The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Tero]

They should vote.

If it passes, it it dies in Senate.

[Tero]

While House Republicans and President Trump were in the Rose Garden celebrating their health care win, Senate Republicans announced that they wouldn't be voting on the House bill, but will instead write their own.
The Washington Examiner reported, “Senate Republicans said Thursday they won’t vote on the House-passed bill to repeal and replace Obamacare but will write their own legislation instead.A Senate proposal is now being developed by a 12-member working group. It will attempt to incorporate elements of the House bill, senators said, but will not take up the House bill as a starting point and change it through the amendment process.”

The assumption had long been that Senate Republicans would at least vote on the House bill. Instead, what is going to happen is that the Senate is going to try to pass their own bill with no timeline for passage, and then the House and Senate will need to reconcile their bills into one final bill, which may or may not be able to pass the House and Senate depending on how far to the middle the final bill moves.

Trump’s victory party in the Rose Garden was overblown and premature because Republicans haven’t really accomplished anything

[Scot Dutchy]

Dont tell him! He will have another tantrum.

[Tero]

Hey, it's an honest ripoff! It does not claim to be affordable:

Trump will become the target of the same criticism if Trumpcare passes, and probably even if it doesn’t. The GOP bill doesn’t do anything new to address the fundamental problems pushing up costs: an opaque pricing system, too many middlemen, the overuse of care by some consumers, and many other inefficiencies. There’s every reason to think costs will continue to devour family budgets under the GOP plan, (which at least doesn’t claim to be “affordable,” like Obama’s plan did). Trump, rather than Obama, will now get the blame for a problem neither president created

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-trumpcar ... 49801.html

[Forty Two]

It's total political gamesmanship. If the Republicans want to go down this road, more power to them. Claim to repeal it, but don't repeal it, continue to make everyone's costs go up, and take the burden of responsibility from the Democrats. If that's what they want to do, go for it. Nothing they've done is going to stop or ameliorate the damage done by Obamacare, and they've now given political cover to the Democrats to declare that things would have been better under Obamacare.

This beast needed to be put down wholesale, and we need an entirely new approach. Absent that, the GOP is just trying to make a short term political gain by applauding the so-called "repeal" of Obamacare. Which it isn't.

[Tero]

No death panels needed, just unplug the patient when the cap is reached. The insurance companies now get to cap yearly and lifetime limits!

[Tero]

The damage was done entirely by insurace, drug companies and healthcare. Obama was the junior partner. The junior partner is now Ryan. Trump won't run another term so he can't be responsible past 2020 when the shit hits the fan.

[mistermack]

Trump got a majority and he didn't hide his intentions.
I don't know why people are blaming him. There was no mystery.

Why would you blame a dog for barking or biting. It's a dog, that's what it does.
This is what Trump does, and this is what America does. And they chose their man in their own image.

Americans don't give a fuck about vulnerable people. It's the American way.

[Brian Peacock]

Trumpcare: Many of you will die, but that's a price we in the GOP are willing to pay.

[Tero]

Obamacare causing insurance rates to double triple etc in short time and BANKRUPTING rich people earning over 200 000 with a tax. Congressman felt PRESSURED to do something because of these awful things. Insurance rates will plummet once they pull out all the money! His explanation:

Dear Friend,

As I prepared to vote Thursday, I asked a Nebraskan visiting my office what he thought about the new health care bill. He said, “It’s a start."

I agree. The bill is a “start” to creating a health care system that all Americans deserve. My goal in health care repair remains the same: ensuring lower costs, promoting better health, and protecting vulnerable persons.

In Nebraska, health care costs rose over the past year 33% in the individual market, and up to 50% on the health care exchange, and our state may soon be left with only one insurance provider. Twenty-eight million Americans currently have no insurance. For many others, insurance with massive deductibles means accessing benefits is difficult.

While this new bill is complex and has created anxiety, saying no to change would lock us into a system with significant and worsening problems. This is fundamentally unfair to Nebraskans. Moreover, with insurance exchanges in trouble, and roughly 1200 United States counties with only one health insurance provider, it is unfair to all Americans.

I realize that the possibility of change causes understandable concern for persons who prefer the current system. At the same time, others are facing an awful choice: do I pay for increasingly unaffordable insurance, or pay for my other basic needs?

Every bill has its plusses and minuses. For example, I believe we ought to hold harmless anyone currently receiving subsidies so there is protection against any adverse economic effect. Important protections are in the House bill. However, offering this assurance will give more confidence while our current system transitions. I expect the Senate to work on this important provision.

During the legislative process, new moneys were added to help meet the needs of the disabled and the low-income elderly. A very critical amendment created a new, innovative federal re-insurance model for those with preexisting conditions, so they will pay a similar price to those who are healthy. Finally, states will receive significant funds to stabilize insurance premiums and coverage and hopefully innovate for better health outcomes.

One of the accusations that will be launched against the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and one of the things I urged during the deliberations was for a CBO-like (Congressional Budget Office) analysis before Thursday's vote. While that was not forthcoming, one available study suggests that a 60-year-old who buys their own insurance would see as much as a 45% decrease in their health insurance bill.

The House bill now goes to the United States Senate, where it will be debated and likely changed, and then back to the House again. Contrary to some sources, as a member of Congress, I would be subject to this legislation should it become law. In a separate bill—passed before the AHCA went for a vote—members of Congress voted to subject themselves to the same rules. I was a co-sponsor of that bill, which was unanimously approved.

I want to thank everyone who has contacted my offices. Healthcare is a very personal matter that directly affects life, family, and wellbeing. On Thursday, I had one choice: yes or no. From my perspective, doing nothing would have been irresponsible and an abdication of my duty to you. My choice was yes—with a steadfast commitment to continuing the work of lowering costs, providing better health delivery, and protecting those who are suffering.


Sincerely,

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry

[Tero]

Almost none of the Republicans read the bill they voted on
https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status ... 2089413632

[Tero]

You Pay!

Lower Premiums

Trump tweeted in April that the Republican plan would have “much lower premiums.”

The CBO does find that premiums would be 10 percent lower on average by 2026, but there are some caveats.

First, that reduction would only come after an initial increase in premiums of 15 percent to 20 percent. That spike would come due to the repeal of the mandate to have insurance; with the mandate gone, healthy enrollees would be likely to drop out, prompting insurers to raise premiums for everyone else.

Second, the drop in premiums would come in part because of a younger group of enrollees and less generous plans. A study by Brookings Institution experts found that if the plans and enrollees stayed the same, premiums on average would be about 13 percent higher under the GOP plan than under ObamaCare.

Finally, the 10 percent drop only reflects the sticker price of plans. The financial assistance now provided under ObamaCare to help people afford coverage would on average drop significantly under the GOP plan, by 50 percent over the next decade, according to the CBO.

What funds?

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) this week argued the bill "actually provides multiple layers of protection for people with preexisting conditions." Those include the high-risk pool funding as well as protections against being charged more for an illness if someone maintains continuous coverage without gaps.

Healthcare experts warn that the House bill does not provide enough funding to cover everyone who would likely need to use the high-risk pools.

House Republicans added an additional $8 billion for the high-risk pools before passing the bill, but experts say much more funding — to the tune of around $200 billion — would be needed for the pools to really work.

If that does not help.Mike Pence offers you Jesus care
https://twitter.com/DearAuntCrabby/stat ... 9238401024

[Brian Peacock]

By how much did insurance costs rise above medical and care costs during the same period? Indeed, are there any figures on this?

[Tero]

Yes. Costs keep going up but there were other factors causing insurance companies to pull out of Obamacare. They get plenty of customers via corporate clients.

With the Trump era threats affecting the last two years of Obamacare there is never going to be a 10 year trend to measure.

Forbes magazine says Obama is to blame but:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com ... -says.html

[Tero]

If the rates go down at all in the Trump era it is because insurance companies can reject sick patients. List here:
http://www.ajc.com/news/local/these-pre ... 8ZugZT6FK/