GOP's Obamacare replacement bill would protect just 5 percent of people with pre-existing conditions

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,545
151
63
"Texas alone has approximately 190,000 enrollees in its individual market with pre-existing chronic conditions, nearly 80,000 more people than the funds earmarked for the entire country would cover," Avalere said. "Florida has 205,000, nearly 95,000 more than the funds allotted nationally ... would cover."

The study was released hours before the House was expected to vote on the Republican bill.

That bill would allow states to obtain waivers for insurers that would let those companies charge sicker people more money for coverage than healthier people if they let their insurance plans lapse, as long as the state creates a program to give those sicker people financial aid for their coverage.

To offset some of the cost of those higher charges, the bill also sets aside funding to subsidize coverage for people with pre-existing conditions through high-risk pools in individual states.

But Obamacare defenders have said that past efforts by states that ran high-risk pools for such people have failed to cover enough people, and did not have adequate funding.

Avalere's analysis suggests that history could repeat itself if the Republican bill becomes law.

"Given the amount of funding in the bill, the program can only afford a few small states to opt into medical underwriting," said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. Medical underwriting is the practice of determining health insurance rates based on an individual customer's health status.

"If any large states receive a waiver, many chronically ill individuals could be left without access to insurance," Pearson said.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/gops...le-with-pre-existing-conditions-analysis.html
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
"Texas alone has approximately 190,000 enrollees in its individual market with pre-existing chronic conditions, nearly 80,000 more people than the funds earmarked for the entire country would cover," Avalere said. "Florida has 205,000, nearly 95,000 more than the funds allotted nationally ... would cover."

The study was released hours before the House was expected to vote on the Republican bill.

That bill would allow states to obtain waivers for insurers that would let those companies charge sicker people more money for coverage than healthier people if they let their insurance plans lapse, as long as the state creates a program to give those sicker people financial aid for their coverage.

To offset some of the cost of those higher charges, the bill also sets aside funding to subsidize coverage for people with pre-existing conditions through high-risk pools in individual states.

But Obamacare defenders have said that past efforts by states that ran high-risk pools for such people have failed to cover enough people, and did not have adequate funding.

Avalere's analysis suggests that history could repeat itself if the Republican bill becomes law.

"Given the amount of funding in the bill, the program can only afford a few small states to opt into medical underwriting," said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. Medical underwriting is the practice of determining health insurance rates based on an individual customer's health status.

"If any large states receive a waiver, many chronically ill individuals could be left without access to insurance," Pearson said.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/gops...le-with-pre-existing-conditions-analysis.html
Are we sure what's even in the bill yet? I had read earlier drafts that said people with pre-existing conditions could face stiffer premiums if they let their coverage lapse. I love that idea. We tried the carrot approach to get people insured, I think it's time to move to the stick.

Granted there's a lot more to this bill, but it does have positives imo. Really wish Congress would grow up and actually work health care out together, but there's probably a better chance of Mexico paying for a wall.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
81,950
2,092
113
"Texas alone has approximately 190,000 enrollees in its individual market with pre-existing chronic conditions, nearly 80,000 more people than the funds earmarked for the entire country would cover," Avalere said. "Florida has 205,000, nearly 95,000 more than the funds allotted nationally ... would cover."

The study was released hours before the House was expected to vote on the Republican bill.

That bill would allow states to obtain waivers for insurers that would let those companies charge sicker people more money for coverage than healthier people if they let their insurance plans lapse, as long as the state creates a program to give those sicker people financial aid for their coverage.

To offset some of the cost of those higher charges, the bill also sets aside funding to subsidize coverage for people with pre-existing conditions through high-risk pools in individual states.

But Obamacare defenders have said that past efforts by states that ran high-risk pools for such people have failed to cover enough people, and did not have adequate funding.

Avalere's analysis suggests that history could repeat itself if the Republican bill becomes law.

"Given the amount of funding in the bill, the program can only afford a few small states to opt into medical underwriting," said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. Medical underwriting is the practice of determining health insurance rates based on an individual customer's health status.

"If any large states receive a waiver, many chronically ill individuals could be left without access to insurance," Pearson said.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/gops...le-with-pre-existing-conditions-analysis.html

Can't insure everybody nor should we. If you can get to the eR, they have to treat you. Helathcare is a commodity, not a right.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
"Texas alone has approximately 190,000 enrollees in its individual market with pre-existing chronic conditions...

That bill would allow states to obtain waivers for insurers that would let those companies charge sicker people more money for coverage than healthier people if they let their insurance plans lapse, as long as the state creates a program to give those sicker people financial aid for their coverage.

To offset some of the cost of those higher charges, the bill also sets aside funding to subsidize coverage for people with pre-existing conditions through high-risk pools in individual states.

Anything being added with pre-existing conditions needs to change the term. It's no longer insurance at that point. I can't call up an insurance company and get coverage for my house that's on fire.
 

rog1187

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
69,747
4,979
113
Are we sure what's even in the bill yet? I had read earlier drafts that said people with pre-existing conditions could face stiffer premiums if they let their coverage lapse. I love that idea. We tried the carrot approach to get people insured, I think it's time to move to the stick.

Granted there's a lot more to this bill, but it does have positives imo. Really wish Congress would grow up and actually work health care out together, but there's probably a better chance of Mexico paying for a wall.
Put more money into hospice to help people through the death process instead of trying every last test, procedure, medicine, etc. that has a fraction of a chance to keep someone alive...yeah it's a bitter pill to swallow.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
just more fake news for the brainwashed...

how many times has the fake media fed you lies and you just eat it up...

I've lost track of the lies...



helluva week for DJT...

started the wall and got rid of obamapuppetcare...

just last week you idiots were calling him out for not keeping his promises...
 

rog1187

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
69,747
4,979
113
And make hospitals eat the cost. Swell plan. We were here a few years ago.
What happens when those people with high-deductible plans go to the ED...and then never pay their co-insurance? Who is eating that?
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
81,950
2,092
113
And make hospitals eat the cost. Swell plan. We were here a few years ago.
Nothing works for everybody. People now are effectively uninsured with deductibles to large for them to pay. 60 year old women paying for maturity and pedodontic care. I'm not sayig there aren't problems, I'm saying that the aCA made it too expensive for people and businesses to hire. We can do better than just increase welfare rolls. My office manager got a $800.00 subsidy but had a 12,000 deduct. It was too much for too little coverage. The ACA was a trerrible law. I hope that the GOP does a better job but there's no guarantee as long as people think the govt owes them something.
 

rog1187

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
69,747
4,979
113
Nothing works for everybody. People now are effectively uninsured with deductibles to large for them to pay. 60 year old women paying for maturity and pedodontic care. I'm not sayig there aren't problems, I'm saying that the aCA made it too expensive for people and businesses to hire. We can do better than just increase welfare rolls. My office manager got a $800.00 subsidy but had a 12,000 deduct. It was too much for too little coverage. The ACA was a trerrible law. I hope that the GOP does a better job but there's no guarantee as long as people think the govt owes them something.
We are poor consumers of healthcare insurance...we take better care of our cars so we don't have huge bills, but when it comes to health not so much. I realize some people are born with health issues beyond their control, but there are a lot of people that don't take care of themselves and they become a burden on all of us.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
81,950
2,092
113
We are poor consumers of healthcare insurance...we take better care of our cars so we don't have huge bills, but when it comes to health not so much. I realize some people are born with health issues beyond their control, but there are a lot of people that don't take care of themselves and they become a burden on all of us.
Smokers and heavy drinkers. If somebody doesn't take care of their car or house, your neighbor isn't fined to pay for your mistakes.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,545
151
63
started the wall and got rid of obamapuppetcare...
Yep, ready to make some fence repairs and you're halfway at best on Trumpcare. That White House event was like playing Country Roads at halftime of a Mountaineer game, comical. You better hope the Senate comes up with something better or it might be goodbye to the house next year.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
lol...

ANY politician running for reelection in 2018 HAS TO BE BEHIND THIS BILL...

or they lose in 2018...



Trump played you idiots like a fiddle...

and you still don't see it...
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,545
151
63
lol...

ANY politician running for reelection in 2018 HAS TO BE BEHIND THIS BILL...

or they lose in 2018...



Trump played you idiots like a fiddle...

and you still don't see it...
You mean any Republican...No one knows what will be in any bill that gets passed, the worse it is the more bad press there will be. Passing a turd of a bill won't guarantee anyone re-election.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Senate passed a $1.2 trillion funding bill Thursday, one day after it was passed in the House of Representatives.

All 45 Democratic senators voted for the resolution, and were joined by 32 Republicans and two Independents. Nineteen Republican senators voted against the measure

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., voted in favor.


The bill funds the government through September, and includes a permanent solution for funding miners’ health care benefits. More than 22,000 coal miners and their families will lose their insurance coverage if a solution is signed into law.

“Congress has finally passed a permanent healthcare solution to keep the promise and ensure that they have the healthcare benefits they have earned,” Manchin said in a statement.

“I fought hard to ensure the final agreement included permanent health care for miners and their families, and passage of this bill ensures that is exactly what they will get,” Capito said in a release. “No more notices, no more questioning.”

Cecil Roberts, president of United Mine Workers of America, said he was appreciative of the bipartisan efforts. In a statement, he thanked multiple lawmakers including Manchin and Capito, as well as Rep. David McKinely, R-W.Va.

Roberts said McKinley was “our lead sponsor and strong advocate” in the House of Representatives.

The resolution does not include a solution for funding pensions, which Roberts said is an issue the union will continue to press.

“We look forward to again solving this problem in a bi-partisan manner and ensuring that these retirees get the full spectrum of benefits they earned working in our nation’s coal mines,” he said. “Putting their lives and their health on the line every single day to produce the fuel that powered America.”

According to a UMWA press release, 89,000 current pensioners and 30,000 others will not receive their benefits.

The resolution also includes military spending increases, funding to combat opioid addiction and natural disaster recovery assistance.

President Donald Trump will have to sign the resolution by midnight Friday.
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,995
1,922
113
Nothing works for everybody. People now are effectively uninsured with deductibles to large for them to pay. 60 year old women paying for maturity and pedodontic care. I'm not sayig there aren't problems, I'm saying that the aCA made it too expensive for people and businesses to hire. We can do better than just increase welfare rolls. My office manager got a $800.00 subsidy but had a 12,000 deduct. It was too much for too little coverage. The ACA was a trerrible law. I hope that the GOP does a better job but there's no guarantee as long as people think the govt owes them something.

I think we are fast coming to two choices. Either we go to a pure free market, with no mandates from Government on coverage, prices, subsidies, or quality of care desired. Or a single payer system, where the Government decides all of that.

There are problems with this bill as there were under the ACA, I'm of the opinion until or unless you get the Government out of health care you will always have problems covering everyone affordably.

The only real solution that works is the free market, but the bureaucrats just don't trust the people or healthcare providers to behave in their own best interests.

So here we are.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
79,995
1,922
113
at
Make them pay up front if they dont have insurance or tough ****. That would push people onto plans.

I'm all for letting folks decide how much if any insurance they want. Insurance companies do not exist to pay out claims, They exist to make money. If some of them want to take on high risk patients, and think they can still operate profitably, let 'em offer those policies but folks will have to pay for them if they're already sick.

It's not yours or my responsibility to heal everyone who is sick, and Insurance is there in case you get sick, not to keep you from being sick. We need to put patients and health care providers back in control over how much care is delivered or needed and at what price?

Government trying to solve that dilemma never works, and can't work because it cannot tailor to specific individual needs or desires like private choice can.
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
Really wish Congress would grow up and actually work health care out together, but there's probably a better chance of Mexico paying for a wall.
I hear ya, but since Ocare let the Jeanie out, IMO we are headed for single payer no matter what you call it. ACA, ACHA, doesn't matter, our kind nature will be used against us. The ACA all but decimated the Democratic Party and the ACHA may do the same for the Republican Party. The opposing Party may from heretofore make gains against whatever Party appears to control Health Care. The Government in charge of Health Care, that's a hell of a thing. *shudder* Congress working together? Haha. Well, they say laughter's the best medicine.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
I hear ya, but since Ocare let the Jeanie out, IMO we are headed for single payer no matter what you call it. ACA, ACHA, doesn't matter, our kind nature will be used against us. The ACA all but decimated the Democratic Party and the ACHA may do the same for the Republican Party. The opposing Party may from heretofore make gains against whatever Party appears to control Health Care. The Government in charge of Health Care, that's a hell of a thing. *shudder* Congress working together? Haha. Well, they say laughter's the best medicine.

I disagree. After we shake out the cobwebs, the current path is the closest to correct. Single payer will destroy this country's healthcare, we have too many scam artists out for themselves. The insurance model for most, and federal assistance for the outliers, is the way to go.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
I disagree. After we shake out the cobwebs, the current path is the closest to correct. Single payer will destroy this country's healthcare, we have too many scam artists out for themselves. The insurance model for most, and federal assistance for the outliers, is the way to go.

You are addressing a couple of problems with healthcare in this country in your post and those are pre-existing conditions and the lack of competition by insurance companies in some markets. PriddyBoy is addressing one of the biggest problems, the overall cost of heath care in this country with single payer. We still have to keep chipping away at overall health care costs in this country when it is roughly 25% of our total federal budget. To simply go back to "the way things were before the ACA" is not an option. ACA attempted to address all of these problems. Tweak the ACA to make it better. Congress needs to work for its constituents once again. It doesn't now, it works for special interests. If all of Congress truly worked to represent the best interests of its constituents, there wouldn't be so much partisanship.
 

Bulya

Senior
May 29, 2001
10,579
471
0
Won't get through the Senate as is thankfully but once again Tax Cut for the Rich and **** All Over the Poor and Elderly.

Standard operating procedure for the GOP.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
You are addressing a couple of problems with healthcare in this country in your post and those are pre-existing conditions and the lack of competition by insurance companies in some markets. PriddyBoy is addressing one of the biggest problems, the overall cost of heath care in this country with single payer. We still have to keep chipping away at overall health care costs in this country when it is roughly 25% of our total federal budget. To simply go back to "the way things were before the ACA" is not an option. ACA attempted to address all of these problems. Tweak the ACA to make it better. Congress needs to work for its constituents once again. It doesn't now, it works for special interests. If all of Congress truly worked to represent the best interests of its constituents, there wouldn't be so much partisanship.

ACA did absolutely nothing to address cost. Single payer does nothing to address cost. Trumpcare does very little to address cost, from what I've seen. Government fixing a price to something doesn't change its cost, the provider will have to make it up elsewhere. You are only changing who pays for it.

Changing the ways doctors and hospitals do business is the only thing that will address cost, and noone wants to address that.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Won't get through the Senate as is thankfully but once again Tax Cut for the Rich and **** All Over the Poor and Elderly.

Standard operating procedure for the GOP.

I'm not rich, and Obamacare crapped all over me. My premiums didn't go up that considerably, but the high deductibles make it to where I can't afford to go to the doctor myself, after the rest of my family is taken care of. I haven't been in 9 years now, and should, I'm prime age for issues to start. I'm either going to be very fortunate, or drop over dead one day.
 

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
How is this a "Tax cut for the rich".

Are people considering the repeal of the ACA tax increases as tax cuts?

o_O
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
ACA did absolutely nothing to address cost. Single payer does nothing to address cost. Trumpcare does very little to address cost, from what I've seen. Government fixing a price to something doesn't change its cost, the provider will have to make it up elsewhere. You are only changing who pays for it.

Changing the ways doctors and hospitals do business is the only thing that will address cost, and noone wants to address that.

ACA attempted to get more people to purchase insurance, particularly the young and healthy. With more healthy people enrolled, the cost of insurance for everyone comes down, not to mention the young and healthy that didn't have insurance making ER visits for traumatic injuries and stiffing the hospitals and everyone else eating the costs (includes you and I).
Single payer eliminates a middle man, the insurance companies, so yes it does bring down costs, probably not dramatically but it brings down costs.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
ACA attempted to get more people to purchase insurance, particularly the young and healthy. With more healthy people enrolled, the cost of insurance for everyone comes down, not to mention the young and healthy that didn't have insurance making ER visits for traumatic injuries and stiffing the hospitals and everyone else eating the costs (includes you and I).
Single payer eliminates a middle man, the insurance companies, so yes it does bring down costs, probably not dramatically but it brings down costs.

Now you're talking cost of insurance, not the cost of the service. Again, you're just shifting around who pays for it. A shell game.