It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

May 5th BBC on Obamacare vs the Republicans

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
After all the battles and anger flung around, I thought I would post this very tone-neutral examination of what will happen if the plan being offered by the Republicans passes.



Here's a look at some key differences between the existing law, informally known as Obamacare, and the American Health Care Act, crafted by the Trump administration and Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.

Individual mandate
Repeal

Obamacare: All Americans are required to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
[bRepublican plan: The mandate is repealed, but individuals who forgo health insurance for more than 63 days must pay a 30% surcharge on their insurance premiums for a year.
Source: BBC


In other words, if you drop your insurance because you can't pay it, the "catch up amount" when you can afford it may be beyond your means.

Here's one that hits me and my husband:


Pre-existing conditions
Change

Obamacare Requires all insurance plans to cover certain health conditions and services, such as emergency room visits, cancer treatment, annual physical exams, prescription drug costs and mental health counselling.
Republican Plan Allows states to define what benefits are mandated or opt out of the requirement entirely.


Texas has done a notoriously poor job of health care for poor and for women, with the result that the death rate for pregnant women, new moms, and newborn babies is so high that we look like a third world country. This won't change, and it will get worse as old folks fade off and new people are born. This will mean a larger number of babies with birth conditions will not get adequate medical care and their families won't get any support either (Abbot has already cut funding for disabled children. The fact that he himself is disabled does not make him any more understanding of the situation.

One that hits me and will hit your parents and grandparents (and will hit some of you, too:



Older Americans
Change

Obamacare: Insurers can charge older Americans no more than three times the cost for younger Americans
Republican plan: Insurers can charge older Americans five times as much as younger Americans. States would also be able to set their own ratio.


Getting old isn't for wimps, but apparently it's now only for the wealthy.

Check the article out. What will change for you if it passes?


edit on 6-5-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


the death rate for pregnant women, new moms, and newborn babies is so high that we look like a third world country.

I would like to see a citation for this claim. It sounds a bit far fetched without some data to back it up.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

They both fail to deal with the main problem. Lobby power in Congress and for profit medical trearment. I think the only save for free market insurance is competing non profit entities mandatory to buy into (with a choice of plan and provider).

How could they possibly rewrite a bill when the lobbyist are running Congress?

I think we are on the road to single payer because republicans are too greedy to try an actual fair market approach. Which sucks. I think the competing non profit scenario would be set up similar to the Swiss and it would prevent total government control and erase the need for some regulations against fraud for conflict of interest issues in research.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

my mom just left like 5 minutes and she was pretty worked up about the new plan. my step father and her have pre existing conditions and are about to get dicked



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I admit i'm not really familiar with Obamacare but something fishy is going on. I now read 3 different versions of the pre-existing condition one. The first was pretty negative. The second is the one in the OP and the third was very positive and covered all pre-existing conditions. The third was on /pol/ and supposedly straight of the real bill. So what is it now?



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Byrd


the death rate for pregnant women, new moms, and newborn babies is so high that we look like a third world country.

I would like to see a citation for this claim. It sounds a bit far fetched without some data to back it up.


He is probably talking about this.
www.usatoday.com...



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Byrd


the death rate for pregnant women, new moms, and newborn babies is so high that we look like a third world country.

I would like to see a citation for this claim. It sounds a bit far fetched without some data to back it up.


A feminist source from 2014

USA Today article

National Public Radio

As always, the data is easy to find if you google or "maternal mortality" and Texas.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
I admit i'm not really familiar with Obamacare but something fishy is going on. I now read 3 different versions of the pre-existing condition one. The first was pretty negative. The second is the one in the OP and the third was very positive and covered all pre-existing conditions. The third was on /pol/ and supposedly straight of the real bill. So what is it now?


It allows the states to individually decide what a 'preexisting condition' is.

Now, you might not be reading a lot about women's issues, so consider it from a man's perspective. If you were a young, Black man (like a friend of mine) and just applying for insurance and you had been born with sickle cell anemia (like this friend was) this would be considered "pre-existing." Depending on how concerned the state was about people (and in Texas this would be a "not really") he couldn't get coverage at a reasonable rate.

If you'd dropped your insurance after being downsized and were diagnosed with diabetes in the interim and then got a new insurer, your diabetes and all the problems associated with them are "preexisting."

...and so forth.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Byrd


the death rate for pregnant women, new moms, and newborn babies is so high that we look like a third world country.

I would like to see a citation for this claim. It sounds a bit far fetched without some data to back it up.


Guardian
THHS
Texas Observer
Texas Observer
Research Paper

The data is out there with little effort to find. Texas is the worst place in the country for young motherhood, apparently, if you want good chances of surviving it.

Apparently, too, maternal mortality rates are up all over the U.S., but they really spike to near third world levels in Texas, for some reason. Which is odd, because Texas isn't exactly a poor state. From what I understand, it has low unemployment, lower cost of living, lowered taxes, and generally good living standards as a result. Which is why I find the maternal death spike counter-intuitive. I'd expect places like West Virginia and Mississippi, both notoriously poor in all areas, to lead the pack here.

I actually know of one very strange case of maternal death, though in states where it's the lowest. The maternal death in question, was an Indian doctor who evaluated my mammogram and ultrasound. Educated, wealthy, a gynecologist herself. I found out, at my next mammogram, that she had passed away in childbirth, which blew my mind. I do remember when I briefly met her before, she was about midway through her pregnancy, and she mentioned (eerie and prophetic) that she would not be doing next year's mammogram, because she planned on taking a year off work when her son was born. I found out from the assistant that she and her husband had moved down to Southern California where her family were, and she died in one of the top hospitals down there. I have no clue what the actual cause of death was, but the assistant said it was something super rare, bizarre, like 1 in a million chance sort of defect or something, that doctors never check for because it's so rare. I don't remember if the little boy survived or not.

It would be interesting to look into the spike in maternal mortality across the U.S. as well as in Texas. In the case of Texas, their spike seems unusually high even for the rest of the U.S.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

LOOKS like I lucked out dying under the VA...better care..
I don't think it's finished ,it is STILL too rushed for such a complex idea,kicking the can down the road..



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Ok. So when it comes to Obamacare directly, it didn't effect me, since I got my health care through the VA system. Now cuts and freezes there are what will effect me the most. In fact, I've already felt that bite, as certain services and clinics have been suspended/froze, with all the hiring freezes, cuts, ect. I've already had two appointments cancelled as a result.

As far as the Trumpcare vs Obamacare comparison on the BBC article, here's my thoughts and impressions.



Obamacare: All Americans are required to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

Republican plan: The mandate is repealed, but individuals who forgo health insurance for more than 63 days must pay a 30% surcharge on their insurance premiums for a year.


So basically, people are going to get penalized, except the penalty payments are, in this case, going into insurance companies pockets directly, instead of a government fund to cover the uninsured. Jesus, and I thought Obamacare was a scam to enrich private insurance companies....



Obamacare: Requires insurers to allow children under age 26 to be covered by their parents' policies

Republican plan: Maintains this requirement.


Ok, good, at least they are not screwing college kids here.



Obamacare: Prohibits insurers from denying coverage or charging more to individuals who have pre-existing medical conditions.

Republican plan: States can let insurers charge as much as they like to sick people. Allocates $8bn to help subsidize those patients.


Wait...so letting insurance companies screw people with pre-existing conditions, but subsidizing the people getting screwed so they can give the insurance companies taxpayer money....what is wrong with this picture?



Women's healthcare Obamacare: Insurance companies prohibited from charging women more than men for the same health plan and must provide core services including maternity care and contraceptives.

Republican plan: Insurance companies still banned from charging women more, but states could allow insurers to drop maternity care and contraceptives from basic benefits. Also bans women from using federal tax credits to buy a plan that covers abortion.


I wonder how this is going to effect the already high maternal mortality rate previously discussed in this country? All I can say is I am glad I am not a young woman, or a woman with kids, and near the end of my childbearing years.



Older Americans Obamacare: Insurers can charge older Americans no more than three times the cost for younger Americans

Republican plan: Insurers can charge older Americans five times as much as younger Americans. States would also be able to set their own ratio.


Yeah! Take that, you old farts!



Obamacare: Companies with more than 50 employees are required to offer health insurance or pay a penalty.

Republican plan: This mandate is repealed.


So we are back to pre-Obamacare with that one. Back to square one.



Obamacare: Raised Medicare taxes on the wealthy and imposed new taxes on medical devices, health insurers, drug companies, investment income, tanning salons and high-end health insurance plans.

Republican plan: Repeals most Obamacare taxes and delays implementation of the tax on high-end health insurance plans to 2026.


I'd be interested to see which taxes they repealed, and which they kept.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
So here's another article from the BBC, discussing who the biggest winners in this new program would be.

BBC

The irony here is the people who voted against Trump and the GOP, the young, rich, and urban, stand to gain the most from this new bill. Those who voted for Trump and the GOP (poor, rural, old) are getting hammered the worst.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Apparently, too, maternal mortality rates are up all over the U.S., but they really spike to near third world levels in Texas, for some reason. Which is odd, because Texas isn't exactly a poor state. From what I understand, it has low unemployment, lower cost of living, lowered taxes, and generally good living standards as a result. Which is why I find the maternal death spike counter-intuitive. I'd expect places like West Virginia and Mississippi, both notoriously poor in all areas, to lead the pack here.


The situation has worsened under recent administrations with a one-party lock on most of the state districts and a lot of long-serving and wealthy legislators who think that "I am just like everyone else, so if I don't need it then they don't need it." The state is mainly Caucasian - although the highest maternal mortality rate is among Blacks, it's also fairly high among Whites.

www.census.gov...

If you're poor, it's a bad place to be because (although there's no state income tax) we really sock it to you with state and excise taxes. If you're rich, this is trivial. If you're poor, nearly 10% of your take home pay gets chewed up in taxes.

Lawmakers cut family planning services and closed abortion clinics. In addition, women are having children later ... and the rise in obesity does not help. Upper middle class and wealthy folks can find doctors of their own choosing and can afford to turn down one provider and go to another. Not so for lower middle class and the poor.

The view still persists that women's issues are fairly trivial and many friends have expressed frustration when the only physician they can afford treats them like they're still children or worse won't really listen to them. I changed my healthcare plans and got a more expensive one to keep my doctor... because I *can* walk in there with charts and data and by heaven, the man actually looks at it and respects the information instead of treating me like a child who has just learned a new piano piece.

There is also a religious bias (Protestant Christianity) and an anti-poverty bias (if you're poor, it's because you're lazy. You shouldn't be getting government help for anything.)

(when I was a Teaching Assistant for the Department of Preventive Medicine at Lubbock back in 1980, this was something we tried to hammer into the medical students- women are people and symptoms aren't "hysteria" or "drama" and the poor and those on welfare deserve the kind of care you would want for yourself. And that was back in the evil old days when car dealerships refused to sell me a car unless my husband was there. It irks me no end that we still fight this battle and that the attitude harms so many.)


edit on 6-5-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Egads! That is terrible. I had no idea. Many sources claim they do not know why?? Is it possible it could be related to fracking or energy projects?? Does Texas have a higher rate of fracking?? Could be they are related. Strange. My wife gave natural birth to all five kids with zero complications. I think between only about six friends wih the biggest families, mine included, that I know of, we got thirty kids. Nobody we know or they know have had complications. Are we just getting lucky?? Im starting to think so.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Obamacare: Raised Medicare taxes on the wealthy and imposed new taxes on medical devices, health insurers, drug companies, investment income, tanning salons and high-end health insurance plans.

Republican plan: Repeals most Obamacare taxes and delays implementation of the tax on high-end health insurance plans to 2026.


I'd be interested to see which taxes they repealed, and which they kept.


The higher taxes on the wealthy were repealed. No, not kidding. I think the drug companies also won.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Egads! That is terrible. I had no idea. Many sources claim they do not know why?? Is it possible it could be related to fracking or energy projects?? Does Texas have a higher rate of fracking?? Could be they are related. Strange. My wife gave natural birth to all five kids with zero complications. I think between only about six friends wih the biggest families, mine included, that I know of, we got thirty kids. Nobody we know or they know have had complications. Are we just getting lucky?? Im starting to think so.


No, not fracking.

Lack of access to health care, particularly in poor areas, particularly for Blacks, particularly for Hispanics. You should do a ride-along with the cops or fire department sometime... find out how often they're called because someone's blood pressure/diabetes got out of control and they need hospital transport. (answer: pretty darn often in a big city.)

The air quality in some areas (Houston, for example) is not very good. That doesn't help, either.

There's actually no real public transportation. If you're sick, the only way to get to a doc or a hospital is get someone with a car to take you. Otherwise it's hours by bus (if the bus goes by there at all and if you can figure out the route.)


edit on 6-5-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

If the core of the AHCA House version is signed into law, I'll have a ton of insurance clients who are HAPPY AGAIN, which will be icing on the "Trump being elected" cake!



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Byrd

If the core of the AHCA House version is signed into law, I'll have a ton of insurance clients who are HAPPY AGAIN, which will be icing on the "Trump being elected" cake!



Good for you.

It sounds like you sell insurance to the wealthy. Someone needs to.

However, the elderly and the poor will not celebrate. If you ever end up in dire financial straits when you're over 65, you may understand the position better.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

So even under the nearly decade under the American Care Act, or ObamaCare, this mortality was still an issue? It seems to me the problem is more that State of Texas then, and not necessarily with either piece of legislation. Texas is so large, it really should be classified as its own country. I have driven across it at least six times. From Dallas/Ft Worth through 287 going north to I-40. Through I-10 in the south to El Paso. And straight through the center. I tried, and there is just no swift way to drive across starting from sun up and beating sunset.

It is just that population centers are very far apart, with small towns dotted everywhere. I do love driving through, I find it to be an amazing experience. It never crossed my mind the healthcare situation in such a vast land where pockets of isolation are really the norm from what I saw. Opened my eyes to something I never would have considered otherwise.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Byrd

If the core of the AHCA House version is signed into law, I'll have a ton of insurance clients who are HAPPY AGAIN, which will be icing on the "Trump being elected" cake!



Good for you.

It sounds like you sell insurance to the wealthy. Someone needs to.

However, the elderly and the poor will not celebrate. If you ever end up in dire financial straits when you're over 65, you may understand the position better.



"The Wealthy" don't usually buy health insurance, unless they are wealthy with a chronic illness. Then, it's a good "investment".

I'm referring to the huge cross-section of individuals and families who run small businesses, or whose employer does not provide health insurance. Two REAL examples of many...

1. Age 35 Engineer at small firm. Income = $45,000
ObamaCare Blue Cross = $385 a month. $7,100 Deductible.
Non-ObamaCare Blue Cross = $210 a month. $1,500 Deductible.

2. Family of 4. Parents age 40. Self-Employed. Income = $88,000
ObamaCare Blue Cross = $1,600 a month. $14,000 Family Deductible.
Non-ObamaCare Blue Cross = $785 a month. $5,000 Family Deductible.

With the AHCA, people can put several thousands of dollars in the bank every year, to pay for medical expenses incurred before the deductible is met. Doing this, lowers the TAXABLE INCOME for the year. The amount put in the bank accumulates each year tax-deferred, and could be a really nice supplement to any other retirement income received at age 65.

Essentially the AHCA unshackles ObamaCare's chains from Middle and Upper-Middle income Americans who have to buy their own health insurance. It's a GOD-SEND for them.

Those who don't qualify for AHCA private health insurance plans, due to existing or pre-existing medical conditions, can buy into an option where the U.S. Government covers most of their medical expenses. It's a version of the "government option" that liberal Democrats always ask for. The AHCA earmarks $138 Billion for that, over 10 years. (That amount will need to be increased by the Senate.)

Not surprisingly, most of the arm-chair MSM "experts" who are writing about the American Health Care Act (both before and after it's passage) have more errors in their analysis, than facts. Since ObamaCare and AHCA are more about "insurance" than "healthcare", I don't expect them to be accurate. We advisors take many hours of training every month, just to keep up!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join