Repealing the ACA under Trump

[JJ Husker]

This AHCA bill needs to be soundly defeated. At one time I had hopes they would improve the ACA but all this is, is a much worse version of Obamacare without the mandate. Any idiot with half a brain should be able to understand that the coverage mandate is essential for it to have any chance of working. Unfortunately, these republicans are "special" idiots that apparently don't know jack sh!t or understand one thing about healthcare. Their only apparent goal is to repeal any legislation that has the name Obama on it. As insufficient as the ACA was/is, at least it helped improve things in some areas (cost of healthcare unfortunately not being one of those things).

 

It's pretty sad that these morons have almost successfully converted a conservative, such as myself, into practically a democrat in only a few short months. (Don't worry-I identify as an independent) The midterms can't get here soon enough and I hope they begin impeachment proceedings on the orange one as soon as possible.

[Red Five]

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

Good call on the car accident. Forgot the whole auto insurance, bad example on my part.

 

Lets change my hospitalization example to an appendectomy after a burst appendix. I've known a couple people who have been hospitalized for multiple days due to that.

[NM11046]

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

[QMany]

 

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

 

Most states require auto insurance or subject to penalty, the horror!

[NM11046]

All those illegal aliens though ...

[JJ Husker]

 

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

 

I am making no such assumption.

My wife actually experienced this very scenario. She was in an accident, it was the other drivers fault, and that driver did not have auto insurance. My wife required some medical care. Since the other driver was not covered, her medical care was paid for by our own auto insurance through the required uninsured motorist clause. Even if the other driver did have coverage, in either case the medical costs would not have been experienced by anyone's healthcare coverage.

 

I don't want to derail the discussion with this detail. The original point that started this is still valid, eliminating EHB's is bad. It's just that a car accident was not the best scenario to use.

 

Edit- BTW, the other driver was a white girl who thought she had insurance but somebody didn't make a premium payment in time and their policy lapsed. Imagine that.....it's not just illegal aliens that drive around without insurance

[zoogs]

There's some "I don't drive; why should my hard-earned dollars subsidize the risks of people who do BIG GOVERNMENT graaaaahr" argument here that isn't being expressed. Whither the libertarians?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

 

I am making no such assumption.

My wife actually experienced this very scenario. She was in an accident, it was the other drivers fault, and that driver did not have auto insurance. My wife required some medical care. Since the other driver was not covered, her medical care was paid for by our own auto insurance through the required uninsured motorist clause. Even if the other driver did have coverage, in either case the medical costs would not have been experienced by anyone's healthcare coverage.

 

I don't want to derail the discussion with this detail. The original point that started this is still valid, eliminating EHB's is bad. It's just that a car accident was not the best scenario to use.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Shift it to a cancer diagnosis in an otherwise healthy person, or any other rare disease that requires long-term care.

 

Very bad policy to expect people to plan for these things, IMO.

 

Another detail people are raising now is that eliminating EHBs to drive down costs opens the door for scammy plans from unscrupulous insurers who don't cover what they'd lead you to believe they cover.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

 

Most states require auto insurance or subject to penalty, the horror!

 

 

Just a point of reference: most states allow someone to "bond out" of needing to get car insurance by posting a large sum bond with the state ($25k to $100k per insured and/or vehicle, depending on state), which (supposedly) proves you are financially responsible to own and operate a motor vehicle in that state.

 

So people can operate a motor vehicle without insurance legally--they just have to put a lot of money in a bond held by the state in lieu of obtaining car insurance.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large financial losses. If you cut some of those EHBs with high costs (hospitalization, maternity) from a health plan, then what the hell are you insuring yourself from?

 

Also say one buys a plan w/o hospitalization covered. Then one gets in a nasty car crash and needs to be hospitalized for a few days. Now what the hell happens? No way can most people afford a $20k+ hospital stay.

 

I am completely against cutting EHB's or making essential health benefits optional. But, having said that, the car crash scenario is the least of my concerns as regards this. In many states, depending on who is at fault in the accident, hospitalization and medical care costs would be the responsibility of the at fault drivers insurance. And sans any auto coverage on their part, those costs would revert to the mandatory uninsured/underinsured clause in your own auto insurance. So, in many cases, those healthcare costs would not be born by the persons healthcare insurance but rather by someone's auto coverage.

 

You are assuming they have auto ins.

 

I am making no such assumption.

My wife actually experienced this very scenario. She was in an accident, it was the other drivers fault, and that driver did not have auto insurance. My wife required some medical care. Since the other driver was not covered, her medical care was paid for by our own auto insurance through the required uninsured motorist clause. Even if the other driver did have coverage, in either case the medical costs would not have been experienced by anyone's healthcare coverage.

 

I don't want to derail the discussion with this detail. The original point that started this is still valid, eliminating EHB's is bad. It's just that a car accident was not the best scenario to use.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Shift it to a cancer diagnosis in an otherwise healthy person, or any other rare disease that requires long-term care.

 

Very bad policy to expect people to plan for these things, IMO.

 

Another detail people are raising now is that eliminating EHBs to drive down costs opens the door for scammy plans from unscrupulous insurers who don't cover what they'd lead you to believe they cover.

 

 

Exactly. The thing that bothers me the most is that it will make selecting suitable coverage extremely difficult. Today people know there are certain things covered without question. With this BS, you're going to have to read ALL the small print and you'll still end up getting screwed at some point in time. The libertarian in me likes the idea that you could tailor a plan to your anticipated needs but the realist in me knows how hard it is to decipher these plans and it is impossible to know what the future holds for anyone's healthcare needs.

[knapplc]

House vote delayed. Probably because of all those paid town hall protesters.

 

[JJ Husker]

House vote delayed. Probably because of all those paid town hall protesters.

 

Good but it's actually probably because there are darn few who support it. Outside of Trump, Ryan and a handful of idiot republicans, who wants it? It should dawn on them that anyone who knows anything about it is opposed to it. It doesn't go far enough for the far right tea party, the Koch Bros' even realize the damage it could inflict, people that understand healthcare are opposed, the list goes on..... They got the "repeal" part down pat but they are severely lacking in the "replace" category.

[knapplc]

Of course it's because they lack votes. This is the kind of bill that will get you axed from office at the mid-terms.

 

This is a colossal failure on Ryan's part. How do you produce this turd after all this time? Trump's gonna be LIT on Twitter tonight.

[JJ Husker]

Of course it's because they lack votes. This is the kind of bill that will get you axed from office at the mid-terms.

 

This is a colossal failure on Ryan's part. How do you produce this turd after all this time? Trump's gonna be LIT on Twitter tonight.

 

Oh good, we have another Trumper tantrum to look forward to.

 

What I find funny in this is I still get email notices from Grassfire (used to be somewhat rational/conservative but has really gone off the deep tea party end in the last few years) and they are calling for opposition to it because it doesn't go far enough. Grassfire likes to call people RINO's and now Trump and Ryan and anyone for the ACHA is a RINO. Used to be they reserved that name for republicans that weren't conservative enough now they use it for anyone who isn't a far right whack job (and apparently even for those who are far right nuts). I feel dirty still getting their messages but it sure is interesting to see what the fringe thinks is right.

[Red Five]

 

House vote delayed. Probably because of all those paid town hall protesters.

 

Good but it's actually probably because there are darn few who support it. Outside of Trump, Ryan and a handful of idiot republicans, who wants it? It should dawn on them that anyone who knows anything about it is opposed to it. It doesn't go far enough for the far right tea party, the Koch Bros' even realize the damage it could inflict, people that understand healthcare are opposed, the list goes on..... They got the "repeal" part down pat but they are severely lacking in the "replace" category.

 

 

The opposition does make interesting bedfellows. You have the Freedom Caucasus who is a 'no' due to it not being a full repeal and then the Moderate Rs are a 'no' because it goes too far in creating more uninsured. I guess thats how you know the AHCA in its current form is pure and utter crap.