I can’t understand why anyone would knowingly cut off access to mental health coverage. That is a HUGE issue and can be properly treated to help folks stay functional and productive. Ok, I do know that yes, it costs money and this is to save money, but yikes!
Yes, @doschicos Employer paid plans also have to be ACA compliant. So under ACA, the insurance I get at work cannot impose caps. It has to cover the 10 essential benefits. It has to have an MLR of 80% or rebate the overage. It must cover kids to age 26. Etc etc etc. All of those protections will go away under the new proposed law. People who think they’re not helped by ACA because they don’t buy on the exchange are just wrong.
Really, the only winners will be: 1. Insurance execs whose compensation can now skyrocket. 2. The very wealthy whose taxes will be cut, and 3. Young and healthy people who will be able to pay less for bare-bones high-deductible insurance (unless they get sick, in which case they move into the “loser” category). The losers are everyone else.
@LasMa , #4. Congress. They will surely keep their swanky plans.
Puke.
The only way I can see that being justified is if someone had a whacked out idea that people’s mental health issues involves some sort of choice. We need mental health to be covered.
Yes, @HImom. there are costs associated with mental health but so many benefits that aren’t being measured and factored in - enabling people to lead more productive lives and work, continue their education, less reliant on other forms of supports, etc.
I know I’m preaching to the choir at least in terms of your views but it needs to be stated. We, as a country, all will be losers with the loss of this coverage. Penny wise, pound foolish.
The cost of untreated mental health issues shows up in places people may not expect. For example, police often end up being the ones dealing with people with mental health issues, which may distract them from catching actual criminals.
The mentally ill are a huge proportion of the homeless, jailed, unemployed and under-employed as well. Not treating them properly will just overcrowd the ERs and yes, police officers who will have to figure out what to do with them.
It is very short-sighted to deny treatment that has proven effectiveness to help people lead productive lives. Personally, I find this very alarming. Mental health care overlaps with lots of physical healthcare as well. Chemical imbalances affect the brain and can cause mood changes and more, as can dietary issues, tobacco use and more.
What data have you seen that supports this comment:
“Really, the only winners will be: 1. Insurance execs whose compensation can now skyrocket.”
Insurance companies (who are 100% American employers) often get the blamed for skyrocketing costs even though those increases are caused by many other factors including cost of new technology, cost of paying for uninsured Americans (the $20 band aid that my plan paid for me covers the bands aid costs of several Uninsured people), litigation, drug advertising, etc.
Insurance companies are getting OUT of the exchanges in the ACA because they were losing money. I can’t see what in this new plan is any better for them or why you believe insurance execs will suddenly get paid more @LasMa
@suzyQ7 – I posted this several pages back.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/07/health-insurers-billion-dollar-windfall-gop-obamacare-replacement.html
From the article:
There’s a sweet deal for insurers buried in the GOP’s new Obamacare bill.
Health insurance companies could realize a $1 billion or more windfall over the next decade — and end up paying their CEOs even more money — because of a simple tweak in the GOP’s proposal to replace Obamacare.
That tweak, buried in cryptic language on page 67 of the bill, would end the $500,000 cap that health insurers currently have under the Affordable Care Act on deducting the cost of executives’ compensation as business expenses on their taxes.
The Republican proposal to eliminate that cap means that insurers would be able to deduct nearly the full value of their CEOs’ compensation, and not pay taxes on it.
For a company such as Aetna, whose CEO Mark Bertolini earns more than $17 million annually, ending the cap would add to its bottom line, and encourage insurers to pay executives more money, critics say.
So they are eliminating a cap on deducting salaries that is not imposed on any other industry in America and was never there before the ACA. And that will cause super high executive pay to go higher? Not likely.
The fact is, without the individual mandate, but allowing preexisting conditions- insurance doesn’t work. This plans 30% penalty is not going to be enough to make people want to get insurance, period. The companies will pull out and there will be no market/exchange for this plan.
Have been reading on other professional listservs that some of the “savings” will come from paying Medicare providers even less than the current paltry reimbursement levels. This may well cause me to drop accepting it, which I really do not want to do to clients. This is not right.
Well I’m thrilled because for the last 4 years all I’ve heard is what a disaster ACA has been from a large segment of the population, and quite frankly, I’m sick of it. Time for them to shut-up and eat their peas. This is what they wanted and this is what they got. I better not hear a peep from those people.
Well, some of us did appreciate what we’ve had with ACA and will be screwed if AHCA passes. These are the people I’m focused on not animosity towards the selfish and the misinformed. Besides, it will cost us all - in one way or another.
They need to deal,with three issues…and I’ll say it again and again.
- Insurance companies need to provide policies on the individual market. If they continue to pull out...for,whatever reason, this plan fails for those residing where no coverage is offered.
- IF and I mean IF health insurance is going to be available across state lines, doctors need to actually ACCEPY those plans. Even now, there are plenty of doctors who are not providers on ACA exchange plans.
- Doctors need to be on the plans offered.
My solution: if a company wants to sell ANY health insurance plans in a state…ANY (this means employer sponsored or government) then the SAME plans need to be available to those purchasing on the individual market. So…if Anthem decides to pull out of the individual market in a state (like they did in Arizona), they would not be permitted to broker ANY health insurance plans in that state at all.
No one is providing a solution to insurance companies and doctors simply saying NO to plans.
Oh…I thought of one more thing…no skinny plans.
Here’s a link to the video I had posted early that kicked off a discussion on mental health care parity (hence you will likely get no mental health coverage) being removed with the repeal of ACA. Joe Kennedy questioning the AHCA lawyer on the topic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641716/-Grandson-of-Robert-F-Kennedy-on-ACA-repeal-This-is-not-an-act-of-mercy-it-is-an-act-of-malice
People need to stop talking about their solutions because there is no debate now. TrumpCare is the new plan and zero amendments were allowed yesterday in committee. This is it.
Also, according to Mulvaney, OMB director, “Insurance is not the end goal here.”
Apparently, AIUI. a Part 2 and 3 are also in the works. This first part is what they can do under Senate rules, that is, what they can do without 60 votes.
As for doctors accepting the plans, the individual plans would have to have the same reimbursement payments to doctors and hospitals as the employer plans. My local hospital won’t accept any Covered California plans at all but they accept employer provided plans.
Sorry…but I’m expressing my opinion here…on what I think is MISSING in the new proposal…and it was missing in the ACA as well.
I think that is very worthy of discussion.
If the goals is to allow certain areas of the country to have no individual providers, or no doctors who will take these plans, or no doctors who will be on the plans…then fine. Ignore my comments.
@suzyQ7 If you want to know why insurers left the market, google “risk corridors, rubio.”
Thanks, @CT1417 , for answering suzyQ’s other question.
Emilybee- it’s a discussion forum. It’s ABOUT opinions! I think Thumper’s thoughts are very solid and I’m sure those points are being debated by the powers that be.