why is it that the folks complaining about pre-existing condition penalties ignore that the penalties are avoided if you maintain continuous coverage. There are a multitude of ways to maintain continuous coverage and not have the surcharges take place. Unfortunately, that requires people to be somewhat responsible for there own well being and finances and have a modicum of understanding about their issues and conditions and how to finacially take care of themselves. And that is the problem. The masses in this country expect others to take care of them.
Coverage isn't the problem. They've said (meaning Ryan, Trump and others)that coverage for pre existing conditions will be in place.
They've never expressed what the cost or quality of coverage will be or how those costs will be arrived at. Is it an 80/20 plan? What would the Co Pay be, how about the Deductible?
During the campaign Trump promised no changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Thus far, Medicaid is being cut by 880 Billion over ten years. How far behind is SS and Medicare? Essentially, I don't trust anything Trump says. Same with Ryan.
Why are so many against this plan. I'm not talking about people like me, I'm speaking of the AMA or AARP etc.
With the Vote so close in the house (217-213) there isn't a decisive win.
In the Senate, they are saying, we're throwing out the bill presented by the House and writing their own.
And when you refer to the "masses in this country expecting others to take care of them", tell me where you got those statistics (or is that just a gut feeling)
Remember something, some of those masses probably served in the armed forces and really aren't being helped much. Remember this, most of those you refer to are Americans..,
Are you basically saying you don't want to help your fellow American?
Look, I've been saying for a lot longer than Obamacare that we needed reform in the health insurance industry. I liked the idea of the ACA, but never liked the execution of the plan. Wisely devised, poor planning and even poorer execution.
SO, show me something better and I'm jumping on board. No question about it.
But in all honesty, this plan isn't it.
when the Senate is done with it, perhaps it will be closer, but then it goes back to the house. Oh man, it's going to be a lot of fireworks. This isn't close to done yet.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
[b]Charlie Munger: ' Munger said the current health system gives U.S. companies a big disadvantage in competing with other manufacturers.
Yup except for Pharmaceutical manufactures and Healthcare providers who are gouging the hell out of other US manufactures, middle class, and the elderly.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Health savings accounts are the big winner as Republicans hash out an Obamacare replacement
-Health savings accounts offer triple tax advantages for investors. -The American Health Care Act nearly doubles HSA contribution limits. -Even if Congress fails to pass a health-care law, assets in HSAs are estimated to reach more than $53 billion by 2018, a 20 percent increase from this year.
There's at least one thing that Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate can agree on when it comes to replacing Obamacare: Health savings accounts.
HSAs, introduced in 2003 during President George W. Bush's administration, offer you triple tax advantages: First, contributions are tax-deductible. Second, those contributions can be invested and grow tax-free. Third, withdrawals aren't taxed as long as you use them for qualified medical expenses, such as doctor's visits, prescription drugs and dental care.
"HSAs offer tax breaks no other retirement vehicle can match," said Begonya Klumb, CEO of UMB Bank Healthcare Services.
Health savings accounts are the big winner as Republicans hash out an Obamacare replacement
-Health savings accounts offer triple tax advantages for investors. -The American Health Care Act nearly doubles HSA contribution limits. -Even if Congress fails to pass a health-care law, assets in HSAs are estimated to reach more than $53 billion by 2018, a 20 percent increase from this year.
There's at least one thing that Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate can agree on when it comes to replacing Obamacare: Health savings accounts.
HSAs, introduced in 2003 during President George W. Bush's administration, offer you triple tax advantages: First, contributions are tax-deductible. Second, those contributions can be invested and grow tax-free. Third, withdrawals aren't taxed as long as you use them for qualified medical expenses, such as doctor's visits, prescription drugs and dental care.
"HSAs offer tax breaks no other retirement vehicle can match," said Begonya Klumb, CEO of UMB Bank Healthcare Services.
Well, this GOP Congressman states he didn't read it and neither did most of his fellow Congressmen. They rely on "staff members" to read things for them. So yes, I'm still buying this. The only crap part about this is your refusal to understand facts.
This isn't liberal hearsay, this is directly from his mouth. Scroll halfway down the page to the interview with Rep Collins.
Well, this GOP Congressman states he didn't read it and neither did most of his fellow Congressmen. They rely on "staff members" to read things for them. So yes, I'm still buying this. The only crap part about this is your refusal to understand facts.
This isn't liberal hearsay, this is directly from his mouth. Scroll halfway down the page to the interview with Rep Collins.
Well, like it or not, that's how congress works. (and I don't like it, for those that care)
The exact same thing happened with Obama care. Need anyone need reminded of pelosi's comment? "We need to pass it before we know what's in it."
The biggest thing that matters to the POLITICIANS, is "what are the riders at the back of the bill? What are the amendments at the back of the bill? Are any of MINE in there, allowing me to go back to my constituency and say "look how much money I got you"
There's yet 1 more reason I don't like gov't. R or D, or I.
Well, this GOP Congressman states he didn't read it and neither did most of his fellow Congressmen. They rely on "staff members" to read things for them. So yes, I'm still buying this. The only crap part about this is your refusal to understand facts.
This isn't liberal hearsay, this is directly from his mouth. Scroll halfway down the page to the interview with Rep Collins.
Well, like it or not, that's how congress works. (and I don't like it, for those that care)
The exact same thing happened with Obama care. Need anyone need reminded of pelosi's comment? "We need to pass it before we know what's in it."
The biggest thing that matters to the POLITICIANS, is "what are the riders at the back of the bill? What are the amendments at the back of the bill? Are any of MINE in there, allowing me to go back to my constituency and say "look how much money I got you"
There's yet 1 more reason I don't like gov't. R or D, or I.
I agree. I just find it funny how many R's were up in arms about the ACA being passed so quickly with so little review and now they've just done the EXACT same thing. Except even faster. Ugh.
------------------------------ *In Baker we trust* -------------------------------
Yeah, it's kind of funny in a sad kind of way. And this works both ways. Both parties do it.
When one side does something, they cry foul. When their side turns around and does the same thing they were crying about, they say, "Yeah but they did it!"
That's one of the reasons this two party system is failing. People only want to hold the opposing side accountable.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
What I would like to see now is the Senate Democrats step up and say they are going to work with the Republicans to hammer out a great Healthcare Bill.
Unfortunately, they have tearfully taken their ball and gone home.
Well, this GOP Congressman states he didn't read it and neither did most of his fellow Congressmen. They rely on "staff members" to read things for them. So yes, I'm still buying this. The only crap part about this is your refusal to understand facts.
This isn't liberal hearsay, this is directly from his mouth. Scroll halfway down the page to the interview with Rep Collins.
Well, like it or not, that's how congress works. (and I don't like it, for those that care)
The exact same thing happened with Obama care. Need anyone need reminded of pelosi's comment? "We need to pass it before we know what's in it."
The biggest thing that matters to the POLITICIANS, is "what are the riders at the back of the bill? What are the amendments at the back of the bill? Are any of MINE in there, allowing me to go back to my constituency and say "look how much money I got you"
There's yet 1 more reason I don't like gov't. R or D, or I.
I agree. I just find it funny how many R's were up in arms about the ACA being passed so quickly with so little review and now they've just done the EXACT same thing. Except even faster. Ugh.
Is there a spray that will make a politician take longer?
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
why is it that the folks complaining about pre-existing condition penalties ignore that the penalties are avoided if you maintain continuous coverage. There are a multitude of ways to maintain continuous coverage and not have the surcharges take place. Unfortunately, that requires people to be somewhat responsible for there own well being and finances and have a modicum of understanding about their issues and conditions and how to finacially take care of themselves. And that is the problem. The masses in this country expect others to take care of them.
Funny thing about that. This house plan also had a couple other zingers added late. One of them was ending the rule for a cap on how much insurance companies would have to pay for catastrophic illnesses in employee sponsored health plans. Thus putting a cap on insurance that would prove your insurance useless if you ever have a major problem. Your premiums might come down but go ahead and have a major health problem and try to use it.
The other issue was added late to get the freedom caucus. This was the MacArthur Amendment which would allow states to obtain waivers to eliminate Obamacare regulations on Essential Benefits. The feeling is that the intent is if your state eliminates the essential benefits then the employer based healthcare will also follow through with the cuts.
What are some of those essential benefits that may be cut. Well, they the following and different essential benefits could be cut in different states. The article I was reading on one site already was picking states that would be scaling back on essential benefits.
•Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital) •Emergency services •Hospitalization (like surgery and overnight stays) •Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth) •Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy) •Prescription drugs •Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills) •Laboratory services •Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management •Pediatric services, including oral and vision care (but adult dental and vision coverage aren’t essential health benefits)
Charlie Munger: 'The amount of waste from overtreatment of the dying is just disgusting'
-Charlie Munger tells CNBC the U.S. health-care system is "ridiculous" in its complexity. -"There's a lot wrong with the system," he says.
Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger told CNBC on Monday the U.S. health-care system is "ridiculous" in its complexity.
"The amount of waste from overtreatment of the dying is just disgusting," the 93-year-old Munger said on "Squawk Box," speaking alongside billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. "There's a lot wrong with the system."
Munger said the current health system gives U.S. companies a big disadvantage in competing with other manufacturers.
"They've got single payer medicine and we're paying it out of the company," he said.
It's disgusting that any costs to preserve life is considered wasteful by anyone. Money is nothing more than a fictitious tool of man, it has no value except the value we allow it to have; it certainly is not more valuable than life.
I do like the business angle for promoting single payer though. Single payer would make businesses more competitive globally... hmmmm.
Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, over the weekend walked back a quip on health care he conceded “wasn’t very elegant.”
Labrador had claimed during a Friday town hall that people don’t die because of health care access. He made the comments during a testy exchange with an attendee who questioned Labrador’s vote for the House GOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.
“Are you going to mandate that regions reduce their rates?” the attendee asked.
“I don’t mandate anything,” Labrador responded.
“You are mandating people on Medicaid [to] accept dying!”
“No one wants anybody to die,” he said. “You know, that line is so indefensible. Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
Labrador’s defense was immediately silenced by boos and objections.
After the comments caught fire, Labrador posted a clarifying statement on Facebook saying his remark was an attempt “to explain that all hospitals are required by law to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay and that the Republican plan does not change that.” Labrador also tried to deflect criticism by pointing out that the back-and-forth picked up came at the end of a longer exchange, which he posted in full.
Labrador voted for the American Health Care Act on Thursday, and it passed the House by just four votes. The congressman is a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, which helped tank the bill in its original form in March. It was reintroduced late last month after some modifications, apparently swaying many moderate and hardline conservatives to support it.
Read more from Yahoo News:
One kind of drought ends for California farms, but another — of immigrants to work in the fields — now looms Hillary Clinton calls Macron win a ‘defeat to those interfering with democracy’ Syrian family hangs hopes of reunification on Macron Trump: ‘Everybody’ has better health care than the U.S. So much winning: Trump No. 1 most-mocked president on late shows, study finds Photos: A look back at the Hindenburg – from first flight to blazing inferno
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Editor's Note: Laurie Garrett is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.
(CNN) — Beware the Ides of September, which could find everything from your cancer surgery to HIV treatment for Africans sliced to smithereens. As Republicans cheered passage of their Obamacare repeal in the House on Thursday, the Democrats chided them that America will vote the GOP out of power in 2018, singing, "Sha-na-na-na! Na-na-na! Hey! Hey! Goodbye!"
The battle lines are clearly drawn. There will be skirmishes in coming weeks and open warfare in Washington this fall.
Laurie Garrett
Laurie Garrett
Bad as the GOP's latest iteration is, the Republican health bill will not become the law of the land. But before you heave a sigh of relief know this: It is an awful harbinger of what is to come, demonstrating that the party in control of all three branches of the American government is more than willing to chuck you, and the whole world, on the pyre of failed personal responsibility before it will consider paying to keep you alive and well.
The "blame the victim" mantra of the 1980s that saw employers firing elders, smokers and obese employees in order to maintain low, pooled insurance costs is back in vogue, now a philosophy of governance applied to everything from cancer prevention to foreign policy.
By a narrow 217-213 vote, the House of Representatives voted to repeal Obamacare, replacing it with a new 2.0 version of the Republican's American Health Care Act, or AHCA, that appeased both the party's hard right Freedom Caucus and some of its moderates' concerns. The bill passed without any Democratic votes, and 20 moderate Republicans sided with the opposition.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate approved a $1.1 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill that will keep government lights on until the end of the fiscal year, September 30. It passed with bipartisan support, though 18 of the GOP's fiscal conservatives voted against it, largely opposing what they consider overspending.
The worst is yet to come
While President Trump is frustrated by the slow pace of what he thinks are watered-down actions on the Hill, both the Omnibus Budget and AHCA 2.0 are mere preludes to much tougher times to come.
On the health care side, the House AHCA 2.0 has about a zero probability of passing the Senate in its current form, prompting the Washington Post to say, "Republicans' health-care bill isn't really a health-care bill. It's a political prop."
The real action will come with fights over the FY2018 budget, draft elements of which have been leaked, indicating substantial backing for Trump's "skinny budget," a slim presidential statement of spending priorities meant to guide GOP action on the Hill.
Views on health care vote
The take-home messages are clear, even though the ultimate details of a Senate version of AHCA 2.0 and the FY2018 budget remain obscure. The winners are America's wealthiest class, the Department of Defense, military contractors, health insurance companies and America's closest military allies. The losers? Well, just about everybody else.
If the Republican Party hopes to claim victories in the 2018 midterm elections, Sean Spicer and his fellow Washington spin doctors are going to have to manage astounding feats of messaging, aimed at convincing average American voters that paying larger fees for their health care out-of-pocket, seeing the cost of medicines skyrocket and having highly humane health programs overseas disappear are all good things for the middle class.
Though the Congressional Budget Office hasn't had a chance to weigh in on AHCA 2.0, none of the revisions appear to alter factors that prompted the CBO to predict that the original GOP plan would, by 2026, leave 24 million people uninsured -- more than were in that sorry state when Obamacare was conceived in 2009. The effect would be so profound, CBO said, that 14 million Americans will lose coverage before December 2018.
Close examination of the House's new AHCA 2.0 reveals that compromise between the party's factions was reached not by addressing the underlying problems seen by the CBO, but by booting nearly all of the other tough decisions down to the states.
What is 'access'?
Basically AHCA 2.0 claims to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and keep Americans that are now receiving Obamacare coverage on some form of health access. But the devil is in the details behind the words "guarantee" and "access," both of which are left to the states to define.
The House advocates creation of special insurance pools filled with the very sick, offering no good reason why any profit-oriented company would want to dive into those pools. Overall, AHCA 2.0 cuts federal support of Medicaid by $839 billion over 10 years, but creates an $8 billion fund over five years to help support those special pools of the very-sick.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 70% of Americans want the federal government to mandate that insurance companies provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, schizophrenia or cancer. And the same percent want a minimum package of basic care available at genuinely affordable prices to every American.
Nothing is guaranteed by AHCA 2.0, except a hope and prayer that state legislatures and governors will vote through expensive packages of health insurance that incentivize private insurance companies to carry millions of people, including those with costly chronic care needs, based on expansion of states' Medicaid programs.
Some states like California already make Medicaid cover more people, for more health problems, than even Obamacare mandated. But most states fall well below Obamacare mandates and will use whatever version of AHCA 2.0 is ultimately enacted into law to further shrink their spending and patient access.
In a federal appeals court case regarding abortion clinics in Alabama, the state defines "access" as something to be denied, meaning women should be denied all access to abortion services in that state. Several states currently have laws or pending court cases that similarly draw on the language of "access" as a matter of legally mandated denial of services.
In an emotional appeal on his late-night TV show comedian/host Jimmy Kimmel told his audience that his newborn son was born with a condition requiring neonatal open heart surgery -- which he, a wealthy celebrity, could afford.
But, Kimmel noted, access to health shouldn't be about personal wealth, adding, "Before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you'd never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition... And if your parents didn't have medical insurance, you might not live long enough to even get denied because of a pre-existing condition."
Wealth determines access
But under the AHCA, personal wealth is precisely the prime determinant of health care. As Republican Bill Schuster told his Pennsylvania constituents, "It gets rid of Obamacare's taxes and mandates, and returns the power of regulating health insurance back to the states."
Your access, Schuster continued, is affordable because you can write some of it off in your taxes, pay for some of the rest with your health savings account (which you paid for) and get cheaper care because the state will no longer be covering such things as abortions.
Hogwash. A single mother of two children who earns $40,000 a year as a domestic worker has no taxable income after paying for transportation, housing, food, school fees, child care and her children's clothing, so writing off health care costs via her annual IRA filing is a nonstarter.
Kicking the pre-existing conditions can down the road to the states could lead to denial of health insurance services to 129 million Americans, according to a 2011 Department of Health and Human Services study, and return the nation to the bad old 1980s days of "personal responsibility for health."
As Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks told CNN, people with costly conditions should be required to contribute more to their states' insurance pools so that they aren't a financial burden "to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy."
Pay attention, America
The blame game allows Republicans to feel fine about eliminating federal disease prevention programs, putting the onus on individuals and slashing the $1 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund that was created under Obamacare in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC uses those funds to support everything from diabetes diagnoses and care programs to elimination of lead poisoning.
One-third of the funds ($324 million) were for vaccines and child immunization programs. Another $12 million targeted adolescent suicide efforts and $160 million subsidized epidemic surveillance and the safety of drinking water and food from bacterial contamination.
All of these programs will disappear -- 12% of the CDC's total budget -- if the Senate maintains the thrust of AHCA 2.0, going along with the House majority's view that government shouldn't "meddle" in personal decisions such as whether or not to smoke cigarettes or cook your skin in a tanning salon.
The House and Senate will battle such sentiments when they finally tackle the FY18 budget in September. Leaked elements of the budget reveal a similar "personal responsibility" perspective guiding slashing of federal support for malaria prevention in Ghana, HIV treatment in Malawi, women's health programs in Guatemala, democracy-building in Asia and school lunch programs in Harlem.
If your child is hungry in school, bit by malaria-carrying mosquitoes in bed at night or lacks treatment for the HIV he was born infected with it's your fault and your responsibility, not a problem for US taxpayers.
Pay attention, America. You may wake up in a year to discover that your cancer care will bankrupt your family, and your now-impoverished children will get no meals at school. Your town's hospital may get hit by a tornado and discover the CDC's stockpiles of drugs and medical equipment for catastrophes and outbreaks has disappeared. You may take a holiday overseas and find fear and loathing directed at you from people angry that services once provided by the US Agency for International Development or other foreign aid agencies no longer exist.
And if you're a member of Congress who voted for such changes in the FY18 budget, you may suddenly find your voting constituency backing a different horse -- or even a donkey.
Aetna to Completely Pull Out of ObamaCare Exchanges by 2018
Health insurance company Aetna (AET) will completely exit the ObamaCare exchanges in 2018.
The company announced late Wednesday it will not offer insurance plans in Delaware or Nebraska, the remaining two states where it was slated to provide coverage under the Affordable Care Act next year.
“We will not offer on- or off-exchange individual plans in Delaware or Nebraska for 2018, and at this time have completely exited the exchanges,” Aetna said in a statement to FOX Business.
In April Aetna said it would not participate on the state exchanges in Virginia next year and last week committed to pulling out of Iowa Opens a New Window. . In 2016 the insurer sold plans across fifteen states. It trimmed that position to just four states at the outset of 2017, citing financial losses.
This is an important observation. The bill that the house came up with is disappointing, but if the ACA wasn't falling apart we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Aetna cant afford it because the cost of healthcare services and prescriptions is too high. Yet the corporate puppets in Washington wont do anything about it. Its either companies lining their pockets, or enact some common sense regulations like every other country has. Guess which option the puppets choose.
Aetna cant afford it because the cost of healthcare services and prescriptions is too high. Yet the corporate puppets in Washington wont do anything about it. Its either companies lining their pockets, or enact some common sense regulations like every other country has. Guess which option the puppets choose.
This is also true.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
