This is a good opinion piece but why is his analysis of it so contradicting to that of the analysis done by what is supposed to be an independent GAO? He mentions a lot of great sounding stuff but leaves out the "how". The preexisting conditions for example. He says they won't be denied. Okay great...but at what cost? He says in a manner more cost effective and cost efficient. But he doesn't mention to who. The individual or the insurance company?
He's not my representative by any means. Just making conversation on a piece you wanted to share.
You had questions I can't answer. He can.
But that was my point. They are questions that have been posed by many to all politicians that are championing this bill. Not just him. Questions that they have been refusing to answer.
At least they didn't pass it in the middle of the night behind closed doors and tell us they had to sign it before we could find out what's in it.
The answer is in the article.
Feel free to call his office
It would appear that those preexisting conditions will be taken care of by state and federal dollars - not by the premium paying population. A much better solution than having everyone pay up front whether they actually use the medical coverage or not.
We no longer pay as we use, a terrible way for us to have to pay for medical coverage.
"Under the AHCA, everyone is priced as if they are healthy, and the additional costs for those patients with known high risks (such as a preexisting condition), are subsidized by state and federal dollars through high-risk pools. This is a much smarter and cost efficient way to not only control costs for those with expensive medical needs, but also to prevent premiums for healthier patients from spiraling out of control due to a lopsided risk pool."
If the subsidies for high risk people are being paid by state and federal dollars they ARE being paid by the premium-paying public. They are being paid by everyone, not just those who choose to purchase health insurance. If you contribute to your employer's health coverage plan, you are already paying part of your premium. By using state and federal funds to pay for those who are high risk - you're paying twice.
The idea is to bring the individual premiums down into the realm of affordability so you are not paying twice.
We know our taxes are being used for a lot of behavioral consequences health care but if there is a limit on premiums it will ease some of the cost to usage rather than across the board.
Wasn't the high risk pool what existed before Obamacare? The whole idea was to do away with that, but apparently premiums didn't come down because not enough young people signed up. For some, it was less expensive to pay the penalty than the premiums.
(IMHO, all that was needed to fix the entire health insurance crap was to allow sales across state lines. Competition brings down prices.)
That care was too expensive and unrealistic. I agree with trooper about selling insurance across state lines.
Ocare is all about control and sucking money out of anyone who has any regardless of whether they use the healthcare system or not. How much of it did you really read? It is chilling in what it does to everyday Americans.
I admit I didn't read much of it because I was covered under my employer's plan at the time and now I'm covered by Medicare.
Therein lies the problem of a complacent constituency. You have no idea what was in that POS because it didn't really affect you. I read the documents that it was based on.
A guy just today told me that medicare wouldn't pay for a prostrate test for him. It would cost him almost $500 to see if he had any problems. He said no. He is 70 years old so let's see how medicare will cover you when you are 70.
The architect of Ocare is ok with denying medical procedures to the elderly and those under two in a crisis. It appears that it was the intent to create a crisis so they could winnow out the population.
Your turn is coming....
Well, I'm 71, so my time is at hand. I have quite a bit of savings for medical care at this time. I'm trying to figure out what, if any, supplemental coverage I should get and when I figure that out, I will make sure that important tests are covered. I'm sorry for your friend.
UPDATE: I just went on medicare.gov to see if PSA tests are covered and they are once every 12 months if you have Medicare Parts A and B. I suggest you take a look here and have your friend look into what is covered.
"Prostate cancer screenings
How often is it covered?
Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers:
Digital rectal exam: Once every 12 months
Prostate specific antigen (PSA) test: Once every 12 months
All men over 50 (beginning the day after your 50th birthday) with Part B are covered.
Your costs in Original Medicare
Digital rectal exam: You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for a yearly digital rectal exam and for the doctor's services related to the exam. The Part B deductible applies. In a hospital outpatient setting, you pay a copayment.
PSA test: You pay nothing for a yearly PSA blood test. If you get the test from a doctor that doesn’t accept assignment, you may have to pay an additional fee for the doctor’s services, but not for the test itself.
Thank you for the info, I will pass this on to him.
I recently floated the idea that property taxes for those over 65, are on SS and who have paid for over 40 years should be frozen at current limits. Mine, in the thousands, are set to double next year to pay for all the new refugees in the schools.
One young guy wrote that boomers "had not saved enough" to take care of themselves in their older years. Is this the new mentality of the young? Save your money so you can give it all to hospitals or government? I work to stay healthy so I do have some savings but the school district wants that now too.
IS this our fate in the future - just give all your savings to "the man?"
We get a school tax reduction and a property tax reduction for being a co-operative apartment building. I don't think it amounts to much, but it's better than nothing.
Those millennials will soon see hos difficult it is to save money for retirement. The only reason I have been able to save as much as I have is because I don't have children or a house.
Good point. RD had a joke (but it wasn't a joke) that a young man asked an old man how he managed to save so much money. The old guy told him, "one wife and one house." Good advice.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage if they get their way.
Politicians don't care about the little guy. Anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves.
I'm not a fan of government healthcare - period.
A) It's not the job of government.
B) There are many other actual government responsibilities that are being ignored while government flops around trying to please everyone.
C) There is no fair way to deal with everyone's 'special circumstances'.
D) The private sector is well equipped to handle the variety of needs required.
E) The uninsurable can be dealt with - we used to do it, nobody was denied treatment.
Exactly. They keep screaming about how many will be uninsured blah blah. Exactly how many were insured BEFORE ObamaCare?
And, maybe we simply must face reality - we can't afford to cover everybody for everything. I'm sorry, but that's a fact. And making government part of the equation in too many eyes means that government is responsible to take care of everything. If we do that - government will end up providing poor results for everyone - except of course those wealthy enough to buy favor of the government.
Yep, but many would rather sit on their ass with their hand out than get up and work for something.
Sad, but true.
I was trying to post that yesterday, saw it over the weekend. FYI - It's a parody - not real. She's actually a conservative blogger, so, don't accidentally step on your dick and claim it's real. It was soooo off the hook, I needed to dig further.
Oh, no, I understood it was parody. Frighteningly accurate and spot on parody.
Just the Facts: ObamaCare is Generational Theft
By: Congressman Paul A. Gosar D.D.S.
June 15, 2017
Even as ObamaCare continues to crumble under patients’ feet, there are partisan and special interest groups that are hellbent on defending the broken system and spreading disinformation about conservative proposals that will create a functional, affordable and patient-centered health insurance market.
I would like to tell you why I voted for the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and set the record straight about the bill without the emotional delirium the left is whipping up to muddy the waters of the policy debate.
Here are the facts:
The American Health Care Act is good for states. As a dentist in rural Arizona for more than 25 years before being elected to Congress, I understand healthcare from both the medical provider and policy maker perspective. This is why I am so passionate about passing reform that gets the federal government out of the way. The AHCA does this by increasing states’ authority to effectively repeal the most expensive ObamaCare regulations that superfluously drive up the cost of premiums. The healthcare needs of Arizonans are often different from those of Alaskans, Californians or New Yorkers. The AHCA respects those differences and permits individual state governments, not a disconnected federal bureaucracy, to make the critical decisions that impact healthcare regulation.
The AHCA reduces costs for every age group. AARP and other special-interest groups employ alarmist half-truths and gin up hysteria to promote their self-serving political agendas. One of the most nefarious myths perpetuated by these organizations is the bill’s so-called “age tax” on seniors. In reality, the American Health Care Act fixes the age rating rules to stop the generational theft ObamaCare imposed upon the nation’s young adults, and restores market balance to the premiums charged for each age group. ObamaCare tried to hide massive increases to the cost of care by requiring young, healthy adults to pay artificially inflated premiums in order to subsidize older Americans. This type of cost shifting onto the backs of our children and grandchildren is not only unfair, it is wrong. The AHCA lowers premiums for all ages by instituting reforms that actually lower the costs of care, not just hide them by making your kids pay for it. In fact, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, seniors over 60 could see up to 45 percent lower premiums under the AHCA while young adults and other age groups would see savings of up to 50 percent.
The AHCA covers preexisting conditions. Despite fear mongering from the Democrats and blatant lies from their allies in the media echo chamber, the AHCA does, in fact, maintain the federal standard that no individual may be denied insurance coverage due to a preexisting condition. Period. And it does so in a more effective and cost efficient manner than ObamaCare. Similar to the cost-shifting hijinks of the age rating, ObamaCare did nothing to actually lower the cost of care for the extremely ill, it just attempted to cover it up by charging everyone more. That is not smart or sustainable. Under ObamaCare, everyone was priced as if they were already sick. Under the AHCA, everyone is priced as if they are healthy, and the additional costs for those patients with known high risks (such as a preexisting condition), are subsidized by state and federal dollars through high-risk pools. This is a much smarter and cost efficient way to not only control costs for those with expensive medical needs, but also to prevent premiums for healthier patients from spiraling out of control due to a lopsided risk pool. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 50 percent of the nation’s healthcare costs come from just 5 percent of the population. The AHCA will provide the sickest patients with a variety of affordable insurance options and safety nets while keeping premiums low for the general population as well.
We must deal in facts. ObamaCare is not working. Not for Arizona or America. While I still support a full repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, the revised AHCA finally opens the door to free-market solutions that empower individuals to have more control over healthcare decisions. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues in Congress as well as President Trump to deliver the healthcare reform we were sent to Washington to deliver.
Does he know something the rest of the Congress doesn't know, because the newest iteration has not been made public. This guy is a dentist - not a doctor. I don't believe any of the ACA. AHCA, Medicare of Medicaid plans cover dental.
Which superfluous portions of Obamacare are we talking about? the ones that mandate one free health care visit per year? I would think that prevention would reduce the cost of care more so than waiting until you're good and sick to be treated. Are we talking about birth control? Well, hell, we women don't need to worry about birth control because I'm sure the AHCA is no longer going to pay for Viagra and Cialis, so no worries there. Are we talking about annual mammograms? Not a problem if prostate exams aren't going to be covered either.
So, you see, while some aspects of health care differ from Alaska to Arizona, there are some aspects of health care that concern ALL of us.
"... seniors over 60 could see up to 45 percent lower premiums under the AHCA while young adults and other age groups would see savings of up to 50 percent." Please note the words COULD and UP TO. It doesn't say they WILL see those savings or anywhere near those savings.
"The AHCA will provide the sickest patients with a variety of affordable insurance options and safety nets ..." The sickest patients will probably be the ones who can least afford to buy medical coverage. Having access to medical care is not quite the same as having medical coverage. Everyone has ACCESS.
This guy must think we are all a bunch of fools to believe that his "facts" are the real facts. No one yet knows what the real facts are.
Did you mean that people over 60 will see much, much higher premiums? It is my understanding, that if older Americans have even a brief lapse in their health insurance coverage, their premiums will be unaffordable for most.
I was quoting this guy. I believe that people over 60 will see higher premiums.
Oh, thanks. The guy's dissertation touting the wonderfulness of the AHCA and how horrible "Obamacare" is was so long, I missed that part.
LOL ... I know what you mean. I had to go back and read it a second time.
He's smarter than the average bear.
He may be very smart. I'll just wait to see how good his "facts" are when we find out what's in the AHCA.
As well we all should.
TRYING to provide coverage for everyone has already cost the nation dearly. Everyone wants a Cadillac plan - ain't gonna happen.
Personally, I'd rather have routine checkups and dental covered than anything else.
Older Americans are already covered, as are the disabled (SS & Medicare).
The entire nation was not covered prior to everyone being threatened into purchasing insurance by Obama administration.
There were no repercussions.
Medicare ain't shit. I'm on Medicare and required to purchase insurance for medications, and there are still deductibles. There is no dental, there is no vision.
I know this, this is why I would want those things I mentioned covered.
I get that. I'd rather the government kept their noses out of it and let the market naturally lower and stabilize pricing, so every one can afford reasonable care.
Doesn't look that is gonna happen - just my 2 cents.