StrangeSox

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:10 PM) Let me ask it again as I'm not familiar with the amounts of money in each tax. Was this just the tax to pay for ACA or does it go above and beyond that? I know what you're asking. I don't agree with the way you're trying to frame it. It was "just" a tax to pay for health care for millions and now we're giving millionaires a $50k/year tax cut instead. We're cutting a tax specifically for health insurance CEOs. That is the policy preferences of Republicans.

It's a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy so they can gut Medicaid. That's the policy choice being made here. It also adjusts the baseline for when they move on to tax"reform" next so they can make even deeper upper class tax cuts.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) They really didn't have insurance to begin with because the deductibles were so high, it was practically useless. And are they giving tax cuts to the wealthy or just decreasing the taxes to prior levels before they were raised on the wealthy for this program? You just restated "giving tax cuts to the wealthy." You could rephrase anything as "decreasing taxes to prior levels" that way. And yes, these people really do have insurance. Some have high deductibles, some don't. People also benefited beyond simply having coverage or not--we all likely benefited from the removal of lifetime and annual caps, for instance, which this bill restores. My brother benefited from the increase in parental insurance to 26 years. Many people have benefited from the requirements to cover pre existing conditions. Rural hospitals were given a lifeline and will likely have waves of closures thanks to this law.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:35 PM) i really disliked ACA and how difficult it made life in the clinic. However, I do like the fact that it changed the status quo and now they are trying something else. Maybe this will work more efficiently and it will be better. They aren't really trying something else. They're gutting ACA and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. They're gutting Medicaid. No health care economist or independent review seems to think this will make anything better, either. Tens of millions will lose insurance as premiums continue to rise and coverage gets worse.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:33 PM) These fields are far to general to be a coverage issue. Is that inpatient orthopedic care, mental, neurologic, emergency etc.? There is no "basic" care for inpatient or outpatient. Emergency care is actually another one of the ehb's this bill will allow states to opt out of. So is mental health coverage. And maternity coverage. And preventative care. I'm sure the actual regs get detailed on what specifically is required, but what you're advocating is that states should get the ability to drop these requirements, period. Why? Who benefits from this?

The ACA has a mechanism requiring insurance companies to spend at least 80% of premiums collected on health care costs. The Republican bills both remove this provision. Rabbit, you're right that this bill was ultimately good for the insurance industry. There has been plenty of criticism of the ACA from the left since the start. However, many still feel that it was better than the status quo ante and that this new bill will harm millions.

I guess I don't see any actual value in allowing insurers that don't cover basic things like inpatient care, outpatient care, or prescription drugs i.e. are useless and are "health insurance" in name only.

7th Circuit upholds throwing out the conviction and that the confession was coerced. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brendan-dassey...linkId=39000487

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:26 PM) I don't think it would work that way. It works that way in many other sectors of the economy, though. Look how many corporations are registered in Delaware. Look how many credit cards are issued from SD or Delaware because they have the most favorable usury laws. One of the key policy goals of Republicans has been "selling insurance across state lines," which means we'd lose state-by-state regulations as everyone could just base themselves out of the weakest regulatory body and sell insurance nationwide regardless of what IL or TX regulations are. Again, though, that's not what health economists actually think will happen, and from my own personal example, the position you're taking doesn't even really hold up. I live in Illinois, but my insurance is from BCBS-FL. If Florida takes the waivers and guts their state insurance regulations, I've now lost regulatory protections at the federal level and it's instead controlled by a state I have no ability to vote in. Health care needs do vary somewhat from state to state, but not in a way substantial enough that cutting EHB's really makes much sense. We're talking the most basic of care requirements. What state doesn't need hospitalization, prescription drugs, emergency services? Removing these can be a death sentence to people with pre-existing conditions if nobody decides to offer health plans in that state covering more expensive care or only offers them for outrageous sums of money, tens of thousands yearly. That's the outcome that health economists are projecting from this plan.

I'm fairly sure that the ACA actually has a provision requiring premium increases to be approved by HHS. It's similar to utility companies needing approval before a rate hike. The problem is that the response to "no, you can't raise premiums that much" is "fine, since it won't be profitable for shareholders, we'll just pull out of the market entirely." Actually insuring everyone healthy or sick from cradle to grave is incredibly expensive and not all that profitable.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:14 PM) Right now, there are four Senators publicly against it...and surely Murkowski and Heller. (McCain's for but hasn't even read much more than a synopsis, someone please put him out to pasture.) They tack too far to appease the right and Rand Paul, they lose the middle. Not to mention it could never get through the House unless all those cherished Republican principles are thrown out the window just to move on to tax reform and the budget, where the poor/middle class will continue to get screwed over again and again. They've all expressed "concerns" with the bill "as written," but McConnell apparently specifically left things out of the bill. This gives these Senators the cover to offer a specific amendment and then vote for the bill saying "it was the best deal we could get." Word from the House is that House R's will pass whatever the Senate does unchanged, avoiding a potentially messy reconciling of the two bills and then re-votes in both chambers. We're going to get this god-awful bill that blows up a big chunk of our healthcare industry and leaves thousands of dead Americans a year in its wake to fund nearly a trillion dollars in upper class tax cuts. That's where this country's political priorities are these days. e: I have no doubt that this will actually work

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:07 PM) i guess I wasn't clear. If there any regulations place upon the insurance companies to offer any of the services, the state should decide them because each state is different and have a better idea than the federal government. When I said paid, I was referring to what the insurance companies need to offer in relative coverage. more in certain areas than others for specific states. I would prefer there not be regulations but if there are, the states should decide them. I live and work in IL but my insurance is through FL because my employer chose that. I don't want to be subject to the whims of state-by-state policy and a race to the bottom for the worst legally required health insurance. That doesn't actually benefit anyone but health insurers. What state doesn't have people that would be harmed by the removal of the EHB requirements? Why should that basic level of care be decided on a state-by-state basis? What benefit to citizens gain from that?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:07 PM) The reason for the increase in premiums is because congress wont pass laws that restrict premiums. Of course insurance companies are going to do whatever they can to make the most money possible. The question is, do we as a society feel that people should be getting rich off the health of others? Some of it is also due to the GOP not promising to make the federal reimbursements to the insurers, creating a lot of uncertainty. They've been pretty explicit about that this year, as have the GOP about sabotaging the exchanges. Premiums were still rising too much under the ACA, but they were actually rising more slowly than they were pre-ACA.

Yeah health care in this country under the ACA is still a bit of a trainwreck for a lot of people. Turns out actually insuring health cradle-to-grave is expensive and not particularly profitable. The ACA is an improvement on a still pretty flawed system while the AHCA is deliberately taking a wrecking ball to the system and replacing it with upper class tax cuts.

Obama's response

It's not a question of state funding, though. It's a question of what insurance providers need to offer on private insurance markets.

I'm hoping for Arrested Development-style narrator voice overs.

Call your Senators and tell them to: 1) vote no if they're republican 2) do everything they possibly can to stop this if they're democrat

"Giving states more authority" means a fun race to the regulatory bottom (see: why all of your credit cards come from SD or Delaware) for large employers in multiple states and people living in a waiver state getting screwed, and block-granting Medicaid means massively cutting Medicaid. Different states have different medical issues to some extent, but it's not like some states don't actually have a need to cover pre-existing conditions or maternity or for insurers to make sure they spend a certain minimum percentage of premiums on actually paying for medical care. These are the Essential Health Benefits that Republicans would like to allow insurance companies to not provide: In what state would these not be routine and necessary services? on that same note:

more Americans being arrested for protesting https://twitter.com/sparksjls/status/877945753162792960

Warren: “These cuts are blood money… Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives”

Secret Report Contradicts US Position On Chelsea Manning Leaks Prosecutors said WikiLeaks' disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan posed a major threat to US national security. But it turns out the classified document they cited — newly obtained by BuzzFeed News — said almost the exact opposite.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 21, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) It feels like Jeremy Corbyn is PM. Parliament is awesome

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 09:44 AM) Glastonbury 2017: Jeremy Corbyn to support Run the Jewels on the Pyramid Stage Grenfell Tower fire: Jeremy Corbyn suggests using empty Kensington properties for victims Jeremy Corbyn rules. They're actually following through on Corbyn's suggestion and housing Grenfell victims in empty luxury condos nearby.

FBI says the gunman acted alone and didn't have a specific Congressman he was targeting. https://apnews.com/82d6a333da66401aaa164485...p;utm_medium=AP