Quote:CHART: Who Wins, Who Loses With Senate Health Care Bill June 22, 20173:59 PM ET
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leaves the chamber after announcing the release of the Republicans' health care bill on Thursday. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare. The long-awaited plan marks a big step toward achieving one of the Republican Party's major goals.
The Senate proposal is broadly similar to the bill passed by House Republicans last month, with a few notable differences. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been criticized for drafting the bill in secret with just a dozen Republican Senate colleagues, says the proposal — which he calls a discussion draft — will stabilize insurance markets, strengthen Medicaid and cut costs to consumers.
"We agreed on the need to free Americans from Obamacare's mandates. And policies contained in the discussion draft will repeal the individual mandates so Americans are no longer forced to buy insurance they don't need or can't afford," McConnell said.
Instead, the bill entices people to voluntarily buy a policy by offering them tax credits based on age and income to help pay premiums.
This bill is better designed than the House version, according to Avik Roy, founder of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, because it offers more help to older people who can't afford insurance while making coverage cheaper for young healthy people.
"The bill will encourage a lot more of those individuals to buy health insurance," Roy says. "That, in turn, will make the risk pool much healthier, which will also lower premiums. And the tax credits in the bill will also be better-designed."
But Caroline Pearson, a senior vice president at the consulting firm Avalere Health, says the bill bases its tax credits on lower-quality insurance."If you're paying a similar percentage of income, you're getting a less generous product under this new plan," she says.
The plan keeps some popular parts of Obamacare. It allows parents keep their children on their policies until age 26 and requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
But it then allows states to opt out of that requirement.
"The protections around pre-existing conditions are still in place in the Senate bill, but the waiver authority gives states options that could include limiting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions," says Pearson.
Those waivers would allow state to drop benefits required by Obamacare, such as maternity coverage, mental health care and prescription drug coverage.
Both bills would eliminate most of the taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act.
And they would bar people from using tax credits to buy policies that pay for abortion and also block Planned Parenthood from getting any money from Medicaid for a year.
Perhaps the most sweeping move, however, is that the Senate plan follows the House lead in completely changing how the government pays for health care for the poor and the disabled — and goes even further.
Today, Medicaid pays for all the care people need, and state and federal governments share the cost.
But Medicaid has been eating up an ever-larger share of federal spending. The Senate Republicans' plan puts a lid on that by rolling back the Obama-era expansion of the program and then granting states a set amount of money for each person enrolled. Republicans also want to change the way the federal government calculates payments to the states starting in 2025, reducing the federal government's contribution to the states.
"The Medicaid cuts are even more draconian that the House bill was, though they take effect more gradually than the House bill did," Pearson says. "So we're going to see very significant reductions in coverage in Medicaid and big cuts in federal funding that will result in significant budget gaps for states."
Several Republican senators have already said they oppose the bill, at least as of now. Senate leaders are aiming for a vote before July 4.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-23-2017, 03:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Looks like they don't have the votes as of now.
Well some on the right are holding out for it to be worse for the american citizens. They'll probably settle for just very bad when push comes to shove.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
"We agreed on the need to free Americans from Obamacare's mandates. And policies contained in the discussion draft will repeal the individual mandates so Americans are no longer forced to buy insurance they don't need or can't afford," McConnell said.
Instead, the bill entices people to voluntarily buy a policy by offering them tax credits based on age and income to help pay premiums.
This bill is better designed than the House version, according to Avik Roy, founder of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, because it offers more help to older people who can't afford insurance while making coverage cheaper for young healthy people.
"The bill will encourage a lot more of those individuals to buy health insurance," Roy says. "That, in turn, will make the risk pool much healthier, which will also lower premiums. And the tax credits in the bill will also be better-designed."
In other words, we are going to stop paying for health insurance with subsidies for young healthy people who are mandated to buy health insurance required by law to cover certain benefits because we are going to give these lower income families tax credits because we think they will voluntarily buy insurance with less coverage we just said they don't need.
(06-23-2017, 05:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In other words, we are going to stop paying for health insurance with subsidies for young healthy people who are mandated to buy health insurance required by law to cover certain benefits because we are going to give these lower income families tax credits because we think they will voluntarily buy insurance with less coverage we just said they don't need.
These idiots are dumber than I thought.
??? I don't see where you got that. It seems like they are encouraging them to buy policies that don't include coverage they don't need. I could have misunderstood,but that's what it seemed to me.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-23-2017, 05:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In other words, we are going to stop paying for health insurance with subsidies for young healthy people who are mandated to buy health insurance required by law to cover certain benefits because we are going to give these lower income families tax credits because we think they will voluntarily buy insurance with less coverage we just said they don't need.
These idiots are dumber than I thought.
I don't think they are dumb at all Oncemore.
Think of the health care bill as an engine to cut taxes on the very wealthy.
Everyone is talking about "provisions" and "tax credits" and how "choices" are given back to the middle class and young people who don't want insurance. The Republican Senators are banking on the Trump base not really caring about the secrecy and rush to ratify. They could be right about that, but I don't think it will work because resistance is too great in purple districts. But it's not a stupid gamble.
(06-23-2017, 05:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: ??? I don't see where you got that. It seems like they are encouraging them to buy policies that don't include coverage they don't need. I could have misunderstood,but that's what it seemed to me.
What coverage is it that they don't need?
I've never purchased a health insurance policy "ala carte," so to speak, where I was able to pick and choose what was and wasn't in the policy. My experience has been choosing between 1-3 policies and the amount of the deductible.
McConnell is claiming they aren't going to force young people to buy insurance they don't need with subsidies because he hopes the same young people will voluntarily purchase health insurance with tax credits.
If they don't need health insurance it doesn't matter if they get a subsidy or a tax credit, they still don't need health insurance. Until they do.
At least with the mandate they are paying a tax penalty which can be used to lower the cost of the insurance pool. If the don't buy insurance or pay the penalty it won't lower the cost of the pool despite McConnell's claim it will make the pools healthier and cheaper.
His statements reveal a fundamental lack of understanding how this works.
(06-23-2017, 05:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think they are dumb at all Oncemore.
Think of the health care bill as an engine to cut taxes on the very wealthy.
Everyone is talking about "provisions" and "tax credits" and how "choices" are given back to the middle class and young people who don't want insurance. The Republican Senators are banking on the Trump base not really caring about the secrecy and rush to ratify. They could be right about that, but I don't think it will work because resistance is too great in purple districts. But it's not a stupid gamble.
Here's a thing about Obamacare most don't seem to understand. If you're in poverty you qualify for Medicaid. The people who need Obamacare are blue collar, working class Americans who aren't poor enough to get Medicaid, aren't making enough money to purchase health insurance on their own, or don't have a good enough job to offer health insurance. That can be verified at the Kaiser Foundation. So these people aren't paying much in taxes. Any tax credits they do get won't be enough to buy health insurance and it will probably work like the Earned Income Credit they will claim on their taxes at the end of the year. Plus the EIC is one of those dirty "entitlement" programs Republicans complain about. So it will be one more entitlement programs Republicans will want to cut in the future.
If you watch video back from 2009-2010 everything the Republicans were whining about concerning Obama care, they are doing the same thing now and in some cases worse. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Quote:The word “women” literally never appears in the US Senate’s 142-page health-care bill
June 23, 2017 Women have babies. If they didn’t, first the economy would collapse, and then the species would die out.
But because they do, from their late teens to their early forties, women have higher health-care costs than men of the same age. Carrying and birthing a child is a sometimes difficult, dangerous, complicated business, and one that, in America, can be incredibly expensive.
Despite the incontrovertible fact that men are biologically just as responsible as women for a pregnancy happening, before the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, women in the US paid more for health care and insurance because they are the ones who can get pregnant. Specifically, American women of child-bearing age paid somewhere between 52% and 69% more in out-of-pocket healthcare costs then men.
The Trump administration’s health-care reform bill now in the Senate, and the version that passed the House this May, will force some women to pay more again. Specifically, it strips out hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, the insurance for the poor, which now covers over 50% of all births in many US states, and allows states to opt out of covering “essential” healthcare that includes maternity and newborn care.
The Senate bill was crafted behind closed doors, by 13 men and no women. A search of the language used in the 142-page draft document (pdf) shows that womanhood and motherhood are, quite literally, also omitted from most of the bill itself. Here are the few mentions.
Motherhood The bill uses the word “mother” twice, both in relation to abortion, and specifically to how it will cut health care for women. On page 8, the bill lays out new definitions of which health care plans qualify under the act, eliminating ones that provide abortion except in rare circumstances, saying:
‘‘or a plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother or any abortion with respect to a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest)’’
On page 9, under a section on “Exclusion of health pans including coverage for abortion,” the bill says
Quote:The term ‘qualified health plan’ does not include any health plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother or any abortion with respect to a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest)
The words “maternal” or “maternity” never appear in the bill.
“Pregnancy” is only mentioned in relation to abortion and work requirements, except in one instance, in listing what “Medicaid flexibility programs,” which give states more control of Medicaid resources, should cover:
Quote:Pregnancy-related services, including postpartum services for the 12-week period beginning on the last day of a pregnancy.
Abortion is mentioned 11 times.
Womanhood
The word “woman” is used three times in the bill, but only in relation to abortion and a new work requirement.
The bill would withhold state funding from entities that provide abortions, except in very limited cases, among them, as described on page 35:
Quote:…the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself
The bill will allow states to decide that people who receive “medical assistance” need to work in order to qualify, and lays out some rules on those work requirements on page 50. Pregnant women and brand-new mothers cannot be required to work, but the requirement kicks in two months after birth.
Quote:States administering a work requirement under this subsection may not apply such requirement to (A) a woman during pregnancy through the end of the month in which the 60-day period (beginning on the last day of her pregnancy) ends.
The word “women” never appears in the Senate bill.
The Obamacare contrast
The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, contains dozens of specific mentions of “women” that have nothing to do with abortion or work requirements. It is clear that it was written in part to make healthcare better and more accessible for women. Here are just a few:
Section 3509: Improving women’s heath
Part II: Support for pregnant and parenting teens and women
Section 10412: Young women’s breast health awareness and support of young women diagnosed with breast cancer.
The requirement that essential health benefits “take into account the health care needs of diverse segments of the population, including women, children, persons with disabilities, and other groups.”
Priority grants for pregnant women under age 21
The establishment of a Health and Human Services committee on women’s health.
The establishment of a Centers for Disease Control office on women’s health.
Funding for “cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women.”
Since the ACA passed, the number of women of child-bearing age without health insurance has dropped significantly. It is a full bill more than 900 pages long, not a draft working document like the Senate’s bill. But there’s little indication from that first draft that the men who wrote it are thinking about women’s health at all.
It's not even a healthcare bill. It's a tax cut and abortion bill.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-22-2017, 03:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anyone seen the images of wheelchair bound protestors being physically removed from outside McConnell's office? I'd like to know more about this, but haven't found an unbiased source for the story. I've just seen the images posted online and some left-wing reporting.
Man. I wonder if security went all John Goodman from the Big Lebowski on them. "Dude, this guy is a fake. A f****** goldbricker. This guy f****** walks."
Just want to get on the record as hoping this fails. I want a full repeal and replace it with nothing . Just start rolling back regulations on the insurance industry and see what trying freedom looks like....
I just wish we would go one or the other..... either total freedom or single payer. I am tired of these half measures. We either stand for freedom in this country or we don't.... never understood why we are so quick to chase europe and other socialized countries in healthcare.
I want the same for the minimum wage debate. Either no min wage or a mincome. At least with a mincome we can dump social security, welfare, and all that nonsense.
(06-25-2017, 11:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Just want to get on the record as hoping this fails. I want a full repeal and replace it with nothing . Just start rolling back regulations on the insurance industry and see what trying freedom looks like....
That's scary in the same sense Reefer Madness is scary. It's terrifying people are gullible enough to believe it.
Medicare doesn't tell doctors where they can live, but Blue Cross Blue Shield can tell you which doctor is or isn't in network. And I have to argue with an administrator on the phone why I need to order an abdominal CT scan and not an abdominal US they say I have to order first when they aren't qualified to order either test.
(06-26-2017, 01:48 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's scary in the same sense Reefer Madness is scary. It's terrifying people are gullible enough to believe it.
Medicare doesn't tell doctors where they can live, but Blue Cross Blue Shield can tell you which doctor is or isn't in network. And I have to argue with an administrator on the phone why I need to order an abdominal CT scan and not an abdominal US they say I have to order first when they aren't qualified to order either test.
What makes you think single payer would be better? You think the government is going to pay for all this crazy stuff?
(06-25-2017, 11:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I just wish we would go one or the other..... either total freedom or single payer.
(06-26-2017, 02:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What makes you think single payer would be better? You think the government is going to pay for all this crazy stuff?
It allows for a better negotiation of prices. So yes, they will pay. And it will be much less. And with much less of a taxing of it's citizens.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-26-2017, 02:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What makes you think single payer would be better? You think the government is going to pay for all this crazy stuff?
(06-26-2017, 02:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What makes you think single payer would be better? You think the government is going to pay for all this crazy stuff?
You think private insurance pays for all this "crazy stuff"? LOL
![[Image: ap_17173571395884_custom-129c2c9774a1c1e...00-c85.jpg]](http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/06/22/ap_17173571395884_custom-129c2c9774a1c1eb876539c2a4995a6413cabc30-s700-c85.jpg)
![[Image: 1.jpg]](https://s24.postimg.org/qkqzy8sud/1.jpg)
![[Image: 2.jpg]](https://s24.postimg.org/71meovu2t/2.jpg)
![[Image: 3.jpg]](https://s24.postimg.org/ipggjfj7p/3.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 240px-Childlabourcoal.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg/240px-Childlabourcoal.jpg)
