|
empty whippet box posted:Does Mitch have actual views about things that he cares about? I've always seen him as an empty FTFY 
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Does that 6 month lock out include not being able to receive Medicaid? I could see that as a pretty horrific consequence
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Does that 6 month lock out include not being able to receive Medicaid? I could see that as a pretty horrific consequence basically if you don't pay your tithe to insurance companies (because that's all it is under the ahca) you're hosed
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Boon posted:Jaxyon, have you read Paul Starr's The Social Transformation of American Medicine by chance? You might be interested in it Nah but I'll check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
As I believe I said in another thread, the mandate/lockout, lifetime caps, and restrictions on pre-existing conditions make perfect sense if you consider healthcare as a product, and health insurance as analogous to any other sort of insurance. That should be enough to demonstrate to any sane person why healthcare should not be treated as a product, but rather a fundamental human right. But apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
The thing is if you are on Medicaid then you get a job the income from that job disqualifies you from Medicaid because of income limits, but most insurances don't kick in for 90 days. So uh what happens then. Usually you have a waiting period of 30 to 90 days before being able to get into the insurance that the job offers like a probationary period. This is one of the barriers that exist that keep people on Medicaid because they can't afford to lose health insurance. So 1. Be on Medicaid 2. Get a Job 3. Lose medicaid because your income changes 4. You have to wait in the probationary period for more than 60 days 5. You can't get insurance now for 6 months.  That doesn't seem right
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The thing is if you are on Medicaid then you get a job the income from that job disqualifies you from Medicaid because of income limits, but most insurances don't kick in for 90 days. So uh what happens then. Usually you have a waiting period of 30 to 90 days before being able to get into the insurance that the job offers like a probationary period. This is one of the barriers that exist that keep people on Medicaid because they can't afford to lose health insurance. i believe the 6 month lockout doesn't apply to employer insurance, which has had pre-existing condition protection since the clinton admin iirc
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i believe the 6 month lockout doesn't apply to employer insurance, which has had pre-existing condition protection since the clinton admin iirc What do you mean? Cause I remember prior to ACA that was the situation I was in when trying to get a job and get health insurance. I just couldn't tough it out the 90 days at my job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:The real easy win for the GOP would to just let people buy into medicare with a flat percentage of their pre-tax payroll income. Yes, if the GOP was a different party that hadn't spent the last decade screaming about how the ACA is evil socialized medicine, and how the government needs to just let the free market decide everything, that might be a reasonable plan. Buy-In Medicare was part of the ACA originally and passed the House, but got killed in the Senate to secure Joe Lieberman's vote to end the republican filibuster
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:What do you mean? Cause I remember prior to ACA that was the situation I was in when trying to get a job and get health insurance. I just couldn't tough it out the 90 days at my job. Oh I see what you mean - that if you go without insurance for 90 days waiting to get health insurance at your job, then you can't quit and go on the individual market for a year. Yeah, that is probably true. I thought you meant you'd wait 90 days, then have to wait 6 months for the employer insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Paul has said some pretty strong stuff suggesting he's not going to be easy to reach:quote:Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn’t mince words about the Senate GOP’s Obamacare repeal bill, which is slated for a vote later this week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Paul has said some pretty strong stuff suggesting he's not going to be easy to reach: At least he seems to be a principled idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh I see what you mean - that if you go without insurance for 90 days waiting to get health insurance at your job, then you can't quit and go on the individual market for a year. Yeah, that is probably true. I thought you meant you'd wait 90 days, then have to wait 6 months for the employer insurance. Yeah it basically just locks you to your job. I mean I guess you could use COBRA which is horrifically expensive, but if you lost your job would that 60 to 90 days you didn't have it prevent you from going on Medicaid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:At least he seems to be a principled idiot. i dunno, none of that seems principled, it seems much more like "i would rather keep running against obamacare than have people running against me for passing trumpcare"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:At least he seems to be a principled idiot. If he's so worried about consumer premium's going up, what's his loving solution to that problem? Cause a clean repeal of ACA doesn't really seem like it'll work out in that regard. E: evilweasel posted:i dunno, none of that seems principled, it seems much more like "i would rather keep running against obamacare than have people running against me for passing trumpcare" yeah that. the tea party true believers subsist on never actually passing anything meaningful. Them doing something means The Government Is Doing Something which defeats the whole purpose of the Tea Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:At least he seems to be a principled idiot. I fervently hope that remains the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Pander posted:If he's so worried about consumer premium's going up, what's his loving solution to that problem? sure it will, then insurance will be very very cheap since the only people who can buy it are young and healthy
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
If it's seriously looking like this thing won't get a yea on a motion to proceed, Democrats should vote to proceed. Force them to vote down their own bill, then crucify every single senator who votes for it with attack ads for the entirety of 2018. I'm sure McConnell has some procedural move he can make to still avoid the vote following the motion to proceed, but I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:sure it will, then insurance will be very very cheap since the only people who can buy it are young and healthy oh yeah, forgot about that wrinkle because I made the non-monstrous assumption that pre-existing conditions would never be removed. Ha ha how stupid and non-monstrous of me 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:If it's seriously looking like this thing won't get a yea on a motion to proceed, Democrats should vote to proceed. Yes, let's tempt fate by pushing the Republican party all-in on a bad option. That's never backfired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:If it's seriously looking like this thing won't get a yea on a motion to proceed, Democrats should vote to proceed. https://twitter.com/messina2012/status/727861322075922433
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Pander posted:Yes, let's tempt fate by pushing the Republican party all-in on a bad option. This is a fair point. But it still needs to pass the House and there's no way this thing can survive another round of voting with the CBO score hanging around its neck. Remember that the House deliberately voted on their bill prior to any CBO scoring for exactly that reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
As it is people with pre-existing conditions are already really screwed anyway. It's pretty impossible to have a serious medical condition and get a job that doesn't leave you completely totally loving poor. I think I have to make minimum 45K a year to be above the poverty line. Even with the best insurance paying 80% of prescription costs I still have to have a extra 1000 dollars a month set aside for just medication.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:If it's seriously looking like this thing won't get a yea on a motion to proceed, Democrats should vote to proceed. gently caress NO they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:This is a fair point. But it still needs to pass the House and there's no way this thing can survive another round of voting with the CBO score hanging around its neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:If it's seriously looking like this thing won't get a yea on a motion to proceed, Democrats should vote to proceed. This is quite possibly one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. You should be proud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Pander posted:If he's so worried about consumer premium's going up, what's his loving solution to that problem? He's a tea party wackjob and libertarian. He believes government exists to build a defensive military and that's it. Nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
The Dems should do absolutely loving nothing to distract from the Republicans self owning. Good god.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:At least he seems to be a principled idiot. Why is being inflexible the same as being principled to Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:He's a tea party wackjob and libertarian. He believes government exists to build a defensive military and that's it. Nothing else. If it's not supposed to do anything, then why does he care if premiums go up or not? This bill Does Less and has fewer regulations than the ACA, so the only reason he's chiming in about the premiums seems to be crocodile tears to find a reason to not actually do anything that might tie him to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Why is being inflexible the same as being principled to Americans? principles aren't always good things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Pander posted:If it's not supposed to do anything, then why does he care if premiums go up or not? This bill Does Less and has fewer regulations than the ACA, so the only reason he's chiming in about the premiums seems to be crocodile tears to find a reason to not actually do anything that might tie him to it. Hmm yeah he is a Paul after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Pander posted:jesus gently caress enough with the bold proclamations of invincibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4W4TBLqpVU Seriously if that poo poo is dead let it be dead, no need to try and refight a won battle for a more complete victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/879461448208064512 MAVERICK!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
I honestly believe Heller and Collins are hard No's. I don't believe that of Paul.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Paul has said some pretty strong stuff suggesting he's not going to be easy to reach: He's not entirely wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Senator John McCaine very concerned for man drowning in front of him
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Lisa Murkowski is very quiet. I would have thought she was more likely to be a no on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
God, John McCain, you terrible oval office. Did the Vietnamese permanently break him mentally as well as physically?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
PT6A posted:God, John McCain, you terrible oval office. Did the Vietnamese permanently break him mentally as well as physically? What a lovely loving thing to say. Maybe you should wind down the hate and turn up the empathy for someone who was tortured. Perhaps you can parse out the hatred of policy and the hatred for someone who was captured and tortured while fulfilling his duty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:27
|
|
