Ending ObamaCare, Part One

The Wall Street Journal ^ | May 4, 2017

[alstewartfan]

Is this deal anything like the bills they passed under Maobama? I think this deal is only marginally better than Obamacare. So anyone who is demoralized by this puny effort and speaks out, such as Rand Paul (who is a DOCTOR) is a “queer”. Uh huh.

[vette6387]

And so your solution would be what? Be a Rand Paul and make sure that nothing gets done at all because of the “diversity of opinion” in the GOP makes a “truly conservative solution” unattainable? If that’s the case, the RATs will hang Obamacare’s “failure” around the necks of the Republicans and they will make it stick. While it is indeed sad to see the makeup of the GOP today collectively, “we” voted for this group of worthless a$$holes whom we now deride for not “doing their jobs.” In point of fact, they are “doing” what they think the majority of their constituents want because that will keep them in office. And to them, personally, I think all they care about is themselves, just like the RATs.

[vette6387]

“Is this deal anything like the bills they passed under Maobama? I think this deal is only marginally better than Obamacare. So anyone who is demoralized by this puny effort and speaks out, such as Rand Paul (who is a DOCTOR) is a “queer”. Uh huh.”

I guess I have to explain context to you. I didn't say Rand Paul WAS A QUEER, I said that he and one other likeminded Senator could QUEER THE DEAL! Capiche? As for Rand Paul being a doctor, perhaps in another life, now he's pretty much a full-time politician like his father who was also a doctor.

[alstewartfan]

Ron Paul is a full-blown kook.
Rand Paul inherited SOME sanity from his mom apparently, but SHE fell for Ron, so you can’t be too sure.
P.S. Never, in my circles, have I heard the term “queering” without it implying something about sexuality.

[Conserv]

I have gained some respect for Mitch McConnell.

He’s stronger and more effective than Paul Ryan. That’s for damn sure.

[alstewartfan]

In a sense, I believe this is worse than nothing, though the black and white bill is slightly better than what we have. Thus far, the GOP is celebrating while the Democrats are screaming that millions will die.
Republicans are failing to make the case with the brain-dead public that this bill is an improvement, and thus they will be hung with incessant sob stories about how Junior died needlessly, thanks to the conscienceless Republicans. Truth will matter not.If this bill ultimately passes, every tragedy will fall upon Republicans’ heads. Face it; most Democrat voters are either misinformed, stupid or dead! Yes, the graveyard has been given ammunition by the GOP.

[T Ruth]

Republicans will be blamed for that collapse whether or not they pass repeal and replace.

Only by leftists who would never vote R anyway. This includes obviously 95% of journalists, including those at the WSJ.

Rational people will know the cause of the mess is the Democrats.

[CptnObvious]

That status quo is deteriorating as this week’s decision by Aetna to withdraw from Virginia’s health exchanges shows. Republicans will be blamed for that collapse whether or not they pass repeal and replace.

No, Democrats are to blame for another Obamacare Exchange Failure. Fake News Blame Game by the 'reporter' here.

[vette6387]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/queer

look under usage as a VERB! In this context, the word QUEER has NOTHING to do with BEING GAY!

[A strike]

‘Repeal and replace’ equals no repeal.

[married21]

question: How is this plan handling people with pre-existing conditions? I have “progressive” relatives on FaceBook who are going nuts, saying anybody who supports this legislation is just mean.

[itsahoot]

Please advise. Am I wrong?

Nope. They actually prefer the Court take the blame for most of their agenda.

Freepers have been wondering since the beginning why they don't require an actual filibuster. They both want to reserve powers not remembering what Harry did when he needed to.

[alstewartfan]

I’d bet my last dollar that I am not the only one who interpreted your remark as I did. Hey, I learned something. That’s good! lol

[RusynMama]

Here are some factual (i.e., no media spin) item-by-item explanations of the bill that has passed the House:

https://benefitslink.com/src/legislation/AHCA-Section-by-Section-Summary.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44785.pdf

Specific to pre-existing conditions, there appear to be two interconnected provisions:

1. A 12-month surcharge equal to 30% of the premium for anyone who buys insurance after a coverage gap of 63 days (whether or not they have any pre-existing condition);
   and
2. States are permitted to adopt an alternative to that "coverage gap surcharge" which may (not "must") allow insurers to set premiums based on "health status rating". The alternative must include a "high risk pool" which provides payments to health insurance issuers to help with high-cost medical claims of certain individuals.

Note that the both of these provisions apply only if the person has had a gap in insurance coverage. If the individual maintains continuous coverage, there's no increased premium, and no apparent exclusion for any pre-existing condition.

Some history:

Prior to ACA, employer policies - but not individual policies - were required to cover pre-existing conditions if there was no gap in coverage. If there was a gap, employers could exclude the pre-existing condition for some period of time (but not forever). Individual policies could exclude the pre-existing condition, or jack up the premiums (with no limit on that increase).

ACA required all policies to cover of all pre-existing conditions, period, but imposed a penalty if the individual did not maintain coverage. The goal was to ensure continuous coverage -- but the penalties were too low to force individuals to choose to buy insurance, so it was easy for individuals to "game the system", and buy coverage only when they needed it (i.e., they already had a diagnoses -- a "pre-existing condition".)

The new proposal imposes a hefty surcharge, for a limited period of time, if there's a break in coverage -- but it doesn't appear to touch the ACA requirement that any pre-existing conditions be covered starting on day one.

(Good source for lots of articles about ACA/AHCA/health coverage in general: https://benefitslink.com/news)