CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Healthcare/ACA 2017
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Healthcare/ACA 2017

post #1 of 266
Thread Starter 

I thought a new thread for this topic was appropriate given the GOP's attempts to fuck over 20 million +/- of Americans.
 

Quote:

Every Republican Lie About Passing Obamacare Is True About Repealing It

 

In March 2010, right before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, opponents of health-care reform had spent months spreading falsehoods about its contents and whipping up hysterical predictions about socialism and the end of freedom. In a speech touting the bill, Nancy Pelosi argued that the atmosphere had prevented the public from understanding what the bill actually did, and expressed her hope that the vote would put an end to the fevered atmosphere and give away to a calm analysis of its actual impact:

 

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

 

Conservatives made a part of the last sentence — “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” — famous, possibly the most famous line from the entire health-care debate. Conservatives turned that sentence fragment into an emblem for their claim that Obamacare was passed in the dead of night through a secretive, rushed, undemocratic process. They claim this even now. Just today, Andrew Ferguson attacks that he calls “[t]he creepy, authoritarian manner in which the legislation was passed,” and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel claims, “Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in lobbyist-filled backrooms, forgoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans.”

 

This is a bizarre description of a bill that spent a year working through Congress, eventually passing numerous committees, two full House majority votes, one Senate supermajority vote and, in fact, many, many, many hearings. While the law did use a budget-reconciliation bill to enact minor fiscal adjustments, a maneuver that Republicans decried as akin to a death blow to the Republic, in fact its major provisions all received 60 votes in the Senate. The bill was evaluated by the independent Congressional Budget Office, and the projected premium levels in the new exchanges turned out to be accurate, and its predictions of overall federal health spending turned out to be too pessimistic, as the federal government is now spending less on health care with Obamacare than it was projected to spend without it. The bill was enacted in a democratic, deliberate, transparent, and excruciatingly slow fashion.

 

But the claims that conservatives have falsely made about passing Obamacare provide a true description of the Republican plan to undo it. They are rushing through a bill to repeal it with maximal speed, and no public deliberation. That might be defensible if Republicans had promised the public that electing them would mean simple repeal and a restoration of the health-care system as it existed before 2010. The conservative health-care journalist Philip Klein laments that Republicans are “having a tough time stating a simple truth, which goes something like this: We don’t believe that it is the job of the federal government to guarantee that everybody has health insurance.’”

 

<cont>

post #2 of 266

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/15/obamacare-aca-repeal-replace-stories-column/95356656/

 

I'd love to see everyday people like Cameron Zeigler here on cable news because such stories are so important:

 

post #3 of 266
Thread Starter 
The GOP response to the above story would be something along the lines of "...well, you could just go to the emergency room" or some other piece of linguistic bullshit.

I'm thinking that a good slogan for the Dems to use regarding this whole ACA repeal bullshit -

HEY AMERICAN PUBLIC...THE GOP HATES YOU AND THEY WANT YOU TO DIE BECAUSE THEY ARE GREEDY COMPASSIONLESS FUCKS.
IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE
post #4 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/15/obamacare-aca-repeal-replace-stories-column/95356656/

 

I'd love to see everyday people like Cameron Zeigler here on cable news because such stories are so important:

 

 

Well, you shouldn't have gotten sick.  Only lazy people get sick.

post #5 of 266
Whaddayoumean Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing?

post #6 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post

Whaddayoumean Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing?

 

Just as I suspected.  People really do think there is an actual program/organization called Obamacare.  I guess they will find out the hard way...

post #7 of 266

It's so hard to talk about all this stuff, or it seems to be.  I don;t even begin to understand it, but just watching from afar and trying to get my head around it is a chore.  I must have seen dozens of stories about people saying how "Obamacare" is ruining them and in the comments in pretty much every case there are people saying "Huh?  Why aren't you doing *this* thing or *that* thing that's way cheaper?"  or "That's not Obamacare's fault, that was exactly the same before and headed for worse in your bracket anyway"

There's people in tearful rage on those WNYC shows talking about how they voted for Trump because they just can't afford healthcare/insurance and it's wrong etc etc.

 

It seems almost impossible to parse out where people are just confused and where the ACA might have actually caused some negative effect.  And then it doesn't seem to matter what it did or did not do, because of the perception.

post #8 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCA View Post
 

 

Just as I suspected.  People really do think there is an actual program/organization called Obamacare.  I guess they will find out the hard way...

 

 

post #9 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

It's so hard to talk about all this stuff, or it seems to be.  I don;t even begin to understand it, but just watching from afar and trying to get my head around it is a chore.  I must have seen dozens of stories about people saying how "Obamacare" is ruining them and in the comments in pretty much every case there are people saying "Huh?  Why aren't you doing *this* thing or *that* thing that's way cheaper?"  or "That's not Obamacare's fault, that was exactly the same before and headed for worse in your bracket anyway"
There's people in tearful rage on those WNYC shows talking about how they voted for Trump because they just can't afford healthcare/insurance and it's wrong etc etc.

It seems almost impossible to parse out where people are just confused and where the ACA might have actually caused some negative effect.  And then it doesn't seem to matter what it did or did not do, because of the perception.

You underestimate how much we Americans throw up our hands and say "It's too confusing and complicated!" if it's not spoon fed to us or heaven forbid we have to read anything.
post #10 of 266

Heh.  The irony there being (as has been pointed out before of course)  if they need things simple  Boy would they love our healthcare system.  Love. It. 

I don't even know what a "co-pay" or "deductable" is.  (although there is a weird downside to it being too good: there's not a lot of reason to pay for private insurance at all some times, so the economics get a little screwy).

 

But it's horrible unAmerican socialism that would make the founders turn in their graves etc etc.

post #11 of 266

Andy Slavitt lamenting on the "Obamacare" nickname:

 

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/819717942090809344

post #12 of 266

How many of you are actually buying insurance that isn't subsidized?  For those of us that aren't, let me perhaps offer you a different perspective.  

 

I never thought Obamacare was perfect (I actually think a single payer system is a needed inevitability), but I thought it brought much needed improvements and I was a huge fan when it passed.   It offered a more efficient block-style Medicaid expansion, forced insurers to accept folks with pre-conditions, and it was an earnest attempt (although it is one that may be failing) to encourage/force young, healthy folks to purchase insurance so that ERs and Hospitals wouldn't bear the brunt of the uninsured.  These were all positives, and if it meant my premiums went up a bit, so be it.

 

I was unprepared for what the next few years brought.  

 

In 2014, a PPO policy with a deductible of 2.5k was costing me $350.00 for a family of three (that plan is no longer available and was converted to a significantly worse HMO style offering).  

 

And where am I now?  My own insurance, which is fucking miserable Blue Shield HMO coverage with a deductible over 10k, has gone to over 550.00 a month for the same family.  I haven't seen a doctor in over a decade and my kids have routine pediatric check-ups.  My automobile (300/600), professional (one million), umbrella (two million with one million uninsured/underinsured), and home insurance coverage COMBINED is about 700 a month.   My parents insurance plan was cancelled last year and the new one is four times as expensive and provides significantly worse coverage.   My partner's insurance has gone from $220.00 a year to $625.00 a year from 2014 to 2017.  That's for one person.  

 

What the fuck happened?  Am I going to see another $100.00+ per month jump next year?  It's somewhat irritating that if I made less, I could qualify for a subsidized, significantly better plan.

 

This trend is worrisome.  I run a small business.  I watch margins carefully.  I now consider health insurance to basically represent catastrophic coverage as it is useless for anything else.   I feel like I'm caught in a spiral of increasing premiums and worse and worse coverage.  Where are the price controls?  How are penalties this insignificant supposed to convince anyone to get insurance (especially when, if they get ill, they can tough it out until December and then buy a platinum policy to cover them)?

 

I feel like I'm in a single payer system with absolutely none of the benefits of an actual single payer system. 

 

Do I want the ACA repealed?  No.  But pretending that it hasn't negatively affected millions will result in your losing credibility.  


Edited by Overlord - 1/12/17 at 6:37pm
post #13 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
What the fuck happened? 

 

The health ins. industry got more greedy than they were before.  They used the implementation of the ACA to jack up their prices in order to maintain their profit margins which is the only way to appease their shareholders.  Growth and share price going up are the ultimate goals and fuck anyone that gets in the way of that.

 

I looked into this quite awhile back....most of these big insurers have profit margins in the multi, multi millions if not Billions of $$$.  The ACA comes along and all of a sudden, their profit margins go from $5B a year to $4.3B a year...."OH NO, we're loosing money" they scream....but they of course don't want to figure in all the $$ they will make via the federal subsidies because that would make it seem like the ACA might be working.

 

I've come to believe that the insurance industry is a giant ponzi scheme. The have no problem taking your money but when they have to pay out....well, good luck getting them to cough up the $$.

Sure there are some exceptions to this and some folks that work in the industry are good and empathetic folk...but the upper echelons are only concerned with profit.

 

So....don't blame the ACA for the Ins. Co. jacking their rates up...When I was buying my own ins., it was going up at least 15% every year and this was long before the ACA happened.

 

The ins. companies were just practicing a form of disaster capitalism....they were able to jack rates up and blame it on "Obamacare" thereby absolving themselves of responsibility of fucking over their customers.

post #14 of 266

I'm sure that's part of it, but I have to think absorbing millions of previously "uninsurables" is part of it, too.

 

Basically, it needed price/profit caps?  Or more fundamentally, we enter the 20th century and have a single payer system. 

 

Quote:
So....don't blame the ACA for the Ins. Co. jacking their rates up (when I was buying my own ins., it was going up at least 15% every year and this was long before the ACA happened.

 

Errr .... didn't you just contradict this with the rest of your post?  

post #15 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

I'm sure that's part of it, but I have to think absorbing millions of previously "uninsurables" is part of it, too.

 

Basically, it needed price/profit caps?  Or more fundamentally, we enter the 20th century and have a single payer system. 

 

 

Errr .... didn't you just contradict this with the rest of your post?  

 

I don't doubt that the ins. companies could have (somewhat) easily absorbed those 'uninsurable' folks....they just wouldn't have made as much money. So the company only makes $9B instead of $11B....boo-fucking-hoo.

 

This is from Jan 2016-  :

Months before the parent company of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas sought to raise rates and shed coverage plans for hundreds of thousands of customers across its divisions, the Chicago-based nonprofit was sitting on a $9.9 billion surplus.

 

Health Care Service Corp. also had topped its previous year’s revenue by 22 percent, bringing it to $27.7 billion, and had given its CEO a $10 million bonus, according to its 2014 year-end financial statements and other documents.

http://www.expressnews.com/business/health-care/article/Blue-Cross-Blue-Shield-parent-slammed-for-9-9-6732007.php

 

 

 

I'm missing the contradiction part....I was pointing out that the health ins. INDUSTRY is more concerned with profit and they will use any excuse to jack the rates up. The ACA was just a convenient excuse for raising rates....they would have done so anyway.

 

What they seem to be missing is that by constantly raising ins. rates, they are ultimately forcing out the very customers that support them....which pushes the uninsured into emergency rooms....which forces the hospitals to try and get paid....so they charge the ins. companies more for services to make up for the uninsured....which makes the ins. companies raise their rates in order to maintain their profit margins/appease shareholder/pay their CEO's millions of bonus $$$.  The ins. industry, if it keeps going the way they are, will ultimately collapse under its own greed.

post #16 of 266

A powerful thread of what the ACA can do when insurance companies come knocking:

 

https://twitter.com/i/moments/819598653778182145

post #17 of 266

A cancer patient smack dab in the middle of Trump country pleads for the GOP not to take away her chemo treatments:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/congress-approves-first-step-of-obamacare-repeal-replacement-unclear-854648387931

post #18 of 266

Who gets impacted by an ACA repeal?  Let Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, explain in one fell swoop:

 

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/819972320265728000

 

 

The bottom shows the winners. 

post #19 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

A cancer patient smack dab in the middle of Trump country pleads for the GOP not to take away her chemo treatments:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/congress-approves-first-step-of-obamacare-repeal-replacement-unclear-854648387931

 

Is she a Republican?

post #20 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
 

 

Is she a Republican?

 

Her political affiliation isn't clear, but 68% of her county voted for Donald Trump.  The health care worker in the video does talk about the many people who are coming in with worrisome questions about the future.  In all likelihood, considering such strong support for Trump, she's mostly talking to Republicans.

post #21 of 266

Glad to hear it!  Let her reap what she has sown.

post #22 of 266
I read a Chicago Post article stating why it's so hard for Republicans to find a replacement to Obama care. The answer? Because Obama care was the Republican answer to Healthcare Reform since the 70's. Its already a Republican plan.
post #23 of 266

It was.  You want to know what the plan is now?  'Fuck you', that's the plan.  Health care is for closers.

post #24 of 266
Ironically the Republican Congress has become the death panel.
post #25 of 266

There's already been a Republican who faced a big crowd concerned about the future of health care in the U.S., and he wouldn't do a town hall with them.  He would only talk to a handful at a time, and he dodged out early and before everyone got to talk with him:

 

http://www.9news.com/mb/news/congressman-coffman-leaves-frustrated-crowd/386167135?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

post #26 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

There's already been a Republican who faced a big crowd concerned about the future of health care in the U.S., and he wouldn't do a town hall with them.  He would only talk to a handful at a time, and he dodged out early and before everyone got to talk with him:

http://www.9news.com/mb/news/congressman-coffman-leaves-frustrated-crowd/386167135?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I live in a neighboring district to this asshole. He's always in a tough fight simply because his district is so diverse. He keeps getting elected in part because he's a veteran and in part because the Democrats NEVER run a good candidate against him or run anything BUT a shitty campaign. To his credit he's done a lot to try and fix the shit show of the new VA Hospital (long story short it was supposed to open 2 years ago went over budget, over time, etc...still not open).

If I remember right, he didn't support Trump but he didn't distance himself either.
post #27 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post


I live in a neighboring district to this asshole. He's always in a tough fight simply because his district is so diverse. He keeps getting elected in part because he's a veteran and in part because the Democrats NEVER run a good candidate against him or run anything BUT a shitty campaign. To his credit he's done a lot to try and fix the shit show of the new VA Hospital (long story short it was supposed to open 2 years ago went over budget, over time, etc...still not open).

If I remember right, he didn't support Trump but he didn't distance himself either.

Yeah. And he was also a total birther, too.

 

Man, I hope the Dems mount a real challenge to him in 2018 - that footage of him sneaking out of the meeting should be in every ad against him.

post #28 of 266

This reddit thread on the ACA is quite the thing to skim.

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5o3w1y/us_residents_of_reddit_how_will_the_repeal_of_the/?sort=confidence&sh=06871a81&st=IXZ6X8JT

 

If you flip the read order around you can see it's the probably inevitable battle between people whose costs went up and people who cannot get insurance.

I wonder if anyone has said they will force insurance prices down with the laws they pass/repeal.  I remember something in the recent past about Insurance costs only going down because the government quietly told them to do it or else  (or else they won;t get this favorable legislation they will pass).  Other than that, they won't give up extra money out of the goodness of their hearts (they have none).  They seem to also be in the box seat because even after pushing up costs  like crazy, few people want to say 'fuck you' and go without or change.

It's quite the situation.

 

I maintain that, from my limited perspective, there's a decent amount of people who seem to have been harmed by the ACA but they only think it's screwy now because they were somewhat shielded from how screwy it was before.  So welcome to the party I guess.  Maybe the supreme irony will be that the whole things falls apart, life is hell etc and then it's Trump of all people who gets to put his name to bringing in American universal health care.

post #29 of 266

Healthcare, fundamentally, requires a large percentage of the population to subsidize a smaller sliver of the population.  That is the nature of the beast and has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that insurance always functions that way

 

What we have now is a system where young, healthy folks who either must have or want to have health insurance are subsidizing the rest of the insured population at a rate far above what is ideal because so many healthy people can, and have, opted out of purchasing healthcare.  We also have a system where there are almost no back-end controls on insurance company behavior/profitability.  I have a real fundamental problem with healthcare being exclusively a for-profit industry, but let's set that aside for a moment. 

 

You can raise penalties, you can try to control insurance company profitability, but in the long run, these models seem unsustainable.  There are only two rational, long-term, first world solutions that I can see:

 

1.)A true single payer system.  This would require a massive re-prioritization of the Federal budget.  Maybe only spend as much as the next seven countries combined on the military, instead of the next 15 or so.  Seems very unlikely as it would cut out a multi-billion dollar middlemen and most middlemen resent such endeavors. 

 

2.)The government provides catastrophic and preventative care universally through a quasi single payer system, and everything else is left to private insurance.   This would require a restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid, but not a dramatic re-allocation of the "health" portion of the budget overall (basically, the elderly get less, everyone else gets more).  Since the elderly actually vote, this seems politically untenable even though it would be remarkably more efficient.  Giving relatively young people preventative care is far more cost effective than throwing millions at someone in their mid 80s so they can live six months longer. 

 

So what can be done?  I don't really see a solution.  I'm not pretending to have one that's politically viable.  The math seems overwhelming that unless we convince young, healthy people to fund healthcare we have a major actuarial problem.

post #30 of 266

"So far the Dem effort to reverse-engineer the Feb 2009 Tea Parties looks successful"

 

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/820709443939733506

post #31 of 266

post #32 of 266
Thread Starter 

The WERD: Repeal and Erase

 

post #33 of 266

The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare repeal would cost 18 million people to lost their insurance within the first year (32 million by 2026) and premiums would double by 2026:

 

https://thinkprogress.org/congressional-budget-office-says-obamacare-repeal-would-be-a-catastrophe-3ade6480aa80#.v7ffpa3nd

 

So, who trust Donald and the Republican legislature to come up with something that stops this?

post #34 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare repeal would cost 18 million people to lost their insurance within the first year (32 million by 2026) and premiums would double by 2026:

 

https://thinkprogress.org/congressional-budget-office-says-obamacare-repeal-would-be-a-catastrophe-3ade6480aa80#.v7ffpa3nd

 

So, who trust Donald and the Republican legislature to come up with something that stops this?

 

I read something online that said something along the lines of the GOP replacement IS Obamacare seeing as it was a conservative/GOP plan to begin with.

 

The problem now is that they've disowned it because of that damn black President so they can't be seen 'drinking from that same fountain'.

 

Bottom line is that the GOP want people poor, sick and uneducated....all the better for the oligarchy and the fundamentalist preachers to take advantage of. 

 

There might be problems with a number of Democratic politicians but they certainly aren't the death cult that the GOP has transformed itself into.

post #35 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

Bottom line is that the GOP want people poor, sick and uneducated....all the better for the oligarchy and the fundamentalist preachers to take advantage of. 

 

 

I've always said(not so much here, but in real life) that education is the key to the positive future of our country.  It would take such a small amount of money compared to what we spend on our military to make a significant change, but there is no way in hell Republicans will ever back funding of education in a serious manner, mainly for what you stated above.

 

The less educated people are, the easier they are to control.

post #36 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCA View Post

I've always said(not so much here, but in real life) that education is the key to the positive future of our country.  It would take such a small amount of money compared to what we spend on our military to make a significant change, but there is no way in hell Republicans will ever back funding of education in a serious manner, mainly for what you stated above.

The less educated people are, the easier they are to control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

I read something online that said something along the lines of the GOP replacement IS Obamacare seeing as it was a conservative/GOP plan to begin with.

The problem now is that they've disowned it because of that damn black President so they can't be seen 'drinking from that same fountain'.

Bottom line is that the GOP want people poor, sick and uneducated....all the better for the oligarchy and the fundamentalist preachers to take advantage of. 

There might be problems with a number of Democratic politicians but they certainly aren't the death cult that the GOP has transformed itself into.

I'm in a foul mood today as Trump's swearing looms...to the point that I think we should get wiped out by aliens.
I mean, even in the best scenario of alien contact, which entails benevolent aliens, can you see them not killing us all after taking one quick look at out history as a species, were greed, fanatism and racism have lorded over common sense, empathy and love?
If some idiot savant achieved warp drive tomorrow, the Vulcans would probably pretend they didn't saw it.*

*Did I use the reference right? Not really well versed in Trek Lore
post #37 of 266

Republican governors who didn't take the Medicaid expansion: "Hey, Congress, now that Republicans are in charge, I totally want some Medicaid funding.  I mean, yeah, I totally hurt the poor in my state the last few years, but who wants to give Democrats credit for anything?"

 

https://apnews.com/553476353876416f89e3701fac5ed267

 

Quote:
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican governors who turned down billions in federal dollars from an expansion of Medicaid under President Barack Obama's health care law now have their hands out in hopes the GOP-controlled Congress comes up with a new formula to provide insurance for low-income Americans.
post #38 of 266
post #39 of 266

May as well follow Trump's lead and stick to Twitter.

post #40 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post

I mean, even in the best scenario of alien contact, which entails benevolent aliens, can you see them not killing us all after taking one quick look at out history as a species, were greed, fanatism and racism have lorded over common sense, empathy and love?
If some idiot savant achieved warp drive tomorrow, the Vulcans would probably pretend they didn't saw it.*

*Did I use the reference right? Not really well versed in Trek Lore

Given that the whole human history of warfare has come down to resource scarcity (either real or created artificially in the name of economics), my fantasy is that any alien species advanced enough to travel to meet us would usher in a post-scarcity economy, even if it's just an experiment to see whether our species is capable of having a real civilization before fumigating the globe.

And yes, it was the Vulcans.
post #41 of 266

South Dakota, not exactly Clinton country, is worried about the future of health care:

 

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/calls-obamacare-repeal-leave-south-dakotans-worried/96783820/

 

Quote:

For at least 27,000 South Dakotans, the result of that conversation could mean the difference between having a health insurance policy or going without.

 

That's how many people in the state have purchased individual policies through the federal exchange. And nearly 89 percent of subsidy-qualified applicants, 22,005 in total, got tax rebates through the program.

 

Hundreds of thousands in the state have also benefited from the elimination of annual and lifetime limits, free preventative care and guaranteed coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

 

Trump and Republicans in Congress including South Dakota's congressional delegation have said they plan to keep those popular pieces of the ACA, but what remains unclear is how they could continue funding those facets without the offset of a tax penalty for those who opt to go without health insurance.

 

And few answers have emerged about how proponents of the repeal could break down the health insurance law without sparking panic among providers, causing more to pull out of state exchanges and pushing premium rates through the ceiling.

 

“The obvious concern is the health care of the people of South Dakota. We’ve picked up 27,000 people under the ACA in South Dakota, people in South Dakota that didn’t have insurance before,” State Rep. Spence Hawley, D-Brookings, said Friday. "That’s a huge number for our small population."

 

An individual story:

 

Quote:

Gina Hale, 53, has been anxiously following congressional proposals to repeal, replace or reform the health care law.

 

Hale's daughter Emma Van Liere,16, was diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a rare genetic condition that affects brain development, at 18 months. Hale and her husband Wayne Van Liere were able to cover Emma's health care through health insurance policies they got through their employers.

 

But when Van Liere's job was cut after the economic recession and Hale's work was trimmed to part-time, the bills, especially medical bills got harder to pay. And then Hale was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, a severe nervous system disorder, and had to quit her job.

 

Hale and Van Liere bought an insurance policy through a federal program that let them continue group health benefits after they lost their jobs.

 

The $2,500 monthly bills quickly ate through their savings and retirement funds, Hale said. And they didn't cover her emergency services or those Emma needed when she'd start to seize and shake as a result of her condition.

 

“It brought us to our knees financially," Hale said.

 

That became a little more manageable as the Affordable Care Act took effect. The monthly payments dropped to $700 when Van Liere bought an individual plan through the federal exchange.

 

“It basically meant we weren’t homeless, we could keep or mortgage," Hale said.

 

But it wasn't a perfect answer for the pair, who were still working part-time or on contracts when they could. Hale said she burned through both retirement funds and their kids' college funds paying for the insurance policy and additional medical bills. There were some weeks she was barely able to put food on the table.

 

In 2016, Van Liere found a new job out-of-state, but Hale still worries that the family's bad luck could return.

 

“We could be back in that situation again," Hale said. "It's scary, but we just don't know."

 

And that's why Hale wants Congress to consider maintaining the Affordable Care Act or at least leaving untouched the pieces that have benefited her family and many others.

 

That fits right in with the majority of Americans who would like to see the law improved, not repealed.  

post #42 of 266

43,956 people could die annually from an ACA repeal:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-than-43000-people-annually/?utm_term=.dff88b0a42c9

 

Quote:
The story is in the data: The biggest and most definitive study of what happens to death rates when Medicaid coverage is expanded, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for every 455 people who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year. Applying that figure to even a conservative estimate of 20 million losing coverage in the event of an ACA repeal yields an estimate of 43,956 deaths annually.

With Republicans’ efforts to destroy the ACA now underway, several commentators have expressed something akin to cautious optimism about the effect of a potential repeal. The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler awarded Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) four Pinocchios for claiming that 36,000 people a year will die if the ACA is repealed; Brookings Institution fellow Henry Aaron, meanwhile, predicted that Republicans probably will salvage much of the ACA’s gains, and conservative writer Grover Norquist argued that the tax cuts associated with repeal would be a massive boon for the middle class.

 

But such optimism is overblown.

 

The first problem is that Republicans don’t have a clear replacement plan. Kessler, for instance, chides Sanders for assuming that repeal would leave many millions uninsured, because Kessler presumes that the Republicans would replace the ACA with reforms that preserve coverage. But while repeal seems highly likely (indeed, it’s already underway using a legislative vehicle that requires only 50 Senate votes), replacement (which would require 60 votes) is much less certain.

 

Moreover, even if a Republican replacement plan comes together, it’s likely to take a big backward step from the gains made by the ACA, covering fewer people with much skimpier plans.

 

And:

 

Quote:

The frightening fact is that Sanders’s estimate that about 36,000 people will die if the ACA is repealed is consistent with well-respected studies. The Urban Institute’s estimate, for instance, predicts that 29.8 million (not just 20 million) will lose coverage if Republicans repeal the law using the budget reconciliation process. And that’s exactly what they’ve already begun to do, with no replacement plan in sight.

 

No one knows with any certainty what the Republicans will do, or how many will die as a result. But Sanders’s suggestion that 36,000 would die is certainly well within the ballpark of scientific consensus on the likely impact of repeal of the ACA, and the notion of certain replacement — and the hope that a GOP replacement would be a serviceable remedy — are each far from certain, and looking worse every day.

post #43 of 266

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

43,956 people could die annually from an ACA repeal:

 

I can already see the counter arguments now.

 

"A hundred million people in Africa will die of starvation if we don't feed them all, should we pass that into law as well!"

 

"This is what happens when you create an enormous entitlement program!  People become dependent on health care and living, and it becomes extremely difficult to simply stop providing those things!"

post #44 of 266

A U.S. judge finds that Aetna mislead the public on its reasoning for leaving the ACA:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

 

The company wasn't allowed to merge with Humana, so the move was political retribution.  

 

Even top executives were perplexed as to why the company was leaving Florida.

post #45 of 266

The issue with block grants:

 

http://wfpl.org/medicaid-block-grants-could-allow-kentucky-to-do-as-it-pleases/

 

Quote:

Under a block grant program, states could do almost anything with Medicaid. Kentucky could put in place those copays, for instance, as well as monthly payments, deductibles and a volunteer/GED education eligibility requirement.

 

And under a common scenario, those block grants would be based on the previous year’s spending. That doesn’t allow for much wiggle room.

 

Health care experts say this is a bad idea.

 

“They don’t account for unanticipated increases that can occur if there’s a recession, if there’s an epidemic like Zika, if there’s a new blockbuster drug,” said Judith Solomon, vice president of health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

A major employer shuts down and more people need to get on Medicaid? The state wouldn’t get any more money to make up for those new enrollees. The money pot stays the same. Which, according to Solomon, could lead to either cuts in services or cuts to other sectors, like teacher pay.

 

There is an alternative scenario in which block grants would be provided to states based on their beneficiaries, to help account for economic fluctuations or other factors that could increase the number of enrollees.

post #46 of 266

Leaked audio shows the GOP has no unified plan to deal with the ACA repeal:

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14417272/republicans-obamacare-secret-tape-leak

 

Quote:
Republican House members representing blue states appear to be particularly worried. Rep. Tom MacArthur of New Jersey worried about pulling “the rug out from under” people covered by Obamacare, Rep. Tom McClintock of California warned that the GOP would own “the market we’ve created ... lock, stock and barrel,” and Rep. John Faso of New York said defunding Planned Parenthood in a repeal bill would mean “walking into a gigantic political trap” that could end up with “millions of people on social media” protesting repeal.
post #47 of 266

Around 50 health care workers are protesting at Orrin Hatch's office:

 

https://twitter.com/mmontano81/status/826502737122705409

post #48 of 266

Is there anyone in all of CHUD who believes that a single payer system (supplemented by various private insurance providers) isn't a logical inevitability and the best solution?  Is there anyone in this thread that believes core/basic healthcare should be a for-profit industry?

 

While the endless threads full of histrionic scree is amusing, I would actually like to hear some rational positions from someone ... anyone ... who believes that a predominantly private healthcare system is the way to go.

post #49 of 266

post #50 of 266
Yes, I certainly agree, and yes, that would be extremely difficult to get through, what with decades of opposition smear campaigning.

Which worked like gangbusters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Healthcare/ACA 2017