I am not so sure about that Bama...

For months all anyone has been talking about is that the Senate will use reconciliation and will only require a majority to move this thing.

You know, the same way they got it through the Senate the first time.

I cannot give sources from where I am at right now, but I have heard this more than once out of McConnell and several of the radio and TV talking heads.

If that is the case, then why not go for it?

And if they need 60 votes, then do you really think that phase II or III will get the votes needed if phase I passes? No, they will not if we follow your reasoning.

The long and short of it is, voters voted for 2 things in this election. The supreme court and O'Care. I don't think achieving 1 of the 2 is enough for a second term or to gain a 60 vote majority in the senate in 2018.

Last point and then I am bailing out... If they use this phased approached and are relying on the rule making authority of the HHS to round this out and get to what was promised (if the future phases cannot get the votes needed), then all of the important stuff can again be reversed without having votes or a majority by the next Dem administration.

No hard feelings or malice, just voicing my opinion and frustration...

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Trump campaigned on preserving the requirement that people with preexisting conditions be able to get coverage. That's not insurance - that's third-party payment. Unfortunately, it seems like the ship has sailed on that argument and now it is written in stone that pre-existing conditions are covered.

Part of the problem with PEC has developed along with improved testing and diagnostic techniques. It used to be that you may be denied coverage because you had actually suffered a heart attack in the past. Now, pre-existing includes elevated cholesterol, elevated A1c, pre-hypertension, etc. The ease of testing along with tighter limits makes dang near everyone pre-something by the time they are 40. The day is not far off when genetic testing might label you as a heart attack risk the day you are born.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
Last year i had a kidney stone and went to the E.R. to get treatment. I forgot my insurance card and the clerk advised me as she tried to verify my insurance that the MRI would cost $3100. It would only be $700 if I had no insurance and had to pay cash.

Why do we allow hospitals to gouge insurance companies which In turn jack up their rates and gouge us?

I experienced the same thing doctor bill was cut in half if I paid the bill myself....if insurance payed full amount. I purpose government allow me a health savings account tax free. I pay a the doctor's bill the insurance company reimburse me 10% over what I payed the doctor, minus my elected deductible I gain 10% on my money put it back into my account, insurance company saves, the doctor gets paid Immediately with no paper hassle. On my death the money is transferred to my heirs health account tax fee

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
I am not so sure about that Bama...

For months all anyone has been talking about is that the Senate will use reconciliation and will only require a majority to move this thing.

You know, the same way they got it through the Senate the first time.

I'll explain.

They could repeal Obamacare with a majority only.

They can modify Obamacare with a simple majority because of the budget reconciliation.

They cannot replace Obamacare with a simple majority, it will require 60 votes in the Senate, like the original bill did.

This current bill is to modify Obamacare as outlined in the summary on the first page of this thread - dropping the mandate and the other things already discussed, which will require a simple majority in the Senate.

If the bill were completely repealed and you started with a blank slate, you would have to get 60 votes for any legislation to replace it (which is not possible).

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Trump campaigned on preserving the requirement that people with preexisting conditions be able to get coverage. That's not insurance - that's third-party payment. Unfortunately, it seems like the ship has sailed on that argument and now it is written in stone that pre-existing conditions are covered.

Part of the problem with PEC has developed along with improved testing and diagnostic techniques. It used to be that you may be denied coverage because you had actually suffered a heart attack in the past. Now, pre-existing includes elevated cholesterol, elevated A1c, pre-hypertension, etc. The ease of testing along with tighter limits makes dang near everyone pre-something by the time they are 40. The day is not far off when genetic testing might label you as a heart attack risk the day you are born.

That is a good point MNSIG, the estimated number of Americans with a pre existing condition is > than 50 million .MG

Okay... Then if modifying for reconciliation purposes, then why not include all of the other provisions from day 1, like being able to purchase across state lines? If we are simply modifying it, then modify the damn thing and not leave so much open to speculation and wondering what the future holds?

Is there a rule like when you remodel vs rebuild a house? Do they have to leave the roof in place, 1 wall standing or 1 stud standing for it to be a modification? How much of the law needs to remain as is?

I would have at least thrown in portability, HSA's and lifting the state purchasing/selling boundaries.

Okay... Really, I am done now.

The other end of this discussion is one nobody wants to talk about. Lifetime limits, especially at the end of life. There's no question that premiums could be lower if the insurance company's exposure was capped. Are we (individually or as a society) willing to give up the "do everything you can" mentality and accept that a person is going to be given pain meds and allowed to die rather than undergo treatment to prolong their life? In some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent to "buy" a few months or years of relatively miserable time.

quote:

The legal mandate is gone, but there is still a penalty for noncontinuous coverage. Economically, how is that any different?

It appears to be a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Potato vs potahto.

We'll see soon enough.

well I'm glad the mandate is gone and I do think the bill is better. I am very happy to hear that Trump called this bill a "negotiation." I am glad this is now in the open and our legislators can debate it in the open unlike Obama care. I am glad tho hear the freedom caucus is also promising to release their own bill soon. Trump is in charge... let the negotiations begin!

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

The legal mandate is gone, but there is still a penalty for noncontinuous coverage. Economically, how is that any different?

It appears to be a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Potato vs potahto.

We'll see soon enough.

The way I read it, there is only a penalty if you try to get coverage after you are sick.

In other words, you can go 20 years without having health insurance and have no penalty at all, but if you break a leg in year 21 and then decide to buy coverage, you'll incur a penalty then for not maintaining continuous coverage.

Unless I'm wrong....

^ maybe so. I look forward to seeing how the details shake out.

No Employer Mandate. That's the big one for me.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
If the bill were completely repealed and you started with a blank slate, you would have to get 60 votes for any legislation to replace it (which is not possible).

Yes, 'if' you play the game by the rules the cowardly, worthless Repub's play by. 'Or', you could play by a different set of rules....

• Step 1 - Repeal BarryCare. Those currently on it can stay in their plans through 2020, at which point the ACA is history. Done with 51 votes.
• Step 2 - Bill allowing purchasing of HC across state lines, tax credits for HSA's, and 26 year olds to stay on parents coverage. Let the Dem's try and oppose it and crucify them daily if 10 of them don't get on board.
• Step 3 - All the other changes, which interestingly enough, should come up for a vote right around November 2018.

Stop playing the damn game by the old rules which are proven to fail. Play the game like the Dem's do, and drive this thing through their hearts once and for all while adding to majorities in 2018.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bigdeal,

It's still total BULLCRAP for the age 26 provision. Get your ass outta your parent's basement and get a friggin' job. Oh.....you got a B.S. in Underwater Basket Weaving (or some such other totally useless degree like "Gender Studies )?? Too friggin' bad. Grow the hell up!!!

And I agree wholeheartedly with Eric Bolling's comment today when he was on Outnumbered (lucky man) when he stated "The Republicans have had SIX YEARS to come up with a replacement plan and THIS is what they come up with?!?!?" He pretty much called it Obamacare 2.0 rather than ObamacareLite. I'm equally frustrated so far...

At least I can call it Trumpcare now, to avoid using "that name".

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
It's still total BULLCRAP for the age 26 provision.

I'm not arguing the societal value of being on your own, but having young healthy individuals in the pool because their parents are paying the bill is better than having them uninsured.

Whether parents choose to pay for their insurance, their food or their rent is a personal choice that has no negative impact on the topic at hand.

quote:

The way I read it, there is only a penalty if you try to get coverage after you are sick.

In other words, you can go 20 years without having health insurance and have no penalty at all, but if you break a leg in year 21 and then decide to buy coverage, you'll incur a penalty then for not maintaining continuous coverage.

Medicare uses this method of encouragement and it's quite effective.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
It's still total BULLCRAP for the age 26 provision. Get your ass outta your parent's basement and get a friggin' job. Oh.....you got a B.S. in Underwater Basket Weaving (or some such other totally useless degree like "Gender Studies )?? Too friggin' bad. Grow the hell up!!!

I agree that most kids should probably be on their own and responsible for themselves by age 22 or 23 or so... but not all are.
I have a 21 year old who is still on our health insurance. She's getting a mechanical engineering degree, not some worthless degree, but she may go to grad school. Not sure yet.

Of course, I don't think it should be mandated by government. If an employer wants to offer that, then fine. It should be between the employer and the employee how long coverage continues for dependents.

You can go to "readthebill.gop" and download the bill.

Ok, I can't make heads or tails of it.

The 'conservative' republicans making all the noise on this today damn well better have an alternative that can pass both houses of Congress or they will be obliterated at the ballot box. They are treading on very dangerous ground. I will be absolutely furious if they shoot this down and then end up putting up some bill that has no chance and we are stuck with Obamacare.

If they think Trump will sit idly by while they botch this up, they better wake up.

Why nit just repealobamacare and ket it go back the it was before?