|
The essential health benefit rule applies to every post-ACA health insurance policy sold in the United States regardless of whether it is subsidized or not. So, people who get health insurance through their work will suddenly notice that their free checkups, kids glasses, and no hassle pharmacy coverage no longer exists. Oh well, at least they can cope using the boosted take home pay that their employer passed on to them when the health insurance company reduced premiums for the first time in, well, ever. Right?
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Prediction: the bill will pass the house tomorrow. Looking quite possible. The plan seems to be to bend over for the loons and scramble to get the deal done before the moderate support can evaporate. On the other hand, CNN is reporting as of twenty minutes ago that they still don't have enough votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
The Hill claims 28 no votes still and 6 leaning against
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:The essential health benefit rule applies to every post-ACA health insurance policy sold in the United States regardless of whether it is subsidized or not. So, people who get health insurance through their work will suddenly notice that their free checkups, kids glasses, and no hassle pharmacy coverage no longer exists. Oh the EHB stuff applies to employer plans as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Oh the EHB stuff applies to employer plans as well? It applies to individual plans and small group plans. Large group plans – for employers with more than fifty employees – are exempt. Most offer these benefits anyways, though, without being required to do so. The sort of things offered by large employers is part of where they looked to define the standard for the EHB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
To remove essential health benefits immediately evaporates any way of enforcing a guaranteed issue for pre-existing conditions, except for one that would have insurance companies yelping wryly to please not throw them in that briar patch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Highbrow Slick posted:To remove essential health benefits immediately evaporates any way of enforcing a guaranteed issue for pre-existing conditions, except for one that would have insurance companies yelping wryly to please not throw them in that briar patch. How so? Haven't seen that conclusion before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:How so? Haven't seen that conclusion before. Because if all types of benefits are optional then insurance companies can charge whatever they want in an a-la-carte fashion that would force people to self-select in such a way that they would effectively not be able to obtain coverage for the conditions they need treated. Highbrow Slick fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Highbrow Slick posted:Because if all types of benefits are optional then insurance companies can charge whatever they want in an a-la-carte fashion that would force people to self-select in such a way that they would effectively not be able to obtain coverage for the conditions they need treated. I don't see how the situation you're describing would work. Like, I try to buy a plan that covers my existing condition, and they trick me into thinking it's covered, but it's not? What's the process where I try to select a plan that covers my condition but I fail to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Well if a plan is cheaper because it doesn't cover, say cancer, then everyone with cancer will want to buy the plan with cancer coverage. Which will push up the price, making it more attractive for people without cancer to buy the plan that doesn't cover it (because they know if they get cancer one day they can just switch plans). Which will make the risk pool of the plans that cover cancer even worse, which will increase the price, which will push more people out, etc etc. The rule that you can't charge people more for preexisting conditions becomes totally ineffective if an insurance company can just create a plan that doesn't cover that condition and charge less for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Copy paste from other thread: Hey, pre existing conditions may be going bye bye as well I uh did not see that coming. What the gently caress are they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/844776309372837888 e;fb
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't see how the situation you're describing would work. Like, I try to buy a plan that covers my existing condition, and they trick me into thinking it's covered, but it's not? What's the process where I try to select a plan that covers my condition but I fail to? VitalSigns has the idea exactly right VitalSigns posted:Well if a plan is cheaper because it doesn't cover, say cancer, then everyone with cancer will want to buy the plan with cancer coverage. Which will push up the price, making it more attractive for people without cancer to buy the plan that doesn't cover it (because they know if they get cancer one day they can just switch plans). Which will make the risk pool of the plans that cover cancer even worse, which will increase the price, which will push more people out, etc etc. Which is why I mention the insurance company response of 'don't throw me into that briar patch!' Because by virtue of not having essential benefits they can make their dime off of everybody, always, without exception, and the guaranteed issue of coverage means nothing anymore. Highbrow Slick fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
That makes sense, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Paul Ryan is getting what he's always wanted: medicaid cuts. Albeit under the guise of this whole other thing. Destroying the individual market and maybe losing the Republican majority in the process. If he can get BAT passed as well, he'll probably reach randian nirvana. Kinda impressed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Soooooo is it off topic to ask "How do I healthcare without insurance?" if the worst happens later today. Do those prescription discount carts have expiration dates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Soooooo is it off topic to ask "How do I healthcare without insurance?" if the worst happens later today. 2) If you do get sick, die quickly (h/t to Alan Greyson for this outline) I'm not kidding about dying quickly, either. If you rack up a half-million dollar hospital bill, your next-of-kin will probably be on the hook for it, despite sins of the father literally being forbidden in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:1) Don't get sick how the gently caress is that possible? Do hospitals force families to sign deals to allow them to do that if they want X family member to get treatment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
call to action posted:This seems like such a simple question. Just because I'd vote for a severely handicapped man to be eligible for national UHC doesn't mean I'd want him to be part of a healthcare co-op that only consists of me, him, and a handful of other neighbors. Considering it risk spreading. The conversation originally started over a claim that there was widespread support among the people for some kind of national UHC, but the Democratic party had abandoned their constituency. ColoradoCare getting crushed was brought up as an example that "the people" really aren't all that interested in a single-payer UHC system. Some have argued that we can't use ColoradoCare as an example, because it's just one state or whatever, but we are seeing two problems with that argument. For one, at least among people in this thread, despite their reservations the people who support a national single-payer system voted for ColoradoCare. So we are talking about this hypothetical group of people who won't support a state level bill, but would support a similar measure at the national level. But the hypothetical arguments against state-level UHC are all easily scale-able to the national level. For example, the idea that poor immigrants are going to flood across the border and overwhelm social services is a long-time policy position of the Republican Party, and partially the reason for why we need to build the wall along the Mexican border. My questions are more aimed at the original argument, and I hope blackmet's answers are illustrative to those that think that the US is on the verge of this grand socialist revolution. I mean Marxism 101 is that the wealthy, capitalist class is a parasite on the economy, not the working poor. Furthermore, the capitalist class creates artificial boundaries, and supports conflicts across those boundaries in order to prevent people from paying attention to the real conflict, the class war. I wasn't trying to get a gotcha answer or anything, it's just that the framework for how probably at least 80% of the country answers those questions isn't really conducive to the "obvious" solution for how we can fix healthcare. While we might characterize Republican policy as "gently caress You, Got Mine," Democratic policy is basically "I Want It Too." So in this healthcare debate, to really overgeneralize, Republicans want to keep their good health insurance policies. Democrats just want wider access to those policies. Nobody is willing to take action that may threaten the existence of good insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Nobody is willing to take action that may threaten the existence of good insurance. Uh they're 100% willing to make sure that literally only the very, very richest people can get healthcare of any kind at all. Paul Ryan would vastly prefer it if everyone who made less than 1 million dollars a year was banned from eating anything but gruel while sleeping on stone slabs without sheets or pillows, and he'd make helping them in any way illegal if he could.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Uh they're 100% willing to make sure that literally only the very, very richest people can get healthcare of any kind at all. Paul Ryan would vastly prefer it if everyone who made less than 1 million dollars a year was banned from eating anything but gruel while sleeping on stone slabs without sheets or pillows, and he'd make helping them in any way illegal if he could. Yeah, remember this is the guy quoted as saying that he's been dreaming of depriving poor people of insurance since college
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Soooooo is it off topic to ask "How do I healthcare without insurance?" if the worst happens later today. It still has to pass the Senate
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
If this isn't clear evidence that they are just trolling because they can, I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
I love how we keep getting saved by Ted Cruz and the Raiders of the Tortilla Coast from horrible legislation like the AHCA and the grand bargain because it's not conservative enough. You can't make this poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/elianayjohnson/status/844892819085021186
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
I still think it'll pass the house. Even if it's for the wrongest reasons imaginable, I don't trust the Freedom Caucus to do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I still think it'll pass the house. Even if it's for the wrongest reasons imaginable, I don't trust the Freedom Caucus to do the right thing. The right thing? No, of course not. Sabatoging whatever Republican leadership is trying to do for immensely stupid reasons? Well, that's got Freedom Caucus written all over it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The right thing? No, of course not. Trump's election has killed my optimism, even in its most cynical forms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/844901101233147904 That'll be the big inflection point of today, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/844901101233147904 Freedom Caucus should hold out for the password to @RealDonaldTrump
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Trump's election has killed my optimism, even in its most cynical forms. Oh its certainly likely it passes. It's just that nobody is relying on the Freedom Caucus doing the right thing, we're hoping they can't overcome their scorpion nature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh its certainly likely it passes. It's just that nobody is relying on the Freedom Caucus doing the right thing, we're hoping they can't overcome their scorpion nature. So what, we're hoping it dies in the senate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
The bill will pass the House, at this point it's nakedly political and has nothing to do with actual policy (this was always the case but the veneer rubbed off). Leadership will promise anything to kick it out the door.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
I sort of wonder if this is some big act where they'll give Trump a "deal maker" win by giving him and Ryan the votes after 11:30 meeting. Then again, self-interest is the only thing that unites the Freedom Caucus, and Trump being a deal maker is just GOP mythos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:I sort of wonder if this is some big act where they'll give Trump a "deal maker" win by giving him and Ryan the votes after 11:30 meeting. Then again, self-interest is the only thing that unites the Freedom Caucus, and Trump being a deal maker is just GOP mythos. They've convinced themselves Reagan was the best ever, so they can very easily convince themselves trump is too
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
sharkbomb posted:I sort of wonder if this is some big act where they'll give Trump a "deal maker" win by giving him and Ryan the votes after 11:30 meeting. Then again, self-interest is the only thing that unites the Freedom Caucus, and Trump being a deal maker is just GOP mythos. quote:But Meadows said that a promised Senate vote is not good enough, and changes must be made in the House.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Craig K posted:So what, we're hoping it dies in the senate? It is very unlikely this gets through the Senate and the schedule McConnell has set (voting next week) seems like it's not even pretending it's going to pass since there's no time to get a compromise worked out. Anything that managed to pass the Senate would definitely be amended from this, requiring further votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Trump: I will give you everything you want and more, and it won't cost anything, and everyone will love it, and it'll pass the senate too Republicans: Wow what a dealmaker
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
why are they insisting on voting today, you ask, despite it making it more likely it fails? must be some next-level political strate...quote:Wednesday night was equally chaotic, as pressure from the White House and GOP leaders failed to win over either the moderate or hardline conservative wings of the Republican Party. The desire to quickly patch up the deep divisions that emerged within the House GOP conference over the legislation was driven by Republicans' desire to hold their vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the seventh anniversary of its passage. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Azhais posted:Yeah, remember this is the guy quoted as saying that he's been dreaming of depriving poor people of insurance since college And college Republicans whine that the hot, liberal girls won't sleep with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:14
|
|