A Different View on AHCA

[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.

And this story is a lie......pure and simple......no AMerican is going to lose coverage because of this act...it is the authors opinion....he has nothing more to go on other than his opinion and his hatred of Republicans and conservatives....

Was this author as concerned about the AMericans forced into obamacare...who could not afford the premiums and who could now actually use it because the deductibles were in excess of 7,000 dollars a year? Where was he on that...how many people died because of that?

And on the VA......Vets are actually dying every day in the VA system...not because of their illness.....because they can't see a doctor to treat their illness....they have been put on fake waiting lists to hide the length of time they have to wait...and they die because of it...

Is the author campaigning against that system? Or the fact that the same people running that system are running obamacare?

Get real.....

Don't know about his article, but some American's will lose health insurance if the current bill is signed into law.

A lot of Americans lost coverage under obamacare...and they had insurance and were only kicked off because of obamacare....was this guy there complaining about that?

And a local radio host, Amy Jacobson recounted about friends of hers who were undergoing chemo treatment for cancer at Loyola and other hospitals...who were dropped because they lost their insurance because of obamacare......that was actually putting people in danger...did this guy complain about those cases?

Really a reliable source, but even if it had happened her friends undergoing chemo could have gotten another policy to take effect the next month after being kicked off. Funny she knew several get kicked off at the same time and all undergoing chemo.

Is this the same Amy Jacobson?

Former NBC reporter loses lawsuit against CBS after they aired footage of her in a bikini at the house of a suspected murderer whose case she was covering | Daily Mail Online

 

[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.

And the congressional budget office hasn't been right on any of its predictions...especially where obamacare is concerned because they can't score it based on dynamic factors.......get real

The CBO never scored this version before passing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence

I'm not terribly, if at all, in the abstract concerned about a total of 50K people (~2800/year) dying over the course of 18 years, not in a world having 7B people.

...the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year...about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19...

This is a considerably more shocking figure, and it's one that is disconcerting, particularly if they're all in one country or segment of society.

if the goal is to save lives.

Are you convinced that is Congress' or Trump's goal? I'm not.

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?

See my remark immediately above.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Do you get any kickbacks for promoting this OldLady ??

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Getting rid of healthcare would cripple a few industries that decide our legislation for us. Would literally give 20% of our economy back to the people..

It would also force the healthcare industry to set prices in accordance with what can be afforded by the individual. No deep insurance or government pockets to claw into.

If Joe Public can only afford $100 for procedure A, and the healthcare industry does not act to accept that, they will find they have no customers at all.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Getting rid of healthcare would cripple a few industries that decide our legislation for us. Would literally give 20% of our economy back to the people..

It would also force the healthcare industry to set prices in accordance with what can be afforded by the individual. No deep insurance or government pockets to claw into.

If Joe Public can only afford $100 for procedure A, and the healthcare industry does not act to accept that, they will find they have no customers at all.

well put. Thank you.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Getting rid of healthcare would cripple a few industries that decide our legislation for us. Would literally give 20% of our economy back to the people..

It can't happen since medicine has made such advances that it actually can save lives and increase the quality of life dramatically for so many. No one of average means can afford a visit to an ER for a broken leg, even. People haven't got that kind of money.

So if we got rid of health insurance, you think the costs will remain high?
You think tens of thousands of hospitals and clinics will only work with 10% of our country? I don't think so.
Costs will go down. Its the only possible outcome unless the healthcare industry wants to collapse..
Why do you think a hospital with a ten year old cat scan machine that got paid for 9.5 years ago, still charge the same amount? Because they can..

Hospitals in our area have closed in the past decade because they can't afford to keep their doors open. It's not the hospitals that are making huge profits--but they are paying the doctors and the supply companies and the CT scan manufacturers whatever they wish to charge. I agree with you in spirit.

We have that problem around here. Buts its because all the govt owned hospitals try to shut down the independent ones...

In order to survive, some have been "eaten up" (management wise) by the bigger hospitals in the cities. They pretty much forced all the local doctors to join or retire/move away. It was pretty traumatic at the time.

 

[OldLady]

Don't know about his article, but some American's will lose health insurance if the current bill is signed into law.

A lot of Americans lost coverage under obamacare...and they had insurance and were only kicked off because of obamacare....was this guy there complaining about that?

And a local radio host, Amy Jacobson recounted about friends of hers who were undergoing chemo treatment for cancer at Loyola and other hospitals...who were dropped because they lost their insurance because of obamacare......that was actually putting people in danger...did this guy complain about those cases?

The people who lost their insurer had access to another under Obamacare. They had to SWITCH insurers, not go without.

With much higher deductibles and copays.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is like a law of physics or something.

I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it. I am concerned the way the government so ineffectively manages the programs it's already got that we may end up paying somewhat more than we should, but it's inevitable. Universal healthcare will happen. Rather than fight it, everyone concerned about cost and effectiveness should be studying the system from top to bottom and finding ways to bring this Stay Puft Marshmallow Man under control.

so they govt cant handle what they do now, but you think the answer is giving them more programs to fuck up?
Lets ask Veterans how they feel about that..
The govt is the solution to NOTHING.
The more people that depend on the government, the less liberty we have as an individual.
One of the biggest economic problems we have IS the government.

If in some perfect world, universal healthcare were administered by a private agency, would you be okay with it?

 

[TNHarley]

A lot of Americans lost coverage under obamacare...and they had insurance and were only kicked off because of obamacare....was this guy there complaining about that?

And a local radio host, Amy Jacobson recounted about friends of hers who were undergoing chemo treatment for cancer at Loyola and other hospitals...who were dropped because they lost their insurance because of obamacare......that was actually putting people in danger...did this guy complain about those cases?

The people who lost their insurer had access to another under Obamacare. They had to SWITCH insurers, not go without.

With much higher deductibles and copays.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is like a law of physics or something.

I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it. I am concerned the way the government so ineffectively manages the programs it's already got that we may end up paying somewhat more than we should, but it's inevitable. Universal healthcare will happen. Rather than fight it, everyone concerned about cost and effectiveness should be studying the system from top to bottom and finding ways to bring this Stay Puft Marshmallow Man under control.

so they govt cant handle what they do now, but you think the answer is giving them more programs to fuck up?
Lets ask Veterans how they feel about that..
The govt is the solution to NOTHING.
The more people that depend on the government, the less liberty we have as an individual.
One of the biggest economic problems we have IS the government.

If in some perfect world, universal healthcare were administered by a private agency, would you be okay with it?

Yes. I probably would be ok with it being run by government if our voters didn't have corruption, corporatism and incompetence as a requirement.
I would probably be OK with it right now if we didn't spend hundreds of billions overseas. I hate debt. #AmericaFirst

 

[TNHarley]

If we always focused on America first, I would probably be a welfare supporter.

 

[Rustic]

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.

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.

I've seen newsletters sent out saying that you don't have to pay the mandate anymore by major tax companies such as Jackson Hewitt, h.r block and liberty tax.

 

[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.

And the congressional budget office hasn't been right on any of its predictions...especially where obamacare is concerned because they can't score it based on dynamic factors.......get real

They may be off, but by how much? Are you saying no one will lose coverage when the expanded Medicaid programs are defunded by eight hundred million?

expanded Medicaid will be getting MORE money. States that don't expand, will get less. That's what Texas was bitching about..

Explain how $800,000,000 in cuts means more money for Medicaid. Price isn't saying that.
HHS Secretary Tom Price Defends AHCA's $1 Trillion Medicaid Cut

From your link
But Prince insisted Sunday, "There are no cuts to the Medicaid program," adding that resources were being apportioned "in a way that allows states greater flexibility."

We'll see. It sounds to me as if the feds are cutting the expanded Medicaid funding at some point, and states are being expected to take up the slack. As long as we get a hefty tax cut to cover that so we can pay the increased state taxes, fine.

 

[percysunshine]

A lot of Americans lost coverage under obamacare...and they had insurance and were only kicked off because of obamacare....was this guy there complaining about that?

And a local radio host, Amy Jacobson recounted about friends of hers who were undergoing chemo treatment for cancer at Loyola and other hospitals...who were dropped because they lost their insurance because of obamacare......that was actually putting people in danger...did this guy complain about those cases?

The people who lost their insurer had access to another under Obamacare. They had to SWITCH insurers, not go without.

With much higher deductibles and copays.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is like a law of physics or something.

I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it. I am concerned the way the government so ineffectively manages the programs it's already got that we may end up paying somewhat more than we should, but it's inevitable. Universal healthcare will happen. Rather than fight it, everyone concerned about cost and effectiveness should be studying the system from top to bottom and finding ways to bring this Stay Puft Marshmallow Man under control.

so they govt cant handle what they do now, but you think the answer is giving them more programs to fuck up?
Lets ask Veterans how they feel about that..
The govt is the solution to NOTHING.
The more people that depend on the government, the less liberty we have as an individual.
One of the biggest economic problems we have IS the government.

If in some perfect world, universal healthcare were administered by a private agency, would you be okay with it?

.
I know you asked Harley the question, but centrally planned healthcare is a path to horrors. You, as a person well aware of your self and your being, know what you need better than an administrative bureaurocrat you have never met. It is just one of those truths of life.

 

[OldLady]

ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence

I'm not terribly, if at all, in the abstract concerned about a total of 50K people (~2800/year) dying over the course of 18 years, not in a world having 7B people.

...the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year...about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19...

This is a considerably more shocking figure, and it's one that is disconcerting, particularly if they're all in one country or segment of society.

if the goal is to save lives.

Are you convinced that is Congress' or Trump's goal? I'm not.

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?

See my remark immediately above.

My understanding, Xelor, is that they need the savings from the AHCA to get their tax cuts through.

 

[Rustic]

It still goes back to the fact that perceived future taxes can't pay for anything… because the fucking federal government does not own those tax monies....

 

[OldLady]

The people who lost their insurer had access to another under Obamacare. They had to SWITCH insurers, not go without.

With much higher deductibles and copays.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is like a law of physics or something.

I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it. I am concerned the way the government so ineffectively manages the programs it's already got that we may end up paying somewhat more than we should, but it's inevitable. Universal healthcare will happen. Rather than fight it, everyone concerned about cost and effectiveness should be studying the system from top to bottom and finding ways to bring this Stay Puft Marshmallow Man under control.

so they govt cant handle what they do now, but you think the answer is giving them more programs to fuck up?
Lets ask Veterans how they feel about that..
The govt is the solution to NOTHING.
The more people that depend on the government, the less liberty we have as an individual.
One of the biggest economic problems we have IS the government.

If in some perfect world, universal healthcare were administered by a private agency, would you be okay with it?

.
I know you asked Harley the question, but centrally planned healthcare is a path to horrors. You, as a person well aware of your self and your being, know what you need better than an administrative bureaurocrat you have never met. It is just one of those truths of life.

I would not like parameters set on how my doctor chooses to treat me, but some of that happens already. Insurance will cover some things but not others; malpractice protocols pressure doctors to do unnecessary tests and make ultra conservative choices in treatment, for instance. Any time someone is doling out the money, there will be some parameters set.
There are common sense things that could be done now. How does Canada manage to purchase the same drugs as we do, but we pay a bazillion times more for them? How does that happen?
That's just an example.

 

[Rustic]

With much higher deductibles and copays.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is like a law of physics or something.

I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it. I am concerned the way the government so ineffectively manages the programs it's already got that we may end up paying somewhat more than we should, but it's inevitable. Universal healthcare will happen. Rather than fight it, everyone concerned about cost and effectiveness should be studying the system from top to bottom and finding ways to bring this Stay Puft Marshmallow Man under control.

so they govt cant handle what they do now, but you think the answer is giving them more programs to fuck up?
Lets ask Veterans how they feel about that..
The govt is the solution to NOTHING.
The more people that depend on the government, the less liberty we have as an individual.
One of the biggest economic problems we have IS the government.

If in some perfect world, universal healthcare were administered by a private agency, would you be okay with it?

.
I know you asked Harley the question, but centrally planned healthcare is a path to horrors. You, as a person well aware of your self and your being, know what you need better than an administrative bureaurocrat you have never met. It is just one of those truths of life.

I would not like parameters set on how my doctor chooses to treat me, but some of that happens already. Insurance will cover some things but not others; malpractice protocols pressure doctors to do unnecessary tests and make ultra conservative choices in treatment, for instance. Any time someone is doling out the money, there will be some parameters set.
There are common sense things that could be done now. How does Canada manage to purchase the same drugs as we do, but we pay a bazillion times more for them? How does that happen?
That's just an example.

Because they pay a lot more in other areas… Any one can see that

 

[leftwinger]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

 

[kiwiman127]

Maybe our cynical Trumpsters should read this article.
52 Million Americans Have Pre-Existing Conditions
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...t-could-hinder-coverage-if-obamacare-repealed
But in the end, they won't give a shit, specifically if they don't have pre-existing conditions themselves.
Now obviously, not all who are in that pool have life threatening conditions, but for the millions that do, I guess it's "let them die".
And then around Christmas, these same posters will be outraged by the alleged "war on Christmas". Count on it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

There simply is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their health insurance under this plan. Your local paper did a disservice to its readers by trying to pass off this piece of dishonest propaganda as journalism.