upper income folks and the Dems are more interested in talking about Russia? In fairness, which useless lumps among their leadership would be able to speak persuasively on this anyways?
It astounds me sometimes. Even the hippy-dippy libbies here will focus on the nonsense instead of substantive stuff.
outdone, not by a long shot, the Senate R's come up with this piece of shit literally the next day and are going to try to jam it through without any hearings. Dumbfuck of course sits in the WH and stews about Russia.
MAGA!
compared to Obamacare, which has many flaws, this will:
- increase deductibles
- increase premiums
- make health insurance unavailable to the middle class
- reduce the number of doctors accepting medicaid
- significantly reduce availability of medicaid to the elderly
The main point you need to know about this bill is that it is the effective end of Medicaid. This is going to literally kill children, disabled people, the elderly, people who need expensive cancer drugs. This is going to kill people you know.
If you or someone in your family will need nursing care starting around 2025, when even deeper Medicaid cuts hit, you should be fighting tooth and nail against this. You will never be able to afford nursing home care unless you are pretty fucking rich. This is going to bankrupt millions of families.
but, it gives tax breaks to the wealthy and pharma companies and it makes it almost impossible to use insurance to pay for an abortion. So, that's a win for GOP supporters, I guess?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
the ONLY tangible benefit I see out of this bill is for those making enough to benefit from the cap gains tax repeal. Presumably, there are lots of people, including people who regularly post on here, who don't make >$250,000 but still support this. I'd like to understand whether they oppose it on the principal that it's unfair to those making >$250,000, or if they have some other reason. I can't fathom one, unless it's the defunding of planned parenthood. That seems like pandering, but maybe it's working. I can't think of anything else.
pile of garbage too. Not sure where you got your rant about how it is going to kill half of the country, increase deductibles, etc... because I don't see anywhere in the bill that you can come to that conclusion. I think ye may be listening to schumer a little too much, or even pelosi.
The only good thing i see in the bill is the increase, up to your deductible, the amount of money a family can put into a HSA or FSA account. I currently have a $14,000 family deductible, $7,000 individual deductible. Under current law, I can only put up to $6,250 into a HSA to help pay for that deductible on a pre-tax basis. In this day, I would venture that most families, even those who are healthy, will have to pay at least up to their deductible amount on an annual basis. This would allow all of them to pay less in taxes in order to help cover the cost of their medical expenses. If you don't see the positive in that, well, you are just wanting to complain about something.
I am trusting that Rand Paul will negotiate some real meaningful reform into the senate version before anything goes to a vote.
For the more knowledgeable law folks on the board, why does the Senate or House not even attempt to introduce legislation that allows private/public insurance companies to sell across state lines?
deductibles are targeted to 42% of cost, so insurance pays 58% of the expected cost of healthcare, and deductibles will be set to reach this target.
Importantly, unlike ACA, which contains out-of-pocket maximum limits of $7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family for 2017 plans, there ARE NO LIMITS. So, if you have a preexisting condition or get cancer or some other major disease (or your wife has a baby - because many insurance plans will no longer provide maternity coverage), you will not have a cap on your share. This is only insurance if you stay relatively healthy. For a major health event, this will be disastrous to many.
Edit: my favorite part of the bill is $15B annually being given to insurance companies to incentivize them to continue providing healthcare in underserved areas...with no requirements or benchmarks. This is a pure gift.
two different things.
Your incorrect statement is the current limit on out of pocket maximums. My plan already has a max out of pocket of $18,000, just looked on Cigna's website and verified.
It would appear their are some "cost sharing" possibilities for Medicaid/Medicaid equivalent enrollees in terms of a possible deductible... maybe that is something you are concerned about, but they actually cap those cost sharing limits to 5% of family income. So, I don't believe that is unreasonable.
Again, I am not saying I am a fan of the plan, but at a minimum do some research before you start talking about republicans killing people over the stinking plan that I would venture a large percentage of republicans don't even feel like it goes far enough. The current state of any of the plans being thrown out there will do nothing to impact healthcare costs in this country.
there is a loophole, however, that allows insurers to offer a plan with a higher family OOP figure if individual limits are used instead for each member of the family. your plan appears to opt for this. The link is from Cigna itself and explains it.
You are correct on premiums vs. deductibles in section 102(b). That's my mistake. What was changed in cost sharing relates to premiums. ACA requires plans to be benchmarked to 70/30 (you pay 30% of health care costs). The revision is 58/42, which should result in about a 40% increase to premiums. That's not ideal in my opinion.
I stand by the fact that these medicaid cuts will harm people - through an increase in personal bankruptcies and increased deaths. This will greatly affect people who are between the FPL and 3.5x the FPL. That's the working poor and the middle class. They will get less access to worse coverage and when the medicaid expansion is scaled back, many will not have access to that either. This is really going to screw a lot of baby boomers entering low current income periods of their lives in retirement.
I would like to understand what part doesn't go far enough in your opinion.
Link: https://www.cigna.com/assets/docs/about-cigna/informed-on-reform/cost-sharing-limits-fact-sheet.pdf
1) A 26 year old adult should not still be on the parents health plan. Become independent and get a job. In the grand scheme of things, that probably will not make much of a difference in premiums, aside from the fact that it is less policies that get sold since that generation will stay on the parents family plan for the additional period of time. However, the vast majority of individuals in that age range require minimal healthcare expense to insurers. We have created a generation of irresponsible adults that will shift this country toward a Greece situation if the reins are not pulled back.
2) I would eliminate the pre-existing conditions clause and expand a safety net solution for individuals that fall into that category. The Blue Cross, Anthem, Cigna, etc.... of the world will make a profit. By forcing them to cover pre-existing conditions, they are gouging everyone else. Like them or not, it is and will continue to happen. This is one scenario where I would feel more comfortable giving the govt a small portion more in taxes and let that money be utilized to expand a safety net solution that is distributed to the states to manage.
3) At the federal level, open up the ability for insurers to sell insurance nationwide and not require the negotiations to happen on a state-to-state basis.
4) Baron's idea on how to handle big pharma is I think a good solution to reign in the industry.
5) Ban lobbyist in the healthcare industry as a whole. Lobbyist are crippling this country in every aspect possible.
societal norm. As much for Trump voters as everyone else.
well, just usher in socialized medicine. I truly believe if the current republicans pass something like they have proposed by trying to suck in a few middle of the road Democrats to get around the handful of stubborn true conservatives, the next election will show a further shift right. Which will then create a further divided country. Mitch and Ryan need to put the truly conservative healthcare alternatives out to a vote to show who the true conservatives are. No more of the pandering garbage.
(no message)
We're all gonna die!!!!!!!!! Except the rich........
the burden is on you to prove anything I said to be false. You can't do it because (a) you are too lazy or lack the reading comprehension to read the bill and (ironically, i guess) will get your viewpoint on this from Fox or whoever, (b) sound bites are more your style and (c) everything I said is in that shitty bill.
So far, your argument is "liberal!"
Great job.
(no message)
Help!!!!
(no message)
(no message)
This is the "age tax." the difference between the senate bill and the house bill is the senate bill delays the age tax until 2019, so that the sheep don't realized they've been fleeced until after the midterm elections.
Should older investors who invest in the stock market be prevented from losing everything if they made poor investment choices?
Psst.......society has already made decision that we need to do it for moral or political reasons.
Trump and a majority of republicans in both the house and senate.
Lots of middle class goodies being kept.
Fuck the poor though, right?
I did it, you did it, most have done it until this generation of snowflakes.
(no message)
Will it also kill all of the puppies?
It's just that onece we eat them, they won't be needing that insurance, so why waste the money?
(no message)
to step aside. Who knows.
Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/338953-pelosi-defends-leadership-after-special-election-losses
The Dems can pick their own leadership, and should opt for change
I honestly don't know the answer to this question, can they call a do-over? Or do they simply announce that they no longer have confidence in her and force her out?
Overall, I agree with you. It's not up to her in the end.
There should be an indpendent Russian probe, which there now is. Until Mueller makes a recommendation, there is nothing else to talk about.
What Dems should be talking about is the House healthcare bill and Zinke shrinking National Monuments. They could talk about Trump's Muslim ban, which gets shot down in every court it goes to. They could talk about potentially disastrous foreign policy decision of selling weapons to the Saudi's, a fundamentalist Muslim dictatorship. There are easy targets out there, but b/c the Clinton-wing of the party still can't get over the loss (that they blame on Russian and Comey), those topics remain their talking points.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Yes, Lance, that's what I said: nobody's been discussing replacement of Obamacare!!!
What are Mike Coffey's and Andy's takes on this?
Lance: Sarcastically points out that people are talking about HC.
MAS: Strawman!
I was commenting on how the issue should be framed.
F (on the Cross Scale)
They've been hitting them rather hard the past week or so on the secretive nature of the discussions. They now have something tangible to "attack." Until now, the Republicans could just say that they weren't and wait for the bill.
Doh!
(no message)