House Republicans Unveil Plan to Replace Health Law

[redwood66]

So I have an honest to god question here... And I'm not being snide or snarky or any of the things I can frequently (and often legitimately!) be accused of with this!

I have read the claim that the cost of coverage will go down, but I'm having a hard time with the economics. The way I understood the ACA was that since everyone was "obligated" to join, and assuming that they did, the healthy people would be in essence bearing some of the burden of paying for the unhealthy. But in making the coverage "optional" (and yes, I have read about the incentives, etc., designed toward compelling people to sign up, but in my mind this really becomes a more elective program) won't the enrollment skew disproportionately toward those who need care? I.e., if I'm a healthy 28 year old I'm much less inclined to join this program than an unhealthy 58 year old.

This is obviously an-overly simplistic scenario that I'm using here for the sake of discussion, but I truly can't figure out how the money piece of this is supposed to work in terms of lowering the cost to individuals.

I do want to acknowledge the point that this thing is not fully baked yet (a point that Ruby has also made) so I am sure there are changes and more info to come, but the $$$ has me confuzeled.

BTW, I am NOT addressing Deb and Howard's romance at this time -- I'm going to hold off and wait for her Show Me The Ring thread!

Dee this is a good question and I will be interested to know what answers are out there. I have not had time to review any of the information today. What I do know is that ACA and this new AHA are both new entitlements that are half-azzed. Either you suck it up and have universal healthcare or you drop it all and go back to the way it was. They had to do something or it was going to fall apart on its own without any help from anyone. We'll see how this turns out I guess.

 

[AnnaH]

Not a perfect plan, not that I think anyone can offer a perfect plan. Hopefully, it's true that there will be improvements, such as buying across state lines in order to create competition and lower costs.
It is, imo, better than Obamacare in that it's not 2500 pages, and the management goes to the states. States, unlike the federal government, have to balance budgets rather than just print money.

 

[ruby59]

Not a perfect plan, not that I think anyone can offer a perfect plan. Hopefully, it's true that there will be improvements, such as buying across state lines in order to create competition and lower costs.
It is, imo, better than Obamacare in that it's not 2500 pages, and the management goes to the states. States, unlike the federal government, have to balance budgets rather than just print money.

Yes, I was looking to see if the highlighted was included.

And I agree management should go to the states.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Not a perfect plan, not that I think anyone can offer a perfect plan. Hopefully, it's true that there will be improvements, such as buying across state lines in order to create competition and lower costs.
It is, imo, better than Obamacare in that it's not 2500 pages, and the management goes to the states. States, unlike the federal government, have to balance budgets rather than just print money.

Yes, I was looking to see if the highlighted was included.

And I agree management should go to the states.

I was also surprised -- more accurately, disappointed -- that insurance company's ability to cross state lines was not included. That being said, it does make some regulatory sense to be (being a compliance officer) because different states have different insurance laws and it could be burdensome (if not almost impossible) for companies to comply with all of them so absent universal (i.e., Federal level) mandates I understand what an issue this may pose. However, I do think there would be a benefit in terms of competition if the companies could cross state lines. I also wonder if there is some sort of insurance lobby at work here. I have a life/health insurance license but it's been many (almost 20) years since I studied for the test and I remember the instructor discussing *something* about all the lobbying power the insurance entities have, but I certainly don't remember enough to speak intelligently on the point.

 

[AnnaH]

Dee, I don't doubt that there is a huge insurance lobby with influence in Washington. How much that influence will affect this bill I can't say. The big lobbies are too powerful, I suspect.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Dee, I don't doubt that there is a huge insurance lobby with influence in Washington. How much that influence will affect this bill I can't say. The big lobbies are too powerful, I suspect.

I think you're absolutely right Anna.

 

[redwood66]

Dee, I don't doubt that there is a huge insurance lobby with influence in Washington. How much that influence will affect this bill I can't say. The big lobbies are too powerful, I suspect.

I think you're absolutely right Anna.

Yes absolutely.

 

[ruby59]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.


And he explained why they could not put going across state lines into this bill.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

ETA: I didn't see the last line in your posted about the states when I replied. Is the reason for not crossing state lines regulatory or something else?

 

[ruby59]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

Ah; now I understand your statement! You felt "stuck" with it financially; but it is not accurate to simply say that you didn't have choices, because you did. They were just not choices that you were fiscally willing/able to afford. (ETA: That is a valid point BTW.) This becomes an issue of semantics though and takes us in a circular conversation: I understand your statement that you could only afford Plan XYX. And my statement that there were other plans *available* so you weren't "stuck" with only one option takes us back to the starting point. No need to have this cat continue to chase its tail (unless you want to) because I was seeking clarification on your statement and you gave it. Thank you.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Here is an article I found that discusses the issues of insurance companies selling across state lines. The article is from December, so clearly before Obamacare Lite was presented today, but I think it is very informative and helps me understand some of what's going on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-health-insurance-across-state-lines-2016-12

Here's the problem with Trump's plan to sell health insurance across state lines

President-elect Donald Trump has called for allowing health insurers to sell coverage across state lines to encourage competition and provide consumers with greater choice of individual plans.

The proposal is part of Trump’s health care alternatives to Obamacare posted on his presidential transition website, and he talked about it frequently throughout the 2016 campaign.

"We have to get rid of the artificial lines around the states, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing," Trump said during the second presidential debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton in St. Louis in October.

The current system under Obamacare, in which every state and the District of Columbia establishes its own government-operated insurance market, “gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies,” Trump explained. "We want competition."

The 2010 Obamacare law carefully prescribes ground rules for insurers participating in the subsidized health insurance program, including a prohibition against taking into account a person’s pre-existing medical conditions before determining whether to accept an applicant.

The insurers can only consider an applicant’s age and location in setting premium prices, and they are obliged to offer every applicant a basic menu of coverage and benefits.

Trump’s idea – echoed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Budget Chair Tom Price (R-GA), who has been nominated to be the next secretary of Health and Human Services -- is that by cutting through detailed regulations tied to state insurance regulations, insurance companies will be able to offer national plans with lower premiums and reduced administrative costs.

That presumably would expand consumers’ choices as well as generate lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

In effect, insurance companies large and small could market their individual plans to consumers in any state as long as they are licensed in their home states and adhere to their home-state regulations.

But as The Wall Street Journal has reported, Trump’s interstate insurance marketing ideas are meeting resistance from state insurance regulators, the health insurance industry and independent health care analysts who say the approach has been tried before on a limited basis and is far from a panacea.

Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while interstate sales might carry regional benefits, “No one should be under the illusion you can dramatically lower the cost of insurance in Los Angeles if you buy an Arkansas policy.” Moreover, state insurance commissioner have long challenged the efficacy of the concept as more myth than reality.

“Some have suggested that allowing interstate sales of health insurance policies will make coverage more affordable and available,” the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said in a statement. “In reality, interstate sales of insurance will allow insurers to choose their regulator, the very dynamic that led to the financial collapse that has left millions of Americans without jobs. It would also make insurance less available, make insurers less accountable, and prevent regulators from assisting consumers in their states.”

The indictment of Trump’s approach, which has been endorsed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other GOP lawmakers and governors, is four-fold.

First, state officials complain that federal legislation to authorize insurance sales across state lines would undercut the state’s traditional role in regulating the insurance industry. If an insurer licensed, say, in Indiana decided to offer its policies to consumers in Michigan or Wisconsin, it would be under no obligation to conform to the rules of Michigan or Wisconsin, provided it followed Indiana’s insurance regulations.

In some ways, this would constitute even more invasive government big-footing by the federal government than the current law the Republicans want to get rid of.

Second, critics warn that as insurers invariably flock to states with the most limited requirements and standards, the result would be for insurance companies to offer consumers cheap policies but often without some of the most basic health care and prescription drug coverage.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners argue that “interstate sales will start a race to the bottom by allowing companies to choose their regulators.”

The state commissioners say that allowing insurers to pick and choose among markets in which to sell coverage is tantamount to allowing banks to choose their own regulators, a surefire way to create a financial crisis.

Insurance companies would seek the state regulations “that allow them to most aggressively select the healthiest risk,” resulting in a situation in which the healthiest, youngest policy holders pay the least expensive premiums while older, sicker people would be confronted with steep premiums – provided they could find coverage at all.

Third, while some major health insurers already have experimented in recent years in selling coverage across the country, they nonetheless have had to meet state regulatory requirements. If insurers were free to sell their policies in states where they were unlicensed, the possibility of cheating, fraud or other irregularities would be substantially increased.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly – insurance premiums are closely linked to underlying health care costs, such as rate levels paid to local or regional doctors and hospitals and the projected health needs of the policy holders. In order to sell an insurance policy in a particular state, the insurer would have to have a local network of allied doctors, hospitals and other health care providers in order to make the system financially feasible.

The liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an analysis of the GOP health care proposals released Monday that, “The few states that tried to open their markets to out-of-state insurers prior to health care reform generally had little to show for it, as insurers had problems establishing networks of providers outside their own states.”

However, if insurers did succeed in entering other state’s markets, “the out-of-state plans would likely attract healthier-than-average people with low health care costs, because such people have much less need for consumer protections such as requirements to cover certain benefits or limits on insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums based on age or gender,” wrote Judith Solomon, an analyst with the non-partisan research organization.”

Consequentially, the study said, those who remain in the plans offered by the in-state insurers would become less healthy as a group, and their premiums would rise accordingly.

This story was originally published by The Fiscal Times.

 

[lovedogs]

Dee I have the same questions as you in terms of how it'll be paid for.

It's interesting as a potential plan because it does have the coverage under parents until 26 and pre existing conditions protected. BUT, many reps are not going to like it bc it's more federal protections/oversight/hand outs, which they didn't like with ACA. And Dems aren't going to like it bc cuts to Medicare/medicade, etc. So I wonder if there will be many supporters, or if both sides won't like it.

 

[ruby59]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

Ah; now I understand your statement! You felt "stuck" with it financially; but it is not accurate to simply say that you didn't have choices, because you did. They were just not choices that you were fiscally willing/able to afford. (ETA: That is a valid point BTW.) This becomes an issue of semantics though and takes us in a circular conversation: I understand your statement that you could only afford Plan XYX. And my statement that there were other plans *available* so you weren't "stuck" with only one option takes us back to the starting point. No need to have this cat continue to chase its tail (unless you want to) because I was seeking clarification on your statement and you gave it. Thank you.

Cat chasing its tail?

This is a discussion board where back and forth comments should be welcome.

I said that I like having a choice to pick the plan I wanted. And of course affordability is a major consideration.

And if Trump manages to get costs down, then I will be able to afford more choice of plans other than the 1 choice I had under Obama Care, which obviously is not a choice when you can only afford one plan.

 

[Tekate]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

Ah; now I understand your statement! You felt "stuck" with it financially; but it is not accurate to simply say that you didn't have choices, because you did. They were just not choices that you were fiscally willing/able to afford. (ETA: That is a valid point BTW.) This becomes an issue of semantics though and takes us in a circular conversation: I understand your statement that you could only afford Plan XYX. And my statement that there were other plans *available* so you weren't "stuck" with only one option takes us back to the starting point. No need to have this cat continue to chase its tail (unless you want to) because I was seeking clarification on your statement and you gave it. Thank you.

Cat chasing its tail?

This is a discussion board where back and forth comments should be welcome.

I said that I like having a choice to pick the plan I wanted. And of course affordability is a major consideration.

And if Trump manages to get costs down, then I will be able to afford more choice of plans other than the 1 choice I had under Obama Care, which obviously is not a choice when you can only afford one plan.

You may pay less, but you will also have less coverage or you may pay more and have less coverage. Their plan is really horrendous and penalizes the older American.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obamacare-replacement-plans/?tid=graphics-story

 

[ruby59]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

Ah; now I understand your statement! You felt "stuck" with it financially; but it is not accurate to simply say that you didn't have choices, because you did. They were just not choices that you were fiscally willing/able to afford. (ETA: That is a valid point BTW.) This becomes an issue of semantics though and takes us in a circular conversation: I understand your statement that you could only afford Plan XYX. And my statement that there were other plans *available* so you weren't "stuck" with only one option takes us back to the starting point. No need to have this cat continue to chase its tail (unless you want to) because I was seeking clarification on your statement and you gave it. Thank you.

Cat chasing its tail?

This is a discussion board where back and forth comments should be welcome.

I said that I like having a choice to pick the plan I wanted. And of course affordability is a major consideration.

And if Trump manages to get costs down, then I will be able to afford more choice of plans other than the 1 choice I had under Obama Care, which obviously is not a choice when you can only afford one plan.

You may pay less, but you will also have less coverage or you may pay more and have less coverage. Their plan is really horrendous and penalizes the older American.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obamacare-replacement-plans/?tid=graphics-story

How so, and I mean that very sincerely.

I am trying to learn as much as possible, but I would like your input (or anyone else's) as to how it will affect older people, people who will be retiring shortly?

Like I said, I can still keep my two girls under my husband's plan until 26.

And my preexisting conditions are covered.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Listening to Speaker Ryan

Kids can stay on our policy until age 26.

People with preexisting conditions will be covered.

And I like the idea of choice so I pick what I want not what is shoved at me.

I believe the first two items you mention are the same as under the ACA.

Regarding choice, please help me understand what you mean by that. There are different plan options under the ACA now...? Or do you mean a different kind of selection?

Cheapest one under Obama was the only one we could afford. So we were stuck with it.

Ah; now I understand your statement! You felt "stuck" with it financially; but it is not accurate to simply say that you didn't have choices, because you did. They were just not choices that you were fiscally willing/able to afford. (ETA: That is a valid point BTW.) This becomes an issue of semantics though and takes us in a circular conversation: I understand your statement that you could only afford Plan XYX. And my statement that there were other plans *available* so you weren't "stuck" with only one option takes us back to the starting point. No need to have this cat continue to chase its tail (unless you want to) because I was seeking clarification on your statement and you gave it. Thank you.

Cat chasing its tail?

This is a discussion board where back and forth comments should be welcome.

I said that I like having a choice to pick the plan I wanted. And of course affordability is a major consideration.

And if Trump manages to get costs down, then I will be able to afford more choice of plans other than the 1 choice I had under Obama Care, which obviously is not a choice when you can only afford one plan.

Agree completely with the bolded part. The point I was making is that there was no need to continue the conversation (unless you wanted to of course) because I was trying to understand a certain comment and based on the info you provided I now do.

Back to the health care plan: It would be great if people had more/better choices at lower prices. Everyone -- you and your family and every other person who needs insurance. I am simply trying hard to figure out how that is an economic possibility. Obviously I don't expect you (or anyone on this board) to be able to answer that, I'm just saying THAT is what I'm attempting to understand.

 

[redwood66]

I know some don't like Lifezette but this cardiologist expresses some of my concerns including pricing of drugs and services. It is not a good review for sure.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obamacare-2-0-repeal-replace-name/

 

[Dee*Jay]

I know some don't like Lifezette but this cardiologist expresses some of my concerns including pricing of drugs and services. It is not a good review for sure.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obamacare-2-0-repeal-replace-name/

Thank you for posting that Red, it has some interesting information for sure. In particular: "In the meantime, it's telling who hasn't complained about the CARE Act to date. Neither Big Pharma nor the insurance industry has raised any criticism and I suspect they were instrumental behind the scenes over the last three months, as their interests seem protected." If the insurance and drug companies aren't screaming then it signals to me that the little people who are going to suffer...

The 5-to-1 pricing (vs. current 3-to-1) would be a real blow to the older population. And the pre-existing condition exclusion if there is a lapse in coverage also seems draconian to me -- I mean, if you have a condition that needs to be cared for you probably don't let you insurance lapse unless there are serious reasons to do so.

Of all the things coming out of the administration that concern me this is very very high on the list. (And I'm not using the phrase "concern me" as in impact my life on a daily basis because I do have employer paid health insurance [of course that could change any time], but I mean "worry me.") There was an opportunity here to do something real that would impact many people for the good and I'm not yet seeing that happen. Perhaps there will be further revision to the plan that will make it better (whatever "better" may mean...).

 

[redwood66]

I hear you Dee. But something has to be done or Obamacare will collapse on its own and everyone without Medicaid, Medicare or employer healthcare will be back to where they were before with nothing. The repubs won't (and can't) let that happen on their watch.

 

[distracts]

My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.

I agree. Insurance isn't going to fix the problem of the rising cost of healthcare. Pricing for medical services and medication need to be consistent and open (no hidden cost, easy to figure out, etc). Until that happens, regardless of ACA or AHA or whatever, medical costs will continue to be unfettered and a strain on the lower income group.

My dad had a tooth pulled recently and he got a bill for $65,000 for the anesthetic. He thought it was a typo but apparently it's just what they usually ask for, but the insurance company pays nowhere near that much. But isn't that ridiculous???

The only doctors I go to where I know what the price will be every time are the ones who don't accept insurance. I am well-off enough to pay for that but most people are not.

 

[Calliecake]

My concern is more about pricing in the medical industry and why it is so all over the place. While price controls can be a bad thing, at least making the industry be upfront and consistent on pricing for services and items would help immensely. Otherwise it is a crapshoot until you get your bill or EOB. Neither party ever talks about this.

I agree. Insurance isn't going to fix the problem of the rising cost of healthcare. Pricing for medical services and medication need to be consistent and open (no hidden cost, easy to figure out, etc). Until that happens, regardless of ACA or AHA or whatever, medical costs will continue to be unfettered and a strain on the lower income group.

My dad had a tooth pulled recently and he got a bill for $65,000 for the anesthetic. He thought it was a typo but apparently it's just what they usually ask for, but the insurance company pays nowhere near that much. But isn't that ridiculous???

The only doctors I go to where I know what the price will be every time are the ones who don't accept insurance. I am well-off enough to pay for that but most people are not.

Distracts, Is that number really correct? I would pull my tooth out myself before I paid $65,000 for the anesthetic. I was unhappy because I've recently had to spend $12,000 on my mouth. Insurance has so far approved to pay a total of $199 of the bill. I going to sit down and shut up after reading about your dad. WOW that is insane,

 

[AGBF]

"The New York Times" had some time to work on the bill overnight. Here is their conclusion.

"No Wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill"


"Republican House leaders have spent months dodging questions about how they would replace the Affordable Care Act with a better law, and went so far as to hide the draft of their plan from other lawmakers. No wonder. The bill they released on Monday would kick millions of people off the coverage they currently have. So much for President Trump’s big campaign promise: 'We’re going to have insurance for everybody' — with coverage that would be 'much less expensive and much better.'

More than 20 million Americans gained health care coverage under the A.C.A., or Obamacare. Health experts say most would lose that coverage under the proposal.

Let’s start with Medicaid. Obamacare expanded the program to cover 11 million more poor Americans in 31 states and the District of Columbia. The Republican bill would end the expansion in 2020. Although people who sign up before 2020 under the expanded Medicaid program, which covers people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $33,900 for a family of four), would be allowed to stay on, many would be kicked off over time. The working poor tend to drop in and out of Medicaid because their incomes fluctuate, and the Republican plan would bar people who left the expanded program from going back in.


The bill would also, for the first time ever, apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Medicaid. This change could shift about $370 billion in health care costs over 10 years to state governments, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Many state governments, faced with limited budgets, would be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.

For people who buy insurance on federal or state-run health exchanges, the G.O.P. plan would greatly reduce the A.C.A.’s subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits. For example, a 40-year-old living in Raleigh, N.C., who earns $30,000 a year would receive $3,000 from the government to buy insurance, 32 percent less than under current law, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The bill would provide older people more generous subsidies — those over 60 get a subsidy of $4,000, or twice as much as 20-somethings — but insurers would be allowed to charge older people five times as much as younger people.

The plan would do away with the current mandate that requires nearly everybody to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. (Instead, insurers would be allowed to charge people who don’t maintain their insurance continuously 30 percent more for coverage.) But because the legislation would still require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, people would have a strong financial incentive to buy insurance only when they got sick — a sure way to destroy the insurance market.


House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, have railed against high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can’t afford insurance are simply irresponsible. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, for instance, told CNN that people should invest in their health care, 'rather than getting that new iPhone.' Word to Mr. Chaffetz: Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family; an iPhone costs a few hundred dollars.

While working people lose health care, the rich would come out winners. The bill would eliminate the taxes on businesses and individuals (people making more than $200,000 a year) who fund Obamacare. The tax cuts would total about $600 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

House committees will start considering the bill on Wednesday. Even if it passes the House, some Republican senators object to the Medicaid cuts and the Tea Party wing hates the idea of retaining any subsidies.

Republicans have been vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act even before it became law in 2010. But they still haven’t come up with a workable replacement. Instead, the G.O.P.’s various factions are now haggling over just how many millions of Americans they are willing to harm."

Link...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/no-wonder-the-republicans-hid-the-health-bill.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

AGBF

 

[E B]

AARP comes out against Trumpcare:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/aarp-american-health-care-act/

 

[E B]

The American Medical Association as well:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...ociation-opposes-gop-health-care-plan-n730741

 

[ruby59]

The American Medical Association as well:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...ociation-opposes-gop-health-care-plan-n730741

Why should it matter when it is not the finished product but just the way they had to go about doing it to get it past so they could then collaborate on it further.

At least he is not doing what Obama did, and that is pass it in the dark of night without any input from any one.

 

[Calliecake]

According to the nightly news (CBS) this bill will dramatically increase health care for Americans aged 50 - 64. This age group would see the largest cuts to Obamacare tax credits. In same cases by $5,000+/year. This would also allow insurers to charge them 5x more than younger Americans.

No wonder AARP is against this plan.

 

[E B]

The American Medical Association as well:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...ociation-opposes-gop-health-care-plan-n730741

Why should it matter when it is not the finished product but just the way they had to go about doing it to get it past so they could then collaborate on it further.

At least he is not doing what Obama did, and that is pass it in the dark of night without any input from any one.

Why not collaborate before trying to get it passed? After all, they railed against Obamacare for years, claiming they had something much better. Is this the result of years of work?

 

[Tekate]

Did he stay up all night reading it?

I'm sure he has staff, and administrative assistants to do that Red.

It was a joke dear.

I know honey

 

[Missy]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/877000?nlid=113282_3901&src=wnl_newsalrt_170308_MSCPEDIT&uac=96935CJ&impID=1304606&faf=1

Major medical societies such as the American Medical Association (AMA) worry that a House bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will translate into fewer people with health coverage and the care they need.

Their objections to the bill, dubbed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), center on two key elements. They say that the bill's new tax credits for buying a private plan are less generous than those under the ACA, particularly for low-income Americans, a claim supported by a recent Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. They also are troubled by major changes to Medicaid — namely, a per-capita cap on the federal contribution to state programs, which could leave them underfunded, and a rollback of expanded eligibility in 31 states and the extra federal dollars that come with it.

"While we agree that there are problems with the ACA that must be addressed, we cannot support the AHCA as drafted because of the expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations," AMA CEO James Madara, MD, wrote members of Congress yesterday.

Other medical societies expressing similar criticisms and reservations include the American College of Physicians (ACP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Osteopathic Association.


The concerns about the AHCA extend to other quarters of the healthcare industry. Rick Pollak, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, also wrote members of Congress that his group could not support the measure as drafted. And Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA), said in a news release that the bill "would jeopardize the health and lives of millions of Americans."

The APHA singled out one provision that would eliminate the ACA's Prevention and Public Health Fund. It accounts for roughly 12% of the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The loss of that money would undercut public health initiatives nationwide, according to the APHA.

In contrast, House Republicans describe their bill as rescuing Americans from a "collapsing" ACA. They point to rapidly rising premiums for health plans sold on the exchanges, the availability of only one insurer in a third of the nation's counties, steep and unaffordable deductibles for exchange plans, failed insurance co-ops, and onerous taxes. They also accuse the law of forcing Americans into health plans they do not want.

"While the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has helped some, it has inflicted tremendous harm on more families, more workers and more job creators nationwide," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, during a meeting on the bill today.

The bill has garnered a smattering of praise from at least one medical society, the avowedly conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
"If it does repeal the mandates forcing individuals and employers to buy insurance that is overpriced and doesn't meet their needs, it's a step in the right direction," AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient, MD, told Medscape Medical News. However, Dr Orient called the House bill a "big disappointment" because it doesn't go far enough in creating a free market for health plans and healthcare spared of government interference.

If passed, the AHCA "will share responsibility for the continued deterioration of American medicine," she said.


Abortion continues to be a lightning-rod issue in the healthcare reform debate, as illustrated by organized medicine's critique of the AHCA.

Section 103 of the bill temporarily would cut off federal funding of Planned Parenthood. The provision would freeze otherwise mandatory payments for 1 year via Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program, and other federal programs to certain providers "designated as prohibited entities."

As defined in the bill, a prohibited entity is an essential community provider primarily engaged in family planning and reproductive health services and that provides abortions other than those in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnancy that endangers the woman's life.

In his letter to lawmakers, the AMA's Dr Madara said his group "cannot support provisions that prevent Americans from choosing to receive care from physicians and other qualified providers, in this specific case, those associated with Planned Parenthood affiliates, for otherwise covered services."

The ACP and AAFP voiced similar misgivings, with AAFP Board Chairperson Wanda Filer, MD, saying in a letter to lawmakers that Section 103 is "an inappropriate intrusion into the patient-physician relationship."
Medscape Medical News © 2017 WebMD