PDA

View Full Version : ACHA passes House now heads to the senate


Autbot_Benz
05-04-2017, 01:26 PM
The US House of Representatives has passed a healthcare bill, bringing President Trump's pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare a stride closer.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed with a vote to spare, after weeks of cajoling within the Republican party to muster enough support.

It has been opposed by Democrats and several groups representing patients, doctors and hospitals.

The bill next heads to the Senate, possibly in June.

Republicans needed 216 votes in the House and it passed with 217. No Democrats voted in favour.

Its safe passage through the US lower chamber provides the new president with his first legislative victory, three months into his term.

And it marks a remarkable turnaround after the bill was left for dead in March when Republicans were unable to agree on its provisions.

Obamacare v Republican plan compared
A win for Trump - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Round one of the battle over Obamacare repeal is in the books. Round two is set to begin, with the opponents more powerful and the obstacles more imposing.

It's worth remembering that passage of the Republican healthcare plan in the House of Representatives was supposed to be the easy part. House Speaker Paul Ryan had a sizeable majority at his disposal and the political tools to reward support and punish transgressions.

Instead the American Health Care Act's long, laborious journey exposed divisions within the Republican Party and the limits in Donald Trump's powers of persuasion. These challenges won't disappear. The fault lines will be put under greater pressure and Mr Trump's skills will be further tested when action heads to the Senate.

Unlike the House, the Republican majority there is narrow, and already some in the party are showing misgivings about the current legislation. Democrats, who have more parliamentary tricks up their sleeves, will attempt to disrupt the process at every turn.

Still, a win is a win. It wasn't pretty. It may not last. But Mr Trump and the Republican House leadership will take it.

But the speed at which it has been resuscitated since then, with several amendments aimed at winning over Republican rebels, has provoked criticism.

It is not known how much the revised bill will cost, nor how many people will lose coverage, because the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not had time to assess it.

Before the latest revisions, the CBO estimated 14 million more Americans would lose insurance in 2018 alone.

Why is Obamacare suddenly so popular?

Patients tell their Obamacare stories

About 20 million Americans gained healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, nicknamed Obamacare.

But Republicans viewed it as an overreach of the federal government and said patients had less choice and higher premiums.
What's the reaction?
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Activists hold signs during a "Stop Trumpcare" rally in front of the Capitol in Washington, DC

There were shouts of "Shame on you!" from protesters directed at congressmen and women as they left Capitol Hill.

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: "Very sad. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in the history of our country. Their desire to give a tax break for the rich just trumped everything."

But Republicans were jubilant.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the bill would give Americans greater choice and stop the current Obamacare "death spiral" of higher costs and fewer healthcare options.

The White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said it was a "big win for Americans" and would deliver expanded access and lower costs.

Before the vote, the Republican leadership in the House played "Eye of the Tiger", the pre-fight song in Rocky, at a closed-door meeting.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption The vote was a victory for House Speaker Paul Ryan (centre)
What's changed from Obamacare?

The new bill repeals the individual mandate requiring those who can afford it to have health insurance. Those have who been without coverage for more than two months would face a 30% surcharge for new policy.
It repeals Obamacare's requirement for companies with 50 or more staff to provide insurance coverage for employees.
It keeps the popular Obamacare element allowing children and young people to stay covered on their parents' policies up until age 26.
It would enable insurers to charge at least five times as much to older customers.
It enables states to opt out of the guarantee to provide healthcare to people with pre-existing conditions.

What next?

The bill goes to the Senate, probably next month, where it faces a precarious passage.

Although the chamber is Republican controlled, their majority is a thin one and several of their senators have said the bill will need amendments.

The influential Senator Bob Corker said the present bill had "zero" chance of clearing the upper chamber.

Any new revisions made by the Senate would need approval from the House.
Related Topics

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39809168

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 01:35 PM
I'm by no means an authority on healthcare... but I'm a little confused. I've looked at signing up for Obamacare, checked out the website... it would be crazy, as it'd be way more expensive than my basic, sh*tty health insurance I get from my job and appears to cover less. But IF I were to pay for it, the basic Obamacare... things like major surgeries and transplants and other life-saving things would all be covered? I don't think they would, not without massive deductibles and thousands/hundreds of thousands in cash out of pocket (not unlike I'd have to under my current basic, sh*tty health insurance), if my understanding of the basic Obamacare policies is correct. And most people don't just have thousands of dollars set aside for these scenarios. The policies I was looking at were like... you have to spend out of pocket about $2,500 up front... and THEN the yearly coverage of about $2,500 kicks in, and if you use all that up, then you're out of pocket beyond that. Sort of a "donut" coverage which... isn't much of a coverage at all.

I've seen things like Jimmy Kimmel crying, talking about how he'd be so sad if his child died because they didn't have Obamacare coverage... I'm not really sure what he's talking about. What am I missing, here? Does he know something I don't about Obamacare, or does he just not understand how it works?

plastroncafe
05-04-2017, 01:53 PM
I know that some of what Kimmel was talking about was the protection against pre-existing condition exclusions.

Something that the House GOP just decided to roll back, allowing states to decide for themselves what would/wouldn't count as a pre-existing condition.

People with pre-existing conditions can be turned down outright for insurance, or pay more than the average person.

It's my understanding that insurance works best when everyone puts in a little. I mean, the whole point of having insurance is In Case Something Bad Happens. And if there isn't a giant pool of healthy people who kick in, then it all falls to crap.

It's like herd-immunity that way.

Some things that can be considered pre-existing conditions:
Genetic disorders
Pregnancy
C-Section
Rape

Have any of those in your past? And your state is now eligible to green light insurers in your state to deny you coverage.
Or charge you more.

Most of what I'm reading says it's not probable that this will pass the Senate, but that it is possible.
This doesn't matter from where I'm standing, they GOP is complicit in moving things forward.

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 01:57 PM
I know that some of what Kimmel was talking about was the protection against pre-existing condition exclusions.

Something that the House GOP just decided to roll back, allowing states to decide for themselves what would/wouldn't count as a pre-existing condition.

People with pre-existing conditions can be turned down outright for insurance, or pay more than the average person.

It's my understanding that insurance works best when everyone puts in a little. I mean, the whole point of having insurance is In Case Something Bad Happens. And if there isn't a giant pool of healthy people who kick in, then it all falls to crap.

It's like herd-immunity that way.

Some things that can be considered pre-existing conditions:
Genetic disorders
Pregnancy
C-Section
Rape

Have any of those in your past? And your state is now eligible to green light insurers in your state to deny you coverage.

OK... in other words, if I had a "pre-existing condition," and I had Obamacare, now I wouldn't even be allowed to pay the thousands of dollars out of pocket to be able to access the tiny, limited donut coverage inside? I guess that's kind of crappy. But it seemed like already crappy beforehand. Sort of a non-issue if you just plain don't have the thousands of dollars to pay out of pocket, though.

It sort of seems like a lot of the loudest Obamacare supporters just see it as some kind of clandestine, "WHOO-HOO! Everyone is covered with an affordable plan!"... but they aren't really looking at what the plans are, or what they're actually covering. They're basically useless, as I understand them (again, unless you have extra thousands of dollars at all times).

plastroncafe
05-04-2017, 02:03 PM
OK... in other words, if I had a "pre-existing condition," and I had Obamacare, now I wouldn't even be allowed to pay the thousands of dollars out of pocket to be able to access the tiny, limited donut coverage inside?

I guess that's kind of crappy. But it seemed like already crappy beforehand. Sort of a non-issue if you just plain don't have the thousands of dollars to pay out of pocket, though.

It's my understanding that ObamaCare was a set of minimum requirements that insurance companies had to meet in order to participate in the market places. Where people could go on their own to get insurance straight from the companies.

As opposed to getting coverage through their employers, who would then deal with the insurance company.

That minimum requirement list has been lifted.
So even if you get insurance through your boss, if you have a pre-existing condition....that insurance company can deny you.
Or charge you more.

We've had RomneyCare, which is what ObamaCare is, in MA for a while now.
People who who don't have insurance are dinged come tax time.
Why? Because the leading reason that people declare bankruptcy is Medical Cost.
There are very few people in our country who aren't one catastrophic illness or injury away from financial ruin.
Which is kind of sad, for what is arguably the richest country in the world.

Cure
05-04-2017, 02:08 PM
I have had Medicare and Medicaid for years so I don't really understand all this stuff. I am admittedly ignorant.

snake
05-04-2017, 02:19 PM
Sh*t's all a waste of money, but whats up with the preexisting conditions? Why would you be denied?

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 02:20 PM
It's my understanding that ObamaCare was a set of minimum requirements that insurance companies had to meet in order to participate in the market places. Where people could go on their own to get insurance straight from the companies.

As opposed to getting coverage through their employers, who would then deal with the insurance company.

That minimum requirement list has been lifted.
So even if you get insurance through your boss, if you have a pre-existing condition....that insurance company can deny you.
Or charge you more.

I get that part. I think.

There are very few people in our country who aren't one catastrophic illness or injury away from financial ruin.

But as I understand it, even without this repeal business, Obamacare on its own wouldn't change that. If the medical bill you get hit with is $250,000... the paltry $2,500 (if that) Obamacare will cover on a very basic policy (AFTER you pay the initial $2,500 deductible) isn't going to save you either way.

mrmaczaps
05-04-2017, 02:25 PM
I had great insurance through my job... the ACA/Obamacare came along and costs went up and my deductible went up and prescriptions were now going through the same deductible cost before they were covered. I couldn't afford my prescription so things got worse than they already were so I had to go out of work (or be fired for missing work). Out of work but still had income and didn't qualify for help with the meds. Now ran out of disability pay, have help with the cost of meds and free care program at the hospital, but no income to pay for meds or gas to get to the hospital for costly mris every three months. This plan just means my tumor is now pre-existing and doesn't get covered, except Maine has it as law that pre-existing conditions be covered... but it doesn't help any because no employer is going to hire someone who can't do much without having to sit and rest after only 20 minutes of expending energy... less if theres people who smell of cigarette smoke around...

The government needs to get out of the i surance business all together....

plastroncafe
05-04-2017, 02:27 PM
But as I understand it, even without this repeal business, Obamacare on its own wouldn't change that. If the medical bill you get hit with is $250,000... the paltry $2,500 (if that) Obamacare will cover on a very basic policy (AFTER you pay the initial $2,500 deductible) isn't going to save you either way.

Prevention is key.
People who don't have insurance don't go to the doctor for little things, they wait until they're big things.

My horror is only slightly tempered by the fact that living where I do, I have much less to fear.

Imagine living in Flint, Michigan and having the state...which has ignored your request for clean drinking water, suddenly decides to make "lead poisoning" a pre-existing condition.

tmntfannumerouno
05-04-2017, 02:44 PM
I'm by no means an authority on healthcare... but I'm a little confused. I've looked at signing up for Obamacare, checked out the website... it would be crazy, as it'd be way more expensive than my basic, sh*tty health insurance I get from my job and appears to cover less. But IF I were to pay for it, the basic Obamacare... things like major surgeries and transplants and other life-saving things would all be covered? I don't think they would, not without massive deductibles and thousands/hundreds of thousands in cash out of pocket (not unlike I'd have to under my current basic, sh*tty health insurance), if my understanding of the basic Obamacare policies is correct. And most people don't just have thousands of dollars set aside for these scenarios. The policies I was looking at were like... you have to spend out of pocket about $2,500 up front... and THEN the yearly coverage of about $2,500 kicks in, and if you use all that up, then you're out of pocket beyond that. Sort of a "donut" coverage which... isn't much of a coverage at all.

I've seen things like Jimmy Kimmel crying, talking about how he'd be so sad if his child died because they didn't have Obamacare coverage... I'm not really sure what he's talking about. What am I missing, here? Does he know something I don't about Obamacare, or does he just not understand how it works?

I like Jimmy kimmel but that was just ridiculous. The guy is well to do with a steady, secure job. I'm sure he'd have to give up a car or move to a different neighborhood but who's he trying to fool really?

plastroncafe
05-04-2017, 02:50 PM
If this bill goes through the Senate, it doesn't matter how many times Kimmel moves, or how many cars he sells, or how good his job is, there's a very real chance his kid could get denied medical insurance because he was born with a heart defect.

He wasn't bemoaning his own situation, but that of other people not as lucky as him. The people whose kids will die because they're not as lucky as him.
And let's face it...no matter how hard you work in Entertainment, luck plays a HUGE role in whether you make it to where he is.

Empathy isn't ridiculous.

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 04:33 PM
I'm a little torn, though. The very nature of insurance is, you know, say with car insurance. You're basically standing in front of the company every month, saying, "I bet you I'm not going to get in any accidents this month," and the insurance company saying, "I bet you will," and meeting in the middle on an acceptable minor fee to pay for any damages in case they happen. The understanding being, you come back in there next month after an accident, that minor fee will not be so minor anymore.

Likewise, with health insurance, you're saying every month you pay your premiums, "I bet you I'm not going to get sick this month," and the health insurance company saying, "I bet you will." Same thing. And like with car insurance, if you have a long and ongoing streak of accidents or tickets, when you say "I bet you I'm not going to get in an accident this month," they will say, "Hah! I bet you will, because you always do." But it's the same sort of thing. "I bet I'm not going to get sick this month" won't work with the health insurance company if you walk in there and it turns out you have cancer, or have had 4 heart attacks in the past. They're going to say, "I bet you will, because you're already sick. But hey... I'll give you the most equitable rate on the high and quantifiable likelihood that you're going to need a whole lot of care this month and that care being pretty expensive." That doesn't sound really unfair to me, from a logical perspective. Why would an insurance company be forced to sell $35 a month insurance to someone they know is going to need $30,000 care every month, or more? That doesn't make any sense.

It only gets sad and muddled with health insurance, because these are people. Not cars. Not houses.

I don't know, I don't think anyone should ever be refused treatment for anything. Likewise, I don't believe it should ever be a "Come back when you have the money" thing for necessary kidney transplants, heart transplants, etc.. I think there should probably be waivers or discounts that should be applied to people in certain situations... but I think at the end of the day they still need to walk home with the bill. I don't know that me or you or anyone else needs to pay for it, and with a ballooning population I'm not even sure that's a sustainable business model if it was adopted on full-scale (i.e., a poor person with basic Full Obamacare getting a $500,000 heart transplant and taxpayers having to pay for it entirely).

ProphetofGanja
05-04-2017, 04:55 PM
All of these recent happenings make me feel even more that America needs true, universal health care. Not a nationwide mandate that everyone have health insurance, and pay a fee if they don't.

I'd rather live in a society that thinks it worthwhile to take care of its citizens than one that puts the profits of corporations first.

Candy Kappa
05-04-2017, 04:57 PM
It's ridiculous that USA don't have universal health care.

mrmaczaps
05-04-2017, 05:00 PM
Its stupid to make insurance mandatory... less government demand/involvement.

ProphetofGanja
05-04-2017, 05:06 PM
It's ridiculous that USA don't have universal health care.

It really is.

Its stupid to make insurance mandatory... less government demand/involvement.

We wouldn't need insurance if we had true healthcare

http://68.media.tumblr.com/b9cb1ba0f4612987747cd70bc80207e0/tumblr_opgasqP7lJ1qelupoo1_500.png

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 05:11 PM
All of these recent happenings make me feel even more that America needs true, universal health care. Not a nationwide mandate that everyone have health insurance, and pay a fee if they don't.

I'd rather live in a society that thinks it worthwhile to take care of its citizens than one that puts the profits of corporations first.

But how do they make it work? Where does the money come from? There's no such thing as free medicines, or doctors and surgeons working for free.

Let's say they run the numbers. I mean, really run the numbers. I'm just going to throw a number out there, but I don't think it's really too far off: $500. $500 a month from every working class citizen -- that's the cost of full, universal healthcare in the US. (not Obamacare as it exists now... which doesn't actually cover much of anything and leaves most/all of the debt on the sick person). i.e., the cost for the entire nation to pay for every surgery, every transplant, every prescription, every cancer treatment for anyone and everyone that's sick that takes place every day.

Would you proudly pay that every month on top of your bills, for universal healthcare? Because it doesn't realistically sound like there's any other way for such a thing to work unless we get into stuff like, "Well why don't they just tax the hell out of the rich, make them pay for everything? Yeah, that's it!"

There is other things that I wonder about, though. Does an chest X-ray REALLY need to cost $500? Does an MRI REALLY need to cost $1000? Does a simple meeting with the doctor really need to cost $300? An ambulance ride, $1000? I don't know. I don't think they do. Maybe those kinds of things should be taken a much closer look at, kind of like how people point to "We need to raise the minimum wage through the roof!" instead of looking at the real core problems of things like rent ballooning up 600% in a decade.

tmntfannumerouno
05-04-2017, 05:49 PM
Andrew NDB for president!!!
Now why can't a common sense approach like this work in Washington D.C?

$$$$ that's why greed>common sense

Katie
05-04-2017, 05:50 PM
Sh*t's all a waste of money, but whats up with the preexisting conditions? Why would you be denied?

So, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are riskier to the insurance company. Usually your medical expenses are higher than a healthy person and they lose money on you in the sense that they pay out more for your care than you pay in to them for premiums.

Thats kind of the gamble of insurance. You pay in so that if something bad happens they pay the enormous cost of your treatment...usually more than you've paid in. They hope you remain healthy so you continue to produce income for them to cover losses on others.

They always want to exclude people who are riskier because they are a sure loss.



My question is....are they still thinking of funding the new healthcare thing by taxing the portion of my employer sponsored insurance that my employer pays as income to me? If so I'm f@cked on taxes.


Also are they still changing Medicaid to a Block grant? If so alot of those folks will get f@cked because States will only have so much to give their Medicaid recipients. Might not be enough to cover everyone who has Medicaid currently.

BubblyShell22
05-04-2017, 05:52 PM
Healthcare is always going to suck in this country no matter what bill gets passed. It gets even worse when you reach a certain age because then insurance companies don't care about you and see you as nobody instead of a person with real needs. Let's take my dad for example. He suffered a massive stroke last May (it will be a year tomorrow) and while he had some physical and occupational therapy when he came home, he only had so much and then was denied said therapy. He also never had a speech therapist even though he needed one. it doesn't matter what bill is passed at all because certain insurance companies make the rules no matter what anyone else says and if they don't want to pay for things that are needed, they won't. So, I just say the heck with all of this since it doesn't matter anymore. My dad will never walk again and we'll have to take care of him for the rest of his life.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
05-04-2017, 06:22 PM
Andrew, you have the honor of posting the most sensible statements on healthcare that I've ever seen on the internet. :tgrin:

MsMarvelDuckie
05-04-2017, 07:17 PM
Here's my two cents- as someone whose spouse is currently covered by that "donut" Andrew mentioned (and it is actaully quite a bit bigger than you think) I've seen firsthand how it actually benefits those who need it. He was diagnosed with stage 5 (end stage) renal failure about two years ago as a complication of Type 1 diabetes. The diabetes is a pre-existing condition; he was diagnosed with it at the age of three. Up until Obamacare, insurance companies either refused him oytright or wanted outrageously high premiums that were more than half his monthly income! So no insurance.

Cut to- once he was diagnosed with the kidney failure(and he is on a list for a transplant) he was FINALLY considered "qualified" for disability and gets income for that. But it is less than he would make if he were still able to work. He is now on Medicare and Obamacare, and his treatments cost us- nothing. See, because it is a neccessary treatment for a pre-existing condition, his Obamacare insurer covers the costs of his treatments.($600 dollars PER TREATMENT. At three treatments a week. That is $1800 a week- more than our combined monthly income!)

If this bill passes, our state could very well decide that he and others with life threatening conditions will no longer be covered. It would be a death sentance in his case because there is no way we could continue his dialysis treatments. And many others would suffer the same fate simply because the insurers would no longer be made to comply with the minimum requirements under Obamacare.

Utrommaniac
05-04-2017, 07:28 PM
I have a lot of anger and fear, this among many other things. I'm angry and scared because I don't know how this would effect my family (with Republican-ish parents). I'm angry and scared because I don't have the life experience to know what to expect, nor do I feel like I know enough to have a sense of predictability. I'm angry and scared because of the stubbornness of these people who are refusing to see through their fort and see what they're doing, not just to the people below them in their own country, but on a global scale, and how much footing the US is losing with global reputation and relations. They refuse to see that we are not in the heyday they remember from the 50's and 60's if they were young enough to remember that.

Most of all, I'm angry and scared that because of what's happening now, my generation will never get a chance to clean up their messes.

Andrew NDB
05-04-2017, 11:00 PM
From what I'm reading... it's not entirely clear that people with pre-existing conditions will for sure be turned away going forward? Though it seems that... nothing, really, is entirely is clear on the bill's contents just yet, either, and mostly it's a lot of assumption that that will be the case? But probably, based on general intention surmised by quotes? Either way.

One thing I keep reading (and this is just me largely talking out of my ass, as I have a pretty limited understanding of the big picture beyond my peripheral) is a lot of people saying, "Well, if countries like Australia, Romania, and Croatia can have universal healthcare why in the hell can't the US? This is beyond ridiculous! If these backwater countries can figure it out, why can't we???"

At a glance, yeah, that sounds pretty nutty. But you think about it a little bit bigger, the bigger picture, it begins to make a little more sense, at least to me. Do those countries have remotely the same infrastructure as the U.S.? The need for as large of a military as we do, or military intelligence, missile defense systems (do you think Romania needs to worry about a missile defense system?), technology and weapons, with the constant maintenance and advancements therein needed to "stay in the game"? Any of those things, or others? I'm pretty sure if we slashed our military and basic infrastructure -- as well as the basic things we enjoy here within that (more the infrastructure than the military, though it could be argued that the military allows us to have said infrastructure) that many of those to what it is in those countries do not enjoy -- sure, we could have universal healthcare that's just basically government/taxpayer paid at a rate that wouldn't be crazy. Putting aside if that's even a fair idea entirely, is it a good idea? Speaking strictly about the military, our military... if we slashed it down to 5% of what it is, as to be equivalent with what the militaries are in the countries listed... do we really want that? Having the kind of military we do, the kind of tech we do, the soldiers with the weapons they carry... this stuff isn't cheap to have or maintain, let alone keep advancing. Many of those countries' staple of firearms and aircraft and ships are old WWII stuff, or hand-me-downs from better armed countries sold at a discount. I'm not saying we need to be the world police the way we often make ourselves to be, but if World War III breaks out tomorrow, or if some truly awful superpower rises up in another country with machinations on us or others... do we really want to be caught with our pants down? Do we want to just bank on other countries handling it? Can we afford to risk that?

I tend to think no. We kind of have a big bullseye painted over us all over the globe, but the thing is... with as big of a military as we have, we can afford to have it. That's kind of our thing. There could be a concerted argument about, "Well, how about we just work on getting rid of that bullseye?" but it just sounds naive. Every time we get involved in virtually anything that's not in our country, we're making enemies... and a lot of those enemies don't forget. And have nukes. Should we be getting involved in nearly as much crap as we have been? Absolutely not, not remotely. But some of them we should. Now, I wish I could point to other things we've done in the past that we're no longer doing. "Does any of those other countries have as big of a space program as us? Pushing the envelope?" I wish I could say that. I do. But we shuttered our shuttle program some time ago and every "exciting" announcement since is just lame. Only the independent space stuff actually appears to be going anywhere.

I hate to be the neanderthal sounding guy that's like, "You don't like it?!? Go move to another country!" but if I'm about on the level on all of this... if "I want free healthcare for everyone, no matter the cost to our infrastructure or defense! Just make it happen!" is super important to you... I don't know, maybe you should consider it? Because even at a surface glance of looking at what our government's budget must be that keeps our country afloat the way it is and as thriving as it is while still safe and able to smack down on bad business going on elsewhere -- and this is all fed by our taxes -- it seems to me that the U.S. slashing the things it would need to slash to do make that truly, wholly happen would be catastrophic. Literally the only alternatives are targeting the rich with a bunch of extra taxes or passing it on evenly to the lower and middle class... which would come back to the "Are you ready to pay $500 extra a month on universal healthcare?" thing (also, would give the rich very little incentive not to move to, say, any one of 100 fairly decent countries where they simply wouldn't have to shoulder that). Until we arrive in a utopian or Star Trek-like future where people work jobs for free just to better mankind, nothing is free, not a thing. There can only be redistribution of existing things, existing taxes we pay. That is fine in countries with slim to no military, slim to no regulatory committees... the money that would go to those things doesn't, because they're not there... it can go to stuff like universal healthcare -- and there's nothing wrong with that, there doesn't need to and probably can't be 29 USAs out there. Now, the needle can be moved a little bit one way or the other without drastically effecting what we pay in taxes to help health insurance if it moves back toward the Obamacare model or a heightened version of it, but it literally can't move much more than we've already seen. Not without some pretty painful changes (i.e., TAXES and a great deal more of them) that we would feel right away.

triplexxx
05-05-2017, 01:50 AM
Well for the sake of healthcare for those who need it (pre-existing conditions, or high-risk lifestyles/professions), as well as sustainabile infrastructure, technology, & military power, as well as due advancements in all of which, I'll be fine with doing my part with what I can afford to give. I can just hope that the taxes I pay & the charity work I do gets made the most out of. As for insurance options for those who aren't elderly, have pre-existing conditions (in self or family), or live high-risk lives or work high-risk professions, I'd advise to decide for themselves what they do or don't need, & if they do decide they need something, research it well beforehand to see what exactly is being purchased. And as for advice to the population as a whole, I'd advise practicing being one's own doctor as much as possible, for self and hopefully family as well, and stop ballooning the population, reproduce less and encourage it in others, and in every country, stop filling wombs and focus on taking care of & shifting resources to the people who already exist and the wombs that are already filled.

plastroncafe
05-05-2017, 11:17 AM
One of the biggest hurdles America has to face is it's own myopic vision. We are notoriously CRAP at playing a long game. And we're more than happy to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.

I actually don't mind paying taxes, because I know those taxes go towards making my life better. Could they be used more efficiently? Yes. Should there be more transparency? Oh hell yes.

But...I happy to pay for public schools.
I went to one, and I'd like them to be better than they were when I was in them. Also, I'd really rather not be surrounded by dumbasses.

As a relatively health person, who sadly has the pre-existing condition of having a uterus, I'd be more than happy to pay my portion of Universal health care.

I mean, if I got my insurance from the government, rather than as a condition of my employment? I could demand that money my company pays for me to be insured. Or I could finally leave my dead-end job and do what I'd love...but can't because I need insurance.

Universal health care also has the benefit of making my immediate environment safer for me. Healthier people don't tend to expose others to illness.

I don't like the, "I've got mine, Eff you!" mentality, but...apparently there's a whole political party that does. So until they're out of power...good luck out there, Kids.

And in the meantime, if you do support this move by the GOP or really the GOP in general, please make sure not to include me on your Go Fund Me page when it comes time to pay your medical bills. Because, ya'll are on your own.

ssjup81
05-05-2017, 03:58 PM
It's my understanding that ObamaCare was a set of minimum requirements that insurance companies had to meet in order to participate in the market places. Where people could go on their own to get insurance straight from the companies.

As opposed to getting coverage through their employers, who would then deal with the insurance company.

That minimum requirement list has been lifted.
So even if you get insurance through your boss, if you have a pre-existing condition....that insurance company can deny you.
Or charge you more.

We've had RomneyCare, which is what ObamaCare is, in MA for a while now.
People who who don't have insurance are dinged come tax time.
Why? Because the leading reason that people declare bankruptcy is Medical Cost.
There are very few people in our country who aren't one catastrophic illness or injury away from financial ruin.
Which is kind of sad, for what is arguably the richest country in the world.I filed bankruptcy back in 2009 for medical reasons. No insurance. Denied because of my pre-existing condition (diabetic). I had an emergency situation that required a one-week hospital stay. I, unfortunately, had to be hospitalized again in 2014 for the same thing, only here, for about 7 weeks (doctor was shocked they let me out after only a week in NY, but I explained that I didn't have insurance there). My hospital stay here was about $5,000 compared to the nearly $40,000 for one week in the states.

I have had Medicare and Medicaid for years so I don't really understand all this stuff. I am admittedly ignorant.This, too my knowledge differs from state to state. I always forget which is which, but I remember being denied one of them because I didn't have a disability, wasn't on government assistance, didn't have kids, wasn't on welfare, etc.

Utrommaniac
05-05-2017, 05:23 PM
REJECTED! (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000) It was coming, but hey...still rejected.

Andrew NDB
05-05-2017, 05:47 PM
REJECTED! (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000) It was coming, but hey...still rejected.

No it's not.

ProactiveMan
05-06-2017, 07:58 AM
It's not really any of my business, but I'm not sure why you would want to use insurance as the model for providing universal healthcare. It will never work unless there is a way to control the cost of health care.

The existence of government operated hospitals here means that there is always a baseline price dictated by the government. Private hospitals can charge more than this, but as everyone has public health cover, the private insurance companies have to remain competitive to attract customers. They cannot therefore, afford to pay private hospitals and practitioners overly inflated rates.

Our system has problems, but it works overall. Essentially the federal government provides health cover for everyone, which it funds through a levy that is charged to most tax payers. This means that you are entitled to be treated in a public hospital, and you receive a rebate for doctor visits and things like that. The government can afford this by placing restrictions on the price of medical services it provides as well as pharmaceuticals.

There are some tax benefits to maintaining private health insurance, but you still pay the Medicare levy regardless. To be fair, you are still entitled to use the services too. Private cover gives you a choice of practitioner, hospital, and shorter waiting time for elective procedures and non-critical care. It also covers things like dentistry and physiotherapy that Medicare does not.

Our population is a fraction of yours, and our government is not set up in the same way either, so I can't say if our system would work for you or not.

plastroncafe
05-06-2017, 08:28 AM
The current administration seems to really like your system of providing healthcare.

I'm under the impression that the ACA was structured as it was in an effort to appease the Republican Party. That there was a draft that was more Medicare For Everyone, but they were stonewalling. So the ACA looks as it does because of GOP obstructionism.

Now they're dismantling it piece by piece.
But...keeping the best parts for themselves.

ProactiveMan
05-06-2017, 09:09 AM
The current administration seems to really like your system of providing healthcare.


I'm not sure ours does. They're obsessed with maintaining our AAA credit rating, and they've been sniffing around Medicare for loose change.

Andrew NDB
05-06-2017, 10:54 PM
One thing I'm not clear about, hopefully someone can shed some light on.

Upon further examination of the the new "plan"... everyone is saying that pre-existing conditions will prevent people from being treated, going forward. Now, if I'm understanding the language used in these articles, it's not doing that at all. It's leaving it up to the individual states to decide if they want to set aside bubbles of the individual state's budget so as to allow for pre-existing conditions, and/or allowing every state to determine if a hold on pre-existing conditions is even a thing at all. Is that correct, or am I way off? I might be way off, but that appears to be what I'm reading.

Because if so, it's not the president, his staff, or the plan itself that would be the ones with their hands actively shuttering the whole pre-existing conditions thing... it'd be the individual states deciding to do that if and when this new plan is passed.

plastroncafe
05-06-2017, 11:35 PM
One thing I'm not clear about, hopefully someone can shed some light on.

Upon further examination of the the new "plan"... everyone is saying that pre-existing conditions will prevent people from being treated, going forward. Now, if I'm understanding the language used in these articles, it's not doing that at all. It's leaving it up to the individual states to decide if they want to set aside bubbles of the individual state's budget so as to allow for pre-existing conditions, and/or allowing every state to determine if a hold on pre-existing conditions is even a thing at all. Is that correct, or am I way off? I might be way off, but that appears to be what I'm reading.

Because if so, it's not the president, his staff, or the plan itself that would be the ones with their hands actively shuttering the whole pre-existing conditions thing... it'd be the individual states deciding to do that if and when this new plan is passed.

From what I understand, this is indeed the case....except, it is Congress and the Current Administration allowing this, because they're the ones who rolled back the rule protecting against it.

And all those lists that keep popping up, of things that could be pre-existing conditions, are things that had been used to deny people coverage or to jack up their rates in the past.

Jimmy Kimmel's kid could have a pre-existing condition in Mass, which isn't considered such in New Hampshire. But New Hampshire could consider rape a pre-existing condition, which Vermont doesn't. And so on.

Bear in mind that the GOP made sure to keep this no pre-existing condition thing for themselves, but it'll be up to the States for the rest of us.

MsMarvelDuckie
05-07-2017, 03:45 PM
And therein lies the prolem. Texas is one of the states that had denial/jacked-up rates previously. If this passes and the Feds leave it up to the states, what do you think is going to happen? They would go right back to denying pre-existing conditions just so insurers would not have to pay for treatment for them. Red states are of course the most likely to be the ones to go back to that- and Texas is as red as it gets. We DO NOT want to leave this open for the states to cherry-pick what they cover when there is a perfectly good standard already in place with the ACA.

BubblyShell22
05-07-2017, 03:49 PM
I agree that this isn't a good idea, but we really don't have a say in it and that's a shame as we should. We have to rely on the House and Senate to decide if this bill is the right course of action and so far, the House thinks it is which is a shame.

Katie
05-08-2017, 06:07 AM
Well, I mean, our say is who we vote into congress and making sure we call, email, and write them with our opinion on things. And show up at their events when they are home. They want to be re-elected. If they know that their constituents want the ACA to stay in place, they will do what the people want.

BubblyShell22
05-08-2017, 06:45 AM
Not necessarily. It's never about what we want and is all about what they want. It's been that way for years and will continue to be that way forever. That's the way I look at it as all politicians are crooked and don't care about the people.

plastroncafe
05-08-2017, 08:15 AM
Katie, that's the reality for people who don't/can't vote.
And unfortunately, that's a group that's only been growing in the last several decades.

I work elections, and the only time people reliably turn out is for a Presidential.
The time when their vote counts the absolute least.

Katie
05-08-2017, 11:06 AM
And that's my point. Any time someone doesn't vote, those who do put someone in place. If there are a lot of people who want ACA and sit around and don't vote because its too hard /unfair/ whatever...or worse, no transportation / sucky voter laws....then that minority that does show up, who are maybe against it, they get their way.

I'll never understand complaining about what the congress does or doesen't do when the majority of people are too apathetic/lazy/whatever excuse to actually go vote and support someone better aligned with what they want.

My only sympathy lies with those who want to vote but are prevented from doing so by circumstances out of their control.

ProactiveMan
05-09-2017, 03:02 AM
Voting in state and federal elections is mandatory here, which creates different problems than low participation, and I'm not sure if it's better or worse. Voter engagement is still a problem, but in our model it doesn't result in the engaged voters running away with the election; it's more likely to end in a hung parliament where there are too many conflicting interests with just enough veto power to stop anything from happening. Maybe that's better sometimes though, I don't know.

BubblyShell22
05-09-2017, 07:06 AM
And that's my point. Any time someone doesn't vote, those who do put someone in place. If there are a lot of people who want ACA and sit around and don't vote because its too hard /unfair/ whatever...or worse, no transportation / sucky voter laws....then that minority that does show up, who are maybe against it, they get their way.

I'll never understand complaining about what the congress does or doesen't do when the majority of people are too apathetic/lazy/whatever excuse to actually go vote and support someone better aligned with what they want.

My only sympathy lies with those who want to vote but are prevented from doing so by circumstances out of their control.

No party aligns with what I want because they are all crooked and don't care about anybody. They want to force their laws on everybody and don't even stick to the promises they make. Not voting is the way to go for me because you can't trust any of these people. And as an American citizen, I have the right to voice my opinions about our unfair political system which will never change as long as we have the electoral college in place and idiot twats who don't even want to take the time to read the laws they have to get passed. And until the Constitution states that freedom of speech is allowed except for people who choose not to hole up in a booth and vote for people who really don't care about the American people no matter how much they pretend that they do, I'll continue to state my opinions of how our system is corrupt.

And my point on this is that even though people voted for the President, we still don't have a say on this insurance plan because it's up to the House and Senate to pass it and we can't really stop it. But it seems that the Senate has more common sense considering nothing has been decided yet so at least they are looking things over and really deciding what must be done unlike the House where some of the idiots didn't even read it. They did that with the ACA too.

plastroncafe
05-09-2017, 07:33 AM
I could not agree more, Katie.