Kimmell calls out Sen. Cassidy

[Doc Brown]

Could? How?

 

If Pre Ex is still mandatory and funding is still at similar levels than it was before but is now being diverted to the states, how could this happen?

Here's the best explanation I could find because the bill is confusing. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-pre-existing-conditions/index.html

 

Just as in Obamacare, insurers could not turn away those with pre-existing conditions. But it would leave it up to the states whether to continue other protections.

States could opt to once again allow carriers to base premiums on a person's medical history and to sell skimpier policies that don't cover Obamacare's 10 essential health benefits. This would apply not only to the individual market, but to those who get coverage from small business employers.

Also, insurers would be able to cap the amount they would pay for treatment outside of what their states deem an essential health benefit.

States must describe how they intend to "maintain access to adequate and affordable health insurance" for those with pre-existing conditions. But most experts say this is a very weak standard and there's no mechanism for ensuring states carry this out. Plus, the health secretary "shall waive" these Obamacare provisions if a state applies to change them, meaning there won't be any review on the federal level.

So those with pre-existing conditions could find themselves unable to afford insurance or to only buy bare bones policies that don't cover the treatments they need.

A wide array of doctor and hospital groups, as well as patient advocacy organizations, have come out against the bill. One of their top concerns: It would hurt people with pre-existing conditions.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Doc Brown

[DC Tom]

One of their top concerns: It would hurt people with pre-existing conditions.

 

Yeah, and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." And "Republicans want to kill grandma."

 

Who the hell doesn't lie to win legislative points? The bill is the only thing that matters...or used to, before it came to pass that you could change laws at the podium during press conferences.

[Magox]

Here's the best explanation I could find because the bill is confusing. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-pre-existing-conditions/index.html

 

Just as in Obamacare, insurers could not turn away those with pre-existing conditions. But it would leave it up to the states whether to continue other protections.

States could opt to once again allow carriers to base premiums on a person's medical history and to sell skimpier policies that don't cover Obamacare's 10 essential health benefits. This would apply not only to the individual market, but to those who get coverage from small business employers.

Also, insurers would be able to cap the amount they would pay for treatment outside of what their states deem an essential health benefit.

States must describe how they intend to "maintain access to adequate and affordable health insurance" for those with pre-existing conditions. But most experts say this is a very weak standard and there's no mechanism for ensuring states carry this out. Plus, the health secretary "shall waive" these Obamacare provisions if a state applies to change them, meaning there won't be any review on the federal level.

So those with pre-existing conditions could find themselves unable to afford insurance or to only buy bare bones policies that don't cover the treatments they need.

A wide array of doctor and hospital groups, as well as patient advocacy organizations, have come out against the bill. One of their top concerns: It would hurt people with pre-existing conditions.

 

Here is what we know:

 

A) So the text of the law says they have to cover people with Pre Ex.

 

B) Funding for Pre Ex would go to the state to ensure that happens.

 

 

The concern is that it hasn't been defined how this would occur.

 

Which is natural because each state would create their own system so if there is no definition in how that would look like, opponents can paint whatever picture they would like.

 

The only funding differences is the calculation from the Federal government on how much money to provide for Medicaid. The funding provided under this bill for Medicaid would be more than pre ACA baseline but less than the Medicaid expansion of ACA. So those states that opted into the ACA Medicaid expansion would receive less overall funding but those that had opted out for the most part would receive more funding. The distribution is more evenly distributed than it was with the ACA.

 

Doesn't matter, I seriously doubt this will pass and if it were to pass I'm guessing they'd dole out more money to assuage the concerns of some of these Senators.

[DC Tom]

 

Here is what we know:

 

A) So the text of the law says they have to cover people with Pre Ex.

 

B) Funding for Pre Ex would go to the state to ensure that happens.

 

 

The concern is that it hasn't been defined how this would occur.

 

Which is natural because each state would create their own system so if there is no definition in how that would look like, opponents can paint whatever picture they would like.

 

Sounds like Medicaid.

 

If Democrats are so against it...good, let's kill Medicaid too, for the same reason.

[IDBillzFan]

 

The concern is that it hasn't been defined how this would occur.

 

And consequently, it's being defined for them by people who simply don't know any better.

 

But hey...it's Jimmy Kimmel! Who doesn't love Jimmy Kimmel? He's awesome! He MUST know better than the Senators!

[DC Tom]

 

And consequently, it's being defined for them by people who simply don't know any better.

 

But hey...it's Jimmy Kimmel! Who doesn't love Jimmy Kimmel? He's awesome! He MUST know better than the Senators!

 

Although to be honest, I wouldn't trust politicians to be any more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

This whole thing, I feel like I'm watching baskin and gatorman argue astrophysics based on their old Incredible Hulk comics.

[IDBillzFan]

This whole thing, I feel like I'm watching baskin and gatorman argue astrophysics based on their old Incredible Hulk comics.

 

You know they're the same person, right?

[boyst]

Sen. Chuck Grassley says about the new bill:

 

You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldnt be considered. But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. Thats pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.

 

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/09/20/chuck-grassley-regardless-substance-republicans-must-support-health-bill/685674001/

you're as bad as 26cornerb¡tch with the links. Linking a story like this is Ludacris

 

You know they're the same person, right?

hulk is Baskin?

[IDBillzFan]

you're as bad as 26cornerb¡tch with the links. Linking a story like this is Ludacris

hulk is Baskin?

 

gator/tiberius/baskin...one and the same.

[boyst]

 

gator/tiberius/baskin...one and the same.

so wait who is the hulk??

[Doc Brown]

 

Here is what we know:

 

A) So the text of the law says they have to cover people with Pre Ex.

 

B) Funding for Pre Ex would go to the state to ensure that happens.

 

 

The concern is that it hasn't been defined how this would occur.

 

Which is natural because each state would create their own system so if there is no definition in how that would look like, opponents can paint whatever picture they would like.

 

The only funding differences is the calculation from the Federal government on how much money to provide for Medicaid. The funding provided under this bill for Medicaid would be more than pre ACA baseline but less than the Medicaid expansion of ACA. So those states that opted into the ACA Medicaid expansion would receive less overall funding but those that had opted out for the most part would receive more funding. The distribution is more evenly distributed than it was with the ACA.

 

Doesn't matter, I seriously doubt this will pass and if it were to pass I'm guessing they'd dole out more money to assuage the concerns of some of these Senators.

That requires faith in your governor and state legislators that they won't take advantage of the loophole in the bill that with the necessary steps would allow insurance companies to basically price out those with preexisting conditions. I'd say no governor would be that heartless, but you never know with politicians. If they pass this bill the governor races in each state will be even more important.

[Magox]

That requires faith in your governor and state legislators that they won't take advantage of the loophole in the bill that with the necessary steps would allow insurance companies to basically price out those with preexisting conditions. I'd say no governor would be that heartless, but you never know with politicians. If they pass this bill the governor races in each state will be even more important.

 

Governors don't turn away money. That money will be used and they will try to get as much for it as they can for it.

[Koko78]

so wait who is the hulk??

 

Dougie?

[row_33]

Someone has read the entire bill and spends time on this board?

[Doc Brown]

 

Governors don't turn away money. That money will be used and they will try to get as much for it as they can for it.

I hope you're right and we should be fine here in New York. The fact still remains though that the ACA guarantees insurance companies can't discriminate against those with pre existing conditions while the GOP plan does not because insurance companies can simply price them out if they have a governor who exploits that loophole in the bill.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Doc Brown

[K-9]

Hypocrite Lindsay Graham, who just a few short months ago swore he couldn't vote yes on any bill that gives favors to certain states in order to gain those senators votes, is doing just that in order to get Alaska behind his own bill.

 

A few sentences embedded in the 140-page Cassidy-Graham legislation would allow Alaska to avoid a reduction in government funding. A potential Republican holdout on the legislation, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, has been negotiating privately this week with Senate GOP leaders.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cassidy-graham-bill-alaska-provision-20170921-story.html

[Magox]

I hope you're right and we should be fine here in New York. The fact still remains though that the ACA guarantees insurance companies can't discriminate against those with pre existing conditions while the GOP plan does not because insurance companies can simply price them out if they have a governor who exploits that loophole in the bill.

 

I don't think it's gonna pass but with all this horsetrading they may be able to cobble together 50 votes.

 

But it's going to take some time to implement it since we are talking about at least 50 potentially separate healthcare systems. I imagine the construct of the ACA would remain in place for at least 2 years and possibly more.

 

At this stage, I'd rather they just do something on a bipartisan basis.

[Tiberius]

 

I don't think it's gonna pass but with all this horsetrading they may be able to cobble together 50 votes.

 

But it's going to take some time to implement it since we are talking about at least 50 potentially separate healthcare systems. I imagine the construct of the ACA would remain in place for at least 2 years and possibly more.

 

At this stage, I'd rather they just do something on a bipartisan basis.

The big, deep pocket Republican donors want their tax cut so the politicians they have invested in are fighting in their interests. That is the roadblock to a bipartisan deal

[Magox]

The big, deep pocket Republican donors want their tax cut so the politicians they have invested in are fighting in their interests. That is the roadblock to a bipartisan deal

 

I know this is what is getting regurgitated from mainstream outlets and without doubt there is some pressure from donors. But let's be real here, the base of the GOP wants it gone and that is where the real pressure is coming from.

[Tiberius]

 

I know this is what is getting regurgitated from mainstream outlets and without doubt there is some pressure from donors. But let's be real here, the base of the GOP wants it gone and that is where the real pressure is coming from.

You really think Trump voters are calling their representatives screaming they want health care cut? This isn't 2010. The base wants immigrants tossed out of the country, not their health care cut.

 

Follow the money. These politicians are facing primary challanges from big money people, not the base.