Support NeoGAF

samn · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I hesitate to even post, because this forum reacts negatively to anything that isn't 100% anti trump, but at the same time I still feel like this point should be made.

Trump doesn't want people to die in the street

Republicans do not want people to die in the street.

In fact if you take a look at the Mitch McConnell health draft which will most likely replace Obamacare, a major section of it is devoted to covering with pre-existing conditions.

Will everything work out perfectly? No, life's never that clear cut. but the answer is less black and white than a lot of you are making it.

That 'major section' doesn't mean shit in the real world. It won't be affordable.

Trump/Republicans do not care about people dying in the street. They are primarily interested in power and wealth. They would be happy to destroy the planet and the species to achieve those goals, and they are succeeding. If you do not understand this then you are too sheltered and naive to understand the Republican party.

mjp2417 · Jan 12, 2017

David H Wong said:
The panic reactions are making it legitimately hard for people to actually figure out what is happening. I've got people on twitter who think they lost their health care coverage tonight.

At worst this is a years-long phaseout, but lots of these provisions (like pre-existing conditions) ARE supported by Republicans and are very popular with voters. They just didn't support those amendments in tonight's largely symbolic vote.

They haven't even begun the process of figuring out what the new system will look like. But this knee-jerk "Guess evil won, oh well" bullshit is so fucking obnoxious. No wonder they mock us as weak. "Trump talked to the president of Taiwan, guess this means WWIII will happen next month. Oh well." "Trump yelled at a CNN reporter, guess this means no more freedom of the press and no we live in a totalitarian police state."

Jesus, people. Apathy is bad but non-stop sensationalist panic is even worse.

This is profoundly reassuring to people with pre-existing conditions!

David H Wong · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I hesitate to even post, because this forum reacts negatively to anything that isn't 100% anti trump, but at the same time I still feel like this point should be made.

Trump doesn't want people to die in the street

Republicans do not want people to die in the street.

In fact if you take a look at the Mitch McConnell health draft which will most likely replace Obamacare, a major section of it is devoted to covering with pre-existing conditions.

Will everything work out perfectly? No, life's never that clear cut. but the answer is less black and white than a lot of you are making it.

I mean, you don't even have to like Republicans, just acknowledge that causing lots of their own voters to die is probably not a path to electoral victory. The preexisting coverage provision is popular with voters. Being able to get surgery without bankrupting your family for three generations is popular with voters. Being forced to buy insurance was not, the huge gaps in coverage and lack of choice were definitely not.

Obamacare's fatal flaw was that it did nothing to control costs aside from trying to bring more people into the risk pool, which just wasn't enough. There are ways to force costs down and increase competition without just letting all of the sick people die. If the Republicans can't figure out a way to do it, they'll get kicked out of office again and somebody else will try.

But costs HAVE to come down - that's not evil hatred of the poor, that's just math. As long as providers are charging this much, you can't raise taxes high enough to fund coverage for everybody.

Jas · Jan 12, 2017

Why are democrats voting against drug re-importation from Canada to help with drug cost?

There were 13 democrats that voted against it...

Bennet
Booker
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Menendez
Murray
Tester
Warner

12 Republicans voted for it..

Boozman
Collins
Cruz
Flake
Grassley
Heller
Kennedy
Lee
McCain
Murkowski
Paul
Thun

dakini · Jan 12, 2017

I know the amendment about pre-existing conditions was largely symbolic, but as someone who has a chronic illness that requires thousands of dollars in treatment every year, I'm worried.

kess · Jan 12, 2017

mid83 said:
Way too much of this recently. During the Sessions hearing on Tuesday morning I saw people here say we are going back to the 1920s and somebody suggested Sessions was going to reverse Brown v. Board of Education. No need for this level of panic.

Measured, moderate responses are why America has just about the most expensive health care coverage in the first world. It masks the fact that maternal mortality rates in Texas are worse than many third world nations.

Alphahawk · Jan 12, 2017

exmachina64 said:
High-risk health pools do not effectively cover people with pre-existing conditions. We've been there before, that was the system before the ACA. We don't have to wait with baited breath to see if the outcome is different this time.

Trump and Republicans can say they don't want people to die in the streets, but that is what will happen after they repeal the ACA. We already know they didn't have a viable alternative crafted during the Obama administration.

What people don't realize about health care in America is that the costs have been greatly increasing for years. We have evidence that the cost curve was bent after the ACA took effect, i.e. costs increased at a lower rate than they were increasing before.

People looked at the increasing costs they had to shoulder and complained because they wanted to go back to when their costs were lower. Everything we know about the plans Republicans and Trump have for replacing the ACA will not lower costs to what they were before the ACA and will not slow the increase of costs.

Your health plan will cover less, cost more, and the cost will increase at an increasing rate.

If you have a job that covers your health needs effectively and pays you well, you'll be happy. If you can afford whatever increased costs you face, you'll be happy. Many Americans are rightly dismayed because they will not be able to afford coverage under whatever system replaces the ACA.

They'll vote for him again.

The plan, as I understand it, and I can't actually find it via google now, is that the proposition is that essentially if you have insurance coverage and you change it the new insurers can't ask you about pre-existing conditions and the price has to remain the same. If you do not have continuous coverage you can enter a high risk pool, and assumibly at a later time, can get regular health insurance.

"Continuous coverage" is somewhat of a problem, but I feel it's manageable. Again I don't want to go to bat for the republicans as I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I feel the hyperbole on Gaf is just down right dangerous and misinformative.

samn said:
That 'major section' doesn't mean shit in the real world. It won't be affordable.

Trump/Republicans do not care about people dying in the street. They are primarily interested in power and wealth. They would be happy to destroy the planet and the species to achieve those goals, and they are succeeding. If you do not understand this then you are too sheltered and naive to understand the Republican party.

No, they do not want to "Destroy the planet and the species" to benefit their own greed. I'm sorry but painting Republicans as supervillains is just downright dangerous. We laughed at the formation of the Tea Party and wondered how people could believe their one sided beliefs, but the anti-Republicanism since Trump one is going scarily close to those lines. They're people who believe in different ways to achieve the same goals. Let's treat them as people, even if they're people you disagree with, and not group them as some otherworldly monster.

Monocle · Jan 12, 2017

What's the actual rationale for this sinister bullshit? Like how the fuck do you even sell this as a good thing when people get literally nothing in exchange?

exmachina64 · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
The plan, as I understand it, and I can't actually find it via google now, is that the proposition is that essentially if you have insurance coverage and you change it the new insurers can't ask you about pre-existing conditions and the price has to remain the same. If you do not have continuous coverage you can enter a high risk pool, and assumibly at a later time, can get regular health insurance.

That will never work.

"Continuous coverage" is somewhat of a problem, but I feel it's manageable. Again I don't want to go to bat for the republicans as I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I feel the hyperbole on Gaf is just down right dangerous and misinformative.

Sure, hyperbole's bad.

Monocle said:
What's the actual rationale for this sinister bullshit? Like how the fuck do you even sell this as a good thing when people get literally nothing in exchange?

Ideological beliefs that health care isn't a right and that government intervention in the health care industry is a violation of personal freedom. More cynical Republicans just want lower taxes.

BasicMath · Jan 12, 2017

Zackat said:
Obamacare isn't perfect, but losing this pre-existing coverage is bad.

Depends on who you ask. I bet those that are getting taxed dry and getting virtually nothing in return don't feel that way.

Personally, I think the only way to make it better is to get rid of it and start anew. Dems will never get rid of it and will never make it better. And Reps, it seems, will never want to start a new. So it takes both parties. If getting something better means losing the crap we have for 4-8 years, then I'm all for it.

Matty77 · Jan 12, 2017

dakini said:
I know the amendment about pre-existing conditions was largely symbolic, but as someone who has a chronic illness that requires thousands of dollars in treatment every year, I'm worried.

I get it and that's why I am worried. I am not trying to be sensationalist or panic but before the ACA I was literaly in the hospital once a month and only that because the hospital is catholic and will treat you regardless. If I lose what I had and it's not replaced/even not replaced right away I could end up right back in that situation/dead quickly.

There is a difference between political posturing and liberal outrage and literaly knowing a gap in your coverage could kill you.

kess · Jan 12, 2017

Some people are going to lose money, and some people are going to lose their life. Clearly compromises have to be made.

mjp2417 · Jan 12, 2017

Monocle said:
What's the actual rationale for this sinister bullshit? Like how the fuck do you even sell this as a good thing when people get literally nothing in exchange?

"War on whites."

Easy as sin.

Subpar Scrub · Jan 12, 2017

aGuyInaBearSuit said:
Fuck the future.

I see the "fuck *year*" meme is becoming more advanced.

theWB27 · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
The plan, as I understand it, and I can't actually find it via google now, is that the proposition is that essentially if you have insurance coverage and you change it the new insurers can't ask you about pre-existing conditions and the price has to remain the same. If you do not have continuous coverage you can enter a high risk pool, and assumibly at a later time, can get regular health insurance.

"Continuous coverage" is somewhat of a problem, but I feel it's manageable. Again I don't want to go to bat for the republicans as I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I feel the hyperbole on Gaf is just down right dangerous and misinformative.

No, they do not want to "Destroy the planet and the species" to benefit their own greed. I'm sorry but painting Republicans as supervillains is just downright dangerous. We laughed at the formation of the Tea Party and wondered how people could believe their one sided beliefs, but the anti-Republicanism since Trump one is going scarily close to those lines. They're people who believe in different ways to achieve the same goals. Let's treat them as people, even if they're people you disagree with, and not group them as some otherworldly monster.

I don't know how you can really harp on people's fears when all you hear from the people in charge is how they're gonna take something away but when asked with what it's just....well we' ll get something better.

Health conditions won't stop while the peeps in charge come up with...something.

dakini · Jan 12, 2017

Matty77 said:
I get it and that's why I am worried. I am not trying to be sensationalist or panic but before the ACA I was literaly in the hospital once a month and only that because the hospital is catholic and will treat you regardless. If I lose what I had and it's not replaced/even not replaced right away I could end up right back in that situation/dead quickly.

There is a difference between political posturing and liberal outrage and literaly knowing a gap in your coverage could kill you.

I know exactly how you feel. I've had at least one extended hospital stay every year for the past three years, including a surgery, and I require infusions every 8 weeks that cost roughly 30k EACH which are currently being paid for by my insurance and a financial assistance program through the pharmaceutical company. But if I lose my insurance, I also lose the coverage through the assistance program.

Meguro · Jan 12, 2017

I mean, denying climate change because they are beholden to the coal industry lobby is kind of the definition of destroying the planet because of greed and profit so I dunno.

Fulminator · Jan 12, 2017

Rayne009 said:
And depression exists as a pre-existing condition. Rip therapy I hardly knew ye. Thanks Trump voters.

The only good point is the schadenfreude I'll get when those fools start crying about losing their healthcare. It'll be drowned out by people who knew better suffering too though. *sigh*

So what exactly does this mean? Therapy wont be covered by insurance anymore?

Massive Duck. C.M. · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
They're people who believe in different ways to achieve the same goals.

What are you basing this on?

exmachina64 · Jan 12, 2017

David H Wong said:
I mean, you don't even have to like Republicans, just acknowledge that causing lots of their own voters to die is probably not a path to electoral victory. The preexisting coverage provision is popular with voters. Being able to get surgery without bankrupting your family for three generations is popular with voters. Being forced to buy insurance was not, the huge gaps in coverage and lack of choice were definitely not.

Obamacare's fatal flaw was that it did nothing to control costs aside from trying to bring more people into the risk pool, which just wasn't enough. There are ways to force costs down and increase competition without just letting all of the sick people die. If the Republicans can't figure out a way to do it, they'll get kicked out of office again and somebody else will try.

But costs HAVE to come down - that's not evil hatred of the poor, that's just math. As long as providers are charging this much, you can't raise taxes high enough to fund coverage for everybody.

Costs will not come down.

Also, it's disingenuous to say that Obamacare did nothing to control costs. There were taxes on medical devices and "Cadillac" health insurance plans, as well as attempting to discourage the amount of tests performed and shifting coverage to be based on health outcomes.

Balphon · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
No, they do not want to "Destroy the planet and the species" to benefit their own greed. I'm sorry but painting Republicans as supervillains is just downright dangerous. We laughed at the formation of the Tea Party and wondered how people could believe their one sided beliefs, but the anti-Republicanism since Trump one is going scarily close to those lines. They're people who believe in different ways to achieve the same goals. Let's treat them as people, even if they're people you disagree with, and not group them as some otherworldly monster.

The hyperbole is what it is, but you can't just gloss over the obvious bad faith at work here. We're talking about the same Congressional Republicans who waged a multi-year campaign against the ACA simply because it was Democrat-built and Obama-branded. The idea that they opposed it on principle is a little absurd since it's built around the kind of market-based solutions the Republican Party itself came up with in the 90's in an attempt to stave off drives toward single-payer.

NimbusD · Jan 12, 2017

Confused about it being an amendment? Even Trump wanted to keep this, but its not just a bill itself that can be vetoed right?

Not that Id ever put trust in that fuck.

xfactor99 · Jan 12, 2017

MAB128 said:
Depends on who you ask. I bet those that are getting taxed dry and getting virtually nothing in return don't feel that way.

Personally, I think the only way to make it better is to get rid of it and start anew. Dems will never get rid of it and will never make it better. And Reps, it seems, will never want to start a new. So it takes both parties. If getting something better means losing the crap we have for 4-8 years, then I'm all for it.

If you look at the history of healthcare reform in America, Democrats from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton have tried to push universal healthcare for 80 years and failed everytime. The only reason Obamacare passed was because it was a compromised, watered-down market-based solution and he cut a deal with drug companies and hospitals to have them not oppose the bill.

Many of the problems that Obamacare faces are simply because there was opposition to a lot of good ideas that never made it into the bill. The public option would have absolutely reduced costs, but private health insurance companies fought tooth and nail to strip it from the ACA in 2009. The individual mandate was weakened because policy-makers were afraid of backlash if the tax penalty was too severe; that's a big part of the reason why premiums are so high now because too many people are choosing to forgo having health insurance.

Meanwhile, Republicans other than Nixon have NEVER put forth a good-faith plan for universal healthcare because it is essentially redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor and that is anathema to Republican ideology. I'm not someone who reflexively demonizes Republicans or finds them utterly immoral, but from what I've seen, in terms of healthcare the Democratic Party is far more committed to improving the American healthcare system, while Republicans would not.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the state of healthcare pre-2008, but it was..not good. Poor people slowly dying or being rejected from health insurance due to pre-existing conditions is something that most Americans find inherently immoral, and Obamacare for all of its faults has put forth various measures to bend the long-term cost curve of healthcare, such as compensating doctors for quality of treatment instead of number of treatments.

To repeal Obamacare and revert the American healthcare system back to where it was beforehand is a luxury that only the rich and well off can afford. For the rest of us, it would be disastrous.

Ryzaki009 · Jan 12, 2017

Fulminator said:
So what exactly does this mean? Therapy wont be covered by insurance anymore?

Depending on what your conditions are? Yeppers.

mjp2417 · Jan 12, 2017

Massive Duck said:
What are you basing this on?

I'm curious about this as well

mid83 · Jan 12, 2017

NimbusD said:
Confused about it being an amendment? Even Trump wanted to keep this, but its not just a bill itself that can be vetoed right?

Not that Id ever put trust in that fuck.

This specific vote was pretty much meaningless, just a way for the Dems to get on the record the Republicans being "against" certain Obamacare provisions.

Nothing has changed at this point other than the Republicans will be able to essentially defund the law with a repeal vote, which hasn't happened yet, with a simple majority.

GuyKazama · Jan 12, 2017

That thread title doesn't help anyone. Some people here rely on Obamacare and there is no need to scare the shit out of them to make political points. This vote is necessary to move forward on the process... a process that is in the early stages. The white house has said HHS secretary Price will submit a plan after his confirmation. At that point, it can be picked apart and people will have something to debate.

exmachina64 · Jan 12, 2017

Fulminator said:
So what exactly does this mean? Therapy wont be covered by insurance anymore?

Lots of plans didn't cover it before.

Fulminator · Jan 12, 2017

Rayne009 said:
Depending on what your conditions are? Yeppers.

Well... Shit

I'm fucked I guess

SenjutsuSage · Jan 12, 2017

Affordable Cardiac Arrest for everyone. The new ACA.

Fulminator · Jan 12, 2017

exmachina64 said:
Lots of plans didn't cover it before.

My current plan covers it, which is why I'm worried

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Jan 12, 2017

Monocle said:
What's the actual rationale for this sinister bullshit? Like how the fuck do you even sell this as a good thing when people get literally nothing in exchange?

You can't effectively ban discrimination on pre-existing conditions unless there's an insurance mandate and or large subsides. Bottom 90% people hate the first and the rich hate the second (since it comes from increased taxes on them).

Bonen no Max'd · Jan 12, 2017

Let Collins vote remind you that no matter how "moderate" a Republican is, they're still awful and no matter how shitty a Democrat seems, they're almost certainly better.

ErasureAcer · Jan 12, 2017

Massive Duck said:
What are you basing this on?

Dude needs to listen to Bent a few more times. Which is what we'll all be when we have no health insurance. No compassion. I don't think he's really a Matchbox 20 fan.

thepotatoman · Jan 12, 2017

Jas said:
Why are democrats voting against drug re-importation from Canada to help with drug cost?

There were 13 democrats that voted against it...

Bennet
Booker
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Menendez
Murray
Tester
Warner

12 Republicans voted for it..

Boozman
Collins
Cruz
Flake
Grassley
Heller
Kennedy
Lee
McCain
Murkowski
Paul
Thun

I don't know, but that's a pretty darn good list of democrat senators that are very friendly to big business, and republican senators that are willing to vote their conscience, even if their conscience is terrible. Also a good reason why Booker might share the same problems Hillary does if he ran for president, unless he somehow hides his wall street leaning better.

Unknown Soldier · Jan 12, 2017

Jas said:
Why are democrats voting against drug re-importation from Canada to help with drug cost?

There were 13 democrats that voted against it...

Bennet
Booker
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Menendez
Murray
Tester
Warner

12 Republicans voted for it..

Boozman
Collins
Cruz
Flake
Grassley
Heller
Kennedy
Lee
McCain
Murkowski
Paul
Thun

Pharmaceutical companies are some of the biggest donors to both Democrats and Republicans. No one should ever be surprised when politicians from both parties vote in favor of Big Pharma.

Alphahawk · Jan 12, 2017

xfactor99 said:
If you look at the history of healthcare reform in America, Democrats from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton have tried to push universal healthcare for 80 years and failed everytime. The only reason Obamacare passed was because it was a market-based solution and he cut a deal with drug companies and hospitals to have them not oppose the bill.

Meanwhile, Republicans other than Nixon have NEVER put forth a good-faith plan for universal healthcare because it is essentially redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor and that is anathema to Republican ideology.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the state of healthcare pre-2008, but it was..not good. Poor people slowly dying or being rejected from health insurance due to pre-existing conditions is something that most Americans find inherently immoral, and Obamacare for all of its faults has put forth various measures to bend the long-term cost curve of healthcare, such as compensating doctors for quality of treatment instead of number of treatments.

To repeal Obamacare and revert the American healthcare system back to where it was beforehand is a luxury that only the rich and well off can afford. For the rest of us, it would be disastrous.

I'm totally aware of how it used to be, I was a victim of that, but no one is talking about reverting back to how it was 2008, nobody wants that. Pre-existing condition coverage is here to stay. It's one thing in the AMA that both Republicans and democrats can agree on.

Massive Duck. C.M. · Jan 12, 2017

GuyKazama said:
That thread title doesn't help anyone. Some people here rely on Obamacare and there is no need to scare the shit out of them to make political points. This vote is necessary to move forward on the process... a process that is in the early stages. The white house has said HHS secretary Price will submit a plan after his confirmation. At that point, it can be picked apart and people will have something to debate.

At some point you're going to have to face the fact you helped elect a dud

BreezyLimbo · Jan 12, 2017

does being fat count as a pre-existing condition

serious question

Ryzaki009 · Jan 12, 2017

Fulminator said:
Well... Shit

I'm fucked I guess

yep =/ GG people who stayed home and Trump voters. Thanks for this.

I'm not saying obamacare was perfect it did need a lot of tweaks but not like this. Not like this.

Man just thinking about losing my therapy just. Ugh. I start shaking. I really don't want to go back to when I was barely holding myself together.

mjp2417 · Jan 12, 2017

GuyKazama said:
That thread title doesn't help anyone. I get some people here rely on Obamacare, but no need to scare the shit out of them to make political points. This vote is necessary to move forward on the process... a process that is in the early stages. The white house has said HHS secretary Price will submit a plan after his confirmation. At that point, it can be picked apart and people will have something to debate.

The GOP has had nearly a decade to formulate a better solution than Obamacare. Like, opposition to Obamacare has pretty much been the party's identity for the entirety of the teens or whatever we're choosing to call this current decade. It would be funny, in the same way the drunk, high kid trying to cram for his calculus final is funny, if it wasn't all so awful.

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I'm totally aware of how it used to be, I was a victim of that, but no one is talking about reverting back to how it was 2008, nobody wants that. Pre-existing condition coverage is here to stay. It's one thing in the AMA that both Republicans and democrats can agree on.

... But it's really hard to cover pre-existing conditions without the taxes that Republicans will not accept.

If you say "insurers, you have to accept people with pre-existing conditions but healthy people face no penalty for not getting insurance and people will not get subsided if you increase the cost of your insurance" they will expect only sick people to get insurance, increase the cost of insurance a lot (because they expect their customers per person to be spending more on health care moving forward), and then the less sick people will drop out and so on until all insurance is way too expensive for anyone to afford.

kess · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I'm totally aware of how it used to be, I was a victim of that, but no one is talking about reverting back to how it was 2008, nobody wants that. Pre-existing condition coverage is here to stay. It's one thing in the AMA that both Republicans and democrats can agree on.

Voting down amendments precisely because they were brought forth by Democrats isn't exactly boding well for the process, honestly.

xfactor99 · Jan 12, 2017

People should also keep in mind that this budget resolution enables Senate Republicans to strip Obamacare of funding with only 50 votes, but they would still need 60 votes to repeal Obamacare rules & regulations. This means that they could go ahead and repeal Obamacare taxes & subsidies, but not things such as the ban of denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions or being on parents' insurance until you are 26.

Most experts believe if Republicans actually went ahead and repealed the funding-only measures of Obamacare and not the rules/regulations parts that this would be a total disaster for healthcare markets. Because of this I am very skeptical that they will strip Obamacare of funding and without a replacement plan, but we'll see.

xfactor99 · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I'm totally aware of how it used to be, I was a victim of that, but no one is talking about reverting back to how it was 2008, nobody wants that. Pre-existing condition coverage is here to stay. It's one thing in the AMA that both Republicans and democrats can agree on.

But if we are to have private markets for health insurance, a legal ban on denying health insurance based on pre-existing conditions is impossible without (1) an individual mandate (2) subsidies to those who can't afford health insurance. That's why it's called the "3-legged stool" that Obamacare hinges on. If you get rid of the individual mandate and/or subsidies but still force health insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, then insurance companies would exit the market, healthcare costs would rise even further than before, and even less people would be insured than pre-2008. In so many ways it would be even worse!

BlackRainbowFT · Jan 12, 2017

In Switzerland (a country very similar to the USA), while we do have mandatory health coverage, if they learn you suffer from a pre-existing condition they can decide not to cover your medical expenses, should you have any related to it.
this was the case with my epycondulitis and the clause lasted 5 years (I guess they assume spontaneous remission by that point).

I've always wondered how this was legal in any way.

But then again we have a very odd system (e.g., health insurance companies are all privately held. how can the state impose this is aberrant in and of itself... some things should be handled by the government and that's it).

I always thought that overwhelming chauvinism would go hand in hand with solidarity, but apparently not... again, another thing I can't wrap my head around!

I just hope for your sake that they don't dismantle everything the Obama administration has done.

mid83 · Jan 12, 2017

Alphahawk said:
I'm totally aware of how it used to be, I was a victim of that, but no one is talking about reverting back to how it was 2008, nobody wants that. Pre-existing condition coverage is here to stay. It's one thing in the AMA that both Republicans and democrats can agree on.

While it made for a good campaign promise (repeal/replace, lower cost, keep pre-existing conditions), it's nearly impossible to do in practice.

If the mandate is gone, it's nearly impossible for insurance companies to be able to cover pre-existing conditions without continuing coverage rules (or charging higher rates for people with them) without a mandate to increase the pool of people paying premiums. That was the point of the mandate.

Based on what I've read, there are three possible options for how a replacement plan will cover pre-existing conditions:

1.) Per Paul Ryan's plan, pre existing conditions must be covered if you switch plans as long as you've had continuing coverage for 18 months. I believe if you have a lapse in coverage with a pre existing your premiums will increase 150% over the first 18 months.

2.) Per Tom Price's bill last year, like with Ryan's plan, you cannot be denied coverage or dropped for pre existing conditions when switching plans as long as you have coverage for 18 months. If you have a lapse I believe you cannot be covered for that condition for 18 months.

3.) Per Rand Paul's plan that I saw referenced yesterday, he drops pre existing conditions all together. Insurance companies will have no rules on not covering. You will have to rely on block grants and however your state chooses to cover those who aren't able to get insurance.

All three plans apparently call for block grants, but only Paul's outright eliminates rules that insurance companies can't drop you for pre existing conditions (but Ryan/Price's plans both require cont. coverage).

Just an idea of what is likely going to be in a replace bill.

gfxtwin · Jan 12, 2017

Matty77 said:
But don't you realize the "sorry for those it will hurt and kill but I am glad because it's good for me" attitude has a lot to do with why Trump got elected in the first place?

I'm happy that when I die from an embolism and my mom goes into a diabetic come because the mandatory medicine needed to live is way too expenisve when your on a fixed income that you get to save some money.

Keep in mind, I weighed the options and Voted for Hillary hoping she would transform Obamacare into universal healthcare during her term(s). She's campaigned on that before. I'm sorry you're going through the loss of healthcare given those health problems, but If I continued to pay for mine my life might be in jeopardy as well as I'd end up homeless most likely. $200 a month is a lot for me and the difference between having a place to stay and being on the street. I've chosen not to pay for healthcare this year because I cant afford it and will pay the fine instead, which I guess is a couple hundred dollars or a bit more. But it would keep escalating over time each year and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't relieved that I might not have to worry about that anymore. Then again, Trump is full of shit and you can't believe anything he says so maybe he won't totally repeal obamacare after all. I wish the best for you and yours and truly hope that shithead's reign doesn't do to much damage for you guys.

Kevinroc · Jan 12, 2017

But they're not dropping the filibuster, right? How can they expect to get a bill through with Democrats threatening to filibuster anything they deem worse than the ACA?

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Jan 12, 2017

Kevinroc said:
But they're not dropping the filibuster, right? How can they expect to get a bill through with Democrats threatening to filibuster anything they deem worse than the ACA?

They have the ability to remove the subsides and mandate and Medicaid funding without the filibuster (since those are included in taxes and budgeting and can be changed through reconciliation). Obamacare falls apart without the mandate and funding. They're hoping in the period afterward that some Dems will cave and pass a replacement plan since the insurance market will be on fire and people will be dying in that period.

Support NeoGAF

Senate takes major step towards repealing Obamacare

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Similar threads