Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
Die fast if you're not a millionaire or richer.
Lets join the fucking first world and make the right choice with single payer.
Actually returning power to the States is also a campaign promise, States taking care of their own citizens, what a concept. I think that's exactly what the founders had in mind.
So I guess the liberals want to keep Obamacare just as it is? Really? My friend has been trying to sign up for Obamacare due to a job loss for two months with no luck at all. The government can not do healthcare folks, they are just not competent enough for such an important task as ones health.
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us?It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
This is what I believe is referred to as a 'rhetorical question'.
The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
For once go and get the real thing instead of just being told what to think by HuffPo or kos. Go get us the bill, or at least the outline.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.
Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
...Still better than the sugar-coated, lie-based, minority-supported, socialist agenda-driven, COLLAPSING TURD forced down the Throats of the majority of Americans who opposed it that we have now, thanks to Obama abd the Democrats.
The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
For once go and get the real thing instead of just being told what to think by HuffPo or kos. Go get us the bill, or at least the outline.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
...Still better than the sugar-coated, lie-based, minority-supported, socialist agenda-driven, COLLAPSING TURD forced down the Throats of the majority of Americans who opposed it that we have now, thanks to Obama abd the Democrats.
The ACA is having an anticipated shakedown. It is far from collapsing, and won't if Trump leave it alone. If it does collapse, you will be in far worse shape than you were before it was passed.
Are you on Obamacare? If the answer is yes, do you get a subsidy and have you tried to see a specialist? The answers to these questions are very important.The ACA is having an anticipated shakedown. It is far from collapsing, and won't if Trump leave it alone. If it does collapse, you will be in far worse shape than you were before it was passed
The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
For once go and get the real thing instead of just being told what to think by HuffPo or kos. Go get us the bill, or at least the outline.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.
you are out flanked.
The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.It’s designed to create the illusion that Trump is keeping a campaign promise, But it’s really helping him break it.
Health care legislation is back on the table now that Congress has returned from its spring vacation. The White House is pushing hard to get something through Congress as early as this week. Although no bill has yet been introduced, the White House and congressional Republicans appear to have settled on the contours of a new legislative proposal.
Late last week, Politico published an outline of the latest GOP health care proposal, known as the “MacArthur Amendment.” A bill based on the MacArthur Amendment would nominally keep in place two key features of Obamacare, the prohibition against insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and the “community rating” provision that prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.
But don’t be fooled. While the proposed legislation may appear to keep these key provisions of Obamacare alive, it’s an illusion. It is really designed to quietly kill them.
It might not flip the switch that executes the pre-existing condition provision, but it leads the condemned to the electric chair, straps it in, and hands over the switch to the states.
Why all the smoke and mirrors?
Because it is designed to create the false impression that Donald Trump is keeping his promise to retain the provision of Obamacare that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, while it is actually helping him break it.
Allowing states to waive out of the Obamacare Community Rating provision would be a drastic change of course back to the days when insurers were free to deny coverage to anybody.
DETAILS: The GOP's Latest Smoke And Mirrors Health Plan
Does Trump honestly think his smoke and mirrors will actually deceive us? And what is sadly hilarious is that his healthcare plan will hurt his supporters the most. Most reasonable people agree that what he should be focused on is fixing the glitches in Obamacare and stop all the "repeal and replace" nonsense. Trumpcare seems to be Trump's greatest obsession - but it will likely be his greatest curse.
For once go and get the real thing instead of just being told what to think by HuffPo or kos. Go get us the bill, or at least the outline.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.
Nothing...you are out flanked
. I have to give it to you. That's an innovative approach.
The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.For once go and get the real thing instead of just being told what to think by HuffPo or kos. Go get us the bill, or at least the outline.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.Nothing...you are out flanked
Oh, I see. You've taken on responding to me as you have done so you can "out flank" me by agreeing with me. Got it.....
<Yawns> #4The actual "McArthur" amendement that was released to CNBC from someone in Congress is here: Read the full health-care proposal memo here. Take a look at it and tell me how different it is from what you refer to as the "summation" of it.
Before you tell others to "For once go and get the real thing," make sure you've done so. The only real criticism I have for the Huff Post editorial's analysis is that it uses too many words to state what is patently clear from just reading the very simply worded (for now) McArthur amendment: what the McArthur amendment "gives" in its "Insurance Provisions" section, it allows the states to take away in the "Limited Waiver" section.
The design of the amendment allows states to discard all the provisions that insurers don't like and that insured people have insisted upon. For example the waiver based on health status. What is health status but one's pre-existing health condition? And what do states need to do to obtain the waiver? Three things:
So now, let me ask you this. Look at the items noted in the "Limited Waiver" section of the amendment. Do you think that the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't provide the noted coverages will be lower or higher than are the premiums for policies that do cover such things?
- Ask for the waiver.
- Completely complete the forms that document the request for the waiver.
- Somewhere on the request form, claim that the waiver is requested to lower premiums. (There are other reasons a state can specify, but only reason is required.)
The point being that a state claiming that it wants a waiver so as to reduce premium costs is all but sure to receive whatever waiver it wants. At that point, residents of the state in question are at the mercy of the insurance industry's ability to "buy off" state legislators and governors and their administrations. That provision singlehandedly pushes campaign corruptions further down into the State and local level. I'm sure you can tell that insurance policies will cost more, in part, because as insurers spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions at state and local levels. If that thing gets enacted, I hope state government executives and legislators send "Thank you" baskets to their federal level cronies.
LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.Nothing...you are out flanked
Oh, I see. You've taken on responding to me as you have done so you can "out flank" me by agreeing with me. Got it.....
You're a dumbass. Intelligent people typically avail themselves of all info before revealing how stupid they are. The Pub plans are nothing but show. You? You're a pretender who is too stupid to look before he leaps.
<Yawns> #4LOL, I'll do and say as I please, especially with a dumbass like Red Bull. If wants to post about Healthcare fine, but HuffPo and kos are his only sources and they are both shit. Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out. I suggest you read my other posts right here in this thread,.Healthcare is what I do pop, I know it inside and out.
Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.Nothing...you are out flanked
Oh, I see. You've taken on responding to me as you have done so you can "out flank" me by agreeing with me. Got it.....
You're a dumbass. Intelligent people typically avail themselves of all info before revealing how stupid they are. The Pub plans are nothing but show. You? You're a pretender who is too stupid to look before he leaps.
#5 <yawn><Yawns> #4Well, what I do is management consulting and economics, and have spent only a lustrum of my career providing services in only a few different nations for one global insurance company. Besides that, I've only assisted a mere five medical practices with their business processes, system implementations and other assorted advisory services related to operations and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I'm sure I don't know nearly enough about "doing" healthcare. So maybe you do have somethings you can share with me.
Foremost among those things, perhaps you can tell me what is so good about the AHCA + McArthur Amendment from an economic standpoint as you "know it forwards and backwards" and the economics of it are part of so knowing it. (I've already the read the CBO's analysis of the AHCA and I've read the AHCA itself.) I'm asking you that because I don't "do" healthcare; I merely receive it and, along with my fellow partners and principals, help pay for the insurance of thousands of my firm's employees.
And while you're at it, please explain your profession's, presumably that of medical doctors or maybe nurses, roundly opposed the AHCA.
Just what is it that the people leading the industry comprised of "people who do healthcare" don't know that you do? Perhaps you should let them know for they are, if we are to believe your remarks, sailing rudderless.
- American Medical Association — "We cannot support the AHCA as drafted."
- American Academy of Pediatrics
As Congress began considering changes to the ACA and Medicaid, the message from America’s pediatricians was clear: any changes to the ACA cannot erode the progress we have made in reducing child uninsurance. Unfortunately, the AHCA does not meet this test and the AAP opposes it as currently drafted....AHCA would end the federal government’s commitment to state Medicaid programs as we know it....for families who must purchase insurance in the individual market, the AHCA will make coverage less affordable for low-income families by eliminating support for cost-sharing reductions and offering less generous tax credits not adjusted to account for a family’s financial need- American Nurses Association
The American Health Care Act threatens health care affordability, access, and delivery for individuals across the nation. In its current form, the bill changes Medicaid to a per capita cap funding model, eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, restricts millions of women from access to critical health services, and repeals income based subsidies that millions of people rely on. These changes in no way will improve care for the American people.
- American Academy of Family Physicians
...the AAFP has significant concerns with the AHCA as drafted and is deeply troubled by the negative impact it would have on individuals, families, and our health care system writ large....The AAFP is concerned that your proposal...will result in millions of currently insured individuals losing their health care coverage, including those who currently have employer-based coverage. We are equally concerned that the phased-in implementation outlined in your proposal will destabilize insurance markets over the next three years and directly harm millions of people. We strongly disagree with statements that suggest the AHCA will provide every American “access to health care coverage.” “Access to health care coverage” is distinctly different than “securing health care coverage.”
Nothing. You see, only dumbasses assume things. Only dumbasses align themselves with shitting bull.
As bad as the ACA is , it is better than either plan offered so far by the Pubs. The problem you have is that it isn't sustainable in it's current form. our other problem is you are too stupid to understand when you are out flanked.Nothing...you are out flanked
Oh, I see. You've taken on responding to me as you have done so you can "out flank" me by agreeing with me. Got it.....
You're a dumbass. Intelligent people typically avail themselves of all info before revealing how stupid they are. The Pub plans are nothing but show. You? You're a pretender who is too stupid to look before he leaps.
You don't have a clue kid, it's ok, you aren't my first.
