http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...st-health-care-proposal/ar-BBAnqI1?li=BBnb4R7
Change is good as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.
Change is good as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.
That's pretty rich.http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...st-health-care-proposal/ar-BBAnqI1?li=BBnb4R7
Change is good as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.
Gee, and when I point out the whole "rules are for thee but not for me" is the standard practice of BOTH political parties, I'm accused of fudging reality.http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...st-health-care-proposal/ar-BBAnqI1?li=BBnb4R7
Change is good as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.
I figured it was so obvious the blue would be redundant.You meant for this to be in blue, right?
Letting states choose whether they want to (1) charge sick people more, and (2) eliminate the requirement that all plans offer a minimum base of coverage, will indeed lower premiums for healthy people. And that's probably how they'll try to pitch it. But it will do so by pricing sick people out of the insurance market altogether, and letting you buy plans that ultimately cover nothing. Since a majority of the population support the Obamacare provisions that all states must protect those with pre-existing conditions (70% support) and mandate minimum coverage requirements (62% support), it's unclear how this bill will be any more popular than their last attempt. The fact that Congress apparently knows it's worse and wants to protect themselves from the changes further torpedoes the chances of this making any headway.He should be expelled from the Republican party. I'm fine with states deciding about preexisting illnesses and sick people paying more just reminds me of car insurance but if you think it's so great then you get to live with it too!
The revised American Health Care Act (AHCA) threatens to do away with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) protections for people with preexisting health conditions. These protections prevent insurance companies from denying these individuals coverage or charging them higher rates based on their health.
Eliminating these protections could force millions of Americans to — once again — rely on state high-risk pools. State high-risk pools are supposed to provide access to health insurance for people who cannot get coverage in the individual health insurance market because of preexisting health conditions.
State high-risk pools may sound like a good idea but, in reality, they are fraught with problems. One of the biggest lessons learned from experience with state high-risk pools: They bring steep premiums that put coverage out of reach for millions. In the past, monthly premiums in state high-risk pools could be up to 200 percent higher than in the individual (nongroup) market. Consequently, only a small fraction of those with preexisting conditions could afford to buy a plan. Yet, these premiums — high as they were — only covered about half the amount needed to pay enrollee claims. Most states tried to close the financial gap through taxes on providers and government subsidies, but even those efforts proved insufficient. We project that if states return to pre-ACA high-risk pools in 2019, as proposed, high-risk pool premiums for people with preexisting conditions could be as high as $25,700 annually.[1]
Isn't your daughter in California (I think I recall that) if so, she won't be able to use the Tax Credits eitherMy attitude on this is colored by the fact that three of my four grandchildren are uninsurable from birth unless some preexisting condition provision is in the law. There are literally millions in their position...
On MSNBC’s All In, Donovan told a shocked Chris Hayes that under the new Republican plan, the much lower tax credits that would replace Obamacare’s subsidies would not be usable to anyone living in a state that requires insurers to cover abortion care:
my daughter is in the same position, and as of 5 years ago, so am i.My attitude on this is colored by the fact that three of my four grandchildren are uninsurable from birth unless some preexisting condition provision is in the law. There are literally millions in their position...
that's just freaking absurd. "pro-life" my arseIsn't your daughter in California (I think I recall that) if so, she won't be able to use the Tax Credits either
http://shareblue.com/gop-lawmaker-t...s-tax-credits-to-people-in-pro-choice-states/
pro life does not equal pro livingthat's just freaking absurd. "pro-life" my arse
That's almost comically outrageous. And Hayes immediately pinpointed why this will go nowhere: any Republican in a state that requires abortion care will either vote against this, or commit political suicide by voting to increase premiums for everyone in their state by thousands of dollars.On MSNBC’s All In, Donovan told a shocked Chris Hayes that under the new Republican plan, the much lower tax credits that would replace Obamacare’s subsidies would not be usable to anyone living in a state that requires insurers to cover abortion care
House Republicans said:Damn the CBO score, full speed ahead!