HERE'S HOW THE HOUSE BILL WOULD CHANGE HEALTH CARE FROM THE CURRENT LAW
by Kevin Ryan
REPEAL - The American Health Care Act, if passed by the Senate and signed into law, will dismantle most core aspects of ObamaCare, including:
• The employer mandate and penalties for not insuring employees who work more than 30 hours a week at companies with more than 50 employees are repealed.
• The individual mandate and penalties for not having insurance are repealed.
• The expansion of Medicaid will effectively end in 2020 when the federal government stops funding it. States that have not already expanded would not be allowed to do so, starting immediately.
• Obamacare's income-based subsidies are ended.
• The 3.8% tax on investment income is repealed.
• The 0.9% tax on higher income Americans is repealed.
• The tax on medical devices is eliminated.
• The tax on prescription medications is repealed.
• The tax on health insurance premiums is ended.
• The tax on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) is repealed.
• The tax on tanning salons is repealed.
• The tax on retiree prescription drug coverage is repealed.
• The tax deduction on expenses exceeding 7.5% of a family's income is reinstated (Obamacare had increased the threshold to 10%).
• Obamacare's prohibition on using Flexible Spending Account and Health Savings Account (HSA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines is repealed.
• The tax penalty on withdrawing money from Health Savings Account for non-qualified medical expenses is repealed.
• State Medicaid plans will no longer have to cover some Obamacare-mandated essential health benefits.
• Planned Parenthood funding is eliminated.
KEEP - The law will keep several features of Obamacare:
• People with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. The measure would provide states with federal funds to help set up high-risk pools to provide insurance to the sickest patients and to help those with pre-existing conditions pay for insurance.
• Dependents can still stay on their parent's health insurance plan until age 26.
• Insurers are still prohibited from setting annual and lifetime limits on individual coverage.
• The "Cadillac tax" on generous healthcare plans will remain, but be postponed from 2020 to 2025.
• Current Medicaid enrollees will be grandfathered in when the federal government stops providing the extra federal funds that allow for expansion in 2020.
REPLACE - The replacement part of the bill includes several major changes to existing law:
• Obamacare's income-based subsidies are replaced by age-based tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per person per year, increasing with someone’s age. The credits would start to phase out for individuals earning $75,000 and households earning $150,000, and would be unavailable for individuals who earn more than $215,000.
• Although the annual penalty for not having insurance is repealed, people who wait until they become sick or let their coverage lapse for more than 63 days can be charged a 30% surcharge on premiums for one year when they do finally sign up.
• The amount people and employers can contribute to tax-free health savings accounts will double.
• Private plans are still required to offer ten essential health benefits, but states can now opt out of the requirement.
• States will now be able to opt out of Obamacare's mandate that insurers charge the same rates to sick and healthy people.
• Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge seniors up to 3 times more than they charged young people. The new law changes that restriction to 5 times more.
MEDICAID REFORM - The GOP bill would also significantly overhaul the Medicaid program.
• The bill would end Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement and would put the program on a budget.
• States would receive an allotment of federal money for each beneficiary, or, as an alternative, they could take the money in a lump sum as a block grant, with fewer federal requirements.
• States will also be able to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work, participate in job training programs, or do community service.
• The Congressional Budget Office projects that bill would cut the federal government's spending on Medicaid by 25% by 2026 as compared to current law.
SOURCES: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/0…/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/…/Upton_0253171952435243.…
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/…/MacArthur53171935143514…
https://www.nytimes.com/…/major-provisions-republican-healt…
https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/633858800133452
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
Not seeing a problem here.
Go see an optometrist then. It's pretty clear, to anyone capable of math anyways. Being sick would be the equivalent of a death sentence, unless you're a millionaire.
Oh don't bother with Bruce. He has been hopeless for years. He is the very definition of stuck in the mud.
The bill would end Medicaid as an open-ended entitlement and would put the program on a budget.
A health insurance program has to be "open ended" unless you can foresee how many people will get how sick or injured any given year .
Cut out waste? Yes. Put limits on what any individuals treatment will cover? Nope.
Yeah, well, when we get rid of all the illegals sucking on this tit, it will be more affordable.
Find out more about other eligibility requirements for health coverage through the Marketplace.
This is actually part of the problem Amac. They are not eligible and don't buy insurance but use the hospitals all the time for free.
This is actually part of the problem Amac. They are not eligible and don't buy insurance but use the hospitals all the time for free.
I'll accept your premise on illegals using the E.R. … but …
Undocumented immigrants provided a surplus of $35.1 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund between 2000 and 2011, according to a new Journal of General Internal Medicine study recently published. The findings challenge concerns that undocumented immigrants are financially burdening the health care system.
According to the study, undocumented immigrants contributed $2.2 and $3.8 billion more than they withdrew annually between 2000 and 2011 to a Medicare program known as the Hospital Insurance Trust fund. The total contribution of their surplus was $35.1 billion.
The big problem is primarily that the working poor can't afford the private insurer premiums … so yes … instead of dying they go to the E.R. and the rest of us pay for it in our premiums (roughly $1100/year more).
The solution is Single Payer … a larger pool, thus lower premiums and NO PROFIT MOTIVE!
The solution is Single Payer … a larger pool, thus lower premiums and NO PROFIT MOTIVE!
Most interesting Mac. No profit motive, but is there a POWER MOTIVE? Since Single Payer and No Profit Motive mean a monopoly, you, therefore, trust monopolies, or is it only Government monopolies that you trust? Let's figure that's true. So you trust government monopolies with your health care. Since the leader of the government is Donald Trump, that must mean that you trust Donald Trump with your health care (ie. your life). You must trust more than I do. I certainly wouldn't trust him with my life. In case you figure that's political, I also wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or any other government functionary with my life or anything else that may be important. My first rule, NEVER TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS REPRESENTATIVES TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. They don't work for you, can't be controlled and, except on a limited basis at the very top, you can't control how long they keep their jobs. This means that you have no credible threat to use against those who work for government, so they have absolutely no incentive to do an important job right, so they usually don't.
I disagree with your blanket indictment; if you think the private insurers are not the equivalent of a monopoly, you are misinformed.
I disagree with your blanket indictment
And you would be wrong. All the things I said about the disparity of power between citizens and government are correct. I noticed that you didn't respond to my suggestion that you were willing to place your life in the hands of Donald Trump. Did you think that your party would be in power forever and would never be corrupt; it's already corrupt and is no longer in power.
if you think the private insurers are not the equivalent of a monopoly, you are misinformed.
You might want to read my statement a little more carefully. I didn't say a word about what private insurers would become. What I said is that Single Payer is a GOVERNMENT monopoly and that a government monopoly puts your life in the hands of people who cannot be controlled.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny
They are not, however, exempt from control on the State level. Get State insurance commissioners to control their level of profit and monopolistic behavior. If your State Insurance Commission is too corrupt to do so, put another one in office that WILL do so. You can do this at the State level; at the Federal level they are simply too big to be controlled.
If the Republican bill becomes law, the insurance companies will have the power you fear from Single Payer.
Somewhat misstated. It should read like this. "If the Republican bill becomes law, the insurance companies might have the power you fear (see the previous paragraph for the solution to this). If it is not passed, or if you go to Single Payer, the Federal Government will certainly have that power." Whether or not the State Governments could or would control the insurance industry (mostly they do pretty well with auto insurance), I would still trust the insurance industry more than I would trust the Federal Government. The reason is that, if they over price their products (individually or as a monopoly), any or all of the insurance companies can be put out of business simply by refusing to buy their products. The companies cannot force you to buy their product. Obamacare has, if it did nothing else, shown us that the Federal Government can and will do so; or are you naive enough to think that the individual mandate was not an act of armed force. That is why non government sponsored monopolies can't survive; customers can refuse to do business with them. Monopolies can only persist when the armed force held by government is supporting them.
And with SINGLE PAYER, you would not be obligated to enroll; if you wanted to remain with a private insurer, you could. And the premiums would probably be lower because of the competition generated by Single Payer.
Absolutely wrong. Single Payer means just that, SINGLE payer. No private companies allowed. What you are describing is what is called Public Option, and that actually might get the results that you mentioned. Single Payer means a government monopoly, while Public Option means that the government is only one of several competitors. Of course, the government will never actually be equally competitive with private businesses since the government steals the money they get to operate. Private business can't do that without the serious risk of going to prison. Always remember when preferring governmental action that, since it produces nothing, government (all governments) must steal in order to survive. If they'll steal from the taxpayers, they will steal from you. If you object to being robbed too strenuously, they will send some large men with guns around to put you into prison. If you object at that point, they will kill you (and they will get away with it). That's what makes government more dangerous than businesses, they can use force while businesses cannot. Government must be kept small and starved and inoffensive. If it's big enough to do all the things you want done, it's big enough to enslave you.
I disagree with your blanket indictment
And you would be wrong. All the things I said about the disparity of power between citizens and government are correct. I noticed that you didn't respond to my suggestion that you were willing to place your life in the hands of Donald Trump. Did you think that your party would be in power forever and would never be corrupt; it's already corrupt and is no longer in power.
Until Mr. Trump releases his tax returns, Flynn is interrogated under oath, all avenues into a Russian/Trump connection in the election investigated, I'll wait to decide which is the more corrupt party.
if you think the private insurers are not the equivalent of a monopoly, you are misinformed.
You might want to read my statement a little more carefully. I didn't say a word about what private insurers would become. What I said is that Single Payer is a GOVERNMENT monopoly and that a government monopoly puts your life in the hands of people who cannot be controlled.
I've been on Medicare for almost 8 years … no complaints about cost or coverage … and even with a supplemental, I'm am thousands ahead of what I was paying before Medicare. I consider your statement to be hyperbole.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny
They are not, however, exempt from control on the State level. Get State insurance commissioners to control their level of profit and monopolistic behavior. If your State Insurance Commission is too corrupt to do so, put another one in office that WILL do so. You can do this at the State level; at the Federal level they are simply too big to be controlled.
State Insurance Boards are political entities and no less susceptible to political influences; for example …
The New York State Department of Financial Services was created by transferring the functions of the New York State Banking Department and the New York State Insurance Department into a new department.
What could possibly taint that operation? (Sarcasm)
If the Republican bill becomes law, the insurance companies will have the power you fear from Single Payer.
Somewhat misstated. It should read like this. "If the Republican bill becomes law, the insurance companies might have the power you fear (see the previous paragraph for the solution to this). If it is not passed, or if you go to Single Payer, the Federal Government will certainly have that power." Whether or not the State Governments could or would control the insurance industry (mostly they do pretty well with auto insurance), I would still trust the insurance industry more than I would trust the Federal Government. The reason is that, if they over price their products (individually or as a monopoly), any or all of the insurance companies can be put out of business simply by refusing to buy their products. The companies cannot force you to buy their product. Obamacare has, if it did nothing else, shown us that the Federal Government can and will do so; or are you naive enough to think that the individual mandate was not an act of armed force. That is why non government sponsored monopolies can't survive; customers can refuse to do business with them. Monopolies can only persist when the armed force held by government is supporting them.
The individual mandate more-or-less causes me to agree with you TO A POINT … because A PUBLIC OPTION WAS NOT INSTITUTED, COMPETITION ON PRIVATE INSURERS DID NOT MATERIALIZE.
And with SINGLE PAYER, you would not be obligated to enroll; if you wanted to remain with a private insurer, you could. And the premiums would probably be lower because of the competition generated by Single Payer.
Absolutely wrong. Single Payer means just that, SINGLE payer. No private companies allowed. What you are describing is what is called Public Option, and that actually might get the results that you mentioned. Single Payer means a government monopoly, while Public Option means that the government is only one of several competitors. Of course, the government will never actually be equally competitive with private businesses since the government steals the money they get to operate. Private business can't do that without the serious risk of going to prison. Always remember when preferring governmental action that, since it produces nothing, government (all governments) must steal in order to survive. If they'll steal from the taxpayers, they will steal from you. If you object to being robbed too strenuously, they will send some large men with guns around to put you into prison. If you object at that point, they will kill you (and they will get away with it). That's what makes government more dangerous than businesses, they can use force while businesses cannot. Government must be kept small and starved and inoffensive. If it's big enough to do all the things you want done, it's big enough to enslave you.
Sorry … YOU are absolutely wrong. Single Payer would not be mandatory, just as Medicare is not mandatory. Private companies would continue to exist, but, because of the size of a Single Payer pool, private insurers would have to compete by providing better coverage at lower premium rates.
Parts of your comment is editorialized.
Taxation is in fact confiscation, but government produces, among other things, infrastructure, security, one's day-in-court (albeit judges are elected and/or politically appointed … but … one can make his case before a jury of his peers).
When the 13th Amendment is repealed, we can legitimately discuss being enslaved.
As a (retired) ALF-CIO representative and Legislative Representative, I can tell you first-hand, that if any political party wants to "enslave" American workers, it's the Republican who kill minimum wage bills, fight equal pay for women, push anti-labor legislation, create Right-to-Work states, fight work place safety legislation …
My friend, we are at an IMPASSE … but it's been a good debate.
"A health insurance program has to be "open ended" unless you can foresee how many people will get how sick or injured any given year ."
If this was true, there would be no insurance companies. In fact, you can and must estimate how many people will take insurance dollars, using actuarial data.
I wasn't talking about it from the perspective of the insurance companies, I was talking about it from the perspective of the entity paying the insurance companies. Does a household budget out x amount of dollars for health costs that year and then say not a penny more? The cost of out of pocket health care expenses for a family in any given year cannot be predicted. The new bill would allow states to place a per capita limit on the benefits available to Medicaid recipients. Something like "You can get 1 1/2 diseases a year. If you get two or three you are screwed "
A great step forward. Proud to be a deplorable who supports this as far as it goes.
A great step forward. Proud to be a deplorable who supports this as far as it goes.
Please list the particular parts of the bill SPECIFICALLY … that generate your pride.
SPECIFICALLY, one-by-one, please.
See the seeded article. (It's at the top of the page.)
Exactly. Nothing more to say to him.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) recently made a surprise announcement that she will be retiring, not seeking re-election in 2018. Perhaps that has freed her up to speak the truth about the impending disaster of a massive tax cut for the wealthy, stealthily disguised as a health care plan , because today she issued a statement saying she intends to vote against the Trumpcare AHCA bill. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen plainly says this bill “fails to prove for the needs of my constituents” and has the “potential to severely harm the health and lives of people in South Florida.” Read her statement and see why she isn’t just a no, she’s a HELL NO :
Found and read the article … and while I understand the reasoning of Rodgers …
Republican Bill Still Exempts Republicans in Congress From Repeal of Obamacare Protections (Updated)
Last week House Republicans took a PR hit when Vox reported that the portion of the American Health Care Act that revokes Obamacare's guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions includes a section that requires insurers to continue guaranteeing pre-existing condition coverage to members of Congress .
The same protections are not extended to the public.
I would comment, but I can't....because....Bruce's avatar is just too scary......(shudder).....(shiver).....
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Believe in the power of the diaper pin this is a safe space.
Another compassionate conservative reveals his innermost self.
Nice summary that avoids the hysterics.
This whole discussion is pointless imo. The Bill that went to the Senate will be modified to take out what the Freedom Caucus demanded. The Republican Senators have the luxury of waiting to see how the public will react to the Bill in it's current form and then modify it to a more acceptable version. Then they will send it back to the House where it will not pass. The rub is that the Republicans will get to say they tried and that will be enough for their deplorable stupid base. This is a game. I guess the seeder is no longer proud to tout MAGA. lol
I used to be pragmatic about concerns over things that appear too reckless to actually win approval. Why worry about something so crazy that it couldn't possibly happen, right? Then the mother of all absurdities happened ... enter President Trump. It's prudent to worry about the possibility that our country could become a land of doctors and serfs.
Why worry about something so crazy that it couldn't possibly happen, right? Then the mother of all absurdities happened ... enter President Trump.
Hal - I just want to vomit
and cry 
whenever I come on this site lately but today you made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that. 
We feel your pain over Trumps surprise election. We are enjoying every minute of it. It's time for all of us to move on. The nation needs our working together for the greater good now.
That's really mean X. I will never work with deplorables. NEVER
We feel your pain over Trumps surprise election. We are enjoying every minute of it. It's time for all of us to move on. The nation needs our working together for the greater good now.
We feel your pain over Trumps surprise election. We are enjoying every minute of it. It's time for all of us to move on. The nation needs our working together for the greater good now.
It turns out that Donald Trump and Paul Ryan really are capable of bridging divides and bringing the nation together .
What does the AMA think of the latest Trumpcare bill?
What does the AARP say about Medicaid cuts in the bill?
But aren’t the insurance companies supposed to love this ?
But there is one group, just one, that loves Trumpcare.
Republicans may not have read their bill before they signed it, but a good argument can be made that it’s an amazing achievement. If passed, it would take health care away from millions, bankrupt local hospitals, punish doctors, and not even benefit the insurance companies. Employers hate the plan for the uncertainty it brings. Even the states that are supposed to be “empowered” by the plan are upset about the lost funds and traps that would force most states to “opt out” of good plans or go broke. On the patient front, it has it all. It hurts poor people, sick people, old people … everyone.
Only that’s not really true. T here’s one group that loves the Republican plan. Really, really loves it.
The rich get a cut in their income taxes, then they get a cut on capital gains taxes, they get expanded tax credits for “ certain tax-advantaged accounts,” then they get some special healthcare perks that would reward the rich for being … rich.
What kind of healthcare bill takes away services from millions of people, hurts patients, doctors, hospitals, and even insurers to reward the wealthy? No kind. Because the Trumpcare bill isn’t a healthcare bill.
Good Obamacare was a theft and redistribution program. It disproportionately taxed the successful at a higher rate than the lazy bums. It's time those that are the victims of this socialist theft stand up and fight back.
The bums Pelosi told to quit their jobs because they could stick other people with their bills should go back to work.
A misrepresentation, Dean.
Get the full story.
"But in this instance conservatives have chosen to argue on the grounds that beneficiaries are getting away with something -- that is, because they're able to abandon jobs they only kept for the insurance, these citizens are wastrels, cadgers, moochers.
That doesn't sound like a winning political proposition to us. But what do we know? Maybe The Daily Caller's Heather Smith knows better. Her headline was "Dem defends Obamacare job loss: Americans work too hard anyway." She quoted Democratic Representative Keith Ellison: "Americans work way more than the average of industrialized countries around the world... if Americans can have more choices to open up a new business they have been wanting to start, this is a good thing." Seen a certain way, we supposed this is anti-American. The question remains, though: Does that mean it's unpopular?"