A Different View on AHCA

[Rustic]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

Only people that should be involved in any sort of government healthcare socialist entitlement program are the ones that want to. Leave the rest of us the fuck out of it…

 

[OldLady]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Any socialist entitlement program like this is absolutely unnecessary. Whether you call it Obamacare or Trumpcare millions of people want socialist entitlement programs and millions of people do not want socialist entitlement programs.
With a country that has any sort of freedom, forcing everybody into such programs makes the obvious true, there is no such thing as real freedom in this country.
Basically any socialist entitlement program puts a number on the individual, killing the individual…
See that's what is wrong with the legislation of socialist entitlement programs, it forces everyone into such programs. Why would people want to force other people that want nothing to do with such programs?

The AHCA proposal that just passed the House would eliminate the requirement. Some of the people who the CBO predicts will "lose" coverage are people who will opt out.

 

[debbiedowner]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

Only people that should be involved in any sort of government healthcare socialist entitlement program are the ones that want to. Leave the rest of us the fuck out of it…

It's like a boulder that started rolling down hill years ago and it ain't going to stop I'm afraid.

 

[OldLady]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

I never heard of that organization before. I also haven't heard any Democrats making that point before.

 

[TNHarley]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

 

[Rustic]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Any socialist entitlement program like this is absolutely unnecessary. Whether you call it Obamacare or Trumpcare millions of people want socialist entitlement programs and millions of people do not want socialist entitlement programs.
With a country that has any sort of freedom, forcing everybody into such programs makes the obvious true, there is no such thing as real freedom in this country.
Basically any socialist entitlement program puts a number on the individual, killing the individual…
See that's what is wrong with the legislation of socialist entitlement programs, it forces everyone into such programs. Why would people want to force other people that want nothing to do with such programs?

The AHCA proposal that just passed the House would eliminate the requirement. Some of the people who the CBO predicts will "lose" coverage are people who will opt out.

Any program that is worth a shit would be an "opt in"…
It would be totally voluntary leaving the rest of us out of that horseshit.

 

[Rustic]

I don't want to be part of the village, the village is trying to kill me… LOL

 

[OldLady]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

He even states the CBO hasn't went over the new plan.
What exactly is there to prove wrong?

It is true that the changes in the pre-existing conditions coverage could make a difference? All it did, in essence, though, was give the program an additional $$ to allow the states to fund a high risk pool or subsidize premiums. The expanded Medicaid program has not been refunded. That is where the biggest losses will be.

 

[debbiedowner]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

 

[OldLady]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Amen.

 

[Rustic]

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

 

[TNHarley]

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

I will never understand why it was done. It was unconstitutional and statist.

 

[debbiedowner]

Now the big question? If by a slim chance the house bill becomes law how are they going to pay for it with all the taxes it gets rid of? I would predict that high risk pools will go belly up 2 to 3 years into it.

 

[debbiedowner]

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

 

[TNHarley]

What they should do is outlaw health insurance
Talk about effecting costs...

 

[Rustic]

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

Op-Ed: Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare

 

[Auld Phart]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

I never heard of that organization before. I also haven't heard any Democrats making that point before.

never heard of that organization before.

Neither have I

But, when I see ***** for Democracy, I check to make sure my wallet isn't missing

 

[debbiedowner]

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

Op-Ed: Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare

You and I have been debating this for 2 months and I don't care what your CPA says the individual mandate was law 2 months ago and it's still law as I type. Get some legislation signed it might be gone but until then it's there.

That's what pisses me off about this whole health insurance, towing the party line. Does one party over another really give a shit about your health care? This should always have been worked on as bipartisan, but noooooooo, just because your either a lib or con. Just remember none of them could give a shit about us.

Something always got me was, from what I can remember, cost was the reason for all this shit. Cost is never sought after.
They sure didn't waste no time appeasing giant insurance companies and lobbyists, regulating 20% of our economy and forcing people to purchase a for profit product, though.
GO AMERICA

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

Op-Ed: Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare

You just like to dig, don't you? I don't care what your CPA says the individual mandate is still there and people are paying the penalty. The mandate was there Jan 24 and today and until some piece of actual legislation is signed rolling it back it will remain until that day.

 

[OldLady]

What they should do is outlaw health insurance
Talk about effecting costs...

My own (poorly informed) opinion is that the "deep pockets" of health insurance has had a lot to do with the unreasonable costs for healthcare generally. That and a committed and wealthy lobby making sure doctors can charge as much as they please and that drug companies can charge as much as they please.

 

[OldLady]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy

All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

nuff said

Tell me where he's wrong. Statistically speaking, if the AHCA goes through, more Americans are going to die due to the lack of healthcare than are killed by terrorism in the next two years. So which should we fear more?

While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

No new numbers from the CBO for the bill that was passed?

All I see is him spewing the party line.

and that he works for the National Endowment for Democracy makes it obvious

I never heard of that organization before. I also haven't heard any Democrats making that point before.

never heard of that organization before.

Neither have I

But, when I see ***** for Democracy, I check to make sure my wallet isn't missing

Hmmmmm.....I guess I'd check into it a bit more before jumping to that conclusion, but his is definitely a leftie's opinion.