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

[Tiberius]

Not really.

 

I'm Canadian.

When did Canadian voters vote to repeal national health care?

[HappyDays]

 

Canada seems to be doing just fine

True but I just don't think our massive population could sustain it. Plus rich Canadians come to the US for their healthcare. Obviously we wouldn't have a similar option if we went the same route.

[meazza]

When did Canadian voters vote to repeal national health care?

 

It's never been on the table. There has been a movement towards private clinics.

[Tiberius]

True but I just don't think our massive population could sustain it. Plus rich Canadians come to the US for their healthcare. Obviously we wouldn't have a similar option if we went the same route.

Our massive wealth could sustain it so it would be even better than Canada's. Money makes the world go round and we have more of it than anyone

It's never been on the table. There has been a movement towards private clinics.

Never been on the table because no one is even considering it. Canadians love their system

[meazza]

Our massive wealth could sustain it so it would be even better than Canada's. Money makes the world go round and we have more of it than anyone

 

Never been on the table because no one is even considering it. Canadians love their system

 

No they don't. Go look up wait times for surgeries, getting a family doctor, etc.

[boyst]

<p>

 

 

 

The usual misguided response from Spurt...............

 

The article (you didn't read/understand) states that the CBO is not infallible and gives examples............pretty straightforward stuff.

 

 

Here.....this one has a video.....maybe you can get something from that .....Spurt

 

 

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney makes mincemeat of CBO scoring of health care plan

Its care, not coverage, that really counts

 

 

If you havent seen OMB Director Mick Mulvaney in action, do yourself a favor and watch the video here. On todays Morning Joe, Mulvaney showed himself to be smart, well-spoken, undefensive and down-to-earth as he systematically demolished Mikas, and by extension, the CBOs, claims about the Trump admins health care proposal.

 

Before Mulvaney appeared, the panel had engaged in extended hand-wringing over the loss of coverage that the CBO has projected.

 

Mulvaney made three telling points:

 

• The CBO has a bad track record when it comes to projecting coverage. Just three years ago, the CBO predicted that 24 million people would be covered today under Obamacare exchanges. The true number: 11.5 million, less than half the CBOs forecast.
• Most tellingly, Mulvaney made the distinction between coverage and care. Dems focus on coverage. But he gave the example of a family of relatively modest means that is covered with an Obamacare plan. But given the annual deductible of $12-15,000, that family cant afford actual care. He said the focus under the Trump proposal is on actually delivering care to people.
• Finally, he gave an example of an unrealistic assumption that the CBO made in coming to its coverage projections. The CBO assumes that once the new health plan is implemented, people on Medicaid will drop that free coverage and seek coverage under the new plan. Mulvaney: that makes no sense.

between jobs I enlisted in the aca. Frist year it was out. It was cheap. And by reports of the emails I get, though I dropped it 3 mos later ... I am still covered. Maybe I'm one of the folks who will be dropped.

 

Are you afraid that single-payer might force you to get your autism treated

 

Try thinking for yourself instead of copying and pasting

jokes about autism aren't cool, you retard

[Tiberius]

No they don't. Go look up wait times for surgeries, getting a family doctor, etc.

That's what's so great about us, we have the money to avoid that problem

between jobs I enlisted in the aca. Frist year it was out. It was cheap. And by reports of the emails I get, though I dropped it 3 mos later ... I am still covered. Maybe I'm one of the folks who will be dropped. jokes about autism aren't cool, you retard

Retard?? Lol, that's funny

[Deranged Rhino]

jokes about autism aren't cool, you retard

[meazza]

That's what's so great about us, we have the money to avoid that problem

 

 

???

 

Is that why the deficit is so large?

[grinreaper]

 

???

 

Is that why the deficit is so large?

He said you like your plan, so like it dammit.

[B-Man]

Many in the media are running with the CBO’s estimate that in the first year of the AHCA, 14 million fewer people would be insured. That number would balloon to 24 million within the first decade of the program’s implementation. What much of the media have failed to acknowledge, however, is that the CBO also estimated that many of those “losing” their coverage would do so voluntarily, once they’re no longer legally required to have health insurance.

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren is persisting in doing what she does best: pushing a false narrative.

Elizabeth Warren

✔@SenWarren

Throwing 24 million people off their health care to give billionaires a tax break is heartless & irresponsible. We cannot pass #Trumpcare.

5:23 PM - 13 Mar 2017

 

 

Gee..............that lie sounds familiar,didn't someone just claim that a few posts up...........

 

 

???

 

Is that why the deficit is so large?

 

Quit teasing him meazza.........you know he can't answer you.

 

 

 

and since Gator and Spurt are sticking with the "Repugs want poor people to die and billionaires to get taxbreaks" bull ****

 

Maybe I'll keep posting this until we get an intelligent reply.

 

“The implicit standard in analysis of the health insurance system is that every consumer must have government-selected coverage. But why?”

[Tiberius]

???

 

Is that why the deficit is so large?

Throwing people off of health care won't solve that problem. Maybe not fighting needless wars would, though

Many in the media are running with the CBO’s estimate that in the first year of the AHCA, 14 million fewer people would be insured. That number would balloon to 24 million within the first decade of the program’s implementation. What much of the media have failed to acknowledge, however, is that the CBO also estimated that many of those “losing” their coverage would do so voluntarily, once they’re no longer legally required to have health insurance.

 

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren is persisting in doing what she does best: pushing a false narrative.

 

 

 

Oh, this is so convincing! Not! B man the brain washed. Never going to let reality get to him

 

Tax cuts for the billionaires and no way to even see a doctor for millions and millions. That's the way the right wants to drag our poor country. The gated communities surrounded by a crumbling nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gee..............that lie sounds familiar,didn't someone just claim that a few posts up...........

 

 

 

Quit teasing him meazza.........you know he can't answer you.

 

 

 

and since Gator and Spurt are sticking with the "Repugs want poor people to die and billionaires to get taxbreaks" bull ****

 

Maybe I'll keep posting this until we get an intelligent reply.

 

“The implicit standard in analysis of the health insurance system is that every consumer must have government-selected coverage. But why?”

[DC Tom]

Are you afraid that single-payer might force you to get your autism treated

 

Try thinking for yourself instead of copying and pasting

[Magox]

 

The head of the CBO, Keith Hall, was nominated by Republicans in 2015 and had previously served under George W. Bush

 

But yeah, keep blaming Democrats for the GOPs failures

 

Out of all the posts you've contributed to the board, there hasn't been a single one that has had a whiff of substance.

[IDBillzFan]

And this shows just how far modern conservatives have fallen, and why moderates like me have trouble staying sane in today's political climate. It's a GOOD THING that you don't have to buy government healthcare. That's basically what Bernie Sanders wants, everyone on free government paid healthcare. That's how you bankrupt a country. What you should want (and what Republicans wanted in the 90s) is a mix of private and public healthcare. Give poor and middle income people a government option. No it won't be perfect, but it's better than nothing. Meanwhile the private industry can continue on in the free market and people can choose to go there's instead.

 

So in other words, you want to return to the way things were before the DNC essentially FUBAR'ed health insurance for everyone?

 

Gee, it seems like only eight years ago modern conservatives were railing against Obamacare so much that they literally tried to stop it by putting a Republican in Kennedy's senate seat. But that didn't stop the DNC, did it? No. Because they had to launder fed money to their donors through Obamacare and the Recovery Act, with absolutely no respect or regard for the people in this country who actually work for a living.

 

But NOW there's a problem with modern conservatism? Please. As usual, the rest of the country is left cleaning up yet another embarrassing puke mess on aisle 44.

 

We need to let Obamacare fail. Period. It's time the left has to eat its own vomit for once.

Edited March 14, 2017 by LABillzFan

[Magox]

 

The GOP literally had 8 years to figure out a replacement plan, and when their hand was forced, they had nothing. The CBO projection literally says "we weren't given enough time to figure out a score like we usually do" since the GOP is trying to rush this through.

 

You aren't the only one who seems to be pretty ignorant on what Ryan's/Price's plan includes. This bill only scored the Reconciliation aspect of the bill. You do realize that only certain things can be passed through normal reconciliation budgets, right?

 

This is a 3 step process.

 

A) The reconciliation which repeals and replaces a portion of the intended bill (which will be revised some)

 

B) The regulatory repeals that Tom Price will look to do away with possibly Minimum essential benefits, community ratings etc.

 

C) Legislation, such as Tort Reform, competition across state lines, pharmaceutical reform

 

The score is based off of the first draft of part A). Nothing to do with B and C.

 

 

 

The usual misguided response from Spurt...............

 

The article (you didn't read/understand) states that the CBO is not infallible and gives examples............pretty straightforward stuff.

 

 

Here.....this one has a video.....maybe you can get something from that .....Spurt

 

 

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney makes mincemeat of CBO scoring of health care plan

It’s care, not coverage, that really counts

 

 

If you haven’t seen OMB Director Mick Mulvaney in action, do yourself a favor and watch the video here. On today’s Morning Joe, Mulvaney showed himself to be smart, well-spoken, undefensive and down-to-earth as he systematically demolished Mika’s, and by extension, the CBO’s, claims about the Trump admin’s health care proposal.

 

Before Mulvaney appeared, the panel had engaged in extended hand-wringing over the loss of coverage that the CBO has projected.

 

Mulvaney made three telling points:

 

 

• The CBO has a bad track record when it comes to projecting coverage. Just three years ago, the CBO predicted that 24 million people would be covered today under Obamacare exchanges. The true number: 11.5 million, less than half the CBO’s forecast.
• Most tellingly, Mulvaney made the distinction between “coverage” and “care.” Dems focus on coverage. But he gave the example of a family of relatively modest means that is “covered” with an Obamacare plan. But given the annual deductible of $12-15,000, that family can’t afford actual care. He said the focus under the Trump proposal is on actually delivering care to people.
• Finally, he gave an example of an unrealistic assumption that the CBO made in coming to its coverage projections. The CBO assumes that once the new health plan is implemented, people on Medicaid will drop that free coverage and seek coverage under the new plan. Mulvaney: “that makes no sense.”

 

 

I assure you that Spur will not challenge the assumptions of Mulvaney but will come at this from a partisan vapid angle.

[B-Man]

 

Out of all the posts you've contributed to the board, there hasn't been a single one that has had a whiff of substance.

 

 

You are incorrect Magox,

 

Spurt stumbled on the truth once..........see post #3750 ,last page

Edited March 14, 2017 by B-Man

[Magox]

Because the policies will be exorbitantly more expensive, especially for senior citizens. This is why the AARP has come out against the AHCA, the buck gets passed to their members. If there's one group you do NOT want to face off against politically, it's the AARP. The bill will fail.

 

It kicks poor people off their coverage and doesn't give them any feasible replacement options. So it doesn't matter "if it's so great" if you can't afford it.

 

 

It does matter, and it does need to be addressed. I generally support free market reforms, however when it comes to healthcare I do believe that Government has a role to play.

 

My guess is that they will increase the tax credits for lower income and older folks.

And this shows just how far modern conservatives have fallen, and why moderates like me have trouble staying sane in today's political climate. It's a GOOD THING that you don't have to buy government healthcare. That's basically what Bernie Sanders wants, everyone on free government paid healthcare. That's how you bankrupt a country. What you should want (and what Republicans wanted in the 90s) is a mix of private and public healthcare. Give poor and middle income people a government option. No it won't be perfect, but it's better than nothing. Meanwhile the private industry can continue on in the free market and people can choose to go there's instead.

 

What the AHCA wants to do is drive up the price of healthcare for everybody, which kicks over 24 million people off their healthcare with no realistic opportunities to get it back. There are actual real people that will die if this bill passes because they can't afford their prescriptions anymore. There are stories like this all over. It would be devastating to roll Obamacare back. Keep tweaking it, sure, but this replacement is horrible.

 

 

This is not a finished product, I explained this in previous posts. Not just in the reconciliation bill, but there are other changes that will be made to the bill, regulatory relief and added legislation to make this a better bill.

[Magox]

Avik Roy, who initially came out pretty harsh on the initial bill who I believe is one of the best minds for healthcare reform has some views in how to improve it, which partially are some of the proposed reforms that I suggested they make in post #3655. He also has an opinion that I share on Rand Paul on this matter, that I happen to share.

 

 

How to improve the AHCA

This is an easy thing to fix. The AHCA itself contains a transitional tax credit schedule in which individual would get a means-tested, age-adjusted tax credit to buy insurance. If Republicans simply kept that schedule, and ditched the flat tax credit, they’d cover many more people.

Another change Republicans should consider is to delay the repeal of the individual mandate until 2020. I dislike the mandate as much as anyone. But over the long term, the AHCA’s system of tax credits will be more successful if it begins with a carefully designed transition away from Obamacare.

Indeed, the CBO expressed a surprising degree of confidence that the AHCA’s policy mix—tax credits more favorable to young people, a 5-to-1 age ratio for premiums, an elimination of actuarial value mandates, and state innovation grants for high risk pools and risk adjustment—“would result in a relatively stable nongroup market.”

However, “in 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law mainly because of the elimination of the individual mandate penalties…Starting in 2020, the increase in average premiums from repealing the individual mandate penalties would be more than offset” by the new policy mix, leading to an eventual decrease in premiums by 10 percent relative to Obamacare.

Delaying the mandate repeal to 2020 would likely result in even lower premiums after 2020, and therefore higher enrollment numbers. It’s a simple change worth considering.

Is the CBO right about AHCA’s positive effects?

Given that I’ve spent most of this article criticizing the CBO’s coverage estimates, I should point out that I’ve been highly unsure that the AHCA would reduce premiums and lead to a stabler risk pool. The bill’s arbitrary 30 percent surcharge for those who buy coverage outside of open enrollment might actually make the risk pool less stable, and ought to be replaced by a much more flexible regulatory regime.

And we haven’t even gotten to the AHCA’s profound fiscal effects. The bill would cut taxes by $1.2 trillion, and spending by $880 billion, for a net deficit reduction of $337 billion. And that’s before you take into account the macroeconomic effects that those tax cuts would have on economic growth, and thereby on greater tax revenues.

Over ensuing decades, the fiscal impact would be even greater, because the bill entails the most significant effort at entitlement reform in American history. Incoherent GOP hard-liners like Rand Paul, who claim that the AHCA is a “new entitlement,” are displaying their unseriousness about a bill that reduces federal spending by more than $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

The bottom line: Republicans shouldn’t abandon the AHCA because of a superficially unflattering CBO score or its failure to meet their own purity tests. They should work all the more to correct its flaws. If they do, in 2020, the real world very well may vindicate them instead of the CBO.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Magox

[B-Man]

Avik Roy, who initially came out pretty harsh on the initial bill who I believe is one of the best minds for healthcare reform has some views in how to improve it, which partially are some of the proposed reforms that I suggested they make in post #3655. He also has an opinion that I share on Rand Paul on this matter, that I happen to share.

 

 

 

Great post sir..............................too bad those who need it most are going to dismiss it because it was in Forbes