Second AHCA vote underway: Update - Vote Done; Exemption denied; ACHA passed in the House 217 - 213
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
Petty Crocker
Looking GREAT in my 30s
As someone who works for a major healthcare insurance company, Im following this thread and unfolding events with interest.
Those restrictions on pre-exisiting conditions and increased premiums will make my particular job alot harder.
Those restrictions on pre-exisiting conditions and increased premiums will make my particular job alot harder.
Hopefully this will keep getting kicked down the road until everyone can agree on something. Really hoping that this TrumpRussia thing pans out, so the Republicans are boxed in and have to deal. As someone else said in the thread, I don't give a fukk about party lines when it comes to healthcare, if there is a way to make it better, I'm all for it, my wife had a stem cell transplant, and the medical bills are a nightmare because she has chronic graph vs host, even 5 years later, and my premium will be unaffordable if this bill passes with even a semblance of the original bill is passed. Fukk Trump, Ryan, and the republicans right now.As someone who works for a major healthcare insurance company, Im following this thread and unfolding events with interest.
Those restrictions on pre-exisiting conditions and increased premiums will make my particular job alot harder.
i'm amazed how they spin this shyt. the minute he said he lived in texas where they didn't expand medicaid and he's describing all these issues that a practice that sees mostly poor patients is having ... you don't have to go to medical school to put two and two together. it's not a failing of the law, because the law was designed for all states to expand medicaid or their medicaid funding got impacted. conservatives/republicans fought that shyt and the supreme court said ok you can keep the law but not require the states to expand. so the evil democrats and obama didn't set out to have millions upon millions be excluded so they wouldn't see how the law benefited them. they wanted practices and hospitals that saw poor people to actually thrive and get paid. there was a story that was posted here about a missouri hospital that was on the verge of bankruptcy pre obamacare because they saw mostly poor people who ended up not paying them. now they're spending $25m on an expansion. and there was another story about a tennessee county that lost their last hospital. guess which state expanded and which one didn't. but but poor people don't see the benefits in voting for a party that supports a law they don't benefit from. that circular logic.
Last edited:
Great post. It's almost like their state government wants to keep the poor people poor and helpless so they can continue to be in power on some "we are forgotten, we are ignored, but I still love you.......Obama fukking sucks" or "they want to take our rebel flag, and want us to forget our heritage, the south will rise again". It's perpetual, and unfortunately, it will probably never change. I see all these folks talking about "good, let those hillbillies reap what they sew" fukk that y'all, elections have consequences, and they affect all of us. Look at the HBCU situation, he actually went out and woo'd these schools, for a fukking photo op, and then pulled the rug out this past Thursday or Friday. Doing nothing, serves no one.
LHilla
Pro
As someone who works for a major healthcare insurance company, Im following this thread and unfolding events with interest.
Those restrictions on pre-exisiting conditions and increased premiums will make my particular job alot harder.
you think single payer is realistic or nah?
Petty Crocker
Looking GREAT in my 30s
Its very realistic. Medicare and Medicaid are essentially single payer systems. The only difference is that they cover specific groups of people instead of the general population. So transitioning to include everyone else shouldnt be that hard.
This is extremely wrong. Stop it.
Hood Critic
The Power Circle
This is extremely wrong. Stop it.
So everything in that post in relation to costs didn't exist before ACA? So the lack of medicare expansion in Texas plays no part in whats being described there?
I disagree with most of this article. It down plays classic ideological differences that will not be looked over.
First of all it's medicaid, not medicare.
So everything in that post in relation to costs didn't exist before ACA? So the lack of medicare expansion in Texas plays no part in whats being described there?
Secondly, medicaid expansion is part of the ACA. It's the largest part of the bill. I've explained how terrible Texas' public health system is in another thread.
The point he's making, very well might I add, is that the healthcare discussion is always talked about from a 10,000 foot view. So when it comes time for someone in Texas to complain about healthcare, instead of them pointing the finger to their state reps, they look past them and blame the failures on Obama. The ACA reduced premiums through tax credits and assisted low income consumers reach their deductibles with cost sharing subsidies. In Texas, the people who need it the most don't receive the benefits.
That's why his story starts by explaining why the poor don't vote democrat.
A Little-Noticed Target in the House Health Bill: Special Education
School districts rely on Medicaid, the federal health care program for the poor, to provide costly services to millions of students with disabilities across the country. For nearly 30 years, Medicaid has helped school systems cover costs for special education services and equipment, from physical therapists to feeding tubes. The money is also used to provide preventive care, such as vision and hearing screenings, for other Medicaid-eligible children.
In a January survey of nearly 1,000 district officials in 42 states, nearly 70 percent of districts reported that they used the money to pay the salaries of health care professionals who serve special education students.
The advocates argued that under the House bill, the federal government would transfer the burden of health care to states, which would result in higher taxes, eligibility cuts or curtailed services for children. And they said that schools would have to compete for funding with other entities, like hospitals and clinics, that serve Medicaid-eligible children.
The ability of school systems to provide services mandated under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act would be strained. The law is supposed to ensure that students with disabilities receive high-quality educational services, but it has historically been underfunded.
Under a little-noticed provision of the health care bill, states would no longer have to consider schools eligible Medicaid providers, meaning they would not be entitled to reimbursements.
The National Alliance for Medicaid in Education estimates that 1 percent of all Medicaid reimbursement goes to local school districts. Even without the funding, school districts would be legally required to provide special education services.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/...l47YkIq2eTjufn1aexSuofel6lmfHA&_hsmi=51531075
School districts rely on Medicaid, the federal health care program for the poor, to provide costly services to millions of students with disabilities across the country. For nearly 30 years, Medicaid has helped school systems cover costs for special education services and equipment, from physical therapists to feeding tubes. The money is also used to provide preventive care, such as vision and hearing screenings, for other Medicaid-eligible children.
In a January survey of nearly 1,000 district officials in 42 states, nearly 70 percent of districts reported that they used the money to pay the salaries of health care professionals who serve special education students.
The advocates argued that under the House bill, the federal government would transfer the burden of health care to states, which would result in higher taxes, eligibility cuts or curtailed services for children. And they said that schools would have to compete for funding with other entities, like hospitals and clinics, that serve Medicaid-eligible children.
The ability of school systems to provide services mandated under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act would be strained. The law is supposed to ensure that students with disabilities receive high-quality educational services, but it has historically been underfunded.
Under a little-noticed provision of the health care bill, states would no longer have to consider schools eligible Medicaid providers, meaning they would not be entitled to reimbursements.
The National Alliance for Medicaid in Education estimates that 1 percent of all Medicaid reimbursement goes to local school districts. Even without the funding, school districts would be legally required to provide special education services.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/...l47YkIq2eTjufn1aexSuofel6lmfHA&_hsmi=51531075
Hood Critic
The Power Circle
You're right, it is medicaid, that's my fault with not proofing my posts.
Medicaid expansion is an optional part of the ACA, it's not mandatory. So it was Texas' decision to opt out.