|
eviltastic posted:Speaking of the Senate: "This just in, President Trump has declared the Senate illegal. The bombing begins in five minutes."
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Not sure if this was asked and answered already, I didn't see it mentioned. With the 30% premium increase if you go two months without insurance, does that still apply if I go from one employer based plan to another? Just thinking that if I lose my job, and don't get insurance for a few months, and then find another job, would my new employer actually end up paying more for my insurance? I could honestly see companies taking that into effect when hiring someone if so. No. Employer plans are handled entirely seperately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Speaking of the Senate: It's insane that the AHCA rollout happened like this. My assumption was that the WH took this as "a good first step", I think that's how Trump put it, and expected it to be worked over with amendments to bring in the other votes. But nope, Costa is saying that the WH is full speed ahead on AHCA. Why didn't the WH do a full court presser to try to shape the narrative? They let house release it and gave the media an entire day before they started their spin. I like to think Boehner is watching this and is screaming at the TV saying, "Amateurs."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
The answer is that the White House is staffed top to bottom with stupid people who can't do anything right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:It's insane that the AHCA rollout happened like this. My assumption was that the WH took this as "a good first step", I think that's how Trump put it, and expected it to be worked over with amendments to bring in the other votes. But nope, Costa is saying that the WH is full speed ahead on AHCA. Why didn't the WH do a full court presser to try to shape the narrative? They let house release it and gave the media an entire day before they started their spin. I like to think Boehner is watching this and is screaming at the TV saying, "Amateurs." Because Trump doesn't know or care about the details. He has no idea what's even in it. And Congress is fed up waiting for him to care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Almost (almost) makes me miss Shrub and Boehner. At least they were competently evil. Better the devil you know than a pack of rabid dogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Not sure if this was asked and answered already, I didn't see it mentioned. With the 30% premium increase if you go two months without insurance, does that still apply if I go from one employer based plan to another? Just thinking that if I lose my job, and don't get insurance for a few months, and then find another job, would my new employer actually end up paying more for my insurance? I could honestly see companies taking that into effect when hiring someone if so. Just a PSA (for you or anyone else reading), but don't ever put yourself in this position. Just because you're out of work doesn't mean you're invulnerable to traffic accidents or any other random disaster. Pay for COBRA to stay on your old plan (up to 18 months, although some states like CA double that) until you find a new job. Always have continuous coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Just a PSA (for you or anyone else reading), but don't ever put yourself in this position. Just because you're out of work doesn't mean you're invulnerable to traffic accidents or any other random disaster. Pay for COBRA to stay on your old plan (up to 18 months, although some states like CA double that) until you find a new job. Always have continuous coverage. Agreed with this if you can afford COBRA. It's amazing how loving expensive some employer plans are once you remove the subsidization, and now you have no income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Noctone posted:Almost (almost) makes me miss Shrub and Boehner. At least they were competently evil. Better the devil you know than a pack of rabid dogs. Aside from loving up a war and destabilizing the entire Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Aside from loving up a war and destabilizing the entire Middle East. Bush hadn't hosed up the war and the entire middle east yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Agreed with this if you can afford COBRA. It's amazing how loving expensive some employer plans are once you remove the subsidization, and now you have no income. True fact, when i changed health insurance plans at work, the system autonatically sent out a COBRA letter in the process and apparently my health insurance was like $480 a month. Good lord, i dont even make that a week. Itd destroy my savings
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
NY used to have a program called Healthy NY with plans starting at $199/month for the uninsured that were offered by a few private insurers and subsidized by the state - hopefully they bring that back. I was on it a few years back pre-Obamacare. You could join anytime during the year but pre-existing conditions weren't covered for the first 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Just a PSA (for you or anyone else reading), but don't ever put yourself in this position. Just because you're out of work doesn't mean you're invulnerable to traffic accidents or any other random disaster. Pay for COBRA to stay on your old plan (up to 18 months, although some states like CA double that) until you find a new job. Always have continuous coverage. Part of it is that deductibles and coinsurance are so high that many poor people can't afford anything more than basic medical care even with insurance. Why should poor but healthy adults spend a significant portion of their income on insurance that they can't meet the deductible on if something catastrophic were to happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
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 doesn't actually have a test to it though, right? So if you ever win the lottery you can never get support, even if you're bankrupt? Also, it seems like there are around 250 $1 million+ lottery winners in a year across all 50 states. Also, my only wish is that there's success in labeling this Republicare just because I want this albatross hung over the whole party and not just Trump. Please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:This doesn't actually have a test to it though, right? So if you ever win the lottery you can never get support, even if you're bankrupt? It spreads your winnings out over 10 years and counts it as income. So, if you won a million dollars, then your income would be 100k + whatever you made for 10 years and you could be kicked off Medicaid for making too much money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Aside from loving up a war and destabilizing the entire Middle East. Dog it hasn't even been two months and reality is already stranger than fiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Part of it is that deductibles and coinsurance are so high that many poor people can't afford anything more than basic medical care even with insurance. Why should poor but healthy adults spend a significant portion of their income on insurance that they can't meet the deductible on if something catastrophic were to happen? I guarantee that if you fall down the stairs and end up needing orthopedic surgery the out of pocket cost without insurance will greatly exceed the deductible with insurance. That's saying nothing about your new plan, when you get one, having an exclusion period and whoops, cancer turns up. (Exclusion periods are still very much a thing even under ACA)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
So? If you have $500 in savings there isn't much difference between a bill for a $6,000 insurance deductible and a hospital bill for $20,000, you can't pay either and are equally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Just a PSA (for you or anyone else reading), but don't ever put yourself in this position. Just because you're out of work doesn't mean you're invulnerable to traffic accidents or any other random disaster. Pay for COBRA to stay on your old plan (up to 18 months, although some states like CA double that) until you find a new job. Always have continuous coverage. loving LOL if you think I can avoid COBRA. I can barely afford rent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:So? If you have $500 in savings there isn't much difference between a bill for a $6,000 insurance deductible and a hospital bill for $20,000, you can't pay either and are equally hosed. Yeah, poo poo's hosed. I'm not giving some by-your-bootstraps lecture here, but if someone can afford it they should definitely use their COBRA benefit rather than hoping for the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Cobra is.loving expensive. It used to be that if you had Medicaid and then changed to insurance that company would cover you even if you had pre existing conditions that was done away with though. Use to though you could go from Medicaid to insurance and have a pre existing because of the Cobra regulations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/jsgpzCS.mp4
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:
Lol. I make a solidly middle-class salary of about 55K a year. I can afford to sock 40 bucks a month in my company sponsored HSA, and do that solely to cover my prescriptions. I like my HSA -- it's nice to be able to just swipe my debit card and pay for prescriptions without thinking about it much, I can use it for dental and vision care, and my company gives us 500-1100 bucks per year to go towards the deductible, which is only 1300 (lowest allowed for those kind of plans). But it's also not for everyone, and I'd be hit HARD if something major were to happen or suddenly my deductible or max out of pocket tripled or something. As for this whole bill...it's a mess that would eventually lead to a death spiral for most insurers. Most Americans spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point in their lives. That year of poverty is probably going to be marked by having no insurance -- especially in a state that hates Medicaid. When they get back on their feet enough to have insurance, they find that they are going to get charged a 30% penalty. Which demotivates them to bother going to the doctor or getting insurance until that minor issue becomes a huge deal. Does that 30% penalty even cover the most negligible bit of the cost of treating the cancer? Or is everyone else saddled with the cost, causing their premiums to skyrocket, causing them to say "gently caress it, I'll risk being uninsured," until they suddenly need it? What an awful bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Sigh. A smartphone costs, at max, $700. Which makes no real sent in a major medical procedure, especially without insurance. Also, there's a reason smartphones have 90+% market penetration in 10 years. They give you a nearly free source of entertainment and news, allow you to call your friends/family/job/emergency services, and let you apply for jobs online. Fun fact: a cheap pre-paid smartphone that looks a lot like an iPhone costs $20. A Samsung prepaid costs $50. And my first smartphone -- a 1 generation old iPhone -- was given to me for free by a friend who had it sitting in a drawer and gave it to me when I mentioned in passing that I was interested in a deal I saw for them through AT&T. It's one of the best investments a poor person can make. Unless you're being ironic...in which case I apologize for the tangent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:It's insane that the AHCA rollout happened like this. My assumption was that the WH took this as "a good first step", I think that's how Trump put it, and expected it to be worked over with amendments to bring in the other votes. But nope, Costa is saying that the WH is full speed ahead on AHCA. Why didn't the WH do a full court presser to try to shape the narrative? They let house release it and gave the media an entire day before they started their spin. I like to think Boehner is watching this and is screaming at the TV saying, "Amateurs." I like to think Boehner is watching this with popcorn. "Bet you wish you weren't in charge of this mess, don't you, Paul? Better you than me!" The problem is that they had to do SOMETHING, and the sane option of "until we do <other thing> we can't give health care the attention it deserves" was a little too sane, the sensible option of "since we've been bitching about this for seven years, here's the plan we've been crafting all that time" didn't happen, they knew they didn't have enough votes for repeal-without-replace, and so we got... this. Nobody tried to smooth the release because everybody knew it was terrible, and they're desperately hoping it fails to get votes so they can say "welp we tried" rather than be stuck with "we successfully destroyed a thousand hospitals and killed a million little kids, go us" as a legacy. blackmet posted:Sigh. I assumed that was a reaction to Jason Chaffetz saying, "Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves." zonohedron fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Let's assume republicans are all in for this. Can it pass without some Dem votes in favor as well??? Still not hearing a clear answer (i probably have a middle school level understanding of the process)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Let's assume republicans are all in for this. Can it pass without some Dem votes in favor as well??? Still not hearing a clear answer (i probably have a middle school level understanding of the process) If the Republicans are unified they can do whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is already a constant issue due to low Medicaid reimbursement rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the Republicans are unified they can do whatever they want. I mean, only if they torpedo the filibuster, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the Republicans are unified they can do whatever they want. Not good, because the Rand types are just doing political theater and will end up coming around imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Noctone posted:I mean, only if they torpedo the filibuster, right? If the Republicans are unified, they can do whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Fair does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Noctone posted:I mean, only if they torpedo the filibuster, right? This is a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate limits discussion on those, meaning there is no filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Noctone posted:I mean, only if they torpedo the filibuster, right? The Republicans are using a special procedure that evades the filibuster, but limits the types of things they can put in the bill. They can also only use it once per year. Senate rules are arcane as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
If that bill fails due to defections though, there's no redo, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:This is a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate limits discussion on those, meaning there is no filibuster. Right, but the "follow on" bills with selling across state lines or whatever would be subject to the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Why all the talk of this being DOA in Senate? Sorry, I know nothing despite the reading I've done
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Why all the talk of this being DOA in Senate? Sorry, I know nothing despite the reading I've done Republicans from states that trend blue* and bright into the Medicaid expansion are against it and the Rand Pauls are angry that it isn't just a repeal. *yes I need this qualifier because Kentucky expanded Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Why all the talk of this being DOA in Senate? Sorry, I know nothing despite the reading I've done Rand and Lee are opposed to it because it doesn't just repeal Obamacare. Those four senators from monday who said they wouldn't vote for any rollback of medicaid are presumably also against it. Republicans can lose at most two votes (assuming no Dems vote for it), those total 6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 03:42
|
|