|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Went to the Kaiser ER due to symptoms of CHF. I dont know what I should feel more worried about : the fact that the doctors currently can't find the problem, or how much this is going to cost me with all the tests that are being ordered with a non subsidized bronze plan (gently caress you family gap). I'm getting smacked with 35 dollar co pays every couple of days plus missed work, and the stress is unbearable. Which by the way stress is what my specialist is currently blaming my problems on after an xray and a blood test. I was just told me eat better while blowing me the gently caress off. I got a hold of another doctor to get some tests going because gently caress that. look on the bright side, they won't be able to refuse you coverage under a pre-existing condition if they fail to diagnose you with one
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Crashrat posted:Care to elaborate on that? From the article: quote:Why it matters: The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they're challenged in court. Its departure from that norm in this case is a major development — career DOJ lawyers removed themselves from the case as the department announced this shift in its position. It's a pretty extraordinary step for the Justice Department to say "we refuse to defend this case, we think the plaintiffs are right". It happened with DOMA under Obama. But this doesn't mean that the plaintiffs immediately win - other parties who could be injured (say, Blue states) can step in to defend the law instead of the Justice department. This story isn't about "we're gonna lose pre-existing coverage" - most view the Texas case as pretty flimsy. This story is about "Trump's DOJ is garbage fire, acts politically where previous DOJs were less so"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Care to elaborate on that? Devor posted:From the article: Losing coverage for pre-existing conditions would be devastating. Sorry if my post implied otherwise. But that's not an inevitable (or particularly likely) result of Justice's decision because the 17 blue states have standing. Acknowledging this fact makes headlines and ledes far less clickable though, so it's one you have to dig into the story (or already know about) to find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Devor posted:From the article: I realize that it's a process through the judicial branch, and that there will still be people defending coverage of pre-existing conditions...but it's still indicative of the entire position of the Republican party. SCOTUS may have not agreed that the individual mandate was a commerce clause issue - that SCOTUS wasn't willing to allow Congress to compel individual actions through the commerce clause - but forbidding pre-existing conditions absolutely falls within the commerce clause. It's literally a market regulation. I don't even understand how the case the red states are bringing has any legs at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I realize that it's a process through the judicial branch, and that there will still be people defending coverage of pre-existing conditions...but it's still indicative of the entire position of the Republican party. it doesn’t, it’s totally frivolous, and I doubt that there are 3 votes for cert let alone 4 when the 5th circuit inevitably upholds the law
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AppropsDems/status/1004895936227741696
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
Crossing from Trumpthread (the rare time that A Good Post goes in that direction, rather than from ITT to there) Stickman posted:The rescission won't pass the Senate, but on the off chance it does, it won't actually kill CHIP. It just steals it's carry-over discretionary fund used to help states that need to go past their budget allotment. They've argued that it's unneeded because no states are projected to go over budget this year, but since it carries over year-to-year, they're going to need to allot extra funds to fill the pot if it's ever needed in the future (which of course they try very hard to put off so long as they're in control). It's bullshit slight-of-hand to say their reducing the deficit by a minuscule amount. The other program cuts might be real, though - I haven't looked at them. boner confessor posted:there's a $2b chunk that could be spent under some circumstances iirc, but the majority of the chip money either needs to be taken back or have a new spending bill passed allowing it to be released because otherwise it's just sitting around and it's illegal to spend it To be clear, it's still a very bad thing to do. It's also nice to see Dems being more direct with their messaging than usual. But it's not as :arzy:worthy as the tweet makes it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:it doesn’t, it’s totally frivolous, and I doubt that there are 3 votes for cert let alone 4 when the 5th circuit inevitably upholds the law Yeah we've been watching this for a while and the general response is basically "lol." State GOP legislators have been at this for a while but they just don't have any legal argument to kill guaranteed issue on the exchanges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yeah we've been watching this for a while and the general response is basically "lol." If I understand the red state position it's summarized as... A) The ACA included a tax (individual mandate) that paid for a benefit (coverage of pre-existing conditions). B) SCOTUS has upheld the tax C) Congress repealed the tax D) Without the tax the benefit is an unconstitutional benefit because it's not funded I don't even see how that makes any kind of sense. By that logic literally every single benefit would have to have a direct tax linked to it, and presumably *only* it. While I'm sure that's some kind of libertarian wet dream material...there's no loving way the Federal government could even remotely begin to function that way. Do the Republicans even understand what they're arguing for? Because this seriously reads like an underhanded way to force the US to go back to Line Item Budgeting - so we have a separate tax & budget for literally everything - and then the President gets to veto or not each thing. That'd be thousands of bills - according WaPo's quote from Robert Byrd it'd be at least 10,000 bills - and there's years where Congress can't even pass a single goddamned budget. I seriously hope SCOTUS sees this for what it is, which is nothing more than an underhanded method of attacking the entire basis of how the Federal government operates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
the argument is worse than that 1) the individual mandate penalty is a tax (true) 2) the amount of the tax is currently set at $0 and so therefore it is not a tax (just like how the federal income tax doesn’t exist because some people’s tax liability for it is $0) 3) therefore, the individual mandate is unconstitutional, because the thing that made it constitutional was that it was merely a tax penalty for not having insurance, and now it doesn’t have that, ignoring that now there is no penalty for not having insurance and so it is not an infringement of any liberty of any kind 4) also guaranteed issue and community rating are not severable from the mandate for uhhhhhh no reason at all it is sovereign citizen tier legal theory
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Depends on how the ACA was written. It's basically a law drafted on a napkin and is already full of holes, so they might be able to get away with that argument
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Because this seriously reads like an underhanded way to force the US to go back to Line Item Budgeting - so we have a separate tax & budget for literally everything - and then the President gets to veto or not each thing. This is a Republican wet dream, yes. Whether or not the attacks on the ACA are deliberately being formulated as some sort of precursor to try to edge toward that goal, or whether it's just blind hatred of That Rotten Obamacare and a desire to destroy it by any means necessary, well.. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
The democrat obsession with wonky laws led to the jenga tower that is the ppaca gently caress you centrist dems for not giving us single payer UHC
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:This is a Republican wet dream, yes. Whether or not the attacks on the ACA are deliberately being formulated as some sort of precursor to try to edge toward that goal, or whether it's just blind hatred of That Rotten Obamacare and a desire to destroy it by any means necessary, well.. Port que no los dos
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
At least the GOP has their finest sovereign citizens working this case.DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:4) also guaranteed issue and community rating are not severable from the mandate for uhhhhhh no reason at all This is the fun part because their argument is literally "well ACA doesn't explicitly say that the individual mandate is severable from the rest of ACA so that means it's not severable" which is not how any of this works. And they're using the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as their platform to try to kill the whole ACA. You know, when Congress nixed the individual mandate while leaving guaranteed issue and community rating intact, thus proving Congressional intent that the individual mandate was severable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Depends on how the ACA was written. It's basically a law drafted on a napkin and is already full of holes, so they might be able to get away with that argument except that whether a provision is severable is a question of congressional intent which as posted above has been conclusively proven by the actions of a subsequent congress just to be clear: I am not saying some chud judge won’t agree with them out of sheer ACA hatred, just that this legal argument is absolutely, completely frivolous
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The democrat obsession with wonky laws led to the jenga tower that is the ppaca That was Joe Liberman, not centrist dems. PPACA had a government option included originally. Lieberman killed that provision. Just like Marco Rubio killed risk corridor payments by kneecapping CMS with bullshit budget riders in subsequent years. The PPACA in it's original form had problems, but it would have been a functional bill and provided true UHC with a private option for those that feared gubmint insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That was Joe Liberman, not centrist dems. PPACA had a government option included originally. Lieberman killed that provision. Just like Marco Rubio killed risk corridor payments by kneecapping CMS with bullshit budget riders in subsequent years. And yet that still wouldn't be single-payer. Why do people treat single-payer and UHC as if they are synonyms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And yet that still wouldn't be single-payer. I will admit I hadn't actually looked into what the public option that he killed was, and it wasn't a single payer option but rather a government ran health insurance that would compete on all of the marketplaces. That's actually really dumb, but it would have actually kept costs down. I don't conflate that system with single payer. I was just a moron who hadn't looked up what he was talking about specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I will admit I hadn't actually looked into what the public option that he killed was, and it wasn't a single payer option but rather a government ran health insurance that would compete on all of the marketplaces. That's actually really dumb, but it would have actually kept costs down. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a universal healthcare system that's not single-payer -- such as a government-backed public option -- and given the way healthcare is currently structured in the US, it might be the best chance of achieving UHC in the short term, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people treat all possible UHC systems as interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The democrat obsession with wonky laws led to the jenga tower that is the ppaca I would certainly hope that Single Payer would be even more wonky and technocratic than the PPACA given the whole "total takeover of the healthcare industry" bit. Not exactly a case where I want simple, commonsense legislation as typically defined by populists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That was Joe Liberman, not centrist dems. PPACA had a government option included originally. Lieberman killed that provision. Just like Marco Rubio killed risk corridor payments by kneecapping CMS with bullshit budget riders in subsequent years. That's untrue; Lieberman was the sole "Democrat" who killed the amendment that would have opened up Medicare to those aged 55+ but it was the House that passed a public option in their bill and the Senate Finance Committee (led by Baucus, Obama's handpicked ACA killjoy who turned the legislation over to his former-Blue Cross-lobbyist chief of staff) that killed the public option: quote:The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no. According to The Hill, only half of the Democratic senators supported a public option when push came to shove. "It will never survive a filibuster" was also the excuse Harry Reid used to exclude the amendment for reimportation of prescription drugs from the final bill--even though a majority of GOP senators voted for it. Of course, we discovered later that Obama earlier had made secret handshake deals with PhRMA and the American Hospital Assn. to exclude a public option (and to preclude any legislation that would rein in PhRMA). See, also, the rotating-villain hypothesis. It's astounding how, nearly a decade after the legislation was crafted, the hagiography of the Democrats' being well-intentioned populists thwarted by the Evil Joe Lieberman continues to dwarf the truth. eta: As far as the cost-sharing subsidies, that onus is squarely on Dems who didn't appropriate continuing funding as they did the premium subsidies; Dems claimed that that had been a "drafting error."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Of course, we discovered later that Obama earlier had made secret handshake deals with PhRMA and the American Hospital Assn. to exclude a public option (and to preclude any legislation that would rein in PhRMA). Do you know of any articles about these deals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
B B posted:Do you know of any articles about these deals? https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-obamas-deal-with-industry-on-health-care.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
B B posted:Do you know of any articles about these deals? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/obama-the-public-option-t_b_772514.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-health-pharma14-2009aug14-story.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I will admit I hadn't actually looked into what the public option that he killed was, and it wasn't a single payer option but rather a government ran health insurance that would compete on all of the marketplaces. That's actually really dumb, but it would have actually kept costs down. Wasn't it prohibited by law from charging lower prices than private insurers Paracaidas posted:I would certainly hope that Single Payer would be even more wonky and technocratic than the PPACA given the whole "total takeover of the healthcare industry" bit. Not exactly a case where I want simple, commonsense legislation as typically defined by populists. Compare Medicare, a wonky and technocratic law that functions better than anything else in the country, because it wasnt written by morons more concerned with preserving industry profits than delivering care. Willa Rogers posted:
Because you're talking to people whose paychecks depend on them not understanding the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
It is unlikely that PPACA would have passed without those backroom deals. Lieberman was the remaining point of a long edge of pols worried (not without reason) about the millions and millions in attack ads they'd face if groups like PhRMA or AHA threw their weight against the bill.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wasn't it prohibited by law from charging lower prices than private insurers I'm not sure how the House bill that included a public option was structured, but I do recall Schumer, in the early days of the legislation being crafted, declaring that any public option had to be priced "on an even playing field" with private insurance. The co-ops were supposed to replace the ephemeral public option but the vast majority of them ceased operations during the first few years of the marketplace. By 2018, only four co-ops still operated out of the original 22.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It is unlikely that PPACA would have passed without those backroom deals. Lieberman was the remaining point of a long edge of pols worried (not without reason) about the millions and millions in attack ads they'd face if groups like PhRMA or AHA threw their weight against the bill. Lieberman was the bogeyman that Dems have claimed responsible for killing the public option, when it was Obama & Baucus & Reid who actually did so, with the help of other Dems. You're correct inasmuch as Dems' being beholden to lobbyists' money made them dance to their pipers' tunes. But the lack of a public option, drug-pricing controls, and Medicare expansion was pretty much baked into the legislative cake from the start--which is why Obama's "support" of those things was nonexistent to tepid during the crafting of the bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The PPACA was such a rickety mess that vital parts of it were knocked out by judicial activism. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It is unlikely that PPACA would have passed without those backroom deals. Lieberman was the remaining point of a long edge of pols worried (not without reason) about the millions and millions in attack ads they'd face if groups like PhRMA or AHA threw their weight against the bill. And as we all know, not passing a public option sure saved them from facing millions and millions in attack ads about health care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
PPACA was designed to guarantee insurance and pharmaceutical profits and it has succeeded wildly. It is only incidentally successful at improving health. Any provision that would have lowered costs (I.e. Improved access to health) that would have lowered industry profits was poorly designed to fail: the Exchange, the cost sharing reductions, the lack of a competitive government offering, lack of Medicare for all, lack of Medicare pricing power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive. Yea, look where we are now, we're in a paradise of healthcare, things are looking better and better since ACA passed!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive. Yep; thanks to the ACA we now have tens of millions of people who don't seek medical care every year because of high out-of-pocket costs, thus "bending the cost curve" of medical spending!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive. There were parts of it that were good. There's even two parts of it that were good that haven't been dismantled as of today, merely crippled: the rescission ban, and the medicaid expansions. The many, many utterly terrible parts remain, functioning precisely as designed. Enhancing access and cutting health insurance industry costs, by making people buy coverage they can't afford.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive. The ACA's structural deficiencies and the oligopolies in pharmacy and insurance have basically erased any minor gains in coverage for any American who can't afford a massive deductible
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Nobody on the payer side fought medicare because nobody's in a rush to insure the statistically least healthy age demographic. Meanwhile the AMA hated it and called it socialized medicine. Ironically, medicare was the first time for many on the provider side where they had a guarantee that their bills would be paid and it made doctors fabulously wealthy. Doctors today might complain about medicare but if you ask them if they want it abolished they'll backpedal furiously, they just want to be paid more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Nobody on the payer side fought medicare because nobody's in a rush to insure the statistically least healthy age demographic. Meanwhile the AMA hated it and called it socialized medicine. Ironically, medicare was the first time for many on the provider side where they had a guarantee that their bills would be paid and it made doctors fabulously wealthy. Doctors today might complain about medicare but if you ask them if they want it abolished they'll backpedal furiously, they just want to be paid more. If I can think of one group of people who aren't making enough money, it's definitely doctors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 20:03
|
|