House GOP Passed Trumpcare on Thursday

[Xisa]

The Ryan / Trump / McConnell Republican party has made me write it off, permanently. People that think and act like they do really don't need a seat at the table.

This is a golden example of why. We've gone from the "Affordable Care Act" to the "Get fucked and die if you're Poor Act".

They're still working on the acronym.

[Narwal]

When the public, the insurance companies, the hospital, the payors, the doctors, and the senate are all against your plan...maybe, just maybe, you should go back and try again?

Of course that would require logic -- and the house hasn't had any of that in quite a long time.

I'm just glad this is DOA in the Senate. This manages to replace the ACA with something far worse -- which I gotta say takes effort. I just don't understand why conservatives think being cruel to people is a winning formula. You can see it even with the posts in this thread. "Hurry up and die" isn't a vote gainer.

Would those groups approve of any plan that gets them less money? Honest question here. If the consumer wins when government diminishes the power of large unions which in turn brings down the cost of the product made by that union, is the union going to believe it's a "good thing"?

Your second statement about the cruelty of this plan not being a vote gainer... voters want people covered, but don't want to pay for it. I'm willing to bet that in America, if politicians just told it as it is you'd have two options:

1) Everyone gets covered, but all you healthy people, the 90%, have to pay way more. Your plans will become largely unused because you seldom have healthcare costs that exceed the deductible.

2) Everyone pays for plans based on your own need, which means you can get a cheaper plan that actually gives you value for the little amount of healthcare you require.

In America, #2 wins a majority. This is what Republicans ran on, repealing #1 in favor of #2. If you ask people, if they believe the sick should have healthcare, they will say yes, but "they don't want to pay for it".

[NYC17]

The Ryan / Trump / McConnell Republican party has made me write it off, permanently. People that think and act like they do really don't need a seat at the table.

This is a golden example of why. We've gone from the "Affordable Care Act" to the "Get fucked and die if you're Poor Act".

They're still working on the acronym.

The acronym is REPUBLICAN.

It doesn't have to make sense; they don't.

[Mafic]

Yes, I do. My prior plans fulfilled the needs I had, primarily vision once a year and the occasional doctor's visit at the clinic if needed (which I never did; I tend to get over illness fairly quickly on my own). And now I have no coverage and less money in my pocket. At least if there was no ACA, I'd have the option of dropping coverage if it got too expensive (i.e.: the situation now) but wouldn't have that idiotic law stealing hard earned money from me and I could at least still visit my eye doctor out-of-pocket like I did last year.

Yeah the ACA was supposed to give more affordable comprehensive plans and eliminate catastrophic only coverage plans. All that has happened is the insurance industry has increased premiums so much that most plans are effectively catastrophic plans because no one can afford the copays or deductibles. Truly ironic but not surprising.

[Rhonen]

They promised a "repeal". That changed to "repeal and replace" when they screwed up the first time. Listen, they have to do something, otherwise, it'll be yet another fail for this administration. This will be a short term "win" that 'he' can pat himself on the back about, and then they'll all blame the Dems when it doesn't make it out of the Senate. Yay politics!

[DSRilk]

You're also replying to someone whose sole experience seems to be with vision care.

I often wonder if it's the same "just work harder" crowd that comes out when it DOESN'T directly affect them, but I'm too lazy to do a forum search to prove this theory

[Lenonis]

Would those groups approve of any plan that gets them less money? Honest question here. If the consumer wins when government diminishes the power of large unions which in turn brings down the cost of the product made by that union, is the union going to believe it's a "good thing"?

did you miss that the public, doctors and hospitals were all part of the group going "please no?"

The insurance companies and all want a functional system. In order to make money they need to have people able to afford to buy insurance. So there is definitely an intersection where things are so bad everyone gets screwed.

[Daelak]

Poor people are sick because they are lazy. If they worked harder in life, they would be healthier.

If only they could be like the successful and productive rich people.

[NYC17]

I often wonder if it's the same "just work harder" crowd that comes out when it DOESN'T directly affect them, but I'm too lazy to do a forum search to prove this theory

Well, using them as an example. the ACA supposedly devastated their healthcare coverage, yet they can't even be bothered to understand why that happened and how this will be worse for them.

Other people had healthcare due to their "broken back", which apparently has to do with he/she experience expensive vision care costs.

[Mafic]

Would those groups approve of any plan that gets them less money? Honest question here. If the consumer wins when government diminishes the power of large unions which in turn brings down the cost of the product made by that union, is the union going to believe it's a "good thing"?

Your second statement about the cruelty of this plan not being a vote gainer... voters want people covered, but don't want to pay for it. I'm willing to bet that in America, if politicians just told it as it is you'd have two options:

1) Everyone gets covered, but all you healthy people, the 90%, have to pay way more. Your plans will become largely unused because you seldom have healthcare costs that exceed the deductible.

2) Everyone pays for plans based on your own need, which means you can get a cheaper plan that actually gives you value for the little amount of healthcare you require.

In America, #2 wins a majority. This is what Republicans ran on, repealing #1 in favor of #2. If you ask people, if they believe the sick should have healthcare, they will say yes, but "they don't want to pay for it".

This is the truth.

The Democrats should have been honest to the American people and said to cover the high risk pool that everyone's taxes would go up. Universal health care is the only reasonable way to cover the high risk pool by mitigating the costs across all citizens.

The ACA tries to hide that with a "penalty" and coerce people into plans they do not want.

Republican version wants to go back to the way things were and what many Americans probably prefer. The problem I see though is you can't put the paste back into the tube, because the high risk pool must be addressed. Paul Ryan realizes this which is why they have devised a plan for the high risk pool but it is still woefully inadequate and will not be enough.

[alexw]

Yes, I do. My prior plans fulfilled the needs I had, primarily vision once a year and the occasional doctor's visit at the clinic if needed (which I never did; I tend to get over illness fairly quickly on my own). And now I have no coverage and less money in my pocket. At least if there was no ACA, I'd have the option of dropping coverage if it got too expensive (i.e.: the situation now) but wouldn't have that idiotic law stealing hard earned money from me and I could at least still visit my eye doctor out-of-pocket like I did last year.

What you had was a plan that covered barely nothing. You were basically gambling. If something serious had arisen you'd have been driven to bankruptcy. I simply cannot see how you think playing Russian roulette with your health is a good thing. Sooner or later something bad and costly would happen (it does to all of us at some point) then you'd have been totally screwed.

I just don't get how you can blame the democrats for fixing that for you, when its the republicans who came along and prevented the fix from helping you. I mean, you don't think you are immortal do you? You don't think that you'd go through your entire life without developing something more serious? And what then? What happens to you then when your on your cheap but cover nothing plan?

[Puremallace]

It took 18 months for Democrats to come up with Obamacare and these guys pieced this thing together in barely 100 days and are only releasing the details of the new bill 1 hour before voting on it. It is opposed by literally every organization.

This thing is political poison and Democrats are going to hang Republicans in 2018

[alexw]

Would those groups approve of any plan that gets them less money? Honest question here. If the consumer wins when government diminishes the power of large unions which in turn brings down the cost of the product made by that union, is the union going to believe it's a "good thing"?

Your second statement about the cruelty of this plan not being a vote gainer... voters want people covered, but don't want to pay for it. I'm willing to bet that in America, if politicians just told it as it is you'd have two options:

1) Everyone gets covered, but all you healthy people, the 90%, have to pay way more. Your plans will become largely unused because you seldom have healthcare costs that exceed the deductible.

2) Everyone pays for plans based on your own need, which means you can get a cheaper plan that actually gives you value for the little amount of healthcare you require.

In America, #2 wins a majority. This is what Republicans ran on, repealing #1 in favor of #2. If you ask people, if they believe the sick should have healthcare, they will say yes, but "they don't want to pay for it".

What about option 3?

3) The top 1% of Americans who have captured all real economic gains since 1975 can have their taxes increased to pay for medicare for all, thereby allowing some of those economic gains to be recaptured back by the state and distributed among the general populace.

Personally I think option 3) would get the overwhelming amount of votes.

[Deleted]

Guess they all can't count, they are over 15 votes short at the moment.

[Mafic]

It took 18 months for Democrats to come up with Obamacare and these guys pieced this thing together in barely 100 days and are only releasing the details of the new bill 1 hour before voting on it. It is opposed by literally every organization.

This thing is political poison and Democrats are going to hang Republicans in 2018

Republicans should have had a better plan put together given the time frame they had to work with. By rushing this plan forward they may do lasting damage.

[Kujako]

It took 18 months for Democrats to come up with Obamacare and these guys pieced this thing together in barely 100 days and are only releasing the details of the new bill 1 hour before voting on it. It is opposed by literally every organization.

This thing is political poison and Democrats are going to hang Republicans in 2018

Nope. "this thing" is just Ryan Care which has been being pushed for around eight years now.

[Stormspark]

Guess they all can't count, they are over 15 votes short at the moment.

Does this mean Trump is going to have another meltdown on Twitter? If they can't pass the fuck yourself and die if you're poor act after a second attempt it's probably hopeless. lol

[paralleluniverse]

GOP's Obamacare replacement bill would protect just 5 percent of people with pre-existing conditions: Analysis

The Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare does not allocate nearly enough money to protect people with pre-existing health conditions from potentially higher insurance premiums, an analysis finds.

The bill's $23 billion in funding specifically for such people would cover just 110,000 Americans, according to the Avalere Health study released Thursday.

That's only 5 percent of the 2.2 million current enrollees in the individual insurance market with some type of pre-existing chronic condition.

And even if states were to add in all the other money in the bill's $100 billion Patient and State Stability Fund, only a total of 600,000 people with pre-exisiting conditions could be covered, the study found.

Avalere said the gap between funding and need could leave many people with health problems unable to afford insurance coverage if the GOP's American Health Care Act becomes law.

"Texas alone has approximately 190,000 enrollees in its individual market with pre-existing chronic conditions, nearly 80,000 more people than the funds earmarked for the entire country would cover," Avalere said. "Florida has 205,000, nearly 95,000 more than the funds allotted nationally ... would cover."

The study was released hours before the House was expected to vote on the Republican bill.

That bill would allow states to obtain waivers for insurers that would let those companies charge sicker people more money for coverage than healthier people if they let their insurance plans lapse, as long as the state creates a program to give those sicker people financial aid for their coverage.

To offset some of the cost of those higher charges, the bill also sets aside funding to subsidize coverage for people with pre-existing conditions through high-risk pools in individual states.

But Obamacare defenders have said that past efforts by states that ran high-risk pools for such people have failed to cover enough people, and did not have adequate funding.

Avalere's analysis suggests that history could repeat itself if the Republican bill becomes law.

"Given the amount of funding in the bill, the program can only afford a few small states to opt into medical underwriting," said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. Medical underwriting is the practice of determining health insurance rates based on an individual customer's health status.

"If any large states receive a waiver, many chronically ill individuals could be left without access to insurance," Pearson said.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., on Thursday blasted the bill being pushed by her own party, citing the effect on her constituents in the Sunshine State who have pre-existing conditions.

"Despite amendments and changes, the AHCA still fails to provide for the needs of my constituents," said Ros-Lehtinen, who is retiring, in a statement. "I will not support a bill that has the potential to severely harm the health and lives of people in South Florida and therefore I remain steadfast in my commitment to vote NO on the AHCA."

"The recent addition of further funds to high-risk pools continues to be inadequate and fails to cover those who need it most," she said. "If enacted, the older and poorer South Floridians will be worse off and will find it more difficult to obtain quality health care. My constituents should not have to take a step backward in their ability to obtain treatment for any illness and thus, I will vote NO."

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/gops-...-analysis.html

[alexw]

Republicans should have had a better plan put together given the time frame they had to work with. By rushing this plan forward they may do lasting damage.

Its political suicide. They can kiss the house goodbye in 2018 if the house passes it. We saw the fallout from Obamacare and this is a vastly worse bill.

[Mafic]

Its political suicide. They can kiss the house goodbye in 2018 if the house passes it. We saw the fallout from Obamacare and this is a vastly worse bill.

If the CBO scores this and more than 24 million people lose insurance it is pretty big screw up by Republicans.