Should the Trumpcare bill pass this evening, residents in the following Nevada Counties can expect changes in their premiums after tax credits: From $2400 to $3700 — Humboldt, Elko, Pershing, Esmeralda, Lander, Churchill, Esmeralda, and Mineral counties. (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation)
Category Archives: health insurance
So, we have two sources telling us that approximately 24 to 26 million people will lose their health care insurance if the Republicans are successful in jamming through their tax shift proposal masquerading as a ‘replacement’ for the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, it’s now time for a new ‘talking point’ from the GOP, especially since some Republicans like Rep. Mark Amodei are on record saying:
When asked what his plan for a change to Obamacare would be, Heller said, “If you like your health care, you can keep it,” a statement that echoes a promise from Obama that later ended up being false. Amodei said he would not vote for any plan that resulted in reduced coverage for anyone. “No, I don’t think you can say forget it, we’re going to let them be uninsured because as a practical solution, that’s not an answer and somebody ends up paying in the end anyhow,” Amodei said. [RGJ 2/22/17]
Well, now we know with some certainty that the GOP replacement bill will result in reduced coverage, and some people and families will be uninsured. How to escape this trap? A new talking point!
“No one will lose their coverage.”
The HHS Secretary Tom Price, whose replacement would have cost some 18 million their insurance, opined:
“Success, it’s important to look at that,” he said. “It means more people covered than are covered right now at an average cost that is less. I believe that we can firmly do that with the plan that we’ve laid out there.” Not exactly.
Then, there was Pete Sessions, a Republican from Dallas, telling his listeners:
“Nobody is going to lose their coverage,” Sessions, chairman of the House Rules Committee, told CNN. “You’ll be able to keep your same doctor, you’ll be able to keep your same plan.”
A spokeswoman for the congressman later explained that Sessions meant Americans will have the choice whether to obtain or maintain coverage — not that the GOP bill would take coverage away. The American Health Care Act would nix the ACA mandates requiring Americans to have health insurance.” [DMN]
And, there it is, the Big Caveat, which makes taking health insurance away from working American all AOK. You can “choose” to keep your health insurance! IF and ONLY IF you can afford it. ?
However, even IF you can afford it, the policy you can purchase may not be truly comprehensive. A young person may have to get additional insurance if he or she marries and there is a pregnancy in the plans. More cost. A plan may not cover preventative care? Or mandatory coverage for cancer screenings? More cost. It doesn’t take too long to add up the extras until what has been basic coverage becomes optional coverage. Then the risk pool is reduced and the premiums go up. That is how insurance works. The larger the risk pool the lower the premium costs.
Thus, “you can keep your health insurance” IF:
- You can afford it in the first place, not likely if you are among the low wage workers in this country.
- You can afford it and are willing to accept lower levels of coverage, and you don’t mind having to pay for additional services for additional premiums.
- You are willing to shop for insurance coverage every time the circumstances of your life changes; as in pregnancies, pre-natal care, caring for a special needs child, a family member needs rehabilitation or mental health care.
- You are willing to see your local, and especially rural, hospitals see higher levels of uncompensated care.
- You are willing to accept that your doctors and other health care professionals will see less reimbursement for services rendered.
- You are willing to forego coverage for preventative screening and treatment for medical conditions.
Access to health insurance isn’t the same as having health care insurance. As the now commonplace tweet has it: “I have access to a Mercedes Benz dealership — that doesn’t mean I can afford to buy something of their lot.”
One congressional Representative for our northern neighbor, Idaho, has a problem in his Lewiston office: Too many artful codgers showing up there around lunch time with complaints about his political philosophy.
“A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador’s office in Lewiston has filed a complaint alleging a threat from a group of local citizens who routinely visit congressional offices.
Scott Carlton reported the issue to the U.S. Capitol Police early last month. Carlton, who works out of the congressman’s downtown Lewiston office, declined to comment when contacted by the Tribune and referred all questions to Doug Taylor, Labrador’s spokesman in Meridian, Idaho.
The citizen group, LC Valley Indivisible, is comprised of mostly older residents of the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley, according to its members. The organization is loosely affiliated with the national Indivisible groups that call for town hall meetings with members of Congress to raise issues regarding President Donald Trump’s administration.” [SR]
The group members recall a civil engagement with Scott Carlton, Labrador’s spokesperson. Carlton told people at a Chamber of Commerce gathering that the group was “aggressive,” and reported that he (Carlton) had contacted Capitol Police who have jurisdiction over congressional offices. [Spokesman pdf]
Not that those in Nevada’s 2nd congressional district can complain about this issue too strenuously, Mark Amodei (R-NV2) hasn’t scheduled a public performance since venturing out to Carson City recently. It is noteworthy that Amodei told the Reno Gazette Journal: “… he would not vote for any plan that resulted in reduced coverage for anyone. “No, I don’t think you can say forget it, we’re going to let them be uninsured because as a practical solution, that’s not an answer and somebody ends up paying in the end anyhow,” Amodei said.”
Now, Representative Amodei has a GOP plan before him that does precisely that — reduces health insurance coverage for people in his district, and the amendments to the bill recently announced make the situation even worse, dismantling Medicaid protection for seniors in record time. However, Representative Amodei doesn’t appear to want to pencil in a town hall meeting in a major metropolitan area in his district — like Reno/Sparks? Perhaps some of those artful codgers, similar to the Lewiston lunch bunch, might show up?
However, there are other ways to get the attention of elected representatives. I am particularly fond of the Empty Suit Town Hall. Let’s hear it for Lexington, Kentucky:
“…voters in Lexington, Ky., have been clamoring for the state’s congressional representatives — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr — to tackle constituents’ questions in person. They even booked a venue for Saturday and hand-delivered town hall invites to the politicians’ offices. The legislators were a no-show, but that didn’t stop things. Instead of McConnell, Paul and Barr, organizers propped up three mannequins wearing suits.” [WaPo]
Perhaps not the best optics for a congressional delegation? At least it’s better to be an empty suit than to sic the Capitol Police on office visitors?
There are other ways to contact GOP representatives like Mark Amodei — and this should be done before the vote on the Repeal/Replace bill on Thursday.
For those living in District 2 there’s Amodei’s contact form for quick e-mail messages. Simply scroll down the page to the “e-mail link.” The page also has the phone numbers for Amodei’s offices in Reno Phone: (775) 686-5760, Elko Phone: (775) 777-7705 , and Washington, D.C Phone: (202) 225-6155.
This is as good a time as any to remind Representative Amodei what he said to the Gazette Journal: “… he would not vote for any plan that resulted in reduced coverage for anyone. “No, I don’t think you can say forget it, we’re going to let them be uninsured because as a practical solution, that’s not an answer and somebody ends up paying in the end anyhow,” Amodei said.”
Now, if only those artful souls in Idaho can get the attention of their Representative…
There was a Republican politician on my television screen this morning telling me, or trying to tell me, that Medicaid was “meant for mothers, children, and those who couldn’t work…” This is outdated. Then, he tried to convince me that Medicaid was being “abused” by those who work and ‘game the system,’ while spouting platitudes about the Free Market and the Joys of Competition. Let’s start at the very beginning.
This is the explanation of Medicaid as reported by Nevada’s Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (pdf)
“Medicaid is the nation’s main public health insurance program for people with low incomes and the single largest source of health coverage in the U.S.”
The program is meant to help people with low incomes.
“The PPACA extended coverage to many of the non-elderly uninsured people nationwide. The June 2012 Supreme Court Ruling made Medicaid expansion optional for states, and Nevada elected to join the expansion and maximize federal dollars. Effective January 1, 2014, this move broadened Medicaid eligibility to nearly all adults under age 65 with income at or below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). At the end of SFY 2014 that meant that there were an additional 125,989 new enrollees in Nevada Medicaid, and increased expenditures of $154,816,777.00. These new expenditures are 100% federally funded.” [NV med pdf]
Medicaid expansion added those working Americans who were earning 138% of the poverty line and below, (pdf) and more specifically: (1) Those between the ages of 19 and 64 who are earning less than 138% of the FPL. (2) Pregnant women in homes earning less than 165% of the FPL. (3) Children from birth to 19 years of age in homes wherein the earnings are at or below 205% of the FPL, with a small premium required in some cases. Translated into real people with real levels of low income earned, this means a family of four would be eligible for Medicaid in Nevada if the family earnings are less than $2795 per month; for pregnant women if the earnings are at or less than $3341 per month; and families are eligible for the kids’ Check Up program if family earnings are less than $4151 per month.
If we calculate annual earnings, then monthly earnings of $2795 mean an annual income of $33,540. At $3341 annual earnings of $40,092, and at $4151 annual income of $41,630. Nevada’s median income is $52,431 (2015). To put these numbers in perspective, the average weekly wages of a person working in a private restaurant in this state are $382, or $1528 per month ($18,336 yearly). [DETR] The average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Las Vegas, the obvious site for most private restaurants, is $932 per month. [RJ] In short, not only are wages not all that generous in Nevada, the benefits available for Nevada families aren’t all that generous either.
Republicans, however, strenuously oppose benefits for adults capable of working. This would make infinitely more sense IF and ONLY IF they were willing to support a living wage for all employees. One really doesn’t get to have it both ways. Either you want a reduction in benefits that most working people can afford to purchase on their own because they have the financial resources to do so, or you want lower wages which mean that individuals and families cannot afford those things, like health insurance, and the public benefits are required to make up the difference. However, at this point we slam into another GOP myth.
Free market competition will make health insurance affordable for everyone, even those who are working in low wage jobs. Good luck with that. Personally, I have yet to hear anyone explain with any specificity why health insurance corporations will be flocking to Clark, Washoe, or even Esmeralda counties because there is more “free market” applied to the situation. If the insurance companies weren’t wildly excited about selling individual and family health insurance before the enaction of the ACA, why would they do so now? Unless, of course…
They could sell policies that didn’t cover all that much? That cost more for those between the ages of 50 and 64? That didn’t cover maternity expenses? That didn’t cover preventative care? That didn’t cover drug rehabilitation and mental health services in parity with physical treatments? That only covered the items required in those states with the least consumer protections? And, even then all we have to look to is the situation in Nevada when insurance corporations were free to offer what they were pleased to call comprehensive policies. Again, if they weren’t interested in selling a plethora of individual and family policies then why believe they would be now?
And that Free Marketeering? It doesn’t work in the health care industry:
“In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent. No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier. No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all. In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.
The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction. When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile. As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price. All personal volition is lost. Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.” [Forbes]
The only thing I can say with any certainty is that the Republicans have little idea exactly what constitutes a Free Market, and instead are waving it like a banner crovering their underlying desire to be free from the moral requirements compelling us to be our brother’s keepers. The range of misanthropic explications are appalling, from “we need not do anything because the poor will always be with us anyway,” to “when Jesus told us to provide for one another he only meant fellow Christians.”
The Repeal and Replace campaign is as void of humanity as it is of understanding of the reality of most family economics, and of the comprehension of what the term ‘free market’ actually means.
We might go for the Ryan budget bill in regard health insurance directly, but others have already noted that either (a) he doesn’t have a clue how insurance works, or (b) he’s trying to pull a fast one on the American public. At any rate, the phase I of the ACA repeal is essentially a gigantic giveaway to health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, a tax boon to those in the upper 0.1% income bracket, and a dismantling of the Medicaid program. The contents of Phase II have been tipped. It’s on the Speaker’s website, but requires a bit of unpacking:
“Administration actions, notably by HHS Secretary Price, to stabilize the health insurance market, increase choices, and lower costs…”
Translation: The content of health insurance policies, currently listed as “essential provisions” for all policies, is under a head on assault.
If a corporation is going to offer a comprehensive health insurance policy for sale to customers, it must include “ambulatory care for patients in a hospital or not,” “emergency services,” “hospitalization,” “pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care,” “mental health and substance abuse treatment,” “prescription drugs,” “rehabilitation,” “laboratory services,” “preventive and wellness care,” “pediatric care including vision and oral care,” and “birth control and breastfeeding coverage.”
Now, just guess what parts of this coverage the GOP finds objectionable? If you guessed anything having to do with WOMEN give yourself the prize of the day.
Why, the guys grouse, do I have to have a policy covering maternity and neo-natal care, birth control prescriptions, and pediatric care? It’s because of how insurance works.
Aside from the obvious part wherein it requires both men and women to create a ‘maternity situation,’ the whole idea of insurance is encapsulated in the word POOL.
“When you buy insurance, you join many others who pay money to an insurance company. The insurance company uses the money collected to pay claims that are submitted by those who have purchased insurance. The money is “pooled” and losses and expenses are shared. An important aspect is the members of a pool share similar risk characteristics.” [HIW]
In the case of health insurance, the “shared characteristic” of note is that everyone who buys a policy is a human being, who at some point will need health care. The more people (policies) in the pool the wider the risk can be shared. And, that’s the point of insurance — spreading the risk among as many policy holders as possible.
Creating ‘cafeteria’ policies might be profitable for the insurance corporations, but it doesn’t make health care affordable for most people. If we carve out special coverage for maternity care and remove this from the larger pool (which includes men) all this serves to do is to increase costs for those remaining in a smaller pool. Similarly, if prostate cancer screening and treatment is carved out from comprehensive coverage, this serves to increase costs as the overall pool is diminished.
Got it? If not, think of your auto insurance. 10 people buy GenZ Insurance, 9 of them never file a claim, 1 does. The costs related to the one claim are shared among those who bought into the pool and paid premiums to maintain their insurance. We require all automobile owners in this state to have at least minimal insurance. In Nevada, this means you have to have a policy covering $15,000 for bodily injury or death in an accident for one person, $30,000 for bodily injury or death of two persons in an accident, and $10,000 to cover property damage. Thus, all Nevada drivers must have at least minimal participation in the auto insurance pool. Again, the larger the pool the greater sharing of risk, the entire point of having insurance.
Back to health insurance, if we thought Phase I is a disaster, Phase II should be even worse. Phase III is the ‘portability canard.” Has it occurred to anyone in the GOP hierarchy that nothing that really prevents insurance corporations from selling their policies across state lines — IF they agree to accept the standards set by state insurance commissions for the protection of their consumers. More on this later — if necessary.
Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) was pleased to spend his 2016 campaign season supporting the candidacy of one Donald J. Trump. Now that the campaign is over — there are some pertinent questions the District 2 Representative might address should he ever have one of those ‘town hall’ things.Carter Page
#1. Do the constituents in your district deserve a full and complete explication of the ties between the present administration and the Russian government, its agents, and its affiliated operatives? How likely is it that there will be a full explanation without an independent commission investigation?
We have some hints at the extent of Russian meddling with our elections and administration in chart form here, Mr. Trump’s connections in Russia here, and the implications here. And, Politifact’s explication here. There’s the Carter Page connection. The Roger Stone connection. More about Wilbur Ross, the administration’s Secretary of Commerce here. A bit of the Russian reactions recently in this article. What of the activities of Paul Manafort? The names, in the post Flynn flood, keep coming up and out. It seems necessary to have a full, independent, and comprehensive investigation to determine the extent and implications of the Trump ties to the Russians.
#2. How do you explain support for a health care act which replaces the Affordable Care Act with legislation that doesn’t offer a route to affordable health insurance plans for working Americans? And, which looks for all the world like a whopper tax cut for millionaires, billionaires, and insurance corporations?
Will the replacement bill require insurance plans to cover mental health services on par with physical health coverage?
Will the replacement bill require insurance plans to cover pre-natal, maternity, and post-natal expenses for American families?
Will the replacement bill require that consumer protections provided by state insurance commissions be retained?
How will be the replacement make health care policies more ‘affordable’ without going back to the days when insurance companies could sell low coverage/high deductible policies which left families with massive medical debt?
How will the replacement bill maintain the fiscal health of rural hospitals and clinics?
Now, all we have to do is wait for Representative Mark Amodei to hold a meeting with constituents to address these, and other issues. I’d not like to hang by my hair for as long as this might take.
We have the House version of a repeal bill, such as it is. Why it took some seven years to compile a batch of pre-existing Republican conditions remains a mystery. However, there is a section which calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and the “cover” for so-called ‘moderate’ Republicans is the “community health center” scam. Gee, the argument goes, we could be funding community health centers instead of providing support for an organization that may provide abortion services.
First, a hat tip to Vox for an excellent summary of Planned Parenthood funding and its sources and uses. There’s no reason to replicate the argument here when it is well presented elsewhere. Further, the community health centers are not the answer to PPA services for several reasons.
About two years ago the Republicans distributed a “map” showing some 13,540 clinics which purportedly could perform the medical services provided by Planned Parenthood. Not. So. Fast.
Those who compiled the list did not specify their criteria for a replacement clinic, so most of the clinics listed on the map didn’t have an ob/gyn on staff. Nor did most have the equipment and staff on board to provide reproductive health care services.
Not only were they not staffed and equipped for reproductive health care services many were not set up to take on a massive influx of patients transferred from PPA to the community clinics. Private clinics would also have to accept Medicaid patients, which many do not because of the reimbursement rate. Mother Jones summarized the situation:
“Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in a report issued earlier this month that if Planned Parenthood were defunded, as many as 650,000 women “in areas without access to other health care clinics or medical practitioners who serve low-income populations” would lose their reproductive health care. And a survey by the Guttmacher Institute found that women often value specialized family planning clinics such as Planned Parenthood over primary care clinics for reasons such as affordability, increased confidentiality, and a greater range of contraceptive options. Guttmacher also reports that in 103 counties, Planned Parenthood is the only “safety net” family planning service, meaning that a large portion of their patients are either uninsured or reliant on Medicaid.”
Many Republican members of the Congress, Senator Dean Heller included, are relying on the community health care clinic argument to deflect the contention that they are opposing contraception and family planning services. The community health clinic as a replacement for Planned Parenthood reproductive health care medical services is founded on mischaracterizations of both the actions of PPA and the capacity of the community clinics. It is also a deflection from the real argument about the necessity of family planning services — in short, it is a way to say the individual opposes family planning services without coming right out and saying, “I am opposed to the prescription of contraceptives and other reproductive health care services by Planned Parenthood without having to say I am against Planned Parenthood.”