The Senate GOP hid the meanest things very deeply in its Obamacare repeal bill. We found them

[Sunstone]

The Senate GOP hid the meanest things very deeply in its Obamacare repeal bill. We found them

Please discuss.

 

[icehorse]

The link told me I'd reached my "free reading limit" - dang.

What I will say is that one common GOP talking point is that we can't have a "nanny state". If we focus on just that point, we could ask them, then, to give up all the subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and the big corporations. Because those two groups ARE benefitting from government handouts.

 

[Sunstone]

What I will say is that one common GOP talking point is that we can't have a "nanny state". If we focus on just that point, we could ask them, then, to give up all the subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and the big corporations. Because those two groups ARE benefitting from government handouts.

With disastrous results for the poor and middle class.

 

[Sunstone]

The link told me I'd reached my "free reading limit" - dang.

Here's some highlights:

Protection for people with preexisting conditions is destroyed. Senate Republicans claim in their talking points that the measure protects people with preexisting conditions from being denied coverage or priced out of the market. Don’t believe them. As Gene Sperling, a former economist for the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Michael Shapiro observe, “the Republican plan may not allow insurers to discriminate … through the front door, but they’ve created a backdoor way in.”

Older Americans would get socked with much higher premiums and costs. The Senate bill changes the ACA’s premium subsidies in ways that severely hurt older customers. The bill expands the permissible range of premiums for older buyers compared to younger from a ratio of 3 to 1 in the ACA to 5 to 1. In other words, older buyers could be charged much more. It reduces subsidies for older buyers in other ways. The ACA’s subsidies are based entirely on income, and are provided to households with income up to 400% of the federal poverty line. That ceiling is $48,240 for an individual.

The biggest tax cut for the rich is retroactive. As we’ve reported before, the repeal measure delivers an estimated $346 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, all of it going to households with income over $250,000. But the biggest component of the cut — repeal of a 3.8% surcharge on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers — would be retroactive to the beginning of this year. That turns it into more of a free handout for wealthy people who already had sold securities or collected dividends since Jan. 1.

Even the Wall Street Journal is aghast. “Retroactive tax cuts like this don’t create an incentive and can yield windfall gains for people who already made decisions,” the paper observed. A millionaire who already had booked a $1-million gain on a stock sale, for example, would collect a $38,000 benefit.

The fight against opioid addiction is crippled. Opioid addiction has emerged as perhaps the worst public health crisis in America. But as much as 40% of the cost of treatment of addicts has been paid by Medicaid. The harsh cuts in that program imposed by the Senate bill would force more of that expense onto states that simply can’t afford it. Meanwhile, the projected loss of medical coverage by as many as 23 million Americans under repeal will keep many victims of the epidemic from finding treatment.

The article is incomplete, Icehorse, as it does not even mention the 800 billion slashed from Medicaid, etc.

 

[sun rise]

In typical fashion the purpose of repealing the ACA is to give the wealthy a big tax cut not providing a real alternative.

 

[icehorse]

@Sunstone thanks for the highlights!

 

[godnotgod]

What bothers me most is that our government grants some 26 million citizens medical care, and then our government just pulls the rug out from under them, amounting to a government without credibility.

 

[Mister Emu]

Please discuss.

People with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be on health insurance for those conditions, it isn't insurance at that point; you're buying healthcare.

It shouldn't be that insurance companies are forced to charge everyone the same, it should be that healthcare providers are forced to do so. Insurance companies and public representatives should negotiate with the providers for a price that is the same for everyone. Then, public and private medical finance aid should cover any gaps.

I also don't buy that people being capable of choosing not to have insurance is necessarily negative, that is the choice they make. That 23MM "lost" coverage is a worthless stat without accounting for percentages of willful uninsured status and incapable.

Those are the disagreements I have right off the bat.

There is a lot of stuff I don't like in this bill, like cuts to fighting heroin addiction(that is a whole issue unto itself that needs funding a legal support to battle that we don't currently have). If this passes, I hope that can be addressed in other legislation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What bothers me most is that our government grants some 26 million citizens medical care, and then our government just pulls the rug out from under them, amounting to a government without credibility.

There was no credibility to begin with. Obama was no different.

Forced Mandates to purchase private insurance.

Out of pocket deductibles that soar into the thousands of dollars effectively destroying middle class incomes.

Yea real credible.

 

[godnotgod]

There was no credibility to begin with. Obama was no different.

Forced Mandates to purchase private insurance.

Out of pocket deductibles that soar into the thousands of dollars effectively destroying middle class incomes.

Yea real credible.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Augustus]

The link told me I'd reached my "free reading limit" - dang.

*opens incognito window*
*reads article anyway*

 

[DavidFirth]

I think you missed the point.

I think he hit the nail on the head.

 

[Augustus]

The Senate GOP hid the meanest things very deeply in its Obamacare repeal bill. We found them

Please discuss.

I've given up trying to make sense of US healthcare and its motto of 'pay more, for less'.

A universal system, administered at the state level, and with options to pay for private insurance (which would be much cheaper) if so desired would provide more comprehensive healthcare and save most people money.

But still people fight for a worst of all worlds, nobody likes it type compromise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here's some highlights:

Protection for people with preexisting conditions is destroyed. Senate Republicans claim in their talking points that the measure protects people with preexisting conditions from being denied coverage or priced out of the market. Don’t believe them. As Gene Sperling, a former economist for the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Michael Shapiro observe, “the Republican plan may not allow insurers to discriminate … through the front door, but they’ve created a backdoor way in.”

Older Americans would get socked with much higher premiums and costs. The Senate bill changes the ACA’s premium subsidies in ways that severely hurt older customers. The bill expands the permissible range of premiums for older buyers compared to younger from a ratio of 3 to 1 in the ACA to 5 to 1. In other words, older buyers could be charged much more. It reduces subsidies for older buyers in other ways. The ACA’s subsidies are based entirely on income, and are provided to households with income up to 400% of the federal poverty line. That ceiling is $48,240 for an individual.

The biggest tax cut for the rich is retroactive. As we’ve reported before, the repeal measure delivers an estimated $346 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, all of it going to households with income over $250,000. But the biggest component of the cut — repeal of a 3.8% surcharge on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers — would be retroactive to the beginning of this year. That turns it into more of a free handout for wealthy people who already had sold securities or collected dividends since Jan. 1.

Even the Wall Street Journal is aghast. “Retroactive tax cuts like this don’t create an incentive and can yield windfall gains for people who already made decisions,” the paper observed. A millionaire who already had booked a $1-million gain on a stock sale, for example, would collect a $38,000 benefit.

The fight against opioid addiction is crippled. Opioid addiction has emerged as perhaps the worst public health crisis in America. But as much as 40% of the cost of treatment of addicts has been paid by Medicaid. The harsh cuts in that program imposed by the Senate bill would force more of that expense onto states that simply can’t afford it. Meanwhile, the projected loss of medical coverage by as many as 23 million Americans under repeal will keep many victims of the epidemic from finding treatment.

The article is incomplete, Icehorse, as it does not even mention the 800 billion slashed from Medicaid, etc.

Is anybody surprised by this? This is what Republicans do. They cater to the corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the average citizen. When they talk about taxes being too high and government regulation oppressive, they're talking about the taxes that they, the wealthy pay, and the regulations that protect average citizens from profitable corporate excesses like the banking fiasco last decade, or toxic waste dumping.

I'm pretty sure that we can expect as much of this type of legislation as is possible between now and January, 2019. I'm sure that the Republicans understand that they are poised to lose both houses of Congress following the midterm elections judging by the change in the margin of victory of the Republican candidates in GA-06 between November and this month, a precipitous drop from a 21% victory to 4%, and that was before revealing this health care bill and whatever lies ahead for Trump as a result of the current investigations.

Similar changes in less red districts currently represented by Republican incumbents will result in the loss of those seats. The Democrats need to capture 3 of 10 Republican senate seats at risk on 2018 to retake the senate, and 24 of 241 house seats to retake the that body, with at least 71 of districts less red than GA-06.

The good news for Americans is that a new Congress will likely try to undo as much of the damage as it can, but will likely have its bills vetoed, and will have to have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

The bad news is that the Russians may be in a position to determine the outcomes of those elections. Don't look for the current president or Congress to do anything to tighten security surrounding the election process given how any Russian interference would likely be to help them win elections.

 

[godnotgod]

I think he hit the nail on the head.

I agree, but he still missed MY point.

 

[godnotgod]

I've given up trying to make sense of US healthcare and its motto of 'pay more, for less'.

A universal system, administered at the state level, and with options to pay for private insurance (which would be much cheaper) if so desired would provide more comprehensive healthcare and save most people money.

But still people fight for a worst of all worlds, nobody likes it type compromise.

How about a de-privatized federal system where:

1. Any US citizen gets whatever medical care he/she needs at any appropriate US hospital, anywhere in the country. Social Security and DNA databases ensure patient match and medical history.

2. $0 pay for treatment or drugs or ongoing care.

3. No HMO's.

4. At end of fiscal year, hospitals and clinics send their actual expense reports to federal agencies in charge of administration for review and approval.

5. Costs are distributed to US citizenry via income tax system.

6. Large amounts of fluff thereby eliminated.

We aren't individually metered for use of the highway system, so why for medical care?

 

[Valjean]

How about a de-privatized federal system where:

1. Any US citizen gets whatever medical care he/she needs at any appropriate US hospital, anywhere in the country. Social Security and DNA databases ensure patient match and medical history.

2. $0 pay for treatment or drugs or ongoing care.

3. No HMO's.

4. At end of fiscal year, hospitals and clinics send their actual expense reports to federal agencies in charge of administration for review and approval.

5. Costs are distributed to US citizenry via income tax system.

6. Large amounts of fluff thereby eliminated.

We aren't individually metered for use of the highway system, so why for medical care?

Europeanist!

 

[godnotgod]

Europeanist!

I had no idea!

 

[godnotgod]

How about a de-privatized federal system where:

1. Any US citizen gets whatever medical care he/she needs at any appropriate US hospital, anywhere in the country. Social Security and DNA databases ensure patient match and medical history.

2. $0 pay for treatment or drugs or ongoing care.

3. No HMO's.

4. At end of fiscal year, hospitals and clinics send their actual expense reports to federal agencies in charge of administration for review and approval.

5. Costs are distributed to US citizenry via income tax system.

6. Large amounts of fluff thereby eliminated.

We aren't individually metered for use of the highway system, so why for medical care?

Plus, add income tax credits for those who stay healthy and take a preventative medicine course.