Obamacare Question

[Coconut Flan]

They have the same insurance as Federal employees so not much effect regarding ACA.  The major things would be a few free tests and children staying on until 26. 

[GreyhoundFan]

11 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

Thank you so much for posting this @GreyhoundFan. I'm still on my parents health insurance but over 18 and even though I feel very strongly in making sure I can support however it may be for individuals that can lose it, I honestly forgot that it could affect me since I forgot Obama up the age.

Also if anyone knows this answer, don't Congressional people have government health insurance? such as obamacare? ( or whatever they had before obamacare was enacted). I'm wondering how they'll be affected since not all of them are exactly a spring chicken.

 

Edit: I think also either today or tomorrow that POTUS is making his way to have a meeting with the Dems on strategies to see if they can actually do anything.

Members of Congress are required to obtain insurance through an exchange. Previously, they had insurance through the Federal Employee plan.

Quote

So many people have said Congress is exempt from Obamacare that in September 2013, PolitiFact National made the claim, rated False, one of its top 16 myths about the health care law.

For many years, members of Congress chose from a variety of insurance plans offered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which serves 8 million federal and retired workers and their dependents.

So, members of Congress were like most Americans, covered through their employer with the employer picking up most of the tab.

That will end in January 2014, when lawmakers and some of their staff will be required under the health care law to pick from plans in the health care law’s new marketplaces. They are the only Americans facing this requirement, although Uncle Sam will still continue to pick up most of the cost.

(Factcheck.org and The Washington Post Fact Checker have also debunked the Congress-is-exempt claim.)

The requirement for Congress became part of the law after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2009 offered an amendment that required lawmakers to get their health care through the marketplaces. A version of the amendment was adopted.

So, Duffy is correct on the first part of his claim, that members of Congress must, under the Affordable Care Act, purchase insurance through the law's marketplaces.

The difference is, they get their insurance through an exchange, but it is mostly paid by the US Government, even though they would not normally be eligible for a subsidy, thanks to their salaries.

[Coconut Flan]

Good to know.  I didn't realize it changed.

[47of74]

I just vented my spleen via email to my Rep in Congress.  I doubt it will do much good, he's been licking his racist chops to get rid of the ACA and I called him out for his line of bullshit about wanting to replace it.  And accused him of wanting to do this regardless of how many Americans suffer and die.

[GreyhoundFan]

5 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I just vented my spleen via email to my Rep in Congress.  I doubt it will do much good, he's been licking his racist chops to get rid of the ACA and I called him out for his line of bullshit about wanting to replace it.  And accused him of wanting to do this regardless of how many Americans suffer and die.

I'm glad you contacted him. My Rep is actually very supportive of the ACA (no surprise, since he's a Dem), but I've been calling his office on a regular basis since the election to ensure they know what I think.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "GOP launches long-promised repeal of Obamacare with no full plan to replace it". A couple of excerpts:

Quote

Congressional Republicans on Wednesday launched their long-promised effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, even as they acknowledged that they may need several months to develop a replacement along conservative lines.

Signifying how enormous a priority the issue is for the incoming administration, Vice President-elect Mike Pence met privately to discuss it with House and Senate Republicans. He offered no details afterward about what a new health-care law might look like but vowed to unwind the existing one through a mixture of executive actions and legislation.

Meanwhile, President Obama made a rare Capitol Hill appearance, meeting behind closed doors with Democrats from both chambers. He urged members of his party not to help the GOP devise a new health-care law.

The dueling high-level visits, on the same day that the Senate opened debate on a budget resolution that would begin rolling back the law, highlighted the sharp political fault lines that surround the future of the government’s health policies.

 

Quote

According to a lobbyist in touch with congressional aides on the ACA issue, the Trump transition team has been considering ways to strip down the health benefits that insurers must provide in plans that they sell to individuals and small businesses.

This list of “essential health benefits” was envisioned by the law but was defined in a regulation written by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the incoming administration could alter it without help from Congress.

Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to urge Republicans to “be careful in that the Dems own the failed Obamacare disaster.” In a dig at Schumer and his allies, Trump added: “Don’t let the Schumer clowns out of this web.”

Less than half an hour after Trump’s social media messages, Schumer tweeted: “Republicans should stop clowning around with America’s health care. Don’t #MakeAmericaSickAgain.”

Schumer and other Democrats echoed Obama, saying they did not feel any responsibility to craft a substitute health-care bill.

“If you are repealing, show us what you’ll replace it with. Then we’ll look at what you have and see what you can do,” said Schumer, who met briefly with Pence on Wednesday.

Gee, it's such a disaster that millions of people actually have insurance. I guess it is a disaster in Drumpf's eyes because his billionaire cronies who are CEOs of insurance companies want bigger bonuses next year and having to actually provide coverage to all without charging extra to women, older people, or sicker people, and not being able to place a yearly or lifetime limit on coverage might mean they can't buy another mansion or jet or some such thing.

[Childless]

The Republicans are selling a lie.  They have no replacement idea and aren't interested in coming up with one.  They want healthcare to return to what it was prior to the ACA.  They don't give a rat's ass if people are insured.  Rich people have the ability to get healthcare and that's all they care about.  People are going to regret voting for these lunatics.  Especially when the Medicaid expansion is rolled back.

Who knows though.  This may be the best thing to ever happen to this country.  If people suffer enough, public outcry may finally usher in universal healthcare and this backward country can finally join the rest of the first world in actually caring about its citizens.

[candygirl200413]

@Childless yes yes yes!! My mom is a pharmacist and she keeps saying how the federal government wouldn't let people go uninsured regardless and I keep reminding her that republicans in congress just don't care. They really don't. If they did, they would have found a better alternative, which they haven't besides Paul Ryan's "Better Way" (which adds to the deficit, cost way more than ACA , and among other things).

Also as a Public Health major, I remember taking my first class of my major and it was about healthcare, and I always knew America could improve in that aspect, but I didn't know how bad of a system we truly had, especially for being a developed country but having the worst health insurance ever.You would think if trump among others really wanted to "make america great again" that they would look into bringing us back to number one, but alas they won't.

[Cartmann99]

10 hours ago, Childless said:

The Republicans are selling a lie.  They have no replacement idea and aren't interested in coming up with one.  They want healthcare to return to what it was prior to the ACA.  They don't give a rat's ass if people are insured.  Rich people have the ability to get healthcare and that's all they care about.  People are going to regret voting for these lunatics.  Especially when the Medicaid expansion is rolled back.

Who knows though.  This may be the best thing to ever happen to this country.  If people suffer enough, public outcry may finally usher in universal healthcare and this backward country can finally join the rest of the first world in actually caring about its citizens.

I truly hope that happens. Honestly, between the "Government is awful, the private market does everything better" crowd, the "God weeps when you provide healthcare to the people I hate" crowd, and the right-wing media beating the drum in support of both, I'm pessimistic about our healthcare system making any big improvements.

I really, really want to be wrong about this. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Fuck you Paul Ryan: "Planned Parenthood would lose funding as part of Obamacare repeal, Ryan says"

Quote

Republicans plan to strip Planned Parenthood of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding as part of their rapid push to repeal President Obama’s health-care overhaul, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Thursday.

Ryan said a defunding measure would appear in a special fast-track bill that is expected to pass Congress as soon as next month. “Planned Parenthood legislation would be in our reconciliation bill,” he said at a news conference in response to a question about plans to defund the organization.

Reconciliation is a special congressional procedure allowing legislation to bypass a Senate filibuster, meaning it would need only a simple majority of senators to pass rather than a 60-vote supermajority.

Ryan made his comments two days after a special investigative panel formed by Republicans issued a report recommending that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, lose its access to Medicaid reimbursements and federal family-planning funds. The GOP report also recommended that Congress allow states to exclude abortion providers from their Medicaid programs.

The group reported receiving $553 million in government funding in 2014, about half of its total revenue. Congress has barred federal funding for abortions since 1976, but health providers that offer abortions are eligible to use federal funds for other services.

Planned Parenthood estimated that roughly 40 percent of its funding would be at risk should defunding legislation become law. Democrats are gearing up to defend against GOP attempts to attack the group. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers rallied Thursday afternoon on Capitol Hill with executives from Planned Parenthood and other women’s health organizations.

“We are going to stand against this with every fiber of our beings,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus.

A 2015 reconciliation bill that repealed major parts of Obamacare also included language defunding Planned Parenthood. That bill passed both houses of Congress and was vetoed by Obama. Republicans expect President-elect Donald Trump to sign the coming reconciliation bill. While Trump has spoken positively about Planned Parenthood in the past, he said last year that “as long as they do the abortion I am not for funding Planned Parenthood.”

Republicans have a 52-to-48 Senate majority, and it appears it will be a tough task for Democrats to persuade enough GOP senators to oppose a defunding bill.

Only two Senate Republicans opposed the bill when it passed in 2015: Susan Collins (Maine) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). Kirk is no longer in the Senate, and Collins alone could not block the bill.

At an afternoon news conference called in response to Ryan’s remark, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said it would be a mistake to assume that every senator who supported the 2015 bill — which was certain to be vetoed — would support defunding Planned Parenthood now.

“This is now real,” she said. “I would give a strong message to every member of Congress that you’re going to hold the bag on this if you try to hide behind a vote. The consequences are real.”

Murray suggested GOP women in the Senate could play a key role in fending off the defunding measure:”I know that Republican women here don’t want their party to be known as the party that takes away a woman’s ability to make her own health care choices.”

But conservative groups are already pressing Republican lawmakers to follow through on long-tendered promises to anti-abortion voters.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the conservative Susan B. Anthony List, hailed Ryan’s commitment as a “victory for women’s health care.”

“We commend Speaker Paul Ryan on his continued resolve to fund women’s health care, not abortion,” she said.

Planned Parenthood chief executive Cecile Richards, speaking to reporters Thursday afternoon, said she took Ryan’s threat “very seriously” and said her organization had already launched a major national campaign to mobilize supporters.

Richards pointed to a “real divide” between ideologically driven conservatives and more-pragmatic Republicans who are more wary of a divisive fight — including, she suggested, the president-elect.

“Donald Trump was not elected to defund Planned Parenthood,” she said.

Murray said she hoped Trump would intervene much as he helped to stifle a Republican attempt to rein the House ethics watchdog this week.

“I would ask the president-elect to twitter very loudly tomorrow morning,” she said, “that he stands behind women and that he wants the House to back down.”

That Marjorie chick is smoking something really special if she thinks Ryan is doing a single thing to help women's health care.

[JMarie]

5 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

@Childless yes yes yes!! My mom is a pharmacist and she keeps saying how the federal government wouldn't let people go uninsured regardless and I keep reminding her that republicans in congress just don't care. They really don't. If they did, they would have found a better alternative, which they haven't besides Paul Ryan's "Better Way" (which adds to the deficit, cost way more than ACA , and among other things).

Also as a Public Health major, I remember taking my first class of my major and it was about healthcare, and I always knew America could improve in that aspect, but I didn't know how bad of a system we truly had, especially for being a developed country but having the worst health insurance ever.You would think if trump among others really wanted to "make america great again" that they would look into bringing us back to number one, but alas they won't.

It's not like they haven't had time to construct a workable alternative (if that was possible).

[GreyhoundFan]

So, not only will millions lose insurance, our national debt is going to skyrocket: "Conservatives ready to support $1 trillion hole in the budget". Here's the beginning of the article:

Quote

Some of the most conservative members of Congress say they are ready to vote for a budget that would — at least on paper — balloon the deficit to more than $1 trillion by the end of the decade, all for the sake of eventually repealing the Affordable Care Act.

In a dramatic reversal, many members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus said Thursday they are prepared later this month to support a budget measure that would explode the deficit and increase the public debt to more than $29.1 trillion by 2026, figures contained in the budget resolution itself.

As they left a meeting with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday, some of the conservatives said that spending targets contained in the budget for fiscal 2017 are symbolic. The real goal of the budget legislation, they argued, is to establish an opportunity to finally make good on GOP promises to repeal President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

“I just came to understand all the different ideas about where we go next,” said Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus that typically opposes massive spending increases. Schweikert now says he will probably vote for the budget resolution.

The growing conservative consensus comes nearly one year after the approximately 40-member group announced it would rather torpedo the entire budget process than vote for a fiscal blueprint that increased spending without balancing the budget.

But fiscal discipline now seems to be taking a back seat to the drive to repeal Obamacare.

“I’d like to see a replacement on Obamacare pretty quick,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.). “Would I like to see [the budget] balance? Certainly. Absolutely. I’ve got 13 grandchildren, and I don’t want to see them buried under $30 trillion of debt.”

So, for the Tea-baggers, the budget was the most important thing, until they found a way to ensure they could take away the good things Obama did for the country. And, hey, we can cause poor and middle-class people to suffer at the same time, what a bonus! (please note sarcasm). I really think that if Reagan or Bush the first had implemented the ACA, the right-wing nutjobs would have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but because the uppity black man pushed for it, well, it is ebil.

 

[Cartmann99]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Fuck you Paul Ryan: "Planned Parenthood would lose funding as part of Obamacare repeal, Ryan says"

That Marjorie chick is smoking something really special if she thinks Ryan is doing a single thing to help women's health care.

Marjorie and her organization are opposed to abortion and contraception, so they don't consider access to either one as a necessary part of women's health care. She was also named chairwoman of Trump's pro-life coalition back in September.

Quote

 

At the 2011 Faith and Freedom Conference, Marjorie Dannenfelser spoke on a panel and said, “Every year that contraception and family planning increases, the abortion rate also increases in direct proportion – not inverse. This is an undeniable fact. It happens every year.” Later, during an interview, she suggested contraception alters human behavior:

DANNENFELSER: There are deeper causes than just the funding. The causes are [contraception's] effect on human behavior and with increased levels of contraception, increased availability. The argument has been you cut Planned Parenthood, you increase the abortion rate when in reality you increase all that exponentially and human behavior starts to change…There are a lot of underlying reasons why there is that relationship. The bottom line is that to lose the connection between sex and having children leads to problems. 

 

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-releases/2016/pr09162016.html?referrer=https://www.bing.com/

If I were still fertile, I'd be on the phone tomorrow with my doctor asking about long term birth control or being sterilized. Trump is surrounding himself with people who are opposed to women making their own choices about their fertility.

Make your plans for the foreseeable future with this fact in mind.

[Childless]

7 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Marjorie and her organization are opposed to abortion and contraception, so they don't consider access to either one as a necessary part of women's health care. She was also named chairwoman of Trump's pro-life coalition back in September.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-releases/2016/pr09162016.html?referrer=https://www.bing.com/

If I were still fertile, I'd be on the phone tomorrow with my doctor asking about long term birth control or being sterilized. Trump is surrounding himself with people who are opposed to women making their own choices about their fertility.

Make your plans for the foreseeable future with this fact in mind.

Thankfully, I've already partaken in permanent birth control because two children are enough for me.  I'm also that parent who will make sure my kids have access to birth control as I don't want their lives ruined by teen pregnancy or an STD (anyone who thinks abstinence works is an idiot).  Good ole Marjorie can kiss my ass.

[RoseWilder]

On 1/4/2017 at 2:16 PM, 47of74 said:

I just vented my spleen via email to my Rep in Congress.  I doubt it will do much good, he's been licking his racist chops to get rid of the ACA and I called him out for his line of bullshit about wanting to replace it.  And accused him of wanting to do this regardless of how many Americans suffer and die.

Calling their office is supposed to be more effective than emailing. 

[formergothardite]

I called one of my representatives this morning and asked why he supported policies that will probably raise the abortion rates and why he was trying to get rid of policies that have been shown to lower them. Wording it this way completely threw off the intern who answered. She did not know how to answer. She kept saying he was against abortion and so I would keep on with "Why is he wanting to get rid of funding that will help lower abortion rates."  I told her that planned parenthood provides long acting reversible contraception and that studies have shown that  providing women with LARC lowers abortion rates. I told her I wanted to know what evidence based plans he had that would lower abortion rates just as much as providing birth control to women does. She didn't know and was desperate to get off the phone. I told her I would give her time to find out and I would call back in a week or so for an answer.

As much as I hate it, in this fight we are going to have to make it about them not having an evidence based plan to lower abortion rates and trying to get rid of existing policies that help lower abortion rates. These people give no fucks about women's health or the health of children. Abortion is what they use to rope in mindless conservatives who only want to save the babies. For way too long have they been able to claim they care about abortion while their policies show they don't. They need to be put in the position where they look like they don't care about abortion rates, because they don't, they have just managed to convince tons of people they do. 

[47of74]

15 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

These people give no fucks about women's health or the health of children. Abortion is what they use to rope in mindless conservatives who only want to save the babies. For way too long have they been able to claim they care about abortion while their policies show they don't. They need to be put in the position where they look like they don't care about abortion rates, because they don't, they have just managed to convince tons of people they do. 

Hell they don't give a fuck about anyone's health unless the person is wealthy, white, and male.    Or they think they can get some votes out of the issue.  Remeber Terri Schiavo?  Their opposition was all about getting votes.  What was really galling is in Texas who were having the plugged pulled on them under the Texas Futile Care Act signed by the same George W. Bush who made a big deal about sticking his nose in the Schiavo case while she was dying.  There was one woman who wanted to be kept on life support long enough to see her mother one more time and the hospital said fuck you to her.  No fucks were given by all these conservatives who got all up in arms about Schiavo.

[formergothardite]

From being in the "pro-life" crowd for so long and still being surrounded with it, I do think the only way to beat these bastards is to force them into perpetually having to defend their policies against accusations that they are raising abortion rates. "GOP Does Not Care About Lowering Abortion Rates" is a headline that would hit them where it hurts. They don't give one flying fuck about lowering abortion rates and that needs to be front and center. 

[RoseWilder]

24 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

 They don't give one flying fuck about lowering abortion rates and that needs to be front and center. 

Exactly. They don't care about fetuses in any way. If they did, they would be pushing for research to end miscarriages. More miscarriages than abortions happen in the United States every year, and yet I have never once heard anyone in the so-called pro-life crowd say, "we need to work to end miscarriage, we need to save all of those babies too." Several times a week, I drive by a church that has a giant cross out front that says "in honor of aborted babies." I can't help but notice that there's no cross next to it saying, "in honor of miscarried babies." 

They don't give a shit about fetuses. They never did. It's always been about controlling women's bodies and their sex lives. 

[47of74]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

Exactly. They don't care about fetuses in any way. If they did, they would be pushing for research to end miscarriages. More miscarriages than abortions happen in the United States every year, and yet I have never once heard anyone in the so-called pro-life crowd say, "we need to work to end miscarriage, we need to save all of those babies too." Several times a week, I drive by a church that has a giant cross out front that says "in honor of aborted babies." I can't help but notice that there's no cross next to it saying, "in honor of miscarried babies." 

They don't give a shit about fetuses. They never did. It's always been about controlling women's bodies and their sex lives. 

I think I read somewhere that a large number of pregnancies end early on before the woman even knows she was pregnant in the first place.  You don't see the reich wing giving a fuck about that and some of them whine if a woman has any kind of medical attention pre or post natal.    

[JMarie]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/obamacare-florida-republican/index.html

Quote

Ruscoe, 57, of West Palm Beach, Florida, is self-employed and knows the insecurity of going uninsured. He took advantage of the Affordable Care Act the minute he could.

About 20 million people gained health care coverage through Obamacare. With more than 1.7 million Floridians enrolled as of February, the Sunshine State has the highest percentage of Obamacare recipients in the country. And yet Ruscoe was among the majority of Florida voters who checked the box for Donald Trump, the candidate who promised time and again to spike the program Ruscoe couldn't wait to have.

"We'll have to see what pans out," he said. "It may not be totally repealed. It may be something else. I hope something will remain in place."

It's kind of like when you find a really great pair of designer pants at Marshalls and buy them, even though they're too small.  You know they're too small.  But you buy them anyway.  And if you cut out desserts and start going to gym again, maybe they'll fit in a few months.  Except that Obamacare isn't a pair of too-small pants.

[Audrey2]

@JMarie and others,

  Thank you for posting about those who voted for the Groper in Chief, but didn't take his call to repeal Obamacare seriously.

 

To those who voted for Trump and are now upset about losing their insurance, because you didn't think he was serious: Here's a way to tell if a presidential candidate is serious or not about making a change that will affect you. If the candidate, as well as those running for the House and the Senate from that same party keep mentioning enacting or repealing the same legislation as the Presidential candidate, then these candidates are serious. If you don't want to lose something important to you, don't vote for them. If they all are talking about passing something you don't agree with, don't vote for them.   

[Childless]

4 hours ago, JMarie said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/obamacare-florida-republican/index.html

It's kind of like when you find a really great pair of designer pants at Marshalls and buy them, even though they're too small.  You know they're too small.  But you buy them anyway.  And if you cut out desserts and start going to gym again, maybe they'll fit in a few months.  Except that Obamacare isn't a pair of too-small pants.

Jesus.  That guy's an idiot.

[47of74]

19 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

@JMarie and others,

  Thank you for posting about those who voted for the Groper in Chief, but didn't take his call to repeal Obamacare seriously.

 

To those who voted for Trump and are now upset about losing their insurance, because you didn't think he was serious: Here's a way to tell if a presidential candidate is serious or not about making a change that will affect you. If the candidate, as well as those running for the House and the Senate from that same party keep mentioning enacting or repealing the same legislation as the Presidential candidate, then these candidates are serious. If you don't want to lose something important to you, don't vote for them. If they all are talking about passing something you don't agree with, don't vote for them.   

I think I said this before, but I'm at the point now where I'm ready to say fuck 'em to the people who voted for the Orange Fuckhead.   He got selected as the next President in no small part due to their support.  They made their bed, now they can lie in the fucking thing.  Of course the only thing that stops me is that it's going to hurt a bunch of innocent people in the process, those who were part of the majority that voted for Mrs. Clinton. 

[Cartmann99]

17 hours ago, Childless said:

Jesus.  That guy's an idiot.

Yup. From the article:

Quote

"I did what I thought was correct for the overall good of the country," he said. "Economic strength cures a lot of things."

A better economy, he hopes, will free him from needing subsidies.

Our economy, as a whole, has improved under President Obama. If you look at economic patterns from the past, you'll see that the country is due for an economic downturn, as economic upturns only last for so long.

 When our economy contracts, and people are spending less money on nonessentials, that is the time when we need the government to put money back into our economy. It's best for my own economic interests for me to eat at home, but if enough people do that, then restaurants close. That means more people spending less money, which keeps making things worse.

Since folks like Paul Ryan will soon be running the show, what do you think will happen when the country slides into a recession? Do you see the Republicans agreeing to a big stimulus package to try and revive the economy, or do you see a big speech about how the country needs to tighten its belt?

So, Mr. Ruscoe, please explain to me how having people morally opposed to putting money back into our economy when necessary, combined with President Drama Llama hate tweeting companies causing their stock to fall, and being a petulant attention whore with zero concern of the affects on the country at large, is going to lead to a long term economic boom? As a business owner, don't you desire stability when making your future plans, so won't smart business owners develop a "wait and see" approach to expanding their businesses under Trump?

 Talk to me like I'm five, because I really don't understand where your optimism is coming from.

I'm obviously not an economist, so my apologies to any economist who may come across my grade school level rant.