GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare

[barbara]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

It is just gets figured in to the cost for services charged to people who do pay.



Not sure how you think that is any different than just gouging the middle class for the same result up front.



Like you think the costs have come down after Obamacare or something.

The current health bill does hit the middle class the hardest while the rich benefit from it. Which is why I don't support it.

With the ACA, the costs were spread out more evenly so that the rich paid their fair share.

See the difference?

Or, perhaps you just don't want to see the facts......

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

It is just gets figured in to the cost for services charged to people who do pay.

Not sure how you think that is any different than just gouging the middle class for the same result up front.

Like you think the costs have come down after Obamacare or something.

Nice lil' strawman argument you've got going there, Zero. It'd be a shame if someone torched it...

Oh wait, Barbara just did.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

The current health bill does hit the middle class the hardest while the rich benefit from it. Which is why I don't support it.

With the ACA, the costs were spread out more evenly so that the rich paid their fair share.

See the difference?

Or, perhaps you just don't want to see the facts......

I'm sorry, but for me this line of reasoning represents circular logic. For example:

"The proposed legislation benefits the rich."

Why does it benefit the rich?

"Because taxes for the rich would be reduced under the proposed legislation."

What taxes would be eliminated?

"Well, the net investment income taxes, the additional medicare tax on income over $225,000."

OK, but weren't those taxes rolled out under the ACA to fund specific provisions of the ACA, and if those ACA provisions are repealed those additional taxes wouldn't be necessary?

"That's correct. But the proposed legislation benefits the rich."

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

And let's not forget that all the members of Congress and the Senate have tax payer funded healthcare, probably a premium plan.

Yep, if Congress had to take this garbage they are trying to pass off on the real people for themselves it is safe to say we would not be discussing this subject here in this forum today.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by barbara

With the ACA, the costs were spread out more evenly so that the rich paid their fair share.

And that is why they hate it so.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm sorry, but for me this line of reasoning represents circular logic. For example:

"The proposed legislation benefits the rich."

Why does it benefit the rich?

"Because taxes for the rich would be reduced under the proposed legislation."

What taxes would be eliminated?

"Well, the net investment income taxes, the additional medicare tax on income over $225,000."

OK, but weren't those taxes rolled out under the ACA to fund specific provisions of the ACA, and if those ACA provisions are repealed those additional taxes wouldn't be necessary?

"That's correct. But the proposed legislation benefits the rich."

Passage of the ACA has benefited the rich. If the Republicans are able to replace or amend the ACA, I'd lay odds that the rich will benefit.

[sheltiedave]

Shell, I saw my friend's brother die on the street from an impacted tooth that turned septic. He did not have dental insurance, and could not afford to get the tooth pulled.

There are many, many different situations than the one you describe. Most major metro areas have three to as many as ten major hospital networks, and associated insurance plans that have as little as a deductible to 10% hit for significant care, with an inverse pattern of charges for out of network care.

Private hospitals often have a limited number of free or reduced beds, and gleefully divert when their limit is reached. Come to St. Louis and observe personally, you can we it for yourself.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

Passage of the ACA has benefited the rich. If the Republicans are able to replace or amend the ACA, I'd lay odds that the rich will benefit.

Interesting perspective. In what ways has the ACA benefited the rich?

[bobabode]

The CBO score is in - 22 million uninsured under Senate version of 'fuck off and die' TrumpCare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.c9c7647d0930

[68custom]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I think you can not find any study that will prove that outcomes are any better now than before ACA...

Bunch of anecdotal BS, the death party, people will die, blah blah.

My point is that if you were sick you got treated before ACA. You get treated after ACA.

If somebody that doesn't stand to gain one way or the other produces a study that shows a change in mortality rates, life expectancy, etc. I will continue to be skeptical that it accomplished much.

Or, if I see somebody having to fix their own broke leg or something because they don't have insurance I will change my opinion as well.

ironic you should mention the broken leg. today at the free clinic I volunteer at a man came in straight from the hospital. he broke his arm badly and the ER said it would require surgery. then they put him in a sling gave some pain meds and wished him good luck. you do realize that his break could become infected and he could die? the worst part of it is we have neither the money or an ortho DR to help the poor guy out. I suppose this is what you mean by treatment? time to change your opinion!