State would have to say how it "intends" to keep coverage "adequate" & "affordable" for people with pre-existing conditions. But that's it.
Pokaż ten wątek
Graham/Cassidy/Heller/Johnson appears to allow states to let insurers charge you more $$$ if your child was born with a birth defect.
-
-
-
There's no metric for adequate or affordable I can see in the bill.
Pokaż ten wątek -
Does it meet the Jimmy Kimmel test? That would appear to be up to states.https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/879024924257595392 …
Pokaż ten wątek -
Many Rs have argued it should be up to the states, and Johnson in particular has called for separating sick people into their own pool.
Pokaż ten wątek -
One big difference between this bill and some earlier efforts: the taxes on the wealthy remain. That means more money that can be spent.
Pokaż ten wątek -
But all the spending ends in 2027. Congress would have to agree to extend.
Pokaż ten wątek -
-
Waiver also says "CONTINUED ENROLLMENT" - which appears to allow states to give insurers right to raise rates if you or child gets sick.
Pokaż ten wątek -
This isn't a "pre-existing condition" so much as a "condition" if it happens after you buy.
Pokaż ten wątek -
It could mean much lower premiums - if you stay healthy. The question is what do states do for the sick? High-risk pool?
Pokaż ten wątek -
States would also control benefits. So, thinks like hospital care, prescription drug coverage, maternity would be hashed out state by state.
Pokaż ten wątek - Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.