ACA Replacement plan

[CommuterBob]

CBO score of Senate plan came out yesterday - pretty much the same score as the House plan. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/52849-hr1628senate.pdf

22M more uninsured by 2026, starting with 15M more uninsured in 2018 and increasing by year. Of those 15M, 4M drop out of Medicaid, 7M drop out of the non-group market and 4M drop out of employer-sponsored plans due to cuts in spending and removal of the individual and employer mandates
Premiums set to increase 20% in 2018 and another 10% in 2019 before finally dropping in 2020, then leveling out.
Six month waiting period for those who try to buy insurance but have a 63 day gap in coverage within the previous year
$500B in tax cuts to the very rich and corporations, coupled with $200B in reduced penalties over the next 10 years
$1T less in spending over the next 10 years - a net savings of $321B over 10 years

 

[UCFWayne]

I dont understand why they cant either just completely repeal it, or repeal 80-90% of it? Am I making this too simple?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I dont understand why they cant either just completely repeal it, or repeal 80-90% of it? Am I making this too simple?

Because they're afraid of not getting reelected. They're putting themselves before the American people like usual.

 

[CommuterBob]

I dont understand why they cant either just completely repeal it, or repeal 80-90% of it? Am I making this too simple?

They can't repeal it because they don't have the votes in the Senate to repeal it (would have to convince 10+ Dems to go along), so they're having to do this through reconciliation, which means they can adjust it, but have to leave most of it intact.

It's a bad bill on top of bad legislation. This literally helps nobody except the very rich's and corporations' tax bills. It doesn't help stabilize the individual markets much (and the CBO indicates the same issues the marketplace is having now will continue), it doesn't do anything to address cost of care (and only marginally addresses cost of coverage).

 

[CommuterBob]

Because they're afraid of not getting reelected. They're putting themselves before the American people like usual.

Yep. They have to do something, but they can't do what they promised to do.

 

[Poolside Knight]

Because they're afraid of not getting reelected. They're putting themselves before the American people like usual.

I've probably posted this on a previous page but once you rollout an Entitlement that large it becomes almost impossible to roll it back completely without committing political suicide. It's a new normal to a fairly large group.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I've probably posted this on a previous page but once you rollout an Entitlement that large it becomes almost impossible to roll it back completely without committing political suicide. It's a new normal to a fairly large group.

And this is 100% the reason there should be term limits. They can do what needs to be done and get out. Congress should not be a career.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Sources are stating Mitch says the bill needs work and there won't be a vote this week.

 

[Poolside Knight]

 

[CommuterBob]

Sounds like they're softening on the tax cuts.

 

[UCFKnight85]

View embedded media

Sounds like they're softening on the tax cuts.

Even more reason we're headed for goddamn Obamacare 2.0.

They are leaving those tax hikes in there simply to use the continued revenue to.......keep paying subsidies to people on broken exchanges.

At this point I hope they just shelve the whole thing. Let Obamacare in present form continue to crumble until the Democrats finally have to get off the mat and fix the gigantic mess they've sprung upon the country. There's no point for the GOP to pass Obamacare 2.0 when they're still going to have the usual left wing suspects suggesting that ANY reform will lead to people dying in the streets left and right.

At least it's been hilarious watching California come to the realization that even they can't pass single payer because it's catastrophically expensive. If friggin CA can't get single payer rammed through then there's no way in hell it would ever become Federal law. The cost would send people into seizures.

 

[reddog4720]

View embedded media

Sounds like they're softening on the tax cuts.

Really sounds like we're progressing to the same bill as ACA but relabeling things...penalty vs mandate, rebate vs subsidy.

I can't see why any GOP member would want to sign for this thing when it really isn't drastically different than ACA.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

We're headed to single payer, which I'm not that upset about, because I think it will illustrate that just because it works in the Nordic countries doesn't mean it will work here. We're significantly fatter and more unhealthy, so I don't believe we'll be any where in the same ballpark of cost per capita as those other systems.

 

[UCFWayne]

we already have a single payer health care system right here in america. people thinks its great. its call the va....

 

[UCFKnight85]

We're headed to single payer, which I'm not that upset about, because I think it will illustrate that just because it works in the Nordic countries doesn't mean it will work here. We're significantly fatter and more unhealthy, so I don't believe we'll be any where in the same ballpark of cost per capita as those other systems.

No, we aren't.

If the socialists and communists in California can't even stomach the cost of single payer, then the rest of the country won't either. When Sanders was spouting off about this in the primary, there were costing scores done, and many put the 10 year cost right around $32T. Yes, with a T.

They estimated that $1.7T of that $3.2T would have to come in the form of new revenue every single year. That would require a 50% increase in Federal Spending every single year.