Senate changes likely for Republican health care bill
22 replies, posted
[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-republican-health-care-bill/story?id=47184608"]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-republican-health-care-bill/story?id=47184608[/URL]
[QUOTE]While Senate Republicans say they are pleased with the progress the House of Representatives is making on its Obamacare replacement bill, there are still several major road blocks ahead once the legislation makes it to the other side of the Capitol.
First, several Senate Republicans who opposed the first version of the House bill remain skeptical. Second, the Senate would likely have to change the bill significantly, perhaps in ways that might displease House Republicans when the two sides seek to reconcile the different versions.
When House leadership released its original health care proposal in March, at least eight Senate Republicans said they had fundamental problems with the bill. The conservative bloc of Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Tex., all tweeted that they would oppose anything short of a "full repeal" of Obamacare. All three also said the House bill’s tax credit structure to help people pay for coverage amounted to a new entitlement.
Four other senators from states that expanded Medicaid were concerned about the lack of protections for expansion beneficiaries: Cory Gardner, R-Colo., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who opposed previous Republican efforts to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, had also expressed opposition to the previous version of the House bill. Still others, like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said it did not do enough to address rising premiums and deductibles and told the House to go back to the drawing board.
"The House should continue its work on this bill," he said in a March statement. "It's more important to finally get health-care reform right than to get it fast."
Republicans’ new health care bill differs from the first one they proposed [B]because it removes a guarantee to cover people with pre-existing conditions.[/B] Under the new plan, states would have the option to request waivers from that requirement -- as long as they have another coverage option, like high risk pools, which some experts have warned will raise costs for that cohort.
None of the holdout senators have to vote on the exact wording in the House version because the Senate will most likely change the bill before its own vote. The question is whether drastic changes would be necessary to get the skeptics on board.
For the Senate to pass a version of the Obamacare replacement bill, the two chambers would likely have to reconcile differences in what’s known as a conference committee. It’s not clear whether House Republicans who voted for their version of the bill would sign on to changes requested by senators and vice versa -- a perennial concern for any legislation that goes through conference committee.[/QUOTE]
Would anyone like to defend the bold? Anyone at all? Any person? Please? I'd love to see the argument.
god forbid you put anything in that house democrats could get behind, it would certainly hurt the dems to have a bill that could peel off some of them to support it
[quote]because it removes a guarantee to cover people with pre-existing conditions.[/quote]
Just watched the press conference not too long ago, Spicer [I]literally[/I] insisted that people with pre-existing conditions would be covered regardless of the waiver. Though as is typical of Spicer, when confronted about the implications of a state-by-state waiver system, he danced around the question saying it was a matter of "keeping the costs down".
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52183067]Just watched the press conference not too long ago, Spicer [I]literally[/I] insisted that people with pre-existing conditions would be covered regardless of the waiver. Though as is typical of Spicer, when confronted about the implications of a state-by-state waiver system, he danced around the question saying it was a matter of "keeping the costs down".[/QUOTE]
At this point I'm way beyond sceptical of anything the White House officially says.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52183135]At this point I'm way beyond sceptical of anything the White House officially says.[/QUOTE]
Hey, Spicer is just laying down some alternative facts.
Doesn't it also still fuck up medicaid expansion for the millions on it now?
Personaly, I don't know how you can still call it insurance when you have preexisting conditions covered. It's like buying a warranty after your device broke.
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185764]Personaly, I don't know how you can still call it insurance when you have preexisting conditions covered. It's like buying a warranty after your device broke.[/QUOTE]
Except this is about people and their ability to live, not if you dropped your iphone on the ground
This was pretty consistent across the campaign. Remember when Ted was giving ol' Donny a hard time because Donald Trump wanted to keep preexisting conditions?
There's standing like an oak, bending like a reed, but this is just flopping like a noodle.
What a deal maker.
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185764]Personaly, I don't know how you can still call it insurance when you have preexisting conditions covered. It's like buying a warranty after your device broke.[/QUOTE]
Most people seeking insurance who have preexisting conditions are people who were born with, or developed issues as children or under an existing insurance plan. For example, kids who develop chronic medical conditions such as diabetes or severe asthma as children eventually have to transition away from their parents' health insurance.
But without protection, that child, now an adult, could be denied coverage for expensive medicine or durable health supplies, and would basically be doomed to a life of expensive and inadequate treatment. People like this typically fall into poverty and become reliant on Medicaid, public assistance and emergency services, which ultimately costs the taxpayers more than it would have cost to keep them healthy.
It's ignorant to try to paint the victims as trying to game the system after getting sick.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52185770]Except this is about people and their ability to live, not if you dropped your iphone on the ground[/QUOTE]
maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185881]maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?[/QUOTE]
Whilst yes, it isn't really insurance, it's a not particularly useful point unless you're arguing that insurance should be replaced with a public system seen as it's not really well fitting to something like healthcare. It seems inhumane to me to say "hey, you got the bad luck to have x condition, sorry, not only might you be dying but you're also going bankrupt".
it would be nice if they changed it into kindling
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185881]maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?[/QUOTE]
Yeah but your healthcare system is so fucked that people can be financially ruined for having medical conditions, the word insurance doesn't work but neither does your system. You can't blame people for getting sick.
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185881]maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?[/QUOTE]
The concept of insurance goes a little farther than "just in case you need it"
Insurance is inherently a wealth redistribution system. The money you pay to your insurance provider isn't all going to go to you, if it did then you may as well be using a savings account, which insurance isn't. An insurance provider needs many people paying into it and [I]not[/I] using it, so they can offset the cost of medical procedures for those who [I]do[/I] use it.
However in America, we've got a fucked system where insurance providers are acting for profit, which means they want to be paying out the least they can for medical procedures. Hence why they want to keep people with pre-existing conditions from being eligible for insurance.
[QUOTE=The Vman;52198024]The concept of insurance goes a little farther than "just in case you need it"
Insurance is inherently a wealth redistribution system. The money you pay to your insurance provider isn't all going to go to you, if it did then you may as well be using a savings account, which insurance isn't. An insurance provider needs many people paying into it and [I]not[/I] using it, so they can offset the cost of medical procedures for those who [I]do[/I] use it.
However in America, we've got a fucked system where insurance providers are acting for profit, which means they want to be paying out the least they can for medical procedures. Hence why they want to keep people with pre-existing conditions from being eligible for insurance.[/QUOTE]
If only we could install a non-profit requirement for insurance companies.
But no, the bankers/investors wouldn't like that.
Most insurance companies act for profit, but yes, since US relies on insurance for healthcare, it is a nasty combination because of the mentioned reasons.
But if you move it being financed by taxes, people get upset. I personally don't understand it, since by buying insurance you are paying for the other insured. But you are also possibly paying the profit margin of the provider, too.
Although I might be just horribly misinformed on matter, since I am not from US.
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185881]maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?[/QUOTE]
Call it whatever you like: health insurance is mandatory to operate within the US medical system. It's not an option, it's not a supplement, it's​ not a backup. Health insurance is [I]the core[/I] of the US medical system. If you do not have insurance, you no longer have the ability to seek medical care on reasonable terms. You can argue semantics and ideology until the cows come home, but that is the sad fact of the US healthcare system.
If you want to have anything even remotely resembling a functional medical system for the people of the country, [I]everybody[/I] must have equal and unrestricted access to it, based on need. Thus, a bill which guts health insurance in a medical system where health insurance is mandatory for access will result in a fundamentally broken system.
Now, if you're saying that insurance [I]shouldn't[/I] be mandatory, that I can agree with. In fact, health insurance shouldn't exist [I]full stop.[/I] Every single person in this country should be able to walk into a hospital at any moment and receive completely free medical care regardless of their financial ability and regardless of their insurance status.
[QUOTE=Glaber;52185881]maybe so, but the concept of insurance is that it's for just in case you need it. I know it's because of this concept that we have this preexisting condition problem, but can you really call it insurance if you have to cover what you have before you get the insurance?[/QUOTE]
So your argument is that insurance is a very bad way of providing healthcare and the healthcare insurance industry needs to be torn down and replaced?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52200678]
Now, if you're saying that insurance [I]shouldn't[/I] be mandatory, that I can agree with. In fact, health insurance shouldn't exist [I]full stop.[/I] Every single person in this country should be able to walk into a hospital at any moment and receive completely free medical care regardless of their financial ability and regardless of their insurance status.[/QUOTE]
Here's the core of the issue.
The only "health insurance" we have in Estonia are optional things that supplement your income if you become unable to work or get physical trauma, but hospitals themselves, get in dat shit bro.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52200721]Here's the core of the issue.
The only "health insurance" we have in Estonia are optional things that supplement your income if you become unable to work or get physical trauma, but hospitals themselves, get in dat shit bro.[/QUOTE]
That is an entirely seperate expense for us here. Life and disability insurance. It, too, can be somewhat expensive, depending on your medical history.
Insurance isn't even that bad when it comes alongside, say, the NHS. My mum's private insurance through work meant that as a kid I could have an operation on a different day to the one the NHS gave me, which was my birthday. It also is a way to access treatments too expensive for the NHS to justify. When it's an optional extra, it's not a problem, but when it's the only way you get treatment at all then the imbalance of power means that the market just doesn't work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.