I was just told by a staffer for Rep. Tiberi (R) OH that the new health care bill will ...

[Botany]

.... do the following:

lower all health care premiums

cover all pre-existing conditions

[still_one]

1. He is a liar

[Botany]

3. He also told me that the bill has been scored by the C.B.O. too.

He trsansfered me to the staff's health care person and she told me the same thing
and that the AHCA wasn't a tax break for the rich.

[still_one]

14. Did you set them straight Botany?

[Botany]

16. No they both kept talking and talking and lying and lying

So I said "I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror?"

I then looked up if the CBO had scored the bill and the answer was no.

[still_one]

18. Then you did, by saying, "How can you even look yourself in the mirror"

[Botany]

21. They were both very good and kept their cool.

BTW my,"How can you even look yourself in the mirror?" comment I don't think
even phased the health care staff person.

[spanone]

2. like his boss....liar

[hurple]

4. My response would have been

"You are lying."

Short, simple, easy to understand, with no possibility of misinterpretation.

[Kber]

5. How do they know?

I mean, the CBO hasn't finished yet and there are no other independent reviewers that say that will happen, so on what basis can they make that claim?

Pixie dust? Unicorn farts?

I suppose they could be in the bill, since "no one" has actually read the whole thing yet, so maybe?

[PA Democrat]

6. Let's see, the AMA, the AARP, and SCORES of other groups of medical professionals, hospital

associations, medical charities, disabilty and mental health rights organizations etc. are all wrong? Sure.

The are such BRAZEN liars.

[vlyons]

7. If it were me

I would write a 300 word letter to the editor of the largest newspaper in your district and ask them to print it.

[Ms. Toad]

8. That's how it was sold to them

And since they still have not, to my knowledge, published the amendments that permitted states to remove the community rating, caps on annual/lifetime limits, essential healthcare benefits, etc., how would they know anything to the contrary.

Aside from anything else, the unavailability of the content of the bill pisses me off.

I read the ACA at least 3 times before it was voted on & had correspondence with congresscritters & Obama staff about concerns I had that were ultimately addressed in the final bill.

I can't even effectively argue against the yahoos because I don't have access to the actual content of what was passed. And, for the most part, they did not have access either at the time they voted.

[Botany]

9. Facts are funny

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/may/01/donald-trump/does-new-version-ahca-still-cover-pre-existing-con/

[WePurrsevere]

12. Here's the AHCA 'Trumpcare' bill... H.R. 1628...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1628/text

It seems to be the same as the one that passed but I haven't read it yet either.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Check the date. That's the one introduced March.

It does not include the amendments made so that it killed enough people to satisfy the Freedom Caucus, or the drop in the bucket to convince moderates that pre-existing conditions were covered, or the removal of the EHB, or the state waivers for pre-existing conditions & annual/lifetime benefits.

Those have not, to my knowledge, been published anywhere. I've been looking for them, and many of the idiots who voted for the bill acknowledged they had not read them.

[WePurrsevere]

29. From the Actions page it looks like the newer one.

Might just be missing last minute amendments?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1628/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

[Ms. Toad]

30. Waiver for Congresscritters.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2192/text

[WePurrsevere]

35. Thanks...

I was actually not only furious and disgusted but a bit stunned that they were so very brazen to try and exempt themselves. I've seen them pretty sneaky in bills but this one was a beaut.

[Ms. Toad]

38. For all they complained about the ACA

It had fully integrated, tracked amendments well in advance of the bill. It was ginormous, but it was transparent for anyone who chose to wade through it.

With the haste with which this was pased, and the liars we know were promoting it, I can almost belive that the congresscritters are not aware of what they voted for - and truly believe they didn't do away with lifetime caps, ban on pre-existing condition exclusions, or exempt themselves.

I literally went line by line through the timeline and clicked on (or in two instances did a google search for) the amendments that were not linked. Not at all like the orderly process and transparency of the ACA.

What I can't understand or forgive is blindly voting on something that was never in their hands. Agree or disagree with the content, when your sole job in life is to create and pass legislation, you damn well better know what is in it before you vote on it. I truly believe that had they waited until the bill (and amendments) were available to the public this monstrosity would not have passed - and I believe some of these morons would have reached that conclusion on their own had there not been an artificially imposed deadline for voting.

[WePurrsevere]

39. I totally agree! This was rushed and...

done nothing like the ACA was but look at who's in charge for this circus side show. It seems like it was about putting on a show for their crazy base then actually coming up with a truly good policy and I hope Dems hammer this home every chance they get.

What I can't understand or forgive is blindly voting on something that was never in their hands. Agree or disagree with the content, when your sole job in life is to create and pass legislation, you damn well better know what is in it before you vote on it.

Absolutely! I don't even give my perspective info on a website without reading the TOS, privacy policy, etc and I sure wouldn't sign onto a bill without reading it if were my JOB to do so and I literally held people's LIVES in my hands like our representatives do. If you're not going to do your JOB fully and correctly, as your constituents deserve it to be done, then get a different job.

[Ms. Toad]

33. It does NOT include the earlier amendments in the text.

Here's one from April 6.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/house-report/88

(Do a ctrl-F for $15,000,000 - the only two places FR 1628 includes that figure do not match the text of this amendment

This amendment is referred to in this note:

04/06/2017-2:39pm Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 254 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1628. The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 1628. The rule also provides that the further amendment printed Rules Committee Report 115-88 shall be considered as adopted.
Action By: House of Representatives)

[WePurrsevere]

37. Pfft! Then why does it show it passed and the

numbers if it's not complete? I find this not being updated by now a bit frustrating.

05/04/2017 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 217 - 213 (Roll no. 256).(text: CR 3/24/2017 H2393-2405)

[Ms. Toad]

26. Found one amendment: MacArthur Amendment

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20170424/MacArthur%20Amendment.pdf

[Bengus81]

10. Isn't it funny how all you can ever talk to is a staffer or answering machine??

Looks like those good ole' boys don't want one on ones even on the phone.

[Angry Dragon]

11. I bet he never read it

[haele]

13. Sounds like the representative never read the bill.

Reducing the revenue that provides subsidies for health insurance premiums to bring the costs down, and forcing people with chronic health issues into a minimally regulated "high risk insurance pool" does not belong in a bill where the purpose is to "lower all health care premiums".
Unless your goal is to limit all health care insurance offerings to those who are healthy and financially well off, and drop or exempt anyone that would potentially make a claim while you "invest" their premium payments so that your corporate bottom line keeps looking great.

Allowing states to "waiver" the requirement to protect/cover pre-existing conditions or dump all people with pre-existing conditions into an expensive "high risk pool" does not belong in a bill that purports to cover all pre-existing conditions. Especially since there is nothing preventing health insurance companies to force states to push all pre-existing conditions into that very expensive high-risk pool if they want to continue to have low cost insurance plans for the rest of the people in their state.

Haele

[Hoyt]

15. Insurance policies will cover pre-existing conditions, what you pay for policies may bankrupt you.

Whether the subsidies are large enough to help everyone purchase insurance, how much the individual has to pay out-of-pocket, etc., might be more than most can afford.

I consider the reps response a lie, but I suppose it is technically true. But the dumbsters who voted for Trump couldn't understand the details anyway.

[Botany]

17. Technically they might be right be in real life they are liars.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/may/01/donald-trump/does-new-version-ahca-still-cover-pre-existing-con/

What the amendment says on pre-existing conditions

In March, the Republican’s American Health Care Act died without a vote when Republicans couldn’t agree on the bill designed to replace the Affordable Care Act. Under the new bill, called ACHA, insurers had to cover pre-existing conditions, but they could have charged more for people who are recently uninsured.

The MacArthur amendment would allow states to obtain waivers to some requirements of the Affordable Care Act, including the "essential health benefits" provision that requires maternity care or mental health services.

The amendment has language that appears to protect those with pre-existing conditions stating that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting insurers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions."

But experts say other parts of the amendment suggest that those with pre-existing conditions could struggle to maintain affordable health insurance.

snip

Trump said of the GOP health care amendment, "Pre-existing conditions are in the bill."

The amendment says that health insurers can’t limit access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but that insurers can charge people more if states agree. In some states, health insurers would be able to charge sicker people more. And experts warn that high-risk pools -- the mechanisms meant to keep premiums lower for sick people -- might not be effective.

Overall, the latest proposal seems to weaken existing protections for people with pre-existing conditions, not strengthen them.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

[Hoyt]

23. The Bill says that the insurers must cover pre-existing at the same rate as everyone, UNLESS

the state files for a waiver to create a risk pool. If you go into a risk pool, the insurance available can have higher premiums, much higher in fact. Supposedly there are funds available to provide adequate subsidies, SUPPOSEDLY.

But that is questionable and I bet the CBO scoring indicates that. The CBO report will also likely indicate that the flat tax credits $2000 - $4000 will only help some people afford the insurance.

So it is true that if you can afford to buy a policy under the GOPer plan, pre-existing will be covered. That's a fact. Of course, if the subsidies, or tax credits, aren't enough, folks won't be able to purchase the policy. But if you can purchase one, pre-existing will be covered.

So, in a GOPer-speak, the rep didn't lie. Just didn't expand upon their answer.

[Phoenix61]

24. They are giving 8 billion to help fund the pools

Sadly, that's about 200 billion short.

[Hoyt]

34. There is actually some more, the $8B was an additional amount added last week. Still not enough.

[sarisataka]

19. Hmm,

Thought so

[dalton99a]

20. It will do everything you want and more

It is tremendous, folks. Just tremendous

[bagelsforbreakfast]

22. That's Trumpism...

Tell people what they want to hear (a la PT Barnum) then feel free to screw them! If they notice, just repeat the original lie as if it's not occuring or blame the opposition for what you did.

[sharedvalues]

27. Ask for his/her name. Ask if you can post name online.

[Botany]

28. I got the man's name and email address*

* but the email address turned out to be bad.

[crazycatlady]

36. If you have his name

the email shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Just make sure you spell the name right (for example John vs Jon)

The email format is [e-mail]

[yuiyoshida]

31. They are lying through their teeth ...

and when evidence hits people, they will pissed and regret voting Republican.

[gratuitous]

32. Go Inigo Montoya on them

"I don't think you've read the bill we're talking about." Follow up with, "It's HR 1628. The one that allows entire states to opt out of covering pre-existing conditions, which will almost surely happen here in Ohio? The one that hasn't been scored by the CBO? That one? Not the bill you've made up in your mind."

[NastyRiffraff]

40. We need a "pants on fire" smiley

There are so many it would apply to.

[lunasun]

41. You just reminded me I haven't tried that Pegasus Pink Unicorn frappacino yet

I am not even sure it has any coffee could be all whip cream and sugared food dye. Maybe I will try it when the weather gets warmer ....
You'd have to believe in pink unicorns to buy that BS they are handing you