[Discussion] Health Policies and ACA Reform/Repeal

The existing health thread is for discussion on how changes to current policy will/have personally affected you or those you know. This thread is for more general discussion of the subject.

I am leaning more to not relaxing until I can find a way to move to a country where universal health care is considered a right.

farley3k wrote:

I am leaning more to not relaxing until I can find a way to move to a country where universal health care is considered a right.

good luck getting treated for the stress.

McCain joins Rand Paul in opposing the GOP’s latest attempt to repeal the ACA. Another ‘no’ vote kills the bill.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22John...

Chairman_Mao wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I am leaning more to not relaxing until I can find a way to move to a country where universal health care is considered a right.

good luck getting treated for the stress.

Pre-existing condition for all Americans I think

Well this will appear to be a bloodbath to the informed.

oilypenguin wrote:

Well this will appear to be a bloodbath to the informed.

I'm all for this, but they could also, you know, debate this in the Senate. They have a whole building where they've literally done this for hundreds of years.

DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Well this will appear to be a bloodbath to the informed.

I'm all for this, but they could also, you know, debate this in the Senate. They have a whole building where they've literally done this for hundreds of years.

Next thing you'll be asking for is that the law get properly scored by the CBO so we have an educated idea of its impact and can judge its merits accordingly.

OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Well this will appear to be a bloodbath to the informed.

I'm all for this, but they could also, you know, debate this in the Senate. They have a whole building where they've literally done this for hundreds of years.

Next thing you'll be asking for is that the law get properly scored by the CBO so we have an educated idea of its impact and can judge its merits accordingly.

whoa whoa whoa.

Let's not get ridiculous. Remember, we voted for these people to pass laws that neither they nor us know about.

Great let's make more of a polarizing spectacle of this.

Now that McCain has spoken, hopefully Murkowski and Collins announce they are solid “no” votes as well. Then the stupid debate is moot. I’m tired of Sanders yelling into microphones.

I know conservatives really hate childless couples, but the latest healthcare bill literally punishes adults for not having children.

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/fact-she...

1. Ends federal funding for current ACA coverage and partially replaces that funding with a block grant that expires after 2026. The proposal ends both the authority to cover childless adults and funding for the ACA Medicaid expansion that covers 15 million adults. Under Graham-Cassidy, a new block grant, the “Market-Based Health Care Grant Program,” combines federal funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion, premium and cost sharing subsidies in the Marketplace, and states’ Basic Health Plans for 2020-2026. Capped nationally, the block grant would be lower than ACA spending under current law and would end after 2026. States would need to replace federal dollars or roll back coverage. Neither the AHCA nor the BCRA included expiration dates for ACA-related federal funds or eliminated the ability for states to cover childless adults through Medicaid.

3. Prohibits Medicaid coverage for childless adults and allows states to use limited block grant funds to purchase private coverage for traditional Medicaid populations. States can use funds under the block grant to provide tax credits and/or cost-sharing reductions for individual market coverage, make direct payments to providers, or provide coverage for traditional Medicaid populations through private insurance. The proposal limits the amount of block grant funds that a state could use for traditional Medicaid populations to 15% of its allotment (or 20% under a special waiver). These limits would shift coverage and funds for many low-income adults from Medicaid to individual market coverage. Under current law, 60% of federal ACA coverage funding is currently for the Medicaid expansion (covering parents and childless adults). Medicaid coverage is typically more comprehensive, less expensive and has more financial protections compared to private insurance. The proposal also allows states to roll back individual market protections related to premium pricing, including allowing premium rating based on health status, and benefits currently in the ACA.

...

Much is at stake for low-income Americans and states in the Graham-Cassidy proposal. The recent debate over the AHCA and the BCRA has shown the difficulty of making major changes that affect coverage for over 70 million Americans and reduce federal funding for Medicaid. Medicaid has broad support and majorities across political parties say Medicaid is working well. More than half of the states have a strong stake in continuing the ACA Medicaid expansion as it has provided coverage to millions of low-income residents, reduced the uninsured and produced net fiscal benefits to states. Graham-Cassidy prohibits states from using Medicaid to provide coverage to childless adults. With regard to Medicaid financing changes, caps on federal funding could shift costs to states and result in less fiscal flexibility for states. States with challenging demographics (like an aging population), high health care needs (like those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic), high cost markets or states that operate efficient programs may have the hardest time responding to federal caps on Medicaid spending. Faced with substantially reduced federal funding, states would face difficult choices: raise revenue, reduce spending in other areas, or cut Medicaid provider payments, optional benefits, and/or optional coverage groups.

This is f*cking sick.

Basically, bye bye Medicaid expansion.

Aren't childless adults essentially nitro for the economy? All work, no child obligations, lots of disposable income amping local retailers - I have trouble seeing childless adults as a burden to any economy. If anything, the fact that they're pouring everything into the national economy should mean that the national economy ought to pay them back handsomely with Medicaid.

LarryC wrote:

Aren't childless adults essentially nitro for the economy? All work, no child obligations, lots of disposable income amping local retailers - I have trouble seeing childless adults as a burden to any economy. If anything, the fact that they're pouring everything into the national economy should mean that the national economy ought to pay them back handsomely with Medicaid.

That's what we've been saying!

LarryC wrote:

Aren't childless adults essentially nitro for the economy? All work, no child obligations, lots of disposable income amping local retailers - I have trouble seeing childless adults as a burden to any economy. If anything, the fact that they're pouring everything into the national economy should mean that the national economy ought to pay them back handsomely with Medicaid.

They basically view it in the sense that if childless adults are poor enough to need Medicaid and they don't have to spend money on kids, then they are just being lazy and so don't deserve any help or health care.

As a childless adult, I am slightly concerned that I have been found out. I thought I was flying under the radar with my rich and lavish lifestyle provided by the governments teat.

White, evangelical, heterosexual, married, male, with children = the ideal American to the current administration. Everyone else should just get out, apparently. Well, at least they're being up front about it, now. Silver lining?

Kehama wrote:

White, evangelical, heterosexual, married, male, with children = the ideal American to the current administration Republicans for the last 50 years. Everyone else should just get out, apparently. Well, at least they're being up front about it, now. Silver lining?

FTFY

IMAGE(https://scontent.fyaw1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21617842_10212181160343105_799950356514558465_n.jpg?oh=0e67eca9949f9ed1518dda7e9e572029&oe=5A57623D)

I spend a couple hours each week dialing lawmakers, so yeah.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I know conservatives really hate childless couples, but the latest healthcare bill literally punishes adults for not having children.

A little part of me is actually surprised it doesn't include incentives for minorities to remain childless....

Also:
Heathcare.gov to Go Down for Maintenance in Middle of Obamacare Enrollment Period

...at least they're not being blatant about their disrespect for the program and anybody in favor of it.

For years, I participated in quarterly, sometimes monthly, stakeholder meetings for the companies that do the IT and phone infrastructure for healthcare.gov. I also sold into CMS, to organizations that supported Open Enrollment.

Open enrollment was sacrosanct (through the end of 2015, anyway, and I have no reason to think that it changed). *Every* feature implementation, upgrade, new software addition, even regular maintenance was either done on fully redundant equipment with no service interruption, or scheduled after Open Enrollment ended. *NOTHING* violated that rule, for the simple reason that if you interrupted the service, you'd be in front of Congress in a day or two with reams of explanations and your lawyer.

There is absolutely no way that this was not a mandate from Tom Price or Trump and team. None. This would not only never be allowed by the prime contractor (who I know to be ethical and diligent and deeply efficient in planning, to a degree I've never seen outside high-speed financial trading firms), but it would require them to *change their procedures*, deliberately. And CMS enforces the quiet period for all programs related to Open Enrollment with contract provisions, so something seriously strange is going on here.

In my experience, opening up a maintenance window that would disrupt services in any way would literally and seriously violate the schedule and process these companies have held to for years, not just their own procedures, and CMS and the contractors desires to maintain a constant service availability. Price is literally disrupting one of the best infrastructure teams I've ever seen. (Imagine the luxury of dealing with about 20 subs and partners, and having accurate pert charts out to at least a year for all your software integrations... Updated every damn month without fail by all the players, and reviewed every month over about 12 hours of discussions and presentations.)

(For those keeping track, these folks are *not* the ones who wrote the code for the website. Those guys were... competent, mostly, but also doomed by Republicans screwing with funding while everything was being developed. They crashed and burned, but they were not this team.)

Collins came out against the latest plan. So it’s effectively dead. Again.

JC wrote:

Collins came out against the latest plan. So it’s effectively dead. Again.

can we start calling this bill ZombieCare? The bill that just won't die until you cut its head off? Because I doubt we've seen the last of it.

LarryC wrote:

Aren't childless adults essentially nitro for the economy?

So are immigrants, but the White House squashed that part of an economics report.

The Trump administration and the GOP do not make policy based on facts or an understanding of cause-and-effect. They make policy based on prejudice, whim, and feelings. And they get away with this by appealing to the prejudices, whims, and feelings of their ignorant base.

Yeah sometimes I feel like Not Sure in Idiocracy trying to suggest putting water on plants. But Fox News is out there pushing Brawndo and their base is eating it up

Senate won't vote on GOP health care bill

The Senate will not vote on the Graham-Cassidy bill to repeal Obamacare, Republican leaders announced Tuesday.

The decision is another blow to President Donald Trump's attempts to repeal Obamacare, a long-time Republican campaign promise and a centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Trump is now also floating the idea of working with Democrats on changes to the health care law, repeating his budget deal he reached earlier this month.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell met with lawmakers Tuesday to take stock of where his members are on the proposal and make the call once and for all if Graham-Cassidy, the latest bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, will get a vote in the Senate. The decision was that the votes simply weren't there.

Cool cool. They still have 4 days, right?

DSGamer wrote:

Cool cool. They still have 4 days, right?

Yes. Technically, they can still try to squeeze it in under budget reconciliation until the end of the month.

But if McConnell's calling off a vote now then that pretty much means he doesn't have anywhere near the 50 votes needed and he's just trying to save face.

Of course the bad news is that there's already talk that some Republicans want to jam the ACA repeal together with cutting taxes for companies and the rich *and* the 2018 budget to ensure something happens this year.

OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Cool cool. They still have 4 days, right?

Yes. Technically, they can still try to squeeze it in under budget reconciliation until the end of the month.

But if McConnell's calling off a vote now then that pretty much means he doesn't have anywhere near the 50 votes needed and he's just trying to save face.

Of course the bad news is that there's already talk that some Republicans want to jam the ACA repeal together with cutting taxes for companies and the rich *and* the 2018 budget to ensure something happens this year.

Tax cuts for the rich with healthcare removed from the poor and middle class.... yup, sounds like exactly something they would do.