Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Hairpiece In the Middle East Part 2


Recommended Posts

The CBO score for the AHCA is out. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

In one sense, House Republicans dodged a bullet; the CBO estimates that it will reduce the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years (lot of cuts in there) so they don't have to vote on the bill again. But on the other hand,

Quote

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under H.R. 1628 than under current law. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 23 million in 2026. In 2026, an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law. Under the legislation, a few million of those people would use tax credits to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks.

ETA:

https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/867479756547248128

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

The CBO score for the AHCA is out. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

In one sense, House Republicans dodged a bullet; the CBO estimates that it will reduce the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years (lot of cuts in there) so they don't have to vote on the bill again. But on the other hand,

 

Man I really wanted them to have to vote again so we could have another celebration in the Rose Garden after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

The CBO score for the AHCA is out. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

In one sense, House Republicans dodged a bullet; the CBO estimates that it will reduce the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years (lot of cuts in there) so they don't have to vote on the bill again. But on the other hand,

ETA:

https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/867479756547248128

And then there is the cost to the public by having such a large segment of uninsured, and all the external costs that come with it.  Surely this cost would dwarf any deficit savings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

And then there is the cost to the public by having such a large segment of uninsured, and all the external costs that come with it.  Surely this cost would dwarf any deficit savings.  

Turns out no, because for a really morbid reason - most of the uninsured will simply end up dying early as a result. (seriously, that's their analysis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

Turns out no, because for a really morbid reason - most of the uninsured will simply end up dying early as a result. (seriously, that's their analysis)

Supposedly, that's factored into the 119 billion savings estimate as well. Not sure if that's partisan spin or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also like how 1 in 6 people who have pre-existing conditions would not be able to even get coverage.

Minor correction. 1 in 6 citizens will reside in states that will likely eliminate the protections for pre-existing conditions. If you look at a ranking of the healthiest to least healthiest states, you'll notice pretty quickly that there is a coloration between least healthy states and states that are most likely to eliminate the protections. So the net effect could be that more than 1 in 6 people who have pre-existing conditions could not get coverage, but it's too early to say for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Admittedly, the ACA sucks.  Terribly.  But for the vast majority of people in this country, it is far better than what we had before. 

How do you figure that? There are some who are better off, but I very much doubt they constitute a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

This still doesn't make sense to me.  If you qualify for subsidies like you claimed on a single plan the fee would be ~$100 a month.  If you're not using the plan, the plan is costing you more than that, and you didn't have insurance before because it's cheaper to pay out of pocket; wouldn't the fee be the cheaper option?

And if as a freelancer with low income for last year, why would Cas Stark enrolled in a high deductible plan?  Why not go for the gold plan with low deductible because the premium is based on what you can afford to pay (i.e. the subsidies should cover everything else).  So even if he/she made more this year, it wouldn't affect his/he current premium.  And unlike other tax credit, you can opted to have it disburse monthly toward your premium.  Since its annual enrollment,  can always change plan next year.  I did offered to help him pick a plan for next year if he would tell me which state he lives in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

How do you figure that? There are some who are better off, but I very much doubt they constitute a majority.

Virtually everyone on medicaid, medicare, and employer health has benefited from it. Some to small degree, some to larger, but all of them have actually benefited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fez said:

The CBO score for the AHCA is out. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

In one sense, House Republicans dodged a bullet; the CBO estimates that it will reduce the deficit by $119 billion over 10 years (lot of cuts in there) so they don't have to vote on the bill again. But on the other hand,

ETA:

https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/867479756547248128

Remind me to pull that piece of paper out of my drawer, that has at the top:

"Shit List"

and pen in:

"The Republican Party"

Oh, wait, my bad, it's already there. Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican candidate in the runoff election in Montana allegedly just tackled a reporter and broke their glasses the day before the election.

Seriously, politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The Republican candidate in the runoff election in Montana allegedly just tackled a reporter and broke their glasses the day before the election.

Seriously, politics.

 

 

Apparently said reporter wrote this story about said candidate a month ago.

GOP candidate has financial ties to US-sanctioned Russian companies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/greg-gianforte-republican-candidate-congress-russia-companies

 

And here's audio of the bodyslam. Jesus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Virtually everyone on medicaid, medicare, and employer health has benefited from it. Some to small degree, some to larger, but all of them have actually benefited. 

Really? The consensus view in this thread (including even that of yourself) is exactly the opposite, at least for employer healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...