Repealing the ACA under Trump

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

Pardone my French, but why the f#*k are we defunding Planned Parenthood?

Because killing babies is abhorrent

But killing mothers and babies is cool?

 

Show me the actual epidemic of pregnancies killing the mother, and I might reconsider my views.

 

You know that Planned Parenthood offers other services besides just pregnancy-related, right? All you have to do is look at the current Vice President's own defunding of PP in Indiana to see that it's a terrible idea to cut something without a replacement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-indiana-hiv_us_57f53b9be4b002a7312022ef

 

Unintended consequences are real. Like when you cut funding to the only HIV testing facility in a county.

[knapplc]

[commando]

 

 

 

 

 

Pardone my French, but why the f#*k are we defunding Planned Parenthood?

Because killing babies is abhorrent

But killing mothers and babies is cool?

 

Show me the actual epidemic of pregnancies killing the mother, and I might reconsider my views.

 

from zoogs p[ost earlier in this thread

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/21/us-life-expectancy-will-soon-be-on-par-with-mexicos-and-croatias/?utm_term=.6daba90c50cb

 

Not so in the United States. “Notable among poor-performing countries is the USA,” the researchers wrote, “whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind, such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women.”

 

The reasons for the United States' lag are well known. It has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote.

 

So you're not going to answer my question? That article had nothing on pregnancies killing the mother, only the life expectancy of men and women.

 

I guess bolding and red highlighting the quote isn't quite enough for some people to notice.

[Moiraine]

Make the "marernity" part biglyer.

[Danny Bateman]

The problem with this argument goes much further back than some red herring about an "epidemic of pregnancies killing the mother." It starts where people claim abortion is murder.

 

You have to be able to define what life is, when it begins, and when it has rights. When you can't define life any better than the other side is where the argument breaks down.

 

 

I don't want to pile on Husker Red for sharing their views, but this is the other bit that seems someone logically inconsistent about the pro-lifer at this point.

 

They campaign to shut down PP and reverse abortion because it's anathema to their beliefs. Abortion is murder. Fine.

 

Why then are they also OK with fighting against efforts for universal healthcare here? Why do they want to undo the ACA, which dramatically reduced the uninsured, on an ideological whim to replace it with something that provides worse coverage to fewer people?

 

I don't understand why the sanctity of life matters less once you're out of the womb.

[Moiraine]

That's what baffles me too and is a big reason I'm not Republican. They care about strangers' babies... up until they're born. Then they can get sick or die for all they care.

[BigRedBuster]

[funhusker]

I accept that PP is responsible for a whole lot of abortions. No one can deny that.

 

But, what is sadly never mentioned in the debate is how many abortions PP prevented. I'm not talking about counseling a pregnant woman to choose the baby. I'm talking about the contraceptives and education that they give to young women.

 

Abortion isn't going away. It is too much of a political hot button to get rid of, I know it is the only reason many of my relatives voted for Trump even though they despise everything else he stands for. Almost all people can agree that abortions are bad. There is actual data that shows abortions are on the decline because of "liberal" policies regarding contraception and sex ed. I don't understand why a "pro life" person would want to undo that progress and vote for policies that will more than likely INCREASE the number of abortions.

 

If Planned Parenthood doesn't do them, someone else will.

[Landlord]

The abortion rate has been steadily declining for 30 years.

 

 

 

 

If the Republicans pass this bill, congratulations, you're going to stop or slow three decades of progress. I almost wish it would happen just to show them how f'ing backwards and clueless all of this is, except it comes at the expense of more abortions.

[Red Five]

Analysis: GOP plan to cost Obamacare enrollees $1,542 more a year

 

We’re presenting an analysis here of the net financial impact of the Republican bill on premiums, after tax credits, plus cost-sharing. We estimate that the bill would increase costs for the average enrollee by $1,542, for the year, if the bill were in effect today. In 2020, the bill would increase costs for the average enrollee by $2,409.

 

We provide the figure for 2020 because that’s when the Republican tax credits would go into effect; we provide a figure for this year so that readers can get a sense of how the plan might affect their situation were it implemented today. Importantly, the gap between costs under the ACA and under the Republican bill would grow over time.

 

In general, the impact of the Republican bill would be particularly severe for older individuals, ages 55 to 64. Their costs would increase by $5,269 if the bill went into effect today and by $6,971 in 2020. Individuals with income below 250 percent of the federal poverty line would see their costs increase by $2,945 today and by $4,061 in 2020.

[QMany]

 

The AMA previously endorsed Obamacare.

[commando]

 

The AMA previously endorsed Obamacare.

wth could they possibly know about healthcare compared to Trumps team?

[BigRedBuster]

I will say this. I spent the morning in a renewal meeting for our company health insurance plan. Obviously this entire issue was a major topic of discussion.

 

If the government would do what needs to be done....the Hospitals will NOT like it. So.....for the Hospital Association and the AMA to come out and say they can't support a certain bill...well.....they wouldn't like mine either.

[NM11046]

What would yours contain that would trouble them BRB?

[BigRedBuster]

What would yours contain that would trouble them BRB?

Right now there is no motivation built into the system that gives the providers (hospitals/Doctors) a reason to drop their prices. If a patient is told they need a heart surgery, they are scared and sign up for wherever their cardiologist tells them too. The insurance company doesn't have any motivation because if they start losing money, they just raise premiums. If the person qualifies, they just get subsidies from the government. The government has forced everyone to have insurance so their customer base just exploded.

 

This system SUCKS!!!

 

We have a wellness program in our company. Within that plan, if an employee needs that heart surgery, the wellness program will look at how much it is going to cost and then find comparable hospitals that will do it for much less. The patient/employee is not forced into using someone they don't want. They can then choose based on the cost. We will totally wave any deductible or co-pay if the employee decides on the lower cost facility. The wellness program also researches the quality of care at the facility so they are not sent to a place that won't do comparable work.

 

Something like this has got to be built into the system for everyone. We have an employee who had a procedure done at an office not physically within the hospital. When they received their bill, the hospital charged them a fee. When asked, the hospital said the doctor who did the procedure had an office within the hospital so they are allowed to charge a fee.....even though the patient never set foot in the hospital.

 

The cost structure and billing is totally screwed up to the point these places can charge whatever they want and get away with it.

 

Our insurance company is trying to get more providers signed onto contracts. What some providers will agree to is to charge insurance customers "medicare plus 100%" So, if a medicare patient would be charged $1000, the insurance patient would get charged $2000. Now, you may scoff at that, but a lot of providers won't do these contracts because they are charging insurance patients sometimes 10-15 times medicare.

 

Hospitals and doctors are NOT going to like being forced to charge less. But, there is no reason why a procedure should cost $80,000 in one place and $15,000 in another without the patient being informed.