Yes, I am on board with the changes that are absolutely necessary to keep the whole thing from collapsing. What we have now is unsustainable. And as far as repeal and replace, evidently you have been conditioned to fear that term. There is nothing sinister about it. The law as it stands now is so complex that repeal may be the only option before replace. The media might like you to think that there will be repeal and then... nothing. Repeal will not happen without replacement. Republicans have said this over and over and over. And it had to be Republicans saying it because Democrats have made it clear that they are not, by choice, going to get involved. Which circles me right back to my saying that Democrats feel the legislation is perfection as it is. They could have stated their intentions to get involved in the process to make it sustainable and better but instead they have chosen to stay on the sidelines and act like children.
Here's something you'll have that you didn't in the first go round. You'll know about the details beforehand. There will be no middle of the night votes and no statements that we must pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it.
The brain dead leftists among us will hate it, protest it, wear pussy hats, march wearing female genitalia costumes, cry, weep, and all the other infantile shit that they do but the smart ones will already have an understanding of the dire situation we are facing concerning healthcare and will therefore look at it objectively while understanding that it too, may not be perfect and will take future tweaking down the road. You are of course free to choose which side of that works best for you. Remember too, that if Democrats in Congress don't get involved in the process that they have made a choice and you are not obligated to support that choice.
Republicans and conservatives are not the evil people the media and perhaps your education have taught you to believe. Only you can decide whether it's best to have an ideological enemy that fulfills some need or if it's better to have a partner with different viewpoints that you can work with.
Their costs are basically rising as fast as ours. Comparisons to gdp is a different thing.
Everybody is having problems with rising HC costs.
Fern
Working class Trump supporters, bend over and spread them cheeks. No lube for you, not even a tax credit.
I'll take school voucher and insurance voucher, and HSA to pay less taxes, and the capital gain tax cut, and the income tax cut. I voted against those, but the people have spoken, they really want me to have those, even if it costs them their health insuranceWell, yeh, but they get a school voucher useless to all but the affluent.
I'll take school voucher and insurance voucher, and HSA to pay less taxes, and the capital gain tax cut, and the income tax cut. I voted against those, but the people have spoken, they really want me to have those, even if it costs them their health insurance
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around how the GOP managed to convince lower and middle class voters to significantly reduce my tax burden and consequently eliminate/reduce benefits they, in many cases, literally need to survive. Someone I know fairly well spends every cent he makes and depends on the ACA for healthcare without ruinous premiums (preexisting conditions out the ass). Yet I never hear the end of how he wants to see Obamacare, Medicaid, and SS go even though he will need to depend on those programs to not end up bankrupt and homeless.
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around how the GOP managed to convince lower and middle class voters to significantly reduce my tax burden and consequently eliminate/reduce benefits they, in many cases, literally need to survive. Someone I know fairly well spends every cent he makes and depends on the ACA for healthcare without ruinous premiums (preexisting conditions out the ass). Yet I never hear the end of how he wants to see Obamacare, Medicaid, and SS go even though he will need to depend on those programs to not end up bankrupt and homeless.
It'll be interesting to see just how fleshed out that plan is. If anything gets released I bet it's going to be the outline or guiding principles of the new plan with specific details yet to be filled in.New plan should be unveiled the week
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/republicans-public-obamacare-plan/index.html
I'll take school voucher and insurance voucher, and HSA to pay less taxes, and the capital gain tax cut, and the income tax cut. I voted against those, but the people have spoken, they really want me to have those, even if it costs them their health insurance
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around how the GOP managed to convince lower and middle class voters to significantly reduce my tax burden and consequently eliminate/reduce benefits they, in many cases, literally need to survive. Someone I know fairly well spends every cent he makes and depends on the ACA for healthcare without ruinous premiums (preexisting conditions out the ass). Yet I never hear the end of how he wants to see Obamacare, Medicaid, and SS go even though he will need to depend on those programs to not end up bankrupt and homeless.
Trumpsters from studies have somewhat above average income. Still substantially lower than the higher brackets who mostly benefit from these policies, but well off enough that they can believe screwing those worse off somehow benefits them. Their outlook is largely optimistic, even if their chances of ostensibly screwing themselves are much higher than ever becoming capitalists.
They've let the plan out of it's cage it seems:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/republicans-public-obamacare-plan/index.html?adkey=bn
Medicaid bloc grants (effectively capping the program), tax credits, higher premiums for the old, penalties for lapsed coverage, and the cherry on the top for social conservatives of defunding Planned Parenthood.
Shoved out with no CBO analysis to measure it's true effects. I'm guessing they're guessing that would be bad PR.
It's Obamacare lite, with less coverage, higher costs on the consumer end, less benefits, less people covered, and no planned parenthood.
That's exactly why they CBO. There is no way this sustains the current level of people covered. They will argue "access" once the analysis is released showing how many millions will lose coverage.They've let the plan out of it's cage it seems:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/republicans-public-obamacare-plan/index.html?adkey=bn
Medicaid bloc grants (effectively capping the program), tax credits, higher premiums for the old, penalties for lapsed coverage, and the cherry on the top for social conservatives of defunding Planned Parenthood.
Shoved out with no CBO analysis to measure it's true effects. I'm guessing they're guessing that would be bad PR.
They think poor people are dragging us down when it's the financial elite pushing us down. They fail to see how incredibly wealthy this country really is & how greed at the top creates artificial scarcity.
Trash plan is trash. Not a surprise, of course.
Things I've seen in reviewing the 66 pages of Bill text:
Medicaid block grant funding is skewed toward states that did not expand Medicaid, which would be a nice kickback to people holding the party line above their constituents' health if true
Health insurance cost sharing reductions are gone, so if you're low income keeping that income indexed tax credit is meaningless if your deductible goes from $250 to $6000
Cost sharing reductions are replaced by block grants, $15 billion in each of the first two years and $10 billion each year thereafter, for innovation. Block grants are apportioned based on claims costs and uninsured rates among the states so that non Medicaid expansion states look to get a second kickback. Block grants also require matching funds from states, starting at 7% in the first year and rising to 50% by year 7. This will ensure that these funds rarely get used as state budgets often don't have this flexibility.
There is a surcharge on not having continuous coverage, 30% of premium for the remainder of the year. In order to avoid the surcharge you must show continuous coverage with no gaps exceeding 63 days.
Age rating band is expanded to 5:1
I see nothing addressing tax credits, so it looks like they're untouched.
Things I've seen in reviewing the 66 pages of Bill text:
Medicaid block grant funding is skewed toward states that did not expand Medicaid, which would be a nice kickback to people holding the party line above their constituents' health if true
Health insurance cost sharing reductions are gone, so if you're low income keeping that income indexed tax credit is meaningless if your deductible goes from $250 to $6000
Cost sharing reductions are replaced by block grants, $15 billion in each of the first two years and $10 billion each year thereafter, for innovation. Block grants are apportioned based on claims costs and uninsured rates among the states so that non Medicaid expansion states look to get a second kickback. Block grants also require matching funds from states, starting at 7% in the first year and rising to 50% by year 7. This will ensure that these funds rarely get used as state budgets often don't have this flexibility.
There is a surcharge on not having continuous coverage, 30% of premium for the remainder of the year. In order to avoid the surcharge you must show continuous coverage with no gaps exceeding 63 days.
Age rating band is expanded to 5:1
I see nothing addressing tax credits, so it looks like they're untouched.