICARE FOR ALL, please.
MEDICARE FOR ALL, please.
85
But under Trump's plans people in blue states will not be able to deduct state and local taxes anymore. Therefore blue states won't be able to tax people as much and will have to cut services.
21
Those would be high-income earners...and, frankly, they can afford it. Don't like the inflation in California? Please leave.
1
Why not every policy cover up to a certain amount instead of unlimited coverage and use a pool, financed by local, state and Federal Tax dollars, to cover amounts over that limit.
7
That would entail utilizing public policy for the public good rather than just to enrich the already rich. We can't have that.
4
This is Trumpcare made far worse, especially in Red states, for people that actually need insurance. Now they are guaranteed not to be able to afford any insurance. How callous. All to satisfy the most conservative Republicans. This is Repeal disguised as a replacement.
51
Were this to pass I can only hope that "blue" folks in the red states that waive all protections would move to blue states that preserve the essential benefits. We are about to become a divided nation geographically in addition to being divided politically.
Congress exempting itself from losing the essential benefits and community pricing disgusts me. This is not of, by, or for the people.
Congress exempting itself from losing the essential benefits and community pricing disgusts me. This is not of, by, or for the people.
64
Find me a blue-coast job and I'm outta the heartland in a heartbeat!
32
Let us buy into the plans that congress members give themselves.
35
Republicans are traitors to the American people. Every single time they touch any program, they make it worse--health care? Worse. National Parks? Decimating them to profit energy companies. Taxes? Only the little people pay any. They are traitors of the worst and most vile kind - they betray the people who count on them to actually lead, to actually care, to actually have a sense of responsibility to the people who count on them. Traitors. We should be rioting in the streets.
142
" Only the little people pay any." Ah yes, the famous Leona Helmsley quote -- made just before she went to prison.
And what line of work was she in with her husband Harry? NYC hotels!
What a coincidence
And what line of work was she in with her husband Harry? NYC hotels!
What a coincidence
4
Trump has long told us that Obamacare is failing. He has never told us why. The summation presented here by Ms. Sanger-Katz does tell us why.
Monies paid out by health insurance companies are increasing because of the need to support older people and/or people with serious illnesses. If health insurance companies didn’t have such persons on their rolls, premiums could be reduced. It’s as if such persons are a drag on society because they have the audacity to become old or ill.
To read the blow by blow account of the way our Government is going to treat some of their citizens is disheartening. Those making such proposals in the richest country on earth, ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Monies paid out by health insurance companies are increasing because of the need to support older people and/or people with serious illnesses. If health insurance companies didn’t have such persons on their rolls, premiums could be reduced. It’s as if such persons are a drag on society because they have the audacity to become old or ill.
To read the blow by blow account of the way our Government is going to treat some of their citizens is disheartening. Those making such proposals in the richest country on earth, ought to be ashamed of themselves.
153
As a small business owner, there has been nothing more horrendous than Obamacare. My family's premiums are through the roof - I do not consider $2,300/month affordable nor sustainable for a family of three, and if you ever need coverage, you cannot afford to use it. I have gone through months of chemo/radiation prior to the ACA and paid no more than $200 TOTAL in out of pocket expenses. A family member recently sustained a broken arm and between the copays, FACILITY CHARGES (that was one they never told us about) and deductible we have been charged our maximum of $11k additional payments for the year.
$11k in addition to outrageous monthly payments?? For a broken arm? REALLY?? Two facts of life for my family under Obamacare: 1) Premiums go up 20% every year and 2) We will payout an additional $11k a year IF we ever use the plan. We cannot afford the premiums let alone the out of pocket expenses, guess we just wont eat this year.
In a nutshell, the poor are covered and employees of corporations are subsidized, it is all the people in the middle and small business owners in American that are essentially without coverage because it is "unaffordable". This is not just my family, every other small business owner we know is experiencing the same issue. You can sit and debate the numbers and philosophical merits, but the facts to those of us on the ground is it is a complete and utter disaster/failure. There, I have said my piece, go ahead and burn me at the stake.
$11k in addition to outrageous monthly payments?? For a broken arm? REALLY?? Two facts of life for my family under Obamacare: 1) Premiums go up 20% every year and 2) We will payout an additional $11k a year IF we ever use the plan. We cannot afford the premiums let alone the out of pocket expenses, guess we just wont eat this year.
In a nutshell, the poor are covered and employees of corporations are subsidized, it is all the people in the middle and small business owners in American that are essentially without coverage because it is "unaffordable". This is not just my family, every other small business owner we know is experiencing the same issue. You can sit and debate the numbers and philosophical merits, but the facts to those of us on the ground is it is a complete and utter disaster/failure. There, I have said my piece, go ahead and burn me at the stake.
2
Do you think it would be any different without Obamacara? Insurance company charge what they can get away with..
2
The privately owned insurance companies decide on the amount of premiums you pay - not the federal government. If you insured through United Healthcare, for example, for 2016 your premium costs went towards salaries and benefits totaling $58 Million for its 5 major corporate officers and directors.
1
"The Republican bill would shift the default age rating from 3:1 to 5:1."
#1 on the new bill must be -- Congress should have the same healthcare as the rest of America.
Most of Congress will end up paying 5:1, considering their average age. Let's see how they like it, before they stick it down the throats of our family elderly.
#1 on the new bill must be -- Congress should have the same healthcare as the rest of America.
Most of Congress will end up paying 5:1, considering their average age. Let's see how they like it, before they stick it down the throats of our family elderly.
135
Members of Congress and their staffs would be exempt from this latest proposal. See: https://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment
3
Other sources report that the amended version exempts Congress and its staff from paying more for pre-existing conditions if they live in a state that applies for that exemption.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-change...
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-change...
3
Except that the Republicans in Congress very conveniently excepted themselves from many of the Act's provisions. Hypocrites all. When will people realize that Republicans do not care about average people, only the wealthy and corporations? This bill is prime evidence of that.
1
Once again, making things worse for the people who need health insurance the most. Of course, many of these folks support Trump and the Republicans who don't believe you deserve insurance unless you can pay for all of it yourself. So the subidies shrink, coverage shrinks, prices go up. How can people be so addled in the brain to believe this new proposal is a good deal???
68
It all adds up to bad news for Americans. One can only hope politicians on both sides of the aisle make the right choice. Sure, Obamacare isn't perfect, but it was a giant step in the right direction. Let's not go two steps back.
71
People who maintain continuous coverage would be entitled to community rating! People who waited until they got sick would pay more. What's not to like?
5
Might be fair if everyone were educated as to the actual cost difference in case of catastrophic illness. But this government will be sure to not educate the people so the young ones continue to believe they are exempt from disaster! Until it comes. Then there will be some very angry people. And how many more of them will have guns? Who will they go after in their anger?
15
I'm still trying to figure out the "63 day" provision for continued coverage. Why 63? Why not 64? 65?
I'm retired from working in medical insurance, and am confused by this. I understand the 60 day continuation for inpatient/skilled nursing facility provisions in Medicare, but this one has me scratching my head.
I'm retired from working in medical insurance, and am confused by this. I understand the 60 day continuation for inpatient/skilled nursing facility provisions in Medicare, but this one has me scratching my head.
12
63 comes from one of two places:
"Let's set it at 2 months" - This version is the random number drawn from thin air estimating how long your average Congressperson thinks is reasonable for someone to be without insurance. Since everyone knows the longest months are 31 days, the 63 day is the first day after the two month period.
[Complicated Math] - This version assumes an insurance actuary did a bunch of math and came up with the break even point for when an insurance company is likely to get burned in the worst scenario: a person with insurance through their job loses said job and takes some amount of time to fill out paperwork to get new insurance while also going to the doctor to discover super expensive potentially fatal illness. Whatever their risk tolerance is for having to pay out verses looking really bad when this story goes viral on social media - that's how the number was determined.
"Let's set it at 2 months" - This version is the random number drawn from thin air estimating how long your average Congressperson thinks is reasonable for someone to be without insurance. Since everyone knows the longest months are 31 days, the 63 day is the first day after the two month period.
[Complicated Math] - This version assumes an insurance actuary did a bunch of math and came up with the break even point for when an insurance company is likely to get burned in the worst scenario: a person with insurance through their job loses said job and takes some amount of time to fill out paperwork to get new insurance while also going to the doctor to discover super expensive potentially fatal illness. Whatever their risk tolerance is for having to pay out verses looking really bad when this story goes viral on social media - that's how the number was determined.
1
Logically, shouldn't this make the AHCA harder to pass by deterring more moderates in the House, and make Senate passage even more difficult? Besides, Democrats and voters have more leverage over "moderates" who can be voted out unlike Freedom Caucus members in safe districts.
67
You're letting that silly "logic" stuff cloud your thoughts. Republicans get too excited about profits for their bosses to worry about their base for long.
24
Hear your logic, but the moderates had no problem with the original plan and with all the tricks in this one--kept Obamacare except if your state wants to eliminate it
I was thinking the same thing. Won't this require the votes of at least a few Dems? How is the GOP gonna pull that off?
I thought Trump was going to reach across the aisle to create a policy closer to the middle. I don't see how this is anywhere close to the middle.
And almost by default, I'm against anything that finds favor with the Freedom Caucus - a collection of far-right wing-nuts.
I thought Trump was going to reach across the aisle to create a policy closer to the middle. I don't see how this is anywhere close to the middle.
And almost by default, I'm against anything that finds favor with the Freedom Caucus - a collection of far-right wing-nuts.
2
A House website on the bill still says that “Americans should never be denied coverage or charged more because of a pre-existing condition.”
Yet that is EXACTLY what this bill would allow states to do.
This is called lying.
Not mischaracterizing.
Not misrepresenting, spinning or misleading.
Lying.
Yet that is EXACTLY what this bill would allow states to do.
This is called lying.
Not mischaracterizing.
Not misrepresenting, spinning or misleading.
Lying.
202
to AF:
of course the slippery slick talking repubs would point out that the statement on the House website states that "Americans SHOULD never be denied..." not that they WILL never be denied"
Another word game they play is saying that everybody, including those with pre-existing conditions will have ACCESS to health insurance. Of course what's left out is how prohibitally high the cost of that access might be.
of course the slippery slick talking repubs would point out that the statement on the House website states that "Americans SHOULD never be denied..." not that they WILL never be denied"
Another word game they play is saying that everybody, including those with pre-existing conditions will have ACCESS to health insurance. Of course what's left out is how prohibitally high the cost of that access might be.
1
The Christian Right wants to force us to bear children but DENY maternity care. Resist!
148
They defend your right to be born but after that, you are on your own.
2
Sounds like an absolute loser for everyone but Representatives and Senators in the states who choose to take a waiver. How convenient that our elected officials have elected to exempt themselves from their draconian rule-making.
89
I work in the healthcare field; there are important points people should know about U.S. healthcare. Studies show that Americans without health insurance have higher mortality rates than those with insurance. To be clear, this bill (in its current form) will cause millions to lose their insurance because they will not be able to afford it. There's no question people will become sick and die prematurely as a result. Everyone needs to know this.
The people who will be hurt most are the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the poor and the elderly. Many people don't wish to be ill -- it just happens through no fault of their own. What happens when this person wants to obtain health insurance? This will be considered a pre-existing condition and, depending on the illness, he/she will probably not be able to afford coverage even though it may technically be available to them. Everyone should realize that each of us, at some point, will become a patient and require health care.
The passage of the house bill makes me sick and everyone else should feel the same way.