OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Brian]

lol

 

I was thinking about this last weekend, would be a great joke for a late night host.

 

Trump will put his name on the worst products, but "Trumpcare" is so bad, even he doesnt want to be associated with it.

 

Jon Oliver talked about it last night

[Soxbadger]

Jon Oliver talked about it last night

 

Knew I shouldnt have said it in front of my Samsung.

 

Damn Obama "wire tapping" me.

[StrangeSox]

CBO report is out. Some choice conclusions:

 

 

 

 

 

Roughly double the uninsured rate in less than a decade. 52 million uninsured by 2026.

 

Alec MacGillis ✔ @AlecMacGillis

According to CBO, a 64-year-old with income of $26,500 pays $1,700 for ACA coverage. Under Ryan bill: $14,600. More than half their income.

3:39 PM - 13 Mar 2017

 

Ryan Struyk ✔ @ryanstruyk

Change under GOP plan via CBO:

 

Income: $27k

21yo: -$250

40yo: +$700

64yo: +$12,900

 

Income: $68k

21yo: -$3,650

40yo: -$4,100

64yo: -$700

3:47 PM - 13 Mar 2017

 

 

Chris Murphy ✔ @ChrisMurphyCT

FYI, House GOP handpicked the CBO director. Their own guy is the one saying the bill is a humanitarian catastrophe waiting to happen.

3:36 PM - 13 Mar 2017

 

 

Why are they pushing so hard for this bill??

[Quin]

CBO report is out. Some choice conclusions:

 

 

 

 

 

Roughly double the uninsured rate in less than a decade. 52 million uninsured by 2026.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are they pushing so hard for this bill??

 

I don't even know how to focus my anger right now. That could obliterate my dad's retirement.

[Kyyle23]

CBO report is out. Some choice conclusions:

 

 

 

 

 

Roughly double the uninsured rate in less than a decade. 52 million uninsured by 2026.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are they pushing so hard for this bill??

 

You know. Rich people getting more rich

 

[StrangeSox]

He'll be fine once he hits 65 and goes on Medicare!

 

...if Medicare survives the next four years.

 

Good news, though! In 2020, we actually see premiums start to decrease a bit because they've culled the risk pools by throwing 26 million people off of insurance and have allowed insurance companies to charge old people obscene amounts and offer garbage plans that technically count as 'insurance'! And it reduces the deficit (by cutting health care for millions on Medicaid)!

 

You know. Rich people getting more rich

 

Oh it definitely includes some healthy tax cuts for the wealthy. But they could have done that via tax reform without making a bill that looks like its designed to kill old and poor people.

 

holy moley

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Wow this is brutal for the 55-65 age people, a group that was hit very hard from recession and forced into early retirements.

[StrangeSox]

Provision Affecting Planned Parenthood. For a one-year period following enactment, the legislation would prevent federal funds from being made available to an entity (including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics) if it is:

 

•A nonprofit organization described in section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the code;

•An essential community provider that is primarily engaged in providing family planning and reproductive health services and related medical care;

•An entity that provides abortions—except in instances in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger; and

•An entity that had expenditures under the Medicaid program that exceeded $350 million in fiscal year 2014.

 

CBO expects that, according to those criteria, only Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and clinics would be affected. Most federal funds received by such entities come from payments for services provided to enrollees in states’ Medicaid programs. CBO estimates that the prohibition would reduce direct spending by $178 million in 2017 and by $234 million over the 2017-2026 period. Those savings would be partially offset by increased spending for other Medicaid services, as discussed below.

 

To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under the legislation, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies. The people most likely to experience reduced access to care would probably reside in areas without other health care clinics or medical practitioners who serve low-income populations. CBO projects that about 15 percent of those people would lose access to care.

 

 

 

A handy chart of the uninsured rate over time:

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Wow this is brutal for the 55-65 age people, a group that was hit very hard from recession and forced into early retirements.

 

Isn't that a huge voting bloc too? So odd that they'd do this to a very "vocal" part of the electorate.

[Soxfest]

You could not wipe your ass with the last CBO report that was not even close on anything when Obamacare came out. Now it's the end all beat all. I take anything from CBO with caution their track record not so good.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Soxfest

[bmags]

You could not wipe your ass with the last CBO report that was not even close on anything when Obamacare came out. Now it's the end all beat all. I take anything from them with caution track record not so good.

 

It was actually the most accurate of all of the Obamacare projections:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publicatio...ll-forecast-aca

 

CBO scoring was also a gigantic part of developing the ACA. Most of the creation of that bill was due to feedback on the CBO score on how to get the cost closer to neutral, including phaseouts of the medicaid funding to states.

 

 

[bmags]

Isn't that a huge voting bloc too? So odd that they'd do this to a very "vocal" part of the electorate.

 

It's also a very vulnerable one, most healthcare policy is designed to help people who are naturally going to be unaffordable still get care.

 

And, you know, everybody ages so ...even if you are younger it is pretty shortsighted.

[Soxfest]

It was actually the most accurate of all of the Obamacare projections:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publicatio...ll-forecast-aca

 

CBO scoring was also a gigantic part of developing the ACA. Most of the creation of that bill was due to feedback on the CBO score on how to get the cost closer to neutral, including phaseouts of the medicaid funding to states.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...s/#112efd3346a7

 

Article disagrees

[StrangeSox]

Who is they? Are you ignoring the division within the GOP on this issue. There are plenty of Republicans against Trump's Obamacare-light plan. This plan sucks. Plenty of Republicans in congress have spoke out to say this much.

 

Before I get attacked for having different views, I am on record saying that I hated the plan from the go. This is not a fiscally conservative plan and plenty of conservatives are rejecting it as a result. Trump is threatening to support certain Republicans in the elections in 2018 because all Republicans are pushing this so hard? There's 237 Republicans in the house. They need 218 votes to get it through. I think Paul, Cotton and all of the other speaking out can get 19 republicans to vote against it.

 

With everyone freaking out the CBO report, that stuff is such a waste of tax dollars. To act as if they can pinpoint how the plan would work in execution is ridiculous regardless of which party is in charge. There are thousands of variable factors that go into it. For instance, when the CBO put out their report on the ACA it said we would have nearly 10 million more people on Obamacare at this point. That is a pretty significant error in calculation. I am sure they weren't aware that people wouldn't be able to sign up for Obamacare for however long they couldn't get their website going when the CBO did their report.

 

The plan sucks, hopefully the 19 or so needed house republicans come forward and vote against it.

 

The answer to that question would be "the Republicans who are pushing for this," which would include the Speaker of the House and the President. Multiple people in this thread have already discussed some of the internal conflicts and the hurdle for it to clear the Senate, so this isn't new information.

 

CBO reports aren't a waste of money, but is there some other non-governmental analysis you'd accept as a fair and reasonable estimate instead?

 

e: bill is most likely to pass the House but fail in the Senate imo, much smaller margin for losing votes and several GOP Senators have expressed concerns even before the CBO report.

Edited March 13, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Kyyle23]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...s/#112efd3346a7

 

Article disagrees

 

Sure, an op ed disagrees with facts.

[illinilaw08]

Who is they? Are you ignoring the division within the GOP on this issue. There are plenty of Republicans against Trump's Obamacare-light plan. This plan sucks. Plenty of Republicans in congress have spoke out to say this much.

 

Before I get attacked for having different views, I am on record saying that I hated the plan from the go. This is not a fiscally conservative plan and plenty of conservatives are rejecting it as a result. Trump is threatening to support certain Republicans in the elections in 2018 because all Republicans are pushing this so hard? There's 237 Republicans in the house. They need 218 votes to get it through. I think Paul, Cotton and all of the other speaking out can get 19 republicans to vote against it.

 

With everyone freaking out the CBO report, that stuff is such a waste of tax dollars. To act as if they can pinpoint how the plan would work in execution is ridiculous regardless of which party is in charge. There are thousands of variable factors that go into it. For instance, when the CBO put out their report on the ACA it said we would have nearly 10 million more people on Obamacare at this point. That is a pretty significant error in calculation. I am sure they weren't aware that people wouldn't be able to sign up for Obamacare for however long they couldn't get their website going when the CBO did their report.

 

The plan sucks, hopefully the 19 or so needed house republicans come forward and vote against it.

 

The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States are pushing hard on it. So are a lot of other Congress people.

 

As of four days ago, less than 10 Republican Senators, and less than 10 Republican members of the House have spoken out against the plan. Some of the Senators don't like the phasing out of the Medicaid extension. Some of those Republicans want the government out of health care entirely (welcome back pre-existing conditions!).

 

I'm not even going to get into the CBO stuff...

 

 

[bmags]

Show me a major corporation that does not have forecasting models to help with decisionmaking, then tell me why the US government should not also have the same for policies that affect millions.

 

Models are never perfect, but they are better than not having anything. The CBO is actually rather conservative, as it does not let you include things like "cost savings from efficiency".

 

The CBO for 40 years has been highly credible, if often frustrating for how conservative it is.

[bmags]

You are comparing the CBO against reality. Which, fine. But you should also do that exercise of comparing it to the other models, as the commonwealth article did and found CBO to be most accurate.

 

No, it could not predict a Supreme Court ruling that made it much less likely for medicaid to be picked up by Governors.

 

Would you prefer a US government that uses forecast models or none? Because they are actually pretty good at what they do. There haven't been many health care bills for them to use as inputs to revise their models.

[caulfield12]

The numbers would have been very accurate had those hold out states taken the Medicaid expansion monies.

 

Do you see any of those GOP governors saying it was a failure, didn't work in their states (it has actually succeeded in lowering costs for those risk pools) and how they'd just love to give the money back to D.C.?

 

How can you create a projection/model where governors act in ways that are completely antithetical to best interests of the poor in their states...?

 

As noted, there were five different agencies/foundations that provided an array of predictions on ACA, and the CBO numbers were most accurate in all categories but one...in that, they finished second. So we should expect and trust all the Senators and Reps to give us their objective opinions to us? All voting aging Americans should be required to read the bill in its entirety (something nobody in even Congress does, it gets farmed out to staff dividing that responsibility into sections)...and make their own informed projections?

 

Waiting for someone to provide a better answer than the CBO, which has tended, if anything, to be a bit conservative over all these years.

 

Oh yeah, dynamic scoring, that's the solution ...just pencil in 4% or higher growth every year, all the problems are solved. There we go. If you can find anyone who believes Trump anti-free trade policies will actually stimulate the economy. Because taking almost all of the disposable income away from those in their last ten years away from retirement will surely help to stimulate spending, and we know how the rich will just go right out and spend those tax cuts.

Edited March 13, 2017 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

The White House is flat out rejecting the cbo scoring.

 

Their own estimates were even worse.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obam...te-house-236019

[caulfield12]

While serving as the House Budget Committee chairman, Price had a role in appointing the current head of the CBO who is a conservative economist.

 

 

There's your key sentence.

[StrangeSox]

Freedom Caucus going full obstructionist against the ahca, think they have 50-70 Republican votes to block.

 

https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/8421674...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The Republicans are in such a corner here, there's no way to really win. This new plan does nothing to lower overall costs to taxpayers, is harder on the poor and the elderly, and will see insurance go away for millions. You've got a conservative group who think even that is too close to ACA, and moderates who see the opposite, all in the same party. Compromise would mean, essentially, sticking with ACA.

 

What is the winning scenario here for the GOP in Congress? And for Trump? How do they lower costs without throwing a ton of people out of coverge?

 

[Quin]

The Republicans are in such a corner here, there's no way to really win. This new plan does nothing to lower overall costs to taxpayers, is harder on the poor and the elderly, and will see insurance go away for millions. You've got a conservative group who think even that is too close to ACA, and moderates who see the opposite, all in the same party. Compromise would mean, essentially, sticking with ACA.

 

What is the winning scenario here for the GOP in Congress? And for Trump? How do they lower costs without throwing a ton of people out of coverge?

 

Winning scenario: Repeal Obamacare, replace with Affordable Care Act

[Kyyle23]

The Republicans are in such a corner here, there's no way to really win. This new plan does nothing to lower overall costs to taxpayers, is harder on the poor and the elderly, and will see insurance go away for millions. You've got a conservative group who think even that is too close to ACA, and moderates who see the opposite, all in the same party. Compromise would mean, essentially, sticking with ACA.

 

What is the winning scenario here for the GOP in Congress? And for Trump? How do they lower costs without throwing a ton of people out of coverge?

 

Build a wall! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

 

.

 

...

 

......

 

 

why isnt everyone else cheering?