Cancer patients will face a nightmare scenario if Trumpcare becomes law
A provision of the new Trumpcare bill gaining steam among Senate Republicans — a bill commonly referred to as “Graham-Cassidy” after its two leading proponents — would allow many insurers to drive up premiums the minute someone gets sick .
This provision allows states to obtain waivers from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that no one can be charged a higher premium because of a “health status-related factor,” effectively allowing insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing health conditions.
But that’s not all. The new Trumpcare bill wouldn’t simply allow insurers to discriminate against people whose health condition manifested before they signed up for insurance. Graham-Cassidy also potentially permits insurers to charge higher premiums “as a condition of enrollment or continued enrollment .”
Thus, a person who is already insured could be forced to pay much higher premiums as a condition of their “continued enrollment” in that health plan after they are diagnosed with a new health condition.
A new paper by the Center for American Progress’ Sam Berger and Emily Gee examines just how much insurers are likely to jack up premiums for various conditions. (Disclosure: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent site housed at the Center for American Progress.) According to Berger and Gee’s analysis, the numbers are grim .
A 40-year-old diagnosed with metastatic cancer, for example, could expect to pay a $140,510 surcharge on their annual health premium, effectively making many families choose between being bankrupted by their insurance company or being bankrupted by their hospital bills. Meanwhile, someone with a more routine condition such as asthma or diabetes would see their premiums more than double in states that obtain a waiver under Graham-Cassidy.
Berger and Gee derived these numbers by examining how much money the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services transfers between insurers under its risk adjustment program , which encourages insurers to enroll high-risk patients by subsidizing insurers that take on high numbers of people with expensive conditions and effectively taxing insurers that take on low-risk patients.
The last time a Trumpcare bill was before the Senate, it was effectively killed by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and John McCain (R-AZ). This time around, Trumpcare opponents are hoping to hold onto these votes, at least one of which is uncertain, while potentially picking up other Republican senators such as Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Rob Portman (R-OH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Cory Gardner (R-CO).
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
I am jaw dropped amazed they would even consider this.
The only possible silver lining is that it would cost the GOP the next few elections.
On it's face it seems to bizarre to contemplate.
One of these days it will occur to the masses that privatized healthcare leads to massively inflated prices. The lobbyists are working hard every day to keep that reality obscured.
Lindsey Graham brags about his shockingly cynical strategy to repeal Obamacare
Speaking at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussed his bill to repeal Obamacare, which is quickly gaining momentum. In his remarks, Graham admitted that his strategy was largely based on redistributing large sums of money from large Democratic-led states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland to states that are more Republican.
In other words, Graham is attempting to purchase GOP votes by pitting Americans against each other — and explicitly working against the interests of more than 60 million people, the combined population of California, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
“If you’re a Republican and you vote against [this bill], you got to explain to people back home why Washington knows better and almost every state except the four I have described do very well under this new approach to taking the money out of Washington,” Graham said. “ I really believe we’re gonna get 50 Republican votes.”
Graham also has his facts wrong.
A Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of his legislation, known as the Graham-Cassidy bill, found that 20 states would face funding cuts of at least 35 percent by 2026. This would include the blue states he mentioned — but it would also include Republican strongholds like Alaska (-$255 million), Louisiana (-$3.2 billion), Kentucky (-$3.1 billion), Montana (-$515 million) and North Dakota (-$211 million).
Graham-Cassidy replaces Obamacare with a continually shrinking block grant to states. After 2026, the block grant goes away entirely, resulting in even more cuts. Republicans plan on forcing a vote on the legislation before the plan can be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, so it’s difficult to estimate the ultimate impact of these provisions. But previous bills that zeroed out Obamacare funding were estimated to result in coverage losses for 32 million people — and Graham-Cassidy goes even further, cutting Medicaid spending beyond the elimination of its expansion under Obamacare.
Graham-Cassidy would also repeal nearly all Obamacare regulations that protect consumers, including protections for people with preexisting provisions. Under Graham-Cassidy, insurers would be allowed to jack up prices as soon as you get sick . Someone who is diagnosed with cancer could face “surcharge” of $140,000.
Can you buy car insurance after you get in a wreck? No.
OK that can be your argument for people who didn't have insurance, but I am sorry, not for those who took precautions and had policies before they were sick. Any the only reason you can be glib about it, is because you belong to a group policy where the risk is spread out, and even there, premiums are going up even when there is no cause for them, too. You would feel differently if you had to buy your own insurance.
I've purchased my own insurance in the past. Before I made a claim.
Yes, and I addressed that and I didn't disagree. But this new law is saying that they are going to penalize people who have insurance and then get sick, and that is wrong.
And these rate hikes will pertain to those who have existing policies, not just new enrollees.
Is it also wrong to raise car or home insurance if you make a claim? Or a series of claims?
In fact, insurance companies rate increase vary from state to state and are also competitive.
The premium increases also vary greatly by state. Homeowners in Wyoming saw the biggest increase in their premiums -- an average of 32% -- after a claim was filed. While the hikes are high, the state tends to charge fairly low premiums of about $770 a year, considerably lower than the $978 national average.
Policyholders in Connecticut, Arizona, New Mexico and California also saw large hikes of 18% or more.
Meanwhile, homeowners in Texas, where insurers are not allowed to raise premiums on the basis of a single claim, saw no increase. And homeowners in New York and Massachusetts paid very little more after filing claims.
You can shop out rates, too. There is a lot of competition.
That is not the same with health insurance.
There's no competition since ACA.
What about people who find out after they have had medical insurance that they have had a disease that did not manifest itself for a long period of time, and only found out after they got insurance. That could be considered an existing condition could it not? Then why should they not be denied medical care to treat that illness?
Also, people can have a disease that was not ever diagnosed, or perhaps wrongly diagnosed, before they got medical insurance, even if they were going to doctors before hand. Should they also be denied coverage?
There are always two sides to a situation. And not all diseases have immediately pronounced symptoms that can be easily detected as soon as it starts.
IMHO, denial of treatment for a disease or condition simply because it existed before is cruel and inhumane. And I would hate to think that America has sunk to that level.
Just my thoughts.
They wouldn't be denied if they already had coverage. Since 1996.
My comment was in regards to those who did not have coverage prior to getting insurance. There are a lot of people in the country who do not get health insurance, then decide to get coverage. I know several people that never had health insurance before, but, got it as they got older. Some could not afford it before.
ok Some Questions::
1 Self Harm, should that be insured?
2 Willingly Participating in " High Risk Activities " is that affordable to be insured for?
3 Activities that are shown to be a " Total Drain to the economy and survivability of Health Care " what should be done in such cases?
Good, difficult questions.
E.A If I ask " Simple " ones let me know! :?
If cause from mental illness (and usually is), then yes, since it is an illness.
That I would have to say no. That was a decision you made (unless it was caused by mental illness)
Umm.. can you be more specific?
E.A Then it should be a Direct " Government Cover " and not Burden the insurance arm, you might ask why that may be but as a PA I think you might already have the answer!
E.A. the CDC has a List that was listed under " High Risk Activities " get that post it here and we take one at a time.
the CDC was Forced to recently remove that " List " why by whom and what is the benefit of hiding FACTS?
::: NB :: Who here does not know that some Undertake " High Risk activities " and expect others to PAY for that risk?
1 Sky Diving
2 Non Tethered Rock Climbing?
3 Sexual Perversions.
Let's see, let's charge police and fire personnel more for insurance. The stress itself leads to more medical issues. And anyone who has ever played high school football. Lots of injuries stem from that, even later in life. If you don't walk 7 miles a week we hike your insurance premium, you are out of shape. Eat ice cream? Higher rates. Drive a car that's more than 10 years old? Death trap. Higher rates. Live near a lake or ocean? Elevated drowning risk. Bad neighborhood? You are a sudden death risk and get the highest health insurance rates of all.
BINGO!!
E.A Yes that IS the issue " change the Mentality so HIGH RISK is avoided rather then seeking out " Well Done I think some on GOT it!
NB: Why keep Building Homes in areas well know that they will be
" Down within 5 Years" is that affordable, does it make ANY sense?
What " Fools make the same errors time after time and expect a different outcome"?
On that person.
On that person
By who standards?
Those types of things already exist.
So heart-warming to see so many " Facing the REAL Issues " and not just " Random Raves " many thanks!!
It's interesting to see that you think the REAL issues are whether or not someone is a rock climber.
E.A BINGO!!
Your comment makes it " Crystal Clear " where a stand is made, and that is NOT is " affordability " Nor " Sustainability " but in " Profiteering " thank you for that!!
uh, no.
Trial Lawyer Richard @ TrialLawyerRich 3m 3 minutes ago
This baby was born with half a heart. His medical bills could exhaust the lifetime max under the Trumpcare Bill in months. This is so cruel.
E.A wow.. so you rather save " ONE " child that ??? is that based on what Economics, Humanity, Emotional Blackmail?
Questions::
1 Is it a Genetic Disorder?
2 Can it be avoided and How?
3 Is it a " Sustainable Cost Cover " or does it built a " Dam that at any point will fail "?
How many here are aware, of the LEGALITY and the MORALITY of any " animal breeders " breeding animals with known medical conditions, and are animals worth more then Humans?
All genetic disorders should be covered since there is hardly a family without them.
Most genetic disorders can't be. Stuff like heart disease and cancer, early intervention would be cheaper than waiting till full blown disease hits.
What does that mean? Playing god?
E.A NO again as a PA, I would have thought a better response will have been forthcoming.
Tell me what is " Sustainable " and if it is NOT, then what is the FINAL Outcome?
False, see comment on " animal breeders " an ounce of facts are better then a Pound of emotionalism
EA not a parent obviously.
No, he's a realist. Money is finite.
Again, you are obviously not a parent.
A society is judged by how they treat their children. Where a society puts it's money says a lot about it.
Are you comparing animal breeders to children with bad hearts?
My grandson has his third open heart surgery tomorrow to deal with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. He is almost two, and his medical fees surpassed the million dollar mark a while ago. If anyone is interested, I've updated the NT blog I made to document his progress in late 2015 when he was born.
Best wishes to the little guy, Hal.
Best wishes Hal for a speedy recovery.
My prayers will be with your Grandson for the success of his surgery, and a good recovery, Hal.
My sister died of cancer six years ago and my brother died of cancer eight months ago. With cancer it makes no difference.
Mags,
I am sorry for the deaths of your siblings, but I know people who had cancer 20 years ago and are still fine today. Cancer does not have to be a death sentence anymore.
I wish someone would have told them that. But, thanks.
E.A If it is a " Death Sentence for a Medical Cover " what is the LONG term outcome?
NB: This Seed is about the Ability for " Health Insurance " to be sustainable and provide for the NEEDS of the Citizens, not for their exuberant " wants "!
Under your plan, breast cancer , and other cancer, survivors will pay more for health insurance, won't they?
Mags,
That is a strange reaction to my comment. No, not everyone lives from cancer, but something you can do for your health, is make sure that you do your due diligence with testing.
Health is not a want. Health is a need. Cell phones are a want. A car is a want.
Is a home a want?
Yes. Shelter is a need.
Is EA in congress?
A Home is a need, a House is a want.
Health is a need, Good medical care is a want.
He seems to have a plan in mind. Let him speak for himself.
It is only strange because they both had health insurance and still died. So, having health insurance does not guarantee a cure. All of the chemo and radiation treatments extend life somewhat, however, one's recovery from cancer depends on the type of cancer one has.
What health insurance does allow is the opportunity to be tested prior to a diagnosis. It, also, allows one to receive treatment, but it does not guarantee life.
Mag,
Health insurance is no guarantee you won't die of a disease. It just gives you the best fighting chance. Curing cancer is as much as about the type of cancer you have as it is the type of treatment you get. Not all treatments are created equal.
My uncle was told he had months to live by one hospital, and was cured by another. He was his own advocate to finding the best place for his cure.
My mom went to Texas for the best treatment to cure her Afib.
Not all medical care is created equal.
Being a wise consumer is something we all must do. Preventive medicine is part of that.
And, not all cancers are created equally.
It is wonderful about your Mother and uncle.
For all of the fine treatment that both my siblings received.....if I was diagnosed with cancer my option would be no treatment after seeing the hell that both of them went through. They, also, shopped around. My brother had Blue Cross/Blue Shield with no co payment. He could go anywhere and did. My precious sister, on the other hand, had good insurance, but used that plus all savings and mortgaged her home. All of the magic promises were nil.
My only Son died of a very rare type of cancer at an early age. The kind of cancer he had was so rare that less than 500 cases of that type of cancer is reported each year. It's called ravenous carcinoma, or tumors that feed on muscle and other tissues and spreads through the blood. There is no known cure as it is so rare and kills so quickly that doctors have not had enough time to fully study it. And he had the best doctor there is anywhere who goes around the world and teaches other doctors what to look for. But, not even the most toxic chemo will deter it.
There was non one in my family that had ever had cancer, but, the specialist said that all humans are born with cancer cells, but, a healthy immune system will normally keep them at bay. However, due to a serious illness or trauma situation can lower the immune system and let the cancer cells come forth. But, the immune system is powerless to fight or repress them once they emerge.
As you said, there are all types of cancer, some are treatable and others, like my Son's, are not. Thus, as you said, having health insurance is not a bullet proof option, and there are no guarantees in life period. But, it can give people a fighting chance at maintaining good health, and possibly prolonging life, even for a few years.
However, as for dying....only the Creator can make that determination. He is the one who gives us the gift of life, and He is the only one who can determine when it will end.
Just my thoughts.
Basic medical care is not a want. It is a need. Otherwise only those who can afford it will get it. And a society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate.
Sorry, it rots your teeth... but you can buy it if you want to.
So true. It seems inhumane to say that basic medical health care is a want. It is a need. It should be a right that EVERYONE has health insurance.
There's the rub.
Who should pay for ones dental care if they choose to keep wanting and buying, even though their teeth are rotting, at no fault of others ?
If someone chooses to do anything that could cause a rise in medical care....who should pay for that ?
Seems to me, before Big Gov. got involved with Health Care, insurance companies were already designating a price for coverage based on ones life style. In simple terms, Buyer pays based on life style.
Now, Big Gov. is trying to figure out how to fix "Same for all" (Obamascare), when it can't happen without ALL paying more for those that are sick, when they aren't yet.
Darn, Raven....I am just so devastated to learn of your son's death.....darn!
Thank you for sharing this with me. Love to you, Raven!
Thank you for your very kind words of comfort, magnoliaave. They are truly appreciated. While he is no longer with me in the flesh, he is always with my in Spirit and my memories of him.
And much love to you as well. (smile)
Heartbreaking to read of your terrible loss Raven. I hope you find solace that the creator cares for him now.
Thank you dear Perrie. It does give me comfort that Nick is now with the Creator and has moved on to the next steps of his own eternal journey. To know that he is no longer suffering is of great comfort to me. It was hard to see the cancer tumors slowly eat him alive, and thankfully, the Creator gave me the strength to be there for him and help see him through it. So knowing he is now at peace is very comforting for me.
Hi It is Me,
I used to sell life insurance, and yes, it did make adjustments for lifestyle, like smoking. I would like to be clear that I think that personal choices should be part of how people are covered. But we all know, that there are many things that are totally our of our control that we get sick with, and I do believe that those things should be covered. Obviously, choices need to be made and some of them hard to make. But no one should have to die because they got cancer, lupus, MS, MD, and the list goes on... That is beyond the reasonable expectation of what a person should do to take care of themself.
Hi !
But how would an insurance company be able to predict what you may get sick with. They would need to be forced to cover any possible disease known to man, which means high rates to the consumer in order for them to do that. Insurance companies are in business to make money after all. Not lose money. Government is actually in business, in the same realm as an insurance company. Government raises rates that we are required to pay in based on their outlays, just like Insurance companies do. Of course, Government doesn't care if they lose money though. They just keep wanting to bill us more to make up for their failures.
Which is worse ?
Lola DiMenico @ AltThisMoFo
Lola DiMenico Retweeted John Aravosis
1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their life time @ SenCapito @ SenatorCollins @ lisamurkowski # VoteNOGrahamCassidy
PUBLIC Announcement
E.A this is the END of My Commentary for the Obvious reasons of " those that have eyes and can see and ears and can hear "
Thank YOU
END
Yes EA. I would agree.