The debt went up $9T in 8 years under Obama...I'm good with another $1T over 10 years if it means a reasonable solution to a very difficult problem.
The debt went up $9T in 8 years under Obama...I'm good with another $1T over 10 years if it means a reasonable solution to a very difficult problem.So to be clear you're now okay with substantial increases in US debt and debt/GDP ratio? What changed?
Haha, this isn't much of a plan or roll of the dice, it's literally just a real shitty rip-off of ACA.
Have to admit that there's a certain amount of schadenfreude here. It's akin to a C-list actor insisting that they can perform better than the lead in a play, finally getting their chance and fumbling all their lines. They spent all their energy on hating their rival and none of it on improving themselves.
The debt went up $9T in 8 years under Obama...I'm good with another $1T over 10 years if it means a reasonable solution to a very difficult problem.
Fair enough. What else would you like to see included? The main points to me are to restore choice which this does but it doesn't do enough to control costs. Short of a Medicare for all, I don't know what they can do to control costs. They're saying that competition is the way to do it. Well, OK. Let's see. I think they'll end up putting in the Medicare tax on incomes over $200K.
Congressional Republicans led by right-wing think tank test-tube baby Paul Ryan have been claiming for a solid eight yearsto be putting the finishing touches on a workable alternative to Obamacare. On Monday, Paul Ryan finally, really unveiled an Obamacare replacement bill. Everyone hates it.
No, seriously. Obviously liberals/leftists/Democrats were almost certainly not going to like it no matter what, and indeed, there has been nary a whisper of a rumor that even the most moderate Dems are interested in voting for the bill. But what's been really remarkable is how much heat it's gotten immediately from both the moderate andhard-line and insider and grassroots segments of Ryan's own party...
...
- Congressional libertarians Justin Amash and Rand Paul are against it because it's "Obamacare Lite," i.e., still involves the federal government more heavily than they'd like in paying for low-income Americans' health care.
- The Club for Growth conservative economic policy group is likewise against it because it isn't "free-market" enough.
- Same with the Koch brothers' activist groups.
- And the Tea Party Patriots group.
- And conservative Utah Sen. Mike Lee.
- Meanwhile, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardnerdon't like it because it harms Medicaid too much, i.e., doesn't involve the federal government heavily enough in paying for low-income Americans' health care.*
- And the conservative policy writers linked to in this Jonathan Chait piece simply don't think it's coherently or competently designed.
Repealing Obamacare may be politically popular, but the current proposals are going to be costly.
Republicans are moving ahead with campaign promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, known to most Americans as Obamacare.
Many of them have attacked the landmark law as too costly. But a back-of-the-envelope estimate finds that the replacement plan being floated would end up costing the federal government and additional $600 billion over 10 years.
The estimate comes from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which made a preliminary estimate Tuesday of the cost of various provisions in the GOP repeal and replace plan, known officially as the American Health Care Act.
Well for one, it's fair to say it's far worse, in its current form, at controlling either healthcare costs or federal gov't costs than the current ACA is. So saying "not enough" is an understatement.
Two, it doesn't restore choice or increase options for anyone other than wealthy folks. There's still a penalty if you forgo insurance, it just doesn't hit you until you actually purchase insurance, whereas the current ACA penalty is annually levied. If that's considered "choice", well shit, that's a pretty low bar.
Fair enough. What else would you like to see included? The main points to me are to restore choice which this does but it doesn't do enough to control costs. Short of a Medicare for all, I don't know what they can do to control costs. They're saying that competition is the way to do it. Well, OK. Let's see. I think they'll end up putting in the Medicare tax on incomes over $200K.
The policy does exactly what they want it to, take health care away from poor people and lower taxes for the rich. They can't the rest of the R's to sign on because it doesn't do those things enough.
It should restore choice by increasing the number of options an insurance co can offer. I'm in one of those areas where there is no choice. I have one sorry ass plan to choose from and that's it
I agree controlling cost, not access, is the big problem. Other than restricting cost (similar to Japan), say maximum $x for y procedure, which in no way would fly in the USA, I dont know another way to do it.
Serious question: do we have cost restrictions on anything right now?
Leave it to the GOP to put forth a bill they can't pass in a house and senate they control.
The policy does exactly what they want it to, take health care away from poor people and lower taxes for the rich. They can't the rest of the R's to sign on because it doesn't do those things enough.
Well, there are some ragging on it for obviously pandering to insurance companies (Rand Paul is the example), but I know what you mean.
Meanwhile, you have to like this: even Breitbart is ragging on the bill (not a direct link, so don't worry). You know you've screwed up when Trump's favorite propaganda machine says something is wrong.
Short of a Medicare for all, I don't know what they can do to control costs.
Be happy you have one choice. Pinal county here in AZ has exactly ZERO companies for the ACA.
I agree controlling cost, not access, is the big problem. Other than restricting cost (similar to Japan), say maximum $x for y procedure, which in no way would fly in the USA, I dont know another way to do it.
Serious question: do we have cost restrictions on anything right now?
I remember a show about HC. Japan ran a ruthlessly efficient system. Max cost for procedures, total Hospital services and even a (I forgot what its called) chart that dedicated what treatment was appropriate for what age/disability. They targeted the costs associated with the last 6 months before death. Strange thing is the Japanese are known for great elder respect and their patients rate Japans system with the best or second best, the show was years ago.
Summary Japan has death panels, its system is super efficient and controlled, users rate it amongst the best in the world