RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

American Health Care Act

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 11:49 pm    ::: American Health Care Act Reply Reply with quote

The American Health Care Act: the Obamacare repeal bill the House just passed, explained

Quote:
The bill would cut taxes for the wealthy. Obamacare included tax increases that hit wealthy Americans hardest in order to pay for its coverage expansion. The AHCA would get rid of those taxes — tax cuts that add up to $883 billion, the majority of them benefiting the wealthy, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Obamacare was one of the biggest redistributions of wealth from the rich to the poor; the AHCA would reverse that.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 12:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah, the bill is a steaming pile of horse shit.

It was terrible the first time around, then they added amendments to make it even worse. This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17777



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 1:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.

It's so strange to see people cheering him on as he screws them over!

He mentions to our Prime Minister that our health care system is better than his, and then proceeds to make his less like ours. Bizarre.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee


Last edited by Luuuc on 05/05/17 1:06 am; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4037
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 1:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't think anyone knows what's in the bill. The media coverage is very superficial. In any event, the bill will substantially change in the Senate, after which no one will really know what's in it for years if it passes.

THIS SITE purports to list all the taxes that the bill repeals. I'm not sure which ones would constitute tax breaks for the wealthy.

Quote:
The American Health Care Act (HR 1628) passed by the House today reduces taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion. The bill abolishes the following taxes imposed by Obama and the Democrat party in 2010 as part of Obamacare:

-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.

-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.

-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.

-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 1:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

I'm not sure which ones would constitute tax breaks for the wealthy.

You mean besides the removal of the 3.8% tax applied to capital gains, dividend, and interest income for families with $250,000 or more in income ($125,000 for singles)?

Or the 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on wage income in excess of $250,000 a year?

Add in that this bill gives tax credits based upon age rather than income, and more of the pie is being given to those with plenty instead of those in need.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 5:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Senate is working on their own bill. As a writer just put it, they are in tougher races than most of the house, so they want a bill more amenable to the general public. Don't know how that works though as to whether the House would have to approve any bill passed by the Senate.


scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8463
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 7:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I don't think anyone knows what's in the bill.


Ryan did just what he blamed the Dems for with Obamacare: ramming it through without a CBO score, no one had time to read it, didn't sell it to their constituents. blah, blah, blah. don't believe it? roll the video tape.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8463
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 7:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
The Senate is working on their own bill. As a writer just put it, they are in tougher races than most of the house, so they want a bill more amenable to the general public. Don't know how that works though as to whether the House would have to approve any bill passed by the Senate.


Ryan just wanted to get it off his plate and give Trump a victory. but its all empty, McConnell knows this and has said he has no timeline on when the Senate will take up ACHA bill. so, yeah. good onya, Paul.

and seriously, BUD LIGHT? who the hell drinks Bud Light to 'celebrate'?



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 9:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Don't know how that works though as to whether the House would have to approve any bill passed by the Senate.


Huh? How do you think it works?

Of course they have to eventually pass a single identical bill.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8785
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 9:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Yeah, the bill is a steaming pile of horse shit.

It was terrible the first time around, then they added amendments to make it even worse. This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


It's an interesting aspect of human behavior in general, and middle-lower economic class white Americans in particular, isn't it?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 9:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 9:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Yeah, the bill is a steaming pile of horse shit.

It was terrible the first time around, then they added amendments to make it even worse. This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


It's an interesting aspect of human behavior in general, and middle-lower economic class white Americans in particular, isn't it?


Republican ideology still allows them to feel higher on the totem poll than others who are being treated worse. They don't understand how policy works, but they understand their pride.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8785
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 10:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Yeah, the bill is a steaming pile of horse shit.

It was terrible the first time around, then they added amendments to make it even worse. This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


It's an interesting aspect of human behavior in general, and middle-lower economic class white Americans in particular, isn't it?


Republican ideology still allows them to feel higher on the totem poll than others who are being treated worse. They don't understand how policy works, but they understand their pride.


FUX NEWS:

Rich white people paying rich white people to teach middle/lower class white people to blame non-white people.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 12:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?


Maybe you can point out the actual passage of the bill that says that.

It's a foolish piece of legislation, but throwing phony sensationalist sound bites out there hardly advances the discussion.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/05/17 11:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?


Maybe you can point out the actual passage of the bill that says that.

It's a foolish piece of legislation, but throwing phony sensationalist sound bites out there hardly advances the discussion.


You're a big boy, you can figure out how it works.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 1:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


Poor brown and black voters voted for Clinton and against Sanders who was going to do more for them. That is, they voted against their own interests and for the candidate the party wanted them to.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 1:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The GOP Health-Care Bill Is the Ultimate Reverse Robin Hood



justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 1:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?


Maybe you can point out the actual passage of the bill that says that.

It's a foolish piece of legislation, but throwing phony sensationalist sound bites out there hardly advances the discussion.


You're a big boy, you can figure out how it works.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/05/blog-posting/headlines-say-gop-bill-makes-sexual-assault-pre-ex/

This bill is such a dumpster fire that there are plenty of places to attack it. There really is no need to reach for the sensational half-truths (or in this case sensational mostly-falses). I mean, it is so bad that there are things that are 100% true that are just as insane.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 1:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


Poor brown and black voters voted for Clinton and against Sanders who was going to do more for them. That is, they voted against their own interests and for the candidate the party wanted them to.

While I would tend to agree, it really isn't a good comparison. The difference between those two were mostly that of degree. It was not that one of them would be actively working against their interests.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 7:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.


Poor brown and black voters voted for Clinton and against Sanders who was going to do more for them. That is, they voted against their own interests and for the candidate the party wanted them to.

While I would tend to agree, it really isn't a good comparison. The difference between those two were mostly that of degree. It was not that one of them would be actively working against their interests.


Sanders and Clinton were both going to work against the interests of the American worker/poor by working hard on behalf of illegal workers. Illegal immigration really should be a liberal issue - that is they should fight it, while the conservatives support it. The elite conservatives support it, because of the damage it does to wage rates and working conditions and labor force supply/demand. Elite neo-liberals also support it for the labor force destruction, and liberals support it , I'm guessing, on the basis that they are helping the poor - of other countries - and they either rationalize that it doesn't hurt the American poor, or that the foreign poor need the help more. And there is probably some white guilt factored in as well - I don't think they would support large scale illegal immigration and illegal employment of people from England.

But, while Sanders was going to fight to bring jobs back, Clinton again planned to work against the interests of workers by supporting the status quo (like all of Congress) of job export. (With her stuck between the only two "bring jobs back candidates" in Washington, we got new rhetoric from supporters that says "can't bring any jobs back because they would ALL be automated".)


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8785
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 9:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Blacks, as did most voters, voted for Clinton. There is little equivalence to that and non-wealthy whites' support of Chump/Republicans.

Clinton eventually switched on trade policies, which were, btw, Republican-initiated and supported legislation. The majority of Republicans supported GATT, NAFTA while the majority of Democrats didn't.

The Democratic Party platform is better for the "white working-class man" than is the Republican Party platform. Democratic policies are better, too.

Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections.

Their biggest propaganda vehicle is FOX NEWS, along w/ the rest of the corporate, elite-controlled media, including right-wing hate radio.

I understand your issue with illegal immigration and consequent flooding of the workforce which, in simple terms, lessens the value of each worker.

Issues such as healthcare are more critical and immediate, imo. When the CBO scores this dog and pony show bill the House passed and the "white working-class man" sees how fucked it is, it will have less than the 17% approval rating of its predecessor, I predict.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 9:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?


Maybe you can point out the actual passage of the bill that says that.

It's a foolish piece of legislation, but throwing phony sensationalist sound bites out there hardly advances the discussion.


You're a big boy, you can figure out how it works.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/05/blog-posting/headlines-say-gop-bill-makes-sexual-assault-pre-ex/

This bill is such a dumpster fire that there are plenty of places to attack it. There really is no need to reach for the sensational half-truths (or in this case sensational mostly-falses). I mean, it is so bad that there are things that are 100% true that are just as insane.


It's not sensational half truths.

Victims of rape who suffered from PTSD and other mental or physical health issues were denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions at a staggering rate. This was discovered when Obamacare was being created and surveys were taken.

Going back on that clause will have an effect on rape victims. Period.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Rape as a pre-existing condition.

I can't even explain properly the anger I feel. What on earth is wrong with these people?


Maybe you can point out the actual passage of the bill that says that.

It's a foolish piece of legislation, but throwing phony sensationalist sound bites out there hardly advances the discussion.


You're a big boy, you can figure out how it works.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/05/blog-posting/headlines-say-gop-bill-makes-sexual-assault-pre-ex/

This bill is such a dumpster fire that there are plenty of places to attack it. There really is no need to reach for the sensational half-truths (or in this case sensational mostly-falses). I mean, it is so bad that there are things that are 100% true that are just as insane.


It's not sensational half truths.

You say that, but then go on to describe exactly what a "half-truth" is. What you are describing is a serious concern, but it is a problem with how "preexisting conditions" are defined, not whether or not they are covered. The bill does not do anything to define them, and it is entirely possible for this bill to exist and for regulatory agencies to disallow insurance companies from doing this. Will they? We should be legitimately worried that they won't, but that does not mean that this bill specifically makes rape a "preexisting condition". The PolitiFact article does an excellent job at making this distinction and explaining why these claims are "mostly false".

There are times to spin half-truths, this just doesn't seem to be one of them. This bill is a disgusting piece of legislation that will harm millions of Americans, and has plenty of places where this can be pointed out without having to resort to spin. There are also ways to phrase the issue about the potential harm to victims of sexual assault which would be wholly accurate, and quite beneficial to bring to light. But making absolute statements about how this bill will directly make rape a preexisting condition is disingenuous at best, and will make it sound like those opposed to this bill are playing typical politics and have to stretch to find issues to complain about.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55049
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 11:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/

Quote:
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.



_________________
A long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10705
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.

It's so strange to see people cheering him on as he screws them over!

He mentions to our Prime Minister that our health care system is better than his, and then proceeds to make his less like ours. Bizarre.


"Bizarre" doesn't BEGIN to cover it.... Shocked This phenomenon makes me ashamed to be American. My Canadian and Euro friends are laffing their asses off.

And yes: T-Rump pronounces the Australian healthcare system to be superior. WTF?? Then don't push YOUR shit on us, asshole.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/

Quote:
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.


Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)

These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.

It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17812



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.

It's so strange to see people cheering him on as he screws them over!

He mentions to our Prime Minister that our health care system is better than his, and then proceeds to make his less like ours. Bizarre.


"Bizarre" doesn't BEGIN to cover it.... Shocked This phenomenon makes me ashamed to be American. My Canadian and Euro friends are laffing their asses off.

And yes: T-Rump pronounces the Australian healthcare system to be superior. WTF?? Then don't push YOUR shit on us, asshole.


Literally had someone tell me that her healthcare would cost her 28,000 a year with this new bill...and she'd still vote for Trump again.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/

Quote:
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.


Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)

These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.

It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences.


You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.

Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10023
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 6:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
...and seriously, BUD LIGHT? who the hell drinks Bud Light to 'celebrate'?


Peyton Manning did, after he won the Super Bowl 50!

http://www.businessinsider.com/peyton-manning-plugged-budweiser-because-he-owns-small-stake-in-distributor-2016-2



_________________
"My mechanic told me, 'I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder'." - comedian Steven Wright
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6532
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/

Quote:
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.


Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)

These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.

It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences.


You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.

Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility.

While I am in agreement with the fact checkers saying that these sensational headlines are false, saying that being raped could lead to insurance issues prior to Obamacare is not "made up political bullshit". I know this, because I dealt with a similar issue first hand.

When I was in my senior year of high school I was diagnosed with chronic depression due to untreated/diagnosed ADHD. When I was diagnosed, I was covered by my father's employer based insurance which provided mental health coverage (I was lucky in that, as many plans did not). But once I turned 18, I had to go on COBRA (and pay a significant amount to do so) to maintain my coverage. Eventually, I got it under control and my COBRA ran out.

While in college, I worked as a bartender. My employer did not offer health insurance. So, I began looking on the open market. Every single application I filled out had a box asking if I had ever been treated for depression. By checking that box, the prices they wanted to charge me skyrocketed. And that was just for normal health coverage (the actuaries had determined that people with depression were at higher risk for other health issues). The amount they wanted to charge for mental health coverage was so astronomical that purchasing it was not a realistic option. They also informed me that my depression itself would not be covered even if I bought the mental health coverage. Ultimately, the only thing I could afford was catastrophic coverage with high deductibles and a lifetime cap.

I have to imagine that if someone were a victim of sexual assault, and as a result developed depression or PTSD, they would have ended up in the same boat as I did if they had to buy insurance on the open market.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
Despite critics’ claims, the GOP health bill doesn’t classify rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/

Quote:
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.


Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)

These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.

It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences.


You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.

Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility.

While I am in agreement with the fact checkers saying that these sensational headlines are false, saying that being raped could lead to insurance issues prior to Obamacare is not "made up political bullshit". I know this, because I dealt with a similar issue first hand.

When I was in my senior year of high school I was diagnosed with chronic depression due to untreated/diagnosed ADHD. When I was diagnosed, I was covered by my father's employer based insurance which provided mental health coverage (I was lucky in that, as many plans did not). But once I turned 18, I had to go on COBRA (and pay a significant amount to do so) to maintain my coverage. Eventually, I got it under control and my COBRA ran out.

While in college, I worked as a bartender. My employer did not offer health insurance. So, I began looking on the open market. Every single application I filled out had a box asking if I had ever been treated for depression. By checking that box, the prices they wanted to charge me skyrocketed. And that was just for normal health coverage (the actuaries had determined that people with depression were at higher risk for other health issues). The amount they wanted to charge for mental health coverage was so astronomical that purchasing it was not a realistic option. They also informed me that my depression itself would not be covered even if I bought the mental health coverage. Ultimately, the only thing I could afford was catastrophic coverage with high deductibles and a lifetime cap.

I have to imagine that if someone were a victim of sexual assault, and as a result developed depression or PTSD, they would have ended up in the same boat as I did if they had to buy insurance on the open market.


It's not the rape that's the pre-existing condition, it's the depression, regardless of the genesis of the depression.

You can't prohibit use of pre-existing conditions as a consideration in underwriting unless you have mandatory universal coverage. Otherwise you're just telling people they can stay out of the insurance pool until the day they need medical care and then expect an insurance company to pay. It doesn't work.

So if you get rid of mandatory coverage, you have to allow exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And if depression is a pre-existing condition, why should it matter whether that depression is the result of a rape, an armed robbery, a trash can bomb blowing off your leg, seeing your child hit by a drunk driver and die, your soldier son dying in Iraq, or anything else?

First it's a total fraud to claim "rape is a pre-existing condition". It's not. And second, it's discriminatory crap to single out one crime and universe of victims and say that any condition suffered by that one group of victims as a result of a rape should be given special favored treatment over the identical condition suffered by anyone else, perhaps by reason of an equally horrific event. So if I get shot and paralyzed because I happen to be buying a cup of coffee at 7-11 when an armed robbery occurs, are you going to tell me I'm less deserving?

Indeed, why should a person being treated for depression by reason of a crime have received more favorable treatment than you received? It's not like you were personally responsible for your depression. There's no good reason for the distinction. It may be politically popular among some people, but there's no good policy justification. It's just discriminatory.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10705
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/06/17 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Howee wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This should make clear the GOP's absolute contempt for poor people, yet poor white voters will continue to vote against their interests.

It's so strange to see people cheering him on as he screws them over!

He mentions to our Prime Minister that our health care system is better than his, and then proceeds to make his less like ours. Bizarre.


"Bizarre" doesn't BEGIN to cover it.... Shocked This phenomenon makes me ashamed to be American. My Canadian and Euro friends are laffing their asses off.

And yes: T-Rump pronounces the Australian healthcare system to be superior. WTF?? Then don't push YOUR shit on us, asshole.


Literally had someone tell me that her healthcare would cost her 28,000 a year with this new bill...and she'd still vote for Trump again.


Was that Ivanka, or....just some other incredibly wealthy and/or stupid woman? Laughing



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8463
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/07/17 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.

when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/07/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.

when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility.


And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?

How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 1:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:


Clinton eventually switched on trade policies, which were, btw, Republican-initiated and supported legislation. The majority of Republicans supported GATT, NAFTA while the majority of Democrats didn't.


Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back.

Quote:
The Democratic Party platform is better for the "white working-class man" than is the Republican Party platform. Democratic policies are better, too.


Their policies are identical on two key issues. Both support illegal immigration and infinite immigration, and both support unlimited unfettered job export. This healthcare fight is showing a difference. On taxes, Obama was just slightly different than Bush. If Trump is able to lower taxes further, that will be another difference.

Quote:

Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections.


The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.


Quote:
I understand your issue with illegal immigration and consequent flooding of the workforce which, in simple terms, lessens the value of each worker.

Issues such as healthcare are more critical and immediate, imo. When the CBO scores this dog and pony show bill the House passed and the "white working-class man" sees how fucked it is, it will have less than the 17% approval rating of its predecessor, I predict.


There is no big cost, if any, to enforcing immigration law. You only need to prosecute a certain number of CEOs or companies to the extent that it isn't worth it, before all the others start to get the message - it is not only illegal to hire illegal workers - you will be prosecuted.


scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8463
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
scullyfu wrote:
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.

when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility.


And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?

How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that?


why are you being so hostile? show me where I said it would be any different for anyone who was a victim of anything and had taken HIV drugs for whatever reason?

the rape scenario is what we were talking about, so that was how the answer was framed. no one ever said that there should be special rules for rape victims, only that the result of taking HIV precautionary drugs would now become a pre-existing condition, because of the DRUGS, not the rape.

I have no doubt the repugs would go after anyone with that sort of HIV-taking history regardless of the reason and everyone would be subjected to that same policy. so the drunk driving victim would be subjected to the same 'pre-existing' condition hoops as a rape victim. not their fault, but now being pushed to a higher rate pool.

hope that clears up your confusion with my original answer.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 10:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
scullyfu wrote:
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.

when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility.


And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?

How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that?


why are you being so hostile? show me where I said it would be any different for anyone who was a victim of anything and had taken HIV drugs for whatever reason?

the rape scenario is what we were talking about, so that was how the answer was framed. no one ever said that there should be special rules for rape victims, only that the result of taking HIV precautionary drugs would now become a pre-existing condition, because of the DRUGS, not the rape.

I have no doubt the repugs would go after anyone with that sort of HIV-taking history regardless of the reason and everyone would be subjected to that same policy. so the drunk driving victim would be subjected to the same 'pre-existing' condition hoops as a rape victim. not their fault, but now being pushed to a higher rate pool.

hope that clears up your confusion with my original answer.


Actually the discussion was about the bogus claim that the bill treats rape as a pre-existing condition. One of my several responses to that is that there is no basis for singling out one category of people for special treatment superior to others in the identical situation.

I think I've made it clear that I personally believe that for the entire system to work we need both mandatory universal coverage, and with that a prohibition on using pre-existing conditions in underwriting, but that the two have to go together. That said, the bill as passed, as bad as it is, does not define rape as a pre-existing condition. That assertion is just political BS.

By the way, HIV or risk of HIV has always been a potential pre-existing condition. ANY medical condition that exists before the effective date of your policy is a pre-existing condition, whether cancer, acne, the common cold, or any other medical condition. The only relevant question is what the insurer does with that. Can it exclude coverage for costs of treating a pre-existing condition, or increase premiums by reason of the presence of a pre-existing condition, or must it ignore that a condition is pre-existing and treat it the same as if it arose after coverage began? Should the insurer have to pay the costs of treating medical conditions that you already had before you decided to buy insurance and started paying premiums? Should you be able to wait until you get sick or injured before you start paying for insurance? Those are the only questions. Nobody's "going after" anybody.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8785
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 1:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:


Clinton eventually switched on trade policies, which were, btw, Republican-initiated and supported legislation. The majority of Republicans supported GATT, NAFTA while the majority of Democrats didn't.


Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back.

Yeah. So? Trump's a pathological liar.

Quote:
The Democratic Party platform is better for the "white working-class man" than is the Republican Party platform. Democratic policies are better, too.


Their policies are identical on two key issues. Both support illegal immigration and infinite immigration, and both support unlimited unfettered job export. This healthcare fight is showing a difference. On taxes, Obama was just slightly different than Bush. If Trump is able to lower taxes further, that will be another difference.

As we've said, flip sides of the same (corporate) coin.

Quote:

Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections.


The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.

Republicans use racist and xenophobic talking points as a matter of course. I support Ryan's opposition to the asinine wall.

Quote:
I understand your issue with illegal immigration and consequent flooding of the workforce which, in simple terms, lessens the value of each worker.

Issues such as healthcare are more critical and immediate, imo. When the CBO scores this dog and pony show bill the House passed and the "white working-class man" sees how fucked it is, it will have less than the 17% approval rating of its predecessor, I predict.


There is no big cost, if any, to enforcing immigration law. You only need to prosecute a certain number of CEOs or companies to the extent that it isn't worth it, before all the others start to get the message - it is not only illegal to hire illegal workers - you will be prosecuted.

Yeah, I've said that before. Prosecute the CEOs.

I get the feeling you personally bought into Trump's bullshit.


\



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8785
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ten.

That’s how many people would die every year to give a tax break to each of the 400 richest people in America under the new Republican “health” bill.

Each of the top 400 earners in the country—who receive an average of $300 million per year in income—would get an average tax cut of $7 million per year.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-many-people-will-die-every-year-for-each-rich-americans_us_590cc370e4b056aa2363d491



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5537



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/08/17 10:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:

Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back.


Yeah. So? Trump's a pathological liar.


Trade is the only thing Trump has been consistent on over the years. The problem is not him not wanting to bring jobs back, it is him not being convinced by others not to do it. Trump has no political or ideological allies (unless he wants to join with Bernie Sanders) in any effort to stop or reverse job export.

Quote:

Quote:

Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections.


The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.

Republicans use racist and xenophobic talking points as a matter of course. I support Ryan's opposition to the asinine wall.


What is a "non radical Islam" example of a non-Trump Republican saying something "xenophobic "?

Quote:
I get the feeling you personally bought into Trump's bullshit.


I certainly support anti-job export policies and semi-enforcement of immigration law. I don't think we can say he was lying about either - he has not reversed his positions and he can't do either by executive order and virtually no one in Congress support either policy.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin