It Looks Like The New ObamaCare Repeal Bill is on Life Support as a Large Number of Tuesday Group Republicans Oppose it.

[libertybele]

@corbe

Actually, a lot of the pre-existing conditions crowd was bitching about it.

Don't you see the cognitive dissonance in this thread?  Really, in the forum overall on this issue?  You've got one group of people saying that we should have a full repeal, and are upset that more members of Congress won't support it.  However, a full repeal which would include getting rid of the pre-existing conditions protections, and that would make premiums increase for people with pre-existing conditions.  That's just basic math.

But then you've got other people complaining about that exact premium increase, and claiming that's not what was supposed to happen.  @Chosen Daughter and @libertybele,for example.  The funny thing is that some in this same group complaining about a potential increase in premiums for pre-existing conditions are also demanding a complete repeal. 

A full repeal, no replace means that premiums for people with pre-existing conditions are going to increase.  I'm not advocating one way or the other -- I'm just pointing out the mathematical reality.

I think you need to go back and read my post.  I clearly stated that I believe that covering pre-existing conditions is not the cause of rising premiums and that premiums have been rising for years, but have skyrocketed under Bammycare. Rising premiums aren't the fault of President Trump.  Coverage for pre-existing conditions was actually signed into law under Clinton better known as HIPAA  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Clinton also implemented universal billing and coding.

IF Bammycare is fully repealed; the laws under HIPAA would still exist.  The current proposed legislation would eliminate covering pre-existing conditions. I'm just pointing out reality.  The second reality is that the 'group' that is being targeted for pre-existing conditions are usually those who are older and have paid into the system and shouldn't be penalized for becoming ill and using their insurance! The next reality is the group that falls under Medicaid; medical coverage paid by the government to absorb the costs of those who are not insured; illegals, disabled, youth without insurance, the poor, the mentally ill, etc. 

http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/definition/HIPAA

So which group should we take from so that we can make it more affordable for everyone else?  The poor? Seniors?  The disabled?  Kids?  How about ILLEGALS?  I vote for the later.  It will save us billions, if not trillions.

Eliminate providing medical care for non-citizens, crackdown on healthcare fraud, create a nationwide marketplace, expand health savings accounts and de-link health insurance from the workplace and you would have a much better healthcare plan.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

IF Bammycare is fully repealed; the law for pre-existing conditions still exists  -- I'm just pointing out reality.

Pre-existing condition coverage under ObamaCare is much broader than it was under HIIPA.  There are people who could not get full coverage for pre-existing conditions under HIIPA that can get it under ObamaCare.  Do you support those broader protections, or not? 

The second reality is that the 'group' that is being targeted for pre-existing conditions are usually those who are older and have paid into the system and shouldn't be penalized for becoming ill and using their insurance! The next reality is the group that falls under Medicaid; medical coverage paid by the government to absorb the costs of those who are not insured; illegals, disabled, youth without insurance, the poor, the mentally ill, etc..

I don't understand what any of that has to do with the point.  Are you saying that you favor the broader pre-existing condition coverage for those people, or not?

[libertybele]

Pre-existing condition coverage under ObamaCare is much broader than it was under HIIPA.  There are people who could not get full coverage for pre-existing conditions under HIIPA that can get it under ObamaCare.  Do you support those broader protections, or not? 


I don't understand what any of that has to do with the point.  Are you saying that you favor the broader pre-existing condition coverage for those people, or not?

I support protections for those who are already insured and lose their healthcare because of illness or lose their jobs because of an illness and then apply for insurance through another company should not be penalized by higher premiums and their pre-existing condition should be covered. HIPAA is a good thing.

IF Bammycare was completely repealed, that doesn't necessarily mean that a new healthcare plan couldn't provide similar text for pre-existing conditions. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

IF Bammycare was completely repealed, that doesn't necessarily mean that a new healthcare plan couldn't provide similar text for pre-existing conditions.

It could, but then it wouldn't be a "clean repeal" if people were insisting on having that new plan in place before repealing ObamaCare.  That's part of the hold-up right now.  The Tuesday Group is insisting that pre-existing conditions be guaranteed to be treated at least as well as they are under ObamaCare, and the Freedom Caucus won't accept that.

That's why I'm confused.  There are people demanding a full, clean repeal, but also insisting on that pre-existing condition coverage.  And those two things are contradictory.

[Sanguine]

It could, but then it wouldn't be a "clean repeal" if people were insisting on having that new plan in place before repealing ObamaCare.  That's part of the hold-up right now.  The Tuesday Group is insisting that pre-existing conditions be guaranteed to be treated at least as well as they are under ObamaCare, and the Freedom Caucus won't accept that.

That's why I'm confused.  There are people demanding a full, clean repeal, but also insisting on that pre-existing condition coverage.  And those two things are contradictory.

Ah, you and your blind squirrel!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Ah, you and your blind squirrel!

We have met the enemy, and he is us.  Which shouldn't really surprise anyone.

[libertybele]

It could, but then it wouldn't be a "clean repeal" if people were insisting on having that new plan in place before repealing ObamaCare.  That's part of the hold-up right now.  The Tuesday Group is insisting that pre-existing conditions be guaranteed to be treated at least as well as they are under ObamaCare, and the Freedom Caucus won't accept that.

That's why I'm confused.  There are people demanding a full, clean repeal, but also insisting on that pre-existing condition coverage.  And those two things are contradictory.

No need to be confused.  FULL repeal and then replace.  You can still repeal ALL of Bammycare and implement the new bill which could include similar text for pre-existing conditions.  It's quite simple actually;as an example; my old auto insurance plan includes "medical" coverage in the event of an accident and I want to go with a new company that's cheaper but before I drop my old plan I want a new plan in place and my new plan covers "hospitalization and doctors visits" in the event of an accident. 

[bolobaby]

All,

Basic point: insurance for preexisting conditions is NOT insurance. This has been said hundreds of times.

Can we please stop juxtaposing of the terms "insurance" and "preexisting conditions?"

We need an INSURANCE industry, which protects us against the cost of unforeseen health issues, and we need to fix the cost of healthcare. Period.

Price strategies:
1. Up-front, transparent pricing for procedures and care, providing for routine complications.
2. Tort reform to lower malpractice premiums and the cost to medical equipment providers.
3. Removal of onerous government regulations that cause $1 worth of materials crafted into a sling to inflate into a $190 "medical device."

Insurance strategies:
1. Allow for affinity groups to create risk pools across employers, especially for small businesses. (For example, B&B owners.)
2. Allow for the sale of policies across state lines.
3. No mandates on coverage to insurance providers. If you want something not covered in a policy, find a different policy. Just like if you want power windows in a car, and they aren't in the model you're considering. Let the market create policies people want.

Finally, for the uninsured:
1. Provide full tax breaks for any doctor or hospital that provides charity care. It *is*, after all, a charitable contribution.
2. Hold all doctors harmless on liability as it relates to charity care, except in the cases of gross negligence.
3. Encourage more private solutions like Medishare by using the government to HELP establish these programs, not hinder them with onerous regulations.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No need to be confused.  FULL repeal and then replace.  You can still repeal ALL of Bammycare and implement the new bill which could include similar text for pre-existing conditions.

But there is no guarantee that, after fully repealing ObamaCare's pre-existing conditions provisions, the follow-on protections will actually be enacted.  The Freedom Caucus opposes them, and so the Tuesday Group won't support repeal unless the pre-existing conditions provision are included in the repeal bill itself.

[Emjay]

No need to be confused.  FULL repeal and then replace.  You can still repeal ALL of Bammycare and implement the new bill which could include similar text for pre-existing conditions.  It's quite simple actually;as an example; my old auto insurance plan includes "medical" coverage in the event of an accident and I want to go with a new company that's cheaper but before I drop my old plan I want a new plan in place and my new plan covers "hospitalization and doctors visits" in the event of an accident.

I believe that you have addressed the problem in an excellent manner that makes sense.  Repealing Obamacare entirely would get us out of a tangled mess.  We could then address all the issues that are troubling people in a new plan.

[Sanguine]

All,

Basic point: insurance for preexisting conditions is NOT insurance. This has been said hundreds of times.

Can we please stop juxtaposing of the terms "insurance" and "preexisting conditions?"

We need an INSURANCE industry, which protects us against the cost of unforeseen health issues, and we need to fix the cost of healthcare. Period.

...

Yes, that was the point I was wanting to make earlier, and as you said, it has been made before.  Not sure why there is any confusion, other than because we want it to be different than it actually is.

[corbe]

GOP suffers surprise defection on Obamacare repeal

The scramble for votes is still very much on.

By Kyle Cheney  , Josh Dawsey and Rachael Bade
  | 05/01/17 04:19 PM EDT
  |  Updated 05/01/17 06:09 PM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/does-gop-have-obamacare-repeal-votes-237843
 
President Donald Trump dialed up his campaign-trail ally Rep. Billy Long on Monday, after the Missouri Republican announced his decision to vote against the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. The goal was straightforward: Persuade Long to change his mind.

It didn't work. Though Long hails from a deeply conservative district that overwhelmingly backed Trump over Hillary Clinton in November, and Long supported earlier versions of the legislation, the president's entreaties fell short, GOP insiders said.

It was an unexpected blow for House GOP leaders and the White House, who were bullish over the weekend that they were on the cusp of clinching the votes to pass the legislation. Instead, the scramble for support is still very much on.

“I have always stated that one of the few good things about Obamacare is that people with pre-existing conditions would be covered," Long said in a statement. "The MacArthur amendment strips away any guarantee that pre-existing conditions would be covered and affordable,” he added, referring to the last-ditch compromise between conservatives and House moderate Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.).

SNIP

[bilo]

I can't help but wonder how many of you that want pre-existing conditions covered have businesses that were affected by obamacare. My business was decimated, especially former employees. I could no longer provide catastrophic coverage because it didn't fit the new mandates. In the end I had to restructure my business with fewer employees and more contractors. I lost my insurance as well and was quoted an obamacare policy that was more than 2x's as expensive, but eventually found a Christian Healthcare Co-op.

Everyone wants to cry over pre-existing conditions but no one seems to care what obamacare has done to that small segment of our society the small businessman.

The HFC came up with a very workable solution for the 5% who consume 50% of healthcare. They are called high risk pools. Also, the other factor driving premium inflation was addressed in ending community ratings where everyone has to buy the same product and pay the same price. Let consumers buy what they want.

Oh well, it was nice having a majority while it lasted. 2018 will see declines and I really won't be surprised to see the Pubs lose the POTUS and Congress in 2020. Why vote for a party that reneged on the biggest promise ever - GIVE US THE MAJORITY AND WE WILL REPEAL OBAMACARE.

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's why I'm confused.  There are people demanding a full, clean repeal, but also insisting on that pre-existing condition coverage.  And those two things are contradictory.

They are.  But repealing pre-existing condition coverage is too great a take away at this point.  Folks in this category have had seven years to learn to rely on it.  The optics of removing insurance from Americans most needing it would be political suicide.  (Think little kids with cancer, teenagers with diabetes and grandma with rheumatoid arthritis being marched out ... by both sides of the aisle.)

Along with continuing coverage for pre-existing conditions, reinstate catastrophic insurance options and allow folks to self insure through health spending accounts.   

This would be the best option for those looking to pay $0 in additional premium to cover pre-existing conditions.  The health spending account also removes most restrictions on health care services and providers inherent in coverage underwritten by insurance carriers.  The catastrophic policy is a financial safety net for both the individual and the state in the event of a major illness or accident.

@Maj. Bill Martin

[Hondo69]

Oh well, it was nice having a majority while it lasted. 2018 will see declines and I really won't be surprised to see the Pubs lose the POTUS and Congress in 2020. Why vote for a party that reneged on the biggest promise ever - GIVE US THE MAJORITY AND WE WILL REPEAL OBAMACARE.

There are good arguments to be made for a Third Party.  Bernie Sanders came close in the last election and probably could have pressed the issue if he wanted.  Libertarians often run candidates as well.  I'm of the opinion to back the Challenger candidate in order to drain the swamp, out with the old and in with the new.  This is especially true of candidates for the Senate and Congress.

Until they can show me the ability to listen to the people I say throw the bastards out.  All of them.

[DiogenesLamp]

It Looks Like The New ObamaCare Repeal Bill is on Life Support as a Large Number of Tuesday Group Republicans Oppose it.

And people wonder why we always bitch about Rinos.   Democrats never seem to have a Rino problem.   No matter how crazy or ridiculous are the latest left wing kookery they want to legislate,   they just do it.   


Here we try for a bit of sanity,  and the same people are always interfering. 

[bilo]

There are good arguments to be made for a Third Party.  Bernie Sanders came close in the last election and probably could have pressed the issue if he wanted.  Libertarians often run candidates as well.  I'm of the opinion to back the Challenger candidate in order to drain the swamp, out with the old and in with the new.  This is especially true of candidates for the Senate and Congress.

Until they can show me the ability to listen to the people I say throw the bastards out.  All of them.

I used to think, okay I'll compromise to get some of what I want but after being lied to for 7 years I'm not going to be played the fool any longer. I'm with you, throw the bums out. The Pubs won't fight for anything. For them, it's all about "optics" and getting elected. It's probably a big reason they aren't more supportive of Sen. Cruz. He actually believes in what he says.

The Pubs failure to repeal obamacare is only the biggest example of their lies. The current spending bill is another; planned parenthood is funded, sanctuary cities are funded, but the border wall is not funded. These people are worthless.

[DiogenesLamp]

I used to think, okay I'll compromise to get some of what I want but after being lied to for 7 years I'm not going to be played the fool any longer. I'm with you, throw the bums out. The Pubs won't fight for anything. For them, it's all about "optics" and getting elected. It's probably a big reason they aren't more supportive of Sen. Cruz. He actually believes in what he says.

The Pubs failure to repeal obamacare is only the biggest example of their lies. The current spending bill is another; planned parenthood is funded, sanctuary cities are funded, but the border wall is not funded. These people are worthless.

They are not "worthless."   We could only wish that they be worthless.  They are saboteurs.  Backstabbers.   "Traitors."   


And we need to destroy them.   If it takes voting for Democrats to make them understand we will destroy them if they cross us,  then that is what we need to do. 


This is how the NRA has successfully gotten it's agenda passed.   It went after anyone who opposed to it until it made people understand they would be voted out of office. 


Now both parties  make a point to not offend the NRA.   


We need to follow the NRA's tactics to achieve the same results for our agenda. 


Vote for the Democrat every time a Rino stabs us in the back. 

[Sanguine]

They are not "worthless."   We could only wish that they be worthless.  They are saboteurs.  Backstabbers.   "Traitors."   


And we need to destroy them.   If it takes voting for Democrats to make them understand we will destroy them if they cross us,  then that is what we need to do. 


This is how the NRA has successfully gotten it's agenda passed.   It went after anyone who opposed to it until it made people understand they would be voted out of office. 


Now both parties  make a point to not offend the NRA.   


We need to follow the NRA's tactics to achieve the same results for our agenda. 


Vote for the Democrat every time a Rino stabs us in the back.

I agree with the sentiment, but how will voting dem help us?  Then we'll be stuck with dems, which isn't exactly an improvement.

[Hondo69]

I agree with the sentiment, but how will voting dem help us?  Then we'll be stuck with dems, which isn't exactly an improvement.

That's the Catch 22.

If the "other side" always votes in lock step you find yourself in a no win situation.  Just start ticking off the list of items passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reed that constitute pure insanity.  Yet hardly a peep from the other side.

Go back through history and find examples of nodding lemmings going right along with anything said by the leaders no matter how nuts or suicidal it may be.  Very, very dangerous territory.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They are.  But repealing pre-existing condition coverage is too great a take away at this point.  Folks in this category have had seven years to learn to rely on it.  The optics of removing insurance from Americans most needing it would be political suicide.  (Think little kids with cancer, teenagers with diabetes and grandma with rheumatoid arthritis being marched out ... by both sides of the aisle.)

That's fine -- I'm not arguing here whether it is or is not good policy (I'd get rid of it and address the free rider issue directly, but that's not my point here).  I'm simply saying that some of the loudest voices demanding a "full repeal", and complaining about "RINO's" who won't support it despite having voted for it in the past, are themselves demanding that the part they like be retained.

@Right_in_Virginia

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I believe that you have addressed the problem in an excellent manner that makes sense.  Repealing Obamacare entirely would get us out of a tangled mess.  We could then address all the issues that are troubling people in a new plan.

The reality is that once you got the full repeal, the HFC would not support anything equivalent to what the ACA gave to people with pre-existing conditions.   I'm totally fine with that but I know others that aren't.

[Sanguine]

That's the Catch 22.

If the "other side" always votes in lock step you find yourself in a no win situation.  Just start ticking off the list of items passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reed that constitute pure insanity.  Yet hardly a peep from the other side.

Go back through history and find examples of nodding lemmings going right along with anything said by the leaders no matter how nuts or suicidal it may be.  Very, very dangerous territory.

I'm suggesting that we come up with a third option.

[Free Vulcan]

You figure out how people with pre-existing conditions will end up covered for their exorbitant costs at the same price I, who never use the health care system, does.

That's what Obamacare wants. The free market says that's ludicrous, dishonest and impossible.

That sums it up. Insurance is based on pooling and actuarial probability. You can't price premium based of 100% probability.

There are different levels of pre-existing though. A bum knee that requires a massage twice a month is a great deal more workable than stage 4 cancer. You could entice companies to insure more minor pre-existing with the right tax incentives.

If the simply start with allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, then you could draw up a bare bones plan with high deductibles and build from there. You could give favorable tax treatment to companies that structure their premiums to be flat or at least flatter than if each were calculated separately. Then bring in pre-existings to the level the company is competitively comfortable with.

You can use carve outs for some, the rest have to go to Medicare, which itself needs reformed. Anyone refusing insurance gets a high Medicare tax comparable to a monthly premium based on age.

You could give employers generous tax incentives to provide insurance, and make sure all money spent on healthcare by anyone is pre-tax. Worst case you could even subsidize.

I can be done, but I don't think the govt is willing to do it. They're happy running deficits, but we can't possibly forgo tax revenue or have people taking control of their own health care.

[Sanguine]

That sums it up. Insurance is based on pooling and actuarial probability. You can't price premium based of 100% probability.

There are different levels of pre-existing though. A bum knee that requires a massage twice a month is a great deal more workable than stage 4 cancer. You could entice companies to insure more minor pre-existing with the right tax incentives.

If the simply start with allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, then you could draw up a bare bones plan with high deductibles and build from there. You could give favorable tax treatment to companies that structure their premiums to be flat or at least flatter than if each were calculated separately. Then bring in pre-existings to the level the company is competitively comfortable with.

You can use carve outs for some, the rest have to go to Medicare, which itself needs reformed. Anyone refusing insurance gets a high Medicare tax comparable to a monthly premium based on age.

You could give employers generous tax incentives to provide insurance, and make sure all money spent on healthcare by anyone is pre-tax. Worst case you could even subsidize.

I can be done, but I don't think the govt is willing to do it. They're happy running deficits, but we can't possibly forgo tax revenue or have people taking control of their own health care.

In addition, you could/should also have a phase-out period for 0bamacare, giving everyone time to shift their plans.  Probably 2 years.

The state can establish and maintain high-risk pools or outright welfare for those who can't afford insurance because of pre-existing conditions.