On Wednesday, the Republican majority will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. By voting for repeal, the Republican majority is taking away valuable health care protections and benefits provided for women.
The truth is that women have the most to gain from the Affordable Care Act. Prior to passage of the law, women faced severe discrimination from health insurance companies. Through a practice known as 'gender rating', women who purchased insurance on the individual market paid up to 48% more in premium costs than men. Equally offensive, 79% of women who purchased insurance on the individual market still did not receive any maternity coverage through their insurance plans.
By the time the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, these problems will be resolved. For example, the Affordable Care Acts ensures "gender rating" will end by 2014. It also ensures that maternity services are included in all health insurance plans offered on newly created health insurance exchanges.
In addition, by 2014:
All of these reforms have been designed and implemented in a way that reduces our nation's deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years.
Finally, despite Republican claims, the Affordable Care Act does not "kill jobs". Instead, it will allow a small portion of Americans to retire and still pay for the care they need. The Republican majority bases their "job-killing" claim on a CBO report titled "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update". While it never mentions the phrase "job killing", the report says, "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries' financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market." In short, any reduction in the number of people working will be because they no longer need to work, not because they can't find jobs. The "labor market" will decrease as healthier Americans, with money in their pockets, are able to retire earlier, while still paying for the care they need.
After hearing these benefits, the Affordable Care Act isn't as scary some would claim, is it?
Because of the benefits and protections for women and the positive impact on our nation's finances I oppose any attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act. I encourage you to call your Representatives and urge them to do the same.
Follow Rep. Louise Slaughter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/louiseslaughter
If Republicans reignite the health care battle by attempting to block implementation at every turn, they may find Americans turning against them. Most people don't want to relive that fight. However, President Obama and other Democrats have signaled a willingness to amend the law, perhaps opening the door to compromise on tort reform, market-based incentives and health insurance sales across state lines.
Republicans must be wary of dismissing the political aptitude of this president.
As for women, discrimination has always belonged to them. It's about time the
word equal that Americans love to say meant women too.
Good night HP Posters.
Mike
follow your posts. Always smart. Take care.
faved
Mike
H. R. 3590—131
"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf
The intent of ALL insurance is to collect money from lower risk people to offset the cost of people who require health care. The reason this is "fair" is because each and every healthy person is an accident or diagnosis away from being an injured or sick person.
Our youths are now thanks to reform, allowed by insurers to remain on their parents' policies until 26, instead of having to buy their own, or risk going around without coverage.
Younger people are the very ones who will receive the most benefit from the generous premium subsidies which will make them able to purchase very good health plans for about the same or less as if they were offered a good plan that they cannot lose, through a large employer. Why would you begrudge anyone this?
What Representative Slaughter neglects to mention is that the Rep's are saying that they will re-instate many of the items she mentions. It is not actually a matter of all or nothing. The stated goal is to undo as much of what the Rep's consider to be an overly large and overly costly law as possible while retaining the good portions.
Whether they actually do that remains to be seen but, no false choices, please.
Please continue to fight for women's rights to affordable healthcare.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml
"The statistics tell a paradoxical story. According to a controversial study by researchers at the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, women are more likely to be involved in car crashes than men - despite the fact that men are three times more likely to be killed when they do crash.
As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed."
That being said, I think there are a lot of good things being introduced by this bill.
Regarding women paying more than men for health insurance, this is not a function of discrimination. It is a function of women using more health care services than men do. We don't call it discrimination when men pay more for life insurance (men are more likely to die early) and auto insurance. My wife has had numerous accidents that were her fault, and has speeding tickets. I am older, and have never caused an accident. Yet I was, statistically, a greater risk to an auto insurance company due to my gender. (Men actually have a slightly lower accident rate per mile driven, but men, on average, drive a much higher number of miles than women) Insurance is about pricing the risk that the insured will utilize your service. In an open insurance market, a company, competing with others, would want to offer as low a monthly premium as profit allows, in order to win more womens business, and therefore, dollars. Therefore, the price was higher.
Compare car insurance risk as to gender.
Compare health insurance as to gender.
Don't compare one to the other. Driving a car is one subject. Health is another.
Would you consider higher car insurance rates for accident/speeding prone drivers and Men to be discrimination?
What you are referring to would not be accurately called "Insurance". Start referring to this by it's far more accurate name (welfare) and I'll be much more open to discussion about the bill.
Nick -Dude with a preexisting condition *severe chronic pain in right leg*