If the actual numbers go down then that is clearly a cut, agreed. Have you seen the actual numbers anywhere?
Weirdly, it is like 60+ million people volunteered for this exactly.The bill states that all of the Medicaid expansion from the ACA would be rolled back to none and that the remaining Medicaid would be slowed and capped and given to the states as block grants. The expansion of the ACA being rolled back is a cut. The other can be called a non cut if you wish but it's less money that what was previously given under current law.
There's a reason that 22 million people will lose coverage and it's not 100% voluntary either.
Just keep in mind that those 22 million haven't really lost health coverage, that is a projection based on some assumptions that may or may not play out.The bill states that all of the Medicaid expansion from the ACA would be rolled back to none and that the remaining Medicaid would be slowed and capped and given to the states as block grants. The expansion of the ACA being rolled back is a cut. The other can be called a non cut if you wish but it's less money that what was previously given under current law.
There's a reason that 22 million people will lose coverage and it's not 100% voluntary either.
Only way ACA could work is by forcing people who wouldn't otherwise buy insurance to buy it.The individual mandate was Romney's idea, you know. "Obamacare" is "Romneycare" on a nationwide level.
Only way to get people to pay for a military they don't want is to force them.Only way ACA could work is by forcing people who wouldn't otherwise buy insurance to buy it.
Just keep in mind that those 22 million haven't really lost health coverage, that is a projection based on some assumptions that may or may not play out.
How much of that 22 million projection is voluntary? Why buy insurance when you don't need it if you can buy it at no penalty when you do? You actually end up paying less than the responsible people who buy it when they don't need it. No mandate, no penalty for preexisting conditions and it can't work. Huge mess.
I have no idea. You're touting them as gospel truth, I thought you'd know why they should be trusted.
Why did you choose to use the Fraser Institute figures? How do you know that they can be trusted?
That's better at least.There is a new 6 month lockout added today. If you go without insurance for 63 days, you have to wait 6 months to get it after you apply. Still, if you have a multi year (or decade) disease and only have to wait 6 months to get it, especially if you haven't paid a dime for years (or decades).....you're sucking off of what everyone else paid. Make it a national plan and make everyone pay via a sales tax or similar. Everyone will have skin in the game then (something that the GOP loves to put out there when talking about people at the bottom who don't pay taxes - i.e. broaden the tax base).
This is so stupid. The 6 month lockout. The chronically sick will wait, and defer treatment until it is even more expensive, and the young and healthy will not bother signing up. This is what happens when Republicans write bills without listening to anyone.
This is so stupid. The 6 month lockout. The chronically sick will wait, and defer treatment until it is even more expensive, and the young and healthy will not bother signing up. This is what happens when Republicans write bills without listening to anyone.
I wouldn't rule out spiritually beholden as well.If I don't know any better I'd think these guys were financially beholdened to the wealthiest Americans.
Maybe they hope the expensive cases will simply die during the waiting period?
It's absolutely absurd in its face.
Note the frequent birdshot wimpouts.Why did you choose to use the Fraser Institute figures? How do you know that they can be trusted?
You'll get health care in the emergency room for the car accident. It should "hurt" to not have insurance. Can't you see how being able to buy insurance when you need health care can't work?
Maybe you don't understand the word being used. Neurosurgery is a hella lot more than brain surgery. Sheesh. Neurosurgery....surgery on the nervous system, wherever it's found.
BTW...your lauded report is only on ELECTIVE procedures, not life threatening.
Still thinking up an answer?You'll get health care in the emergency room for the car accident. It should "hurt" to not have insurance. Can't you see how being able to buy insurance when you need health care can't work?
Ah. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as you were having a reasonable discussion (at least in this thread), but thank you for now making your intentions to troll overtly evident.Almost there.
You can't subsidize bad decisions. If you tell healthy people that you can buy insurance when you get sick at no significant penalty, that is exactly what they are going to do.Ah. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as you were having a reasonable discussion (at least in this thread), but thank you for now making your intentions to troll overtly evident.
You can't subsidize bad decisions. If you tell healthy people that you can buy insurance when you get sick at no significant penalty, that is exactly what they are going to do.
As for who is going to pay for the emergency room care, we're only talking 40 billion a year in unpaid hospital bills in total. This isn't a significant source of inflating healthcare cost. Charity needs to be a factor here, we don't need the federal government to take over the entire health system to fix things like this. If we guarantee people housing if they fail to purchase fire insurance and their house goes up in flame then nobody is going to buy fire insurance.
You can't subsidize bad decisions. If you tell healthy people that you can buy insurance when you get sick at no significant penalty, that is exactly what they are going to do.
As for who is going to pay for the emergency room care, we're only talking 40 billion a year in unpaid hospital bills in total. This isn't a significant source of inflating healthcare cost. Charity needs to be a factor here, we don't need the federal government to take over the entire health system to fix things like this. If we guarantee people housing if they fail to purchase fire insurance and their house goes up in flame then nobody is going to buy fire insurance.
Totally against it. That would mean you have to means test everybody in the country.Just saying in vague terms what's your opinion on something like Medicare for all as a base, that has deductibles based on income. Plus maybe private insurance for those that want quicker coverage?