NAACP Stands Against Latest Attempts to Repeal the Affordable Care Act

Posted September 22, 2017

Some outside groups, and insurance companies have said their read of the language is that coverage for pre-existing conditions would be in danger in the Graham-Cassidy plan. Its reviews of earlier GOP bills in the House and Senate found that at least 22 million fewer people would have coverage by 2026, compared to current law. Neither mentioned that the states getting less money voluntarily shunned the Medicaid expansion that made millions more people eligible for coverage.

"Four states get 40 percent of the money under Obamacare: New York, California, Massachusetts and Maryland, "Sen". This proposal would let Alaska keep its Obamacare money, reap the Graham-Cassidy money on top of that, boost its Medicaid match rate, and not have to abide by the trade-offs of either bill.

Cassidy, a medical doctor who has worked tirelessly on the new bill, also mounted a vigorous defense Wednesday and said Kimmel was mistaken. "Here in MA, we provide first-rate care, we actually have had a much flatter slope in the growth of the cost of care, and we're out there working for the most comprehensive coverage in the country". The statement said the Graham-Cassidy bill would "potentially open the door" to caps.

After the announcement that the independent Congressional Budget Office would not be able to provide an overall assessment of the bill's impact prior to a vote, concern has been raised that the bill is being rushed through Congress too quickly. Liberal states could even duplicate the ObamaCare exchanges, if they want to implement a failed model.

CASSIDY: The protection is absolutely the same. "But with that, can you guarantee that these governors will make sure preexisting conditions are covered?" "Under Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson, more people will have coverage, and we protect those with preexisting conditions". And that would get them out of the rules imposed by Obamacare.

Klobuchar and Sanders will argue against a bill that Minnesota officials say could cost the state billions of dollars in federal funding in the coming years. The legislation also would eliminate Obamacare's essential health benefits provision, which mandates insurers cover an array of services, including hospitalization, maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse services.

The scope of this work, and the resources required to support state planning and implementation activities, can not be overstated.