House leaving town with GOP health care bill in shambles

[progree]

Source: Associated Press

... Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., a sponsor of the amendment, said it was aimed at containing premiums by providing an additional $15 billion over a decade to help insurers cover the costs of seriously ill people. Such customers' expensive care can drive up premiums for all consumers.

The money would be on top of a $100 billion fund already in the GOP bill that states could use for a variety of purposes, including high-risk insurance pools where people with medical problems can get coverage.

A proposal discussed between the White House and leaders of the conservative House Freedom Caucus would let states to seek federal waivers of two insurance requirements Obama's law established.

One forbids insurers from charging higher premiums on account of people's medical problems or pre-existing conditions. The other spells out categories of benefits, like hospitalization and substance abuse treatment, that all insurance plans must cover.

.... Another nonpartisan survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found relief that Congress has not managed to repeal the health law. It showed that 3 in 4 Americans want the Trump administration to make the law work. About 2 in 3 said they were glad the House GOP bill didn't pass. But people split evenly between wanting to keep or repeal the statute.


Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-health-deal-elusive-house-070635283.html

---

They also cite the Gallup poll that shows a majority (55-41) in favor of the ACA (Obamacare), a big shift from just 5 months ago.

Yeah, let people opt out of hospital coverage, who needs hospitals anyway?. With that attitude, why don't they just let people opt out of everything? $0 premiums (and in effect an infinite deductible).

I wish they'd show the entire list of what people can opt out of. Like is all that "woman stuff" on the list? (so that they will have to pay extra for pre-natal, maternity, contraception). Or cancer treatment?

I don't think $115 billion over 10 years is going to take care of all sick people ($15 billion in the first paragraph and $100 billion in the 2nd paragraph). Such state "high risk" pools have done a very poor job of that.

Anyway, I'm glad our worst case scenario -- a vote in favor of this Caligula-care atrocity -- didn't happen before the recess.

[Ilsa]

1. We shouldn't have to subsidize insurance co profits like this.

Cut out the middle man. Single payer; let ins cos provide supplementals.

[wryter2000]

2. Or...

As Howard Dean said years ago...add the option of buying into Medicare. The profit-mongers couldn't compete, and after a while we'd end up with Single Payer without having to enact it through Congress

[Yavin4]

3. That sounds like the best idea. The problem is...

that the actual healthcare providers may balk. What we will also have to do with Single payer is revamp how we educate and train our healthcare providers. We should eliminate all debt from the people who go to medical school. In return, they cannot refuse single payer patients.

[paleotn]

6. Exactly

And let the private health insurance industry wither and die. Future generations will look back and wonder why the hell we put up with this private health insurance stupidity for so long.

[karynnj]

4. Yes we do -- this was the government providing catastropic reinsurance

There was money in ACA to do this, but Marco Rubio stripped it out. It was important because otherwise the amount insurers had to charge was much higher to control for the possibility of them getting a very very costly person.

I would have no problem with Medicare for all - my daughter loved being on the National Health service when she studied in England. However, if we want an insurance company based system to work, this is essential.

[progree]

5. Yup, the risk corridors thing

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028846942

I'm surprised at the number of respondents in that thread who had not heard about this before.

[Ilsa]

7. We can do better by offering Medicare for anyone in

a risk corridor, instead of paying ins cos to manage the payments.

I understand that the risk corridor has to be covered. I don't like the turning it into a profitability issue for public cos.

[karynnj]

11. If you could get single payer passed

If you can't risk corridors help everyone, not the insurance companies. Without it they either charge high rates or move out of high cost areas.

[NCjack]

8. Wonderful. They did it to themselves. nt

[Initech]

9. When I'm in power, I won't have time for vacations or golfing, OK?

Stay in Washington and work, you cowards!

[Honeycombe8]

10. I guess that must be "complicated" stuff? Who knew? (sarcasm) nt