I'm glad you saw the election more clearly than most. I agree with you that far too many people underestimated Trump and I'll take it a step further...they're still underestimating him today
Neither is the system that the GOP are proposing. Other countries have figured this out. I guess we can all go to Canada for our prescriptions.
That's the way I read it. Either the states can make it up on their own or they can cut it to sustainable levels.
When you hear, "Medicaid is being slashed" people think the expenditures are going down.That's how you want people to understand the word cut so that they think that they aren't losing anything. My boss tells me that I'm getting a 5% raise in January in December, tells me I'm getting 2%. So my raise didn't get a cut?
Ok, by your game, it's not a 'cut' in growth, it's just a slowing of growth, right?
I don't like the Senate version either. Obamacare has screwed this system up beyond belief
Gee- I wonder what will happen in Alabama or Mississippi...
It's not deflectors. There are somethings in life that aren't worth an argument. I hope that fact doesn't disappoint you
Again it's the expansion of Medicaid that being cut. The rate of expansion needs to be cut.
Not everyone agrees with that assessment:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/fact-check-does-the-trump-budget-gut-medicaid/
So states get to choose more for their citizens, I'm sure Ohio will step up and do right by their citizens.
Can hardly wait.
Hot off the presses....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-john-kasich-says-senate-195648378.html
He's using "cut" like you too. I find this dishonest.Hot off the presses....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-john-kasich-says-senate-195648378.html
He's using "cut" like you too. I find this dishonest.
LOL, whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain your delusions.
That post is about as good as you're going to get from him.That's a good example of a post that's not worth an argument...just keep in mind I'm not deflecting. It's just not worth addressing
How do you think the general public sees it?Opinions vary....
Not that. How do you think the public understands, "medicaid is being cut"?As a cut.
The Senate bill, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act, was introduced on June 22. It wouldn’t take away those states’ option to offer coverage to the expansion population, but it starts to reduce the federal funding in 2021, putting it at 85 percent. In 2022, federal funding would be 80 percent, dropping to 75 percent in 2023 and then to the standard state matching rate for 2024 and subsequent years.
But however one spins it, the bill currently being considered by the Senate — like the version passed by the House May 4 — would result in much less federal spending for Medicaid than under current law. And fewer people getting benefits.
CBO estimates that — compared with what is projected under current law — the Senate bill would result in $772 billion less for Medicaid over the next decade, and that the House bill would reduce it by $834 billion.
Is that a cut? Republican Sen. Susan Collins says it is. On the same ABC News program, she said, “I respectfully disagree” with Conway’s analysis.
Worth noting also is that House Speaker Paul Ryan himself has called it a cut when Democrats similarly enacted a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending by an estimated $716 billion to help finance the ACA.
Ok, take all the military away and see what happens.
I think you should not have to go without insurance. Under the Republican plan, coverage with pre existing conditions are preserved
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...eserves-pre-existing-conditions-coverage.html
As for Medicaid the only cuts are in the growth of the program
So you're not going to be thrown off the program. I on the other hand as of today, will have no one that'll even sell me a policy next yr, let alone give me a gov't paid for program
So what is this backdoor for discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions and how does it work?
Answering that question requires understanding the importance of a key protection in the Affordable Care Act, what is known as the “Essential Health Benefits” requirement. These Essential Health Benefits rules require insurance companies to cover critical care, such as treatment by doctors, hospital stays, and prescription-drug costs. The guarantee of Essential Health Benefits means that no insurer can provide any health plan that excludes these critical benefits. Perhaps it goes without saying, but if these benefits are not covered, a plan is all but worthless to those with serious pre-existing conditions.
The Affordable Care Act does allow, through Section 1332, for states to have some flexibility to waive these and other requirements, but only if they meet very rigorous conditions or “guardrails” that ensure coverage remains available, affordable, and high-quality. This is where the new Senate bill makes significant—and dangerous—changes. The bill drives straight through these carefully crafted guardrails. Today, to waive requirements like essential benefits, a state must show that the alternative insurance being provided is “comprehensive,” and “will provide coverage and cost-sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending.” These careful conditions on quality are removed in the Senate bill, replaced with a bare-minimum requirement that the alternative doesn’t increase the federal budget deficit. States will be able to easily waive the requirement to cover Essential Health Benefits, without any careful conditions to ensure the quality and affordability of coverage.
As a result, insurers will offer skinny plans with less coverage that falls far short of the needs of those with serious health conditions. This is how it used to work: Before the Affordable Care Act, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services, almost one in 10 Americans in the individual market didn’t have coverage for prescription drugs. Young and healthy people will opt for those plans, leaving those with pre-existing conditions in their own, much more costly, market. In the end, the effect is the same as if companies could just outright discriminate against those with serious health problems.
Just keep in mind that if you don't agree with them then you want kids to die of cancer.
Yeah, I don't consider not spending as much as you originally planned to "a cut" and I don't think the average person does either.I'll just leave my opinion here.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/gop-medicaid-spin/
You guys can spin it any way you want.
When you hear, "Medicaid is being slashed" people think the expenditures are going down.
To the public a "cut" means something.
Yeah, I don't consider not spending as much as you originally planned to "a cut" and I don't think the average person does either.
I don't, I'd like to see polling on that.It's one thing if you spend less than plan...it's another thing to change the law to force the plan to lower levels. Seems that factcheck.org, a GOP senator or two and even Paul Ryan agree with this. I don't know what the average person thinks and neither do you.
That post is about as good as you're going to get from him.