Really 71 positive votes so far. I guess you all plan on never losing you job related medical insurance and having to find it on your own. Either that or you are very healthy (no pre-existing conditions) or independently wealthy.... sigh
Frustrated - 7 years ago
There is good and bad in the bill but no one is taking the time to actually read it, one persons ideas are just parroted down the line. Obama had very similar wording but the new bill is being propagated as a negative. i.e. "penalized" if a break in coverage where as Obamacare penalized if you didn't have coverage. No health care system can survive if ONLY sick people subscribe which is why both bills basically have the same requirement. Positive aspects were kept like age of children on parents coverage, etc. I just ask that you actually read the bill and make your own intelligent decisions. I'm not saying it is all good or bad but it needs to be evaluated better. The message is out there that one must now make a decision between health care or letting your baby die, Jimmy Kimmel, but that's not true, by law every individual going to an ER MUST be treated. Every child with a heart condition that requires surgery for survival will get the optimal level of treatment, with or without insurance. We don't live in a barbaric country as many are trying to infer. I would also like to see everyone work together better but there must be some hard decisions made in order to finance healthcare. Socialized medicine/one payor is not a great answer either, my parents died under this sytem, 5 year wait lists for a colonoscopy etc. I just ask that everyone look at it from all angle's and not jump to conclusions as to what you can get out of it. None of it's free.
Just a nurse analyst - 7 years ago
I can only imagine the backroom deals that went into getting the votes - promises of future funding from super pacs? And the zeal to undo everything Obama did, regardless of the impact on Americans, is nothing short of racist.
Cosmos - 7 years ago
So this is what "Repeal and Replace" looks like? As others have stated, the policy content is abysmal.
What angers me most is the broken lawmaking process that led to this moment. The headlong rush to ram through a repeal on the 7th anniversary of ACA that ended in failure. The back-room secret negotiations led by Ryan and Pence. The suppression of the CBO analysis. The unequivocal disapproval of the medical community. The razor thin margin -- two votes! -- that signaled the most tenuous of compromises. The victory party at the white house when the Senate is months away from voting. Every step of this process lacked moral discipline and integrity.
Malvern - 7 years ago
No amount of hand-wringing changes the fact that we spend ~$10,000 pp on healthcare per year. This can not be solved by only attacking the coverage/premium challenge. We have fundamental flaws in the design of insurance benefits, which encourages most organizations to push the buck to someone else, even if it undermines the care that the patient needs. End-of-life-care, and care for the disabled population demonstrate how challenging the coverage and treatment issue really is for those truly in need.
Trumpcare is merely another example of the lack of will to tackle the real issues. I too find it disgusting and politically expedient, but it is in many ways yet another expression of failure to tackle the fundamental design and payment for health care.
Disgusted - 7 years ago
This is one of the most cynical heartless pieces of legislation I've seen in my lifetime. The cuts to Medicaid are devastating for vulnerable citizens. Shifting control back to the states may sound good in principle but is just a massive effort in cost shifting where the states will ultimately be stuck with the unpopular task of cutting services (drastically) and/or raising state taxes. Eliminating standards for benefits is also a huge loss and will have significant negative effects on efforts to improve care and treatment access for mental illness and substance use. The most cynical piece is that pre-existing conditions are only covered if you have continuous coverage which is hardest to maintain for those who are down on their luck, poor and/or otherwise vulnerable. This will just make it harder for these individuals setting up yet another disparity in access, while the politicians can claim they preserved coverage for pre-existing conditions. And the only ones who benefit from this sorry piece of work are insurers and the already wealthy for whom another tax break won't make any real difference. Perhaps the saddest part of all is that most of the representatives who voted for this come from states whose citizens will be most hurt by it. And they kep managing too pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents.
printgeek - 7 years ago
Its a shame that Trump and the Dems can't seem to even dialogue about healthcare. This latest bill will never get through the Senate as our elected officials finally realize its time to keep healthcare moving forward, not backward. It only moves forward if Trump neutors that far right by working with moderate democrats.
Bill Spooner - 7 years ago
At least the AHCA is honest and doesn't include the word "affordable". Everyone should have access to necessary health care, but Congress misses the boat by financing access by an increasing federal deficit. US healthcare is too expensive and unlikely to change as long as campaign contributions to ensure reelection remain the primary motivator.
Lee - 7 years ago
When did so many Americans become such greedy self absorbed citizens? The Republican house vote may be saved / corrected by the Senate, but this act of greed driven anti-compassion will he the gift that keeps giving to these worthless creeps come 2018 and 2020.
HITgeek - 7 years ago
I am especially angered by the self-righteous justifications of increased insurance costs for evidence of pre-existing conditions, chronic illness, and age.
A single mutual community health insurance risk pool spreads the cost. This model assumes that most risks arise from involuntary events -- condition, illness, injury -- that any community member might experience.
Evidence-based pricing comes from liability insurance, where the assumption is that one has considerably more control over risky behaviors. Pricing can vary based on actuarial categorization.
Experience-based pricing for health insurance falsely assumes one has more control or somehow shares the blame for illness, perhaps by some moral failing. While certain evidence, such as smoking, are a reasonable basis for higher premiums, most illnesses - especially congenital or age-related - are not.
The provision of health care is an act of human compassion, not moral judgement. I am sick tired of compassion-less insurance, abetted by politics, being the gatekeeper for US health care.
Not Surprised - 7 years ago
How 221 representatives can vote for a bill that unquestionably reduces healthcare benefits for millions of Americans only for the real purpose of giving the wealthy (myself included) a tax cut is unbelievable; but I'm not surprised. It is also bad for the healthcare system - the AHA, AMA, AARP were all against -- but that was ignored. No one really thinks this plan is better than the current state; just better for some bank accounts.
Shaking my head - 7 years ago
Hilarity and sadness at the same time. Both sides of the aisle were making BS comments during debate, but Rs we dead set on finally being true at "repeal and replace". I wish our legislators would actually sit down and have an adult conversation about the issues in healthcare instead of putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalala, can't hear you!".
Also, it's quite funny that the Senate won't even start "talking" about the AHCA til June/July.
Really 71 positive votes so far. I guess you all plan on never losing you job related medical insurance and having to find it on your own. Either that or you are very healthy (no pre-existing conditions) or independently wealthy.... sigh
There is good and bad in the bill but no one is taking the time to actually read it, one persons ideas are just parroted down the line. Obama had very similar wording but the new bill is being propagated as a negative. i.e. "penalized" if a break in coverage where as Obamacare penalized if you didn't have coverage. No health care system can survive if ONLY sick people subscribe which is why both bills basically have the same requirement. Positive aspects were kept like age of children on parents coverage, etc. I just ask that you actually read the bill and make your own intelligent decisions. I'm not saying it is all good or bad but it needs to be evaluated better. The message is out there that one must now make a decision between health care or letting your baby die, Jimmy Kimmel, but that's not true, by law every individual going to an ER MUST be treated. Every child with a heart condition that requires surgery for survival will get the optimal level of treatment, with or without insurance. We don't live in a barbaric country as many are trying to infer. I would also like to see everyone work together better but there must be some hard decisions made in order to finance healthcare. Socialized medicine/one payor is not a great answer either, my parents died under this sytem, 5 year wait lists for a colonoscopy etc. I just ask that everyone look at it from all angle's and not jump to conclusions as to what you can get out of it. None of it's free.
I can only imagine the backroom deals that went into getting the votes - promises of future funding from super pacs? And the zeal to undo everything Obama did, regardless of the impact on Americans, is nothing short of racist.
So this is what "Repeal and Replace" looks like? As others have stated, the policy content is abysmal.
What angers me most is the broken lawmaking process that led to this moment. The headlong rush to ram through a repeal on the 7th anniversary of ACA that ended in failure. The back-room secret negotiations led by Ryan and Pence. The suppression of the CBO analysis. The unequivocal disapproval of the medical community. The razor thin margin -- two votes! -- that signaled the most tenuous of compromises. The victory party at the white house when the Senate is months away from voting. Every step of this process lacked moral discipline and integrity.
No amount of hand-wringing changes the fact that we spend ~$10,000 pp on healthcare per year. This can not be solved by only attacking the coverage/premium challenge. We have fundamental flaws in the design of insurance benefits, which encourages most organizations to push the buck to someone else, even if it undermines the care that the patient needs. End-of-life-care, and care for the disabled population demonstrate how challenging the coverage and treatment issue really is for those truly in need.
Trumpcare is merely another example of the lack of will to tackle the real issues. I too find it disgusting and politically expedient, but it is in many ways yet another expression of failure to tackle the fundamental design and payment for health care.
This is one of the most cynical heartless pieces of legislation I've seen in my lifetime. The cuts to Medicaid are devastating for vulnerable citizens. Shifting control back to the states may sound good in principle but is just a massive effort in cost shifting where the states will ultimately be stuck with the unpopular task of cutting services (drastically) and/or raising state taxes. Eliminating standards for benefits is also a huge loss and will have significant negative effects on efforts to improve care and treatment access for mental illness and substance use. The most cynical piece is that pre-existing conditions are only covered if you have continuous coverage which is hardest to maintain for those who are down on their luck, poor and/or otherwise vulnerable. This will just make it harder for these individuals setting up yet another disparity in access, while the politicians can claim they preserved coverage for pre-existing conditions. And the only ones who benefit from this sorry piece of work are insurers and the already wealthy for whom another tax break won't make any real difference. Perhaps the saddest part of all is that most of the representatives who voted for this come from states whose citizens will be most hurt by it. And they kep managing too pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents.
Its a shame that Trump and the Dems can't seem to even dialogue about healthcare. This latest bill will never get through the Senate as our elected officials finally realize its time to keep healthcare moving forward, not backward. It only moves forward if Trump neutors that far right by working with moderate democrats.
At least the AHCA is honest and doesn't include the word "affordable". Everyone should have access to necessary health care, but Congress misses the boat by financing access by an increasing federal deficit. US healthcare is too expensive and unlikely to change as long as campaign contributions to ensure reelection remain the primary motivator.
When did so many Americans become such greedy self absorbed citizens? The Republican house vote may be saved / corrected by the Senate, but this act of greed driven anti-compassion will he the gift that keeps giving to these worthless creeps come 2018 and 2020.
I am especially angered by the self-righteous justifications of increased insurance costs for evidence of pre-existing conditions, chronic illness, and age.
A single mutual community health insurance risk pool spreads the cost. This model assumes that most risks arise from involuntary events -- condition, illness, injury -- that any community member might experience.
Evidence-based pricing comes from liability insurance, where the assumption is that one has considerably more control over risky behaviors. Pricing can vary based on actuarial categorization.
Experience-based pricing for health insurance falsely assumes one has more control or somehow shares the blame for illness, perhaps by some moral failing. While certain evidence, such as smoking, are a reasonable basis for higher premiums, most illnesses - especially congenital or age-related - are not.
The provision of health care is an act of human compassion, not moral judgement. I am sick tired of compassion-less insurance, abetted by politics, being the gatekeeper for US health care.
How 221 representatives can vote for a bill that unquestionably reduces healthcare benefits for millions of Americans only for the real purpose of giving the wealthy (myself included) a tax cut is unbelievable; but I'm not surprised. It is also bad for the healthcare system - the AHA, AMA, AARP were all against -- but that was ignored. No one really thinks this plan is better than the current state; just better for some bank accounts.
Hilarity and sadness at the same time. Both sides of the aisle were making BS comments during debate, but Rs we dead set on finally being true at "repeal and replace". I wish our legislators would actually sit down and have an adult conversation about the issues in healthcare instead of putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalala, can't hear you!".
Also, it's quite funny that the Senate won't even start "talking" about the AHCA til June/July.