| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] |
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by ElizaRags35
I'm sick to my stomach. Absolutely sickened.
And I was reading that the congresspeople won't have this abhorrent replacement as their own plan. So it's good enough for everyone else but not for them. Eff them.
Of course. They all know how absolutely horrible this bill is. All they care about is "Repeal and Replace"... screw the voters, but make sure the politicians don't get harmed by their own actions.
This bill basically takes out all of the good parts of the ACA, and makes the bad parts even worse.
THIS RIGHT HERE! THIS is why they all need to go! They need a swift boot kick in the ass and back to private citizen status. THIS should anger anyone and everyone regardless of party! Why do THEY deserve better than the average American citizen, than our military out there putting their actual lives on the line??!? Is anyone ok with that??
|
Posted 5/4/17 3:47 PM  |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
And the GOP is trying to tell everyone that insurance companies still cover people with pre-existing conditions.... except that in the current wording, the insurance companies can charge 10x as much (or more) than a "healthy" person, which is essentially the same thing as outright denying them.
That means that nobody is going to ever voluntarily report something that might be considered a "pre-existing condition". Including domestic violence, rape, mental illness, and other serious medical issues that people will try to just "deal with" so it won't be reported.
There are documented cases where before the ACA rules, insurance companies denied coverage for a slew of "pre-existing conditions".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/under-the-new-healthcare-bill-rape-could-be-a-pre-existing-condition_us_590b3773e4b0bb2d0875ea54?v5v&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
|
| Posted 5/4/17 4:00 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MC09
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by ElizaRags35
I'm sick to my stomach. Absolutely sickened.
And I was reading that the congresspeople won't have this abhorrent replacement as their own plan. So it's good enough for everyone else but not for them. Eff them.
Of course. They all know how absolutely horrible this bill is. All they care about is "Repeal and Replace"... screw the voters, but make sure the politicians don't get harmed by their own actions.
This bill basically takes out all of the good parts of the ACA, and makes the bad parts even worse.
THIS RIGHT HERE! THIS is why they all need to go! They need a swift boot kick in the ass and back to private citizen status. THIS should anger anyone and everyone regardless of party! Why do THEY deserve better than the average American citizen, than our military out there putting their actual lives on the line??!? Is anyone ok with that??
while I agree I think everyone in congress does need to go. I thought I read somewhere (of course I can remember where) that the next part will address that they will have to follow the new bill but I could be wrong and making it up 
|
| Posted 5/4/17 4:01 PM |
| |
|
Sweetlax22
LIF Adult
Member since 5/10 1904 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
While looking for answers as to how anyone can think is ok for insurance companies to deny coverage based on a preexisiting condition (besides $$$$) I did come up with one thing that made me feel a bit better. Like if someone has diabetes they can't change jobs because they won't be insured ?? Apparently under the new law you would only be allowed to be denied (or charged more) if you had a lapse of coverage for more then 63 days.
My opinion:
One of the main things people did not like about "Obamacare" is that everyone was REQUIRED to be insured, under the design it kinda had to be that way because insurance doesn't really work if healthy people dont pay their share to cover "sick"people.
By taking that away you are now left with less money in the pot. Why would a healthy 20 something pay for insurance if they knew they would just get covered if something happened (cancer, pregnancy, gall bladder etc) and not have to worry about paying insurance until then.
Under the new way you would have the right not to have insurance, but it would be dumb not to because if something came up you are pretty much shish out of luck.
I know it is probably a lot more complex, but this is how I understand it for now.
Article
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:16 AM |
| |
|
stinger
LIF Adult
Member since 11/11 4971 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
I stopped reading FB and the news as much and was ok for a while but am sick again! None of the pro trumpers i know on FB are saying a word. Where are they?! Everyone needs to wake up!
I WORK in public health and healthcare and my immediate coworkers voted Trump. I cannot even be near them some days. I also know its best to have dialogue but the workplace isn't appropriate so I do not know how to handle this!
|
| Posted 5/5/17 7:09 AM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by Sweetlax22
While looking for answers as to how anyone can think is ok for insurance companies to deny coverage based on a preexisiting condition (besides $$$$) I did come up with one thing that made me feel a bit better. Like if someone has diabetes they can't change jobs because they won't be insured ?? Apparently under the new law you would only be allowed to be denied (or charged more) if you had a lapse of coverage for more then 63 days.
My opinion:
One of the main things people did not like about "Obamacare" is that everyone was REQUIRED to be insured, under the design it kinda had to be that way because insurance doesn't really work if healthy people dont pay their share to cover "sick"people.
By taking that away you are now left with less money in the pot. Why would a healthy 20 something pay for insurance if they knew they would just get covered if something happened (cancer, pregnancy, gall bladder etc) and not have to worry about paying insurance until then.
Under the new way you would have the right not to have insurance, but it would be dumb not to because if something came up you are pretty much shish out of luck.
I know it is probably a lot more complex, but this is how I understand it for now.
Article
That 63 day rule is combined over an entire year. I definitely think some people will probably think it's only consecutive days and miss the boat. Yes, it's not going to apply to a ton of people but some people will definitely end up sicker by not maintaining coverage and having regular screenings and check ups. If you try to jump into insurance when you need it the costs will truly be prohibitive between extra costs for preexisting conditions and the 30% surcharge and some states likely not protecting the essential health benefits. We all know not everyone is going to stay insured so how does this help? We're going to see personal bankruptcies back up do to medical costs.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 7:40 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MrsT809
Posted by Sweetlax22
While looking for answers as to how anyone can think is ok for insurance companies to deny coverage based on a preexisiting condition (besides $$$$) I did come up with one thing that made me feel a bit better. Like if someone has diabetes they can't change jobs because they won't be insured ?? Apparently under the new law you would only be allowed to be denied (or charged more) if you had a lapse of coverage for more then 63 days.
My opinion:
One of the main things people did not like about "Obamacare" is that everyone was REQUIRED to be insured, under the design it kinda had to be that way because insurance doesn't really work if healthy people dont pay their share to cover "sick"people.
By taking that away you are now left with less money in the pot. Why would a healthy 20 something pay for insurance if they knew they would just get covered if something happened (cancer, pregnancy, gall bladder etc) and not have to worry about paying insurance until then.
Under the new way you would have the right not to have insurance, but it would be dumb not to because if something came up you are pretty much shish out of luck.
I know it is probably a lot more complex, but this is how I understand it for now.
Article
That 63 day rule is combined over an entire year. I definitely think some people will probably think it's only consecutive days and miss the boat. Yes, it's not going to apply to a ton of people but some people will definitely end up sicker by not maintaining coverage and having regular screenings and check ups. If you try to jump into insurance when you need it the costs will truly be prohibitive between extra costs for preexisting conditions and the 30% surcharge and some states likely not protecting the essential health benefits. We all know not everyone is going to stay insured so how does this help? We're going to see personal bankruptcies back up do to medical costs.
Even if it was consecutive days in a block, it's not that hard to go 2 months from being laid off from one job until you find a new job.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 8:33 AM |
| |
|
Sweetlax22
LIF Adult
Member since 5/10 1904 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by MrsT809
Posted by Sweetlax22
While looking for answers as to how anyone can think is ok for insurance companies to deny coverage based on a preexisiting condition (besides $$$$) I did come up with one thing that made me feel a bit better. Like if someone has diabetes they can't change jobs because they won't be insured ?? Apparently under the new law you would only be allowed to be denied (or charged more) if you had a lapse of coverage for more then 63 days.
My opinion:
One of the main things people did not like about "Obamacare" is that everyone was REQUIRED to be insured, under the design it kinda had to be that way because insurance doesn't really work if healthy people dont pay their share to cover "sick"people.
By taking that away you are now left with less money in the pot. Why would a healthy 20 something pay for insurance if they knew they would just get covered if something happened (cancer, pregnancy, gall bladder etc) and not have to worry about paying insurance until then.
Under the new way you would have the right not to have insurance, but it would be dumb not to because if something came up you are pretty much shish out of luck.
I know it is probably a lot more complex, but this is how I understand it for now.
Article
That 63 day rule is combined over an entire year. I definitely think some people will probably think it's only consecutive days and miss the boat. Yes, it's not going to apply to a ton of people but some people will definitely end up sicker by not maintaining coverage and having regular screenings and check ups. If you try to jump into insurance when you need it the costs will truly be prohibitive between extra costs for preexisting conditions and the 30% surcharge and some states likely not protecting the essential health benefits. We all know not everyone is going to stay insured so how does this help? We're going to see personal bankruptcies back up do to medical costs.
Even if it was consecutive days in a block, it's not that hard to go 2 months from being laid off from one job until you find a new job.
That is so true ! Question that I'm not sure about though-under the current ACA are people who are between jobs for whatever reason required to pay for their own insurance through the exchange ?
|
| Posted 5/5/17 10:06 AM |
| |
|
Sweetlax22
LIF Adult
Member since 5/10 1904 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
|
| Posted 5/5/17 10:57 AM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
I don't know a whole lot about the ins and outs of insurance but why is the mentality (not anyone on here just society in general) that young people can/will forgo health insurance because they're still young and don't need it as much as older people. Illnesses can arise at any time regardless of how healthy/active a person is -- but what about emergency care... Like a car accident that would require life-saving surgery and healthcare of that nature. In that instance it becomes more like auto and home insurance (not that I think health insurance is anything like auto/home but just that it's of the same nature - a "just in case" insurance for the young/healthy). Everyone knows you need auto insurance even if you're a super awesome driver accidents can still happen. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can explain. It's something I've always wondered about.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:04 PM |
| |
|
MrsMick
Baby #2 debuts in March 2016!
Member since 9/09 1977 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:08 PM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MC09
I don't know a whole lot about the ins and outs of insurance but why is the mentality (not anyone on here just society in general) that young people can/will forgo health insurance because they're still young and don't need it as much as older people. Illnesses can arise at any time regardless of how healthy/active a person is -- but what about emergency care... Like a car accident that would require life-saving surgery and healthcare of that nature. In that instance it becomes more like auto and home insurance (not that I think health insurance is anything like auto/home but just that it's of the same nature - a "just in case" insurance for the young/healthy). Everyone knows you need auto insurance even if you're a super awesome driver accidents can still happen. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can explain. It's something I've always wondered about.
I don't think people think young people don't need it but the bottom line is they're not buying it enough to offset everyone else. My guess is that it has to do with changes in our society in general. Young people used to go to school and then immediately get jobs and dust families so insurance was both more obtainable and more necessary bc of having kids younger. These days er have this huge lapse of time where young people don't have solid jobs and don't have families to worry about so there is less access to affordable healthcare and less incentive for them to get it at all.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:14 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MC09
I don't know a whole lot about the ins and outs of insurance but why is the mentality (not anyone on here just society in general) that young people can/will forgo health insurance because they're still young and don't need it as much as older people. Illnesses can arise at any time regardless of how healthy/active a person is -- but what about emergency care... Like a car accident that would require life-saving surgery and healthcare of that nature. In that instance it becomes more like auto and home insurance (not that I think health insurance is anything like auto/home but just that it's of the same nature - a "just in case" insurance for the young/healthy). Everyone knows you need auto insurance even if you're a super awesome driver accidents can still happen. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can explain. It's something I've always wondered about.
I wonder this too. I never once in my life have been without health insurance and I would never want too. I am surprised anyone wouldn't. Even if the cost for the insurance is high it has to be cheaper then if something happens and they end up in the hospital or dr etc.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:16 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
planned parenthood from what I understand is not free for everyone it goes based on you income the price. And you do know they don't only do abortions correct. And not for nothing you may not want to pay as you put it for someone else's choice but if someone who has no money can't afford to pay for an abortion if that's what they want to do and they have the baby guess what you most likely will end up paying for their child for the next 18 years.
Message edited 5/5/2017 12:19:07 PM.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:18 PM |
| |
|
JennP
LIF Adult
Member since 10/06 3986 total posts
Name:
Jenn
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 12:28 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54917 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by JennP
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
Exactly. Which ends up costing the tax payers MORE than an abortion. WAY WAY more
And you can't just walk into a Planned Parenthood and say, hi, I'd like a free abortion
I'm not sure why people think this.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 1:02 PM |
| |
|
MrsMick
Baby #2 debuts in March 2016!
Member since 9/09 1977 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by JennP
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
Exactly. Which ends up costing the tax payers MORE than an abortion. WAY WAY more
And you can't just walk into a Planned Parenthood and say, hi, I'd like a free abortion
I'm not sure why people think this.
I know how it works. I actually went with a friend in HS to get one- not me, my friend. I wouldn't have a problem with Planned Parenthood if they actually offered sonograms- they don't. I would think they would cover ALL aspects of womens healthcare and they don't.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 1:06 PM |
| |
|
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
GOP healthcare bill question
I've slowed down on my rants and commentary on this board lately because I've been trying to work for positive changes and outcomes. Absolutely impossible, because everyone owes everyone a favor.
Pete King's office must be sick of hearing from me, and so is Rice
In all seriousness, this makes me nervous, more for the simple fact that tons of pork is attached to his, and the 5hit is really going to hit the fan if this is passed. 
|
| Posted 5/5/17 1:42 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by blu6385
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
planned parenthood from what I understand is not free for everyone it goes based on you income the price. And you do know they don't only do abortions correct. And not for nothing you may not want to pay as you put it for someone else's choice but if someone who has no money can't afford to pay for an abortion if that's what they want to do and they have the baby guess what you most likely will end up paying for their child for the next 18 years.
I use planned parenthood for my birth control. It costs me $175 for an annual visit and $20 a month for my birth control pills.
I have never had an abortion. I have always paid when I have gone there. They are an absolutely wonderful organization. They do not just perform abortions.
Go to a planned parenthood and see for yourself 
ETA: They offer sonograms? I've had one before there to check my ovaries
Message edited 5/5/2017 2:15:39 PM.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 2:14 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54917 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by JennP
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
Exactly. Which ends up costing the tax payers MORE than an abortion. WAY WAY more
And you can't just walk into a Planned Parenthood and say, hi, I'd like a free abortion
I'm not sure why people think this.
I know how it works. I actually went with a friend in HS to get one- not me, my friend. I wouldn't have a problem with Planned Parenthood if they actually offered sonograms- they don't. I would think they would cover ALL aspects of womens healthcare and they don't.
I believe they do offer sonograms as the poster above me just mentioned.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 2:27 PM |
| |
|
LI2VA
Love my life!!
Member since 11/05 3125 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by JennP
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
Exactly. Which ends up costing the tax payers MORE than an abortion. WAY WAY more
And you can't just walk into a Planned Parenthood and say, hi, I'd like a free abortion
I'm not sure why people think this.
I know how it works. I actually went with a friend in HS to get one- not me, my friend. I wouldn't have a problem with Planned Parenthood if they actually offered sonograms- they don't. I would think they would cover ALL aspects of womens healthcare and they don't.
I believe they do offer sonograms as the poster above me just mentioned.
They do
|
| Posted 5/5/17 4:02 PM |
| |
|
JennP
LIF Adult
Member since 10/06 3986 total posts
Name:
Jenn
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by JennP
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by Sweetlax22
Her is an article comparing the new with the old - it is an easy read compared to some others. Comparison
Thanks for posting. I also found a website the other day explaining all the amendments which make a lot of sense. While I am for the tax cuts, and defunding of planned parenthood (Don't jump down my throat- I just feel that I should not have to pay for someone's personal choice) I am against the lack of maternity care and womens contraceptives not being covered)
I won't jump down your throat but you never did pay for people's personal choice. Federal funding by law cannot go to abortions and yes this is enforced. All defunding them does is take away women's health care services from some of the most vulnerable women. To me, that would only increase unplanned pregnancies.
Exactly. Which ends up costing the tax payers MORE than an abortion. WAY WAY more
And you can't just walk into a Planned Parenthood and say, hi, I'd like a free abortion
I'm not sure why people think this.
I know how it works. I actually went with a friend in HS to get one- not me, my friend. I wouldn't have a problem with Planned Parenthood if they actually offered sonograms- they don't. I would think they would cover ALL aspects of womens healthcare and they don't.
But there's a contradiction in your posts. You stated your reason was that you didn't want to fund someone's choice, so we told you that you don't, and you say you knew that. So which is it? Trying to understand your position here.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 4:07 PM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14007 total posts
Name:
|
Re: GOP healthcare bill question
Funny...A bill that can claim sexual assault and pregnancy as a pre-existing condition but will deem that erectile dysfunction is not.
Message edited 5/8/2017 12:14:56 PM.
|
| Posted 5/5/17 4:24 PM |
| |
|
|
|
GOP healthcare bill question
This feels like a step back when other countries are upping pre and post natal care and now women may not have life saving c-sections because it will be a "pre existing condition". We may as well give birth in the field and keep on working.
|
| Posted 5/6/17 12:08 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] |
