This election is too important to ignore. So, I am writing a series of posts on topics to consider as you think about who to vote for in November. I am specifically staying away from Trump and social topics. This series is about serious issues and the congress members involved with them. That is the focus, congress. Topics include:
1. Religious Education
2. Capitalism
3. The Tax Bill (the part congress played in it)
4. Healthcare
5. SNAP
6. Government Assistance (Other)
7. Where Democrats Stand
8. GOTV and Nancy
2. Capitalism
3. The Tax Bill (the part congress played in it)
4. Healthcare
5. SNAP
6. Government Assistance (Other)
7. Where Democrats Stand
8. GOTV and Nancy
I have been collecting these articles throughout the year. The part in green is a direct quote from the article in the link before or after it. I also very specifically stuck to reliable news sources. Actual fact based news sources like Politico, CBS News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The LA Times and others.
Healthcare:
Last August protesters were able to convince just enough senators to vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act. It was the third vote on what to do about healthcare. Republicans had won congress on promises to repeal and replace the ACA. But, when it came to a replacement, they couldn't come up with something that Americans wanted.
The core thing that any Republican proposal contained was repealing a requirement to insure those with pre-existing conditions. Below is the list (link provided). Insurers would once again be allowed to decide not to insure anyone with any of this if they wanted. These are often the most expensive conditions to treat. It becomes a class game when the requirement goes away. If you can't afford the medicine, you are much more likely to die of something curable.
It might seem like that was from 2017. Why does it matter now? Because if Republicans win this year they will pass a health insurance bill that will raise costs and knock thousands off of insurance. They won't have a reelection fear over them or John McCain to save the day again. This will come back and be worse. But, they don't want to remind voters about what they did. So they simply stay quiet on healthcare.
The Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which narrowly passed a vote in the House today, rolls back protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which could increase health care costs for an estimated 130 million Americans.
The American Health Care Act stipulates that states can allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for health insurance (which is banned under the ACA) if the states meet certain conditions, such as setting up high-risk insurance pools. Insurers still cannot deny people coverage outright, as was a common practice before the ACA’s passage, but they can hike up premiums to an unaffordable amount, effectively pricing people out of the market.
In fact, premiums could reach as high as $25,700 per year for people in high-risk pools, according to a report from AARP. People who receive insurance through their employer would not be affected, unless they lost their job or moved to the individual insurance market for some other reason.
http://time.com/money/4763609/pre-existing-conditions-ahca/
A common argument republicans used in rushing the tax plan without any democratic support is that “that is what they did with the Affordable Care Act”. Even democratic voters believe that. This article clears that up. Including that the ACA had 5 floor hearings while the republican version had zero! The below articles have a few excellent charts worth looking at.
In the tax bill the individual mandate was repealed. That
will also drive up premiums. Even insurers want to keep the ACA!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/insurers-oppose-obamacare-repeal.html
The below link has some helpful graphics. Please open!
More uninsured
The revised version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) maintains much of its original structure and intent. Like the House legislation, the Senate Republican bill introduced in June will produce major losses in insurance coverage that will mostly affect low- and moderate-income Americans, according to the CBO’s analysis of the bills. The centerpiece of the Senate bill is a series of major reductions in federal aid for poor Americans who rely on Medicaid and for consumers who currently qualify for federal subsidies to help them buy private health insurance through the Obamacare marketplace.The CBO estimated that under the House bill, 23 million fewer people would have insurance over the next decade. The estimate is 22 million for the previous Senate version.
Medicaid
Cuts to Medicaid spending totaled $834 billion in the House legislation. The new Senate legislation would likely include a large spending cut as well. Expanded Medicaid coverage would cease and the funding structure would change in both bills.Changes in insurance costs
The House and Senate GOP healthcare bills would make major changes to health insurance markets, reducing requirements on health plans and changing the structure of financial subsidies that the current law provides to low- and moderate-income Americans.Those changes would make health plans less expensive, on average, for some consumers, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But older and lower-income Americans would see their insurance premiums soar under the GOP plans.
The updated version of the Senate healthcare bill includes an amendment crafted by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), which would allow insurers to provide lower-cost, stripped-down insurance plans, as long as they offer one plan that meets Obamacare standards. Experts and moderates warn that such a provision could cause premiums to soar for sicker people if healthy people move to the cheaper options.
Guaranteed coverage
People with preexisting conditions could see substantial changes in what kind of coverage they could receive.Women's health
Both the House and Senate Republican plans would impose new restrictions on health plans with abortion coverage, and would defund Planned Parenthood. Low-income women would be among the most seriously affected.Impact on deficit
CBO estimates the previous Senate version will cut the federal deficit by $321 billion by 2026. They estimate the House bill will cut the deficit by $118.7 billion. Both bills generate most savings by cutting Medicaid and reducing subsidies that help people pay for health insurance, the CBO found.Taxes
Most of the taxes set up under Obamacare to pay for subsidizing insurance would be scrapped. The House and Senate GOP proposals do not include any new tax to offset the loss of revenue.
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/23/2017)
Choices in Education Act of 2017This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states.
The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA's geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses.
To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child.
No Hungry Kids Act
The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children's nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)
Such a move could also increase costs
for the federal government. Even though Congress has eliminated the penalties
for people who go without insurance, millions of consumers are still eligible
for financial aid in the form of tax credits to help them pay insurance
premiums. These subsidies increase with the rapidly rising cost of insurance.
If fewer people receive coverage from employers, more will qualify for
subsidized coverage in the public marketplaces created by the Affordable Care
Act.
“The employer mandate holds down the
cost of premium tax credits for the federal government,” said Catherine E.
Livingston, a tax lawyer at the law firm Jones Day who was the health care
counsel at the I.R.S. from 2010 to 2013. “Any employee who receives an offer of
affordable coverage from an employer is not eligible for the tax credit. And
the employer mandate provides a strong incentive for employers to offer
affordable coverage.” (from link below)
In January republicans
introduced a bill eliminating the employer mandate. Suddenly, even at work
insurance wouldn’t be required to be provided! It’s inhumane!
A recent independent analysis confirmed what industry experts and consumer advocacy groups have already argued: Republican changes to key provisions of former President Barack Obama's health care law will do more harm to the already struggling system.
Per the Urban Institute, Congress' repeal of the tax penalty for foregoing health insurance and President Donald Trump's expansion of short-term health care plans, specifically, will cause about 9 million more Americans to have no-to-subpar coverage next year.
As healthy people drop out of the market or opt for cheaper, barebones plans, marketplace premiums will increase an average of 18.2 percent, according to the Urban Institute report. That spike is significant on its own, but more troubling when you consider 2018 plans were already prohibitively expensive for people who didn't qualify for federal subsidies.
After the ACA's first year I noticed one thing. A large percentage of citizens in the states that had established a health care exchange and expanded Medicaid were very happy with the ACA. Those who's states didn't were very against it. We can't forget one key point. GOVERNORS decided if they would create an exchange or not. It's one of the two things Christie did correctly while NJ governor. The experience of those with access to these exchanges has been very different. President Obama was blamed when the governors should have been blamed.
To me, that was the biggest mistake. Not making the exchanges and Medicaid expansion a requirement for every state. It was a compromise for republicans in congress he never should have made. If it had been, many more Americans would have benefited. There would have been a lot more people with a positive view of the law if they benefited from it. Too many against it don't realize they are not getting the benefits the law provides.
But, many realized that in the summer of 2018. That matters. Yes. the ACA needs to be fixed. But, it is a strong starting point and is much better for many more people then what the republican congress tried to pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment