GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Trump said this during his campaign.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...rumps-promises

Would you buy Brooklyn's bridge from him?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Action_Network

Hardly a unbiased source.

Neither is WaPo, so I figured the two would balance out.

So, tell me, Bob: upon seeing my post, was your reflexive response to read the article, or did you bypass the article completely and attempt to "discredit" the author of the article? I suspect you decided not to read it at all...which of course would be consistent.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Neither is WaPo, so I figured the two would balance out.

So, tell me, Bob: upon seeing my post, was your reflexive response to read the article, or did you bypass the article completely and attempt to "discredit" the author of the article? I suspect you decided not to read it at all...which of course would be consistent.

Oh, I read the biased op-ed you linked to, Mike.

As to your spurious and insulting characterization, care to back it up or are you just emulating your Lugen President?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Former CBO Director: It's A Good Start

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.75cf42cd7637

The ACA dictated insurance choices to individuals and families with its bronze, silver, gold and other levels. It required that they shop in government-run exchanges to get subsidies, and it levied a fee on those who were uninsured. The AHCA places trust in the decisions of individuals and families by making greater use of health savings accounts (which hone the market incentives for higher-value care) and respecting their ability to follow incentives to be continuously insured. Its refundable tax credit will be available to all low- to moderate-income individuals and will tend to equalize the tax treatment of employer and individual insurance.

You're countering a news piece with a partisan opinion piece, Kellyanne. I guess you feel duty-bound to defend whatever shit Trump or Ryan throw up against the wall, no matter how much it breaks der Trumpenfuhrer's campaign promises, leaving 10 million without health care, stripping mental health and drug addiction services, and actually worsening the death spiral of the individual market. Being that this plan comes from the GOP, these issues are probably considered features, not problems.

[bobabode]

Here you go Mike. Some reading for you.

https://secure.politico.com/story/20...th-hall-235903

[merrylander]

Let them pass that piece of crap, then watch the fun in 2018. I guess I qualify for the four grand, wonder which charity I should give it to. That would launder it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Here you go Mike. Some reading for you.

https://secure.politico.com/story/20...th-hall-235903

Not only that, but a little-known reconciliation rule may preclude the Senate from being able to even get the bill through the reconciliation process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-on-obamacare/

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not only that, but a little-known reconciliation rule may preclude the Senate from being able to even get the bill through the reconciliation process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-on-obamacare/

Smart journalist that Amber Phillips. Marty Baron sure knows how run a top flight newspaper.

[finnbow]

It'll be fun watching Trump tweet a bunch of nastiness about Ryan once this thing goes down in flames.

[bobabode]

Since we're tossing around op-eds, Mike. Here's one from a guy who knows his way around an abacus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

'A Bill So Bad It’s Awesome' by Dr. Paul Krugman

"It has long been obvious to anyone following health policy that Republicans would never devise a workable replacement for Obamacare. But the bill unveiled this week is worse than even the cynics expected; its awfulness is almost surreal. And the process by which it came to be tells you a lot about the state of the G.O.P.

Given the rhetoric Republicans have used over the past seven years to attack health reform, you might have expected them to do away with the whole structure of the Affordable Care Act — deregulate, de-subsidize and let the magic of the free market do its thing. This would have been devastating for the 20 million Americans who gained coverage thanks to the act, but at least it would have been ideologically consistent.

But Republican leaders weren’t willing to bite that bullet. What they came up with instead was a dog’s breakfast that conservatives are, with some justice, calling Obamacare 2.0. But a better designation would be Obamacare 0.5, because it’s a half-baked plan that accepts the logic and broad outline of the Affordable Care Act while catastrophically weakening key provisions. If enacted, the bill would almost surely lead to a death spiral of soaring premiums and collapsing coverage. Which makes you wonder, what’s the point?

Obamacare rests on three main pillars. Insurance companies are regulated, prevented from denying coverage or charging higher prices to Americans with pre-existing conditions. Families receive subsidies linked to both income and premiums, to help them buy insurance. And there is a penalty for those who don’t buy insurance, to induce people to sign up even if they’re currently healthy.

Trumpcare — the White House insists that we not call it that, which means that we must — preserves some version of all three elements, but in drastically, probably fatally weakened form.
Insurers are still barred from excluding the sick, but they’re allowed to charge older Americans — who need insurance the most — much higher premiums.
Subsidies are still there, in the form of tax credits, but they’re no longer linked to either income (as long as it’s below $75,000) or the cost of insurance.
And the tax on those who don’t sign up becomes a small surcharge — paid to insurance companies, not the public — on people who sign up after previously letting coverage lapse.
Affluent young people might end up saving some money as a result of these changes. But the effect on those who are older and less affluent would be devastating. AARP has done the math: a 55-year-old making $25,000 a year would end up paying $3,600 a year more for coverage; that rises to $8,400 for a 64-year-old making $15,000 a year. And that’s before the death spiral."
NY Times

continued here - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/o...ol-left-region