Healthcare going forward

[gsdx]

The simple bank transaction tax that's been repeatedly proposed could pay off the national debt in a few months

Trump wouldn't look at it that way. Even if 'tax' were replaced with 'fee', it still means that he and the wealthy would be paying more money than they want to (or think they should). The only way it would work for Trump would be to put a low- to middle-class cap on the amount... a cap that the low to middle classes would have to pay, but the upper classes and uber rich wouldn't have to pay.

Anything that would cause Trump and his cronies to pay more to the government is verboten.

 

[Benvolio]

The part that requires insurance companies to insure preexisting disease must fail, and the companies cannot choose to insure the healthy people and refuse those with preexisting disease. They must insure preexisting or get out of the ACA system and they cannot charge healthy people enough to cover the preexisting. If there is anything left after than, the GOP can then repeal the residue.

 

[Stardreamer]

Exactly.

Congressional statements about the ACA present it as if it were only the individual marketplace. It's not- it's a very complex bill that aims to change the way that healthcare providers are paid and to provide a means for uninsured Americans to gain coverage. Most of the people who are getting insurance from the ACA are getting it through Medicaid, not the individual market.

Even if the individual market were to "fail" (whatever that means), the rest of the legislation- the part that pays providers based upon quality measures and outcomes, the Medicaid expansion, the minimum requirements for insurance plans and the restructuring of the way providers are paid would continue on.

On the other hand, if 24 million people suddenly lose their insurance when the bill is repealed, that's a PR nightmare.

Exactly and the part of the CBO report that is getting little press is that they are predicting the individual marketplace will be stable going forward, the increases and withdrawls we were seeing last year are part of a one time adjustment as the industry figured out the actual costs of doing business in the market after the Republicans blocked some of the measures designed to offset them.

That to me is the real reason for the insane rush to pass this legislation, it is not that the market is about to crash it is that they fear it won't.

 

[Stardreamer]

The part that requires insurance companies to insure preexisting disease must fail, and the companies cannot choose to insure the healthy people and refuse those with preexisting disease. They must insure preexisting or get out of the ACA system and they cannot charge healthy people enough to cover the preexisting. If there is anything left after than, the GOP can then repeal the residue.

The Republicans want to keep that and its just too popular for them to even suggest it dropping it, so by your standard the Republican replacement plan is doomed too. So when it fails will the Democrats then repeal the residue?

 

[offthewall14420]

Fuck numbers. Dems will win on emotion.

Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea

 

[rareboy]

^ But almost everyone knows this...it still doesn't sway the Republicans who have had an obsession with gutting Obamacare from the outset.

But it still isn't looking like a done deal, 24 hours before it comes to the floor.

The right wingers are still holding out. And if they get what they want, it dies in the Senate.

 

[offthewall14420]

I agree, thought it would die in Senate or conference.

If Ryan does give "Freedom Caucus" what they want, he's beholden to them. If the bill fails to pass House in an actual vote, he'll become a joke.

Either way he's a lame duck Speaker (by spring).

 

[KaraBulut]

Brookings just released an analysis of the Ryan plan with the proposed modifications to attempt to placate moderate and conservative Republicans. Brookings is non-partisan, so their analysis is generally considered to be fair and less biased than other think tanks.

The outcome is not much different than before the changes:

A new analysis from the Brookings Institution finds that the revised GOP ObamaCare replacement bill is likely to result in roughly the same coverage losses as the original bill, and could even cause more people to lose coverage.
...the revisions are unlikely to significantly change the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) finding from the original bill that 24 million more people would be uninsured by 2026. Changes to Medicaid won by conservatives could end up increasing those coverage losses, the authors found.
...Meanwhile, some revisions could even increase coverage losses. Namely, allowing states to require "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work could lead to some people losing coverage, though it is unclear how many states would choose to impose the requirements.
Another provision, to allow states to accept a block grant of Medicaid funds, could result in "substantial" coverage losses, the analysis states, but it finds most states are unlikely to accept the block grant since it would be likely to cut their Medicaid funding even more.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Yeah. This headline from Vox sort of sums it up:

If you're a millionaire, the AHCA gives you $50K. If you're poor, it costs you $1,420.

 

[gsdx]

I saw a commercial during Wheel of Fortune talking about what will be lost, especially for the young and the old, if this goes through.

 

[KaraBulut]

An interesting twist- PACs affiliated with the Koch brothers have come out against the Ryan bill. They feel that it's not conservative enough.

The network's leading organizations, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, announced late Wednesday the creation of a special fund to support House members who vote against the health care bill...
"The bill as it stands today is Obamacare 2.0," said James Davis, executive vice president of Freedom Partners, in a statement announcing the new fund. He added, "We will stand with lawmakers who keep their promise and oppose this legislation — and work toward a solution that reduces costs and provides Americans with the relief they need and deserve."...
The Koch-backed fund is being described only as "seven figures" and will go toward political ads, direct mail and other grassroots activity.

Source

The announcement will prompt Congressional Freedom Caucus members to dig in their heels and will encourage them to vote "No" in order to stay in the good graces (and financial support) of the Koch network.

The Koch brothers were instrumental in funding and organizing the 2009 town hall protests against the bill. Since then, they have continued to fund efforts to undermine the bill- particularly the Medicaid expansion.

 

[Kabluey]

^ the Kochs will never be satisfied.
Extremists will always demand more.

 

[Stardreamer]

The order for a Friday vote reportedly comes from the White House. Vox's Tara Golshan reports that close Trump ally Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) said the president is done negotiating, and that if the AHCA doesn't pass, America will be stuck with Obamacare.

Source Link: http://www.vox.com/2017/3/23/15043796/vox-sentences-gorsuch-filibuster

Oh Please, please, please, please!

 

[frankfrank]

^ the Kochs will never be satisfied.
Extremists will always demand more.

As far as Koch-think goes, the riffraff are just useless people and they need to die.

Has a full copy of the AHCA even been SEEN yet? There was that circus about three weeks ago about the missing bill, but I've heard nothing since. I wouldn't put it past the Repukes to have stuck in a repeal to the Reagan-signed law requiring emergency treatment of the indigent which, of course, would simply let them die outside the ER doors.

Oh Please, please, please, please!

I know a couple people whose lives are being saved/have been saved by Obamacare. I know some people who are having a real issue paying the high premiums. I am not aware of ANYBODY I know, who has lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

In my mind, the LIVES BEING SAVED "trumps" all the rest.

 

[Stardreamer]

As far as Koch-think goes, the riffraff are just useless people and they need to die.

Has a full copy of the AHCA even been SEEN yet? There was that circus about three weeks ago about the missing bill, but I've heard nothing since. I wouldn't put it past the Repukes to have stuck in a repeal to the Reagan-signed law requiring emergency treatment of the indigent which, of course, would simply let them die outside the ER doors.


I know a couple people whose lives are being saved/have been saved by Obamacare. I know some people who are having a real issue paying the high premiums. I am not aware of ANYBODY I know, who has lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

In my mind, the LIVES BEING SAVED "trumps" all the rest.

There was the first 'draft' which they claimed was the final version that the CBO scored that most have seen. In the last 48 hours though as part of Trump's wheeling and dealing trying to bring reluctant Republicans on board several changes have been made and/or promised. Since Ryan threw the regular order out the window and has maintained such tight control of the actual bill that only he can actually make changes NO ONE other than Ryan himself and we're not sure he even knows. What rumors have circulated indicate it has moved further right and likely lost as many centrist Republicans as it gained on the right. As to how many on the Right are gained? Thomas Massie of Kentucky sent out a tweat saying he is changing his vote from No to HELL NO!

 

[Stardreamer]

CBO has pulled off a miracle and managed to score the updated bill, essentially it still causes 24 million to lose coverage and the projected reductions in the deficit that was a major selling point have been cut in half. So the updated bill is essentially worse all the way around.

 

[Benvolio]

As far as Koch-think goes, the riffraff are just useless people and they need to die.

Has a full copy of the AHCA even been SEEN yet? There was that circus about three weeks ago about the missing bill, but I've heard nothing since. I wouldn't put it past the Repukes to have stuck in a repeal to the Reagan-signed law requiring emergency treatment of the indigent which, of course, would simply let them die outside the ER doors.


I know a couple people whose lives are being saved/have been saved by Obamacare. I know some people who are having a real issue paying the high premiums. I am not aware of ANYBODY I know, who has lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

In my mind, the LIVES BEING SAVED "trumps" all the rest.

But remember, we borrowed the money to subsidize those people and their free health care.

 

[Kulindahr]

But remember, we borrowed the money to subsidize those people and their free health care.

Only because there are no conservatives in Congress willing to be traditional Americans and increase revenues to cover our debts.

With a dedicated 0.01% financial transaction tax the U.S. could pay off the debt in one presidential term. That Congresscritters don't adopt this simple measure shows they don't care -- and that burden falls primarily on the conservatives who should know that debt is not a public virtue.

 

[rareboy]

But remember, we borrowed the money to subsidize those people and their free health care.

No.

The US borrowed money in order to spend more on the military than the next seven countries combined.

 

[KaraBulut]

But remember, we borrowed the money to subsidize those people and their free health care.

Fact check: False.

The ACA was scored as budget neutral by the CBO when passed in 2010.

CBO and JCT have determined that the legislation contains private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

According to Politifact's analysis, the repeal of the ACA would have increased the deficit:

One might think that repealing a law like the Affordable Care Act would save the federal government money. Actually, in many scenarios, it won’t. That’s because the law doesn’t just spend money -- it also raised revenue through taxes, and it implemented policies designed to keep costs in check. So getting rid of the law also gets rid of the revenue it produced.

While it acknowledged some uncertainty, the CBO estimated that over a 10-year period, repealing the law would increase federal budget deficits by $353 billion. A more recent estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget mirrored what the CBO found -- $350 billion over 10 year

The US borrowed money in order to spend more on the military than the next seven countries combined.

Fact check: True.
Source: