GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare
 

"After weeks of expectations — actually, nearly seven years of expectations — House Republicans on Monday released their proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Elements of the proposal, which was kept under lock and key last week — have been dribbling out for a few days. The text of the bill encompassing the GOP plan validates much of that reporting. On the whole, however, it’s a nastier, more consumer-unfriendly proposal than even close followers could have expected.

The House GOP, in a written statement, cloaked this plan with a bodyguard of outright deceit. “What we’re proposing will deliver the control and choice individuals and families need to access healthcare that’s right for them,” the statement said. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wisc.) said the measure would “drive down costs, encourage competition and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance.” Curiously, the GOP statement says the plan embodies “President Trump's proposed healthcare reforms,” although the president has never advanced a coherent set of proposals.

The truth is that the GOP measure would destroy the ability of millions of Americans to access any healthcare worth the name. The Congressional Budget Office reportedly warned the Republicans that their proposals would lead to lost coverage for millions and higher costs for millions more, but the GOP is pushing ahead anyway. The truth is that the GOP measure would destroy the ability of millions of Americans to access any healthcare worth the name. The Congressional Budget Office reportedly warned the Republicans that their proposals would lead to lost coverage for millions and higher costs for millions more, but the GOP is pushing ahead anyway.

Reporters and experts will be poring over the new draft for days, but here are some key elements gleaned from a first reading. Further examination undoubtedly will unearth more issues with the bill. The chances are almost nil that closer examination will find much, if anything, good about it.

The proposal defunds Planned Parenthood. No federal funding can be made, either directly or indirectly, by Medicaid to a healthcare organization that “provides for abortions,” other than those done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. That’s Planned Parenthood. It’s proper to note that Planned Parenthood doesn’t use federal funds to pay for abortions, as that’s already against the law. This measure shuts down funding for the organization just because it uses other funds to cover those procedures."
LA Times

continued here
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...306-story.html

"Concealed within the 123 pages of legislative verbiage and dense boilerplate of the House Republican bill repealing the Affordable Care Act are not a few hard-to-find nuggets. Here’s one crying out for exposure: The bill encourages health insurance companies to pay their top executives more.

It does so by removing the ACA’s limit on corporate tax deductions for executive pay. The cost to the American taxpayer of eliminating this provision: well in excess of $70 million a year. In the reckoning of the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank that analyzed the limitation in 2014, that would have been enough that year to buy dental insurance under the ACA for 262,000 Americans, or pay the silver plan deductibles for 28,000.

As part of an effort to rein in soaring executive pay, the ACA decreed that health insurance companies could deduct from their taxes only $500,000 of the pay of each top executive. That’s a tighter restriction than the limit imposed on other corporations, which is $1 million per executive. The ACA closed a loophole for insurance companies enjoyed by other corporations, which could deduct the cost of stock options and other “performance-based” pay; for insurance companies, the deduction cap is $500,000 per executive, period." LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...307-story.html

Lovely. :p

^^^ Trump the populist leads efforts to take care of the little guy--if by 'little guy' you mean CEOs still working on their second billion.

People need to stop buying their Iphones and pay for their health coverage instead:rolleyes:.

The full retail price of an Iphone would not cover one month of my Health Insurance Premiums.

But it could cover several years of yours. ;)

Fact, the biggest transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich in US history.


Carl

That's been going on for 40 years. And quite frankly the Democrats have been just as bad as the Republicans in that regard.

Nope, not even.


Carl

Only in your fevered dreams.

Yes, even.

The dude in your avatar is rolling over in his grave at what the Democratic Party has become.

How do you think Lincoln feels about the miscreants in today's GOP, including its amoral standard-bearer?

You can believe anything if you really want to.

Let's say the Democratic Party is like a teenager who works in your store and sometimes lies about why he's an hour late for work, and sometimes lifts a candy bar or two. You're saying he's as bad as a boatload of Viking raiders.

They'd probably laugh at your intemperance in your single - minded pursuit of a truth that is uniquely your own. :rolleyes:

I'll take that as a compliment from a Breitbart reader.

...yawn...:rolleyes:

More on Bob's post


There's a sweet deal for insurers buried in the GOP's new Obamacare bill.

Health insurance companies could realize a $1 billion or more windfall over the next decade — and end up paying their CEOs even more money — because of a simple tweak in the GOP's proposal to replace Obamacare.

That tweak, buried in cryptic language on page 67 of the bill, would end the $500,000 cap that health insurers currently have under the Affordable Care Act on deducting the cost of executives' compensation as business expenses on their taxes.

The Republican proposal to eliminate that cap means that insurers would be able to deduct nearly the full value of their CEOs' compensation, and not pay taxes on it.

For a company such as Aetna, whose CEO Mark Bertolini earns more than $17 million annually, ending the cap would add to its bottom line, and encourage insurers to pay executives more money, critics say.

At the same time, revenue to the federal government would drop.

The left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies think tank in 2014 estimated that for the prior year the government received at least $72 million in additional tax payments from insurers as a result of the compensation deduction cap.

"For sure, that number has gone up," said Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at the IPS, on Tuesday.

Asked how much getting rid of that cap, as the GOP wants, would cost the U.S. Treasury in lost taxes over the next decade, Anderson said, "I think a conservative estimate would be a billion dollars."

"The way the tax code works [under the GOP plan] the more [insurance] companies pay their CEO, the less they pay in taxes, because they just increase their deductions," Anderson said.

"And when corporations get to lower their tax bill in that way, other people need to make up for that. Either taxpayers need to pay more, or we have reduced public services," she said.

The billion dollars in potential lost revenue didn't worry Craig Garthwaite, director of the health care program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. He said that amount of money would have a negligible effect on either federal health spending or the budget deficit.

But Garthwaite blasted Republicans for including repeal of the compensation cap in the Obamacare replacement bill, saying it would give opponents of the bill political ammunition.

"They're already having enough trouble with people thinking they're on the side of industry, on the side of the wealthy people," Garthwaite said. "Most of this bill sort of transfers resources from the poor and sick to the rich and relatively wealthy."

"If you then tag that [provision about compensation] onto that — you're making it easier to pay people more than a half-million dollars a year — politically it's pretty stupid," Garthwaite said.

He noted that he had also believed that the original idea of Obamacare singling out health insurance company executives for that tax deduction cap was also "stupid."

"Why not hospital executives? Why not orthopedic surgeons?" Garthwaite scoffed.

But he also criticized the overall replacement bill for having been drafted 'in secret," and without first undergoing an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO eventually will estimate the plan's costs to the budget, and its effect on the number of people insured nationally.
Link

I'd be tired too if I had to watch Finn run circles around your straw filled arguments, Mike. :rolleyes:

In fact, it's naptime here in sunny SoCal. I think I'll go work on my tan...:cool:

ZZZzzzzzzz

If anyone thinks the Democrats really tried to get affordable healthcare for all then I have the Sydney Harbor Bridge up for sale. Not saying the GOP is any better but people who think the Dems were all for it are seriously misguided.

I worked for a decade to help poor and handicapped people find medical services and neither the Dems or the GOP gave a hoot about them. Trust me.

First, talking about 'the Dems' or 'the GOP' as if each was, like, a single mind or something, is always wrong.

And did you see my post where I said that saying the Dems and the GOP are alike is like saying a teenage shoplifter and 50 viking raiders soaked in blood are alike?

But all that out of the way, I get your point.

After learning of the changes put forth. I fail to see any cost reductions, only increases.
Removing the mandate a 30% increase for a break in coverage? Not enough to cover preexisting conditions or lifetime cap removals. A tax break based on age instead of a subsidy for any who qualify? Those the most in need of assistance receive little to none.

Removing restrictions on profits tells me the only ones to save money will be the providers. Saving more for themselves!



Barney

From what I've seen and heard about the Republican Plan, it does the same for me as Obamacare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4yxyZtYkjc

It is basically a tax cut for the wealthy. My cynical belief is that no one is really serious about passing it because the GOP would be cut down in 2018 so they have come out with a bill that is doomed from the beginning. They want Schumer to filibuster so they can throw that bone to the Trump supporters in their districts who are now on the ACA. "Look its not our fault Schumer filibustered it" with crocodile tears and a secret sigh or relief. "We will get it next time!"

And you placed your faith in Trump. Silly you.

Probably worse. Older people on the GOP plan will be paying more money than they now do on the ACA. Older patients who are not on Medicare.

TJ's faith in Trump is about revolution and getting the Deep Establishment off the people's backs.

Heil der Trumpenfuhrer! :cool:

The only thing Trump has succeeded in doing thus far is make a complete ass of himself and further entrench the "Deep Establishment." They were there before he arrived and they'll be there when he leaves.

Trump will be calling up the 86th Barco Lounger Brigade and the elite 102nd Chairborne Keyboard Commando force to deal with it. :rolleyes:

Give me cheeseburgers or give me death! ;)

Yes, this is a Dem talking point. But exactly how is this a "tax cut for the wealthy"? I can see how the potential rollback of the additional Medicare tax surcharge might be seen as a "tax cut for the wealthy", but that's a tiny piece of the proposed legislation, and might not be needed anyway since the small business tax credit gets axed.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...307-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.40aeaae67233

I never expected anything other than shit from the Republicans.

And this is Ryan's plan, not Trump's.

Obummercare is also shit.

Even my position on healthcare, which constantly get's categorized as "Pixie Dust" is a shit plan when you compare it to most other first world countries. All I want is to put everybody on Medicare. But it only covers 80% of most things and 20% of a US Medical Bill can come to a substantial amount, so most people have to pay for additional insurance above and beyond Medicare, plus pay a part B Medicare Premium.

So, you're not able to answer the question, just recycle talking points? Yes, the Trib and WaPo are simply regurgitating Dem talking points.

The articles you posted cite the Medicare surcharge as an example of a tax cut for the rich. In my post above, I recognized this but also cited the Small Business Tax cut, which would be rolled back under the proposed legislation. Neither you or the articles you cited address this.

So, I'll ask again - how is this a tax cut for the wealthy?

Among other things,

House Republicans plan to eliminate nearly every tax increase that was included included in the ACA, many of which were levied on high-income earners. Democrats insist that some tax increases were necessary to offset the cost of expanding coverage and overhauling the health-care system to ensure people received a minimum level of coverage.

Republicans say they’ve found a way to pay for wider coverage that doesn’t include taxes on the on the rich, which are the backbone of the current system. The new GOP plan would repeal two of the biggest-ticket taxes in the ACA: a 3.8 percent tax on investment income; and a 0.9 percent levy on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250, 000 for married couples filing jointly. Those two taxes hit fewer than four million households making up the top 2.5 percent of taxpayers, according to IRS data.

“Those taxes raise over $300 billion over a decade,” said Scott Greenberg, an analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation “The impacts of those taxes are largely on high-income households.”

Wealthy earners would also benefit from a rule to halve the penalty on using money from a Health Savings Accounts on expenses not related to health care”. Current limits allow individuals to directly transfer up to $3,400, and families up to $6,750, into an HSA without paying any taxes on the income.

“They’re very attractive to highly compensated individuals who have already maxed out other tax-preferred retirement plans,” said Gordon Mermin, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center. “They can use it in retirement as a retirement account. If it turns out they have health expenses and use it for that, then they’re not paying tax at all.”

Wealthy people already make up the majority of people using the accounts. Families earning over $60,000 made up nearly 65 percent of the total that contributed in 2014, according to recent data from the Treasury Department. Nearly two-thirds of those people earned between $75,000 and $200,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ans-for-taxes/

Do you actually read what you post, or are you just comfortable spouting Dem talking points as recycled by WaPo?

The first focus is of the WaPo piece is the Medicare surcharge. We've already dealt with that, and I still don't have a response to the question I asked.

The second part of - the paragraph highlighted above - is astonishing to me. Now we're defining "wealthy" as folks with earnings in the $60 - $75K range? Really???

Also, this income comparison of individuals who don't have HSA's is very misleading. Individuals on Medicaid - low income - are not going to participate in these plans. Individuals on Medicare are not allowed to contribute to HSA's. That removes a whole lot of samples from the statistics. You've also got to subtract union workers because HSA's aren't generally offered under union health plans. Finally, not every employer offers health savings plans. Of employers offering health plans to employees, just over half also offered a "high deductible health plan". Individuals who aren't enrolled in HDHP's cannot contribute to HSA's.

The point is that the comparison is apples and oranges.

Just to make it easy on you as you ape Paul Ryan's disingenuous talking points, TrumpRyanCare is a stingier version of Obamacare that cuts taxes on the rich, cuts Medicaid, and cuts subsidies for lower earners while introducing them for some higher ones. It's opposed by liberals and far-right conservatives alike, along with the AMA, AARP, Heritage, Club for Growth, and bunches of others. You can cheer-lead all you want, but this plan is going nowhere.

Going nowhere may be the plan. If Ryan's plan fails there's still Obama Care to heap blame/derision on.

At which point, however, they'll own it.

Oh no. It will be the fault of those terrible filibustering Democrats. They tried their best....

Yep, you might as well call this the MIT plan, or the posturing plan.
In this case, MIT stands for mom, I tried.

The ACA is going to die from it's life support bring cut regardless, lack of a better replacement will surely alienate those cut off from affordable health care without an acceptable replacement. The offered plan is not that.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that the Republicans will ever "own" Obummercare.

The only way the Democrats are going to get that Albatross out from around their necks is if the Republicans repeal it and replace it with their own plan.