I READ THE GOP HEALTHCARE BILL SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO! | AHCA EXPLAINED

[@makeamericagraciousagain4012]

Hi Ashley, Really great job, you should be working in Washington (if you wanted to) and I like your music. I also have a question for you at the bottom of my post. I believe more than six or seven states may accept the Waiver Program. I base this on the fact that 17 red states have not accepted Expanded Medicaid which has hurt low and middle class families, mothers and our vets that were 138% of the federal poverty level. This was done for spite, no other reason. If Obamacare was defeated . . . then Obama would have failed, and unfortunately this remains the policy instead of trying to increase enrollment and encourage insurance companies to participate in ACA. John Boehner, the speaker said: “We're going to do everything - and I mean everything we can do - to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” The $8 billion is a pittance for offsetting the extra cost of people in states that accept the waiver. It simply isn’t enough money. Experts want $25 billion to fund high-risk pools, and there is a shortfall of $192 billion dollars with ACHA. And addressing your statement that, “Most states that apply are probably not going to be granted that waiver [for not supporting pre-existing conditions] . . . you have to have a pretty good case that health insurance markets in your state are truly at risk of leaving your state.“ President Trump has said he wants ACA to crash and burn, or as he so eloquently puts it “explode”, so I see no change in the policy towards affordable healthcare, getting premiums and deductibles down, especially at the work place, or coming to discuss healthcare in a bi-partisan manner. When ACA was rolled out, telling insurance companies that they had to insure anybody who signed up, regardless of previous conditions or sickness, everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously-uninsured-but-sick people got into the system, got better, and things evened out. To get the insurance companies to go along with this danger of losing money, the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in any of the first decade’s years. At the end of each fiscal year, the insurance companies merely had to document their losses, and the government would reimburse them out of ACA funds provided for by the law. The possibility of their losing money was referred to as the “risk corridor,” and the ACA explicitly filled those risk corridors with a guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole. And then something happened. As The New York Times noted on December 9, 2015, “A little-noticed health care provision slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law.” Rubio and a number of other Republicans had succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that, just in 2015, end-of-fiscal-year risk corridor payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed, according to Rubio himself quoted in the Times, to the tune of around $400 million. Rubio bragged that he’d “saved taxpayers $2.5 billion.” And, indeed, he had. But the insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And, with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to re-fund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years. So the insurance companies did the only things they could. In (mostly red) states with low incomes and thus poorer health, they simply pulled out of the marketplace altogether. This has left some states with only one single insurer left. In others, they jacked up their prices to make up their losses. So, I think the risks are greater because, unfortunately, healthcare has become a partisan issue. And now my question to you: Tom Price's previous healthcare plan stated that if enrollees don't maintain coverage for at least 18 months, pre-existing conditions are NOT covered. Is this the case with the current bill that passed the House?

[@BrokeTheInterweb]

Thank you so much for this thoughtful response! You present some really valid points, and you taught me a lot about the ACA's risk protections. It sounds like the waiver allocation is similar in intention to the risk corridor, except that it has an upper limit (that does indeed seem too low), and with more distribution rights handed over to the states. It is a partisan issue, but both parties have their own ideas of the best way to offset that market risk. Both are funded and lobbied heavily by this industry and feel inclined to protect it. To answer your question, I failed to mention in this video that there were tens of dozens of "Republican health care bills" presented to Congress since January, and it was actually a bit of a challenge to find the correct one on the Congressional website when I went to read it. There was no indication in this bill of the stipulation you mentioned. The majority of the others are very extreme in their premise, and would never have made it to a vote. This one was much cleaner and made more sense, but sadly not enough sense to make it a good bill. On the topic of the ACA "exploding", that truly is the wish of many members of the GOP. But as this bill is being presented as the "repeal and replace Obamacare" solution, damaging existing portions of our health care system that intentionally weren't repealed wouldn't make this bill's supporters look very good. Constituents wouldn't likely see it as a "jab against Obamacare" if they think it was already repealed and replaced. But then again, I wouldn't put it past them for the political theater it would create. My "seven states" figure was based on nothing, and your seventeen states figure sounds a lot more accurate... but I suspect many changes will come to the waiver program specifically when the Senate takes hold of this bill. I'd like to see some more specification on the protocol for granting such a waiver. The number of states that receive it is definitely the central issue here.

[@makeamericagraciousagain4012]

And thx for your prompt and polite responce . . . it is no mean feat reading this entire bill! One other question: In states that accept the waiver not to cover pre-existing conditions, did you see any mention of “caps”? (In other words, previous to ACA, a maximum cap on high-risk pools was about $1 million. That is one year of survival for an ailing cancer patient.) P.S. - Your Spanish is quite good :-)

[@GabrielMartinez-pq3rg]

You're the Definition of a "Dream Wife" :D

[@montello33]

Make America Gracious Again......No politics here with me and I did see that the risk corridor program was being used correctly in IL. Land of Lincoln was struggling to survive and asked for help in form of loan through the risk corridor and they were denied. IL DIrector of Insurance insisted they allow LLH to survive untill the end of the year so consumers wouldnt start over with a new deductible because some had already reached their out of pocket max and she was turned down. I didnt know the details. Are you saying it was 100% the republicans fault? Be non partisan please, I will verify. Thank You.

[@RaelNYC]

You dwell on information, instead of some left or right wing mission. You editorialize on individual facts and concepts, not on the platform of one party or the other. It's refreshing and enlightening.

[@vonsuthoff]

I live in the very poor state of Mississippi and if they can ignore the poor and preexisting conditions... they will! And if they don't ignore this, they will make it impossible to afford! Welcome to a republican lead poor state with a voting public who vote against their own well being every time... especially if our leaders mention that they are on Gods team!!! Jesus would be appalled*

[@emreakkaya6400]

It's no one else's problem that you're poor.

[@hillarylavendar9233]

I just went to a town hall meeting in which a woman showed a picture of her daughter and states that it has cost $3.5 million to keep her daughter alive so far. THe daughter was about four. Let's say each person with a life-long preexisting condition costs $1 million to keep alive during the course of his/her lifetime. I choose that dollar figure because before Obamacare eliminated caps on medical insurance plans, most insurance companies capped off medical treatment at $1 million. So if each person with a preexisting condition spends $1 million dollars on medical services, 8,000 people can be serviced through the high risk pool consisting of $8 billion. So, if there are 6-7 states that apply and receive the waiver, are there only 8,000 people who live with a pre-existing condition in a combination of ALL of those state that have a pre-existing condition from birth? I don't think so. I live in Washington State. According to the Washington State Developmental Disabilities Council, 15,150 people have developmental disabilities in the state. Most of these disabilities are from birth or from childhood. I have worked with people with developmental disabilities for over 20 years. It is rare I meet someone who has sustained a developmental disability in adulthood. So I am going off an educated guess that about 15,000 people in WA State have had a pre-existing condition from birth or very early childhood. Eight billion dollars covers a little over half of the WA State DD population. (I'm sorry but the web doesn't seem to have the data on pre-existing conditions state-by-state. So I'm using similar data. This data does not include people who sustained a pre-existing condition in adulthood and/or a pre-existing condition that does not include a cognitive disability. So if you have just diabetes or just a congenital heart disease, you would not be included in these statistics.) We can look at it a different way. There are 130 million people in the United States with pre-existing conditions. THere is $8 billion dollars. THat comes to $61.54 per person with a preexisting condition in the country. Let's try something else. THere are 130,000,000 people with pre-existing conditions in the USA. Divide that by 50. Multiply that 7 for the seven states applying for the waiver. Then divide that number by $1 million for the $1 million average it costs people with preexisting conditions to maintain health. Whatcha get? 18.2. That means 18 people per state can be in this high risk pool. Washington is just a sampling. "BroketheInterweb" tells us that 6-7 states will probably receive the waiver. What is the problem here? I think before telling us that $8 billion is enough, one first needs to research how much it costs to live with a preexisting condition from birth to old age. I doubt Washington State will be a state that obtains a waiver, but places like Texas will obtain a waiver. Texas is a lot larger than Washington State. I also know that because a person with pre-existing condition has a much more expensive cost of living (medical co-pays, loss of income, modifications to home, etc.), a lot of them live in rural, poor areas where the cost of living is less. Washington State is pretty wealthy overall. Do you think that Texas has more than 18 people with preexisting conditions live in it? What I'm saying is that $8,000,000,000 doesn't cover the price for one state, let alone 6-7 states.

[@clarkvaughan]

How dare you, young lady! You're smart, patient, even handed, and well informed. You delivered a reasonable, cogent summary of an intentionally obfuscated, complex subject. How dare you read. You should be watching TV! Young people nowadays. Hopeless.

[@letsroll2463]

her intelligence gave me a boner

[@sachman6]

Well this is possibly the best explanation of the AHCA bill i have heard to date. It should be posted to every member of the house and senate.Congratulations on a well presented video

[@melsfa17able]

Thanks for the breakdown. Appreciate the time, effort and honesty. Hope to see more videos like this in the future.

[@marknemecek1968]

Question what ever happened to an individual or person to do what you need to due to keep yourself as healthy as you can. We as people need to look in the mirror and realize hey I need to start exercising and eating a lot healthier. It's not the job of the country just to keep you healthy it's are individual responsibility as well If we start really applying this way of thinking watch how better off we can all be.

[@KaberleeTV]

I appreciate your service to the American people for being a trooper and reading the bill in it's entirety.

[@Kudotsu]

If we can get at least half of the population to take the time necessary to read the bills, measures and propositions laid throughout the tiers of government, we would have a society which shills and deviants could neither deceive nor exploit. Participation in our governing is a crucial part of the definition of being an American, as well an essential element of our patriotism. Well done

[@DrKaren-ek3qf]

you read the whole bill, me too... maybe the wrong people are in politics .. Just a thought.. a lot of Americans really do like honestly 👍

[@beasty108]

Breath of fresh air. Thank you for this video!

[@gerryskiff9135]

Hmmm the most intelligent information I've heard all year thankx

[@rosannashaun193]

Wonderful job at reading and explaining this important piece of legislation. You ever think about running for office???I would vote for you..

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

Thank you for reading the bill and creating the video. Impressive work.

[@ricktan2790]

Bravo!!!! You did such a good job!!!!!

[@BedwetterCDN]

Jesus H Christ America for fuck sakes get single payer already and join the rest of the Western World.

[@cliftonjames785]

Mark Danis Way easier said than done my friend. Lobbiest's, congress, health insurance companies, and a good portion of americans wont let that happen.

[@MEEPEES]

I do not take the word of Trump let alone someone I do not know- Paul Ryan is the founder of this bill and I know for a FACT this bill is discriminatory and not practical for many specific KEY groups of AMERICANS- Disabled- Seniors-VETERANS- PRE-EXISTING conditions and that list is 80 percent of AMERICANS... WE would pay through our teeth and not be able to afford insurance. WE were just fine going into a TRUMP presidency with what we already have in the ACA only it would have to be tweaked.

[@BrokeTheInterweb]

I mention those things! I don't like the bill either.

[@Jared_and_the_news]

You magically made a healthcare bill not be boring actually. It's disconcerting to me because my brother had a gastric bypass surgery done that has totally changed his life. He got it through Medicaid. It's a new version of the surgery and he's part of a study they're conducting on it. He's one of the pioneers for this particular surgery. A poster boy of sorts. He told me that the research would no longer be funded with this new bill/law and nor would his follow up appointments. I'm not quite as sharp as you are with legal jargon but I believe you just demonstrated that my brother is right to be concerned that his program will be taken away from him. Thank you for the information, I learned something. You can't learn about any of the salient details from watching the news, you know? Now I am curious how his living in Colorado effected his eligibility. Hmm. And how this new one will as well.

[@geraldnichols8714]

I applaud you for reading that bill and giving I'm my opinion honest information. god bless

[@kennmiller7578]

Not everyone can just get up and move to a new state because they can't get affordable insurance. Especially those most effected by the new health care bill.

[@Im_Behind_You]

Have you heard of Phil's news network? If you're in california you should work for him!

[@hteggefamily]

thank you so much for reading and sharing with what appears to to unbiased interpretation you should be a congress woman and shoe them how its done. thank you again

[@valnetabanks4591]

Thank You

[@pauldavidson6088]

They're not saying they dont trust the poverty line by raising it to 133%, they did that to get rid of the medicaid gap. research showed that people who made 100% of the poverty level still didnt have enough money to buy into the market, hence raise the poverty level for insurance. states that didn't expand medicaid have an insane medicaid gap with people not covered.

[@MurrayBogart]

thanks for the attempt of an accurate synopsis of the bill

[@wolff6592]

Great explanation... Yes I've read the bill as well n studied it but because of the exemption grant shouldn't be there at all so it doesn't matter whether you call it not covered on paper it isn't in the implementation of it. Like you said grants are hard to get. So it doesn't matter it's still difficult. Many ppl are in poverty scattered throughout the nation in pockets like Fresno CA Kansas city Oklahoma city Detroit Chicago just because those pockets are bad the state as a whole. So in reality preexisting condition isn't covered. Difference between Fact n fiction... Myths n monsters

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree80]

Just looking around on U tube for someone to explain the new health care bill. A lot of fear going around..Some of it is true and some of it is not. I found your explanation helpful and informative. Thank you! The question I would have is do you think premiums would go up along with Medicare and prescriptions? I've read some articles that said for seniors the costs will sky rocket...

[@19youtubian72]

Great job on all this! Keep up the wonderful work! :-)

[@bluemacaw1473]

Well done!

[@arneandersen9628]

Hey guys open minded man from Norway here. We have free healthcare for everyone and do not look at Health as a service that belongs on the Market. What is your guys oppinion of health? Do you not want doctors or hospitals? I mean it seems like you do not like the healthcare providers is this the hospitals and doctors or the insurance companies you have the biggest issue with? And finally do you not belive that all ppl should be able to visit the doctor or get rushed of to the hospital when they get sick?

[@trevorwetzel7611]

People are generally guaranteed emergency care, but they will be sent an enormous bill afterwards and it can be derailing

[@melford634]

good video but it would have been better if you didnt put any of your thoughts about the GOP, just explain whats in it. because the moment you said "i hate this part, this part is dumb or i like this part" is all it takes to get someone on your side instead of them deciding themselves. not everyone of us will understand the content of the GOP even if its read a 100 times, . and for that reason we put our trust to whoever we think is smart enough to handle things like TRUMP! the greatest con man of the world. americans got trumped! that guy never cared about american people! he only cares about "HIM"

[@BrokeTheInterweb]

You can disagree with me (and you should if you do!), but my opinions are on the bill-- not either party. As I stated in the video, they both have my ire.

[@ragingjojo]

the problem with free healthcare in america is it would literally break the bank.....

[@romascopa8461]

I really hate Obama care so far. Wait lines have gone up 400% by us.

[@latinarepublican]

Jail every member of congress and start over

[@thedoopa3169]

I want to meet this person. The conversations would be wonderful

[@ZzzRoofus]

It's refreshing to see there are intelligent young women out there. Becoming are rarer sight every single day. Don't stop making your videos!

[@thisguy1520]

You're awesome.

[@billhaigney5080]

what about the retroactive repeal of investment income? why didn't you mention it?

[@montello33]

Good work though. You spent time on it and that is a plus.

[@saharmhamza]

Hey ashely nice job I agree with you , just wanted to mention this bill call for repeal of 3.8 percent investment tax such as capital gains and 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. Both of those under obamacare apply to individuals earning 200,000$ or more a year and couples earning more than 250,000$ . That's why the estimated tax cut for the rich (1-2%) is 600 bil $ , warren Buffett the business magnate with net worth of 73.3 bill said and I quote " his personal tax bill will be 17% lower under this bill - around 680,000$ of his " little less than $4 mill tax bill " , this money used to go to strengthen Medicare and social security and now will be lost, for the rich ppl this is nothing but for ppl struggling with lines of poverty and middle class is the different between life and death .

[@saharmhamza]

Anyway l liked ur video , really great

[@biplav32]

How did you do that when the HOR haven't read it?

[@akaTRENT]

Super duper are

[@alexph6486]

Sorry. I meant great job.

[@alexph6486]

Great hib,

[@bobbybobby3232]

She is a cute white girl.

[@drios111]

you're really cool :D lol

[@montello33]

Poverty line for a family of nine? Why are you even discussing such a thing. That is where I step in an say, if you cant afford it, stop having kids. 2016 Federal Poverty Line is $24, 300 for a family of four. 133% of FPL is $32, 319. This is medicaid we are talking about.

[@Luchoeds]

Ashley your my fav. Desde el video de Cipro. Go on a date with me.

[@montello33]

Brooke, the 63 day mandate is what it always use to be. You could always go from Individual to group ins or group to group as long as you didn't have a 63 day lapse in coverage. So if you got a job or switched jobs, you could not be denied for preX conditions if you didn't have that gap. Cobra was available also if you lost your job and wanted to continue that group insurance for 18 months if large employer and 12 months if small employer. Then their was pools etc. Cobra and pools were expensive but so is the premiums and out of pockets for the last 3 years in the Federal Marketplace. Costs have to come down everywhere and I dont know a magician that can fix that.

[@carlosAnZ]

hola. dejame decirte eres muy pero muy guapa. me encantan tus ojos me gustaria entablar un bonita amistad

[@BrianEspinosaCE]

Haz mas vídeos en español.. O creo otra cuenta y hazlos en español 😉😉

[@jhonrenzopacharicabello1845]

eres muy linda. i like the way you speech most of all in spanish jaja. saludos de Perù

[@jhonrenzopacharicabello1845]

ok lady, i don't think you answer more than once the same comment, thankful for that. i'll be look forward to your next video

[@FrankBatistaElJibaro]

Couldn't keep watching past 5 minutes because it was cringey to watch you sound like you are very angry and partisan. I don't care which side you're with, but delivering the info in an angry way is pretty off-putting to watch.