well, does it cover maternity care? that would potentially cause abortion rates to spike, no?
It provides options for states to waive the required essential health benefits (which includes maternity care), but that doesn't mean there's any hard and fast rule about whether maternity will be covered or not, so it's difficult to speculate what the effects on abortion would be (and of course there remain exclusions on what public health care funds can be used for.)
Most of the pro-life lobby seems to be in favor of the repeal so I do find this puzzling still.
Post by MixedBerryJam on Sept 21, 2017 15:57:18 GMT -5
Does anyone know what's happening regarding Alaska? I'm seeing on twitter talk about buying Murkowski's vote with a deal to let them (and HI) basically keep Obamacare because of their crazy high costs. But I'm not seeing reliable news sources talking about it. JFC she's not going to sell out, is she? She must know that's just plain wrong. Even if in the long term that were best for AK, why not vote no on this and go back to a bipartisan, regular order process for a new bill?
I wish I was. Bernie, now is not the time for your bullshit.
OMMGGGG why can't he sit down and try NOT making the situation worse??
Someone floated the theory that Bernie is on the RNC and/or Russia payroll, and honest to God, I'm starting to think that's not crazy. Because while I don't disagree with some of his ideas -- health care, college, etc. -- I don't see how he can think his approach of hostility and rabblerousing and dividing the Democratic party (and in turn permitting the GOP to benefit) and criticism in crisis SERVES those purposes when it empowers and hardens the opposition to those ideas by giving the Republicans talking points/"doomsday scenarios" (single payer, oh noes!) that fire up their base and harden opposition amongst politicians who don't want to be seen as implicitly being ok with those Liberal Ideas.
On the other hand: whaaaaat. This is so weird, is it not? I believe Graham and Cassidy do not care how this bill plays in the public because they do not care about the public who is opposed. They care about the base who wants Obamacare gone. So what's with this weird town hall -- unless they are trying to change the optics because they feel like it is necessary to help with the vote, maybe? Or they feel like just beating up on Bernie Sanders? Who the F knows.
MixedBerryJam, I've stayed off Twitter today as a brief mental health break, but I was seeing that Cassidy had a spreadsheet that suggested Alaska would get extra money at the end (and thus not suffer as much compared to other states) -- but then some reporter questioned how he got those calculations and they took the spreadsheet down. So who knows. I haven't seen anything about Alaska being able to "keep Obamacare," but I'm not sure what that would mean, because the bill's blockgranting scheme takes away the underlying framework for Obamacare (i.e. exchanges, subsidies, expansion) and mushes it all together. Earlier this summer Murkowski was pretty outspoken that she didn't want a Polar Payoff to sweeten the pot for Alaska but wanted a bill that worked for the whole country. So I'm hoping that she stays true to that.
I wish I was. Bernie, now is not the time for your bullshit.
OMMGGGG why can't he sit down and try NOT making the situation worse??
Someone floated the theory that Bernie is on the RNC and/or Russia payroll, and honest to God, I'm starting to think that's not crazy. Because while I don't disagree with some of his ideas -- health care, college, etc. -- I don't see how he can think his approach of hostility and rabblerousing and dividing the Democratic party (and in turn permitting the GOP to benefit) and criticism in crisis SERVES those purposes when it empowers and hardens the opposition to those ideas by giving the Republicans talking points/"doomsday scenarios" (single payer, oh noes!) that fire up their base and harden opposition amongst politicians who don't want to be seen as implicitly being ok with those Liberal Ideas.
On the other hand: whaaaaat. This is so weird, is it not? I believe Graham and Cassidy do not care how this bill plays in the public because they do not care about the public who is opposed. They care about the base who wants Obamacare gone. So what's with this weird town hall -- unless they are trying to change the optics because they feel like it is necessary to help with the vote, maybe? Or they feel like just beating up on Bernie Sanders? Who the F knows.
MixedBerryJam, I've stayed off Twitter today as a brief mental health break, but I was seeing that Cassidy had a spreadsheet that suggested Alaska would get extra money at the end (and thus not suffer as much compared to other states) -- but then some reporter questioned how he got those calculations and they took the spreadsheet down. So who knows. I haven't seen anything about Alaska being able to "keep Obamacare," but I'm not sure what that would mean, because the bill's blockgranting scheme takes away the underlying framework for Obamacare (i.e. exchanges, subsidies, expansion) and mushes it all together. Earlier this summer Murkowski was pretty outspoken that she didn't want a Polar Payoff to sweeten the pot for Alaska but wanted a bill that worked for the whole country. So I'm hoping that she stays true to that.
This is exactly right. Murkowski isn't going to bite with what is being discussed publicly as "the deal." There are rumors that the real deal is actually something else. Not sure yet, but we are feeling decent about keeping Murkowski. The good news is that there are rumblings about the unfairness of it from other states - what is to stop Portman, or GOP House members from states who will see the worst losses (NY,CA) from demanding their own deals? Rabbit hole.
As for the logic of the debate NO LOGIC on Bernie's part. If he is off script I swear I will personally fly to D.C. And beat him wth a copy of his stupid ridiculous single-payer bill. For Graham and Cassidy the logic is crystal clear. They have had a lot of rhetorical success with the (false, obviously) claim that not repealing the ACA will lead us down the path to single-payer. Part of the reason they are getting traction is related to the public narrative that puts the repeal against the Medicare for all "plan." That is something their base is eating up right now, and getting a national platform to push it on what could be the DAY BEFORE the motion to proceed on their bill is a fucking gift. I am pissed.
Does anyone know what's happening regarding Alaska? I'm seeing on twitter talk about buying Murkowski's vote with a deal to let them (and HI) basically keep Obamacare because of their crazy high costs. But I'm not seeing reliable news sources talking about it. JFC she's not going to sell out, is she? She must know that's just plain wrong. Even if in the long term that were best for AK, why not vote no on this and go back to a bipartisan, regular order process for a new bill?
Yes, this was the plan that was floated publicly - that AK and HI would be exempt from the block grant (receive additional funding) but she has repeatedly shot down any handouts that are state specific. If this is really the best they can do I think she'll be fine, but there is a chance that there's another deal in the works right now. It's also terrible optics for Graham-Cassidy that they're "buying off" or "sweetening the deal" by letting some states "keep Obamacare."
Post by turnipthebeet on Sept 21, 2017 19:08:19 GMT -5
Ok maybe someone can answer this question I have. So let's say my state keep pre-existing conditions coverage (Kansas, so hahahahahaha). But they are doing away with the individual mandate, I presume. So what is stopping me, a generally healthy person who almost never goes to the dr, from just not having insurance until I get really sick and need it?
I am not saying that this would be *my* plan, but I know of people who I am sure would opt out of having insurance if there were no penalty, so I could see this happening.
Ok maybe someone can answer this question I have. So let's say my state keep pre-existing conditions coverage (Kansas, so hahahahahaha). But they are doing away with the individual mandate, I presume. So what is stopping me, a generally healthy person who almost never goes to the dr, from just not having insurance until I get really sick and need it?
I am not saying that this would be *my* plan, but I know of people who I am sure would opt out of having insurance if there were no penalty, so I could see this happening.
Or are they keeping the mandate somehow?
The mandate acts as a "stick" to encourage people to enroll by penalizing them if they do not. Virtually every health plan that doesn't have insanely high costs (due to what you described above - sick people opt in and healthy people opt out, which drives costs up) has some sort of stick. But not Graham and Cassidy! Nope, they just leave that little detail out of the equation and tell the states they're on their own to figure it out. LOL. Of course this is part of what makes the insurers nuts, and why even they are speaking out against the stupid bill. It's also one of the reasons why the CBO isn't going to have time to do the analysis on how individual costs would rise under this proposal. With no incentive everything would be totally haywire and costs for individuals would be astronomical.
I know calling my senators is pointless, but I enjoyed making Perdue's staffer choke when I said he needs to vote for ALL Georgians, not just the wealthy ones who are the only people who would be able to afford insurance premiums.
ACA is a joke, because of it I am now half a million in dept.
OMG, that's awful!! Which department???
I meant to say debt, not dept. Anyway I purchased the insurance, had heart attack no problem, ten days later had another heart attack. I received letter from insurance company telling me that I no longer have insurance through them, asked why, no response, received hospital bill from both heart attacks with tests and surgery to put three stents in. Had third heart attack in May, another stent, received hospitall bill five hundred sixty eight thousand and eighty five cents is what I now owe to the hospital. My understanding of ACA is that they were not suppose to drop patients for preexisting conditions or any other reasons.
I meant to say debt, not dept. Anyway I purchased the insurance, had heart attack no problem, ten days later had another heart attack. I received letter from insurance company telling me that I no longer have insurance through them, asked why, no response, received hospital bill from both heart attacks with tests and surgery to put three stents in. Had third heart attack in May, another stent, received hospitall bill five hundred sixty eight thousand and eighty five cents is what I now owe to the hospital. My understanding of ACA is that they were not suppose to drop patients for preexisting conditions or any other reasons.
I don't think you're understanding what the ACA is or does. You purchased insurance. That's not ACA, that's the insurance company. You purchased insurance from an insurance company, not the ACA. The ACA is the *act* that compels insurance companies to provide insurance. Whether you are covered in full or in part by the ACA depends, in great part, on your state government and whether they accepted Medicaid expansion. If you're not in a Medicaid expansion state, subject to the regulations set forth by the ACA (and the funding that came with it) then your state screwed you, not the ACA. With the insurance, you should have minimums and caps for the charges for each year, depending on your policy. My surgery and three week inpatient stay cost about $2,000 with policy caps at the time. And insurance can't *retroactively* kick you off; if you were covered at the time of the surgery then they are obligated to pay (unless you materially misrepresented your health status or other legitimate and permissible reason.) Under the ACA, the insurance companies aren't supposed to kick you off for pre-existing (or current) conditions, so you would have a claim and absolutely a reason to challenge their determination, as long as the premiums were paid in full on time and you didn't conceal or misrepresent any information on the application, etc. (unless the plan language states differently.) And they're supposed to give you notice, not send a letter of cancellation without notice (unless something in the policy language states otherwise and is permissible by law.)
That's not an ACA problem so much as it's an insurance company problem. I'm not an expert on it by any means but that's my understanding.
I meant to say debt, not dept. Anyway I purchased the insurance, had heart attack no problem, ten days later had another heart attack. I received letter from insurance company telling me that I no longer have insurance through them, asked why, no response, received hospital bill from both heart attacks with tests and surgery to put three stents in. Had third heart attack in May, another stent, received hospitall bill five hundred sixty eight thousand and eighty five cents is what I now owe to the hospital. My understanding of ACA is that they were not suppose to drop patients for preexisting conditions or any other reasons.
This has nothing to do with the ACA. If you believe the insurance company violated the law, you can pursue action against them. If you made an error in signing up for coverage or were not eligible for the plan you purchased, or if the insurer made an error, there's no reason the ACA is at fault for that. They could have dropped you from your policy (or never enrolled you) for like a billion different reasons, most of which have nothing to do with your medical issue and aren't prohibited under the ACA. And if you'd never had a heart issue prior to enrolling in insurance, that's not even a pre-existing condition anyways. Was your plan even an ACA plan? Not all insurance plans are subject to the same rules, and not all need to comply with the ACA.
Plus, it sounds to me like you would have been in the exact same situation without the ACA - either uninsured, or ineligible for insurance due to your medical issues, or only eligible for a plan with very high premiums. Perhaps you feel that the ACA didn't adequately protect you (although as I said above that is likely incorrect, and if it weren't you could pursue action against them through your state's division of insurance) but that is very different than the statement you made that the ACA is the reason you have medical debt. That's false.
I'm sorry this happened to you but it's highly irresponsible to go around making misinformed statements about a law that has helped millions of people avoid medical debt and receive coverage when otherwise they would have none. Now that law is in jeopardy and instead of concerning yourself with the risk this poses to tens of millions of people just like you you're over here trolling with unrelated anecdotes about something you don't understand.
Post by seeyalater52 on Sept 22, 2017 7:11:29 GMT -5
This is like if I got fired from my job because I was a woman and I blamed employment laws prohibiting sex-based employment discrimination for that firing because they didn't "protect me."
If someone violates the law you have to pursue legal action. You don't blame the laws that prohibit that action for the fact that someone else violated it - they're put in place to protect you and give you recourse in a certain scenario, not to ever prevent that from occurring just by way of their existence.
Post by jeaniebueller on Sept 22, 2017 7:19:14 GMT -5
Have we discussed the CNN town hall between Graham, Cassidy and BERNIE that is happening on Monday? Rep amy Klobuchlar, who is not supporting Bernie's bill, will also be there, presumably to defend the ACA.
Have we discussed the CNN town hall between Graham, Cassidy and BERNIE that is happening on Monday? Rep amy Klobuchlar, who is not supporting Bernie's bill, will also be there, presumably to defend the ACA.