Cuz, you know, a watermelon is not a condition.
Posted on 03/23/2017 11:56:45 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
WASHINGTON ― Republican leaders are eyeing last-minute changes to their health care bill in order to attract votes from conservative lawmakers, including removing the requirement that insurance companies cover maternity care for everyone.
Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, the insurance market was a bleak place for women. They often had to pay more than men for the same coverage. Only 12 percent of individual market plans covered maternity care. And it was completely legal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to women who were pregnant or might become pregnant in the future.
One of the ACA’s most celebrated features is that it attempted to fix this gender disparity. It created a list of 10 essential health benefits that all plans on the marketplace must cover. Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care are on that list. It also said that insurance plans must offer contraception at no cost, along with breastfeeding equipment and services.
These features would likely go away if the band of conservatives known as the House Freedom Caucus gets to change the GOP health care bill, the American Health Care Act, in the way that it wants. These lawmakers want to get rid of the 10 essential health benefits, which could lower premiums, and it’s a concession that President Donald Trump has reportedly said he would agree to.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Did she wet herself with glee when she came up with that witticism?
What would Pelosi know about being a woman? She identifies as an idiot - and she’s pulling it off very well...
In a free market insurance companies would compete for affordable maternity benefits.
Cuz, you know, a watermelon is not a condition.
No....but a low IQ is a pre existing condition
How about sex, er, gender change surgery and or gender hormone treatments/therapy? How about male enhancement or Viagra therapy? I want my Maypo!
It sorta IS a pre-existing condition Nan - starting at conception.
Nancy: Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.
There should be no such thing as a required benefit.
My plan would reduce the federal subsidy by 4% for the lack of maternity coverage, but I believe what you buy should be decided by you and your insurer.
The Griffin plan, Version 4.5:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~briangriffin/
no employer or individual mandates or fines
Drug coverage and health care service coverage would have separate subsidies.
Having drug-only coverage plans allows hospital systems to be care-only coverage providers, increasing competition and eliminating the need for ‘insurer’ prior approval and quarrels over testing that has small marginal costs.
The federal monthly care subsidy base amount for a US citizen age 23 and over would be:
(age factor*$30) - (’normally attainable annual income estimate’**2/20000*(105-3*age factor))
[At age 64, the maximum subsidy would be $439.20/month and eligibility would end at $24,187/year.]
[At age 40, the maximum subsidy would be $142.80/month and eligibility would end at $16,432/year.]
[At age 26, the maximum subsidy would be $83.25/month and eligibility would end at $13,145/year.]
The federal monthly drug subsidy base amount for a US citizen at least 26 years of age would be:
(age bracket multiplier*$8) - (’normally attainable annual income estimate’**2/20000*(350-10*age bracket multiplier))
[At age 64, the maximum would be $116.76/month and eligibility would end at $21,909.]
[At age 26, the maximum would be $27.82/month and eligibility would end at $14,085.]
Square-law falloff subsidies are used instead of linear falloff subsidies to better serve lower income recipients.
Subsidies would be provided via the existing federal exchange with subsidy calculation software that actually works quite right (because often hard-to-track household income would no longer be the basis for subsidy calculation).
extraordinary mandatory issue open season - every 4 years, exchange only
employer tax credits for optional annual open seasons
no coverage mandates - only federal subsidy reductions based on coverage limits & co-pay/co-insurance/deductibles
The monthly care subsidy amount of a person shall be:
(monthly care subsidy base amount of a person)*
(the person’s plan care scope factor*the person’s policy financial quality factor)/10000
[PPACA grandfathered plan coverage scope would be by contract]
state PPACA Medicaid expansion contributions 10% -> 28%,
(or block grants, on a 80/20 [and 70/30] federal/state matching basis)
hospital block grants to help exceptional cases with premium payments
80% maximum federal subsidies, except via hospital block grants
loss ratio tax on non-employer plans
small premium increases possible in case of insurer need
No, sir! That is simply God-given talent on display!
Guess that leaves her out - nobody knows what she is.
What about being a delusional dingbat?
(Now, I realize that since 1965, many doctors have taken advantage of Governmental programs to get paid for services to the poor, they would otherwise have provided, anyway. But that does not lesson the need to start backing the Feds out of patient/physician relations.
She is a pre-existing condition of some kind, looks like something in between a hemorrhoid and what happened to Deadpool’s face.
They need to repeal obamacare and don’t replace it with anything. I am so sick of all this BS.
******And it was completely legal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to women who were already pregnant ....****
That’s why it’s called ‘insurance’... for unexpected illness or accident expenses. Auto insurance carriers don’t cover wrecked cars after the fact!!!!!
I worked in the industry for many years and it was a business built on trust. As a claims adjuster trainee - for a well known company, the founder admonished me for declining too many claims;) remarking that “every claim is payable except those that are not”. Very wise and a man of total integrity.
Also worked for the founder of a dynamic self funded organization, so successful that his competitor, Blue Cross bought him out for a fortune.
Politicians are not schooled in underwriting, risk and actuarial math or any of the basics which made health insurance a sound and mutually beneficial product.
Dimwit. It IS a pre-existing condition, unless you are trans-gendered. I don’t want my health to be treated like a man.
The Mental Health Parity Act needs to go too.
There should be no gold-filled iron rice bowls by law at my expense or yours.
I have always been an at-will employee.
Equality means equality, you damn Democrats!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.