Older people have to pay more for insurance. Well the message is clear from the GOP: we don't care what happens to you. I've been paying insurance all my life and have never been sick and have spent way more in than I get out. Now that I might need health care because I am getting older -- I might not have it when it's my turn to use it? After all the thousands I have paid in? If the GOP is using "fairness" as an excuse, how is that fair?
18
Everyone be careful on interpreting the upcoming CBO uninsured number.
The number of uninsured may actually go DOWN from 24 million, since, in the new waiver states, you may have people with no pre-existing conditions, and particularly younger people with no pre-existing conditons, picking up insurance. (Especially since it is almost-free or free to the latter group, due to the $2000 annual tax credit they get, with low premiums for the insurance they have to buy, since that insurance only needs to cover people both young and healthy.)
But of course, many people with pre-existing conditions, under the revised, passed AHCA, will get thrown under the bus financially and treatment-wise. (And actually, even some of them will count as insured by being in the high-risk pools, though that risk-pool insurance might exclude the pre-existing-conditions they have for 12 months, or have a maximum $50,000 a year bill payout, etc.)
So a chunk of people who need the insurance far less get insurance compared to the earlier version of the bill.
People who really need insurance, and treatment, lose the insurance, or get inadequate insurance The former group could be larger than the latter. And voila, a grossly misleading number is born!
(Though Ryan and the other Republicans have deceived grossly and intentionally recently, like "access to insurance [at whatever unaffordable price] but not coverage", I think this one is unplanned. but it may be a thing they're overjoyed to see!)
The number of uninsured may actually go DOWN from 24 million, since, in the new waiver states, you may have people with no pre-existing conditions, and particularly younger people with no pre-existing conditons, picking up insurance. (Especially since it is almost-free or free to the latter group, due to the $2000 annual tax credit they get, with low premiums for the insurance they have to buy, since that insurance only needs to cover people both young and healthy.)
But of course, many people with pre-existing conditions, under the revised, passed AHCA, will get thrown under the bus financially and treatment-wise. (And actually, even some of them will count as insured by being in the high-risk pools, though that risk-pool insurance might exclude the pre-existing-conditions they have for 12 months, or have a maximum $50,000 a year bill payout, etc.)
So a chunk of people who need the insurance far less get insurance compared to the earlier version of the bill.
People who really need insurance, and treatment, lose the insurance, or get inadequate insurance The former group could be larger than the latter. And voila, a grossly misleading number is born!
(Though Ryan and the other Republicans have deceived grossly and intentionally recently, like "access to insurance [at whatever unaffordable price] but not coverage", I think this one is unplanned. but it may be a thing they're overjoyed to see!)
6
I call everyone's attention to the fact that the $330 billion over 10 year deficit reduction is not really how the bill wreaks its devastation. (This may be a relevant number for reconciliation-procedure purposes, but to see what's going in what is taken away from whom and given to whom, you need to add in the tax cut, which is 3 times the size)
From the CBO summary document on the earlier version of the bill (
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486 ):
"Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period [2017-2026], and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion."
That's $120 billion a year of Obamacare spending towards coverage stopped, of which 3/4, $90 billion, is tax savings, which accrue overwhelmingly to the top 20% (,as this link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/distribution-american-hea... shows).
The $120 billion dollars a year is the main financial transfer, mainly that $90 billion a year upward transfer away from people who have lower incomes who need the money to buy insurance, to higher income people through their tax reductions.
But also relevant, there is a large transfer (unknown billions), in the states taking the new waiver, from people with pre-existing conditions to those without. The former pay higher rates now under Obamacare community rating, and the latter pay far more with high-risk-pool premiums, medical bills due to coverage limits, enrollment restrictions, waiting lists, etc.
From the CBO summary document on the earlier version of the bill (
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486 ):
"Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period [2017-2026], and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion."
That's $120 billion a year of Obamacare spending towards coverage stopped, of which 3/4, $90 billion, is tax savings, which accrue overwhelmingly to the top 20% (,as this link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/distribution-american-hea... shows).
The $120 billion dollars a year is the main financial transfer, mainly that $90 billion a year upward transfer away from people who have lower incomes who need the money to buy insurance, to higher income people through their tax reductions.
But also relevant, there is a large transfer (unknown billions), in the states taking the new waiver, from people with pre-existing conditions to those without. The former pay higher rates now under Obamacare community rating, and the latter pay far more with high-risk-pool premiums, medical bills due to coverage limits, enrollment restrictions, waiting lists, etc.
8
This kind of discussion is fine for us coastal elites. For my family in Kansas, all the CBO stuff is irrelevant. This is a moral issue, pure and simple. 20 million parasites are taking money from Real Americans, and that's immoral. The more people who lose insurance, the better. To them, a few innocents suffering is a small price to pay to solve the theft of their hard-earned money by a Godless government.
7
I guess that Fred Upton, as courageous it seemed when he opposed the initial outrageous republican bill in the House, has succumbed to 'payola' (bribe). It goes to tell you we all have our price...but this cheap, and cruel, if not petty?
7
Nah, lit was all a set-up from the beginning. Upton agreed to pretend to oppose the bill so they could all look like they were compromising. That's my take anyhow. They're probably hoping to fool his constituents.
6
Hard to move past that celebratory photo of House GOP and this president having a frat party after stripping away healthcare access to millions.
Then we learn an impatient Trump pressured/threatened house members----who promptly folded like cheaply made Trump suits.
This fails to impress us. It worries us. Reports were that Trump didn't care about what was in the bill--just that he got his victory. Prior to that, we learn the bill wasn't read at all because Ryan didn't make it available.
Secondly, this is the same administration that said they won't be feeding poor school kids anymore. Nor feeding poor, elderly or disabled Americans who rely on Meals on Wheels. Falsely claiming these programs doesn't work.
Truth is these safety net programs cost less that Trump's weekly vacation trips will.
We are dealing with slick salesmen---the whole despicable bunch of them.
Then we learn an impatient Trump pressured/threatened house members----who promptly folded like cheaply made Trump suits.
This fails to impress us. It worries us. Reports were that Trump didn't care about what was in the bill--just that he got his victory. Prior to that, we learn the bill wasn't read at all because Ryan didn't make it available.
Secondly, this is the same administration that said they won't be feeding poor school kids anymore. Nor feeding poor, elderly or disabled Americans who rely on Meals on Wheels. Falsely claiming these programs doesn't work.
Truth is these safety net programs cost less that Trump's weekly vacation trips will.
We are dealing with slick salesmen---the whole despicable bunch of them.
16
Does the CBO calculate how many people the Republicans will kill through a lack of healthcare if the Senate doesn't stop this travesty?
12
Yeah, but it gives already obscenely rich people a huge tax cut.
6
With the CBO being so consistently inaccurate what is its true value?
2
Pretty obvious from everything that happened around this bill that the GOP is not concerned about how many have insurance, only how much of a tax cut for the wealthy.
The CBO probably won't be able to calculate the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts to health care in poor states but there are going to be a lot fewer hospitals and services available in rural areas if these cuts are made.
This is freedom from health care, GOP style.
The CBO probably won't be able to calculate the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts to health care in poor states but there are going to be a lot fewer hospitals and services available in rural areas if these cuts are made.
This is freedom from health care, GOP style.
11
Thank you GOP. Rather than supporting a working health care system that has improved health care, included more people and cut bankruptcies by 50 %--you have given us a bill that goes out of its way to show the GOP cares NOTHING for its electorate (17 % approval rating for Trumpcare!), that you now are unashamed of directly lying to us, and that your oath of office is meaningless.
Repeal and Replace--your campaign promise? "Gut and Destroy" is more like it.
And we all will be facing huge increases in premiums and deductibles--if we even can get insurance--because you have upturned the whole field.
Repeal and Replace--your campaign promise? "Gut and Destroy" is more like it.
And we all will be facing huge increases in premiums and deductibles--if we even can get insurance--because you have upturned the whole field.
25
Many yrs from now they will look at this like we look at the Dredd Scot
decision, prohibition, separate but equal etc.today..a stain on our country.
decision, prohibition, separate but equal etc.today..a stain on our country.
14
So the bill as written makes it easier for healthy people to get cheap insurance but sick people to have expensive insurance. Thus we would likely end up insuring only healthy people. Great for the bottom line of the insurance companies, although in fairness, many came out against the bill.
How does that work when healthy people ultimatly get sick or injured? Do their premiums go up just when they need insurance? Do they go up after so their first use of insurance is the trigger that negates their insurance? If so, why have any insurance? Just about everyone, except those seemingly healthy people who suddenly drop dead, is going to lose their insurance.
And for those who think they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's problems, do they feel that way about car insurance? House insurance? Boat insurance? Life insurance? Business insurance?
How does that work when healthy people ultimatly get sick or injured? Do their premiums go up just when they need insurance? Do they go up after so their first use of insurance is the trigger that negates their insurance? If so, why have any insurance? Just about everyone, except those seemingly healthy people who suddenly drop dead, is going to lose their insurance.
And for those who think they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's problems, do they feel that way about car insurance? House insurance? Boat insurance? Life insurance? Business insurance?
15
The passage the the Trumped up Care bill in the House, longed for by Republicans these past seven years, serves a purpose; it exposes the ugliness and cruelty of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Wait until the CBO analyses and the Senate debate and we may well find no permanent harm done to the poor, the old and the sick.
That is, no harm done except to those Republicans who voted for the bill and face re-election next year. Many Republicans suffered hostile town halls over precisely the threat of ACA repeal; these constituents will hardly be mollified by their Congress person voting for this bill.
Naming names, in California, we are targeting Republican Representatives David Valadao (Fresno) and Jeff Denkin (Stanislaus) especially. Darrell Issa (Vista) is already a bulls eye target. Steve Knight (Palmdale) rounds out the list. We're off to flipping the House in 2018.
Who are the targets in your states?
That is, no harm done except to those Republicans who voted for the bill and face re-election next year. Many Republicans suffered hostile town halls over precisely the threat of ACA repeal; these constituents will hardly be mollified by their Congress person voting for this bill.
Naming names, in California, we are targeting Republican Representatives David Valadao (Fresno) and Jeff Denkin (Stanislaus) especially. Darrell Issa (Vista) is already a bulls eye target. Steve Knight (Palmdale) rounds out the list. We're off to flipping the House in 2018.
Who are the targets in your states?
13
Correction: the name is Jeff Denham Republican Representative, Stanislaus, Ca
Sorry; I had trouble reading my hand writing.
Sorry; I had trouble reading my hand writing.
2
Having realized that "throw everyone in ACA off their health insurance" is not a winning public-relations position, the Republicans have discovered a new, slightly more subtle strategy: "Throw all sick people off their health insurance." This will allow them to trumpet slightly higher overall enrollment and slightly lower premiums for young healthy people... who off course will then risk being thrown off their insurance as soon as they get sick.
Or to paraphrase our President, "Nobody knew that it was so expensive to provide health insurance for people who are actually sick."
Meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the Republicans have just suggested a huge incentive for people currently on Medicaid NOT to get a job. If they stay eligible for Medicaid, after all, they continue to enjoy generous insurance and coverage for pre-existing conditions. But if they lose eligibility by earning more money -- for as little as two months -- their protection for pre-existing conditions goes away for ever. Would YOU take a new job if you faced the risk of being excluded from health insurance for the rest of your life if you did (given the way our insurance companies interpret "pre-existing conditions")?
Or to paraphrase our President, "Nobody knew that it was so expensive to provide health insurance for people who are actually sick."
Meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the Republicans have just suggested a huge incentive for people currently on Medicaid NOT to get a job. If they stay eligible for Medicaid, after all, they continue to enjoy generous insurance and coverage for pre-existing conditions. But if they lose eligibility by earning more money -- for as little as two months -- their protection for pre-existing conditions goes away for ever. Would YOU take a new job if you faced the risk of being excluded from health insurance for the rest of your life if you did (given the way our insurance companies interpret "pre-existing conditions")?
18
We are arguing about the wrong things because we fail to see the fundamental issue. Health care services have become too expensive for most Americans to pay for - because there are too many people making too comfortable a living from it, because of rampant fraud and overutilization, because we all demand unlimited access to the most advanced technology, because of excessive administrative cost, because of the warping effect of the malpractice lawsuit lottery mentality, because we think we are entitled to long life and good health without much personal effort.
The marketplace no longer works so government intervened to subsidize the insurance pools, just as years ago it intervened to pay for services to the elderly, the destitute and the disabled, and more recently, to cover the merely low income population. The immediate political question is, what is the most effective level of intervention and at what cost but all of the issues listed above will have to be addressed. An easy answer is a complete, Bernie Sanders style government takeover - Medicaid for all. The question is whether government will have the ability to say no. No you can't have coverage for that MRI, for your hormone shots, for a high-end prosthesis. No you can't receive government payments as a doctor because your performance is too poor or because we already have too many orthopedic surgeons in your locality. If that can't happen, there won't be enough money in the world to pay for everything.
The marketplace no longer works so government intervened to subsidize the insurance pools, just as years ago it intervened to pay for services to the elderly, the destitute and the disabled, and more recently, to cover the merely low income population. The immediate political question is, what is the most effective level of intervention and at what cost but all of the issues listed above will have to be addressed. An easy answer is a complete, Bernie Sanders style government takeover - Medicaid for all. The question is whether government will have the ability to say no. No you can't have coverage for that MRI, for your hormone shots, for a high-end prosthesis. No you can't receive government payments as a doctor because your performance is too poor or because we already have too many orthopedic surgeons in your locality. If that can't happen, there won't be enough money in the world to pay for everything.
11
PWR identifies a real risk with single-payer systems: can they resist the impulse to cover everyone for everything? Fortunately, we have many many examples around the world of countries that have single-payer or otherwise organized universal health care systems, and the answer is "Yes". No system is perfect, of course, but from every corner of the globe, despite grumbling about denied service and despite worries about funding, single-payer systems deliver better results for much lower costs than our American mess of a system.
17
This comment makes a good point. Health care is a finite good in any economy. It must be rationed. In the USA it is rationed by economic means; those who can afford it get it. In single payer systems like Canada, Great Britain, France and Germany, etc. it is rationed primarily by a health effectiveness standard. Services and procedures are performed when there is a positive medical outcome. The important point to realize however is that single payer countries are spending about half of what is being spent in the US on health care (as a percentage of the country's gross domestic product) yet their citizens are living longer than in the US. The evidence to support this statement can be found here:
http://www.oecd.org/health/
http://www.oecd.org/health/
12
One only needs to look at relative health care costs in other developed countries to see that the key to efficient health care cost control is a viable single payer system with the power to negotiate costs on a regional basis. Medicare for all, and no for profit insurance involved at, all not even the Medi-gap or Medicare Advantage plans. These were, and are, gifts to the health insurance industry.
4
The utter craziness of what is happening is beyond comprehension. They are making health insurance cheaper and more accessible for folks, as long as they are healthy and will not make use of it (IMO everyone "needs" it just in case - that is the point). If someone has an immediate need for any kind of medical care, then insurance coverage can be priced out of reach. That's like a landlord advertising that an apartment has heat and air, but then providing the former only from May to October and the latter from November to April.
17
Reminds me of 2006, when I suffered a heart attack (no insurance, stupid on my part). The only insurance I was offered would have cost $1,200 monthly, with full responsibility for the first $30,000 of medical costs. The company would split with me the cost of the of the next $30,000, then covered the next $30,000 in full. After that, I was on my own.
5
With the so-called Health Care Bill (actually a health insurance bill sponsored by the health insurance industry), we move into the realm of "pure politics." The politics are certainly pure here because there is no outcome on the table that would actually benefit citizens (unless the citizen is a CEO of or a large shareholder in a health insurance company), only outcomes that enrich banks and corporations. Go down the provisions and amendments, one by one, and it is clear to see which ideologue is being courted, which opponent is being punished, which favor is being returned. Seek out a provision which actually helps a regular American, makes his or her life better. Nada.
Still, the NYT and mainstream media report on the legislative process as if this were an actual Health Care Bill and not a symptom of government dysfunction. I suppose the bad actors in Washington require some PR cover for their bad actions, but I don't think that the proper function of the press is to provide that cover. You have abrogated your responsibility.
Now get back in there and repair your reputation. Reporting truthfully should be no harder, maybe even easier, than what you are doing now. You will miss the fat-cat money at first, for sure, but the improved America will be well worth the sacrifice.
Still, the NYT and mainstream media report on the legislative process as if this were an actual Health Care Bill and not a symptom of government dysfunction. I suppose the bad actors in Washington require some PR cover for their bad actions, but I don't think that the proper function of the press is to provide that cover. You have abrogated your responsibility.
Now get back in there and repair your reputation. Reporting truthfully should be no harder, maybe even easier, than what you are doing now. You will miss the fat-cat money at first, for sure, but the improved America will be well worth the sacrifice.
17
Trump will denounce the CBI and call factual media reports on its finding "fake news." The question is, what will the Republicans do? How will they justify this abomination? How will they attempt to "fix" it in the Senate?
7
Y'know, I'm getting a wee bit tired of folks comparing this legislative upchuck to what they refer to as "flawed" Obamacare. "Flawed," dudes and/or dudesses? "Flawed?" Hey, everything is flawed — you, me, Obamacare, the 1927 Yankees, the last time you enjoyed physical intimacy, everything...
"Flawed" is life — but as we mature, we choose to work to fix flaws rather than to kick entire systems to the curb. But not the Republican House leadership, oh no, not at all. For them it's a zero-sum game of "gotcha," a political King-of-the-Hill tinkling contest in which actual living, breathing Americans matter far, far less than their reelection chances.
"Flawed?" I've got your ""flawed" right here, babe.
See you in 2018, suckers ...
"Flawed" is life — but as we mature, we choose to work to fix flaws rather than to kick entire systems to the curb. But not the Republican House leadership, oh no, not at all. For them it's a zero-sum game of "gotcha," a political King-of-the-Hill tinkling contest in which actual living, breathing Americans matter far, far less than their reelection chances.
"Flawed?" I've got your ""flawed" right here, babe.
See you in 2018, suckers ...
74
Wish I could give this so many more likes than one.
2
Wait, analysis before legislation. My heart be still!
3
This Republican House bill is the real "death panel". This current crop of Republicans, "premature legislators", could not even take time to craft a new piece of legislation. Seven years not enough time! Just gum up ACA, remove money because they do not like to spend. Even, and especially, on Americans! Our money. Tax money. They are not doing work as much as cutting out, ripping up, tearing through. Oh, and let me leave work on time. Americans, please think. Democracy must be fought for. Authoritarianism, indolence, inattention are not options.
16
What can you expect of a House whose first action was to secretly in the middle of the night vote to gut their own oversight?
13
How is it that all these god-fearing legislators can vote for a health plan that is so blatantly inadequate and unfair.
If they were true to their faith they would at least "walk in the shoes" of those they are condemning and adopt that plan as their own.
Shame on all of them.
If they were true to their faith they would at least "walk in the shoes" of those they are condemning and adopt that plan as their own.
Shame on all of them.
15
Since trump likes Australia's health care system - Medicare - why did he not propose it to Congress? Why did he not propose opening our nation's Medicare system to all Americans? Is that not the most ignorant behavior?
(I am especially angry since the Republicans have always made being Christian a part of their platform. Jesus wept.)
(I am especially angry since the Republicans have always made being Christian a part of their platform. Jesus wept.)
18
This is a horrible bill crafted (and that's too charitable a verb) by even more horrible people.
22
It really doesn't matter to the Republicans in Congress how many people will suffer, does it? Let's call this bill what it is - a tax cut for the rich disguised as repeal and replacement of ACA. It's Phase 1 of more tax cuts to come...
43
I keep thinking how many people could be helped if the money earmarked for building that silly wall was permanently canned. A couple of billion here and a couple of billion there could do some serious good for so many folks. Just a thought.
28
This is rash, sloppy, politically-driven legislation whose unforeseen consequences we'll spend years sorting out. But that's how we roll, here in the States.
19
I always thought being conservative meant knowing how much something costs and what benefits are derived. by not waiting for the cbo these so called conservatives are doing neither. these are not conservatives. these are radical right wing extremists claiming to represent conservative values.
53
I wonder if the CBO calculates the impact on the citizens who cannot afford the inevitably higher premiums for preexisting conditions. Bankruptcies, broken families, deaths, etc. Bet not.
7
Instead of 50 state high risk pools let patients with preexisting conditions have access to Medicare and charge what it costs the government per medicare patient until they reach 65. The percentage of patients currently on medicare with preexisting conditions must be very high.
Medicare is an existing program, the cost to add patients would be minimal compared to 50 state pools. The administrative savings could be charged to the states to help fund the people with preexisting conditions.
Patients would have insurance security and mobility between states. Imagine moving from Texas to North Carolina. Each would have limited access, limited funded pools. Good luck with that.
Medicare is an existing program, the cost to add patients would be minimal compared to 50 state pools. The administrative savings could be charged to the states to help fund the people with preexisting conditions.
Patients would have insurance security and mobility between states. Imagine moving from Texas to North Carolina. Each would have limited access, limited funded pools. Good luck with that.
21
Good idea, I think. But how about just Medicare for all?
8
I think they should also add Medicare to markets where all insurers have withdrawn from the exchange. Some sort of sliding scale of payments based on income would help fund the additional expenses.
1
At least we can know what is in the proposal that still needs to be approved by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. We don't need to wait until the Senate is done to know what Republicans proposed.
Waiting for the CBO score should have been a critical part of the decision. How many Americans will lose coverage? How much will this cost?
Scott Walker has already said he would be interested in opting out of pre-existing coverage. A questionnaire sent to a number of governors last December by Congress had several wanting to change the essential benefits, so they would jump at the opportunity.
Time reveals truth. And it won't take long. The initial estimate of how many millions lose their healthcare, how many children, how many Medicaid recipients, etc. is coming soon.
There is a reason that every medical organization strongly opposed this bill and most have already issued denunciations of it. I hope the Republicans enjoyed their beer bash in the Rose Garden. With any luck, some will be out of office by 2018.
Scott Walker has already said he would be interested in opting out of pre-existing coverage. A questionnaire sent to a number of governors last December by Congress had several wanting to change the essential benefits, so they would jump at the opportunity.
Time reveals truth. And it won't take long. The initial estimate of how many millions lose their healthcare, how many children, how many Medicaid recipients, etc. is coming soon.
There is a reason that every medical organization strongly opposed this bill and most have already issued denunciations of it. I hope the Republicans enjoyed their beer bash in the Rose Garden. With any luck, some will be out of office by 2018.
20
The AHCA will be hard to score because a score involves multiple scenarios regarding what fraction of states elect which options, and which choices of plan will be selected by how many. There will be extremely bad scenarios and extremely good, and guess who will emphasize which.
The most probable case will be taken as too optimistic or too pessimistic depending where you sit, and the voters won't have a clue who is conning them. So they'll vote for their party, whatever their take on the policy is.
The most probable case will be taken as too optimistic or too pessimistic depending where you sit, and the voters won't have a clue who is conning them. So they'll vote for their party, whatever their take on the policy is.
3
This will be voted on next by the Senate. Voters will have to wait until any law is passed.
1
Rich, yes. And the bill will change so the scores will have to be revisited.
1
The whole purpose of the opt-out dodge was
1) to obscure the effects of the billl
2) to pass blame from the federal to state legislatures: We didn't cut your benefit, we just said it could be cut.
1) to obscure the effects of the billl
2) to pass blame from the federal to state legislatures: We didn't cut your benefit, we just said it could be cut.
10
And if you want to contact your friendly GOP Wealth Care representative to leave a message don't bother: they have left the building and aren't interested.
12
Anti-Christian is the rat pack who invented this rotten healthcare bill designed to kill old people, the chronically ill and fetuses real quick in order to line rich men's pockets with cash. And they talk pro-life? That's a laugh! No one of them understands Christ's words on love or charity.
34
The republicans in congress don't work for normal Americans and the people they do work for, namely the most comfortable and affluent, just don't care about anyone else. This vote should come back to haunt the GOP.
28
"The Congressional Budget Office, Washington’s nonpartisan scorekeeper, did not have time to evaluate the effects of the American Health Care Act before Thursday’s vote, since the bill was being amended until just before passage. . . it is expected to release detailed estimates of how many people will be covered by the bill, and at what cost to the government."
Is it just me or is this process backwards? ANY member of the House who voted in favor of this bill without knowing "how many people will be covered by the bill, and at what cost to the government" should be voted out when their term expires.
I find this act as irresponsible as asking someone to sign a blank check - no dollar amount indicated and the "paid to the order of" is left blank as well. What in the world as these politicians doing or even thinking? If looks as if THEIR own special interests are all that matters and the heck with whatever is best for their constituents. This act, in and of itself, cries for term limits on ALL politicians.
45
Why would any evaluation matter? Obamacare was supposed to have low deductibles, reasonable premiums, and abundant choices while costing the government very little. Will the estimate be correspondingly inaccurate?
1
Of course it's irresponsible to vote before the OMB score is in. But these GOP psychophants already know the bill is a crock, and the OMB score doesn't matter. They're voting for it even if the score is terrible.
4
You know what Rich - that is an excellent point. The Affordable Care Act did fail on many fronts for many people (my husband and I are paying so much more in premiums and prescription drugs than ever before). My only fear is that the Republican version might make the ACA seem like manna from heaven in comparison.
3
The GOP had to pass it so we could find out what's in it.
4
the irony of that one, huh ?
1
Time for a little Alice in Wonderland:
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
Clearly, you people should stop PERSISTING in asking for consideration of the effects of a bill on real people before Republicans vote in favor of it.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
Clearly, you people should stop PERSISTING in asking for consideration of the effects of a bill on real people before Republicans vote in favor of it.
12
Cue Trump Twitter campaign, undermining the credibility of the CBO, to commence in 3...2...1...
22
The article and comments all assume the integrity of the CBO. Given the ruling party's well-documented proclivity to undermine or corrupt *any* government institution that stands in the way of the party's short-term lies and long-term goals, how long can we continue to believe CBO reports?
1
"how long can we continue to believe CBO reports?"....A hell of a lot longer than we can believe Congressional Republicans
8
One definition of patriotism is caring about your fellow citizens and their well being. Another is just to sing "God Bless America" at the ballgame. Guess which one the Republicans in the House believe in?
It's easy to admonish God to do something, but not do the same thing ourselves. There might even be a word for it.
It's easy to admonish God to do something, but not do the same thing ourselves. There might even be a word for it.
14
Hypocrisy
3
Can't wait for the CBO report. It is astonishing how ignorant our representatives are about the complexities of health care. The ACA, flawed, and compromised as it was, at least was a carefully though out plan for cost containment that has slowed the rate of growth of health care cost. when those voting for something don't know anything it is best to have the law carefully crafted. Granted a slower rate of increase is still increase, but it is a start. We could have built on this toward a single payer system
The AHCA of Ryan Price and Trump is simply awful and will kill many people as the costs go up. But lets pass something even if we don't know what it does. The rest of the world thinks we are crazy. Not so. Just stupid and ignorant. Like the guy in front of the panel for the nuclear reactor saying "I wonder what happens if I push this button?"
The AHCA of Ryan Price and Trump is simply awful and will kill many people as the costs go up. But lets pass something even if we don't know what it does. The rest of the world thinks we are crazy. Not so. Just stupid and ignorant. Like the guy in front of the panel for the nuclear reactor saying "I wonder what happens if I push this button?"
27
Upton deserves to be voted out of office for accepting the buyoff from Paul Ryan et all. Maybe his constituents arent as stupid as he was.
24
His constituents may, or may not, benefit from whatever quid pro quo was struck. It's pretty clear that the added money for high-risk pools is a fig leaf.
5
The koch owned congress people who are in uncontestable gerrymandered districts actually think State Senators, who are responsible for the entire state's citizenry, are going to throw in with this ridiculous Ayn Rand inspired bill.
It has to make one wonder just how smart paul ryan really is.
I get the feeling this was all just pathetic political theater staged to make the ever needy draft dodging/golfer president feel good.
A political bromide for our laughable spit-take president.
It has to make one wonder just how smart paul ryan really is.
I get the feeling this was all just pathetic political theater staged to make the ever needy draft dodging/golfer president feel good.
A political bromide for our laughable spit-take president.
12
We should all be calling the TrumpDoesn'tCare.
8
Difficult to say what preexisting conditions would cost the government. Who will be denied care? Who will be unable to work? Who will have to make the difficult choice of paying the hospital or stiffing it. Will the local hospital survive?
For an *interesting* although somewhat dated glimpse of insurance underwriting for preexisting conditions, see https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3675303/BlueShield-Prex-Exclu...
For an *interesting* although somewhat dated glimpse of insurance underwriting for preexisting conditions, see https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3675303/BlueShield-Prex-Exclu...
4
The Republicans left out the details. They punted and threw the really hard decisions to the states. This will make the bill very hard to score which will allow the Republicans to say that it's not so bad after all. They will say, see it all depends. Give it a chance. It's just the first step.
It's the first step of the cliff and it's a long way down.
It's the first step of the cliff and it's a long way down.
51
Except that the scoring will conclude that the more people covered by waivers, the worse the effect will be, so the best choice would be to have no waivers at all. So why are we giving a state a choice of the worst?
It's a question as to why states would be allowed a waiver that hurt its citizens, but don't forget that the feds are funding to the tune of $8 BILLLION dollars over five years the states that choose waivers. So your tax dollars subsidize the decision of another state to do what's worst for that state's own citizens.
It's a question as to why states would be allowed a waiver that hurt its citizens, but don't forget that the feds are funding to the tune of $8 BILLLION dollars over five years the states that choose waivers. So your tax dollars subsidize the decision of another state to do what's worst for that state's own citizens.
4
I am all for any insurance changes that lead to more affordable insurance that provides real coverage. However, insurance can always be made more affordable by eliminating sicker people. is that really what we as american's want? We are all capable of becoming ill, and our ongoing insurance should not require us to stay on a job that is otherwise not acceptable. Republicans SEEM to have done this more to fulfill a campaign promise that was stated as repealing obamacare rather than what was voted for which is more accessible and affordable healthcare.
25
Based on some of the comments here and elsewhere, it does appear that some Americans at the very least don't care if sick people get eliminated.
It seems to be the only form of insurance where people are offended at the though of having to pay for something someone else might use.
It seems to be the only form of insurance where people are offended at the though of having to pay for something someone else might use.
18
Many of the people in Congress don't care. Joe Walsh for example and let us not forget Paul Ryan who said he started dreaming of getting rid of Medicaid while still in college. Basically, who do you trust for healthcare. The party that tries to give you the breaks or the political party that gives the breaks to the wealthy. Notice I said tries.....mostly because the GOP will twist and turn everything that does help the middle class and the poor.
5
You nailed it!
2
The question isn't just how many will be covered, or who will be covered, but also the QUALITY of the coverage. We'll be going back to the shameful system we had before Obamacare -- welcome news, of course, to those born with the preexisting condition of great personal wealth.
57
What ghouls these Republicans be, to ignore the impact of a bill which will cause suffering to millions of their "fellow" Americans.
83
Excellent description eyesopen - ghouls is a perfect word choice.
2
Healthcare is a daisy chain of interconnected economic links that bumper car back and forth. This specific bill will undermine both the uninsurable (Medicaid processes and people), and the twenty million on the precipitous of affording insurance. In total, thirty-five million people will emerge without a plan or coverage. The national death rates will tick up two full percentage points begining next year and the only winners will be funeral homes and embalming fluids sellers. CDC's weekly morbidity and mortality report will start getting ink on the front page of the NYT's and WasPost. It will get section two coverage in the WSJ and elected officials that voted to kill ACA will start getting assigned body counts just like when death was enumerated during Vietnam. The GOP will be painted with death symbolism and old granny being pushed into newly dug Grave caverns.
14
There is a site now that will mail your cremated remains to a GOP member if you die from the AHCA.
http://mailmetothegop.com/
http://mailmetothegop.com/
1
Whatever numbers the CBO gives out should haunt EVERY CONSCIENCIOUSLESS member of the GOP that voted for this despicable travesty of a bill. It would be true justice if 217 seats flipped in 2018. Not one of them put their constituents' interests before party politics.
I want to see those numbers on every television screen overshadowing every single electoral contest they have until they are all voted out of office.
I want to see those numbers on every television screen overshadowing every single electoral contest they have until they are all voted out of office.
60
The younger healthier people might be inclined to buy into the insurance market because premiums will be more affordable , but older, sicker people might opt out because they won't be able to afford coverage. Good god, the older sicker people NEED the insurance and they get priced out. This is the new system designed by the GOP, I'm just appalled. The BIG winners here, the insurers, they don't want to pay claims, get rid of those old sick people, they are cutting into our profit margins.
41
Am dismayed by the predictable greed of the elite -
11
Numbers don't lie....politicians do.
10
Passing a major piece of legislation without knowing the impact on the lives of U.S. citizens and their families is totally irresponsible and negligent. How can you seriously call yourself a Congressional Representative? How can you grin and smile about adding a huge layer of uncertainty to the health and welfare of your constituents. Representative Ryan seems to be just fine with passing legislation without any idea of the impact of his policies on peoples lives.
I will say, however, when they get ready to pass tax cuts for the rich they will have every dollar accounted for. Paul's political donors are counting on it.
I will say, however, when they get ready to pass tax cuts for the rich they will have every dollar accounted for. Paul's political donors are counting on it.
107
This so-called American Health Care Act is a gigantic tax cut bill masquerading as a health care bill. It gives huge tax cuts to health care insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical devices companies, and to individuals with more than $500,000 in income per year. In order to enable these tax cuts, the legislation proposes lower subsidies for buying insurance and big cuts in Medicaid. Yes, tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the sickest, poorest and most vulnerable.
8
"Representative Fred Upton of Michigan told reporters that he had been assured the funding would be enough to make a difference. Some independent estimates have differed."
If he believes that I've got some swampland in Florida to sell him.
If he believes that I've got some swampland in Florida to sell him.
29
"What matters is not just how many people have insurance, but whether people who really need insurance have insurance".
Everyone will need health insurance at some point. Even if you are young and seemingly healthy, that can change in an instant and without warning.
Government regulated, universal healthcare is the best outcome for all Americans that are not rich enough to not have to worry about coverage. We need politicians in office that will make that happen.
Everyone will need health insurance at some point. Even if you are young and seemingly healthy, that can change in an instant and without warning.
Government regulated, universal healthcare is the best outcome for all Americans that are not rich enough to not have to worry about coverage. We need politicians in office that will make that happen.
80
My prediction is that most of the nineteen states that refused Medicaid expansion under ACA will also choose to strip benefit rules and refuse coverage of pre-existing conditions.a
53
I agree. Those same states have lousy schools, poorly educated citizens, sicker people, and struggling economies. And an opioid epidemic.
7
“What matters is not just how many people have insurance,” said Mr. Elmendorf, who is now the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School. “But whether people who really need insurance have insurance.”
Substitute access to medical care for have insurance and you've got it right. Having insurance is no guarantee that you will be able to get medical when and where you need it, pay for the deductibles, the co-pays, the facility fees, and any out of network costs incurred. That is what our politicians in the GOP and the health care industry people are not looking at, either willfully or through sheer lack of understanding of what needs to be changed.
If there is a way we, the citizens of the United States, ought to take away their gold plated medical insurance. That could have the happy side effect of forcing them to deal with the same system and frustrations we go through, or have decided not to go through at the expense of our health. How many of us are forgoing care for emergent conditions (that we don't know about because they aren't affecting us yet) or current issues because our "health care system" is malfunctioning to the point where dealing with it can give us a heart attack? I'd bet anything the amount is greater than anyone realizes.
Substitute access to medical care for have insurance and you've got it right. Having insurance is no guarantee that you will be able to get medical when and where you need it, pay for the deductibles, the co-pays, the facility fees, and any out of network costs incurred. That is what our politicians in the GOP and the health care industry people are not looking at, either willfully or through sheer lack of understanding of what needs to be changed.
If there is a way we, the citizens of the United States, ought to take away their gold plated medical insurance. That could have the happy side effect of forcing them to deal with the same system and frustrations we go through, or have decided not to go through at the expense of our health. How many of us are forgoing care for emergent conditions (that we don't know about because they aren't affecting us yet) or current issues because our "health care system" is malfunctioning to the point where dealing with it can give us a heart attack? I'd bet anything the amount is greater than anyone realizes.
26
CBO could offer a range of estimates based on different assumptions.
5
I wonder what the analysis of the legislation will show and why the Representatives couldn't have waited a few days before voting while people figured out exactly what the most recent form of the legislation would do. I suppose I really don't wonder about the rushed vote: it must be easier for a member of any herd, Republican or Democrat, to vote on the basis of wishful thinking or orders from the leadership than on the basis of inconvenient analysis.
35
What? Wait and miss out on the scheduled recess so they can go home and say, see, we keep our promises? Wishful thinking is central to Republican "thought" anyway, so a CBO score wouldn't matter much. Not when the votes were there and had to be reaped before somebody changed his or her mind. Besides, there was this great party at the White House and nobody wanted to miss out on that....
4