drsmooth wrote:In news of things I could actually see happening, some internet discussion of Rosie O'Donnell doing an SNL turn as Bannon

pacino wrote:We're going to go backwards, just like we voted:

HHS has already submitted a proposal of new rules to OMB. And while officials have not said publicly what’s in that proposal, industry consultants and lobbyists told The Huffington Post that HHS has been considering the following three changes, among others:

1. Insurers would have more leeway to vary prices by age, so that premiums for the oldest customers could be 3.49 times as large as those for younger customers. Today, premiums for the old can be only three times as high as premiums for the young, which is what the Affordable Care Act stipulates. According to sources privy to HHS discussions with insurers, officials would argue that since 3.49 “rounds down” to three, the change would still comply with the statute.

2. People who want to apply for coverage mid-year, outside of open enrollment, would have to provide documentation of a qualifying life change ― such as a divorce or lost job ― before coverage begins. Presently, insurance kicks in for such people right away, as soon as they apply for it, subject to verification afterward.

3. Insurers could cut off coverage for people who are more than 30 days late on premiums. Presently, lower- and middle-income consumers who qualify for the law’s tax credits get a 90-day grace period.

Making things tougher for people to obtain and keep insurance? Charging 40 and 50 somethings more?

#MAGA, BITCHES

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:We're going to go backwards, just like we voted:

HHS has already submitted a proposal of new rules to OMB. And while officials have not said publicly what’s in that proposal, industry consultants and lobbyists told The Huffington Post that HHS has been considering the following three changes, among others:

1. Insurers would have more leeway to vary prices by age, so that premiums for the oldest customers could be 3.49 times as large as those for younger customers. Today, premiums for the old can be only three times as high as premiums for the young, which is what the Affordable Care Act stipulates. According to sources privy to HHS discussions with insurers, officials would argue that since 3.49 “rounds down” to three, the change would still comply with the statute.

2. People who want to apply for coverage mid-year, outside of open enrollment, would have to provide documentation of a qualifying life change ― such as a divorce or lost job ― before coverage begins. Presently, insurance kicks in for such people right away, as soon as they apply for it, subject to verification afterward.

3. Insurers could cut off coverage for people who are more than 30 days late on premiums. Presently, lower- and middle-income consumers who qualify for the law’s tax credits get a 90-day grace period.

Making things tougher for people to obtain and keep insurance? Charging 40 and 50 somethings more?

#MAGA, BITCHES

1. Allowing insurers to price policies more in line with risk. Sounds fine.
2. Seems more than reasonable, and is how most corporate plans work. You can't wait until you're sick to get health insurance.
3. I don't have an argument for why 30/90/180 is better from a policy point of view. The main point is that the insurance should be affordable to everyone, subsidized according for income. Not sure about the recourse for folks that lose their job (ie. their income drops), but if they drop the grace period to 30, they need to have a plan for handling income changes.

Werthless wrote:I'll just leave this here:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump- ... 57935.html

Werthless wrote:1. Allowing insurers to price policies more in line with risk. Sounds fine.

2. Seems more than reasonable, and is how most corporate plans work. You can't wait until you're sick to get health insurance.

3. I don't have an argument for why 30/90/180 is better from a policy point of view.

Woody wrote:What would it actually take for someone to start writing an impeachment bill

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:1. Allowing insurers to price policies more in line with risk. Sounds fine.

it's mickey mouse bullshit. repeal & replace with something "wonderful" or gtfo

2. Seems more than reasonable, and is how most corporate plans work. You can't wait until you're sick to get health insurance.

more mickey mouse bullshit.

3. I don't have an argument for why 30/90/180 is better from a policy point of view.

pro tip: neither do any republican "health policy experts".

becasuse this is just MORE mickey mouse bullshit. This is NOT "repeal & replace", this is embroidery that they'll try to call repeal & replace.

JUburton wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/europe/vatican-steve-bannon-pope-francis.html?smid=tw-share

This is pretty great, mostly for how scared the hard line catholic conservatives are of Pope Francis and his absolute power over the Vatican. THE YOUNG (minded) POPE.

João Braz de Aviz, a powerful cardinal close to the pope, walked around in simple cleric clothes, the equivalent of civilian dress among all the flowing cassocks. Asked whether the ascent of Mr. Trump would embolden Mr. Bannon’s allies in the Vatican to intensify their opposition and force the pope to take a more orthodox line, he shrugged.

“The doctrine is secure,” he said, adding that the mission of the church was more to safeguard the poor. It was also, he reminded his traditionalist colleagues, to serve St. Peter, whose authority is passed down through the popes. “And today, Francis is Peter.”

Brantt wrote:In other news, Maxine Waters thinks Russia invaded Korea.

Brantt wrote:In other news, Maxine Waters thinks Russia invaded Korea.

pacino wrote:She said Korea instead of Crimea; good thing she's not president. that'd just be silly.