OK, how does this suit you? Not that it has a chan

Quote:

---

AHCA, the New House Republican Health Care Bill That Just Passed

Alicia Adamczyk,Elizabeth O’Brien
May 04, 2017

The Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare narrowly passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, advancing a plan that would gut health coverage for millions of Americans while delivering tax cuts to the rich.

http://time.com/money/4766063/ahca-new-republ...tter-brief

Tax Credits Would Decrease for Most People

Tax credits to pay for individual coverage varied based primarily on income, as well as age and geographical region, under Obamacare, and 85% of enrollees receive help paying for coverage. In the AHCA, subsides depend almost exclusively on age, with all individuals in a certain age range receiving the same amount of support.

The credits are phased out for the highest earners: they start decreasing when an individual earns $75,000, or $150,000 for joint filers.

Overall, the AHCA dramatically reduces the amount of money people will receive to help pay for their insurance, excepting the youngest, healthiest enrollees. This is the age breakdown for subsidies:

• 30 and Under: $2,000 per year
• 30 to 40: $2,500 per year
• 40 to 50: $3,000 per year
• 50 to 60: $3,500 per year
• 60 and Over: $4,000 per year

Compared to the ACA's credits, this structure benefits young healthy people, while hurting older people as well as sick young people.

Lower-income older people would be hit particularly hard, as the fixed dollar subsidy won't go as far in covering their costs as the income-based one.

In 2026, a 64-year-old making $26,500 would owe a sizable $19,500 in annual premiums under Ryan’s plan, versus $15,300 under Obamacare, according to CBO projections.

Meanwhile, the difference in subsidies would mean that the consumer pays just $1,700 out-of-pocket for premiums under Obamacare, versus $14,600 under the American Health Care Act.

Women's Health Access Would Take Extra Hits

Though not explicitly stated, the AHCA aims to defund Planned Parenthood, the largest network provider of women's health care in the country, by denying reimbursements from Medicaid and Title X (a federal program for family planning) funding for preventative and primary care. That could lead to as many as 650,000 women losing access to preventive care.

The waivers for pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits would also disproportionately affect women: things like maternity and newborn care could be on the chopping block, as well as birth control coverage.

Other services that are currently considered preventive care that could change if essential health benefits are rejiggered include breast pumps, domestic violence screening and counseling, mammograms, newborn care, screenings for cervical cancer, STI counseling and well-woman visits. A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that because of increased birth control coverage, out-of-pocket prescription costs are actually on the decline—and that too would be reversed.

At the same time, sexual assault, domestic violence, pregnancy, C-section, postpartum depression, and eating disorders are all conditions affecting significantly more women than men (though not exclusively women), that could be considered pre-existing conditions once again.

The bill could put domestic violence victims at even more risk. As MONEY reported previously,

Ahh, so that's what was meant by the 'extra hits' choice of words.


Under Obamacare, couples have to file taxes jointly to receive a tax credit—unless they are victims of domestic abuse, domestic violence, or spousal abandonment. The AHCA doesn't account for this and requires all couples to file jointly to receive a tax credit, without exception.

Finally, women also make up the majority of Medicaid recipients, and nearly half of all births are covered by Medicaid.

---