Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 3:44:45 GMT
in order to ram the bill through and please the most ghoulish in the "Freedom (to die) Caucus". "Also, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told House Republicans last week that he plans to weaken the provision by changing the regulations governing it. While the 10 benefits are spelled out in the law, the health secretary wields a lot of power over how the provision is actually implemented. Maternity coverage could be high on the list to be watered down. Seema Verma, who runs the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services, said during her congressional hearing that she doesn't think the benefit should be required in every policy. While Freedom Caucus members are targeting the essential health benefits provisions first, they want the GOP bill to tear down even more of Obamacare's expansive insurance reforms. These include banning insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, capping the amount policyholders have to pay out of pocket each year and preventing insurers from setting an annual or lifetime limit to their coverage. The law also requires insurers to cover contraception at no cost to enrollees. " www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/essential-health-benefits-obamacare-freedom-caucus/ |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 23, 2017 3:49:28 GMT
I literally cannot stand anymore of this. Every single damn time gun control comes up in the wake of a mass shooting, the argument that we need more mental health services comes up and it is brought up by the pro-gun side. Now, when they could put their money where their mouth is, they want to cut mental health services. Banging my damn head against the wall.
Full disclosure: I am one of the people who advocate for more mental health care during those times as I don't believe that taking away the right to bear most arms is the answer to the problem.
Hows that? I added a political twist to a political thread.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 3:54:17 GMT
Michael Ian Black:
I am beyond disgusted with the Republicans right now.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Mar 23, 2017 4:20:52 GMT
Anybody else find the maternity thing exquisitely ironic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Mar 23, 2017 4:22:46 GMT
It should be obvious to everyone that we need better mental health care in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 23, 2017 4:24:08 GMT
Anybody else find the maternity thing exquisitely ironic? Of course. Men don't need maternity care. Can we also get rid of anything that has to do with the penis and scrotum area? I don't have those and thus should not be forced to pay for that type of care. The problem (and I know you know this, so I am venting to the people in charge that won't listen) is that insurance is a for profit industry. Healthy people help pay for the care of the sick. Non-pregnant people help pay for maternity coverage. If you got to pick and choose your coverage, the insurance industry would lose money. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Mar 23, 2017 4:49:51 GMT
Anybody else find the maternity thing exquisitely ironic? Yes, funny how the party that wants to limit reproductive rights and access to Planned Parenthood that would cause more women to get pregnant (and end up staying pregnant) now want to cut their medical coverage for maternity and pediatric care too. Way to push those pesky women right back into the 1950's.   |
|
|
|
Post by katlaw on Mar 23, 2017 5:27:45 GMT
This is appalling. America already has some of the worst maternity care and maternity benefits on the planet. How is cutting them making America great?
As for mental health care, we are struggling with this in Canada as well. We have more government support but not enough funding, not enough trained professionals and too many people needing help and not getting it. We are not cutting funding to it but we are not doing enough.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 6:00:24 GMT
The Freedom Cactus is going after more than just mental health and maternity benefits.
From John Harwood
"House Freedom Caucus source says odds of AHCA passing have improved after GOP leaders offered to eliminate "essential health benefits"
In other words the junk policies are back....
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 23, 2017 6:40:21 GMT
Anybody else find the maternity thing exquisitely ironic? Yes!!! The other day, I was reading the thread where a pea caught her son and gf having sex. As I was reading through, I found some of the advice from peas so ironic, like advising the pea to insist on BC, preventing a pregnancy etc. if that had been a political thread, I suspect some of those same peas would have been up in arms about preventing births, prolife and being women who were being told what to do with their bodies!! |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 15:34:50 GMT
I actually think there's merit to discuss whether the government should mandate ever health care plan offered has to include maternity coverage. When I purchased a health care plan in private market pre-ACA, I purchased one that did not offer maternity coverage. If we want to discuss how to make health care insurance more affordable - particularly for the segment of the population currently priced out of the market - mandated coverage for unnecessary services should be discussed. From the article:
Are we actually discussing changes to make insurance more affordable, or are we just pretending? I absolutely think "skimpy" plans should be offered. A catastrophic plan is a hell of a lot better than no plan. I know several young, healthy people who simply cannot afford health insurance and are paying the penalty. To continually tell them, they're better off with nothing is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 23, 2017 15:44:53 GMT
I actually think there's merit to discuss whether the government should mandate ever health care plan offered has to include maternity coverage. When I purchased a health care plan in private market pre-ACA, I purchased one that did not offer maternity coverage. If we want to discuss how to make health care insurance more affordable - particularly for the segment of the population currently priced out of the market - mandated coverage for unnecessary services should be discussed. From the article: Are we actually discussing changes to make insurance more affordable, or are we just pretending? I absolutely think "skimpy" plans should be offered. A catastrophic plan is a hell of a lot better than no plan. I know several young, healthy people who simply cannot afford health insurance and are paying the penalty. To continually tell them, they're better off with nothing is ridiculous. Personally, I think we ought to have some form of single-payer, like every other civilized country in the world, and everyone should have equal coverage. BUT I would be okay with a compromise that included a catastrophic coverage option for those who prefer it. What I don't get is why Republicans think they're "fixing" the ACA by tossing it out and replacing it with more money for rich people and taking away coverage for poor people. They could make changes to the ACA to improve it, but they've always refused. All they really care about is the optics of killing Obamacare. Beyond that ... they really don't care about actual people getting actual health care. It is indefensible. Unless you're Paul Ryan and think a popular fiction writer really knew how to run the world. |
|
|
|
Post by gryroagain on Mar 23, 2017 15:46:05 GMT
A skimpy plan being better than nothing is not actually true though, if you look at the benefit to society and the real costs of health care. (Understand I am no fan of Obamacare and think only true nationalized health care will actually solve this) Society itself- ie everyone- benefits from maternity coverage because last I checked no future generation means no future...ask Japan and South Korea about that. So yes, men, people past childbearing age, young folks not having kids, they need to pay in since they will be the beneficiaries of the new workers and citizens...that is how it all works. It is extremely shortsighted to have everyone pay for exactly what they may need and nothing else, that isn't how I surname works- for anything, cars, renters, life.
Maternity benefits are not just benefitting the mom and child, they be edit the entire economy and country. it is as big a national security issue as terrorism.
The shortsightedness and just...meanness...from this administration-! I just can't. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
|
|
|
|
Post by gryroagain on Mar 23, 2017 15:50:21 GMT
Mercy- forgive the rampant typos. I am on an iPad 1 and the edit. Screen won't actually let me edit (I cannot make a new post either, just reply). Someday I'll upgrade but I'm pissed apple has this planned obsolescence so it is my protest not to!
|
|
quiltedbrain
Full Member
Posts: 429
Jun 26, 2014 3:34:53 GMT
|
Post by quiltedbrain on Mar 23, 2017 15:54:20 GMT
Why is it so hard to understand that health care coverage works just like immunizations? Everyone has to have all of it or it doesn't work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 15:59:37 GMT
I actually think there's merit to discuss whether the government should mandate ever health care plan offered has to include maternity coverage. When I purchased a health care plan in private market pre-ACA, I purchased one that did not offer maternity coverage. If we want to discuss how to make health care insurance more affordable - particularly for the segment of the population currently priced out of the market - mandated coverage for unnecessary services should be discussed. From the article: Are we actually discussing changes to make insurance more affordable, or are we just pretending? I absolutely think "skimpy" plans should be offered. A catastrophic plan is a hell of a lot better than no plan. I know several young, healthy people who simply cannot afford health insurance and are paying the penalty. To continually tell them, they're better off with nothing is ridiculous. Personally, I think we ought to have some form of single-payer, like every other civilized country in the world, and everyone should have equal coverage. BUT I would be okay with a compromise that included a catastrophic coverage option for those who prefer it. What I don't get is why Rpeublicans think they're "fixing" the ACA by tossing it out and replacing it with more money for rich people and taking away coverage for poor people. They could make changes to the ACA to improve it, but they've always refused. All they really care about is the optics of killing Obamacare. Beyond that ... they really don't care about actual people getting actual health care. It is indefensible. Unless you're Paul Ryan and think a popular fiction writer really knew how to run the world. They're not tossing it out. That's laughable really. The reality is the vast majority of the ACA was staying in place which is why the GOP is seeing such a high rate of defections. This proposal to change (see how they have to CHANGE as the rules of ACA are still in place) mandated coverage is an attempt to address the fact that particularly as they are doing away with the insurance mandate - there absolutely has to be something on the table for young people who have clearly shown they do not want these comprehensive plans ( or sure as hell don't want to pay for them). Are we getting a robust discussion about this change - what should or shouldn't be required coverage? Of course not, we're getting more unfounded hysteria about the GOP hating women and erroneous information about repealing ACA. I have issues with several of the proposals (including the fact that in an attempt to make the plans cheaper for young healthier people too much has been shifted to the 50-65 demographic (IMO). I also think there should be a discussion about the changes they're proposing for Medicaid. But let's stop just repeating the headlines and sound bites. PolitFact does a decent job of delving into the details: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/22/republican-health-care-bill-cheat-sheet/ |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 23, 2017 16:01:27 GMT
I hope this bill fails miserably during the vote today. This bill is not going to help anyone!!! This is all about them winning and beating those Dems. His is not in the best interest of anyone in this country. What the hell is the matter with these people that they actually think this is a viable and good idea for people for HEALTHCARE!?!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 16:02:56 GMT
A skimpy plan being better than nothing is not actually true though, if you look at the benefit to society and the real costs of health care. (Understand I am no fan of Obamacare and think only true nationalized health care will actually solve this) Society itself- ie everyone- benefits from maternity coverage because last I checked no future generation means no future...ask Japan and South Korea about that. So yes, men, people past childbearing age, young folks not having kids, they need to pay in since they will be the beneficiaries of the new workers and citizens...that is how it all works. It is extremely shortsighted to have everyone pay for exactly what they may need and nothing else, that isn't how I surname works- for anything, cars, renters, life. Maternity benefits are not just benefitting the mom and child, they be edit the entire economy and country. it is as big a national security issue as terrorism. The shortsightedness and just...meanness...from this administration-! I just can't. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... That may work in a comprehensive risk pool - but we don't have that - and ACA didn't create that - we're already dealing with a hodgepodge of coverage and dramatically different demographics being covered by entirely different systems. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 23, 2017 16:07:17 GMT
Oh yes, lets have LESS maternity care! Fuck having HEALTHY babies, just so long as they're born and make it onto this earth and take a breath! They'll be born and thats good enough for us. We don't give a flying how any problems they may have from lack of prenatal care are managed, that's all on the parents to deal with alone. And also, since they're hell bent on gutting the education system in this country, particularly for special needs kids, forget about those kids being educated to the best of their abilities. At least not In a public school system. Hope all those families have the funds necessary for private schools!
Seriously!!! I cannot stand this. I hope it's all worth it because "WE WON!!!@. Bastards.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Mar 23, 2017 16:10:44 GMT
A skimpy plan being better than nothing is not actually true though, if you look at the benefit to society and the real costs of health care. (Understand I am no fan of Obamacare and think only true nationalized health care will actually solve this) Society itself- ie everyone- benefits from maternity coverage because last I checked no future generation means no future...ask Japan and South Korea about that. So yes, men, people past childbearing age, young folks not having kids, they need to pay in since they will be the beneficiaries of the new workers and citizens...that is how it all works. It is extremely shortsighted to have everyone pay for exactly what they may need and nothing else, that isn't how I surname works- for anything, cars, renters, life. Maternity benefits are not just benefitting the mom and child, they be edit the entire economy and country. it is as big a national security issue as terrorism. The shortsightedness and just...meanness...from this administration-! I just can't. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...  And that same argument applies with education too. It benefits the entire community to have a healthy, educated populace. Even if you're young and have no kids yet or you're older and your kids are grown and gone, it makes sense to fund education adequately because those kids going to public school today will be the ones making decisions for all of us later in life. They are the police, doctors, nurses, teachers, businesspeople and politicians of tomorrow. Do we really want to shortchange ourselves in either case? |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 23, 2017 16:26:35 GMT
Personally, I think we ought to have some form of single-payer, like every other civilized country in the world, and everyone should have equal coverage. BUT I would be okay with a compromise that included a catastrophic coverage option for those who prefer it. What I don't get is why Rpeublicans think they're "fixing" the ACA by tossing it out and replacing it with more money for rich people and taking away coverage for poor people. They could make changes to the ACA to improve it, but they've always refused. All they really care about is the optics of killing Obamacare. Beyond that ... they really don't care about actual people getting actual health care. It is indefensible. Unless you're Paul Ryan and think a popular fiction writer really knew how to run the world. They're not tossing it out. That's laughable really. The reality is the vast majority of the ACA was staying in place which is why the GOP is seeing such a high rate of defections. This proposal to change (see how they have to CHANGE as the rules of ACA are still in place) mandated coverage is an attempt to address the fact that particularly as they are doing away with the insurance mandate - there absolutely has to be something on the table for young people who have clearly shown they do not want these comprehensive plans ( or sure as hell don't want to pay for them). Are we getting a robust discussion about this change - what should or shouldn't be required coverage? Of course not, we're getting more unfounded hysteria about the GOP hating women and erroneous information about repealing ACA. I have issues with several of the proposals (including the fact that in an attempt to make the plans cheaper for young healthier people too much has been shifted to the 50-65 demographic (IMO). I also think there should be a discussion about the changes they're proposing for Medicaid. But let's stop just repeating the headlines and sound bites. PolitFact does a decent job of delving into the details: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/22/republican-health-care-bill-cheat-sheet/Again: the OPTICS of getting rid of Obamacare. As long as they can say they repealed and replaced Obamacare, they don't give a rat's ass about what is actually involved, because they don't give a rat's ass whether people actually have health care or not. And please stop patronizing me. I wasn't even arguing with you. I was taking off in another direction from what you had said.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 16:27:09 GMT
Oh yes, lets have LESS maternity care! Fuck having HEALTHY babies, just so long as they're born and make it onto this earth and take a breath! They'll be born and thats good enough for us. We don't give a flying how any problems they may have from lack of prenatal care are managed, that's all on the parents to deal with alone. And also, since they're hell bent on gutting the education system in this country, particularly for special needs kids, forget about those kids being educated to the best of their abilities. At least not In a public school system. Hope all those families have the funds necessary for private schools! Seriously!!! I cannot stand this. I hope it's all worth it because "WE WON!!!@. Bastards.  ? Is this how to have a rationale discussion. Who the hell doesn't want healthy babies? It's ridiculous to start with the assumption that a change in the federal mandate for insurance plans offered on the exchanges means one doesn't want healthy babies. First off, we're actually discussing an extremely small portion of Americans. 12.7 million received their coverage on ACA marketplace - 4%. This is the fundamental issue with why the exchanges aren't working. People are not signing up for them. The vast majority of increased coverage under the ACA is Medicaid expansion. The exchange is BROKEN - the premiums are too high, the deductibles are too high and the increases are astronomical. The people who signed up are the ones who have no other options - as the plans SUCK. Something has to change to get young healthy people into the market. The reality is even if the buy a catastrophic plan - those young, healthy people are STILL going to be subsidizing pregnant women (and the chronically ill). I'd rather see the 28 million non-elderly people join the exchange on a catastrophic policy than to keep telling them too bad so sad - sucks to be you. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 16:30:09 GMT
They're not tossing it out. That's laughable really. The reality is the vast majority of the ACA was staying in place which is why the GOP is seeing such a high rate of defections. This proposal to change (see how they have to CHANGE as the rules of ACA are still in place) mandated coverage is an attempt to address the fact that particularly as they are doing away with the insurance mandate - there absolutely has to be something on the table for young people who have clearly shown they do not want these comprehensive plans ( or sure as hell don't want to pay for them). Are we getting a robust discussion about this change - what should or shouldn't be required coverage? Of course not, we're getting more unfounded hysteria about the GOP hating women and erroneous information about repealing ACA. I have issues with several of the proposals (including the fact that in an attempt to make the plans cheaper for young healthier people too much has been shifted to the 50-65 demographic (IMO). I also think there should be a discussion about the changes they're proposing for Medicaid. But let's stop just repeating the headlines and sound bites. PolitFact does a decent job of delving into the details: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/22/republican-health-care-bill-cheat-sheet/Again: the OPTICS of getting rid of Obamacare. As long as they can say they repealed and replaced Obamacare, they don't give a rat's ass about what is actually involved, because they don't give a rat's ass whether people actually have health care or not. And please stop patronizing me. I wasn't even arguing with you. I was taking off in another direction from what you had said. I wasn't patronizing you - I was trying to have a discussion. I actually see the Democrats digging in their heels about the optics just as much as the Republicans. There's no proposal to repeal Obamacare - but that hasn't stopped every single Democrat on the radio and TV from talking about it. So much for actually being in favor of changing issues with the ACA - they're more worried that optics than policy. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 23, 2017 16:37:57 GMT
Again: the OPTICS of getting rid of Obamacare. As long as they can say they repealed and replaced Obamacare, they don't give a rat's ass about what is actually involved, because they don't give a rat's ass whether people actually have health care or not. And please stop patronizing me. I wasn't even arguing with you. I was taking off in another direction from what you had said. I wasn't patronizing you - I was trying to have a discussion. I actually see the Democrats digging in their heels about the optics just as much as the Republicans. There's no proposal to repeal Obamacare - but that hasn't stopped every single Democrat on the radio and TV from talking about it. So much for actually being in favor of changing issues with the ACA - they're more worried that optics than policy. Find me a Republican in the House who isn't crowing about how they're finally going to repeal and replace Obamacare, OR who isn't digging in his or her heels because the new law doesn't take health care away from enough people (/sarcasm), OR who isn't scared of losing his or her Medicaid-expansion-dependent state so they're backing off the new bill after years of screaming about "repeal and replace," and I'll shut up and go away. Democrats would have been okay with fixing problems with Obamacare. Republicans will not settle for less than whatever their individual version of repeal and replace may be. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 23, 2017 16:43:14 GMT
Oh yes, lets have LESS maternity care! Fuck having HEALTHY babies, just so long as they're born and make it onto this earth and take a breath! They'll be born and thats good enough for us. We don't give a flying how any problems they may have from lack of prenatal care are managed, that's all on the parents to deal with alone. And also, since they're hell bent on gutting the education system in this country, particularly for special needs kids, forget about those kids being educated to the best of their abilities. At least not In a public school system. Hope all those families have the funds necessary for private schools! Seriously!!! I cannot stand this. I hope it's all worth it because "WE WON!!!@. Bastards. ? Is this how to have a rationale discussion. Who the hell doesn't want healthy babies? It's ridiculous to start with the assumption that a change in the federal mandate for insurance plans offered on the exchanges means one doesn't want healthy babies. First off, we're actually discussing an extremely small portion of Americans. 12.7 million received their coverage on ACA marketplace - 4%. This is the fundamental issue with why the exchanges aren't working. People are not signing up for them. The vast majority of increased coverage under the ACA is Medicaid expansion. The exchange is BROKEN - the premiums are too high, the deductibles are too high and the increases are astronomical. The people who signed up are the ones who have no other options - as the plans SUCK. Something has to change to get young healthy people into the market. The reality is even if the buy a catastrophic plan - those young, healthy people are STILL going to be subsidizing pregnant women (and the chronically ill). I'd rather see the 28 million non-elderly people join the exchange on a catastrophic policy than to keep telling them too bad so sad - sucks to be you. So it's ok to cut prenatal coverage to 12+ million people just because only a small percentage of people are actually using the exchange? No. It's not right. Just because it won't affect the entire population doesn't mean it should be done. It is wrong and it will lead to nothing but problems. For what it's worth, we get our insurance through ACA. We're self employed, and it's either ACA or nothing. Can't have nothing, as we have 4 kids, and I'm accident prone.  No, or is not perfect, and yes it is ridiculously expensive. But cutting access to care that people will need while getting insurance through ACA is not the answer. But really I don't understand why his country doesn't just move to universal health care for every citizen. That is going to be the only solution. Until then there will be fighting and replace and repeals every 4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 16:52:41 GMT
? Is this how to have a rationale discussion. Who the hell doesn't want healthy babies? It's ridiculous to start with the assumption that a change in the federal mandate for insurance plans offered on the exchanges means one doesn't want healthy babies. First off, we're actually discussing an extremely small portion of Americans. 12.7 million received their coverage on ACA marketplace - 4%. This is the fundamental issue with why the exchanges aren't working. People are not signing up for them. The vast majority of increased coverage under the ACA is Medicaid expansion. The exchange is BROKEN - the premiums are too high, the deductibles are too high and the increases are astronomical. The people who signed up are the ones who have no other options - as the plans SUCK. Something has to change to get young healthy people into the market. The reality is even if the buy a catastrophic plan - those young, healthy people are STILL going to be subsidizing pregnant women (and the chronically ill). I'd rather see the 28 million non-elderly people join the exchange on a catastrophic policy than to keep telling them too bad so sad - sucks to be you. So it's ok to cut prenatal coverage to 12+ million people just because only a small percentage of people are actually using the exchange? No. It's not right. Just because it won't affect the entire population doesn't mean it should be done. It is wrong and it will lead to nothing but problems. For what it's worth, we get our insurance through ACA. We're self employed, and it's either ACA or nothing. Can't have nothing, as we have 4 kids, and I'm accident prone. No, or is not perfect, and yes it is ridiculously expensive. But cutting access to care that people will need while getting insurance through ACA is not the answer. But really I don't understand why his country doesn't just move to universal health care for every citizen. That is going to be the only solution. Until then there will be fighting and replace and repeals every 4 years. Your premise is flawed. 12 million people are not going to lose prenatal coverage. The exchanges will be able to OFFER plans that don't include maternity coverage. For those 28 million people who currently have NO INSURANCE. They would still offer plans that DO offer maternity coverage. How many decide to sign up for those plans will be based on whether those people WANT maternity coverage, and of course how much they cost. It's about EXPANDING offerings not cutting prenatal coverage. |
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Mar 23, 2017 16:59:23 GMT
So it's ok to cut prenatal coverage to 12+ million people just because only a small percentage of people are actually using the exchange? No. It's not right. Just because it won't affect the entire population doesn't mean it should be done. It is wrong and it will lead to nothing but problems. For what it's worth, we get our insurance through ACA. We're self employed, and it's either ACA or nothing. Can't have nothing, as we have 4 kids, and I'm accident prone. No, or is not perfect, and yes it is ridiculously expensive. But cutting access to care that people will need while getting insurance through ACA is not the answer. But really I don't understand why his country doesn't just move to universal health care for every citizen. That is going to be the only solution. Until then there will be fighting and replace and repeals every 4 years. Your premise is flawed. 12 million people are not going to lose prenatal coverage. The exchanges will be able to OFFER plans that don't include maternity coverage. For those 28 million people who currently have NO INSURANCE. They would still offer plans that DO offer maternity coverage. How many decide to sign up for those plans will be based on whether those people WANT maternity coverage, and of course how much they cost. It's about EXPANDING offerings not cutting prenatal coverage. except when only women trying to get pregnant have to bear the load of maternity costs and the rates go through the roof so folks can't afford it.
Also, so say I'm not planning to get pg so I don't buy maternity benefits. Then I get raped and get pregnant, now I have a pre-existing condition so I can't add maternity benefits, but I also can't afford to pay 30K for a delivery. So what are they supposed to do then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 23, 2017 17:09:07 GMT
Your premise is flawed. 12 million people are not going to lose prenatal coverage. The exchanges will be able to OFFER plans that don't include maternity coverage. For those 28 million people who currently have NO INSURANCE. They would still offer plans that DO offer maternity coverage. How many decide to sign up for those plans will be based on whether those people WANT maternity coverage, and of course how much they cost. It's about EXPANDING offerings not cutting prenatal coverage. except when only women trying to get pregnant have to bear the load of maternity costs and the rates go through the roof so folks can't afford it.
Also, so say I'm not planning to get pg so I don't buy maternity benefits. Then I get raped and get pregnant, now I have a pre-existing condition so I can't add maternity benefits, but I also can't afford to pay 30K for a delivery. So what are they supposed to do then?
I actually don't think adding catastrophic coverage will increase the cost of plans with maternity coverage. We desperately need to increase the pool of coverage to young healthy people (those who currently are priced out of the market). Even if they only buy catastrophic coverage, the vast majority will not use the coverage -which is frankly why the premiums are low. Adding their unused premiums could lower the costs for all plans. I'm willing to look at options for women who are raped and become pregnant. The best estimate I could find is it might impact a few thousand women. I'm sure we could develop a reasonable option for them while still offering an option for the 28 million people who are currently priced out of the exchanges. |
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Mar 23, 2017 17:15:58 GMT
except when only women trying to get pregnant have to bear the load of maternity costs and the rates go through the roof so folks can't afford it.
Also, so say I'm not planning to get pg so I don't buy maternity benefits. Then I get raped and get pregnant, now I have a pre-existing condition so I can't add maternity benefits, but I also can't afford to pay 30K for a delivery. So what are they supposed to do then?
I actually don't think adding catastrophic coverage will increase the cost of plans with maternity coverage. We desperately need to increase the pool of coverage to young healthy people (those who currently are priced out of the market). Even if they only buy catastrophic coverage, the vast majority will not use the coverage -which is frankly why the premiums are low. Adding their unused premiums could lower the costs for all plans. I'm willing to look at options for women who are raped and become pregnant. The best estimate I could find is it might impact a few thousand women. I'm sure we could develop a reasonable option for them while still offering an option for the 28 million people who are currently priced out of the exchanges. Maybe you are, but clearly the general Congressional population doesn't want any exceptions.... they want blanket rules.
Even so, I'm sure some Republican man will write the law to require a rape victim to submit to a lie detector and have to explain how she allowed herself to get raped in the first place. I'm sure there will be a great picture of 7 or 8 men standing around signing it too. 
I think they shouldn't consider pregnancy as a pre-existing condition and coverage could be added at any time. People have surprise pregnancies as well. It isn't just rape.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:15:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 17:18:47 GMT
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-obamacare-repeal-vote-overview_us_58d2ec22e4b0f838c62f4285"Something extraordinary is on the cusp of taking place in Washington on Thursday. An unpopular president and a House Republican leadership team with a seemingly weak grasp of its own members’ priorities is preparing to rush through legislation that would trade 24 million people’s health coverage for a huge tax cut on wealthy households and health care corporations.This nearly friendless plan goes by the name of the American Health Care Act, a dull title that belies not only the havoc it could wreak on the health care system but the chaos it’s creating within the Republican Party, from the White House to Capitol Hill to the monied interests that fund the GOP’s agenda. The Republican health care reform bill polls poorly, has sparked protests across the country, and would have disproportionately harmful effects on the older, poorer and rural voters often credited with President Donald Trump’s electoral victory while having disproportionately positive effects for well-off urbanites. It doesn’t solve the Affordable Care Act’s problems, or fulfill Trump’s promises to offer universal coverage or his and other Republicans’ promises to reduce health care costs for consumers. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will ask his majority to vote for this bill despite all this, and without providing them with a Congressional Budget Office analysis of what effects the latest version of the bill would have on the number of Americans with health coverage or what that coverage would cost. The White House and GOP leaders were even making major changes to the bill that would undermine consumer protections late Wednesday night."
|
|
And that same argument applies with education too. It benefits the entire community to have a healthy, educated populace. Even if you're young and have no kids yet or you're older and your kids are grown and gone, it makes sense to fund education adequately because those kids going to public school today will be the ones making decisions for all of us later in life. They are the police, doctors, nurses, teachers, businesspeople and politicians of tomorrow. Do we really want to shortchange ourselves in either case?
? Is this how to have a rationale discussion. Who the hell doesn't want healthy babies? It's ridiculous to start with the assumption that a change in the federal mandate for insurance plans offered on the exchanges means one doesn't want healthy babies. First off, we're actually discussing an extremely small portion of Americans. 12.7 million received their coverage on ACA marketplace - 4%. This is the fundamental issue with why the exchanges aren't working. People are not signing up for them. The vast majority of increased coverage under the ACA is Medicaid expansion. The exchange is BROKEN - the premiums are too high, the deductibles are too high and the increases are astronomical. The people who signed up are the ones who have no other options - as the plans SUCK. Something has to change to get young healthy people into the market. The reality is even if the buy a catastrophic plan - those young, healthy people are STILL going to be subsidizing pregnant women (and the chronically ill). I'd rather see the 28 million non-elderly people join the exchange on a catastrophic policy than to keep telling them too bad so sad - sucks to be you.
No, or is not perfect, and yes it is ridiculously expensive. But cutting access to care that people will need while getting insurance through ACA is not the answer. 
