The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Tiberius]

Democrats threatening to shut down government.

 

Wondering if MSM will cover the same way @GOP shutdown was covered: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-warn-gop-against-including-wall-funding-in-major-spending-package/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=35412332 …

 

 

Remember the fit Democrats threw when the GOP did this? And how the media accused Republicans of putting thousands and thousands of people out of work and starving those on food stamps and other nonsense?

Good times.

And honestly, even if you don’t like this GOP bill (and actually many Republicans do NOT), this meltdown is popcorn-worthy:

We don't have money for health care but we can build a stupid useless wall? I figure most American will see that and agree with the Dems

[B-Man]

KARMA: Cory Booker whines about health bill ‘being forced down his throat’, GOP LAUGHS

 

Jake Tapper

✔@jaketapper

.@CoryBooker on GOP health bill: "Republicans cannot just force this down our throats." #CNNsotu http://cnn.it/2mA6UhX

1:32 PM - 12 Mar 2017

 

 

 

 

Gosh Cory, thanks to Democrats like Harry Reid actually yes, yes the GOP CAN force the health bill down your throat.

And...........nice choice of words

[Tiberius]

KARMA: Cory Booker whines about health bill being forced down his throat, GOP LAUGHS

 

 

No dumb a ss, you clowns literally can't force it anywhere! No you can't!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gosh Cory, thanks to Democrats like Harry Reid actually yes, yes the GOP CAN force the health bill down your throat.

And...........nice choice of words

No dumb a ss, you clowns literally can't force it anywhere! No you can't!

Edited March 13, 2017 by Tiberius

[B-Man]

Here's the CBO score on the GOP's initial planhttps://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact.pdf …

 

Plenty of good..............plenty of bad.

 

 

The question is how much of the decline in coverage is due to people choosing no coverage

 

and how much from increased premium cost

 

 

Click on to enlarge

Edited March 13, 2017 by B-Man

[Nanker]

KARMA: Cory Booker whines about health bill ‘being forced down his throat’, GOP LAUGHS

 

 

 

 

Gosh Cory, thanks to Democrats like Harry Reid actually yes, yes the GOP CAN force the health bill down your throat.

And...........nice choice of words

 

I'd much rather they shove it up his azz!

[Magox]

Here's the CBO score on the GOP's initial planhttps://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact.pdf …

 

Plenty of good..............plenty of bad.

 

 

The question is how much of the decline in coverage is due to people choosing no coverage

 

and how much from increased premium cost

 

 

Click on to enlarge

 

Keep in mind, that this does not include with doing away with the minimum essential benefits, community rating nor does it factor in tort reform or competing across state lines.

 

 

Also, this is something else that I'd think that the Freedom Caucus members should be pleased with.

 

Effects on the Federal Budget CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. That total consists of $323 billion in on-budget savings and $13 billion in off-budget savings. Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion. The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid and from the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance. The largest costs would come from repealing many of the changes the ACA made to the Internal Revenue Code—including an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual fees imposed on health insurers—and from the establishment of a new tax credit for health insurance. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.

 

[B-Man]

Here's the crux of the CBO report: Premiums eventually go down 10%, and deficit drops $337B. But 24 million more are uninsured, report says.

 

Reporters who write that 24 million will "lose" insurance -- as in taken away from them -- are misrepresenting what the CBO says.

 

According to CBO report,those 14 million uninsured would be uninsured by choice,as there is no more mandate.Reporters conveniently miss this

 

If Obamacare is as good as media/Dems say it is, then I would think the 14 million people will chose to voluntarily keep it.

 

 

 

 

C'mon Dems/Media............If we don't force people to buy this ****ty product, then people will choose not to buy it..

 

Great messaging guys. Run with that.

Edited March 13, 2017 by B-Man

[Magox]

Here's the crux of the CBO report: Premiums eventually go down 10%, and deficit drops $337B. But 24 million more are uninsured, report says.

 

Reporters who write that 24 million will "lose" insurance -- as in taken away from them -- are misrepresenting what the CBO says.

 

According to CBO report,those 14 million uninsured would be uninsured by choice,as there is no more mandate.Reporters conveniently miss this

 

If Obamacare is as good as media/Dems say it is, then I would think the 14 million people will chose to voluntarily keep it.

 

 

 

 

C'mon Dems/Media............If we don't force people to buy this ****ty product, then people will choose not to buy it..

 

Great messaging guys. Run with that.

 

 

That's the problem, which if the bill was written and approved by the Freedom Caucus or Rand Paul, rather than 24 million people, you would be talking about a number considerably higher.

 

THAT IS WHY, that there has to be compromise. The advanced tax credits for the poor will have to be higher to attract more people than as currently written to offset some of those Medicaid losses, while phasing them out for people with incomes above $55k or $60k rather than the $75k that is currently proposed. Which would help offset some of the cost.

[TH3]

People who don't have coverage - do have coverage - YOU get to pay for it when they go to the emergency room...

 

Lower premiums just mask poorer coverage

 

Start with a clean sheet of paper and a bipartisan commission - until then nothing will work or stick - this whole effort is to craft a plan that can be passed in reconciliation...what could go wrong?

Edited March 13, 2017 by baskin

[Magox]

Although average premiums would increase prior to 2020 and decrease starting in 2020, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in premiums relative to those under current law would differ significantly for people of different ages because of a change in age-rating rules. Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people

 

 

I'd imagine if they expanded the risk pools with additional funding via federal subsidies administered by the states or directly from the carriers, along with tort reform, competing across state lines, getting rid of community rating and minimum essential benefits with an added menu of even higher deductible policies, my educated guess would be that premiums would go down much more than 10%.

[B-Man]

 

 

That's the problem, which if the bill was written and approved by the Freedom Caucus or Rand Paul, rather than 24 million people, you would be talking about a number considerably higher.

 

THAT IS WHY, that there has to be compromise. The advanced tax credits for the poor will have to be higher to attract more people than as currently written to offset some of those Medicaid losses, while phasing them out for people with incomes above $55k or $60k rather than the $75k that is currently proposed. Which would help offset some of the cost.

 

 

I agree.

 

Other reminder: CBO predicted 23 million would have Obamacare plans by 2017 but only about 9 million actually do.

 

The CBO's Lousy Track Record on Coverage Projections

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-cbos-lousy-track-record-on-coverage-projections/article/2007129#.WMcATA37oZc.twitter

 

 

as to the media coverage..........The key here is the verb. It's wrong to say someone "loses" health insurance if he opts out of it.

[Magox]

 

 

Start with a clean sheet of paper and a bipartisan commission - until then nothing will work or stick - this whole effort is to craft a plan that can be passed in reconciliation...what could go wrong?

 

I'd normally agree with this, but I don't believe there is an appetite among Democrats to work with Republicans much less Trump. I think the best way to get bipartisanship at this point is to force the Democrats hand by passing something close to what the Repubs are doing, which then the sinking reality that this would then be indeed the law of the land would hopefully encourage some Democrats to then work with Repubs on legislation to add to the law.

 

Reconciliation can only do so much.

 

 

I agree.

 

Other reminder: CBO predicted 23 million would have Obamacare plans by 2017 but only about 9 million actually do.

 

The CBO's Lousy Track Record on Coverage Projections

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-cbos-lousy-track-record-on-coverage-projections/article/2007129#.WMcATA37oZc.twitter

 

 

as to the media coverage..........The key here is the verb. It's wrong to say someone "loses" health insurance if he opts out of it.

 

Yes, the don't have a great rack record with this, however the CBO director is Republican appointed. Just wanted to throw that out there.

[Magox]

More on the Budget considerations

 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

 

CBO and JCT estimate that, on net, enacting the legislation would decrease federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period (see Table 1). That change would result from a $1.2 trillion decrease in direct spending, partially offset by an $883 billion reduction in revenues.

 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

 

For this estimate, CBO and JCT assume that the legislation will be enacted by May 2017. Costs and savings are measured relative to CBO’s March 2016 baseline projections, with adjustments for legislation that was enacted after that baseline was produced. The largest budgetary effects would stem from provisions in the recommendations from both committees that would affect insurance coverage. Those provisions, taken together, would reduce projected deficits by $935 billion over the 2017-2026 period. Other provisions would increase deficits by $599 billion, mostly by reducing tax revenues. All told, deficits would be reduced by $337 billion over that period, CBO and JCT estimate. (See Table 2 for the estimated budgetary effects of each major provision.)

 

Budgetary Effects of Health Insurance Coverage Provisions

The $935 billion in estimated deficit reduction over the 2017-2026 period that would stem from the insurance coverage provisions includes the following amounts (shown in Table 3):

 

• A reduction of $880 billion in federal outlays for Medicaid

• Savings of $673 billion, mostly stemming from the elimination of the ACA’s subsidies for nongroup health insurance—which include refundable tax credits for premium assistance and subsidies to reduce cost-sharing payments—in 2020;

• Savings of $70 billion mostly associated with shifts in the mix of taxable and nontaxable compensation resulting from net decreases in the number of people estimated to enroll in employment-based health insurance coverage; and

• Savings of $6 billion from the repeal of a tax credit for certain small employers that provide health insurance to their employees.

 

Those decreases would be partially offset by:

• A cost of $361 billion for the new tax credit for health insurance established by the legislation in 2020;

• A reduction in revenues of $210 billion from eliminating the penalties paid by uninsured people and employers;

• An increase in spending of $80 billion for the new Patient and State Stability Fund grant program; and

• A net increase in spending of $43 billion under the Medicare program stemming from changes in payments to hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients.

 

 

 

Essentially the majority of the decreases are due to less coverage provided, primarily Medicaid.

 

This scoring from the CBO emboldens the centrists case more so than the Freedom Caucus. The report was generally positive for budgetary reasons and reaffirmed that the market stability wouldn't be an issue.

 

The main problem is that too many people would lose their coverage. I outlined above the compromises to be had. Hopefully some of these things will be taken up.

[boyst]

I'd much rather they shove it up his azz!

gay

[ExiledInIllinois]

Mr. Trump... Please reverse all those things Nasty Man Obama did!

 

Make America Sick Again!

[Magox]

Most people tend to view budget deficits and debt in an abstract manner. They know it's not good to have them but they really can't see how it personally affects them.

 

Whereas people see people losing coverage and premium increases/decreases not as an abstract concept but in real life consequential terms. The coverage aspect and premiums is where this will be judged most in the public arena. That's where it needs to be addressed, hopefully the GOP will be able to come to a compromise that does deal with these issues.

[Rockpile233]

The part that has bothered me is the logical increase to elderly out of pocket costs once you remove the mandate. The majority of that

demographic leans to the right.

 

There really aren't many great options for the republicans.

[Spurna]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/841390305064693762

 

[B-Man]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/841390305064693762

 

 

Well.........I hate to complain but,

 

Can we see where the ABC reporter's numbers come from?

 

There's no link/source on his page.

[B-Large]

 

I'd normally agree with this, but I don't believe there is an appetite among Democrats to work with Republicans much less Trump. I think the best way to get bipartisanship at this point is to force the Democrats hand by passing something close to what the Repubs are doing, which then the sinking reality that this would then be indeed the law of the land would hopefully encourage some Democrats to then work with Repubs on legislation to add to the law.

 

Reconciliation can only do so much.

 

Yes, the don't have a great rack record with this, however the CBO director is Republican appointed. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

Democrats have zero skin in this game if you think about it. If the Republicans don't repeal, they will be in trouble. If they do repeal and replace, they are probably still in trouble if that CBO estimate is somewhat accurate. At this point, repeal the ACA, patch legislation to keep ACA State based systems in place if the State chooses to do so, block grant Federal Healthcare dollars (exchange subsidies and Medicaid) for 3-5 years and tell States the Fed is done with Healthcare outside of Medicare after that. Its too big and Americans have no stomach for central planning for healthcare.

Most people tend to view budget deficits and debt in an abstract manner. They know it's not good to have them but they really can't see how it personally affects them.

 

Whereas people see people losing coverage and premium increases/decreases not as an abstract concept but in real life consequential terms. The coverage aspect and premiums is where this will be judged most in the public arena. That's where it needs to be addressed, hopefully the GOP will be able to come to a compromise that does deal with these issues.

 

that is well put. I think this is why Trump was so effective, he spoke and connected with people on real life concepts- Saving 37B a year over a decade is fabulous, but for most Americans not all that meaningful when you have healthcare as one more thing to worry about because you cant get coverage..