CBO Scores Trumpcare II

Talk for your governor, just as they are doing in California.

 

as long as republicans fund it while we wait, removing funding will cause problems, but that is not the ACA, that is republicans

 

Fund it yourself.

 

The bill changed from the one they predicted 24 million would lose coverage

It has "cost savings" because it kicks people who actually NEED healthcare coverage OFF.

 

I doubt I can afford heart surgery or cancer treatment out of pocket. Can you?

 

Unlike Social Security and Medicare which was mostly bipartisan, which mean both sides of the aisle had a stake in it and were willing to make both work, the ACA was a single party initiative. This can be shown by the votes in congress. Unlike social security and medicare, the Republicans had no stake in the ACA, it was Democratic Party owned.

Social Security votes in Congress – Over 65% of the American Public was in favor of Social Security before it was introduced to congress.

House - Democrats 284 AYE 15 NAY – Republicans 81 AYE 15 NAY

Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 1 NAY – Republicans 16 AYE 5 NAY


Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.

House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY

Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY


Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.

House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY

Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

I am sure at the time the ACA was passed, the Democrats in Congress along with President Obama knew they could not expect help from any Republican. They made the decision to go it alone, by themselves. They could afford to do this because of their huge advantage in congress at the time. I am sure the Democrats thought that anything wrong with the ACA, the flaws in it could be easily fixed by them because they controlled both chambers of congress and the presidency. No help required. At least not in 2009 or 2010. Then the unthinkable happened, the Republicans picked up 63 seats in the house and gained control in November of 2010. The reason for this sea change election was simple, the majority of Americans were against the ACA, Democrats failed to listen to America as a whole, they went their own way. Viola, 2010 happened as America bit back.

Expecting help from the Republicans since then is in my view, pure folly. Today the mood has changed. The Republicans better listen to America as a whole or they will have their own 2010 in 2018. Most Americans don't like to be told to stick it where the sun doesn't shine over a political agenda they don't want. So wait and see where the ACA stands next year. If most Americans want to keep it then, Republicans in congress might come around to fixing it. Self preservation, keeping their seats will win out. If the dire predictions are true, you may find the reverse true. Some Democrats voting to repeal and replace, again self preservation.

I haven't the faintest idea if those predictions come true or not. Gloom and doom has been preached about the ACA since it was first passed. It's still with us. My only advice to those in congress regardless of party, listen to America. I never been for the ACA, been against this whole time. But I'm also against the repeal and replace. Replacing what I see bad legislation with some worst is also folly. What the Democrats do is ignore those whom the ACA hurt which are more than the ACA helped. At least according to Gallup. 29% say the ACA has hurt them, 18% say helped.

 

Saw on FB that BC/BS was pulling out of an exchange yesterday. Kansas maybe

 

and from the bill the right passed, we can see the goal is tax cuts for the rich and heck with everyone else

 

yes, Obama preferred a public option to the exchange, he was right

 

sure, if you fund your own roads, fire and police departments, we all pay taxes, so we all fund the government

 

No. It. Doesn't. CBO, which BLEW how many would sign up, in the future, by 24 million, claim, that in the future, 23 million fewer will ever sign up.

CBO has shown us, already, that in these in the future enrollment issues, they can't find their own asses with both hands, a map and a flashlight. Doesn't mean they are bad or anything, but some questions are simply difficult to answer with a calculator, and they simply do not have accurate forecasting tools for, in the future, enrollment.

So here is the deal. Pay attention to the following 2 things:

1. Does it give you greater choice, power and control over your healthcare and insurance decisions?
2. Does it lower your premiums and deductibles?

 

The 23 million without insurance figure is misleading. It includes those who don't currently have insurance but would have been forced under the ACA. Over 20 million.

 

And once you get beyond a certain age they quit treating you...There is a reason Holland was the first country in the world to legalize assisted suicide. By the way most of the rest of the countries in the world have populations a third our size and are much more densely populated both of those have immense consequences for costs.

 

Ideologues contrive the wackiest excuses to reject a proven paradigm that does not fit their dogma. Economy of scale is the term given to the cost advantages that enterprises attain due to greater size as cost per unit decreases with increasing scale. Costs are distributed over more individual units. You could subdivide to create any number of separate risk pools for health insurance, even down to the neighbourhood level, but costs would increase as the size of each risk pool shrinks.

 

Most interesting.

Of course, everyone knows that the current proposal is ALREADY DOA.

 

The CBO gave the democrats and civil people a hammer to beat trumpsters over the head with.

 

Natty reality is not your friend. It is one thing to do socialist health care in a country in which everyone is within roughly 250 miles of each and the population density exceeds 300 people pre sq mile

 

They use static analysis for dynamic processes, which means they will never get it right. Sort of like the climate change "scientists" who are paid quite handsomely to predict the outcome they are paid to predict.

 

Yes ... any attempt to handle this subject like an adult will always be DOA in Washington where demagoguing an issue always wins the day.

 

Your irrelevancies do nothing to prop up your ideology.

If you need to rely on your population density red herring as an excuse for your dogma, Canada (3.3.people per sq. kilometre) is far less densely populated than the United States (28.4 people per sq. kilometre) , yet the US spends much more on healthcare than Canada on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP, yet Canada achieves universal coverage whilst the US leaves tens of millions uninsured.

I offer the extant general paradigm of all advanced democratic nations that achieve universal health coverage at around half the cost of the US. You have not indicated even one of the 200 nations on earth where your preference has been demonstrated to remotely approach what those nations have actually accomplished.

 

........

 

They aso have crappier care to a certain extent you get what you pay for. The biggest problem in most places with socialized medicine is a shortage of diagnostic machines like EKGs EEG, CTscanners and MRI machines and other such thing compared to the US, also Canada has the smallest population of any developed country. And most of that population is centered in a handful of large towns. For instance more than a fifth of Canada's population lives in the GTHA Which has a pop density of over 3500 people per square mile.

 

Fine.Then let's have a Medicare buy in. Medicare works pretty well and will only work better with more revenue and younger healthier people in it

 

Medicare only works well because medical providers shift their costs to those with private insurance. The providers take lower amounts from Medicare and then recoup their losses by charging the insurance companies more. If we get rid of private insurers, the medical providers won't be able to survive on Medicare alone.

 

Hilarious. Out of two hundred nations, you need to whine about the advanced ones that cover everyone at half of what the US spends as it fails to cover tens of millions, and yet you are unable to cite a single example where your airy-fairy preference has proved itself anywhere on earth.