AHCA your thoughts...
 

Now that the dust has settled and the balloons and confetti has been swept up, and all the congressmans pockets are full, how do you feel about your fellow Americans, who, if this comes to being, and the Senate doesn't clean up the Houses version of Trumpcare, will lose their healthcare so our wealthier Americans have a tax break. Try as you might, making this legislation look good, if you defend this, you don't have an ounce of compassion in your bones, period!!!

Why don't you stick to the ladies only forum?
You are an emotional basket case...

Been listening to the liberal girls in congress screaming hysterically that millions are going to die because of this?

Don't be so stupid, and learn something about what you are speaking of.

And this is me trying to be nice. WOW, some folks are so trying in their ridiculous idiocy.

Instead of producing diarrhea of the mouth, why don't you start by telling us what you DON'T like about the bill. Then we can discuss it with you. Hysterical sobbing because of the death of Obama's total/only legacy does not count as relevant.

Well right out of the chute your statement "now that the dust has settled " is incorrect. In fact what the House did was stir up more dust.

Don't misinterpret my meaning because I am relieved that this health bill is getting much debate by competitive parties, unlike Obamacare that was passed under the cover of darkness with the stipulation "we have to pass it before we know what is in it"

As to what posters think will depend on where their political ideology lies, their soci-economic status, etc.

The better question in my view is what type of plan will meet people's needs at affordable prices and without sticking it too badly to taxpayers. Essentially the guaranteed issue is a very emotional issue and the House's support of a risk pool is the only way to retain guaranteed issue.

Risk pools are the only viable options in order to this because they will provide the funding that was inadequate in Obamacare. Obamacare was unsustainable in part because it severely penalized the young in order to subsidize those who insured because they were already sick.

However, even within this topic of subsidies is the need for rational judgment as to who or whom need a subsidy...do all senors need a handout or only the poor ones?.....

Insurance companies should be given the opportunity to sell insurance across state lines, and to taylor policy benefits to meets customers pocketbooks.

Another factor to consider are the consumers of healthcare. Policies and insurance regulations must maintain a balance of being effective (meet consumers needs)yet operate such that consumers do not overspend

In summary to respond to your real question yes I have more faith in the business decisions made by Republicans then I do democrats and the state of Obamacare supports that opinion.

Personal Best Regards:

This is the first part of the overall health care program. This is limited because it is restricted as to how it can be voted upon. This will not have all the benefits that the second or third parts will have included. This first part can be passed with a simple majority vote. The other parts will require a super majority vote to pass. This has been repeated, but no one seems to listen including congress. Either that or they do not wish to hear it.

1. Being a WOMAN is a pre-existing condition.
2. It repeals Medicare tax a 0.9 surcharge on >200,000.00 for singles or 250,000 married earners. That would cost the Medicare trust fund 17 billion in 10 years.
3. Preexisting conditions are NOT covered as states may opt out of this requirement.

No....we have hear this nonsense before. Paul Ryan and the Republicans dream is to gut all social programs including Medicare, Social Security, Welfare and Medicaid.

The House version is going to almost unrecognizable from what the Senate will put together. The Senate will send it back to the House for even more changes and back to the Senate.

The news pundits are saying it will be several more months before a final version is ready.

Until then, the Affordable Care Act stands as is.

Being a woman might be considered as a handicap.

Lets see your math on the 17 billion...

I believe you meant to say pre existing conditions are covered unless the state decides to opt out...what's a matter, don't you trust the state politicians that were elected by the residents of the state??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

B.S. Show me some evidence of your liberal talking points. Facts, not words repeated from hysterical pundits and libtard congress. Why do you bother spreading lies? Just to defend the losers in congress?

I would just like to say to all of them S. M. D. they are hired to help not hurt people. They need to be covered by exactly the same coverage as they are dishing out. I never thought I'd say it but I really miss George Bush. That's Sr. or Jr.

:thumbup::thumbup: I agree!

Being a woman might be considered as a handicap. Not good to start with a sexist statement Dirt!


Lets see your math on the 17 billion... not my math that number came from a Washington Post story and was only for 10 years. Here is another link for you!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/u...bill.html?_r=0

I believe you meant to say pre existing conditions are covered unless the state decides to opt out...what's a matter, don't you trust the state politicians that were elected by the residents of the state??

Seriously??? Did you see that gathering at the White House it was a bunch of old frat boys. They are NOT is the business of looking out for the middle class or the poor!

COPUFF

The first thing that needs to happen is honest discussions about healthcare, it's cost, advanced treatments, profit, etc. None of that has happen. Take risk pools, regardless if you are in a risk pool or not the cost of your healthcare will be the same. The difference is the AHCA as written will limit teartment by default therefore reduce costs. That is an option but it should be honestly discussed. Can the government subsidize "basic health care" and require advanced procedures be available only to those with means? Our healthcare systems are the best in the world because of the free market but those same forces have made it affordable to very few who pay for it themselves and to those who's care is paid for by someone's tax dollars. Health insurance costs were one of the nails in US manufacturing's coffin. Our elected politicians have become very comfortable standing in front of a microphone and repeating boldface lies. The sad part is 50% of us back them up when they do. No better example than this forum.

I agree and beside an honest discussion we need a frank discussion about healthcare. From your comments its difficult to see where you clearly stand on this issue.

For any discussion we need to separate health care and insurance because they are very different issues in their entirety.

Healthcare issues include people's lifestyles, preventive care, new technologies, organizational models, fees, efficacy in treatment, DNA etc

On the Insurance side it includes such things as who has the financial /payer obligation, if any and in what form , benefit plans, costs, fraud and abuse and the mother of all realities people's "expectations"

Then of course there are the political and financial realities overriding all of this and in constant tension to one another

In my view we were better off before Obamacare. what Obamacare did was throw the baby out with the dishwater.

There was an easy fix for the so called "uninsured" but Obama was aiming for a single payer system and total control of the health market. Well government is not at all good at managing things and fraud and abuse prevail over most government programs. fraud and abuse will kill any program

Simply stated this has become such a political football interfering with a rational solution

Personal Best Regards:

Of course none of what you're saying is true, but never mind that. This is a first step in getting rid of the failing ACA. We shouldn't make any kind of judgement until we see what the final program looks like and that will probably be a few years down the road.

Again, this is a first step in giving the American people options and lowering costs.

The gov needs to leave the private sector insurance alone to compete for our business. If the gov wishes to provide emergency health services, that's a different matter. The gov can't do anything well, other than the military. And the military, ONLY if they allow the leaders to use their experience to fight, not civilians that do not have a clue, such as they did when they interfered in Vietnam. The gov is the cause of high medical costs. When a doctor has to pay hundreds of thousands per year for malpractice insurance, plus overhead how does one expect them to recoup the expense? You should be responsible for and allowed to tailor you insurance like you do for car or home insurance. And before anyone says people are too stupid to make choices for themselves, remember/consider this. Medicare "A" which you make premiums into for your whole working life, ONLY provides hospitalization. If you wish any more services than that, you must pay for Medicare "B" or other supplemental policies. The gov believes that we can do without any additional service when they give us Medicare, so why does anyone believe that they are wise enough to make any choices for the average citizen regarding their private healthcare insurance? Medicare sucks, to put it honestly. Don't give me that cr@p about how great it is, when you are paying additional for supplements to it. I am speaking only of what you pay for your entire working life, Medicare "A". This is what our gov is good for. Taking our money with the promise of lifetime retirement healthcare and then shafting us with an inadequate service. Then they tell us that they didn't promise us that we would not have to pay for additional provided services. I pay an enormous amount of money every month for a decent private insurance policy. I have never used medicare and probably never will need it. I really don't since I have full coverage. But that is me and I am willing to sacrifice so that my spouse doesn't have to worry about how we will pay for maladies related to aging. No one is turned away from hospitals. It is a false premise to make statements that anyone without insurance that goes to the ER will cause you to pay for them. They still get a bill, it is still sent to collection if they do not pay it, and the hospital still gets to write it off on their taxes if it is not paid. The domino effect of them not paying, on our cost of insurance is negligible compared to the increase in premiums and deductibles we have incurred since Obamacare. No one wishes to deny the needy their medical needs. That is what Medicaid should be for. In my opinion, Medicaid does not cover enough of those that should have it. They are told they do not qualify for many different reasons. There are ways of expanding the coverage of Medicaid for more of the needy. But, the gov needs to get out of the private health care business and let competition bring the cost of health care down. It is also my opinion that ALL health care costs should be deductible for income tax purposes, even when you use the standard deduction.

I believe that IF a person such as myself has a good private insurance, then they should not have Medicare until such time as they do not continue with their private insurance. Not only is it not necessary, but it is a hindrance when dealing with the insurance company that feels that Medicare should pay first, before they are required to pay for your service.

I believe that if one does not wish to have insurance, perhaps because they are wealthy and pay cash for their services, should not be required to purchase insurance. The gov should not be in the practice of requiring it's citizens to purchase a product or service. You do not have to own auto insurance or home insurance if you do not drive a car or own a home.

I am NOT my brother's keeper, regardless of what liberals wish to suggest. Life is not guaranteed and it is not my responsibility to provide for anyone other than my own. Charity is voluntary, not assumed. Forcing someone to provide for a neighbor is not charity, it's a gov imposed tax.

In my opinion, congress should repeal Obamacare and NOT replace it with anything. If they wish to improve Medicaid and Medicare, that's fine. If they wish to put a cap on malpractice, fine. If they wish to open state borders for cross-border insurance shopping, great. Otherwise, the gov needs to get out of our business.

As I have stated many times and has been born out consistently by posts here on the subject...it really boils down to two very different philosophies.

1. Those who believe that like every other developed nation on this rock, the health of its citizens...should be a a prime concern/responsibility of a country's government.

2. Those who believe that..."I have mine, tough $hit for you."


I'm looking forward to the inevitable plethora of posts...that continually prove me correct. :popcorn:



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave:

Those other countries don't have the tremendous welfare costs we have. We already spend a $ trillion a year on "welfare". This would add another $ trillion. Where does it stop? EVERYONE gets the equivalent of $50,000 a year? Even if they do nothing? What does that do to the nations debt problem? We can't pay the bills as it is now and we're $20 trillion in the hole.

$20 trillion in debt and going deeper a $ trillion a year? We can't afford it. We need LESS poor to take care of from cradle to grave...not more.

I WORKED for mine...I earned it...what did those 50 million poor do? They were born to leeches and they've done nothing but leech ever since. The inner cities have millions of the nameless minority poor who are born and die in the inner city slums...like animals in zoos...provided for by the keepers...just "there" providing no value ever throughout their hopefully short lives.

We just can't afford to carry the weight of the numbers of poor that we do now with the amount of benefits we provide now. OUR POOR live more like most of those countries middle class. It's disingenuous to ONLY pick out healthcare when "our poor" get SO MUCH MORE than anyone else's poor get. Our poor also get housing, food, cell phone, education, FREE EMERGENCY healthcare, childcare, and more... HALF our population receives a benefit from the government...how do we add more? More people AND more benefits.

So yes...at least ONE reply to tell you..as always...you miss the point..you miss the big picture.

WHY do you think EVERYONE wants to come HERE? They LEAVE places with free healthcare...to come here? We are already VERY generous when it comes to the poor. TOO generous.

Hey now - you started down the sexist path with "being a woman is a pre existing condition", I just took it a little further. Odd that it bothered you, if you made a sexist statement about men, nobody would care...

I looked at your link...no mention of 17 billion in ten years. Again, I will ask you to share your math.

Yes, I am serious. Pre existing coverage is included in the bill, the states can opt out. Why do you believe a state would opt out? Why do you believe the elected officials of the state only look out for the rich? Do you vote with that opinion toward all that are running? Seems cynical...

You are correct that I'm not sure where I stand but that is due to hearing nothing but bull**** from both sides of the issue. I don't believe you can have the private sector control healthcare while public sector, military, medicare recipients are covered by government but again my information is limited. That said I still have not heard any honest and non biased dialog other than a few bits and pieces on C-span. Everyone, including most of the posters on this forum don't know squat about the real scope of problem yet have rock solid opinions. IMO

That's EXACTLY what you're getting from BOTH sides.

What private insurance company wants to cover a soldier deployed into a war zone? What ins. company wants to pick up a 65 y/o with medical issues when they retire and lose the employer sponsored plan they have? Police, firefighters...all have dangerous jobs and many get health issues...what insurance company would want them? Right now the government covers the uninsurable...or they subsidize it. What insurance company would WANT to insure the poor who are too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves?

The REAL scope of the problem is that poor minorities are going to drive us bankrupt...and then, when the money stops, a civil war. Expect it within 30 years. When the Hispanics become the majority...all hell will break loose. I personally expect it much sooner. The world is 80% poor people.

Good point! If this is such a bad place, then why do we have millions here illegally. No one forced them to come here or stay here. FREEBIES!

You harping all over the Democrats for ramming through Obamacare without knowing what was in it. The Democrats worked on it for over a year. There were plenty of hearing in committees, where they brought in people from medical professionals, medical groups (AMA, Red Cross, etc.) health insurance companies. They tried to get bipartisan support, but the Republicans were in their disagree with Obama on everything mode that lasted eight years. Only one Republican would even listen O. Snow from Maine.

Kennedy died, and the Democrats had to pass it before McConnell would have the ability to filibuster it, which he did on almost everything. So, stop with this nonsense that it was rammed through.

Has Fox News shown what Paul Ryan said in 2009? Everything that he was against then, he did now. EVERYTHING! He didn't say it just once. He did it on multiple stations. What the House Republicans did with this plan is the definition of something being rammed through just for the sake of a win.

Obamacare was modeled after a Heritage Foundation plan that was put into affect in Mass. under Romney. One of the reason that it worked in Mass. is you were penalized, if you didn't get insurance. That brought just about everybody on board. 98.5% had health insurance. I dealt with health insurance companies not once in 25 years was the yearly increase under 5%. One year, it was 19.7%, and two years after that it was 17.5%.

This Republican plan that insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines will create competition, which will lower premiums is total nonsense. Three states have that policy now, and it hasn't created competition. It is extremely hard to set up in another state, and insurance companies aren't doing it.

High risk pools are basically the same as community rating. If you had under 50 insured in your company, you got committee rating. You wanted your rates to be based upon the history of claims in your company. Community rating increases far exceeded companies that rates were based upon their history.

High risk polls are worse. They are putting all the people with medical problems in one group. The whole idea of health insurance is spreading the risk over both the healthy, and the sick. Do you think for a second that people in the high risk pools are going to be able to afford insurance?

Single payer is the way to go. If the federal government can't administer it, then give it to insurance companies, and pay them a reasonable fee, and not one that they put forward.

This won't be something for nothing. You will be taxed for it like SS, and Medicare. Speaking of which, someone suggested that we eliminate social programs. Surprise! Surprise!. These weren't mentioned as social programs.

Don't worry. As Trump has stated, "we are going to have a great unbelievable health insurance plan at a fraction of the cost, and everyone will be covered." We all know that Trump doesn't lie.

Another great Trump statement, "Obamacare was a gift to the health insurance companies as a reward for political contributions made to the Democratic party by them."

Trump is operating without a clue.

One more thing that I forgot mention, Trump stated when he was with the Australian president that Australia has much better health insurance than we do. They have single payer. I guess Trump doesn't lie all the time, but does have the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Do you have blinders on when it comes women's health issues? Prior to Obamacare pregnancy was a pre-existing condition. Even with Obamacare some employers refused to cover birth control or the morning after pill. Women who have been victims of rape can suffer from PTSD. Below is a link discussing these issues.

Are pregnancy and rape pre-existing conditions under GOP health bill? - CBS News

As I said before that was NOT my math, I have searched and cannot find that article again...However I did find this one from the Washington Post which references the taxes that are removed by Trumpcare. I hope that will suffice.

The Republican health-care plan isn’t about health care at all - The Washington Post

For most of my life I have lived in Colorado which was, until recently, under Republican control. Now I lived primarily in Florida under Republican control. I have lived through many Republican Presidents. Under Nixon, my wages were frozen.

I have watched multiple rounds of tickle down economics.

My parents taught me this "When the Republicans are in the bread lines begin"

If you want a real time example of that I would point you to the State of Kansas which was, until recently, totally under Republican control. Checkout what has happened there in the last roughly 8 years since Gov Brownback was elected.

I am not cynical I've been schooled.

You don't know much about Australian health care, do you?

Thank you for proving my point, like I said everybody has a strong opinion but doesn't know squat. But that is not against the law. I'd just like more facts.

This i a copy of what i responded to another's post regarding the AHA
 

[QUOTE=Guest]You will post and spin anything that you see as anti-republican.

RE: pre-existing conditions
A valid reply would take a book but very abridged. First of all I HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION and have had it since the age of 13. When, we were PAYING for private healthcare insurance, OBAMACARE HAD BEEN PASSED, we were not allowed to purchase the far less costly catastrophic insurance-THEY SIMPLY REFUSED TO SELL IT TO US. [QUOTE=Guest]

AHA did not have "catastrophic" insurance. AHA disallowed the health care companies to put a cap on coverage, so, there was no further need for catastrophic coverage.


[QUOTE=Guest]We find it reasonable and acceptable that people who have had auto insurance claims or home insurance claims, or have a high risk profession etc PAY MORE FOR INSURANCE, why do YOU not see this as reasonable for healthcare insurance.[QUOTE=Guest]

If you have not noticed, health insurance is SIGNIFICANTLY more complex and costly than either home or auto insurance. The "high risk" premiums are significantly lower than the possible "high risk" pool premiums, and the $8Billion over 10 years spread out to all 50 states, is a laughably low amount to help those in need.


[QUOTE=Guest]We refuse to see the FACT that people must be forced to be responsible.[QUOTE=Guest]

Tell that to the parents of a child born with defects, or cancer.

[QUOTE=Guest]As to medical-care, we refuse to deny care to anyone. BEFORE YOU START SCREAMING- A young healthy person decides they would rather spend their money on a car, a vacation, a house or.......... so they DECIDE not to BUY insurance. They are crossing the street and are hit by a car. To make it simple assume the car driver is innocent. ARE WE PREPARED ONCE WE DISCOVER THEY DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE TO TAKE THEM TO THE DUMP DEAD OR ALIVE? They get care and others pay for that THEFT OF SERVICE.[QUOTE=Guest]

A very simplistic example, and a microcosm of the need.


[QUOTE=Guest]RE: CONGRESS KEEPING THEIR MEDICAL COVERAGE
PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST, LOGIC.
People have medial coverage due to military service (VA), people have medical coverage due to their job-teachers, government, union etc.[QUOTE=Guest]

The congress enacted the AHA with the stipulation that all members of congress and their staffs were REQUIRED to participate in AHA. The current bill that the House passed kept that same coverage only for the members of congress and their staffs. If the "new" healthcare law is good for the population of Americans in their congressional districts, it should be good enough for the members of congress and their staffs. The AHA did not effect the current group health programs for corporations with 50 or more employees, just revised the rules so that ALL recipients of health care could NOT be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, could not have a cap on their coverage, could not be cancelled after a claim, and could keep their children on their policy until that child was 26 years old and still living at home, or have become emancipated.

[QUOTE=Guest]THERE IS NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT MEDICAL CARE.
Typical of American thought we thing everyone should get equal care WHETHER THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT OR NOT.
Medical care is one of the few things that you cannot shop for. However crude it is, your doctor is SELLING YOU a service. Here in the Villages, the snow flakes are going home. It is not a coincidence that you are NOW getting e-mails etc from your doctor-HAVE NOT SEEN YOU IN A WHILE [QUOTE=Guest]

A good reason for getting second opinions.....

[QUOTE=Guest]Eighty percent of all medical care is paid for by either insurance or the government. WE thus have to allow the people who pay to tell you AND YOUR DOCTOR what care you can get. I spent 4 days in the villages hospital when I was covered by private health care insurance under AETNA. The bill was 50,000 AETNA paid the bill in full for 30,000. IF WE DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE FOR WHICH WE PAID 12,000 THEY WOULD HAVE DEMANDED AN ADDITIONAL 20,000 FOR EXACTLY THE SAME SERVICE.[QUOTE=Guest]

You can anticipate your health care costs to increase dramatically if the House bill is enacted. Increased premiums then, if unaffordable to many, will DECREASE their availability of proper care.


Other than the doctor's fees for examination, and surgery, the multiple costs are not usually known by that particular doctor. Hospital costs, drug costs, equipment costs, and the many other fees and costs are known only by the accounting departments of those hospitals and the insurance companies who have negotiated those costs and fees with those providers. Since the average health costs per person in the USA are TWICE that in most other countries, (Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison) just where is the extra money going? The answer is to the insurance companies.

If you can imagine paying $6000 per year for a single-payor system (Medicare is a perfect example) rather than $12000 per year per person, for the SAME care, wouldn't you consider it? If you don't like that system, or there are deductibles and co-pays that you must pay out of pocket (much like Medicare, again) there would be "private" health insurance available for that as well as for those who would want their own "high-end" medical protection.

One should not "label" things with outmoded terms like "socialism" because that only stirs up emotions that we, as a free country have demonized. We should look at the practicality and economics of a health care system that allows ALL the American citizens health care, not just the people who can afford it.

Even employer provided Health Care is in jeopardy
 

GOP health bill could boost costs for those in employer-provided plans
Bill could mean changes for employer plans, too

GOP health bill could boost costs for those in employer-provided plans - StarTribune.com

Key word = "could"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Coming from Trumpcare, it is a good probability if passed

I really like the term Trumpcare. It will resonate with his voters as they try to figure out what hit them.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Dirt.....

I have explained that the 17 billon was NOT my math but from another source which I have NOT been able to find again so I provided another....

I believe that RED states would be likely to opt out as it was the Freedom party who wanted that little nugget in the bill. In a point of fact 4 of those represent Florida according to PEW research.

I tend to vote on issues one of those is freedom of choice. That all women should have the right to choose what is best for them...it is NOT my business to meddle in that! That alone means I rarely vote for a Republican. But it has happened.

I do NOT believe in Trickle down economics, just look at Kansas. So if any candidate is selling that I am NOT buying.

If you are a chicken hawk, anyone who dodged the draft, should NOT be allowed to send troops into war!

I vote on Freedom of Religion which to me includes Freedom from YOUR Religion! So this new executive order to protect religious liberty was already struct down when Pence tried it in Indiana. In the public sector you can't open a business and refuse to server a segment of the public.

I also vote locally on public school funding with a yes as I was educated that way so I should give back.

And in case you were wondering did I vote yes for the legalization of weed in Colorado that would be a NO!

I wouldn't make a sexist statement about a man or a women. I have seen too much workplace sexual harassment swept under the rug for that!

Hopefully I have answered your questions....it your turn now "What do you vote on?"

Enlighten me, and while you are at enlighten Trump. If the AHCA is going in the opposite direction of Australian health care, which he says is better than ours, how the AHCA be any damn good?

If Trump is all knowing, then he isn't looking for what is best for the majority of Americans. Then what is he looking for? How about a tax cut for the rich?

That can't be right. Republicans never look to cut taxes for the rich except every time that put a tax plan forward.

What do you have against the "rich?" It is discrimination to treat one group different from another.

Well Joe maybe you should work on becoming rich...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

The left...the liberals discriminate against EVERYTHING but the female gender and dark skin color.