FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Judge Dowd on posible ACA repeal ramifications

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Mary Catherine Dowd
9 hrs ·

I don't know if this is true, but is of concern.

So you are aware, the executive order to repel the ACA includes us all: insured, uninsured, under insured.
The first order of business the new president signed was an executive order to repeal the ACA.
Here's what this means... even if you are safely covered behind employer-provided insurance, the protections set forth in the ACA (Affordable Care Act), apply to you too. And if those protections are repealed along with the rest (or any part) of the program, you will also be affected.
That means you may be trapped in a job, because your pre-existing condition may mean you will not qualify for new insurance offered by another employer, and the cost of private insurance would be prohibitive. If your employer shuts down, lays you off, or even changes insurers, well, you are out of luck. The Senate GOP voted this week that they would not require an eventual ACA replacement to protect against discrimination for pre-existing conditions, which was the standard before the ACA.
It means that you (a young adult under the age of 26) or your adult children (over 18) may find yourselves without the protection of insurance, as the Senate GOP voted last night that an eventual ACA replacement will not be required to allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance up to the age of 26.
It means that if you have a high-risk pregnancy, or life-threatening illness such as cancer, you may not be able to afford all the care you need, because you may hit lifetime or annual caps. If you have an infant born with any kind of severe medical condition, or premature, they may hit their lifetime insurance cap before they are old enough to walk. The Senate GOP voted last night that an eventual ACA replacement program would not be required to prohibit lifetime insurance caps.
It means that if you are a struggling parent who is uninsured or under-insured, you will no longer be able to count on at least your kids getting the routine medical and dental care they need under the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP).
The Senate GOP voted that CHIP is not required to be protected by an eventual ACA replacement.
These provisions of the ACA affect everyone in this country, not just those without insurance through their employers.
If you are not okay with these changes, call your representatives and let them know what's important to you.
Nothing has been set in stone yet, but our legislators have shown us a map of what they plan to do if constituents don't make their voices heard loud and clear.
Hold down here to copy, paste, and post (do not share) on your timeline, if you feel this information needs to be passed on.
Post Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:38 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

weinenkel

After pulling out of Obamacare to try to force merger, Aetna's merger with Humana blocked by judge
By Walter Einenkel
Monday Jan 23, 2017 · 4:47 PM CST

NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 29: Health care reform supporters protest outside the building where Aetna insurance offices are located September 29, 2009 in New York City. The protesters were eventually arrested by NYPD after they staged a sit-in inside the lobby. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Shame on you Aetna

A few months ago it was announced that healthcare insurance giant Aetna would be pulling out of many Affordable Care Act markets. The reasons were not the Republican-stated economic ones, unless by “economic” you mean trying to extort the American people into being allowed to work on forming insurance monopolies.

Aetna's announcement Tuesday that it would be pulling out of about two-thirds of the Obamacare exchanges was countered with speculation from the administration that the move was less about Aetna losing money in the program than retaliation against the government by the company. Last month, the Department of Justice filed suit to block the company from acquiring Humana. Turns out, the administration wasn't just speculating about Aetna's motive.

Today Aetna received a (possibly brief) karmic spanking as a judge has denied their $37 billion merger with Humana.

The transaction would violate antitrust laws by reducing competition among insurers, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington ruled on Monday. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Aetna owes Humana a $1 billion breakup fee.

The ruling is a victory for antitrust enforcement efforts initiated by the Obama administration. It may bode poorly for the planned $48 billion merger between Anthem Inc. and Cigna Corp., which was challenged by the Justice Department and is awaiting a ruling. Shares of all four companies declined.

“If the judge blocked this deal, there is very little, if any, chance that the Anthem-Cigna deal gets cleared,” Jason McGorman, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, said by e-mail.
Post Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:31 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >