|
Post by annaj26 on May 9, 2017 15:30:25 GMT -5
Here's what's going on now. Early splits appear as Senate Republicans confront Medicaid choice Early splits appear as Senate Republicans confront Medicaid choice © Getty Republican senators hailing from states that took ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion are taking different tacks on defending the program as much of their party looks to end it. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told reporters Tuesday that he supports rolling back the Medicaid expansion by ending the extra federal money for it, as long as there is a "soft landing." But Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told The Hill that she wants the expansion of coverage to remain, though she said it did not have to be in the same form. ObamaCare provided extra federal money to states allowing them to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs, which help poor and disabled residents, with the federal government paying 90 percent of the costs. Accepting the expansion became optional after the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be forced to take it. The Medicaid expansion has provided health insurance to about 11 million people, and what to do about it is one of the thorniest questions facing the Senate as it begins work on its ObamaCare repeal plan. Portman said he supported ending the extra federal funding for the program eventually and that a new tax credit in the Senate bill, as well as money in a “stabilization fund,” could help people currently in the Medicaid expansion get private coverage. Asked if the extra federal funds would go away, Portman said: “Yes, but there would also be a stabilization fund, there would also be funding for a tax credit that's not available currently, and I'd like to change the House version of the tax credit, by the way, focus it more on people who are close to the poverty line.” The House bill would end the federal funds for the Medicaid expansion after 2020. Portman said that date could be pushed back. “I think there ought to be a soft landing,” he said. Capito, though, took a more forceful stance in defense of keeping Medicaid expansion. “I am seriously interested in reforms to Medicaid and better ways to make the money go further, but I’ve seen a lot of benefits to the Medicaid expansion in our state, particularly in the mental health and opioid and drug abuse areas,” Capito said. Asked if that meant she wants to keep Medicaid expansion, Capito said, “Well, yeah, I mean, we need to make sure these folks have access permanently either under this or some other kind of way.” “We can't just drop them off and wish em good luck,” she added. Republicans senators from states that have expanded Medicaid have been meeting to discuss the issue. Portman said about eight of them met before a meeting of the Senate’s healthcare working group on Tuesday. But if senators from states that have expanded Medicaid are split, it could diminish the ability of any lawmaker to try to preserve the program. Conservatives are pushing to phase out the program as quickly as possible. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, has said he has spoken with Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) on a plan to phase out the Medicaid expansion, perhaps over a longer period than is called for in the House bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), whose state also expanded the government insurance program, declined to elaborate on her views. “I've got to figure out a way to make sure that the fine people of Alaska who have seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion don't have the rug pulled out from underneath them,” she said. “End of comment.” by Peter Sullivan thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332576-early-splits-appear-as-senate-republicans-confront-medicaid-choice
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on May 21, 2017 20:11:12 GMT -5
This decision by Trump will affect the middle working class as hard as it will the poor. I tried to c&p most of the article because there's a plug in on that site that's hard to deal with. Trump administration faces decision on ObamaCare payments A growing number of House Republicans are facing physical threats from angry constituents in their districts, leading many to fear for their safety. In the last few weeks alone, the FBI arrested a man threatening Rep. Martha McSally's (R-Ariz.) life, a woman pursued Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.) in her car, and Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.) heightened security at a town hall event in response to death threats. Other Republicans still holding town halls say they haven't felt physically threatened by protesters, but they worry about the depth of anger from some constituents in the polarized environment and what it means for political civility. Scores of GOP lawmakers have experienced going viral this year with videos of constituents shouting their disagreement on support for President Trump and policies such as the GOP’s healthcare bill. Lately, though, Republicans have observed some furious constituents who appear to be going even further. Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) described attendees at a town hall in his district last week who booed him down after he said people’s rights are God-given. “They booed God. They booed the pastor. They booed the prayer. They booed the name of the church. They booed when I said rights come from God,” Brat recounted to The Hill just off the House floor. “That’s a fundamental tenet of western civilization. I mean, I didn’t think that was partisan.” Further north in New Jersey, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R) faced pushback from a crowd when he began telling the story of his special-needs daughter who died at the age of 11. “Shame!” people shouted. “We’ve heard this story.” “This child in 11 years has shaped my life more than anybody. So if I talk about my daughter too much, well then so be it. But this is the one human being that has impacted my life more than anybody,” MacArthur said. Another person sarcastically yelled out MacArthur should write a book about it. “Maybe I will write a book,” MacArthur shot back. Still, not every town hall has veered into nastiness. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), a top Democratic target in 2018, said his town hall attendees expressed their clear displeasure with his positions but remained civil. “You know, they had the signs and stuff like that. But I thought they were pretty nice, I thought they were pretty respectful,” Coffman said. “From the stories I have heard in other districts, I’ve got it pretty good,” he said. But an increasing number of lawmakers’ encounters with constituents, even in deep-red districts, have gotten ugly. go here for the rest thehill.com/policy/healthcare/334309-trump-administration-faces-decision-on-obamacare-payments
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on May 23, 2017 21:01:41 GMT -5
I do not want take the time to run down an appropriate link tonight, but Trumkp's budget is gutting Medicaid. I'll try to post a link next time.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Jun 11, 2017 20:49:00 GMT -5
Ex-Medicare head: GOP using 'sabotage, speed and secrecy' to pass ObamaCare repeal By Olivia Beavers - 06/11/17 06:44 PM EDT Andy Slavitt, acting administrator for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under President Obama, penned an op-ed in The Washington Post Saturday that slams Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for using “sabotage, speed and secrecy” to work on passing the GOP healthcare bill in the upper chamber. Slavitt said McConnell should rewrite the House-passed healthcare bill that repeals and replaces key ObamaCare provisions, given the Congressional Budget Office analysis that showed 23 million people would lose healthcare under that plan. "Faced with that reality, McConnell could have started over and had the Senate develop its own legislation, perhaps even working with Democrats on a bipartisan alternative that could withstand the test of time,” Slavitt wrote. “Instead, McConnell put a plan in place to pass something close to the House bill using three simple tools: sabotage, speed and secrecy.” Slavitt said facts discount the GOP’s argument that “ObamaCare has failed,” which they are using to “sabotage” the Affordable Care Act (ACA). “Taking advantage of those now well-documented efforts to sabotage the ACA, McConnell is reportedly telling his members they have no choice but to pass a replacement,” the former acting administrator said. He cited the efforts of McConnell to push for a “fast-track procedure” to get the bill passed before the July Fourth recess, before hearings could show the consequences. “So last week McConnell deployed Rule XIV, a fast-track procedure that bypasses the committee process and moves the bill directly to the floor. Just as in the House, we’re on track to have a vote with no hearings (there were more than 100 for the ACA). Knowing the coverage loss will be significant, McConnell plans to vote within only days, or possibly even hours, of the release of the CBO score,” Slavitt writes. He said “secrecy” is a tool McConnell is using because the bill won’t pass unless it is "kept secret for as long as possible.” He cited instances where Republican senators will break from the party vote if the bill proves to negatively impact a lawmaker’s state, pointing states dealing with the opioid crisis that may be hurt if Medicaid gets drastically cut. He acknowledged that McConnell may try to appease these senators by including "a small 'opioid fund'" in the bill. Slavitt said McConnell “might not even mind” if the bill doesn’t pass because it will “preserve the Senate’s role as our deliberative body with the good judgment not to bow to political winds.” thehill.com/homenews/senate/337353-former-cms-head-op-ed-mcconnell-is-using-sabotage-speed-and-secrecy-as-tools
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 15, 2017 21:31:20 GMT -5
Single Payer for All (something to think about from TruthOut) This may include a bid for a donation. Take it or leave it, just be sure you understand what it's all about. www.truth-out.org/medicare-for-all
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 21, 2017 1:19:23 GMT -5
I've been out of town, am tired and need sleep. I'd like to post about the Health Care bill that the Senate is supposed to roll out on Thursday so to do that in the most economical way, I'm going to leave a very good link. This lays the options and possibilities out in a clear, easy to understand way. Read. Learn stuff. www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-trumpcare-ahca-obamacare-votes-mcconnell/
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Jun 21, 2017 9:02:08 GMT -5
Tomorrow, the Senate is going to trot out what they've put together to repeal the affordable care act.
No comment until we see what's going on. Trump told them not to be mean, but there are some in the Senate like Ted Cruz who won't be happy unless it's as mean as they can make it.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Jun 22, 2017 19:59:15 GMT -5
Keeping an eye on Health Care legislation. it will come together one way or the other within a week. The trick will be if the moderate Republicans can hold out over the Ted Cruz/Rand Paul hard core right wingers.
If you have NEW news, keep us posted here.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jun 23, 2017 0:52:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 23, 2017 10:30:25 GMT -5
Senate Health Care Bill: Who it will help, who it will hurt Who it will help Younger Americans could pay less for coverage. Like its counterpart in the House, the Senate plan would lower premiums for younger Americans by allowing insurers to charge older enrollees more. Policyholders age 20 to 29 would save between $700 and $4,000 a year, on average, according to a study by the Milliman actuarial firm on behalf of the AARP Public Policy Institute. Would the Senate bill to repeal Obamacare help you or hurt you? Tell us about it at healthcarestories@cnn.com and you could be featured in an upcoming story. Also, unlike Obamacare, the Senate bill would provide more generous subsidies to enrollees in their 20s and 30s who qualify for aid. They would pay no more than 6.4% and 8.9% of their household income, respectively, towards premiums. That compares to 16.2% for an enrollee in his early 60s. The healthy could buy less expensive plans that cover fewer services. Obamacare requires insurers to offer plans with comprehensive coverage that pick up a certain share of the average costs. But those mandates also made policies more costly, prompting complaints from those who don't want such a rich benefits package. The Senate bill would allow states to opt out of those provisions, which would permit insurers to sell slimmer, but less expensive plans. That would likely be fine for healthy consumers who don't go to the doctor much. The wealthy would pay less in taxes. Just as in the House bill, the Senate legislation would eliminate two taxes that Obamacare levied on the wealthy to help pay for the law. Under the Affordable Care Act, single taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 annually have to pay an additional 0.9% Medicare payroll tax on the amount they earn above these thresholds. These taxpayers may also be hit with a tax surcharge of 3.8% on investment income above those thresholds. These levies would disappear in 2023 and 2017, respectively. And the bill would allow folks to contribute more to Health Savings Accounts, which are primarily used by Americans who are better off and can afford to sock money away for health care expenses. Insurers would receive more federal funds. Aiming to stabilize the individual market in the near term, the Senate would allocate funds for the cost sharing subsidies until 2019. These payments reduce the deductibles and co-pays for more than half of policyholders on the Obamacare exchanges. Insurers have been pressuring President Trump and congressional Republicans to guarantee the funding of the subsidies for months. The uncertainty surrounding the payments is prompting some carriers to hike rates for 2018 or drop out of the exchanges. The bill also provides $50 billion over four years, starting in 2018, to help stabilize the insurance market. This reinsurance fund would give federal injections to insurers to help them cover higher-cost enrollees. Who gets hurtMany Obamacare enrollees will pay more out-of-pocket for health care services. There are several measures in the Senate bill that would increase deductibles and co-pays for many Obamacare policyholders. The primary one ties the premiums subsidies to the cost of bronze plans instead of silver ones, upon which Obamacare payments are based. In 2017, the average deductible for a silver plan is just under $3,600, according to Health Pocket, an insurance shopping site. But bronze plans have an average deductible of nearly $6,100. This means consumers will likely have to pay more out of pocket to see the doctor and get treatment. Also, insurers will be able to cover less of the cost of care and offer skimpier policies in states that waive certain Obamacare insurance regulations. They would also be able to sell plans with very high deductibles if states opt out of the Obamacare provision that caps consumers' out-of-pocket costs. In 2017, policyholders only have to pay up to $7,150 a year for services covered under the essential health benefits provision. The Senate bill does provide $62 billion in state grants to lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for Obamacare enrollees, particularly those who are sick. But experts say the money wouldn't go very far. Lower-income Americans could be left uninsured. About 11 million Americans gained coverage under Obamacare's Medicaid expansion provision. The Senate bill would eliminate the enhanced federal funding for the program by 2024. While that extends Medicaid expansion's life for a few years longer than the House bill, the end result is the same: Low-income adults would likely be kicked off the rolls. Lawmakers would also limit federal support for the overall Medicaid program, which covers more than 70 million low-income children, parents, elderly and disabled Americans. States don't have the resources to make up the difference, so they would likely reduce eligibility, curtail benefits or cut provider payments. All this would likely leave poor Americans either without coverage or with plans that cover fewer services. It may also make it harder to see a doctor since fewer physicians may be willing to take a pay cut to see Medicaid patients. While the Senate bill would open up the subsidies to enrollees below the poverty level who don't qualify for Medicaid, it's questionable whether the poor could afford coverage even with federal assistance. Senators would also eliminate the cost-sharing subsidies -- which reduce deductibles and co-pays for lower-income Obamacare enrollees -- in 2020. More than half of those who buy policies on the exchanges qualify for this assistance, which can shrink their deductibles to as little as a few hundred dollars a year. Older enrollees would see premiums soar. Americans in their 50s and early 60s benefited from Obamacare because insurers could only charge them three times more than younger policyholders. The bill would widen that band to five-to-one. That would mean that adults ages 60 to 64 would see their annual premiums soar 22% to nearly $18,000, according to the Milliman study for the AARP. Those in their 50s would be hit with a 13% increase and pay an annual premium of $12,800. What's more, the Senate bill would provide less generous subsidies to older folks who are eligible for assistance. Those in their early 60s would have to pay up to 16.2% of their income towards coverage, compared to a maximum of 6.4% for 20-somethings. Fewer middle class Americans would qualify for subsidies. The Senate bill would tighten the eligibility criteria for premium subsidies starting in 2020, shutting out more middle class folks from government help. Only those earning up to 350% of the poverty level ($41,600 in 2017) would qualify, rather than the 400% threshold ($47,500 in 2017) contained in Obamacare. Those with pre-existing conditions or opioid addictions may receive fewer covered services. Under Obamacare, insurers must provide 10 essential health benefits, including maternity, mental health, substance abuse and prescription drugs. The Senate bill would allow states to seek waivers of this provision, opening the door for insurers to offer less comprehensive policies. This means those with pre-existing conditions may not be able to buy plans that cover all of their treatments and care. money.cnn.com/2017/06/23/news/economy/senate-health-care-hurt-helped/index.html
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 23, 2017 11:59:32 GMT -5
PLEASE READ. THE MEDICAL PERSONNEL I WORK WITH GIVE IT A THUMBS UP More on the Senate Health Care Bill
Just About Every Major Medical Group Hates the GOP Health Care Plans Groups representing pediatricians, cancer specialists, heart doctors and family physicians all agree: Both the House and the Senate offerings for fixing health care in the U.S. would make things worse, not better. Within hours of its release, groups representing medical professionals were denouncing the Senate version, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act or BCRA. “The Senate draft health care bill is literally heartless,” American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said. Here are five reasons so many medical professionals oppose the Republican-proposed changes made so far to the 2010 Affordable Care Act: Women Medicaid covers half the births in the U.S. right now and the House and Senate bills would both not only pull back the expansion of Medicaid that underlay Obamacare, but reduce federal funding for the original program, too. “Medicaid coverage for up to 6.5 million women of childbearing age will be rescinded, making it harder for them to get healthy before they get pregnant,” March of Dimes president Stacey Stewart said. “BCRA discriminates against providers of women’s health services, cutting funding for in the awarding of federal grant funds and/or Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding to women’s health clinics that are qualified under existing federal law for the provision of evidence‐based services including, but not limited to, provision of contraception, preventive health screenings, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, vaccines, counseling, rehabilitation, and referrals," said Dr. Jack Ende, president of the American College of Physicians. Children Medicaid covers 39 percent of children in the U.S., according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Senate leaders present their bill as providing states with flexibility. The reality is that it will put considerable pressure on states to limit their spending on health care, including for children," said Dr. Matthew Davis, a professor of pediatrics and of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “The bill includes misleading ‘protections’ for children by proposing to exempt them from certain Medicaid cuts,” added Dr. Fernando Stein, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "A ‘carve-out’ for children with ‘medically complex’ health issues does little to protect their coverage when the base program providing the coverage is stripped of its funding. Doing so forces states to chip away coverage in other ways, by not covering children living in poverty who do not have complex health conditions, or by scaling back the benefits that children and their families depend on,” Stein added. “Medicaid allows a college student with cerebral palsy to live independently. Medicaid pays for a toddler’s wheelchair, and as she grows over time, it covers the next one and the one after that.” The poor Medicaid is traditionally the state-federal health plan for the low-income, disabled, and children and cutting it will have repercussions across the health care system as people either wait until they’re at death’s door to get treatment, or head to emergency rooms that by law must save their lives, health policy experts stress. The costs get passed on to taxpayers and people with health insurance. “Medicaid is there for families struggling from the opioid epidemic, covering treatment for parents and services for their children. Medicaid covers a grandmother’s chemotherapy and a newborn baby’s emergency heart surgery and a six-year-old’s hearing screening and a teenager’s asthma inhaler,” Stein said. “The Senate proposal would likely trigger deep cuts to the Medicaid program that covers millions of Americans with chronic conditions such as cancer, along with the elderly and individuals with disabilities who need long-term services and support. Medicaid cuts of this magnitude are unsustainable and will increase costs to individuals with private insurance," added Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association. The sick and disabled “Americans with pre-existing conditions will likewise suffer under this proposal because it would give states the ability to discriminate against the sick by obtaining waivers for essential benefits," said the Heart Association’s Brown. “States can then create their own essential benefits packages which could exclude prevention benefits, rehabilitation and rehabilitation services — all critical for people with cardiovascular disease.” States may feel pressured to let health insurers cut back on what conditions they will cover. That could mean cheaper premiums, and create the illusion of more choice, but health policy experts say it will mean bare-bones policies in many states that cover very little. “This bill creates a false narrative that says it will help people with pre-existing conditions, but instead it allows states to waive essential health benefits such as vital prescription drugs, mental and behavioral health services, and preventive services,” said Paul Kawata, executive director of the HIV advocacy group NMAC. The Elderly Medicaid also covers two-thirds of people in nursing homes. “We are disappointed that the legislation fails to meet our guiding principles for healthcare reform by halting Medicaid expansion, reinstating annual and lifetime coverage caps, and cutting coverage for essential health benefits including cancer screening,” said Dr. Bruce Johnson, president of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. The health care bills in the House and Senate would also let companies charge older people more for insurance than they would younger customers. “We are concerned that no public hearings were held and no physician or patient expertise was sought during the bill's development,” the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association and American Psychiatric Association said in a joint statement. “The American Health Care Act, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, is an inherently flawed bill that would do great harm to our patients. The Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act would also leave patients drastically worse off than current law," the statement said. www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/just-about-every-major-medical-group-hates-gop-health-care-n776001
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 23, 2017 12:47:53 GMT -5
Just About Every Major Medical Group Hates the GOP Health Care Plans Yes, the GOP plan is never going to make them rich. That's why they're against it. Under single payer, they'd each get about $25 for an office visit, and not much more for expensive procedures. Are they calling for that, instead? What's that? They're not?
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jun 23, 2017 12:56:03 GMT -5
I saw a clipping earlier this morning that one of the Senators said if this bill does not become law, we will go to a single payer plan when the Democrate have a majority once again.
I believe you are too cynical about the doctors, Joseph. They really do care about their patients.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 23, 2017 13:38:05 GMT -5
I believe you are too cynical about the doctors, Joseph. They really do care about their patients. Not as much as they used to, and I can't blame them. My beef with the RINOs in Congress is their betrayal of the electorate, who wanted the ACA REPEALED, not replaced. It doesn't really matter anyway. Obamacare is on a death spiral no matter what the government does. The sooner it is gone, the better for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 23, 2017 20:30:25 GMT -5
I believe you are too cynical about the doctors, Joseph. They really do care about their patients. Not as much as they used to, and I can't blame them. My beef with the RINOs in Congress is their betrayal of the electorate, who wanted the ACA REPEALED, not replaced. It doesn't really matter anyway. Obamacare is on a death spiral no matter what the government does. The sooner it is gone, the better for everyone. It doesn't matter whether it's ACA or some other, GOP driven plan, as long as it's a solid health care plan for all. if congress wants to give the 1% big tax breaks, they should find another way than by cutting medical needs for vulnerable people.
|
|