Obamacare Question

[ShepherdontheRock]

On 1/7/2017 at 2:40 PM, Cartmann99 said:

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

Actually, my Ivy League P.h.D. economist parents explain what's going on in exactly that way. So I think you're good.

It's hard for me to have compassion for people like Mr. Ruscoe. Voting for a Republican anything when you know you rely on the ACA is like throwing a grenade at your house and hoping it doesn't go off. I'll save my compassion for people like my friend who is HIV positive and is freaking out about how on earth he'd pay for his meds if ACA is repealed, or all the women out there who'd be out healthcare without Planned Parenthood. Sorry. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good article from Bernie in The Washington Post: "Bernie Sanders: Trump has to rescue Obamacare or admit he’s a liar"

Quote

It didn’t take long. During the first week of 2017, the new Republican Congress has begun efforts to dismantle America’s health-care system. Their long-standing goal, consistent with their right-wing ideology, is to take away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans, privatize Medicare, make massive cuts to Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood. At the same time, in the midst of grotesque and growing income and wealth inequality, they’re preparing to allow pharmaceutical companies to increase drug prices and to hand out obscene tax breaks for the top one-tenth of 1 percent.

Let me be absolutely clear: The impact of repealing large pieces of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans are planning to put on Donald Trump’s desk on his first day in the White House, would be devastating. If Republicans get their way, 30 million Americans, 82 percent of whom are from working families, will lose their health insurance. With Medicare privatized, seniors will see their premiums increase by as much as 50 percent while their benefits are cut and funding for nursing-home care dries up. Underfunded hospitals around the country, particularly in rural areas, could be forced to close their doors, leaving millions of Americans with nowhere to turn for critical medical care. Patient protections, like preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition, removing the cap on maximum health-care benefits, allowing children to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26 and preventing discrimination by insurers, would be eliminated.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry’s greed will be rewarded as prescription drug costs for older Americans will likely rise by as much as 50 percent, and the wealthiest 2 percent can look forward to a $346 billion tax break.

Not only is the Republican plan immoral and bad economic and social policy, it violates numerous promises that Donald Trump made to the American people during his campaign. Trump told senior citizens and the American working class, many of whom ended up voting for him, that he was a different kind of Republican, and that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. In a May 2015 tweet, Trump said: “I was the first & only GOP presidential candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.” In September, he told “60 Minutes” that if he was elected president, his health-care plan would take care of “everybody.”

Trump now has a choice: He can tell the American people that these campaign promises were lies and that he never intended to keep them. Or (and I hope this is the case) he can instruct his Republican colleagues to end their efforts to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and inform them that if they don’t, he will veto any bills that cut those life-and-death programs.

Those are Trump’s options. As we enter the new year, our message to Republicans is simple and straightforward: We will not allow you to punish the elderly, disabled veterans, children, the sick and the poor while you reward your billionaire friends. Instead, we will fight back. We will rally millions of Americans to make it clear to Republican leadership that we will not accept this vicious attack against senior citizens and working families. We will demonstrate in their communities, jam up their phone lines and throw them out at the ballot box if they go forward with their plans.

That is why on Jan. 15,  I and Democratic members of Congress, trade unions, senior citizen groups, health-care activists and all those who believe in economic and social justice are organizing a day of action called “Our First Stand: Save Health Care.” Rallies will be held around the country, including one in Michigan that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and I will be attending along with Michigan’s U.S. senators.

If Trump allows the Republican Party to go ahead with its plans, it will dismantle the health-care system and jeopardize the economic security of millions of Americans. Democrats in Congress will resist, but real change never starts from inside the Beltway. It always comes when millions of Americans at the grass-roots level stand up and fight for economic, social, racial and environmental justice. We always win when we stand together. We lose when we are apathetic or allow demagogues to divide us. That’s why it’s more important than ever to recommit to building a progressive movement that transforms the economic and political life of our country.

Otherwise, we’ll be back where we were eight years ago, when millions of American families struggled to make a living without any way to pay for health care if they got sick. Elderly people, children and disabled veterans will be denied access to doctors and medication, and many will suffer or die prematurely.

Fifteen years ago, Donald Trump said he was for universal health care. I hope he still is. The truth is we shouldn’t be debating whether to take health care away from 30 million Americans. We should be finding ways to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a right. This is the conversation American policymakers need to be having right now. And we’re not going to let Trump or Congress forget it.

Interesting piece. Unfortunately, there are far too many words for Agent Orange to comprehend.

[formergothardite]

So a family members keeps saying that we must get rid of Obamacare because it made his work insurance go from $30 a week to $70 a week. Does anyone know why it would have made work insurance go up? 

[feministxtian]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

So a family members keeps saying that we must get rid of Obamacare because it made his work insurance go from $30 a week to $70 a week. Does anyone know why it would have made work insurance go up? 

The insurance companies raised their rates and the employer either lowered what they pay or didn't increase it cover the increased premium. 

I have Medicaid and hubby has Medicare and VA Benefits. He should be OK with the VA benefits but I'm screwed. We just have to hang on until he's 60 and we get picked up on Tri-Care (he's retired Navy Reserve). We have about 5.5 years to go. But, I'm sure they'll screw with military benefits too. Fuckers. 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

So a family members keeps saying that we must get rid of Obamacare because it made his work insurance go from $30 a week to $70 a week. Does anyone know why it would have made work insurance go up? 

My work insurance went up as well. It was because the insurance companies raised their prices quite a bit. The company contribution percentage didn't change, so my cost went up. It wasn't a ridiculous amount, but it was notable.

 

"Health care battle cheat sheet: Democrats vs. GOP" -- this is a good article about where the different parties stand on health care. I won't paste it here, since it's available on CNN.

 

[JoyfulSel]

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

So a family members keeps saying that we must get rid of Obamacare because it made his work insurance go from $30 a week to $70 a week. Does anyone know why it would have made work insurance go up? 

The other posters are correct. Once premiums went up (and I believe a lot of it had to do with finally requiring insurances to get rid of the cap, cover preventive services with no copay, not allowing insurance companies to price gouge people with pre-existing conditions, etc) some workplaces decided not to up the rate that they pay into the health insurance plans. Now with my father, who has single coverage, it did the opposite. His company required a little copay into the insurance weekly, but once Obamacare kicked in and there were tax incentives available and plans were more diverse, my dad's company decided to cover the premium in full, so my dad pays nothing towards it.

All of this of course also varied by state and competition within that state. There's also a mindset thing here - I'd rather pay in as a relatively healthy person (my sister too) so that people like my mother who needs more health services can visit her doctor for cheaper.

[candygirl200413]

I woke up to read about what the Republicans did and felt so screwed and scared with still being covered under my parents for 3 more years as well as being asthmatic. Then I went off like POTUS' angry translator Luther at my family because they don't understand that even with private we are still affected!!

I cry mostly though for those that aren't going to be insured any longer as well as not voting for the orange fuck face to reside. If they still have no replacement then it was never about the people, just for their 1% friends to make even more money.

 

ugh. this country stresses me to no end.

[GreyhoundFan]

Latest update from The Washington Post: "Obamacare is one step closer to repeal after Senate advances budget resolution"

Quote

The Senate voted 51 to 48 early Thursday to approve a budget resolution instructing House and Senate committees to begin work on legislation to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act. The House is expected to take up the legislation Friday.

Senate Democrats made a late-night show of resistance against gutting the Affordable Care Act by forcing Republicans to take politically charged votes against protecting Medicare, Medicaid and other health-care programs. The measure narrowly passed without the support of any Democrats.

The hours-long act of protest culminated in the early hours of Thursday when Democrats made a dramatic display of rising to speak out against the repeal measure as they cast their votes. The Democrats continued to record their opposition over their objections of Senate Republicans.

“Because there is no replace, I vote no,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) as she delivered her vote.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also voted no, in part over concerns that GOP leaders have not committed to a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act after it is repealed.

Democrats forced nearly seven hours of mostly symbolic votes amid growing concerns in the congressional GOP that the party is rushing to dismantle the ACA without an alternative. Democrats forced the frenzied vote series called a “vote-a-rama” well into Thursday morning, although they could not prevent the GOP from following through on its repeal plans.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that Democrats intended to ensure that Republicans are held responsible for any chaos caused by ending President Obama’s landmark law providing roughly 20 million people with coverage in various ways.

“Put this irresponsible and rushed repeal plan aside,” ­Schumer said on the Senate floor. “Work with us Democrats on a way to improve health care in America, not put chaos in place of affordable care.”

In his news conference on Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump insisted that repeal would not occur without a replacement plan. “Obamacare is the Democrats’ problem. We’re going to take the problem off the shelves for them. We’re doing them a tremendous favor,” Trump said.

The House is expected to take up the measure on Friday, although there were signs that disparate groups of House Republicans were concerned about it.

Moderates said they may oppose the measure because they are nervous about starting the repeal without a replacement plan.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), co-chair of the informal caucus of moderate Republicans called the Tuesday Group, said that moderate lawmakers have “serious reservations” about starting the process without replacement plans being spelled out.

And members of the House Freedom Caucus called for a fuller plan before any votes are taken — including on the preliminary budget measure.

“We just want more specifics,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the caucus chairman. “I’m willing to take a vote today if we have the specifics. So it’s not as much slow it down for slowing-it-down purposes as it is, we need to know what we’re going to replace it with.”

Senate Democrats tried to embarrass Republicans in the all-night vote series by forcing them to take tough votes on protecting mental-health services and womens’ access to health care. One such measure would block the Senate from passing any legislation “that would reduce or eliminate access to mental health services.” Another contains similar prohibitions against cutting funding for maternity care.

Republicans blocked six amendments from Democrats within the first several hours of voting. Among the failed measures was an attempt to prevent any changes to Medicare or Medicaid, or to reduce the number of people enrolled in private health insurance.

Democrats tracked how Republicans voted throughout the night — information that could be used during coming election campaigns, according to Democratic leadership aides who would not speak on the record to divulge internal party strategy.

The voting marathon was expected to end with a final vote instructing the House and Senate committees to begin work on legislation to render useless major portions of Obamacare.

The GOP divisions highlight the difficulty Republicans face in making good on one of their central campaign promises a little more than a week before they take full control in Washington.

Once the Senate passes the budget measure, it will be sent to the House, where it will not be subject to lengthy debate.

Pressure from House Republicans and from Trump’s public comments are prodding Republicans to more quickly produce additional details.

House Majority Whip Steve ­Scalise (R-La.) said Wednesday that lawmakers are “in sync” with Trump’s wishes but added: “I think it’s good that we all continue to press each other to work as quickly as we can.”

Trump’s comments Wednesday, as well as those made Tuesday in a New York Times interview, seem to conflate various aspects of the repeal process and set out what many on Capitol Hill see as an overly ambitious timeline for action.

Scalise and Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (R-Ohio), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on health, said that lawmakers are taking a close look at what elements of a replacement plan can be included in the initial Obamacare repeal bill.

That legislation is crucial because Republicans plan to pass it using special budget rules allowing the Senate to approve it with only a simple majority vote rather than a 60-vote supermajority. But Senate rules dictate that only measures with a discrete budgetary impact can be handled under those procedures.

So while Republicans could claim that the bill repealing Obamacare also contains a replacement blueprint, other parts would need 60 Senate votes — and significant Democratic support.

According to multiple GOP individuals, Republicans are looking at whether to use coming reauthorizations of existing programs, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as vehicles for Obamacare replacement measures. That could give them leverage to secure cooperation from Democrats.

Another wild card is Trump’s pick for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.). Trump suggested Wednesday that Price would play a key role in shaping the Obamacare replacement strategy.

I never thought I'd agree with Rand Paul, but I called his office to thank him for voting no and to ask him to continue to think of the tens of millions impacted by this legislation.

[snarkykitty]

On 11/28/2016 at 5:08 AM, Cartmann99 said:

He's also pissed that seniors are going to the doctor so damn much, so he's gonna make seniors understand the value of a dollar by increasing their costs. 

I have Cystic Fibrosis, disabled, and on Medicare (also have private insurance through husband). I have 6 doctors, 5 are specialists, and each one, including my PCP, require me to see them at minimum every 3 months; some are once a month or even every couple of weeks. Then there are the constant tests, some more than once in a week. If I say no to their plan for testing, medication, doctor visits, and hospitalization(s) (of which I average several two-week stays a year), they can tell my insurance that I am not being compliant, and can kick me out of their service.

I actually had a dentist kick me out because my appointments (which you schedule months and months ahead) sometimes fell when I was in the hospital or if I had pneumonia and coughing constantly and could not lay back in a chair (nor did they want me to cough in their faces). Still, they accused me of not having the same "commitment to dental care" that they did, and sent me a list of every visit and reschedule over the previous 6 or 7 years. 

Not sure if people with chronic illnesses are viewed as going to the doctor too much, but I cannot get the most basic medications like Insulin unless I follow their "suggested" treatment/care plan. So, people making laws and people making insurance decisions, think about the mixed messages you send to patients.

[GreyhoundFan]

@snarkykittyI was reading (sorry, I don't have the source handy) that some of the higher-ups in the Republican Party were saying that "if someone has to pay $75 for a blood test, it will make them stop and decide whether they REALLY need that test, and maybe shop around." Um, yeah, sure. If a person who is barely making it needs a blood test, they don't need to decide between that and feeding his or her kids. This is the thinking that got Americans in the unenviable position of being the sickest people in the western world.

 

An interesting take: "Republicans say their midnight vote was about bridge building. Actually, it was bridge burning."

Quote

Republicans in the Senate voted Wednesday night on a bill that would significantly accelerate the repeal of key elements of the Affordable Care Act (commonly called Obamacare) through reconciliation. As Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) has acknowledged, this will almost certainly mean that Republicans will effectively get rid of the health-care law before coming up with a replacement. On the face of it, this seems like terrible politics. If Obamacare looks like it is unraveling, insurance companies are likely to pull out quickly, potentially leaving millions of people without health insurance and leaving Republicans with the blame. It’s a very risky gamble, but one that may have a strategic logic behind it.

The Republicans are burning their bridges

GOP Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has defended the Republican strategy as an exercise in bridge building. He told the New York Times: “The Obamacare bridge is collapsing, and we’re sending in a rescue team. . . . Then we’ll build new bridges to better health care, and finally, when these new bridges are finished, we’ll close the old bridge.” Actually, they’re burning the bridges behind them so that they have no choice but to fight. The recently deceased game theorist Thomas Schelling describes the strategy of bridge burning as follows, in his classic book “Arms and Influence”:

Often, we must maneuver into a position where we no longer have much choice left. This is the old business of burning bridges. If you are faced with an enemy who thinks you would turn and run if he kept advancing, and if the bridge is there to run across, he may keep advancing. . . . But if you burn the bridge so that you cannot retreat, and in sheer desperation there is nothing you can do but defend yourself, he has a new calculation to make.

Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff expand on this basic idea to note that bridge-burning may have two benefits. First, it unites your own forces. They have to fight because they know that there is no alternative — desertion or retreat is no longer a possibility. Second, it may cause the enemy to retreat, because they know that they face a truly determined opponent, who has no choice but to fight.

Republican leaders are deliberately backing their party into a corner

This plausibly explains why key Republicans want to repeal Obamacare before replacing it. They are burning the bridges behind themselves. Republicans don’t have any agreed plan to replace Obamacare (Paul Krugman has argued that this is no accident, because any possible replacement would be horribly unpopular). Thus, they face the risk of their anti-Obamacare coalition falling apart, as Republicans start to fight among themselves, and Democrats pick off the weaker members of the pack.

Repealing before replacing might possibly forestall the rout. First, it might stiffen Republicans’ backs. If they cannot retreat to a tacit acceptance of Obamacare — since Obamacare is gone, they may be more likely to stick together and agree on a replacement. Even if that replacement is going to be very unpopular, it probably would be less unpopular than getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it with nothing.

Second, it might help peel off Democrats. The Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), has sworn that Democrats will not compromise with Republicans on any Obamacare replacement. Republican leaders are probably thinking that the Democrats’ calculus will change if they are faced with a choice between a feeble replacement and no replacement.

This is incredibly risky

As Schelling, Dixit and Nalebuff suggest, burning bridges might help the Republicans get out of the trap that they have created themselves. It may both stiffen Republicans’ resolve and make their adversaries more likely to retreat.

Yet as these scholars probably would point out, this is still an extremely risky strategy. Burning your bridges so that you have no hope of retreat means that you risk losing all your forces if you are defeated. It also may be highly unpopular with the troops. Republicans in the House seem to be very nervous about the idea of repealing without replacing. Senate Republicans like Collins also look to be unhappy. Finally, President-elect Donald Trump has promised that his administration will somehow come up with an Obamacare replacement in short order — although it is unclear what that may be.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the Repubs play the long con. They don't care that, in playing, they'll kill a bunch of people, just so they 'win' at the end.

[Audrey2]

Quote

Senate Democrats tried to embarrass Republicans in the all-night vote series by forcing them to take tough votes on protecting mental-health services and womens’ access to health care. One such measure would block the Senate from passing any legislation “that would reduce or eliminate access to mental health services.” Another contains similar prohibitions against cutting funding for maternity care.

@GreyhoundFan, aren't the Republicans the ones who scream the loudest about being anti-abortion? So, in other words, these babies are all supposed  to be born without prenatal care, or even help with the birth? How is this being pro-life, or even pro-birth? The cognitive dissonance is deafening!

[SilverBeach]

12 hours ago, formergothardite said:

So a family members keeps saying that we must get rid of Obamacare because it made his work insurance go from $30 a week to $70 a week. Does anyone know why it would have made work insurance go up? 

It didn't. Employer sponsored healthcare premiums rise each year, and were doing so before Obamacare was a twinkle in Obama's eye. I was a group health insurance underwriter, and any number of reasons could have caused the increase. 

[GreyhoundFan]

16 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

@GreyhoundFan, aren't the Republicans the ones who scream the loudest about being anti-abortion? So, in other words, these babies are all supposed  to be born without prenatal care, or even help with the birth? How is this being pro-life, or even pro-birth? The cognitive dissonance is deafening!

Yes, the babeeez only matter until labor begins. And, if the mother can't afford prenatal care, she shouldn't be "joyfully available".

Many, many (many, many, many) moons ago, I was making $3.35 an hour. I was paying $125 a month rent, and $35.00 a month for the pill. Yes, I was working more than 10 hours a month just for birth control pills. One of the many aspects of the ACA that I cheered on was the birth control available at no charge. Now, I've gone through menopause, so it doesn't matter to me directly, but I remember those days of struggling to pay for the pill.

 

 

5 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

It didn't. Employer sponsored healthcare premiums rise each year, and were doing so before Obamacare was a twinkle in Obama's eye. I was a group health insurance underwriter, and any number of reasons could have caused the increase. 

A former co-worker is an HR professional at a small (50 person) company. Several years before the ACA, they had an employee who had a catastrophic illness. The insurance company raised the rates of every single employee in the company by some ridiculous number, I think it was something like 500%. With the ACA, smaller companies could participate in exchanges to spread out the risk and cost. My company, while very large, has participated for the last two years in OneExchange. That has allowed us to have multiple insurance companies and plans from which to choose. Sadly, I bet things will go way downhill before the next open enrollment.

[FakePigtails]

10 hours ago, JoyfulSel said:

The other posters are correct. Once premiums went up (and I believe a lot of it had to do with finally requiring insurances to get rid of the cap, cover preventive services with no copay, not allowing insurance companies to price gouge people with pre-existing conditions, etc) some workplaces decided not to up the rate that they pay into the health insurance plans. Now with my father, who has single coverage, it did the opposite. His company required a little copay into the insurance weekly, but once Obamacare kicked in and there were tax incentives available and plans were more diverse, my dad's company decided to cover the premium in full, so my dad pays nothing towards it.

All of this of course also varied by state and competition within that state. There's also a mindset thing here - I'd rather pay in as a relatively healthy person (my sister too) so that people like my mother who needs more health services can visit her doctor for cheaper.

I've seen people complain about not being able to get dirt cheap plans anymore and just shake my head because those dirt cheap plans had so many holes that screwed over many, many people. The ones complaining were lucky that they hadn't experienced illnesses that could have been denied coverage because of random crap from their medical history or pregnancies (since those often required a maternity rider). Or injuries or illnesses that could have reached the policy's cap.

There are a lot of people who are only going to realize too late how much the ACA helped them, and a lot of those people played a role in this happening by voting for Trump and other Republicans (thinking "he didn't mean it" or feeling invincible health-wise) or staying home because "hurr durr they're all terrible". It's going to be really, really hard to not say "I told you so" to those I know in that position.

[RoseWilder]

2 hours ago, FakePigtails said:

It's going to be really, really hard to not say "I told you so" to those I know in that position.

I think we should say "I told you so" every chance we get. I'm tired of these morons voting against themselves and then pretending like they made a good choice. We need to remind them over and over again until it starts to penetrate their thick skulls. 

[formergothardite]

I just feel sick about what the republicans are doing to health care. Every news story I read just makes me feel more depressed. Is there any ray of hope I can cling to? Or did idiot Trump supporters fuck us all and there is no hope? 

[Childless]

All I can say is thank god I'm done having babies and have permanently prevented the possibility of getting pregnant.  I would hate to have to navigate the shit storm about to come with a pregnancy and birth.

[Howl]

Just came across a PolitiFact article when I googled "repeal of affordable care act + impact on MediCare"

This is from January 5th, so current, but no longer a hypothetical.  Good summary of impacts.  Quoting bits and pieces of the article.  Click below for full text. 

What would the impact be if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?

Quote

 

The Kaiser Family Foundation projected that if the pre-existing conditions provision is repealed, 52 million Americans could be at risk of being denied coverage in the future....  

What would be the impact for people on Medicare?

A full repeal would definitely impact Medicare, the health care program for Americans 65 and over.

.... end...the law’s guarantees that preventive services be provided free to patients could also raise premiums, out-of-pocket costs, or both.

Perhaps the most notable change would be to reverse efforts to close the "doughnut hole" for prescription drugs. One provision of the Affordable Care Act dramatically cut the amount that seniors on Medicare have to pay for their medicines. (This is known as "closing the doughnut hole" because prior to the law’s passage, beneficiaries got some coverage up to a certain dollar amount, and then none until high-dollar, catastrophic coverage provisions kicked in.)

What will be the impact on the federal budget?

One might think that repealing a law like the Affordable Care Act would save the federal government money. Actually, in many scenarios, it won’t. That’s because the law doesn’t just spend money -- it also raised revenue through taxes, and it implemented policies designed to keep costs in check. So getting rid of the law also gets rid of the revenue it produced.

While it acknowledged some uncertainty, the CBO [non partisan Congressional Budget Office] estimated that over a 10-year period, repealing the law would increase federal budget deficits by $353 billion. A more recent estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget mirrored what the CBO found -- $350 billion over 10 years.

According to the group’s calculations, the revenue losses would be driven by rolling back tax increases on the wealthy.

 

[RoseWilder]

5 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I just feel sick about what the republicans are doing to health care. Every news story I read just makes me feel more depressed. Is there any ray of hope I can cling to? Or did idiot Trump supporters fuck us all and there is no hope? 

I think the only ray of hope we have right now is that this will backfire so badly on the Republicans that they will lose big in the next election. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the people who are going to lose their insurance in the meantime. 

I think we have to hammer the point in every chance we get with the people who voted for Trump and his fellow Republicans that the people THEY voted for did this to them. The hardcore supporters are too stupid to ever open their eyes and realize how much damage they've done to themselves by voting Republican, but I believe there is hope for some of the more moderate Republicans to open their eyes and realize that they've shot themselves in the foot. 

[apple1]

23 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Many, many (many, many, many) moons ago, I was making $3.35 an hour. I was paying ... $35.00 a month for the pill. Yes, I was working more than 10 hours a month just for birth control pills.

You and I must be close to the same age. My personal experience was nearly identical.

[JoyfulSel]

22 hours ago, FakePigtails said:

I've seen people complain about not being able to get dirt cheap plans anymore and just shake my head because those dirt cheap plans had so many holes that screwed over many, many people. The ones complaining were lucky that they hadn't experienced illnesses that could have been denied coverage because of random crap from their medical history or pregnancies (since those often required a maternity rider). Or injuries or illnesses that could have reached the policy's cap.

There are a lot of people who are only going to realize too late how much the ACA helped them, and a lot of those people played a role in this happening by voting for Trump and other Republicans (thinking "he didn't mean it" or feeling invincible health-wise) or staying home because "hurr durr they're all terrible". It's going to be really, really hard to not say "I told you so" to those I know in that position.

I completely agree with every sentiment in this post - plans prior to the ACA were allowed to cap you! What if you developed a lifelong disease or needed cancer treatments? Once you hit that maximum you were SOL. Removing the pre-existing coverage issue was one of the biggest things that came from ACA that affects everyone, not just us who buy our insurance on an exchange. My mother is scheduled for back surgery in February, I am trying everything I can to not completely break-down before because I don't know if our insurance will survive until then. If/when ACA is gone, she will have a pre-existing condition and could be denied.

I am so scared right now and feel so hopeless.

[RoseWilder]

5 minutes ago, JoyfulSel said:

 My mother is scheduled for back surgery in February, I am trying everything I can to not completely break-down before because I don't know if our insurance will survive until then. If/when ACA is gone, she will have a pre-existing condition and could be denied.

I am so scared right now and feel so hopeless.

From what I understand (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I think the repeal wouldn't affect anyone till the end of the year. So I think your mother's surgery won't be affected. 

[JoyfulSel]

1 minute ago, RoseWilder said:

From what I understand (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I think the repeal wouldn't affect anyone till the end of the year. So I think your mother's surgery won't be affected. 

I really hope so. I don't trust anything the right-wing loonies do anymore.

[formergothardite]

2 minutes ago, JoyfulSel said:

If/when ACA is gone, she will have a pre-existing condition and could be denied.

Oh, but Paul Ryan swore that she could get insurance through a high risk insurance pool. I wish someone would have asked him to say exactly how much the premiums on those are, because from what I've read, they are very high. He was going on like it was something very affordable. 

Quote

 state-based high-risk pools charged premiums of up to 250 percent of those charged to healthy beneficiaries in the individual insurance market, premium revenues paid just 53 percent, on average, of program costs. In addition to these high premiums, enrollees in state-based high-risk pools faced annual deductibles as high as $25,000 and annual coverage limits as low as $75,000.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2015/feb/why-high-risk-pools-still-will-not-work

I wanted to slap Paul Ryan's smug face when he was going on about those. 

[JoyfulSel]

4 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Oh, but Paul Ryan swore that she could get insurance through a high risk insurance pool. I wish someone would have asked him to say exactly how much the premiums on those are, because from what I've read, they are very high. He was going on like it was something very affordable. 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2015/feb/why-high-risk-pools-still-will-not-work

I wanted to slap Paul Ryan's smug face when he was going on about those. 

That's the thing about Republican lunacy when it comes to health care, they call the ACA unaffordable for many people, but then peddle terrible "replacements" that cost the average American even more! Disgusted reading that article, in what world does someone have money for insurance, plus an additional $25k for their deductible, oh and then even MORE money to cover costs after they hit their annual limit?

When I sit down each year for the past few years in December to enroll in insurance, I weigh so many different factors. One important one is the deductible vs the out-of-pocket maximum. In my savings, I like to always have the deductible amount handy so that when I need healthcare, I can pay up to the deductible. In most cases, I won't reach the OOP-max, but this year with my mother's surgery, we will. Knowing that she was likely headed in the surgery route, I chose a plan that gave me a low OOP-maximum, with a medium sized premium, and good prescription plan. I was able to navigate my finances and what was offered in my state to come up with a great medium. Hearing that if we were in high-risk insurance time we'd be paying upwards of 25k out of pocket, we'd have to bankrupt. There is absolutely no way that we (or most people) could pay that. Paul Ryan is a real douche canoe, completely clueless on how the average American lives.