Ah, Congress, hypocrisy should be considered a pre existing condition.

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 24, 2010
661
12,009
Rock Ridge, California
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-repeal-pre-existing-conditions_us_5900124fe4b0026db1dc423b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

"Apparently yanking away the funds that allow millions of people to get health insurance isn’t enough for some House Republicans.

Now they also want to gut the Affordable Care Act’s protection for people with pre-existing conditions.


Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) on Tuesday formally unveiled an amendment to the American Health Care Act, the bill to repeal Obamacare that Republicans tried to get through the House last month. The amendment, which HuffPost’s Matt Fuller first reported last week, is the product of negotiations among key Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence.

A main goal of the proposal is to win over conservative House members who last month opposed the GOP repeal bill because, in their view, it still left too much of the 2010 health care law in place. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, helped to craft the amendment. And although he has not yet declared support for it publicly, a few other conservatives have signaled they may be ready to switch from no to yes.

It’s easy enough to see why. If enacted, it would allow states to re-create the conditions that existed before the Affordable Care Act took effect ― a time when insurance premiums were cheaper, chiefly because insurers didn’t have to pay the big medical bills of people with serious conditions.
"

This is the thing that made me almost fall of my chair though...

https://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

"House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts Members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan.

The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.

Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations. Health law expert Tim Jost flagged me to this particular issue.

A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage on the individual market, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans than it should be good enough for their representations in Washington.

That’s been happening for the past four years now. Fast-forward to this new amendment, which would allow states to waive out of key Obamacare protections like the ban on pre-existing conditions or the requirement to cover things like maternity care and mental health services.

If Congressional aides lived in a state that decided to waive these protections, the aides who were sick could be vulnerable to higher premiums than the aides that are healthy. Their benefits package could get skimpier as Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement may no longer apply either.

This apparently does not sound appealing because the Republican amendment includes the members of Congress and their staff as a protected group who cannot be affected by this amendment.

You can see it on the sixth page of the amendment, although it is admittedly hard to spot. The Obamacare section that requires legislators to buy on the individual market is section 1312(d)(3)(D). And if you look at the Republican amendment, and the list of who cannot be included in this waiver? It includes Section 1312(d)(3)(D).
"

o_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O Seriously? WTH?! How do you even try to defend something so craven?!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
Is there documented proof of such a thing? I know it's regular talking point, but have never seen any definitive numbers to back up such a claim.
Well I am not about to disclose my earnings statements over the last few years but my health care costs have gone way up. I know 3 couples who make around $40,000 a year who's employers stopped offering insurance and had to go through the exchanges. They now have to pay about $450 a month in health care costs that they really can't afford so that others can have it for free. It's wrong.
[doublepost=1493217719][/doublepost]
You want millions of people uninsured, skyrocketing healthcare costs, no neighborhood healthcare clinics, and everyone using the emergency room?
Healthcare costs are skyrocketing now. The system is in worse shape then before the ACA. So undoing the damage done by the ACA is a good start. Then when we are back to where we were prior to ACA we can address specific issues one at a time.

People should have the right to be uninsured if they wish to be. They should be able to pay out of pocket if they wish. There are lots of ways to cut costs that we should have implemented in the first place. Tort reform; denying health care access to illegal aliens (unless it is life or death, no more emergency room visits for illegal kids with the sniffles).
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 24, 2010
661
12,009
Rock Ridge, California
Well I am not about to disclose my earnings statements over the last few years but my health care costs have gone way up. I know 3 couples who make around $40,000 a year who's employers stopped offering insurance and had to go through the exchanges. They now have to pay about $450 a month in health care costs that they really can't afford so that others can have it for free. It's wrong.
That's a relatively small slice. You and 3 couples do not make the bulk of the country. You made the statement that it hurts more people & puts a burden on the working class. If the working class is say only 1 million people ( yeah I know that's unrealistically small, but easier to grasp ), 5 - 6 people are hardly the main focus. Maybe another 900K + or so do benefit from the ACA. You'd deny them because you and your friends have been personally negatively impacted?

My question was, is there actual documentation to back up that talking point about the ACA harming so many of the working class & it being such a burden?
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
The system is in worse shape then before the ACA.
This is just 100% not true. Not even close. You can't support that statement with a single citeable fact, because there is none.

In every objective measurable way, the ACA improved healthcare in the US compared to how it was pre ACA. Single unverifiable anecdotes aside.

You can argue the ACA wasn't progressive enough in some ways, you can argue the ACA went too far in some ways, but to say the system is worse today than it was before 100% grade-A bullplop.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,812
You want millions of people uninsured, skyrocketing healthcare costs, no neighborhood healthcare clinics, and everyone using the emergency room?
I believe that is called the Undocumented Mexican Healthcare Act that has been in place for decades and it seems to work quite well for them.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
The ACA hurts more people than it helps Steve. IT puts a huge burden on the working class. Its not right.
bull crap it has given millions insurance they never had. it has helped people who would have died. Give me your proof it has hurt more then it has hurt. seems the people agree with me and not you. they have attacked their republican congressmen over it.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
People should have the right to be uninsured if they wish to be. They should be able to pay out of pocket if they wish.
Okey hotshot. What do you do in the following?

Young Dude chooses to be uninsured, chooses pay out of pocket. Dude is hiking in the great outdoors and by act of god a tree branch falls on him. The injury, if untreated, would disable him forever and make it impossible for him to work. Treatment costs $250,000, big complicated surgery and lots of drugs, but with full recovery. He only has $10,000 in savings.

Do you turn him away at the hospital? He chose to be uninsured, right? He chose not to save enough to pay for healthcare? He can't possible pay the bill. But now he can't work, and must go on social security or disability, foodstamps, the whole nine yards. The dude is young, remember, so it could be decades of benefits, the cost of which far exceeds what the treatment would have cost.

Or do you turn him away at the hospital and not give him safety net benefits either? Do you just leave him to rot and die?

Or do you give him the treatment, and pass the cost on to the people who do choose to have insurance to cover the cost of his treatment and to the people who are able to pay their bills?
 

mac_in_tosh

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2016
351
4,553
Earth
Healthcare costs are skyrocketing now. The system is in worse shape then before the ACA.
This is not all due to the ACA. Many other factors are in play. For example, our Tweeter-In-Chief had campaigned to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices but abandoned that stance after one meeting with drug company CEO's.

People should have the right to be uninsured if they wish to be.
This is a fallacy, one that was addressed by Romneycare (at the suggestion of a conservative think tank). If someone is uninsured and has an accident or serious illness, they are still treated. The cost for that treatment is passed on to everyone else that is paying for insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
Okey hotshot. What do you do in the following?

Young Dude chooses to be uninsured, chooses pay out of pocket. Dude is hiking in the great outdoors and by act of god a tree branch falls on him. The injury, if untreated, would disable him forever and make it impossible for him to work. Treatment costs $250,000, big complicated surgery and lots of drugs, but with full recovery. He only has $10,000 in savings.

Do you turn him away at the hospital? He chose to be uninsured, right? He chose not to save enough to pay for healthcare? He can't possible pay the bill. But now he can't work, and must go on social security or disability, foodstamps, the whole nine yards. The dude is young, remember, so it could be decades of benefits, the cost of which far exceeds what the treatment would have cost.

Or do you turn him away at the hospital and not give him safety net benefits either? Do you just leave him to rot and die?

Or do you give him the treatment, and pass the cost on to the people who do choose to have insurance to cover the cost of his treatment and to the people who are able to pay their bills?
Hospitals allow people to pay in installments. A friend of mine broke his leg and was allowed to pay $10 a month until it was paid off. There is always a way to pay off your debts without pushing the cost to others.
 

noekozz

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2010
604
1,019
212/201
It's easy to rave and rant about wanting to defund the ACA, specially for pre-existing conditions. Let them go ahead and do it, I only hope that one of their family members comes down with stage 4 cancer so they can shove that bill right up their congressional districts' reps a$$.

I used to work as a CSR for the NYC Medicaid hotline and would file complaints with the HRA against HMO's who denied those coverage due to a pre-existing condition. HMO's are a profit driven business and if you're labeled a liability, they would just cut you off. It's not meant to harbor cheaper plans and competition, it's strictly net loss/profit. This is the Republican equivalent of "sorry grandma but your health is just way too costly to treat, so just sit at home and die slowly, but don't worry, you can still go to get your annual check up."
[doublepost=1493218641][/doublepost]
Hospitals allow people to pay in installments. A friend of mine broke his leg and was allowed to pay $10 a month until it was paid off. There is always a way to pay off your debts without pushing the cost to others.

What year was this, because I guarantee you at $10/month he's probably still paying for it now.
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
bull crap it has given millions insurance they never had. it has helped people who would have died. Give me your proof it has hurt more then it has hurt. seems the people agree with me and not you. they have attacked their republican congressmen over it.
Costs are going up Stevie. Dead beats are getting covered and workers are going into the red to cover it.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
Hospitals allow people to pay in installments. A friend of mine broke his leg and was allowed to pay $10 a month until it was paid off. There is always a way to pay off your debts without pushing the cost to others.
Oh, "always" it's so easy. As always, supported by an unverifiable anecdote about a "friend."

Even installment plans are pushing the cost down to everyone else. Do you think hospitals love giving out interest-free loans? Do you think hospitals love losing money on inflation? What do you think happens when the person stops paying before the debt is fully paid off?
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
This is just 100% not true. Not even close. You can't support that statement with a single citeable fact, because there is none.

In every objective measurable way, the ACA improved healthcare in the US compared to how it was pre ACA. Single unverifiable anecdotes aside.

You can argue the ACA wasn't progressive enough in some ways, you can argue the ACA went too far in some ways, but to say the system is worse today than it was before 100% grade-A bullplop.
My costs are up by a factor of 4. I am not in a unique situation here.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Costs are going up Stevie. Dead beats are getting covered and workers are going into the red to cover it.
deadbeats used to go to the emergency room and you paid for it. it has nothing to do with deadbeats it has to do with insurance companies choosing to rip you off.
Now knock off the stevie crap its getting old and I know it make you feel superior and all but still.
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2009
1,560
3,936
USA
The pre-existing condition thing has always confused me. Does the law require that insurance companies must offer them coverage but can charge what they want? Or does it put a cap on the price?
 

noekozz

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2010
604
1,019
212/201
I think we can all agree that costs were sky rocketing even before the ACA. It's a double edge sword, cut the ACA in an effort to harbor cheaper rates/competition = 20 Mill Americans with no health insurance which we now have to foot the bill. Keep it as is = too many people with health insurance and thus rates increase due to cost. There's no win/win out of this.
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
That's a relatively small slice. You and 3 couples do not make the bulk of the country. You made the statement that it hurts more people & puts a burden on the working class. If the working class is say only 1 million people ( yeah I know that's unrealistically small, but easier to grasp ), 5 - 6 people are hardly the main focus. Maybe another 900K + or so do benefit from the ACA. You'd deny them because you and your friends have been personally negatively impacted?

My question was, is there actual documentation to back up that talking point about the ACA harming so many of the working class & it being such a burden?
Send me $500,000 and I will contact an adequate study. Short of that my personal life experience is the best you are going to get.