Republican healthcare plan: 24 million people could lose coverage, CBO reports

[umbertino]

Non-partisan budget office says replacement for Affordable Care Act would leave millions uninsured but reduce federal deficit by $337bn in first 10 years

Lauren Gambino in Washington and Jessica Glenza in New York

Monday 13 March 2017 23.38 GMT

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, has been leading the charge on the American Health Care Act, which would scrap many of Obamacare’s critical provisions.

Photograph: Michael Reynolds

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/budget-office-republican-healthcare-coverage-deficit-costs

[bostonangler]

Don't sweat it, well if you are a part of the 1%... You get a nice tax break.... Think of all those senior citizens who spent their lives Making America Great Back Then, now getting it up the Rump...  Perhaps the Alt-Right lie of ObamaCare euthanasia would have saved these oldtimers from their old age expenses. JMHO

 

B/A

[markb57]

old timers have medicare. these numbers are liberal scare tactics. yes, there will be millions left uninsured because they will choose to not be insured and they won't be penalized. and it's not up to the govt to pay for anyone's health insurance. That would be unconstitutional. Too many americans who became jobless due to Obozo economics and have given up need to get their butts in gear and get a job again. Vacation's over.

[Jaxinjersey]

5 minutes ago, markb57 said:

old timers have medicare. these numbers are liberal scare tactics. yes, there will be millions left uninsured because they will choose to not be insured and they won't be penalized. and it's not up to the govt to pay for anyone's health insurance. That would be unconstitutional. Too many americans who became jobless due to Obozo economics and have given up need to get their butts in gear and get a job again. Vacation's over.

Agreed Mark.  Over the past couple of years, I've posted my own personal experience with the ACA, at least five times... proving it's unconstitutional.  Each time I've posted... I have had little or no reaction/responses.  The apathy is sad.  It just proves most people do not know how to discuss something when they are completely uninformed.  Again... sad.

[RV ME]

42 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Don't sweat it, well if you are a part of the 1%... You get a nice tax break....

B/A

The only tax break for the 1% is because they (and others like me who are not in the 1%) will no longer be paying for other peoples insurance.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

Why is it that the republican politicks believe they must try to make every giveaway the democrat politicks implement work?  Obummercare, Ryancare, Trumpcare…. no matter what you call it, a turd by any other name still stenches.

[Jaxinjersey]

1 minute ago, RV ME said:

The only tax break for the 1% is because they (and others like me who are not in the 1%) will no longer be paying for other peoples insurance.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

 

Why is it that the republican politicks believe they must try to make every giveaway the democrat politicks implement work?  Obummercare, Ryancare, Trumpcare…. no matter what you call it, a turd by any other name still stenches.

 

Thank you for identifying the True Premise, RV ME!  

[Shabibilicious]

To be considered a True Premise....there must be a True Conclusion.  In this case there are 2 True Conclusions.....millions will lose coverage, and billions of dollars will be saved.  Therefore the True Premise is to take away coverage for those that can't afford it, while saving money.  Simple deduction really.  Clarity as clear as the blue sky.

GO RV, then BV

[Jaxinjersey]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

To be considered a True Premise....there must be a True Conclusion.  In this case there are 2 True Conclusions.....millions will lose coverage, and billions of dollars will be saved.  Therefore the True Premise is to take away coverage for those that can't afford it, while saving money.  Simple deduction really.  Clarity as clear as the blue sky.

GO RV, then BV

Nonsense,  Stay off of my posts, and referencing my content.

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Nonsense,  Stay off of my posts, and referencing my content.

Free country....or at least it used to be.  

GO RV, then BV

[RV ME]

40 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

To be considered a True Premise....there must be a True Conclusion.  In this case there are 2 True Conclusions.....millions will lose coverage, and billions of dollars will be saved.  Therefore the True Premise is to take away coverage for those that can't afford it, while saving money.  Simple deduction really.  Clarity as clear as the blue sky.

GO RV, then BV

Actually, there is only one premise, which you agreed with it in another thread, and that is that there is no “right” entitling one citizen to have his expenses paid by another citizen.  Since you agreed before, are you now amending your opinion?

[Shabibilicious]

Just now, RV ME said:

Actually, there is only one premise, which you agreed with it in another thread, and that is that there is no “right” entitling one citizen to have his expenses paid by another citizen.  Since you agreed before, are you now amending your opinion?

I have many opinions.....just as you seem to suffer from the same issue.  

GO RV, then BV

[RV ME]

33 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

I have many opinions.....just as you seem to suffer from the same issue.  

GO RV, then BV

I have many opinions, all based in logic and critical thinking.  They are malleable though, through logic and reason but not through feelings or popularity.  Present a logical argument and back it up intellectually and my opinion can be changed, can you say the same?

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, RV ME said:

I have many opinions, all based in logic and critical thinking.  They are malleable though, through logic and reason but not through feelings or popularity.  Present a logical argument and back it up intellectually and my opinion can be changed, can you say the same?

Absolutely.  Honesty must be part of the transaction though.....I'm a sucker for honesty.  The dilemma that ultimately follows though, particularly when dealing with politics in the digital age, is coming to terms with where information is being gleaned from.  Logic, critical thinking, reasoning are all necessary components....but if those things are based on suspect information.....well then, that's when the process falls apart.    WHN and I tried it.....lasted about 4 minutes.  

GO RV, then BV

[bostonangler]

2 hours ago, markb57 said:

old timers have medicare. these numbers are liberal scare tactics. yes, there will be millions left uninsured because they will choose to not be insured and they won't be penalized. and it's not up to the govt to pay for anyone's health insurance. That would be unconstitutional. Too many americans who became jobless due to Obozo economics and have given up need to get their butts in gear and get a job again. Vacation's over.

I hope you never get sick, I hope you never have a moment of crisis, and most of all I hope you never get old.

 

BA

[RV ME]

57 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Absolutely.  Honesty must be part of the transaction though.....I'm a sucker for honesty.  The dilemma that ultimately follows though, particularly when dealing with politics in the digital age, is coming to terms with where information is being gleaned from.  Logic, critical thinking, reasoning are all necessary components....but if those things are based on suspect information.....well then, that's when the process falls apart.    WHN and I tried it.....lasted about 4 minutes.  

GO RV, then BV

Maybe the reason the plan was abandoned after 4 minutes is because you did not abide by what you said here.  Let me explain.  You say the process falls apart if “suspect information” is introduced, but that is not accurate.  IF the debate is actually based on logic, critical thinking and reasoning, then any incorrect or suspect information would be exposed and flushed in the debate process.  What you have done too many times to count is to refuse to debate a subject if you deem the source of the information objectionable.  Rather than discussing the actual information presented, you dismiss it as unworthy of a response from you.  That pretty much puts the kibosh on actually discussing any ideas actually presented.  Maybe your agreement with WHN would have lasted longer if you debated the actual issues rather than refusing to discuss anything that came from what you consider suspect sources

[markb57]

2 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

I hope you never get sick, I hope you never have a moment of crisis, and most of all I hope you never get old.

 

BA

I have excellent healthcare through my employer that I pay for. I PAY FOR!!!!!!!!

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, RV ME said:

Maybe the reason the plan was abandoned after 4 minutes is because you did not abide by what you said here.  Let me explain.  You say the process falls apart if “suspect information” is introduced, but that is not accurate.  IF the debate is actually based on logic, critical thinking and reasoning, then any incorrect or suspect information would be exposed and flushed in the debate process.  What you have done too many times to count is to refuse to debate a subject if you deem the source of the information objectionable.  Rather than discussing the actual information presented, you dismiss it as unworthy of a response from you.  That pretty much puts the kibosh on actually discussing any ideas actually presented.  Maybe your agreement with WHN would have lasted longer if you debated the actual issues rather than refusing to discuss anything that came from what you consider suspect sources

And the same can be said for her.  Honesty.

GO RV, then BV

[bostonangler]

Just now, markb57 said:

I have excellent healthcare through my employer that I pay for. I PAY FOR!!!!!!!!

Good for you... I have parents in their 80s who worked their entire lives and paid for theirs too. Then they retired. They now pay over $600 per month for BluCross. Fortunately they can afford quality health insurance. Many of their retired friends (career people, veterans, etc.) can't afford quality care and need assistance. Like I said friend, I hope you never get old. But when you do, I hope you had the forethought to have planned well. 

Perhaps a quality health program for Americans should start with a test. Everyone applying for any benefit should have to pass an eligibility test. Followed up by a different department to see how they have cheated. I know of many people who are younger, stronger and can run circles around me, but yet they are on disability, etc.. I believe this is where the problem lies. People here hate any kind of assistance because of the abuse. I don't think most here would not want to help those in need. JMHO

 

B/A 

[markb57]

the policy they pay for is a secondary policy to pay for gaps in medicare?

[Shabibilicious]

9 minutes ago, markb57 said:

I have excellent healthcare through my employer that I pay for. I PAY FOR!!!!!!!!

You are one of the lucky ones then.  Can I assume your employer has more employees than just you....and if so, your rates are lower because of the amount of employees who purchase the insurance through your employer?  If this is the case, then your employer is providing you with a wonderful benefit.  If you are his/her only employee, then your employer is a saint and should be treated as such.  

GO RV, then BV

[markb57]

actually, my rates went up when ACA came into play. Even employer healthcare went up to help subsidize ACA. That's not right. I did lose some benefits due to ACA but it is still better than ACA and I still pay my part.

There are still more people on employer paid insurance. ACA was created to buy votes from the Dems. That is all it was. 

The Dems knew that ACA would fail. It had to so they could usher in single payer. They hoped Hillarious would be doing that.

[Jim1cor13]

Paul Ryan says if their bill is not passed, the system will collapse. President Trump says it will take years

before health costs will go down. So no one has the answer other than a dog and pony show. Until

medical costs, drugs, etc., go down which is unlikely without proper competition within, these issues are

not likely to go away. Insurance will continue to rise, etc.

 

My goodness, how did folks ever survive without cradle to grave perks they are now told they must have?

Sickness is big business, big profits. Those profits are expected to always go up, it is insisted upon by

the companies shareholders. Major conflicts to face before thinking costs will go down.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

You know Shabbs and B/A, I don't think I know anybody who is saying that elderly who did not plan for retirement or people who are indigent buy whatever reason should not be taken care of. Again that is a false premise. All the majority of trump supporters are really saying is that you don't tie in the ability to take care of these people who have not planned for themselves or cannot take care of themselves in with our Healthcare. If the government wishes to put a tax to take care of the few millions of people and I do believe it's very small in this situation but that's a whole different subject, then let some politician write that piece of legislation. But the to their situation in with those who have planned and are taking care of themselves is just plain wrong.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

3 minutes ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Paul Ryan says if their bill is not passed, the system will collapse. President Trump says it will take years

before health costs will go down. So no one has the answer other than a dog and pony show. Until

medical costs, drugs, etc., go down which is unlikely without proper competition within, these issues are

not likely to go away. Insurance will continue to rise, etc.

 

My goodness, how did folks ever survive without cradle to grave perks they are now told they must have?

Sickness is big business, big profits. Those profits are expected to always go up, it is insisted upon by

the companies shareholders. Major conflicts to face before thinking costs will go down.

 

[Shabibilicious]

8 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

You know Shabbs and B/A, I don't think I know anybody who is saying that elderly who did not plan for retirement or people who are indigent buy whatever reason should not be taken care of. Again that is a false premise. All the majority of trump supporters are really saying is that you don't tie in the ability to take care of these people who have not planned for themselves or cannot take care of themselves in with our Healthcare. If the government wishes to put a tax to take care of the few millions of people and I do believe it's very small in this situation but that's a whole different subject, then let some politician write that piece of legislation. But the to their situation in with those who have planned and are taking care of themselves is just plain wrong.

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV