The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Forty Two]

GOP willing to dump money on insurance companies rather than give citizens dreaded subsidies:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100323512/

Alaska already does this.

Subsidies are stupid in the case of Obamacare. They jacked up the price of insurance, and raised the deductibles, and then they afford some subsidies. However, the net result is that people pay far more for insurance now than they did before, even with the subsidies, except those who were poor enough to get government assistance and medicaid before Obamacare (and maybe a few more).

The whole situation is untenable, because it is so unaffordable. This year, I pay over $1100 per month, and I have over a $6000 deductible per individual. So, if I had an illness and had to be hospitalized, on top of $15,000 in premiums, I get to cover well over $6,000 in medical expenses before the insurance kicks in.

Thanks Obama! Oh, thank you! Thank you! You've done so much good... such a good, caring person, who created "access" to healthcare by mandating that everyone buy it, under penalty of enforcement action by the Internal Revenue Service. Thank you! Thank you! Kind sir!

[Tero]

The involvement of insurance always raises fees. Obama or not. My eye glass place charges 180 for eye exam. It was 40 two years ago.
"I'll pay cash 80."
"That would not be fair to prople with insurance." Was the reply.

The government is not involved.

Ban all insurance?

[Tero]

duplicate

[Tero]

TRUMP pushing a part of healthcare overhaul NOBODY wants

The president clearly is committed to the state-line policy. If he wants a small win on health care to distract from the challenges of getting a large-scale repeal through Congress, this idea might meet that goal. But there’s one big problem: No one in the health care universe, on either the policy side or the business side, actually thinks selling plans across state lines will make a difference.

How do I know this? I chair the Zetema Project, whose mission is to foster open dialogue and debate on U.S. health care issues. Panelists include Republicans and Democrats, policymakers from the Obama White House and both Bush administrations, current Capitol Hill staffers, and senior executives representing hospitals, insurers, pharma, organized medicine, employers, patients and other key stakeholders. The group comes together in candid, off-the-record meetings not to work out solutions but to argue about issues deeply to make sure everyone understands their differences. You would think that this group couldn’t agree on much of anything, and you’d be right—almost.

At our January meeting, held days before Trump''s inauguration, we discussed more than a dozen potential reform ideas, including all the health care changes you’re hearing about these days: tax credits, block grants, high-risk pools and many others. We engaged in robust discussions, even heated debates, on every issue, save one: selling health insurance across state lines. It was on the agenda. But I couldn’t get the group to generate more than a collective yawn.

That may be surprising. After all, it sounds like a big disruption in a highly regulated insurance system. And it makes business sense that adding competitors to existing markets—which show wide variations in state health insurance costs—should benefit consumers. Back in 2010, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) claimed that a New Jersey resident could go to Wisconsin and save 74 percent on an insurance policy, if only the law allowed it.

Still, my group had no interest in this solution, one way or the other: The liberals weren’t worried about it, the conservatives wouldn’t push it, and the industry representatives wanted to move on to something that mattered. To be fair, there was one moment of excitement during that part of the discussion: When one of the authors of Obamacare mentioned that she had written it into the current health care law.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... are-000419

[Animavore]

Trump fishes for Obamacare horror stories on Twitter. Backfires.

http://www.vocativ.com/411857/trumps-ca ... BO-15a-Z01

[Tero]

The Hill:

2.2K

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress
© Greg Nash
A new amendment to the Republican ObamaCare replacement bill exempts members of Congress and their staff from its effects.

The new changes to the bill would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal key ObamaCare provisions, such as the protection against people with pre-existing conditions being charged more and the requirement that insurers cover a range of health services, like prescription drugs and mental health.

The GOP amendment exempts members of Congress and their staffs to ensure that they will still be protected by those ObamaCare provisions.

[Forty Two]

Repeal sounds good! http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33 ... epeal-bill

Repeal that muthafuggah!!!

[Brian Peacock]

Dumping 5-8% of the population out of the system is good how? Is it right that members of congress and their families should be exempt from the changes they're intending to impose on the rest?

[Animavore]

Utterly contemptible how people can get all wet at the idea of people being thrown out of insurance.

[Tero]

With no Democrats on board, the bill is dead

Many members of the centrist Tuesday Group members complained that the MacArthur-Meadows amendment pushed the bill too far to the right, and they privately griped that MacArthur had shifted blame for the stalled healthcare effort from conservatives to centrists.

The changes seemed aimed at winning over conservatives — and those efforts proved successful.

The approximately 30-member House Freedom Caucus endorsed the new bill Wednesday after opposing the earlier legislation.

In the process, however, the new bill might have lost just as many centrists.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/33096 ... fe-support

[Tero]

"Insurance companies need to file rates in 2 1/2 months," says Tom Policelli, CEO of Minuteman Health, which sells Obamacare policies in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

"So basically we've got four to six weeks to figure out some basic things that will help all of us in the industry to have more surety and stability, so we can price our premiums lower," he says.

To make those decisions, companies want to know whether the law is going to change altogether, something Republicans in the House have tried, failed to do and are trying again this week.

At minimum, insurers would like to know whether the Trump administration intends to continue making crucial payments to insurers that are required under the law.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... plan-ahead

[Scot Dutchy]

The UK and USA seem to have one thing in common; they are in complete chaos.

[Tero]

As congress does so little work, they go on 4 week break with no healthcare concensus
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/ ... alth-care/

[Tero]

And yet, another healthcare vote planned?
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN17Z1VS

Not likely to pass
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/33 ... eadly-joke

[Tero]

Ladies, get your burkas on. If you got raped, no care:

Deny care!
Under Trumpcare plan, rape would be considered a pre-existing condition
The bill’s MacArthur Meadows Amendment would allow states to permit insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Bizarrely, the term “pre-existing condition” applies to sexual assault, postpartum depression, C-sections, and victims of domestic violence.