ZRod Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 What's in it for them??? I've heard they are back tracking on some of their past behavior, but I wonder what their angle is. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I'd guess the more free-market based and less government influence is exerted on the healthcare system, the more profitable it could be for those with the means to invest. Conservatives fired up by Ryan's compromise of removing EHBs. In other words, you get more freedom and choice to choose a plan that doesn't cover hospital visits or drug coverage to save you more money: Now I'm extra twerked, because my profession of choice wound up on that list. Fascinating look into the mindset of the Freedom Caucus. Still not good enough to just eliminate EHBs. Trump appears to be healthcare illiterate, from all accounts, if anyone was still holding out hope he had some secret plan: TL;DR: House GOP trying to make concessions to more conservative wing of party, drastically changing composition of the bill itself. They want to vote on it tomorrow when no one is totally sure what's in it and without a CBO score reflecting changes. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Said it before and I'll say it again, but the western part of Nebraska, my portion of the state at the moment, gets absolutely bloody murdered by the AHCA. Calling Rep Adrian Smith tomorrow. No way he should be voting for this bill. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 What's in it for them??? I've heard they are back tracking on some of their past behavior, but I wonder what their angle is. They know that regardless of what happens with the ACA on their side there are many disgruntled constituents. Really no R is coming out of this unscathed. The ones that have the most chance of recovering w/their people are the ones that decide to vote No. This gives them extra incentive to do so. And the Kochs recognize they'll need to really fight to keep Rs around after this mess of an administration. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There's a reason he's so supportive of this bill. It's a mixture of ignorance of healthcare and personal greed. Link to comment
Red Five Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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. 2 Link to comment
commando Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 The irony. when compared to the train wreck that is suppose to fix it.....yeah. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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. Girlfriend and I had a similar discussion this morning. I'm probably annoying her wanting to talk about it so much, but... Short answer: They're screwed. If it's a non-serious situation but still requires hospitalization, they could get on the horn with their provider and TRY to acquire a plan that now covers hospitalization. As we all know, trying to get something done over the phone with insurance companies is always a speedy and pleasant experience. She brought up the possibility of a wreck, too. In that case? They're going to have to pay out of pocket. I'd venture to guess most people don't know how much hospital stays cost until they have to have one. It could bankrupt them real fast. Here's my take: Their plan at least checks out in terms of free-market economics: If you hack apart all the regulations and allow insurance companies freedom to offer poor-quality piecemeal plans and reject or reject/price gouge the sick and elderly, of course premiums will go down. In terms of effective health policy that helps people who need to USE the healthcare? It's absolutely bonkers. Another thing folks aren't counting on: Deductibles. If premiums go way down, deductibles will go way up. Then we're in a situation where we pay very little for our plans but have to pay for most everything out of pocket. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Healthcare headline in 2017: Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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. 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts