Trump says Repeal, Replace Later and Self-employed/Small businesses might lose affordable coverage!!!

Like Trump's comment that took the nations breath away...:

Yet House and Senate Republican plans are getting trashed, not surprisingly, in this most recent poll:

So if Republicans can't prevent 23 million people from losing their health care insurance with a new plan, at least just dump the Affordable Care Act outright?

Dumb doesn't begin to describe taking this kind of chance with 8 percent of the economy. But get a load of what his in-the-tank true believing followers think:

Among Republicans, Trump wouldn't bear the brunt of the blame if Congress is unable to repeal and replace Obamacare. Just 6 percent would blame him, and half said they would blame congressional Democrats. Another 20 percent said they would blame GOP lawmakers.

Of course Republicans are only doing what voters wanted them to do...see graph....

The Senate's Better Care Act adds mind-boggling costly complexity to the U.S. health care system. 

For me, an "all payer system" is simple; every doctor is your doctor, every hospital is your hospital. No bills, no worries ever. .

Waaayyyyyy too easy say Republicans, who want us to spend days, months and years maneuvering through their nightmarish and complicated idea of free market freedom. One idea is so ridiculously convoluted and costly that it numbs the mind, making people join a group formed to manage health policy...seriously?

KFFDotOrg: Association Health Plans for Small Groups and Self-Employed Individuals under the Better Care Reconciliation Act: The Senate Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), a proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), includes a provision to create new association health plan options for small employers and self-employed individuals ... the ACA requirement that premiums cannot vary based on health status does not apply in the large group market. Neither does the requirement for policies to cover ten categories of essential health benefits. 

SBHPs would be able to set premiums for small firm and self-employed members based on health and risk status ... However, in the event a covered individual becomes seriously ill or injured, nothing under federal law would prevent the SBHP insurer from raising the premium for that small employer or self-employed individual, even to unaffordable levels. This could lead to premiums in the traditional small group market becoming much higher for employers who need to seek coverage there ... making health insurance less affordable for sick individuals and small groups who would have to rely on them, and potentially not available at all.

Dumb Ron Johnson Admits GOP Market based Health Care Guarantee doesn't Work!!!

The GOP health care plan is actually worse than many of the experts predict because they continue to low ball premium and deductible increases. I remember how the market worked before the ACA in the individual market, and it was bad, real bad. Back around 2006, and with no health problems, my deductible was $10,500, imagine what it would be today.

Dumb Ron Johnson is Back: Paul Ryan wrongly conflates health care with a consumer product, so he can make a "free market" argument for reform. He's scamming us.

So in roars Dumb Ron Johnson comparing our bodies with "crashed" cars. But we don't keep cars our entire life, and cars can be junked...not our bodies. If it's true that guaranteeing coverage for the sick crashes as Johnson claims, than maybe that market model is wrong? That's why every other country uses a different model, some form of a universal care, and it works...no crashes:

Johnson: “We know why those premiums doubled. We’ve done something with our health care system that you would never think about doing, for example, with auto insurance, where you would require auto insurance companies to sell a policy to somebody after they crash their car.”

“States that have enacted guaranteed issue for preexisting conditions, it crashes their markets. It causes the markets to collapse. It causes premiums to skyrocket.”

So...let's go with that plan?



Rand Paul says he want to legalize "Inexpensive Insurance," basically Junk Policies: I heard one reporter say Paul is pushing "junksurance." Sure, you may be under-insured and go bankrupt, but Rand Paul is there to protect your freedom. Yeah?

Paul is apparently unaware of the role men play in women's pregnancies. So he's thinks women should pay the whole bill. "Social responsibility" and "for the greater good" are being replaced with the politics of resentment, where you can always ask, "why should I have to pay for someone else's problem."

Senate "Healthy Tax Cut Care" ironically renamed "Better Care" Reconciliation Act!

Pure politics...(see below).

I'll be taking a look at the plan right here later. What I did find interesting was a point made on NPR this morning; the argument that insurers were abandoning the market in so many areas means Republicans must do something now. Aside from the fact their uncertain plans are making insurers run from the individual market completely, on and off the exchanges, the number of people effected is misleading...big surprise. 

It's a sign of the uncertainty in health insurance right now in the United States, with insurers like Anthem unsure what the market will look like going forward. "Until there’s some certainty about what the market is going to look like, it won’t be surprising to see insurance carriers more and more saying, we don’t think we can go forward in this kind of business environment that’s very uncertain. We need some kind of certainty.'"

While around 50,000 people might not have a choice of insurers around the country, that pales in comparison to the 23 million people losing insurance if the Senate bill is passed.

And rural areas will be most negatively impacted due to the Senates changes to Medicaid:The GOP's American Health Care Act would cut Medicaid — the public insurance program for many low-income families, children and elderly Americans, as well as people with disabilities — by as much as $834 billion.

Since 2010, at least 79 rural hospitals have closed across the country, and nearly 700 more are at risk of closing. These hospitals serve a largely older, poorer and sicker population than most hospitals, making them particularly vulnerable to changes made to Medicaid funding. And a rural hospital closure goes beyond people losing health care. Jobs, property values and even schools can suffer.

Pure Politics: With an eye toward the presidential election, and further gerrymandering in 2020, Republicans are delaying changes to Medicaid expansion. There is no other reason. VOX.COM:

The Senate bill begins to phase out the Medicaid expansion in 2021 — and cuts the rest of the program’s budget too. The Senate bill would end the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid to millions of low-income Americans. This program has provided coverage to more Americans than the private marketplaces.

The Senate bill provides smaller subsidies for less generous health insurance plans with higher deductibles. The Senate bill will tether the size of its tax credits to what it takes to purchase a skimpier health insurance plan than the type of plans Affordable Care Act subsidies were meant to buy. Essentially, these tax credits buy less health insurance.

Here's a little more on the above changes. Remember, Republican falsely claimed people on ObamaCare could get sick and then buy insurance...not true, but the Senate plan does just that. Any complaints voters?

The Senate bill repeals the individual mandate — and replaces it with nothing. takes away a key incentive healthy people have to buy coverage, meaning only sick people may sign up.  Building a health insurance system without an individual mandate or any replacement policy runs a significant risk of falling into a death spiral, where only the sickest people buy coverage and premiums keep ticking upward.
 The bill would cut taxes for the wealthy.

The Senate bill would tether its tax credits to less generous health insurance. Specifically, it would provide subsidies that make a plan with a 58 percent actuarial value (meaning, on average, it covers 58 percent of enrollees’ costs) affordable. This means that the plans people could afford under the Senate bill would likely have more copays and higher deductibles as a way to bump up the amount enrollees have to chip in for their own coverage. 

Randy Bryce's campaign ad taking on Paul Ryan the real thing.

Yesterday I visited my nearby urgent care center over a possible tick bite, and after being told there was a 1 to 2 hour wait, I decided to wait it out. That was an obscene amount of time though.

Sitting across the room was a 12 or 13 year old boy, weary a required surgical mask to block airborne germs from spreading, moaning and crying in his chair. This went on for a nightmarish 20 minutes. It was heart wrenching to watch others being called in to see the doctor while this child sat crying in the lobby in so much pain.

At least he had some kind of medical coverage, or he wouldn't have been there at all. But it was an experience I will never forget.

I just watched an great campaign ad from a new Democratic challenger to Paul Ryan that piggy backed on my experience at that urgent care center:

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is already facing his second challenger. Randy Bryce, a union ironworker, announced on Monday that he would seek the Democratic nomination to run against Ryan, and released a video emphasizing what has so far been the biggest issue of the year: health care. 

The two-and-a-half-minute video featured Bryce’s mother, who described living with multiple sclerosis and the 20 drugs she must take to survive. “There’s no doubt in my mind that there are thousands of people like her who don’t have what she has,” Bryce said in the video. “The system is extremely flawed.”

Bryce issued a challenge to Ryan. “Let’s trade places,” Bryce said. “Paul Ryan, you can come work the iron and I’ll go to D.C.” Bryce is a cancer survivor, community activist and Army veteran. 

But someone this sincere and with this kind of message had his chance once, according to WISGOP, and had been castoff by Democratic voters. In another example of extreme projection, WISGOP wrote: "Bryce will say and do anything to...defend his liberal special interest friends." Real substance there:

He’s also run unsuccessfully twice for the state legislature, The Associated Press reported. Republicans were quick to seize on that.

“The voters of Wisconsin have already rejected Randy Bryce multiple times. Instead of fighting for hardworking Wisconsin families, Randy Bryce will say and do anything to get to Washington and defend his liberal special interest friends.”

The Senate Secretly passing Nightmare Health Care bill filled with Tax Breaks to Special interests.

Sen. Chris Murphy is getting a lot play out of this because of what the Republicans are secretly trying to do with Americans health care, or maybe what they're not doing.  It's the health care windfall bill for special interests. Brutal and honest:

Entrenched Rural Conservative Voters will Lose again under Walker's AHCA Waiver.

Rural resentment continues, unabated by Walker Republicans hoping to keep their majorities, even as debt spending increases and legacy public investments are abandoned and tossed off to private special interests. 

There was a hope that criticism of Scott Walker's policies would peak the interest of rural conservative voters enough to seek out the truth, but they instead dug their heels in even deeper and defended their party's "leader." 

Here's another example of how they're just going to get even more angry and resentful, while blaming liberals for being so critical. And they say they're forgotten, ignored by the government? They soon will be: 

WKOW: A new report shows Medicaid provides more health coverage to rural communities than Wisconsin's metro areas.

The study, by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families (CCF) and the University of North Carolina NC Rural Health Research Project found that an average 34% of children in rural areas and small towns in Wisconsin receive health coverage through Medicaid and BadgerCare. That number is 31% in metropolitan areas. Medicaid participation is also higher for adults in rural Wisconsin, but by a smaller margin. The report lists 14% of adults as using Medicaid in rural areas, versus 13% in metro areas.

In light of this study, the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families also notes that since the Affordable Care Act took effect, the number of people without insurance in Wisconsin has dropped, especially in the state's rural areas. From 2009 to 2015, uninsured adults went from 15% to 9%, and kids went from 6% to 5%.

Republicans voted for AHCA before they knew what was in it, and it costs everyone A LOT!!!

Just put the finishing touches on the CBO analysis of the final version of the AHCA House bill.

Big time premium increases, big time numbers of people losing insurance, and the healthy will either not get coverage or pay slightly smaller premiums, all on the backs of the sick. Kind of an ugly vision that Republicans were happy enough to celebrate with Trump in the rose garden.

I thought MSNBC's Ali Velshi did the best analysis:



Here are few graphics that Ryan had no problem celebrating in the Rose Garden. The lower premium INCREASES would only be a fraction different from the ACA:

You'll be hearing this a lot:

Republicans can -- and already are -- pushing back against the CBO. "The CBO has a long track record of being way, way off in its modeling, with predictions often differing drastically from what actually happens."

That's not really true; remember, the Supreme Courts decision that blocked the Medicaid 50 state requirement the CBO used to predict enrollment, that's the fault of the GOP's lawsuit against the ACA.

Family Values Party makes Families out of reach for Poor: True:

Vox Email-Sarah Kliff: The bill could also expose pregnant women and people receiving treatment for substance abuse to exorbitant medical bills … Nixing the requirement that health plans cover certain essential health benefits could have devastating effects for women who are pregnant and for people struggling with addiction. Some states — where one in six Americans live — would probably seek substantial waivers from the essential health benefits requirement, according to CBO. "Out-of-pocket spending on maternity care and mental health and substance abuse services could increase by thousands of dollars in a given year.

And this is an outrageous way to make health care premiums affordable, right?

House Republicans touted the CBO's findings that some people in states with AHCA waivers would see lower premiums. But the report makes clear that would be achieved by driving sick people out of the market and leaving these populations with higher medical bills. Create individual-market instability in states seeking fuller waivers where one-sixth of the U.S. population lives; premiums for people seeking to buy comprehensive plans would become unaffordable. (more below)

There's still more:

Premiums would fall about 10% to 30% in the second group but those savings would come from dropping benefits considered essential by the ACA and people with pre-existing conditions would no longer be protected—something Republicans promised would not happen.

Premiums would fall about 10% to 30% in the second group but those savings would come from dropping benefits considered essential by the ACA and people with pre-existing conditions would no longer be protected—something Republicans promised would not happen. 

Rick Pollack, president of the American Hospital Association, issued a statement that said: "We cannot support legislation that the CBO clearly indicates would jeopardize coverage for millions of Americans." MetroHealth's uncompensated care fell from 11% of revenue to somewhere between 4.5% and 5.5% of revenue, varying over time. Hospitals in all states that expanded Medicaid benefited similarly. 

Still more: 

Paul Ryan has a website up, right now, where he declares "VERIFIED: MacArthur and Upton Amendments Strengthen AHCA, Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions." 

CBO says this isn't true — and is unequivocal on the point. There is this one paragraph in particular that is especially devastating for the Republican plan: 

People who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all — despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs.

Republicans run from Constituents, blame "threats" and "safety" concerns for blowback from their own unpopular agenda!!!

Republican speakers have played up their fear of angry liberal crowds on the nations college campuses for years. The more security they think they need, the more supposed threats they get, and the more controversy created in the media, the more famous and richer they become. Research David Horowitz's book selling, speaking tour con job, now being used by Ann Coulter and others.   

These blatant self-serving tours of victimhood are now being adopted by House Republicans…because it works.

So, who’s going to buy into the whiny Republican excuses about “threats” and “safety” as a reason not to meet with constituents anymore? What, can't take the rowdy town halls and loud angry forgotten real Americans? These are the same cowards and whiners who claimed they needed concealed carry to protect themselves against other imagined bogymen.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but constituent anger, even happiness, is the final arbiter in our system of checks and balances. You just can’t cut that out because it’s uncomfortable to answer to the public for radically unpopular decisions.

Be amazed at the Republicans fearful reaction to the perceived threats and the predictable consequences of their radical agenda. The Hill:

A growing number of House Republicans are facing physical threats from angry constituents in their districts, leading many to fear for their safety. 

Scores of GOP lawmakers have experienced going viral this year with video of constituents shouting their disagreement on support for President Trump and policies like the GOP’s healthcare bill. 

In the last few weeks alone, the FBI arrested a man threatening Rep. Martha McSally's (Ariz.) life; a woman pursued Rep. David Kustoff (Tenn.) with her car, and Rep. Thomas Garrett (Va.) heightened security at a recent town hall 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.  

Well, that kind misses the point, right? It’s policy that is the polarizing factor!!!

Our cafeteria conservatives often try to get around the Constitution by resorting to our “God given rights,” a sneaky religious expansion that runs counter to the 1^st Amendment.  So is it “a fundamental tenet of western civilization?”  

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.”

One Republican who continues to tell the story about losing his special needs daughter doesn’t get that backing TrumpCare makes him a hypocrite and shameful exploiter of his own family tragedy.

Further north in New Jersey, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) 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 … “Maybe I will write a book,” MacArthur shot back. 

Yet Democrats don’t have the same problem, again because of the publics roll in our checks and balances system.

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.”

Now gun loving Republicans, who backed Clive Bundy’s use of weapons to threaten government agents, cheered on armed civil protests for open carry, and passed right to kill “stand your ground” laws are scared to death of angry armed...liberals. Big surprise? For every action, there’s a equal and opposite reaction…or did Republicans forget? It doesn’t make it right, but desperate Americans who need their health care to stay alive are left with few civil choices:

The FBI arrested a Tucson, Ariz. man for leaving three threatening messages on McSally’s congressional office voicemail, in which he allegedly said her days “were numbered” and threatened to shoot her. A criminal complaint filed last week in the U.S. District Court in Tucson said the suspect told agents he was upset over McSally’s votes in support of Trump … the same swing district previously represented by then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in 2011 during a constituent meet-and-greet.

In Tennessee, a woman angry over Kustoff’s vote for the GOP health care bill this month pursued a car carrying him from an event at a local university. Kustoff and a staffer eventually turned into a driveway and came to a stop. Then the woman approached the car, yelled at Kustoff and struck the car’s windows, according to local reports.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.)  spokesman Andrew Griffin said the freshman lawmaker has received at least three death threats … One constituent called Garrett’s Washington, D.C. office and said if his health care is taken away, he would take Garrett’s life away.

A constituent angry over the GOP’s healthcare bill approached Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), took dollar bills from his wallet and tried to shove them into the lawmaker’s suit pocket, the Bismarck Tribune reported. 
 Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) wasn’t home when his young daughter found a sign on the family’s lawn last week that read: “Traitors put party above country Do the right thing for once, shithead.”“Attack me, protest against me, but do not frighten my children at their home,” Fortenberry said in an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) described protesters vandalizing his Gainesville, Fla. Office … “They’re mad to the point where they’re cussing at my staff, pushed one of them, poured stuff on one of the staff’s car,” Yoho told The Hill. “If they start acting responsible and respectable, we’ll do the same.” 

Health Insurers blame Trump for Uncertainty and Premium Increases!

President and CEO of Blue Shield in California Paul Markovich made me almost think there's a heart somewhere inside a giant insurance company. Check out this MSNBC interview where Markovich responded to Ari Melber's question about charging higher premiums for the sick, that it doesn't have to be that way...:

Markovich: "Not only do I not think it has to be that way, I think it's just unconscionable to make it that way. We as a not-for-profit health plan, aspire to create a health care system that is worthy of our family and friends and sustainably affordable. And I think if you look at any kind of health policy through this lens, it's important to treat people equitably..." 

...I followed up his comment with string of GOP lies about guaranteeing coverage for preexisting conditions:

  

“All this uncertainty is not helpful,” warned Blue Shield of California Chief Executive Paul Markovich, who said health plans were being forced to make plans to raise premiums to account for the turmoil, jeopardizing Americans’ coverage. Markovich was one of the few senior insurance officials who agreed to speak on the record, as many fear retribution from the White House or its allies.

But privately, many executives, including chief executives of major health plans, offered withering criticism of the Trump administration’s lack of leadership. “It’s hard to know who’s home,” said one chief executive. “We don’t know who is making decisions.” Another chief executive said: “There seems to be no coordination or coherent planning.… It’s a mess.” A third official observed: “There is a sense that there are no hands on the wheel and they are just letting the bus careen down the road.”

An LA Times story confirms the Trump "administration" is doing all it can to destroy the ACA - ObamaCare:

Health insurers across the country are making plans to dramatically raise Obamacare premiums or exit marketplaces amid growing exasperation with the Trump administration’s erratic management, inconsistent guidance and seeming lack of understanding of basic healthcare issues.

The growing frustration with the Trump administration’s management — reflected in letters to state regulators and in interviews with more than two dozen senior industry and government officials nationwide — undercuts a key White House claim that Obamacare insurance marketplaces are collapsing on their own. Instead, according to many officials, it is the Trump administration that is driving much of the current instability by refusing to commit to steps to keep markets running, such as funding aid for low-income consumers or enforcing penalties for people who go without insurance.

Most health plans and state regulators interviewed for this story said the Trump administration has significantly exacerbated turmoil in the marketplaces in recent months, contributing to rising premiums and the threat of marketplaces exits.

What many said was a market adjustment in ACA rates has now turned sour due to Trump's inaction:

The uncertainty created by Trump comes as some Obamacare markets were beginning to stabilize, according to many industry and government officials. In several states, insurers and regulators noted that 2017 was shaping up to be a better year than the first several years of the marketplaces.

Many state insurance regulators are similarly dismayed by the Trump administration’s actions. In Colorado, where most consumers continue to have multiple insurance choices, commissioner Marguerite Salazar said the Trump administration threatens the whole market. “My fear is it may collapse,” she said. Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, a Republican, is so concerned the turmoil will drive away insurers that he’s exploring whether the state can make available limited benefit insurance plans as a stopgap.

Insurance industry officials and state regulators have met repeatedly in recent months with senior Trump administration officials in an effort to explain that administration’s actions are jeopardizing health coverage for millions of Americans. At one recent meeting, Seema Verma, whom Trump picked to oversee the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs, stunned insurance industry officials by suggesting a bargain: The administration would fund the CSRs if insurers supported the House Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “It made no sense,” said one official at the meeting.

What "Choice" and "Competition" do we get with TrumpCare Disaster?

I took a day off after watching the Trump administration media blitz on the Sunday "news" shows dishing nothing but hyperbolic bullshit. Come on, cutting $880 billion from Medicaid isn't a cut...my god the balls!

In fact, I just found this Morning Joe clip that backs up my claim, and that it wasn't just me who noticed the bold face lying:



While the press continues to ease up on Trump and the Republicans over a health care plan that CBO initially said will drop insurance for 24 million Americans, I have a question about "choice" and "competition" on their "free market" TrumpCare model.

1. What "choice" do I have with a prepackaged insurance policy that is basically a take-it-or-leave-it proposition? Having "shopped" for insurance in the individual market for over 20 years, plans don't vary much from one insurer to the next. The only competition would be between insurers, and that hasn't worked for decades. NOTE: The big regional hospitals are the ones in control of costs, and they set the prices. Good luck with lowering costs.

2. Even worse, the magical unicorn in the room is never addressed; how do we get "competition" when we're locked into dominant area insurer plans dictating coverage limits, costs, doctors, hospitals and networks? What about those fly by night out-of-state insurers? Think about how dumb and expensive that would be to set up regional offices and oversee billing, patients and providers with no real negotiating ability.

Health Care: the Bad, the Ugly, the Good.

I recently tweeted a link to the list below of health care services we would lose if the GOP TrumpCare plan passed into law, with the state waiver plan in place. 

One of the biggest problems the ACA had was getting people insured through their employer a working understanding of the individual market plans. Employees had no idea how dysfunctional our system was since they never had to "shop" for insurance, so it was easy to hate and oppose ObamaCare. And Republicans knew that, exploited that, and turned public opinion against it.

But as the public paid more attention to the details exposed by town hall video clips, the CBO analysis, and Paul Ryan's first failed attempt to get something passed, support for the ACA finally took off, and surprise, Republicans were stuck with an old repeal and replace plan nobody wanted. Oops.

Now Employee Provided Health Insurance Gets Crushed: Swept into Ryan's celebrated House bill was this draconian surprise:

An inconvenient truth uncovered by the Wall Street Journal exposes that the bill would allow individual states to opt out of the ACA minimum benefit standards. Employers could just reduce covered benefits they offer by hunting the most bare bones standards offered by the most regressive state, limiting, for example, existing ACA requirements that cap out of pocket expenses.

Republican voters and twitter trolls don't seem to care one way or another about any of this, including the list below, but they will once their wallets empty and their stuck planning bake sales or car washes to fund a life saving medical procedural for their family member:

There is nothing "free market" about the RyanCare plan. Sure you can shop for insurance, but once you buy it, well, you're stuck with insurance bureaucrats, red tape, narrow networks, limits to coverage, copays, and sky high deductibles. 

Republican Health Savings Accounts to the Rescue? This is voodoo health care magic for the true believers. It's a rip off and complete nonsense. Twenty years ago I bought into their voodoo HSA plan just to see what would happen, and here's what I got...and what you're going to see in the future:

1. 20% to 30% premium increases every year. This happened with each of the two companies I had policies with.

2. Through the roof deductibles. My last deductible was $10,500 in 2006, a supposed bargain because the higher deductible lower my monthly premium increase by a few dollars. Lucky me.

3. The tax deduction for a Health Savings Account only covered half of my yearly deductible. That was no bargain.  

4. The myth of actually having money in your Health Savings Account. I gambled and had almost nothing in mine, because I couldn't afford to park money away like that. That's the dirty little secret about the HSA's. No one will fund their accounts.

5. "Freedom and Liberty" isn't offered by insurers. I tried to remove my $700 a year prescription drug option for a year or two because I didn't need it, but was told I could never add it back onto the policy if I removed it, ever. 

6. Bills from doctors who strolled through my operating room, who weren't part of the insurer network, happened regularly. That was huge, like having a second deductible. 

It's back to the old health care nightmares, made worse by invasive drug tests, work requirement and benefit limits.

See if California's plan fits what you would like from health care, and your government: "The Healthy California Act proposal meets the common-sense standard that the American people are demanding:"

1. Every Californian eligible to enroll, regardless of age, income, employment, or other status

2. No out-of-pocket costs, such as high deductibles and co-pays, for covered health services.

3. Comprehensive coverage, including hospital and outpatient medical care, primary and preventive care, vision, dental, hearing, women’s reproductive-health services, mental health, lab tests, rehab, and other basic medical needs.

4. Lower prescription-drug costs.

5. Long-term care services provided under Medi-Cal continue, and will be expanded with an emphasis on community and in-home care.

6. No narrow insurance networks, one medical card, real patient choice of provider.

7. No insurance claims denials based on corporate-profit goals.

8. Funding through a consolidation of resources currently spent on health coverage, including federal payments for Medicare and Medicaid, major savings from elimination of insurance waste, other bureaucracy, and profits with coordinated planning on health resources, and added revenues through a progressive tax (program).

TrumpCare Tea Party Plan promises Higher Premiums, dumps those with Pre-Existing Conditions, and Strips Coverage for Everyone.

While hospitals and doctors focus on treating the sick, Republicans are focusing in on the real problem; cutting the cost to government all the while enriching the bottom line of insurance companies. Could it be the GOP believes doctors and hospitals work for insurers? Not only has the public changed their minds, but they really don't like the Trump/Ryan/MacArthur plan:

What is more surprising is GOP/Freedom Caucus' appreciation for the dysfunctional way things were, before the ACA, when fewer American got health care, prices skyrocketed and taxpayers paid for the sick in high risk pools. 

The latest version of Obamacare repeal and replace would leave it up to the states on how much insurers can charge older customers beginning next year. In 2020, it would allow states to apply for a waiver to change the 10 essential health benefits now required to be part of nearly all health insurance plans. How dramatically will they allow companies to scale back coverage? How many consumers would be pushed out of the market, because the cost of riders for certain benefits are beyond their reach?

Don't be fooled, insurers will not be taking anyone with pre-existing conditions: 

University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack said: "If you do away with the essential health benefit, you are opening the door to insurers doing overt and covert ways of trying to avoid covering unprofitable consumers. 

"Even though the amendment leaves in place the law's ban on pre-existing condition exclusions, that could effectively accomplish the same thing, by leaving out benefits like chemotherapy or care for HIV. So someone who did have problems like that would be forced to buy a plan—if they could find one—that was priced much higher."

This MSNBC interview asked all the right questions to Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who ended up voting for the plan. He said he had sympathy for a hypothetical devastated families stuck in a state with an ACA exemption...(below I've included the important parts of the conversation only):

Rep. Mo Brooks: "...BUT at the same time, (if) you went with what I want, and that is a states rights approach, that families state could decide what their citizens can afford by way of pre-existing conditions."

Host: "Is the choice the family has is basically to move out of the state, is that what you're saying?"

Rep. Mo Brooks: "No that is not what I'm saying...I'm one of those that does not believe that Washington elected officials and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to be able to dictate all this to the entire United States...that's why I believe we should be deferring as much of this issue as possible to the individual state, let them decide what best fits their needs..."

Host: "Ultimately though that IS a politician in that state who will be deciding the fate... that's still the same thing is it not?"  

Rep. Mo Brooks: "Well I have much more faith and confidence in the ability of a local elected officials..."

Right, that "local" statewide know-it-all Republican official and their one-size-fits-all statewide plan is much better. Sadly, Republicans aren't in tune with their constituents, they're slaves to their ideological beliefs:


Republicans are even Forcing Insurers to Go Back in Time: Heck, not even the insurance industry wants to go back to something that failed miserably. This will force the collapse of the ACA, AND the entire individual market, which is a new wrinkle:

Health insurers, many of which have withdrawn from the exchanges, have said they don't want the country to return to a pre-ACA status quo. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois officials said yesterday that proposed changes being discussed in Congress could force the insurer to rethink its continued role on the insurance exchange and how it prices premiums.

Chris Jacobs, a conservative policy analyst, noted Wednesday that no Republican governors have expressed interest in applying for the waivers envisioned in the AHCA.

And High Risk Pool Lunacy? Republicans are trying to sell you the same broken long expired experiment no one but them wants to return to:

University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack said when states had high-risk pools, those patients cost $7,000 to $10,000 a year more than a typical customer. Providing adequate funding to help insurers make up the costs doesn't improve the federal budget picture. And that was when those high-risk pools contained lifetime limits. 

Bad GOP Economics feeds their "Free Market" Fanstasy: The Republican plan will cost everyone more:  

But a study from Milliman suggests ...  If all consumers share in the cost of maternity coverage, it costs $8 to $14 per person, per month. Being forced to buy a rider during childbearing years could cost 25% to 70% more each month than other customers the same age.

I'm not sure what where Republican received their medical training, but their expertise in health care knows no bounds. In another way to look at what the Freedom Caucus' Tea Party ghouls have done, despite warning from the entire medical community...:

A coalition of six physicians' groups (listed below) sent a letter to Congress critical of the latest version of the American Health Care Act, which would give states the option of scaling back Essential Health Benefits such as mental health coverage. "We believe that pending legislation proposals would dramatically increase costs for older individuals, result in millions of people losing their healthcare coverage, and return to a system that allows for discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions," the letter said.

That would be called a bad outcome. The revised bill is intentionally deceptive:

Although the draft language says the bill does not allow for discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, if insurers were allowed to charge more for policies that include chemotherapy infusion drugs, or inpatient behavioral health treatment, that could price people out of the market who need those services. 

The signatories included the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ObamaCare troubles a Republican Creation!

The Affordable Care Act is in trouble because Republicans refused to tweak the system as problems cropped up. 

Another problem is the introduction of competition in the insurance marketplace. Consumers finally had a chance to compare insurer plans side-by-side, forcing insurance companies to provide lower premiums to get their business. But that hurt their bottom line, and they left the exchanges. Real comparison shopping for insurance in the individual private market is impossible, which is why many sought out insurance agents for advice.

The three other biggest reasons? Republican Sabotage:    

1. See, Insurance Companies are Leaving the Exchanges…ObamaCare Failed? 

Rep. Marco Rubio severely limited the supposed "bailout fund" in the Affordable Care Act for what are called called risk corridors, a temporary aid for insurers to adjust premiums.

Rubio helped persuade Congress to prevent Health and Human Services from being able to cover expenses in its own budget. But experts have said Rubio is wrong to call the program a bailout, and that the program is supposed to pay for itself through fees from insurers.

2. See, since CBO wrongly estimated ACA enrollment, can't believe 24 million will lose insurance? Only 32 states expanded Medicaid, instead of all 50 states after the Supreme Court struck down the coverage mandate. That blew a hole in the CBO estimate:

3. See, Medicare is Going Broke, so now we have to Privatize to Save It: 

A key Ryan change would repeal a Medicare tax on high earners a year earlier than originally proposed. Obamacare imposed an additional payroll tax of 0.9% on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 (among other changes to Medicare) … leading to about $10 billion of lost revenue. “Here you have a bill where Congress is voting to actively undermine the trust fund, and it’s singularly for the purpose of providing tax breaks for the wealthy,” says Stacy Sanders, federal policy director for the Medicare Rights Center.