14M lose coverage under GOP health bill: Congress’ analyst

[francoHFW]

Need we say any more?

As long as it's 14 million minorities, I'm ok with it.

Mostly Trump voters, dingbat racist dupe.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Need we say any more?

YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.

Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.

First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.

 

[francoHFW]

HaHa!!!! Forget ridiculous campaign promises to the dupes. Go after ridiculous hospital and doctor costs, tort reform, make the exchanges nationwide and the competition more healthy, and stop the GOP from sabotaging ACA. FIX IT. We'll be doing that forever. It was never O-Care anyway. HE wasn't for the mandate...

How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.

And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...

Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.

This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.

 

[easyt65]

Need we say any more?

YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.

Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.

First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.

And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.

If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?

 

[jc456]

Need we say any more?

WASHINGTON — Nonpartisan analysts project that 14 million people would lose coverage next year under the House bill dismantling former President Barack Obama’s health care law. The estimate is a blow to Republicans.


Monday’s estimate by the Congressional Budget Office says the number of uninsured would grow to 24 million by 2026.

The projections give fuel to opponents who warn the measure would toss millions of voters off insurance plans. Criticism has come from Democrats, Republicans from states that benefit from Obama’s law and many corners of the health-care industry.


President Donald Trump backs the GOP plan.

The same CBO that claimed the ACA would reduce health care costs and affordability?

They didn't. The CBO doesn't do savings until they're proved...but it's easy to figure subsidies up to $12k/year is better than 4k in tax credits at most. No wonder so many will CHOOSE lol to not get insurance ...

you mean like the 20 million from obummer care?

What 20 million? Doing what?

paying the penalty

 

[francoHFW]

It you have a car with not engine do you really lose anything if you abandon it? That is exactly what losing Obaminationcare bronze and silver coverage is!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Just how exactly would you know that......

Unless someone needs hospitalization for accident or illness. In which case you lose EVERYTHING. That's the way insurance was going before ACA. Catastrphic coverage with cheap doctor visits and tests, high deductibles. The dupes are outraged. Brainwashed, misinformed morons...

 

[francoHFW]

WASHINGTON — Nonpartisan analysts project that 14 million people would lose coverage next year under the House bill dismantling former President Barack Obama’s health care law. The estimate is a blow to Republicans.


Monday’s estimate by the Congressional Budget Office says the number of uninsured would grow to 24 million by 2026.

The projections give fuel to opponents who warn the measure would toss millions of voters off insurance plans. Criticism has come from Democrats, Republicans from states that benefit from Obama’s law and many corners of the health-care industry.


President Donald Trump backs the GOP plan.

The same CBO that claimed the ACA would reduce health care costs and affordability?

They didn't. The CBO doesn't do savings until they're proved...but it's easy to figure subsidies up to $12k/year is better than 4k in tax credits at most. No wonder so many will CHOOSE lol to not get insurance ...

you mean like the 20 million from obummer care?

What 20 million? Doing what?

paying the penalty

BS. Link?

 

[jc456]

HaHa!!!! Forget ridiculous campaign promises to the dupes. Go after ridiculous hospital and doctor costs, tort reform, make the exchanges nationwide and the competition more healthy, and stop the GOP from sabotaging ACA. FIX IT. We'll be doing that forever. It was never O-Care anyway. HE wasn't for the mandate...

How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.

And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...

Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.

This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.

dude, too special. you have no idea what you're talking about do you? where do you get the 5 million number from? Tax credits. Perhaps listen to what those are. Do you know that businesses get tax credits for the 60% who get insurance through their employers? All they're doing is extending that credit to individuals who get insurance outside of a business. So it's the same tax credit 60% already get in obummercare. come on man, at least know what you're fking talking about and don't look so stupid.

 

[jc456]

It you have a car with not engine do you really lose anything if you abandon it? That is exactly what losing Obaminationcare bronze and silver coverage is!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Just how exactly would you know that......

Unless someone needs hospitalization for accident or illness. In which case you lose EVERYTHING. That's the way insurance was going before ACA. Catastrphic coverage with cheap doctor visits and tests, high deductibles. The dupes are outraged. Brainwashed, misinformed morons...

Catastrophic coverage is what is needed. it doesn't exist today in obummerfail. And the one item added to the GOP is for those who don't carry insurance and want insurance after an accident, they must pay an upfront fee much higher than those covered, to compensate for not carrying the insurance. Why is that wrong? why is it the left talk out their asses all the fking time. fk learn something you libturds.

 

[francoHFW]

The Dems deliver a pig of a law that falls apart under its own fat.

The Republicans somehow finds a way to make it worse.

Neither party should be criticizing the other for this fucking travesty.
.

The democratic plan insured 20 million people, 70% of those will not have coverage. This is a republican travesty

The democratic plan insured 20 million people, 70% of those will not have coverage. This is a republican travest

Oye vay... The democratic plan added 20 million more people
the government was on the hook for....that wasn't the plan!

This was supposed to be a way for the government
to relieve itself from the costs of medically covering
so many people...it backfired

The problem is with pharmaceutical companies, health insurers
and medical costs....a hospital shouldn't be charging anyone
$10 for an aspirin or billing insurers the maximum amount
they'll cover for procedures, and health insurance companies
should have to provide adequate coverage for medical procedures.

When the CEO of a health provider is making
$66 million dollars, there's a fucking problem!
When pharmaceutical companies profit billions,
and people can't even afford medications they need,
there's a fucking problem

When people like you think it's ok for people like me
to be forced to buy inadequate insurance I can barely afford
(and doesn't even make financial sense, considering
the type of coverage in the cheapest plan
and having to satisfy a deductable)

So, people worse off than me, illegals and immigrants,
can have 100% medical coverage....
You and those like you, have fucking problems!

SO FIX THOSE THINGS! NOBODY said ACA was perfect or wouldn't need tinkering FOREVER. Those people ALREADY got free care by skipping paying, and you ALREADY paid for it, dupe.

ALL the plans make sense if you need hospitalization. The way the industry was going anyway...

 

[francoHFW]

HaHa!!!! Forget ridiculous campaign promises to the dupes. Go after ridiculous hospital and doctor costs, tort reform, make the exchanges nationwide and the competition more healthy, and stop the GOP from sabotaging ACA. FIX IT. We'll be doing that forever. It was never O-Care anyway. HE wasn't for the mandate...

How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.

And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...

Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.

This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.

dude, too special. you have no idea what you're talking about do you? where do you get the 5 million number from? Tax credits. Perhaps listen to what those are. Do you know that businesses get tax credits for the 60% who get insurance through their employers? All they're doing is extending that credit to individuals who get insurance outside of a business. So it's the same tax credit 60% already get in obummercare. come on man, at least know what you're fking talking about and don't look so stupid.

It's the ones outside typical employer based insurance that are the problem, dunce.

 

[francoHFW]

It you have a car with not engine do you really lose anything if you abandon it? That is exactly what losing Obaminationcare bronze and silver coverage is!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Just how exactly would you know that......

Unless someone needs hospitalization for accident or illness. In which case you lose EVERYTHING. That's the way insurance was going before ACA. Catastrphic coverage with cheap doctor visits and tests, high deductibles. The dupes are outraged. Brainwashed, misinformed morons...

Catastrophic coverage is what is needed. it doesn't exist today in obummerfail. And the one item added to the GOP is for those who don't carry insurance and want insurance after an accident, they must pay an upfront fee much higher than those covered, to compensate for not carrying the insurance. Why is that wrong? why is it the left talk out their asses all the fking time. fk learn something you libturds.

Actually, dupe, that's the best thing about ACA. Annual caps.

 

[jc456]

How come Messiah Obama and his Disciples Reid and Pelosi never did that with their manna from heaven ACA that they wrote and rammed thru Congress? Don't blame the Republicans, they were left out and didn't vote for it. If you think those issues exist in healthcare, put the blame on those that wrote and passed the bill. Why didn't they fix those things? Here's a clue.....they are corporatists that let the insurance and pharma companies write the bill. Your pissing and moaning at the wrong people and you're too stoopid to realize it. Dupe.

And even then it barely passed. Fix it and stop being obstructionist a-holes...

Couldn't agree more. The Dems in Congress need to get on board with fixing it and quite being obstructionist assholes. I'm glad you're finally coming out of your stupor.

This GOP mess is a HUGE tax cut for the rich and fixes nothing. FIXING is going after ridiculous hospital costs, tort reform, improving competition, putting 5 million more on Medicaid in Red states holding out, and raising subsidies, and getting the GOP and their crony insurers to stop sabotaging it.

dude, too special. you have no idea what you're talking about do you? where do you get the 5 million number from? Tax credits. Perhaps listen to what those are. Do you know that businesses get tax credits for the 60% who get insurance through their employers? All they're doing is extending that credit to individuals who get insurance outside of a business. So it's the same tax credit 60% already get in obummercare. come on man, at least know what you're fking talking about and don't look so stupid.

It's the ones outside typical employer based insurance that are the problem, dunce.

yep, good you got that one right. those are the ones getting the tax credit. kapeesh? you know why? because that is the same credit the ones who get through employers get? unless of course you all want the 60% to stop getting the credit? LOL. That's where the GOP argument fails by the way. it isn't a subsidy.

 

[jc456]

It you have a car with not engine do you really lose anything if you abandon it? That is exactly what losing Obaminationcare bronze and silver coverage is!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Just how exactly would you know that......

Unless someone needs hospitalization for accident or illness. In which case you lose EVERYTHING. That's the way insurance was going before ACA. Catastrphic coverage with cheap doctor visits and tests, high deductibles. The dupes are outraged. Brainwashed, misinformed morons...

Catastrophic coverage is what is needed. it doesn't exist today in obummerfail. And the one item added to the GOP is for those who don't carry insurance and want insurance after an accident, they must pay an upfront fee much higher than those covered, to compensate for not carrying the insurance. Why is that wrong? why is it the left talk out their asses all the fking time. fk learn something you libturds.

Actually, dupe, that's the best thing about ACA. Annual caps.

the obummerfail does not allow an individual to purchase catastrophic care only. dupe. Because if it did, those 20 million would have bought that rather than pay the penalty.

 

[bendog]

WASHINGTON — Nonpartisan analysts project that 14 million people would lose coverage next year under the House bill dismantling former President Barack Obama’s health care law. The estimate is a blow to Republicans.


Monday’s estimate by the Congressional Budget Office says the number of uninsured would grow to 24 million by 2026.

The projections give fuel to opponents who warn the measure would toss millions of voters off insurance plans. Criticism has come from Democrats, Republicans from states that benefit from Obama’s law and many corners of the health-care industry.


President Donald Trump backs the GOP plan.

Yeah, 14 million young healthy people will no longer carry health insurance because they wont be under threat of imprisonment and fines for not carrying excessive amounts of insurance that they do not need.

In other news, millions of Americans who had to pay excessive taxes for 'cadelac insurance plans' will be no longer targeted for that special tax. Dimmocrats call it a "windfall for the most wealthy of Americans" in news at 11.

I don't think that's what the CBO found. Those young folks didn't buy insurance, unless they were fools.
The question is whether those people who lose coverage, working families, will see increased ability to access healthcare because they keep their subsidy and can buy HC directly w/o insurance. And that we cannot know, because we don't know what the bill will eventually be that is sent to Trump.

How can you buy health care without insurance?

Well, at least in theory, if you get a tax credit of Xamount of dollars, you could pay the doc out of pocket, and get the money back when you don't have to pay Uncle Sam as much come tax time. But I have no idea if the gop will go that route. We'd still have the problem if some guy catches cancer or something that no one outside the top .1% can pay out of pocket for.

Which is everyone who gets cancer, or a heart attack.

My friend spent two months in hospital undergoing 4 rounds of aggressive chemotherapy. Who can afford that without insurance?

Your comment and Flopper's post at # 608 sort of go hand in hand. But first, one success of Obamacare is that all people with non-Medicaid coverage did gain preventative care with no deductalbe. There's no doubt that prevenative coverage of cancer cardiovascular disease are cost effective. The earlier you catch most cancer, the cheaper it is, and generic Lotril is better than a stroke. The easier preventative care is to get, the less the country has to spend overall.

And deductables do serve a useful purpose in that they cause people to choose not to access services they can do without. For example, shoe orthopedic or sleep clinics. There's a distinction beteween convenience and necessity. The problem arises when deductables are so high a working class family can't afford to have kid's broken arm tended without. And, politically Obamacare was unsustainable as passed, because lower income income-tax payors had crappier plans than people on Medicaid.

But basically Obamacare accepted our system of Employer Sponsored and Mediciaid Medicare and tried to bridge the gap of the uninsured. It was not an actual market reform. The price transparency and lack of competition between suppliers of devices and drugs, insurance companies, hospital/HMO momopolies .... was all driven by regulations. Ezekiel Emanuel describes it's outlines below.
Why Healthcare in America Is So Expensive | TIME.com

Stephen Brill was also on the panel. He wrote Bitter Pill, which is linked.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

I really do not understand Sec. Price's plan, beyond being a tax cut for device buildres (hah!) and millionaires, and being a move towards getting rid of Medicaid as we know it and perhaps a return to charity hospitals where there was truly a difference in levels and quality of care for those who did not do useful work in society and those of us who do. And, I'm not sure that wasn't a good goal, heartless though it may seem. Making everyone have equal outcomes is not necessarily kind.

 

[jc456]

Yeah, 14 million young healthy people will no longer carry health insurance because they wont be under threat of imprisonment and fines for not carrying excessive amounts of insurance that they do not need.

In other news, millions of Americans who had to pay excessive taxes for 'cadelac insurance plans' will be no longer targeted for that special tax. Dimmocrats call it a "windfall for the most wealthy of Americans" in news at 11.

I don't think that's what the CBO found. Those young folks didn't buy insurance, unless they were fools.
The question is whether those people who lose coverage, working families, will see increased ability to access healthcare because they keep their subsidy and can buy HC directly w/o insurance. And that we cannot know, because we don't know what the bill will eventually be that is sent to Trump.

How can you buy health care without insurance?

Well, at least in theory, if you get a tax credit of Xamount of dollars, you could pay the doc out of pocket, and get the money back when you don't have to pay Uncle Sam as much come tax time. But I have no idea if the gop will go that route. We'd still have the problem if some guy catches cancer or something that no one outside the top .1% can pay out of pocket for.

Which is everyone who gets cancer, or a heart attack.

My friend spent two months in hospital undergoing 4 rounds of aggressive chemotherapy. Who can afford that without insurance?

Your comment and Flopper's post at # 608 sort of go hand in hand. But first, one success of Obamacare is that all people with non-Medicaid coverage did gain preventative care with no deductalbe. There's no doubt that prevenative coverage of cancer cardiovascular disease are cost effective. The earlier you catch most cancer, the cheaper it is, and generic Lotril is better than a stroke. The easier preventative care is to get, the less the country has to spend overall.

And deductables do serve a useful purpose in that they cause people to choose not to access services they can do without. For example, shoe orthopedic or sleep clinics. There's a distinction beteween convenience and necessity. The problem arises when they are so high a working class family can't afford to have kid's broken arm tended without. And, politically Obamacare was unsustainable as passed, because lower income income-tax payors had crappier plans than people on Medicaid.

But basically Obamacare accepted our system of Employer Sponsored and Mediciaid Medicare and tried to bridge the gap of the uninsured. It was not an actual market reform. The price transparency and lack of competition between suppliers of devices and drugs, insurance companies, hospital/HMO momopolies .... was all driven by regulations. Ezekiel Emanuel describes it's outlines below.
Why Healthcare in America Is So Expensive | TIME.com

Stephen Brill was also on the panel. He wrote Bitter Pill, which is linked.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

I really do not understand Sec. Price's plan, beyond being a tax cut for device buildres (hah!) and millionaires, and being a move towards getting rid of Medicaid as we know it and perhaps a return to charity hospitals where there was truly a difference in levels and quality of care for those who did not do useful work in society and those of us who do. And, I'm not sure that wasn't a good goal, heartless though it may seem. Making everyone have equal outcomes is not necessarily kind.

that was all being done before obummerfail.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Need we say any more?

YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.

Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.

First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.

And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.

If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?

I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.

Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts

What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.

Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.

Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.

 

[bendog]

I don't think that's what the CBO found. Those young folks didn't buy insurance, unless they were fools.
The question is whether those people who lose coverage, working families, will see increased ability to access healthcare because they keep their subsidy and can buy HC directly w/o insurance. And that we cannot know, because we don't know what the bill will eventually be that is sent to Trump.

How can you buy health care without insurance?

Well, at least in theory, if you get a tax credit of Xamount of dollars, you could pay the doc out of pocket, and get the money back when you don't have to pay Uncle Sam as much come tax time. But I have no idea if the gop will go that route. We'd still have the problem if some guy catches cancer or something that no one outside the top .1% can pay out of pocket for.

Which is everyone who gets cancer, or a heart attack.

My friend spent two months in hospital undergoing 4 rounds of aggressive chemotherapy. Who can afford that without insurance?

Your comment and Flopper's post at # 608 sort of go hand in hand. But first, one success of Obamacare is that all people with non-Medicaid coverage did gain preventative care with no deductalbe. There's no doubt that prevenative coverage of cancer cardiovascular disease are cost effective. The earlier you catch most cancer, the cheaper it is, and generic Lotril is better than a stroke. The easier preventative care is to get, the less the country has to spend overall.

And deductables do serve a useful purpose in that they cause people to choose not to access services they can do without. For example, shoe orthopedic or sleep clinics. There's a distinction beteween convenience and necessity. The problem arises when they are so high a working class family can't afford to have kid's broken arm tended without. And, politically Obamacare was unsustainable as passed, because lower income income-tax payors had crappier plans than people on Medicaid.

But basically Obamacare accepted our system of Employer Sponsored and Mediciaid Medicare and tried to bridge the gap of the uninsured. It was not an actual market reform. The price transparency and lack of competition between suppliers of devices and drugs, insurance companies, hospital/HMO momopolies .... was all driven by regulations. Ezekiel Emanuel describes it's outlines below.
Why Healthcare in America Is So Expensive | TIME.com

Stephen Brill was also on the panel. He wrote Bitter Pill, which is linked.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

I really do not understand Sec. Price's plan, beyond being a tax cut for device buildres (hah!) and millionaires, and being a move towards getting rid of Medicaid as we know it and perhaps a return to charity hospitals where there was truly a difference in levels and quality of care for those who did not do useful work in society and those of us who do. And, I'm not sure that wasn't a good goal, heartless though it may seem. Making everyone have equal outcomes is not necessarily kind.

that was all being done before obummerfail.

no. It wasn't. Just more of your partisan Trumpy bullshit. W did nothing to increase transparency. Actually the opposite with Medicare drug coverate.

But the red blood may be beginning to flow

Republicans punish the poor for having the nerve to get sick

 

[jc456]

Need we say any more?

YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.

Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.

First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.

And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.

If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?

I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.

Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts

What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.

Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.

Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.

Well it's simple, one must pay out of pocket until the deductible is met and only then does the insurance kick in. before obummerfail, I paid 6k, 3k me and 3k my wife. now it is 9k and it is going to go up again.

 

[bendog]

Need we say any more?

YES, yes you do.....like why didn't you mention that many of those who will 'lose' their health care are those who were FORCED under monetary penalty by the Obama administration to buy ACA coverage.

Nice try...but as usual, in an attempt to smear the GOP snowflakes leave out part of the story / engage in 'fake news'.

First of all, how many are in that group? I don't know and neither do you. Second of all, it's quite possible that many of those who you claim were "forced " to by insurance may have instead been incentivized to by due to the subsidies. In addition, many of those who- for whatever reason -first acquired insurance at the start of the ACA likely have come to like and rely on it. But that's OK, I understand the only way for you to win this argument is to keep dumbing it down.

And many who have come to rely on their insurance can no longer afford insurance due to the massive increase in price. Oh yes, many low-income people do have 'affordable' health care plans which include a massive deductible, which means they really CAN'T afford the cheap insurance they could afford to buy.

If I don't have $5k at any given time because of low income and living expenses but can afford cheap health care with a $5k deductible, what the hell does it matter that I have insurance when I can't afford to get sick and use the damn policy?

I don't know how many can't use their insurance because of high deductibles. Why don't you tell us since your the one making that claim. And while your at it why don't you be honest and tell the whole story instead of just the part that support s your claim that the ACA is a failure? For instance, while there high deductibles for the cheaper plans, there is also help for the out of pocket expenses available.

Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies (CSR) - Obamacare Facts

What Costs Do Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies Cover?
Cost Sharing Reduction Subsidies lower the amount you have to pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. They can also reduce the maximum out-of-pocket costs you are responsible for in a policy period. More specifically, they do this by raising the actuarial value of your health plan.

Does the GOP plane include anything like that? What would the deductibles look like ? You don't know? Does anybody? What we do know is that people will get less help with the premiums. Yet you moronically are willing to scrap the ACA for the GOP tripe.

Here is an idea. Try actually researching the issue rather than just tossing out ideological based talking points.

Soooo, a family of 4 with an income just under 50K is at 200% FPL (poverty line)

Poverty Guidelines

Then with the subsidy and cost sharing reduction ... the out of pocket max is 4500 or 4700 for the family?

Out-of-pocket Maximum Limits on Health Plans - Obamacare Facts
The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies

And that could actually be lowered (thank God since that's 10% of income) to go up to covering 94% and limiting out of pocket to around 2400?

The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies

I probably did that wrong. I mean it's better than nothing and that means better than before Obamacare. Still not as good as Medicaid.