|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-repeal-conservatives-235753quote:“This is Obamacare by a different form,” former Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told POLITICO. “They’re still keeping the taxes in place and Medicaid expansion, and they’re starting a new entitlement.” It begins.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
So wait - right now if I'm on an employer health plan, my employer contributes part of the premium and I pay the rest - but I don't get any premium assistance otherwise. Will employer plans qualify for the new tax credits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
lol I'm going to lose my healthcare if this goes through. Hope I don't get cancer or something Thanks a lot you loving Rust Belt retards
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:So wait - right now if I'm on an employer health plan, my employer contributes part of the premium and I pay the rest - but I don't get any premium assistance otherwise. Will employer plans qualify for the new tax credits? No. Employer plans are not touched by subsidies at all. There already exists a tax rule for companies to write off health insurance for employees as a deduction. Employer provided plans will not see a ton of major changes. The big changes to employer plans are: - No abortions - More barebones plans and catastrophoic plans available in group health options - No mandatory birth control, free physical, or other preventative medicine provided for free under all plans. - Cadillac tax in 2020 if you have an extremely generous plan from your employer. - If you work for an employer with 50 employees or more, then you employer can make you go get individual plans and is not penalized for not providing health benefits. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The first annual physical of the year and other preventative medicine are no longer free and it is up to the discretion of the insurer how they are handled. NY Times says this is still free and the EHB won't be changed https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/republican-obamacare-replacement.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
However, they are subject to regulations under PPACA, like "no lifetime cap on coverage" or "you can only make someone pay out of pocket so much per year". They won't be, if this turd of a plan manages to pass. With at least two Republicans disliking it because it's not evil enough, and at least four Republicans disliking it because their states have benefitted enormously from expanded Medicaid, though, we have a good chance of that not happening. Right?  This is kind of alarming, though: Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- People (especially single women) who are under 35 and sicker than average (more than $1,000 a year in out of pocket health costs) $1000 a year out of pocket is more than average? Really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:NY Times says this is still free and the EHB won't be changed Hmmm... the WaPo and Vox seem to disagree quote:Starting in 2020, under the GOP replacement plan, insurers would no longer be required to offer the “essential health benefits package” — which right now requires that insurers cover maternity services and pediatric care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Healthy young people want no insurance without a mandate why would they give a flying gently caress about catastrophic coverage otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Well that pretty much destroys healthcare for women and costs them even more money to spend to get just basic coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Doesnt the abortion thing run up against row v wade somehow? For real thats almost as good as banning it to many. Those fuckers cant resist taking shots at it. God its infuriating
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:lol I'm going to lose my healthcare if this goes through. Hope I don't get cancer or something Yup. Can't wait to die slowly thanks to an easily treatable disease. Guess I shouldn't have gotten diabetes!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Would a Dem winning the presidency in 2020 be able to undo any of this, or would they need both houses of congress
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Also holy poo poo Planned Parenthood isn't going to survive this. The name will but not as it exists today. These disgusting monsters need to be hung from freeway overpasses, gently caress voting them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yup. Can't wait to die slowly thanks to an easily treatable disease. Guess I shouldn't have gotten diabetes! Nonsense. Once costs spiral completely out of control, you'll be dying quickly. _____   _____
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:You and me both buddy. Part of the problem of the Medicaid question is that the options were to keep Medicaid as is, or choose between two replacements. Dan Ariely has talked about this as leading to a natural default to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Would a Dem winning the presidency in 2020 be able to undo any of this, or would they need both houses of congress If Republicans push this or something else through (still a massive "if"), there won't be anything that the Democrats can do to fix the damage without a friendly president and both houses. Expect Republicans to fight it tooth and nail even then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
"The new plan allows up to 5x higher premiums for age and 2x higher cap for pre-existing conditions." What pages in the bill specify this?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
I feel real bad for the emergency rooms around the country because they are going to bear the brunt of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Nonsense. Once costs spiral completely out of control, you'll be dying quickly. Well I mean unless you go into a coma or insulin shock most diabetes related deaths are slow deaths. I'm 33 and in decent health so this bill will actively make it much more difficult to stay that way. In good health I mean I'm pretty sure I won't be 33 much longer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:"The new plan allows up to 5x higher premiums for age and 2x higher cap for pre-existing conditions." The age thing is on page 65. I'm not sure what the bit about a cap for pre-existing conditions is about, I don't see where it alters the language barring premium increases for pre-existing conditions (42 USC §300gg(A)(1)(B) and 300gg–4(b)). eviltastic fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Not only the millions who will lose insurance, but how many jobs will be lost? There were reports of it being millions also. Don't think of this as losing jobs necessarily. They're not going to wake up and there be no nurses, for example. Right now, everything is kinda being downgraded in the medical field. Sure, doctors will always be hired, especially because its expanding so much. But now you're more likely to see a PA than a doctor. This isn't a big deal; PAs can handle 99% of what a doctor can. But LPNs are being completely phased out. Now you're getting CNAs. What used to be the job of an RN is now relegated to a CNA 2 or whatever. So healthcare will continue to be a career field that will probably buoy the economy for a while. It's just these new roles will pay a fraction of what they're replacing. And that's without even getting into the poo poo poor people are conned into doing. Chiropractors instead of Orthos, life coaches instead of psychiatrists, herbalists instead of you know whatever, etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I feel real bad for the emergency rooms around the country because they are going to bear the brunt of this. Are the sliding-scale rates based on income for the uninsured still going to be a thing at hospitals? That saved me last time I was uninsured and making less than 20k
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
The healthcare industry is grossly oversized w.r.t. to the economy in the US and if you let the free market take over, it would take this in mind when making adjustments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I feel real bad for the emergency rooms around the country because they are going to bear the brunt of this. So, in short, you'll see patients who have no business remaining in an ICU taking up a very expensive bed, slowing the flow of people through the ICU and greatly increasing the burden on the hospital. Or, since early sepsis can be deceptive, you'll see hospitals starting to quietly turn people away. Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement is also one of the major ways the government can force hospitals to comply with standards of care. If those programs are significantly weakened, you lose a lot of that leverage which has done a lot of good. There are going to be a ton of knock-on effects here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
It sounds like AHCA is going to face some serious right-wing opposition. Rand Paul is looking like a no: https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/839102196318932993
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Doesnt the abortion thing run up against row v wade somehow? For real thats almost as good as banning it to many. No. Not paying for something using public money is not the same as making it illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Another aspect that you'll start seeing, and in some ways I think we might already have started, is that you're going to struggle to place patients in rehab facilities. So, hypothetically, someone comes into the ER with what is obviously early massive sepsis. So they get admitted to the ICU, go through a long, very costly treatment, end up trached/PEG'd because they're a failure-to-wean patient, and then...what? You've got them stabilized, but they're vent dependent and on tube feeds. They need to go to either a skilled nursing facility or a long-term acute-care facility, but those places are private with no obligation to treat like hospitals. So they'll refuse to take anyone who doesn't have insurance to cover the costs (like ones with a cap that have already been hit because sepsis is loving expensive), so the hospital is now stuck with the cost of trying to care for and wean a patient, in an ICU, that's going to have a long course of treatment because they can't discharge a patient either. This is already a constant issue due to low Medicaid reimbursement rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
One of the more esoteric parts of the AHCA is that it bans you from Medicaid if you win the lottery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
I think I remember calling that Planned Parenthood was going to get the ACORN treatment as soon as Trump won, and got a reply of 'yeah because trump really cares about abortion' from a trump supporter. It's such a gut punch because there's already zero federal funding going to abortion treatments anyway, but that doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think I remember calling that Planned Parenthood was going to get the ACORN treatment as soon as Trump won, and got a reply of 'yeah because trump really cares about abortion' from a trump supporter. But money is fungible. If you give them Federal Dollars to pay for pap smears and cancer screenings that just frees up money for them pursue their real passion: the zygote holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:One of the more esoteric parts of the AHCA is that it bans you from Medicaid if you win the lottery. Is this saying states can automatically disenroll off your plan once you report your lottery winning? Also should we assume the worst and take high dollar to mean winnings you have to report?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Those funding details and additional regulations are apparently coming. There's 2 more bills to come to complete the reform package. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/839108868584124417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Electric Phantasm posted:Is this saying states can automatically disenroll off your plan once you report your lottery winning? Also should we assume the worst and take high dollar to mean winnings you have to report? Yes, you will be kicked off Medicaid once you claim your prize. It's up to the individual states to determine the amount that qualifies as "high dollar" winnings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
I look forward to the next round of The List of Alternatives to PP being released. Two times ago had a substantial number of dentists' offices. Last time featured women's prisons. What dark humor will we get this time? the exact same list as the last two times because nobody trying to defund PP gives the slightest gently caress about women's healthcare if it doesn't impact their mistress, and maybe their daughter
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's up to the individual states to determine the amount that qualifies as "high dollar" winnings. Anything over $1k
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes, you will be kicked off Medicaid once you claim your prize. Thank you for the answer and just thought of one more question what about past lottery winners, can they be affected? The language seems vague enough to let states do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Electric Phantasm posted:Is this saying states can automatically disenroll off your plan once you report your lottery winning? Also should we assume the worst and take high dollar to mean winnings you have to report? It change the calculation of income to spread a lump sum lottery payment over time; up to 10 years for 1.2mil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Electric Phantasm posted:Thank you for the answer and just thought of one more question what about past lottery winners, can they be affected? The language seems vague enough to let states do it. Not sure. It's not clear in the law. The new law gives states wide latitude to determine eligibility and income. It seems like states could theoretically do that, but they'd have to apply it to your current income. Maybe if you won in the last 9 years and had a particularly aggressive state, then they could do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:One of the more esoteric parts of the AHCA is that it bans you from Medicaid if you win the lottery. This is 10% of the bill, by the way. 6 out of it's 60 pages are devoted to making sure the 5 people that this could possibly apply to will never get Medicaid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
So if a poor wins the lottery they die That's very Republican
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:32
|
|