GOP senators are rushing to pass Graham-Cassidy. We asked 9 to explain what it does.

Fenton said:

You said Grahm - Cassidy was a utter disaster, I simply reminded you what a utter disaster looks like

Click to expand...

Grahm-Cassidy repeals the employer mandate and the individual mandate and gives States the authority to waive some of ObamaCare eroneous regulations and mandates

It provides for medicaid block grants and removes Federal funding of abortion.

Is it perfect ? No, is it a step in the right way ? Yep

Click to expand...

Washington – The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association issued the following statement today in response to the health care reform bill proposed by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Dean Heller (R-NV) and Ron Johnson (R-WI).

“Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies are committed to ensuring that all Americans have access to health insurance coverage and the peace of mind that comes with it. The current market is not working, and we will continue to work with lawmakers on a bipartisan basis to improve the individual insurance marketplace with the goal of making coverage more affordable and accessible for all.

Although we support providing states with greater flexibility in shaping health care options for their residents, we share the significant concerns of many health care organizations about the proposed Graham-Cassidy bill. The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions. The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans. Legislation must also ensure adequate funding for Medicaid to protect the most vulnerable.

Click to expand...

That uncertainty has kept many center-right senators on the sidelines, including McCain, Murkowski and Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Graham and Cassidy spent Wednesday morning meeting with McConnell and working on Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), hoping to overcome their concerns that block grants could slash funding to Alaska.

“We’re very interested in helping Alaska because Alaska has 750,000 people. And a land mass bigger than Texas,” Graham said.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

And it removes the ten essential health benefits, ends medicaid expansion, reinstates lifetime/annual caps for coverage, and removes protections for pre-existing conditions. Are those steps in the right direction?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

It would seem that everybody but the Republican senators have a clearer sense of the impact of the Graham Cassidy bill. It probably wouldn't have hurt for them to ask the insurers themselves, if only for another perspective.



https://www.bcbs.com/news/press-rel...n-statement-graham-cassidy-health-care-reform

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Actually it doesn't remove protections for pre-existing conditions, it gives States the right to wave or retain those protections and that also applies to the 10 essential benefits.

Click to expand...

But it is a step in the right direction

Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:

No, you actually didn't.

As my link definitively demonstrated, it's an utter disaster.

Here, have some more.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../graham-cassidy-rewards-anti-obamacare-states
https://www.bcbs.com/news/press-rel...n-statement-graham-cassidy-health-care-reform

"Although we support providing states with greater flexibility in shaping health care options for their residents, we share the significant concerns of many health care organizations about the proposed Graham-Cassidy bill. The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions. The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans. Legislation must also ensure adequate funding for Medicaid to protect the most vulnerable. "

Yet again, you show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

You said Grahm - Cassidy was a utter disaster, I simply reminded you what a utter disaster looks like

Grahm-Cassidy repeals the employer mandate and the individual mandate and gives States the authority to waive some of ObamaCare eroneous regulations and mandates

It provides for medicaid block grants and removes Federal funding of abortion.

Is it perfect ? No, is it a step in the right way ? Yep

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

In other words, it removes protections for pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits.



Why?

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Liberal outrage-

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Actually it doesn't remove protections for pre-existing conditions, it gives States the right to wave or retain those protections and that also applies to the 10 essential benefits.

But it is a step in the right direction

The ACA allowed the Govt to dictate the minumum coverage , it allowed the Govt to define the risk that goes into pricing policies and then set in place price controls that limmited what insurers could charge regardless of age and health.

Click to expand...

To pay for all of it it created arbitrary price and profit shifting mechansims that would shift the cost for insuring older and sicker Americans onto the Middle class or younger Americans and it was a horrible plan.

Click to expand...

If States can do a better job of offsetting the cost of insuring older sicker Americans without stripping away the discretionary income of young Middle class Americans then more power to them

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

And how can you project the effects of the bill without hearings, without anyone scoring the bill, without anyone with expertise even hazarding a guess what the bill will do to premiums and coverage over the next few years? It's a step in the right direction because......why exactly?

If you get rid of community rating and the mandates, what will quickly happen is those with pre-existing conditions will again be forever unable to get a policy that the non-wealthy can afford. Premiums will come down on average most likely because the scheme will effectively cull the old and sick out of the insurance pool altogether. That's good for young and healthy but no so good if your wife has had breast cancer if you've had a heart attack and lose your employer coverage.

You have also mentioned that the deductible for a bronze plan is high, but that's because a bronze plan covers something like 70% of the actuarial cost of the coverage, and so the policy holder by definition has to cover the rest with premiums or copays/deductibles. Well, what will deductibles or copays/premiums etc. be under the replace, and how will cutting subsidies to those getting insurance make those figures BETTER? I guess if the policy no longer covers a bunch of expensive benefits like drugs, or pre and post natal care for problem babies that's a BIG savings, but then who pays for the NICU costs? They don't go away, they're just shifted, so where are they shifted?

Etc. Bottom line is no one has a clue what this thing will do, which is a feature of it, not a bug.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Liberal outrage over doing away with a healthcare law that hits the average family with rising premiums and a average 12,000 dollar deductible is telling

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

So now that you're resorting to ad homs, is it fair to say that you have no ability to defend the Graham-Cassidy bill, and no way to explain with any better coherence than the Republican Senators in the OP how it will be a fix to the ACA?

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Lol ! Blue Cross and Sheild has dropped out of a few exchanges Im sure.

Nebraska for sure. Wanna know why ?

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

From what Ive read today on the net its accurate.
Its like the GOP is trying to take away their favorite toy, theyre pissed

But that doesnt fix the ACA

Click to expand...

Mr Person said:

Pelosi, eh? Full quote on the bottom.


I really don't understand why other people don't understand that that deflection is less than a non-answer.

You lot raised hell over that deliberate misquoting of Pelosi (though it was admittedly an awkward sentence even in context); she was not saying she didn't know what was in it. She was saying that the American people were woefully misled by all the smokescreens and hell raising put on by the GOP, and that they would unfortunately only find out all the details once the smokescreens faded and it actually approached the effective date. She was not saying that she had no idea what was in it, as was pretended then, as the bolded "gotcha" now pretends.

But let's look further anyway. If you were right to raise hell then (you weren't, but if) - this assumes the hellraisers knew they weren't simply full of it at the time - then it is no answer for a hellraiser to raise the quote as some kind of but Obama style gotcha when, now, the GOP genuinely doesn't seem to know (or more likely, want to admit) what their bill actually does.





"They do it too" is simply not the defense people seem to think it is when they type things on debate boards.

Either it's bad now because it was bad then, and therefore you shouldn't be defending the GOP senators by referring to it. OR it was BS to pretend it was bad then, and it's a double-serving of BS to refer back to it now.

There's no mystical third option where it was bad when Dems did it but cool when Rs do it. (Again, not that what happened back then was like what is going on now, but playing along...)





Actual full Pelosi quote:

Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.



FACT CHECK: Did Nancy Pelosi Say Obamacare Must be Passed to 'Find Out What Is in It'?

Wow. Sounds a whole lot different than lying right-wingers made it sound when it's in context, eh?

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

And what will be the average deductible and other OOP costs under the GOP plan?

Seems to me you're banking on a money tree that allows for good coverage, lower premiums and lower deductibles and copays.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

The current healthcare law is unsutainable, has been for some time.

Its failing and I have yet to hear anyone come up with a decent plan that would keep it going and lower the cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions while providing the Middle class with quality affordbale care.

Just keeping it in place because its part of Obama's agenda and legacy isnt a option

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Banking on a money tree for good and affordable coverage is actually one of the funding mechansims for ObamaCare.

Covering older and sicker Americans with pre-existing conditions is very very expensive, obviously

Obama and rhe Democrats took a swing at it and tried to address this issue but they failed. Insurers are not going to remain in the exchanges while they bleed money and young people are not going to buy insurance on the exchanges because its far too expensive

So whats the alternaitve ?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

What is accurate? Are you saying the Graham-Cassidy isn't a viable fix to anything? You just said it's a positive step forward. How?

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

Goodness, all you can do is just keep moving the goal posts around. I get it. You are whining about the high deductible of a plan that by design only covers roughly 70% of the costs, so insureds have to pick up the other 30%, and therefore high deductibles are baked in, by design. And you know the GOP alternative cannot really bring those numbers down without 1) shifting other costs like higher premiums or denying coverage entirely to insureds or 2) culling the sick and old from the pool. And, if 2) then you can't tell us what happens to those folks, where those costs get shifted. So you're in an impossible position, really.

And so you punt making a coherent argument by moving the goal posts.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

I said it was a start, but not perfect.

Click to expand...

It takes power and authority away from the Federal Govt and transfers it back to the State and the consumer

Click to expand...

It is as close to a Federalist solution as I think we're going to see and it moves healthcare in this Country further away from Single payer, not closer and thats a improvment

Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:

I accept your admission that you cannot argue the evidence.

Click to expand...