ACHA passes House now heads to the senate

[BubblyShell22]

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]

Andrew, you have the honor of posting the most sensible statements on healthcare that I've ever seen on the internet.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

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.

Originally Posted by Cure

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]

REJECTED! It was coming, but hey...still rejected.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

REJECTED! It was coming, but hey...still rejected.

No it's not.

[ProactiveMan]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.