Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I can't wait to see how they spin this as better for women. They're ensuring it's so unpopular that the Senate won't pass it, not if they want to keep their seats.

[smjjames]

Almost sounds like they want to make 'having a womb' a pre-exising condition.

Also, in going beyond the biological and adding things that aren't purely biological and are physical (caesarean section is a medical procedure for crying out loud), or even to legal concepts, they're running against another problem, where do you stop? Car accidents? accident that happened in childhood? splinters? It just speaks to the whole illogic of pre-existing conditions, which only work in a cold corporate mindset.

[nenjin]

The whole idea is to get you on their plans, then refuse to pay for jack shit. And when you drop them because they're worthless, the Fed swoops in and taxes your ass for not having health insurance.

This is basically bringing the individual mandate to its full, nightmarish conclusion, where we're stuck in a system we can't get out of and which provides us nothing we need.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So one of the reasons healthcare is expensive is because healthcare providers must treat patients regardless of ability to pay and they are forced to absorb the cost. So they pass the costs to paying patients and insurers. Which means less people able to pay, insurance rates going up in a vicious cycle.

Obamacare was intended to force everyone to be insured to drive down costs across the board. Like how auto insurance is pretty cheap because almost everyone has it regardless if the crash their shit a lot ot not.

Unfortunately it didn't work like this and hospitals and insurers have been uncompetitive in lowering prices and have just been pocketing the profits. Over the very long term Obamacare should start working as intended.

So from what I understand Trumpcare is just modified Obamacare. Its intent is to make insurers compete. It probably wont work either.

[smjjames]

The whole idea is to get you on their plans, then refuse to pay for jack shit. And when you drop them because they're worthless, the Fed swoops in and taxes your ass for not having health insurance.

This is basically bringing the individual mandate to its full, nightmarish conclusion, where we're stuck in a system we can't get out of and which provides us nothing we need.

Wasn't the Individual Mandate something Obama wanted for ACA and put in it? Not sure if you meant that was the inevitable conclusion or what nenjin, but pretty sure Obama didn't intend for it to be like that. Of course, the Republicans went and screwed with the system.

[McTraveller]

So I've got to play devil's advocate, and I'm also too lazy to look it up: it sounds like the ACA amendment is simply removing a restriction against pre-existing conditions. Does the federal law define pre-existing conditions, or is it just that some of those things were previously considered preexisting by various insurance companies?

[smjjames]

So I've got to play devil's advocate, and I'm also too lazy to look it up: it sounds like the ACA amendment is simply removing a restriction against pre-existing conditions. Does the federal law define pre-existing conditions, or is it just that some of those things were previously considered preexisting by various insurance companies?

The concept of pre-existing condition should be abolished entirely IMO. Don't know what the legal status is though.

[nenjin]

The whole idea is to get you on their plans, then refuse to pay for jack shit. And when you drop them because they're worthless, the Fed swoops in and taxes your ass for not having health insurance.

This is basically bringing the individual mandate to its full, nightmarish conclusion, where we're stuck in a system we can't get out of and which provides us nothing we need.

Wasn't the Individual Mandate something Obama wanted for ACA and put in it? Not sure if you meant that was the inevitable conclusion or what nenjin, but pretty sure Obama didn't intend for it to be like that. Of course, the Republicans went and screwed with the system.

It wasn't Obama's goal to do this (the individual mandate was there to keep the cost of healthcare down by everyone participating.) But what it's been turned into by Trump is what people were always afraid of with the individual mandate: that health insurance would still suck AND we'd be trapped, tied and served to insurance companies on a silver platter. So now we're legally required to have health insurance that will deny coverage based on just about anything they choose. But you still have to have it or face penalties at tax time.

It's pretty goddamn Orwellian.

[Lord Shonus]

So far as I am able to tell (it is written in legalese, which I don't speak fluently), the proposed law defines nothing, just removes language from the ACA. What Caroline and others are concerned about is that women were turned down for health care coverage for such reasons before the ACA smacked insurance carriers down, and the bill seems to be eliminating that protection.

To use an analogy, it isn't saying that it is OK to build unsafe houses, but is removing some of the regulations that ensure houses are built safe.

The odd thing about the bill is section 137.

SEC. 137. CONSTRUCTIONS.
13
(a)  NO GENDER RATING
.—Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to discriminate in rates for health insurance coverage by gender.

16
(b)  NO LIMITING ACCESS  TO COVERAGE  FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS
—Nothing  in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers  to  limit  access  to  health  coverage  for  individuals with preexisting conditions.

Given that (so far as I can tell) the point of the entire bill is weakening the prohibition on "preexisting conditions", section b makes it very hard to see the actual effect. It doesn't help that all the coverage I can find seems to be very heavy on drama and hype and very light on actual analysis.

[McTraveller]

The concept of pre-existing condition should be abolished entirely IMO. Don't know what the legal status is though.

Well that's the whole debate, isn't it?  Certain things cost piles of money, and they are often due to certain conditions.  So if you force people to treat those conditions, then it costs money - and someone has to pay it.

The people currently getting paid for medical services want to keep getting paid (and, by and large, any reduction in revenue is going to be borne by the "average" worker, not the CEOs or lobbyists).  People paying for medical services don't want to pay so much.  People who are ill want to get treatment at the lowest out-of-pocket cost possible.

Something has to give.

I wish I had a good solution.

EDIT: I do have some "interesting" solutions, but they aren't really tenable. My favorite current one also addresses all the UBI nonsense.  Basically from the Manna short story: Every person gets some amount of money every year (call it $55000 in the US). Every 12 months, their bank accounts get reset to $55k.  No exceptions.  So regardless of your job, position, what you buy, whatever - every single person starts with the same cash every year.  Oh, and no loans allowed either.

[smjjames]

So, where is the thing that Caroline found coming from? I'm a bit confused. Though I may be as confused as everybody else is.

BTW, the House is voting on the bill within the next hour or so.

The concept of pre-existing condition should be abolished entirely IMO. Don't know what the legal status is though.

Well that's the whole debate, isn't it?  Certain things cost piles of money, and they are often due to certain conditions.  So if you force people to treat those conditions, then it costs money - and someone has to pay it.

The people currently getting paid for medical services want to keep getting paid (and, by and large, any reduction in revenue is going to be borne by the "average" worker, not the CEOs or lobbyists).  People paying for medical services don't want to pay so much.  People who are ill want to get treatment at the lowest out-of-pocket cost possible.

Something has to give.

I wish I had a good solution.

I hear ya. And the desire to keep the deficit down makes it harder.

Sustainability with equal and full coverage seems to be something that no country has found an answer to yet.

[Puzzlemaker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/trump-religion-executive-order-gay-rights.html

So that's a thing.  Separation of church and state is a pretty fundamental part of our country, so I don't like how it's being eroded.  Hopefully the court will strike this one down, like many of his other executive orders...

[smjjames]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/trump-religion-executive-order-gay-rights.html

So that's a thing.  Separation of church and state is a pretty fundamental part of our country, so I don't like how it's being eroded.  Hopefully the court will strike this one down, like many of his other executive orders...

That url is rather misleading compared to the article title and subject. Nowhere in the article does it say anything about gay rights.

Also, I suspect that thing could be a double edged sword. If churches can endorse candidates, what's stopping things like universities from doing so?

[Puzzlemaker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/trump-religion-executive-order-gay-rights.html

So that's a thing.  Separation of church and state is a pretty fundamental part of our country, so I don't like how it's being eroded.  Hopefully the court will strike this one down, like many of his other executive orders...

That url is rather misleading compared to the article title and subject. Nowhere in the article does it say anything about gay rights.

Also, I suspect that thing could be a double edged sword. If churches can endorse candidates, what's stopping things like universities from doing so?

The reason for the title (from what I understand, take it with a grain of salt) is it's a compromise to allow religious leaders to fight for the right to disallow gays and contraceptives, instead of an order that does just that.

Also, yes, I can think of many ways to protest this.

[Starver]

That url is rather misleading compared to the article title and subject. Nowhere in the article does it say anything about gay rights.

Maybe I'm over-reading it, but the first two paragraphs (which resist copypasta selection on this device, probably some .js) entirely fit the erosion of gay rights aspect (that he happens not to have, despite pressure to do so, that is.  Luckily enough).