The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: truth_seeker on April 26, 2017, 05:28:12 pm
-
Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill
By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT
The House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday announced it will back the GOP's healthcare plan now that an amendment allowing states to opt out of key ObamaCare rules is included.
The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives held out for weeks, scuttling a planned House vote on the bill last month after it became clear there was't enough Republican support to pass it.
The group said it sees the new amendment, brokered by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and centrist Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), as the best option short of fully repealing the 2010 law.
"While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs," the Freedom Caucus said in a statement.
"We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare."
The MacArthur-Meadows amendment lets states apply for waivers from ObamaCare provisions that ban insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandate minimum insurance coverage requirements, as long as the state offers high-risk pools as an alternative.
Moderate Republicans are facing a difficult decision on the bill now that the Freedom Caucus has backed it, bringing the legislation close to the 216 House votes needed for passage.
Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330681-freedom-caucus-endorses-revised-obamacare-repeal-bill
-
Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill
By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT
The House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday announced it will back the GOP's healthcare plan now that an amendment allowing states to opt out of key ObamaCare rules is included.
The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives held out for weeks, scuttling a planned House vote on the bill last month after it became clear there was't enough Republican support to pass it.
The group said it sees the new amendment, brokered by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and centrist Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), as the best option short of fully repealing the 2010 law.
"While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs," the Freedom Caucus said in a statement.
"We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare."
The MacArthur-Meadows amendment lets states apply for waivers from ObamaCare provisions that ban insurers from charging sick people higher premiums and mandate minimum insurance coverage requirements, as long as the state offers high-risk pools as an alternative.
Moderate Republicans are facing a difficult decision on the bill now that the Freedom Caucus has backed it, bringing the legislation close to the 216 House votes needed for passage.
Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330681-freedom-caucus-endorses-revised-obamacare-repeal-bill
The pre-existing condition coverage should be a limited time only offer. You shouldn't be allowed to go for years without coverage and get sick and then get insurance. Minors should also be allowed into the coverage when they come of age.
-
GOP health amendment would exempt members of Congress from losing Obamacare protections
See here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080)
-
ObamaCare will now live forever.
-
From the above article in the NY Daily News:
(Excerpt)
.... buried in his eight-page amendment is a provision that congresspeople and their staffs — who, under Obamacare, are required to buy insurance on the individual market — wouldn’t be affected.
“Members of Congress are not going to lose essential health benefits or be subject to health status underwriting,” wrote health law professor Tim Jost, who initially noted the exemption.
-
ObamaCare will now live forever.
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-no-government-ever-voluntarily-reduces-itself-in-size-government-programs-once-launched-never-ronald-reagan-151770.jpg)
-
ObamaCare will now live forever.
Exactly. Except for a select few the GOP deserves to lose their seats. Idiots!
-
Fact Check: Does Amended GOP Healthcare Bill Exempt Congress From Controversial Changes?
SOURCE: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/26/does-amended-gop-healthcare-bill-exempt-congress-from-controversial-changes-n2318609 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/26/does-amended-gop-healthcare-bill-exempt-congress-from-controversial-changes-n2318609)
(EXCERPT)
.... under the new amendment, Congress (and other entities such as the few remaining, failing Obamacare co-ops) are not subject to any coverage waivers and exemptions that states might secure. Why? A well-placed source with deep institutional knowledge of the US Senate says this was purely a function of reconciliation requirements, and that structuring the language differently would have fatally disqualified the entire bill under those rules. I've been told that this flaw is a deep-in-the-weeds issue pertaining to the committee of referral. The source added that the likelihood of uber-liberal Washington, DC asking for coverage waivers is extremely remote -- thus rendering members of Congress unaffected anyway -- and that the best course of action would be to pass a simple companion bill under regular order making plain that Congress shall receive no special treatment whatsoever under a new law. This would negate any bad optics on the issue, and would almost certainly pass easily because even Senate Democrats wouldn't be foolish enough to filibuster the companion bill, thanks to the same dynamics that forced them to reverse their previous abandoned attempts to insulate Congress from healthcare policy.
Bottom line: The controversial item in the bill does not represent a desire from House Republicans to inoculate themselves against the consequences of their own law; it's nothing more than a procedurally-necessary technicality that gives the appearance of unfairness. A senior House GOP leadership source confirmed these details to Townhall this afternoon: "The language in question was added by the Senate Budget Committee to meet the rules for a budget reconciliation bill. Separate legislation will be introduced to fix it." Once this PR problem is rectified, the larger questions become whether or not the new bargain will attract a bare majority in the House, when a vote might occur, and then -- if those boxes are checked -- where do things go in the Senate?
-
GOP health amendment would exempt members of Congress from losing Obamacare protections
See here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-health-amendment-exempt-members-congress-article-1.3103080)
Obviously, it's a first step but I hope they pass it. The next step would be that members of Congress have to live with the same health care they force on us.
-
Obviously, it's a first step but I hope they pass it. The next step would be that members of Congress have to live with the same health care they force on us.
I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.
-
Looks like all those Briefers that were arguing we Conservatives were to Rigid, that a half loaf is better than no loaf at all and assorted other crap, will get their wish-the Half loaf, good luck folks.
-
Bookmark.
-
Good news. Thanks for posting @truth_seeker
-
Good news. Thanks for posting @truth_seeker
Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.
-
A well-placed source with deep institutional knowledge of the US Senate says this was purely a function of reconciliation requirements, and that structuring the language differently would have fatally disqualified the entire bill under those rules. I've been told that this flaw is a deep-in-the-weeds issue pertaining to the committee of referral. The source added that the likelihood of uber-liberal Washington, DC asking for coverage waivers is extremely remote -- thus rendering members of Congress unaffected anyway -- and that the best course of action would be to pass a simple companion bill under regular order making plain that Congress shall receive no special treatment whatsoever under a new law. This would negate any bad optics on the issue, and would almost certainly pass easily because even Senate Democrats wouldn't be foolish enough to filibuster the companion bill, thanks to the same dynamics that forced them to reverse their previous abandoned attempts to insulate Congress from healthcare policy.
Bottom line: The controversial item in the bill does not represent a desire from House Republicans to inoculate themselves against the consequences of their own law; it's nothing more than a procedurally-necessary technicality that gives the appearance of unfairness. A senior House GOP leadership source confirmed these details to Townhall this afternoon: "The language in question was added by the Senate Budget Committee to meet the rules for a budget reconciliation bill. Separate legislation will be introduced to fix it." Once this PR problem is rectified, the larger questions become whether or not the new bargain will attract a bare majority in the House, when a vote might occur, and then -- if those boxes are checked -- where do things go in the Senate?
Well, that sounds like an entirely logical, reasonable, and necessary part of the bill if it is to pass. So I expect the usual folks to have a conniption about it.....
-
Looks like all those Briefers that were arguing we Conservatives were too rigid, that a half loaf is better than no loaf at all ....will get their wish-the Half loaf, good luck folks.
Well, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. The reality is that the votes for full repeal simply are not there, else the Freedom Caucus would have held out for that. They can count.
I'd also say that this is the point where they should hold firm. If the Tuesday Group wouldn't go along with this, then threaten to let the whole unamended Affordable Care Act come crashing down, and see if they can sell that to their moderate constituents.
-
Republicans refuse to fund ObamaCare subsidies
By Marisa Schultz
April 26, 2017 | 2:09pm | Updated
WASHINGTON — Republicans drew battle lines Wednesday over the spending bill that would keep the government running by refusing to fund ObamaCare subsidies.
“We’re not doing that,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday after a closed-door meeting with his GOP caucus.
Declining to include payments to insurers in the April must-pass spending bill increases the drama for a possible government shutdown at midnight Friday.
Pulling the money that helps low-income Americans afford insurance would create “monumental” instability in the individual marketplace, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) warned Wednesday.
“I don’t think my Republican colleagues want to see this go unfunded. The instability they would create in the markets would be monumental to themselves and their states,” Crowley said.
The government will shut down Saturday — President Trump’s 100th day — if Congress fails to pass the new spending bill.
Ryan said lawmakers are very close to agreeing on spending priorities. He said the ObamaCare payments should be addressed separately by the Trump administration and not be a bargaining chip in the spending bill.
“That is not an appropriation bill. That’s something separate that the administration does,” Ryan said.
Trump has previously signaled a willingness to use his administrative authority to end the payments, which would mean ObamaCare “dies.”
The cost-sharing payments — amounting to about $7 billion a year — go to insurance companies so they can lower patient deductibles and co-pays for low-income patients.
<..snip..>
http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/republicans-refuse-to-fund-obamacare-subsidies/ (http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/republicans-refuse-to-fund-obamacare-subsidies/)
-
I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.
You know what? You may be right. I trust Cruz's replacement plan much more than I trust this one. I'm just wondering if passing something might be better than the status quo.
-
I hope it fails for the simple fact that it does NOT repeal Bammycare. Meanwhile ... we have Cruz and Paul's replacement healthcare plans waiting in the wings.
If there were the votes for Cruz' or Paul's plan to pass, don't you think the Freedom Caucus would have held out for them? Because as of right now, it appears that all or almost all of the Freedom Caucus supports this bill. And I'd suggest that if folks have reached the conclusion that the entire Freedom Caucus is worthless, that you might as well roll up the sidewalks and not bother with anything anymore, because they're the best we've got.
-
Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.
Yep! But post an article on sexual choices and the place explodes.
-
Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.
Have you not seen all of the other threads and responses on this topic?
-
You know what? You may be right. I trust Cruz's replacement plan much more than I trust this one. I'm just wondering if passing something might be better than the status quo.
often times, passing nothing is better than passing "something"
-
Freedom Caucus endorses revised ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill
By Cristina Marcos - 04/26/17 01:02 PM EDT
OK Cristina, I'm embarrassed for you to have to do this translation, but it is required. Try harder next time.
The group of roughly 30 hard-line conservatives = Conservatives
Moderate Republicans = RINOs
Members of the centrist Tuesday Group = Fascists
It is important to write clearly and concisely Cristina. Some readers will not understand that you mean well but are simply uneducated.
-
It was the Tuesday Group that doomed the first proposal
-
The pre-existing condition coverage should be a limited time only offer. You shouldn't be allowed to go for years without coverage and get sick and then get insurance.
The standard in group insurance in past years had been to penalize--not deny--a pre-existing condition usually through a waiting period for the one condition (typically 90 days). But this practice was phased out a few years ago.
The standard for individual insurance in the past has also been to penalize a pre-existing condition, but not deny a policy. In this market there was greater discretion in attaching premiums to the individual, so those with pre-existing conditions standardly paid a higher premium. The application of a waiting period for the condition was also common.
Flat out denial of an insurance policy due to pre-existing conditions is draconian ... and unnecessary.
-
The standard in group insurance in past years had been to penalize--not deny--a pre-existing condition usually through a waiting period for the one condition (typically 90 days). But this practice was phased out a few years ago.
The standard for individual insurance in the past has also been to penalize a pre-existing condition, but not deny a policy. In this market there was greater discretion in attaching premiums to the individual, so those with pre-existing conditions standardly paid a higher premium. The application of a waiting period for the condition was also common.
Flat out denial of an insurance policy due to pre-existing conditions is draconian ... and unnecessary.
And, free-market and capitalistic.
-
Obviously, it's a first step but I hope they pass it. The next step would be that members of Congress have to live with the same health care they force on us.
https://www.facebook.com/AIDSCaucus (https://www.facebook.com/AIDSCaucus)
Right.
-
Yep! But post an article on sexual choices and the place explodes.
It is related, actually. If you don't think Obama care is really a transfer of funds to the 1.3 million uninsurable HIV/AIDS from those who choose to live a more healthy lifestyle, think again. The health care (not insurance) tab is anticipated to be a trillion dollars for the currently infected, and the numbers continue to grow. The highest concentrations of homosexuals in the country aren't in San Francisco, they're in Washington D.C. and Hawaii. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/lgbt-percentages-highest-in-washington-dc-and-hawaii/ (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/lgbt-percentages-highest-in-washington-dc-and-hawaii/)
Just as taxpayers are picking up the tab for people who made lousy educational decisions and poor life choices in other areas (Welfare, Drugs, Crime, etc.), we're picking up the tab for people whose licentiousness is more expensive than ever. Keep funding social/moral/cultural and ultimately economic decay and we'll get more.
-
The standard in group insurance in past years had been to penalize--not deny--a pre-existing condition usually through a waiting period for the one condition (typically 90 days). But this practice was phased out a few years ago.
The standard for individual insurance in the past has also been to penalize a pre-existing condition, but not deny a policy. In this market there was greater discretion in attaching premiums to the individual, so those with pre-existing conditions standardly paid a higher premium. The application of a waiting period for the condition was also common.
Flat out denial of an insurance policy due to pre-existing conditions is draconian ... and unnecessary.
In some cases, the States have stepped into the breach.
http://www.chand.org/ (http://www.chand.org/)
-
If there were the votes for Cruz' or Paul's plan to pass, don't you think the Freedom Caucus would have held out for them? Because as of right now, it appears that all or almost all of the Freedom Caucus supports this bill. And I'd suggest that if folks have reached the conclusion that the entire Freedom Caucus is worthless, that you might as well roll up the sidewalks and not bother with anything anymore, because they're the best we've got.
No. Cruz and Paul are in the Senate. IF this is the best that the House can come up with ... you are right ... we're in trouble. The House holds the largest GOP majority...the people voted for REPEAL. It may now pass the House, but quite frankly, I'm hoping that it fails in the Senate ... and some how full repeal and replacement finally takes place.
-
Looks like all those Briefers that were arguing we Conservatives were to Rigid, that a half loaf is better than no loaf at all and assorted other crap, will get their wish-the Half loaf, good luck folks.
Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.
Will those Briefers you mentioned - and they know who they are - now loudly denounce the "centrist" wing of the party for their unreasonable intransigence?
I don't think so.
-
Members of the centrist Tuesday Group said Wednesday they were either still opposed or on the fence.
Will those Briefers you mentioned - and they know who they are - now loudly denounce the "centrist" wing of the party for their unreasonable intransigence?
I don't think so.
It's a repeat of the last time really, I am sure it's failing would be blamed on the HFC again.
-
The pre-existing condition coverage should be a limited time only offer. You shouldn't be allowed to go for years without coverage and get sick and then get insurance. Minors should also be allowed into the coverage when they come of age.
Math. Some people don't get it.
-
Just think. The most important political topics and virtually no interest shown here.
I think it's all been said. I'm not surprised Trump is backing Zombie Obamacare. I think he will put his name on virtually anything so long as he can claim it is an accomplishment and the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
I always thought he was a mostly Liberal New Yorker that slowly became a Moderate/Centrist Democrat, or I should say what used to be a moderate Democrat.
He doesn't have our distrust of big government solutions to problems, and a lot of people he knows like the idea of government involvement in healthcare.
This is some of the stuff I expected from a New York Democrat that converted to a "conservative" Republican. I don't like it, but it isn't the worst thing I have expected from him. I've actually been pleasantly surprised that he hasn't turned out even more Liberal.
-
If this moves the ball toward Obamacare gone I'm all for it and I think it does that.
-
This is some of the stuff I expected from a New York Democrat that converted to a "conservative" Republican. I don't like it, but it isn't the worst thing I have expected from him. I've actually been pleasantly surprised that he hasn't turned out even more Liberal.
The Gorsuch appointment to the SC was pretty much the most I could hope for from Trump. I'm hoping the 2nd Amendment gets solidified in the next few years. More Justices in Gorsuch's vein will get Trump my vote in 2020. The rest of his alleged agenda being passed is gravy.
-
If this moves the ball toward Obamacare gone I'm all for it and I think it does that.
As long as everyone doesn't go to the clubhouse and declare it moved far enough.
That's my concern.
-
The Gorsuch appointment to the SC was pretty much the most I could hope for from Trump. I'm hoping the 2nd Amendment gets solidified in the next few years. More Justices in Gorsuch's vein will get Trump my vote in 2020. The rest of his alleged agenda being passed is gravy.
We have really lowered our expectations. Well, that's supposed to be the secret to happiness.
-
We have really lowered our expectations. Well, that's supposed to be the secret to happiness.
Them who 'spects nuthin' ain't about to get disappointed.
-
As long as everyone doesn't go to the clubhouse and declare it moved far enough.
That's my concern.
And that is exactly what I expect will happen.
-
And that is exactly what I expect will happen.
Based on past actions, we would be stupid to expect anything else.
-
And that is exactly what I expect will happen.
Me, too. If they just repeal the d@mned thing, then they can go back and do what should have been done in the first place--patch the holes by opening things up to more competition. Considering more people have likely lost their insurance than gained it under the ACA, and in terms of payouts by the patient, that number has likely increased, not just for those who now have no insurance, but for those who do (higher co-pays and deductibles, not to mention premiums), and subsidies are only a way to transfer the bill to the taxpayer through channels that all take a cut, what we have now is a disaster. It would have been more effective to means test and then just have the bill paid outright.
-
If this moves the ball toward Obamacare gone I'm all for it and I think it does that.
We'll see ... I'm still holding out hope that when it goes to the Senate they kick it back with a bill that actually does repeal the ACA and replaces it with a combination of Cruz and Paul's plan.
-
And that is exactly what I expect will happen.
Not with me it won't.
-
No. Cruz and Paul are in the Senate. IF this is the best that the House can come up with ... you are right ... we're in trouble.
There is nothing preventing the Freedom Caucus from taking the exact text of Cruz' bill and push it in the House. But they're not. I see no logical conclusion to draw from that other than they believe the votes aren't there to pass it. And there is every reason to believe that the FC has a much better understanding of how the GOP members of the House will vote than do the rest of us.[/quote]
...the people voted for REPEAL.
No, the people voted for representatives, some of whom supported a full repeal/no replace, and some who did not. You're living in an echo chamber if you think a majority of voters wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and not replace it with something that provided at least some of ObamaCare's benefits.
[/quote]
-
There is nothing preventing the Freedom Caucus from taking the exact text of Cruz' bill and push it in the House. But they're not. I see no logical conclusion to draw from that other than they believe the votes aren't there to pass it. And there is every reason to believe that the FC has a much better understanding of how the GOP members of the House will vote than do the rest of us.
No, the people voted for representatives, some of whom supported a full repeal/no replace, and some who did not. You're living in an echo chamber if you think a majority of voters wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and not replace it with something that provided at least some of ObamaCare's benefits.
Representatives who repeatedly PROMISED to fully repeal Obamacare if we gave them the house, and then the senate, and then the presidency! They had better fulfil that promise or they are dead meat politically!
-
FOX Business-
#BreakingNews: There will be a House Rules vote on repealing ObamaCare today.
#BreakingNews: There will be a House Rules vote on repealing ObamaCare today. pic.twitter.com/WqaSPeIOcZ— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) April 27, 2017
-
Let's get real here folks --- The reality is that *NOTHING* is going to pass that doesn’t allow for coverage of pre existing conditions.
We might want to tell ourselves that this is not how insurance works and give all the usual analogies with car insurance but ... Too many people have their lives on the line to give a fig about the economics, greater impact or ideological purity of *ANYTHING* that doesn’t mandate/provide coverage for people who would be excluded due to pre existing conditions.
I have a number of friends, co workers and general acquaintances who are reasonably conservative. However, due to job loss or such, could would not be covered and couldn’t afford to buy coverage with their conditions (some of which are their fault, some not).
I get the ideological, patriotic and economic arguments, but they simply don’t matter in the slightest if you’ve got cancer or a heart condition, always had coverage with your employer, and then got laid off or otherwise found yourself without insurance. Survival trumps everything. Acknowledging that reality would lead to something that might pass.
We might wish this were not so, but IT IS SO.
-
Let's get real here folks --- The reality is that *NOTHING* is going to pass that doesn’t allow for coverage of pre existing conditions.
We might want to tell ourselves that this is not how insurance works and give all the usual analogies with car insurance but ... Too many people have their lives on the line to give a fig about the economics, greater impact or ideological purity of *ANYTHING* that doesn’t mandate/provide coverage for people who would be excluded due to pre existing conditions.
I have a number of friends, co workers and general acquaintances who are reasonably conservative. However, due to job loss or such, could would not be covered and couldn’t afford to buy coverage with their conditions (some of which are their fault, some not).
I get the ideological, patriotic and economic arguments, but they simply don’t matter in the slightest if you’ve got cancer or a heart condition, always had coverage with your employer, and then got laid off or otherwise found yourself without insurance. Survival trumps everything. Acknowledging that reality would lead to something that might pass.
We might wish this were not so, but IT IS SO.
I understand that, Sir, but I think we need to handle those who cannot buy into an insurance plan differently. They need to go into a high-risk pool, or go on a state medical coverage account, or something, but the two scenarios need to be treated differently.
There is health insurance, and then there is something needed for those who don't fit into an insurance scenario.
-
I understand that, Sir, but I think we need to handle those who cannot buy into an insurance plan differently. They need to go into a high-risk pool, or go on a state medical coverage account, or something, but the two scenarios need to be treated differently.
There is health insurance, and then there is something needed for those who don't fit into an insurance scenario.
Exactly! And something that does not involve government control of the system!
-
It is related, actually. If you don't think Obama care is really a transfer of funds to the 1.3 million uninsurable HIV/AIDS from those who choose to live a more healthy lifestyle, think again. The health care (not insurance) tab is anticipated to be a trillion dollars for the currently infected, and the numbers continue to grow. The highest concentrations of homosexuals in the country aren't in San Francisco, they're in Washington D.C. and Hawaii. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/lgbt-percentages-highest-in-washington-dc-and-hawaii/ (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/lgbt-percentages-highest-in-washington-dc-and-hawaii/)
Just as taxpayers are picking up the tab for people who made lousy educational decisions and poor life choices in other areas (Welfare, Drugs, Crime, etc.), we're picking up the tab for people whose licentiousness is more expensive than ever. Keep funding social/moral/cultural and ultimately economic decay and we'll get more.
Off-topic, but what's the deal with South Dakota? I took a look at your link, and the 10 states with the highest rate of LGBT populations are largely what you'd expect -- East/West coast blue states. And then there's South Dakota, coming in with the 8th highest population. ???
-
Let's get real here folks --- The reality is that *NOTHING* is going to pass that doesn’t allow for coverage of pre existing conditions.
We might want to tell ourselves that this is not how insurance works and give all the usual analogies with car insurance but ... Too many people have their lives on the line to give a fig about the economics, greater impact or ideological purity of *ANYTHING* that doesn’t mandate/provide coverage for people who would be excluded due to pre existing conditions.
I have a number of friends, co workers and general acquaintances who are reasonably conservative. However, due to job loss or such, could would not be covered and couldn’t afford to buy coverage with their conditions (some of which are their fault, some not).
I get the ideological, patriotic and economic arguments, but they simply don’t matter in the slightest if you’ve got cancer or a heart condition, always had coverage with your employer, and then got laid off or otherwise found yourself without insurance. Survival trumps everything. Acknowledging that reality would lead to something that might pass.
We might wish this were not so, but IT IS SO.
Yes it is. And the reason is what you touched upon - good health insurance coverage in this country is a matter of good luck - good luck to work for an employer that provides quality, affordable health coverage, and to keep that job. When the job is lost, the security of knowing a medical catastrophe won't bankrupt you flies right out the window.
The systemic problem is our employer-based health care financing system. Do we resolve to change that, or diddle around the margins to help those who've lost in life's lottery?
-
Off-topic, but what's the deal with South Dakota? I took a look at your link, and the 10 states with the highest rate of LGBT populations are largely what you'd expect -- East/West coast blue states. And then there's South Dakota, coming in with the 8th highest population. ???
Well, only a dozen people live in the whole state, so that one pair of lesbians in Sioux Falls really throws off the percentages.
-
I understand that, Sir, but I think we need to handle those who cannot buy into an insurance plan differently. They need to go into a high-risk pool, or go on a state medical coverage account, or something, but the two scenarios need to be treated differently.
There is health insurance, and then there is something needed for those who don't fit into an insurance scenario.
Well, the new bill does permit states to opt-out of the pre-existing coverage requirement and go for high-risk pools if they wish.
-
Yes it is. And the reason is what you touched upon - good health insurance coverage in this country is a matter of good luck - good luck to work for an employer that provides quality, affordable health coverage, and to keep that job. When the job is lost, the security of knowing a medical catastrophe won't bankrupt you flies right out the window.
The systemic problem is our employer-based health care financing system. Do we resolve to change that, or diddle around the margins to help those who've lost in life's lottery?
I don't think that having a good job is just a matter of luck, and equivalent to "winning the lottery".
-
Well, only a dozen people live in the whole state, so that one pair of lesbians in Sioux Falls really throws off the percentages.
You might be on to something there!
-
I don't think that having a good job is just a matter of luck, and equivalent to "winning the lottery".
Its not, any more than having a decent salary, or - heaven forbid - being considered 'wealthy'.
That kind of terminology is better suited to a university social science classroom.
-
It was the Tuesday Group that doomed the first proposal
And they sure didn't have any problem running for election promising to repeal obamacare.
-
Let's get real here folks --- The reality is that *NOTHING* is going to pass that doesn’t allow for coverage of pre existing conditions.
We might want to tell ourselves that this is not how insurance works and give all the usual analogies with car insurance but ... Too many people have their lives on the line to give a fig about the economics, greater impact or ideological purity of *ANYTHING* that doesn’t mandate/provide coverage for people who would be excluded due to pre existing conditions.
I get the ideological, patriotic and economic arguments, but they simply don’t matter in the slightest if you’ve got cancer or a heart condition, always had coverage with your employer, and then got laid off or otherwise found yourself without insurance. Survival trumps everything. Acknowledging that reality would lead to something that might pass.
We might wish this were not so, but IT IS SO.
You tell us to acknowledge the political reality, and yet you won't acknowledge the reality reality. The math doesn't work. The math cannot be made to work. You need to read this:
The Cold Equations. (http://www.spacewesterns.com/articles/105/)
One of the major problems with this nation is the habit of putting off grim decisions that might actually work in lieu of comfortable touchy feely solutions that cannot possibly work.
-
I don't think that having a good job is just a matter of luck, and equivalent to "winning the lottery".
Not all "good jobs" have health benefits. Many smaller employers can't afford to offer them. Are you suggesting that small employers don't provide good jobs? And at larger companies, downturns in business conditions can force layoffs, causing good, hard working folks to lose their jobs and health benefits.
Yes, having good health coverage in this country is indeed a matter of good luck. It shouldn't be that way.
-
The systemic problem is our employer-based health care financing system.
This is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. The Universities and State Governments restricts the supply of medical care providers. The Universities charge far too much for education, and the Government enables their economic control over credentials.
-
Not all "good jobs" have health benefits. Many smaller employers can't afford to offer them. Are you suggesting that small employers don't provide good jobs? And at larger companies, downturns in business conditions can force layoffs, causing good, hard working folks to lose their jobs and health benefits.
Yes, having good health coverage in this country is indeed a matter of good luck. It shouldn't be that way.
@Jazzhead
There are many problems with the current model but "luck" is a fantasy. "Luck" comes from being prepared, hard work and attention to deal. Yes layoffs happen (been there) but the problem is really with the set up of the insurance industry. Why should health insurance only be available through the govt or through an employer? I'm a small employer and pay 100% of the premium for my employees. Its not hard. It is expensive but its something you have to make a priority. Why not get rid of this practice of allowing each insurance company to manipulate their plans and premiums. Put some real competition in the system, across state lines and to encourage more companies to sell insurance.
Liberals think it should be free, but then they think everything should be free.
-
Yes it is. And the reason is what you touched upon - good health insurance coverage in this country is a matter of good luck - good luck to work for an employer that provides quality, affordable health coverage, and to keep that job. When the job is lost, the security of knowing a medical catastrophe won't bankrupt you flies right out the window.
The systemic problem is our employer-based health care financing system. Do we resolve to change that, or diddle around the margins to help those who've lost in life's lottery?
Part of Cruz's healthcare plan is de-linking health insurance from the workplace. I'm hoping the House bill moves to the Senate where it can be done right!
-
I don't think that having a good job is just a matter of luck, and equivalent to "winning the lottery".
Of course it is. Take me for instance, one beautiful spring day, many years ago, I was standing on the sidewalk and a man walked up to me and whispered: "Hey, little lady, want to come and work for me and make lots of money?" And, of course I said "yes", and followed him. I knew that without a high school diploma or a college degree and three kids (all of their daddies did have some money taken out of their earnings in prison and sent to me) and no marketable skills, I'd better take what I could get! And, voila! I had a job that paid well and has benefits and they can't fire me now. It's wonderful. I won the lottery!
-
"Repeal and Replace" is the biggest lie of the year so far. These proposals do neither.
-
Its not, any more than having a decent salary, or - heaven forbid - being considered 'wealthy'.
You guys are all wealthy compared to me, so it's not fair. lol... just kidding about that 'not fair' thing.
-
@Jazzhead
Why should health insurance only be available through the govt or through an employer?
GROUP insurance is generally available only through the government or through one's employer. The advantage of group insurance is that any employee regardless of health status gets insured. Membership in the group is what guarantees access to coverage. But if you lose your job, you're no longer a member of the group (yes, you can for a limited time continue group coverage under COBRA, but you know how expensive it is - and how valuable your employer's group health insurance really is.)
Many of us who are unable to obtain group health insurance can purchase health insurance in the individual market. But traditionally, the insurer will require proof that you don't suffer from a pre-existing condition. Usually, you wouldn't be denied the policy, but it wouldn't cover costs related to the pre-existing condition, at least for a time. The specific rules were provided by state insurance regulation.
Some states, prior to the ACA, required "guaranteed issue" insurance in the individual market. Such insurance was always far more expensive that policies that excluded coverage for pre-existing conditions, but at least that coverage was available to those who lost their group insurance (and could afford the premiums). The ACA is essentially the extension of guaranteed issue individual coverage on the national level. Predictably, the cost of such insurance is insanely expensive, except to the extent propped up by government subsidies and rules that force the young and healthy to pay more so the old and sick can pay less. It is that nationwide system of guaranteed issue insurance that the ACHA is intended to fix (NOT replace).
-
Off-topic, but what's the deal with South Dakota? I took a look at your link, and the 10 states with the highest rate of LGBT populations are largely what you'd expect -- East/West coast blue states. And then there's South Dakota, coming in with the 8th highest population. ???
Hawaii is No. 1. Well, I did get the best perm I've ever gotten from a nice-looking guy over here.
-
I understand that, Sir, but I think we need to handle those who cannot buy into an insurance plan differently. They need to go into a high-risk pool, or go on a state medical coverage account, or something, but the two scenarios need to be treated differently.
There is health insurance, and then there is something needed for those who don't fit into an insurance scenario.
And herein lies the fallacy in the idea that insurance is beneficial in the least.
The moment is it forced into insuring the in-insurable, the price is so high as to be insurmountable.
All y'all are wasting your time, rearranging deck chairs. The problem is not government insurance.
The problem is the idea of insurance at all.
Inevitably, what will result is a very high cost, very high deductible insurance which will invariably and inevitably omit or limit coverage on expensive procedures. Socialist ideas ALWAYS lower all boats, because socialism ignores basic economic principles.
What we had was as close to health-care-for-all that will ever be achieved.
People who could afford it had insurance to take care of moderate health troubles...
But if something truly awful happened, that coverage would cease to exist, because covering long term illnesses or unknown illnesses is literally and completely not affordable. In such cases, the poor bastard has to lose everything - basically crapping out and losing all his chips in the game of life... And then becomes eligible for coverage via public assistance and charitable organizations.
That's as good as you'll ever get, people.
when sh*t happens, you have to crash and burn. You don't get to keep all your stuff.
You can insure till the cows come home, but it will always turn out the same.
There HAS to be risk.
Risk HAS to have consequences.
Anything else is slipping an iron collar around all our necks.
-
All y'all are wasting your time, rearranging deck chairs. The problem is not government insurance.
The problem is the idea of insurance at all.
This!
-
The newest 'Trumpcare' vote may already be in trouble — for the exact opposite reason as last time
Bob Bryan
After drawing conservative Republicans on board to the American Health Care Act, Republican leadership appears set to try to bring back the American Health Care Act to the House floor for a vote.
But the fate of the legislation appeared to be in doubt Thursday as leaders raced to get the support of moderate Republican lawmakers.
An amendment released Tuesday night, authored by moderate Rep. Tom MacArthur, appeared to placate conservatives who did not think the original AHCA went far enough in its repeal of Obamacare.
The amendment would allow states to apply for a waiver that would exempt their insurance markets from certain regulations created by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if they can prove it would bring down costs.
The waiver, health policy experts argue, could have negative consequences for people with preexisting conditions and allow insurers to offer plans that cover fewer health needs.
<..snip..>
http://www.businessinsider.com/ahca-vote-count-moderate-republicans-trumpcare-2017-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ahca-vote-count-moderate-republicans-trumpcare-2017-4)
-
"Repeal and Replace" is the biggest lie of the year so far. These proposals do neither.
Yet, every time I hear or read about this new proposed legislation, it's almost always called a repeal.
If it don't say REPEAL, it ain't repeal.
-
Off-topic, but what's the deal with South Dakota? I took a look at your link, and the 10 states with the highest rate of LGBT populations are largely what you'd expect -- East/West coast blue states. And then there's South Dakota, coming in with the 8th highest population. ???
I have no idea, unless it is the East side of the state, associated with the casinos, or the AF put all their DADT people in Rapid City.