A Different View on AHCA

[OldLady]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I'm sorry, Old Yeller, I'm kinda in the same circumstances myself. The increased taxes will be awful, but I'd have insurance and so would everyone else, not piecemeal depending on what state you lived in or by having to go the state offices and tell them your life's financial story, but just because you're alive and kicking and a US citizen.
Instead of using outrageously priced ER's for those without insurance, free health clinics would be a lot cheaper for non emergency problems. We don't have any around here, and we have a lot of uninsured people. Our doctors also don't cover on the weekends and nights; they tell you to go to the ER, which is outrageous if you just need an antibiotic. I've had to use the ER twice for that. What overkill!

Unless you live in a rural area, there is likely a free health clinic near you and was even as Obama claimed everyone without insurance would have to go to ER's.

https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

I DO live in a rural area, Too Much. What I was describing is accurate.

Then, sorry to say, you are just a footnote to whatever healthcare plan we have.

Don't I know it!

 

[bendog]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

Of course the trumpbots, anit-gummit anyding and Obamahaters are all over this. But Obamacare was well inteintioned, and it's not disputable that your link is correct that those of us who have health insurance and can afford to access it have great care. And Obamacare DID require insurance to cover two wellness visits and reproductive care with no additional out of pocket expenses beyond premiums.

But, the going rate for a family of 4 is well over 10K a year. Obamacare didn't help with that.

 

[debbiedowner]

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

Op-Ed: Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare

You and I have been debating this for 2 months and I don't care what your CPA says the individual mandate was law 2 months ago and it's still law as I type. Get some legislation signed it might be gone but until then it's there.

Well if it had not been mandated the insurance companies would not have played along in it's original form and only the sickest of people would have signed up and then some of the larger ones would definitely been crippled if not out of business. They are the ones who demanded the mandate be put into the law. The government just didn't set the penalty high enough, it's cheaper in 99% of cases to just pay penalty than buy a plan. While I may not agree with the mandate I understand why it was done.

The only way to get an even keel and maybe get to a break even is either scrap everything and go back to the underwriting days or Medicare for all and everyone under 65 pay a little higher premium than over 65, the healthy in the program would keep Medicare a float for many, many years beyond present day projections.

If the plan was an "opt in" it would've been acceptable to everybody. You know, sign up if you want it, none of this horseshit of forcing and everybody into something that they will never need or use.

Ok a combination of private insurance or Medicare, then you could if you wanted purchase a medically underwritten insurance plan and your neighbor says well this Medicare is a bit cheaper I'll go that route. Now this is a good idea.

Op-Ed: Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare

You just like to dig, don't you? I don't care what your CPA says the individual mandate is still there and people are paying the penalty. The mandate was there Jan 24 and today and until some piece of actual legislation is signed rolling it back it will remain until that day.

I've seen newsletters sent out saying that you don't have to pay the mandate anymore by major tax companies such as Jackson Hewitt, h.r block and liberty tax.

Keep on believing that, in fact Jackson Hewitt messed up one of clients pretty good this year for the very newsletter you are speaking of.

 

[toomuchtime_]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

There simply is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their health insurance under this plan. Your local paper did a disservice to its readers by trying to pass off this piece of dishonest propaganda as journalism.

It was in the Op Ed section, not a news article. My paper is pretty straight shooting as far as reporting the facts, thank you very much.

I am quite alarmed that the CBO is so completely inept that everyone is saying this is not going to happen, not a single person will lose their coverage and that Medicaid is not being cut, when it is common knowledge 800 mil is being cut from Medicaid. I'm not sure who's living in Oz here. I'm not going to argue about it, but the numbers I have been hearing right along about the new AHCA should not be in basic dispute. What should be happening is a discussion about how to solve those problems.

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

 

[debbiedowner]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

 

[bendog]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

There simply is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their health insurance under this plan. Your local paper did a disservice to its readers by trying to pass off this piece of dishonest propaganda as journalism.

It was in the Op Ed section, not a news article. My paper is pretty straight shooting as far as reporting the facts, thank you very much.

I am quite alarmed that the CBO is so completely inept that everyone is saying this is not going to happen, not a single person will lose their coverage and that Medicaid is not being cut, when it is common knowledge 800 mil is being cut from Medicaid. I'm not sure who's living in Oz here. I'm not going to argue about it, but the numbers I have been hearing right along about the new AHCA should not be in basic dispute. What should be happening is a discussion about how to solve those problems.

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

 

[OldLady]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

 

[debbiedowner]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

 

[toomuchtime_]

There simply is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their health insurance under this plan. Your local paper did a disservice to its readers by trying to pass off this piece of dishonest propaganda as journalism.

It was in the Op Ed section, not a news article. My paper is pretty straight shooting as far as reporting the facts, thank you very much.

I am quite alarmed that the CBO is so completely inept that everyone is saying this is not going to happen, not a single person will lose their coverage and that Medicaid is not being cut, when it is common knowledge 800 mil is being cut from Medicaid. I'm not sure who's living in Oz here. I'm not going to argue about it, but the numbers I have been hearing right along about the new AHCA should not be in basic dispute. What should be happening is a discussion about how to solve those problems.

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

There is no cut to Medicaid, no matter how much you want one. An estimated $880 billion will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees into the Obama Medicaid expansion and the states will be given large block grants to provide healthcare for these people. This should actually provide an increase in healthcare coverage since only the people in those states that opted for the Obama Medicaid expansion were eligible but under AHCA every state will receive block grants to care for those who would otherwise have been eligible for the Medicaid expansion.

 

[OldLady]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

I think what I'd like right now is an article that explains the new proposed AHCA WITHOUT any spin or conjecture. This thread has me totally unsure of what is proposed. Posters are claiming exact opposite things.

 

[debbiedowner]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

I think what I'd like right now is an article that explains the new proposed AHCA WITHOUT any spin or conjecture. This thread has me totally unsure of what is proposed. Posters are claiming exact opposite things.

Google Kaiser family explanation of American Health Care Act, 10 page breakdown.

 

[leftwinger]

There simply is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their health insurance under this plan. Your local paper did a disservice to its readers by trying to pass off this piece of dishonest propaganda as journalism.

It was in the Op Ed section, not a news article. My paper is pretty straight shooting as far as reporting the facts, thank you very much.

I am quite alarmed that the CBO is so completely inept that everyone is saying this is not going to happen, not a single person will lose their coverage and that Medicaid is not being cut, when it is common knowledge 800 mil is being cut from Medicaid. I'm not sure who's living in Oz here. I'm not going to argue about it, but the numbers I have been hearing right along about the new AHCA should not be in basic dispute. What should be happening is a discussion about how to solve those problems.

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

Everyone always says that "cut tax on the rich". But how do they keep Small Business seperate from the "day-trader" making $1mil/yr fooling with stocks?

A Small business may show a revenue of $1mil+ yet operate at a loss for 5-10 years. Paying employees, equipment, insurance, Fees, accountants, upgrades, expansions, Taxes, etc. Many fail and go broke early on. They are not rich. To pay 39% + state rate? It all seems so complicated? CA is 13% above $450K "earnings" at last I heard. So...50% is already taken (minimum). After legal "deductions".

You can't just go around trying to define rich all in one bucket? What do you want? A huge Luxury Tax or Confiscation of EXCESS Wealth? Some of these "rich" already payed Tax on the start-up money. They pay tax on gains along the way. How do you go retroactive and take more of it?

 

[toomuchtime_]

"I know. Universal healthcare will require a huge chunk of taxes, but I'm willing to pay it."

I am out of money. I don't want to contribute anymore. I can't and pay all the other taxes. I paid into Medicare forever while working. I had Aetna PPO once upon a time and I still paid $400 for an simple X-ray I was ordered to go get. I could not help but notice the non-English speaking crowd that filled the waiting room for 6 hours. The Cabs pulling up and dumping out "victims". Think they paid anything out of pocket?

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

I think what I'd like right now is an article that explains the new proposed AHCA WITHOUT any spin or conjecture. This thread has me totally unsure of what is proposed. Posters are claiming exact opposite things.

lol Without any spin or conjecture? That would be a real find. If you really want to know what's in the bill, you will have to read and work your way through the text.

 

[OldLady]

I thought if we had universal healthcare we didn't have to pay premiums? Maybe a minor co-pay? Do people on Medicare also pay premiums? What is their co-pay for a doctor's visit? They don't have deductibles, I know that.

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

I think what I'd like right now is an article that explains the new proposed AHCA WITHOUT any spin or conjecture. This thread has me totally unsure of what is proposed. Posters are claiming exact opposite things.

lol Without any spin or conjecture? That would be a real find. If you really want to know what's in the bill, you will have to read and work your way through the text.

Oh shaddup, wouldja? There are people willing to be factual in this world. Still.

 

[bendog]

It was in the Op Ed section, not a news article. My paper is pretty straight shooting as far as reporting the facts, thank you very much.

I am quite alarmed that the CBO is so completely inept that everyone is saying this is not going to happen, not a single person will lose their coverage and that Medicaid is not being cut, when it is common knowledge 800 mil is being cut from Medicaid. I'm not sure who's living in Oz here. I'm not going to argue about it, but the numbers I have been hearing right along about the new AHCA should not be in basic dispute. What should be happening is a discussion about how to solve those problems.

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

Everyone always says that "cut tax on the rich". But how do they keep Small Business seperate from the "day-trader" making $1mil/yr fooling with stocks?

A Small business may show a revenue of $1mil+ yet operate at a loss for 5-10 years. Paying employees, equipment, insurance, Fees, accountants, upgrades, expansions, Taxes, etc. Many fail and go broke early on. They are not rich. To pay 39% + state rate? It all seems so complicated? CA is 13% above $450K "earnings" at last I heard. So...50% is already taken (minimum). After legal "deductions".

You can't just go around trying to define rich all in one bucket? What do you want? A huge Luxury Tax or Confiscation of EXCESS Wealth? Some of these "rich" already payed Tax on the start-up money. They pay tax on gains along the way. How do you go retroactive and take more of it?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, we pay for Medicare Part B and premium's differ now. I pay $109 per month and a new Medicare this year I believe is $134.00. It's a confused system because of some of us grandfathered and some lower premium's if they starting taking social at 62 than the ones who wait until full retirement age. Also if you make over $85,000 or couple $170,000 you pay more on a graduated scale the higher your income is. They do have a deductible for Part B and Deductible for Part A if they do not have a supplement, then some still have a Part B deductble. Once that small deductible of I beleive $167 this year is met then if Medicare approved doctor, Medicare will pick up 80% and supplement 20%. Some of us have a Medicare Advantage pay little or no premium and it has copays and most include Part D prescriptions.

Thank you, DD!

You're welcome and if you want to know more about Medicare go to Medicare.gov and download "MEDICARE AND YOU FOR 2017"

I think what I'd like right now is an article that explains the new proposed AHCA WITHOUT any spin or conjecture. This thread has me totally unsure of what is proposed. Posters are claiming exact opposite things.

lol Without any spin or conjecture? That would be a real find. If you really want to know what's in the bill, you will have to read and work your way through the text.

Oh shaddup, wouldja? There are people willing to be factual in this world. Still.

But you haven't been able to find any.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

Everyone always says that "cut tax on the rich". But how do they keep Small Business seperate from the "day-trader" making $1mil/yr fooling with stocks?

A Small business may show a revenue of $1mil+ yet operate at a loss for 5-10 years. Paying employees, equipment, insurance, Fees, accountants, upgrades, expansions, Taxes, etc. Many fail and go broke early on. They are not rich. To pay 39% + state rate? It all seems so complicated? CA is 13% above $450K "earnings" at last I heard. So...50% is already taken (minimum). After legal "deductions".

You can't just go around trying to define rich all in one bucket? What do you want? A huge Luxury Tax or Confiscation of EXCESS Wealth? Some of these "rich" already payed Tax on the start-up money. They pay tax on gains along the way. How do you go retroactive and take more of it?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

So in your opinion facts and telling the truth is without value?

 

[leftwinger]

The CBO analysis of the first bill did not and could not consider the effect of the block grants to the states, so its numbers were meaningless. Anyone who cites the CBO numbers to criticize the current plan is either ignorant or dishonest.

Similarly, the people who claim $880 billion is being cut from Medicaid are either ignorant or dishonest. It is an estimate of how much will be saved over ten years by not accepting new enrollees under the Obama expansion of Medicaid; it does not touch the benefits or the number of new enrollees under regular Medicaid.

Again, there is no basis in fact or logic for claiming large numbers of people will lose their insurance coverage under AHCA. Just as supporters of Obamacare lied their asses off to get it passed, they are now lying their asses off to prevent reforms to our healthcare system.

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

Everyone always says that "cut tax on the rich". But how do they keep Small Business seperate from the "day-trader" making $1mil/yr fooling with stocks?

A Small business may show a revenue of $1mil+ yet operate at a loss for 5-10 years. Paying employees, equipment, insurance, Fees, accountants, upgrades, expansions, Taxes, etc. Many fail and go broke early on. They are not rich. To pay 39% + state rate? It all seems so complicated? CA is 13% above $450K "earnings" at last I heard. So...50% is already taken (minimum). After legal "deductions".

You can't just go around trying to define rich all in one bucket? What do you want? A huge Luxury Tax or Confiscation of EXCESS Wealth? Some of these "rich" already payed Tax on the start-up money. They pay tax on gains along the way. How do you go retroactive and take more of it?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

I did not say that? Did I? I am implying it is complicated. $250K in NYC or SF is not rich. In addition, I don't know how you separate vital small business from the numbers. What if SB makes $250K in one year but need a new tool for $100K to start the next year? Or $100K worth of new material? etc.

it seems to be a mess. $250K in Little Rock is going to do pretty well, less well in Seatlle. You want a blanket statement "TAX the rich".....it depends? doesn't it?

 

[bendog]

Those people not being accepted by Medicaid over the next ten years will be without insurance, though, correct? Is that what the CBO is expecting? There is no way I could afford to pay for healthcare with a $12,000 yearly deductible. It's the same as having no insurance at all.

No, instead of the federal government funding 90% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, the states will receive large block grants to, in part, fashion a system to provide healthcare for those people who might have been eligible for the Obama Medicaid expansion. Keep in mind that only people in the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion were eligible so now everyone will be eligible for some sort of healthcare coverage in all the states under the new plan.

There are no giant inequities in this plan. It comes down to this, do you trust your state government or the federal government to be more sensitive to the people of your state? If you trust your state government more, then AHCA will probably serve the needs of the people of your state better than Obamacare did.

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

After cutting Medicaid by 600 billion and using the money to cut taxes on those making >250K

Everyone always says that "cut tax on the rich". But how do they keep Small Business seperate from the "day-trader" making $1mil/yr fooling with stocks?

A Small business may show a revenue of $1mil+ yet operate at a loss for 5-10 years. Paying employees, equipment, insurance, Fees, accountants, upgrades, expansions, Taxes, etc. Many fail and go broke early on. They are not rich. To pay 39% + state rate? It all seems so complicated? CA is 13% above $450K "earnings" at last I heard. So...50% is already taken (minimum). After legal "deductions".

You can't just go around trying to define rich all in one bucket? What do you want? A huge Luxury Tax or Confiscation of EXCESS Wealth? Some of these "rich" already payed Tax on the start-up money. They pay tax on gains along the way. How do you go retroactive and take more of it?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

So in your opinion its good to give guys making over 250K a year by taking revenue away form Medicaid?

I did not say that? Did I? I am implying it is complicated. $250K in NYC or SF is not rich. In addition, I don't know how you separate vital small business from the numbers. What if SB makes $250K in one year but need a new tool for $100K to start the next year? Or $100K worth of new material? etc.

it seems to be a mess. $250K in Little Rock is going to do pretty well, less well in Seatlle. You want a blanket statement "TAX the rich".....it depends? doesn't it?

To improve healthcare, Trump wants to take 600 billion from Medicaid. The ONE thing that Obamacare has undoubtedly done successfully is add insurance for something like ten million working poor.
There's a lot wrong with it, and I personally wouldn't define 250k rich, but Trump is not about making it better.

 

[Cellblock2429]

For all you conservatives screaming about the dangers of terrorism, take a minute to read this. In my local paper this morning; I found it an interesting perspective.

The Republican healthcare plan would cause more American deaths than terrorism
May 5, 2017
By Phoenix McLaughlin

Of all the threats to American lives, few frighten the country more than terrorism. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in the world have lost their lives to terrorism over the past two decades. ISIS has killed upwards of 50,000 people over the course of their existence, one or two hundred of whom were American, and al Qaeda has killed over 4,000, most of whom were American. The fight against these groups has consumed much of the U.S. government since 9/11, and it continues to be a top worry of the American people.

But if it’s the loss of American life we’re afraid of, we may need to change our priorities. The Republican Party really put things in perspective for all of us on Thursday, when they passed the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives. It is a remarkable plan to deny millions of Americans healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office said the original plan would cause 24 million Americans to lose their health insurance by 2026, and 14 million would lose it just in 2018. While the CBO hasn’t had time to score the mildly revised plan, there’s little in it that is likely to reverse those numbers.

As you might imagine, not having health insurance means not having good healthcare. It doesn’t just mean higher bills or even bankruptcy—it means people will not get treated for their problems. And that means people are more likely to die from illness and injury. As it turns out, there is research that confirms this. Studies from the National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, all found that lack of health insurance significantly increased the likelihood of death. The level of mortality rate increase varied across the studies, but applying the most conservative of the estimates to the the number of people slated to lose health insurance under the AHCA tells us that roughly 24,000 more Americans will die each year. That calculation is based on 20 million people losing insurance, so we would be looking at about 17,000 additional deaths per year starting in 2018/19, once 14 million people lose insurance, and about 29,000 by 2026, when 24 million have lost it.

I must say, part of my job entails researching ways to beat violent extremism, and it feels a bit pointless in comparison. Trying to keep the Senate from passing the AHCA in its current form might be a more worthwhile endeavor if the goal is to save lives.

It’s hard to think of what bill the House could have passed that would kill more Americans than this. A declaration of war probably wouldn’t have done it. The AHCA will lead to more American deaths per year than any war since WWII. Even Vietnam, seen in retrospect as such a disastrous conflict, had a peak of 16,899 American deaths in one year. That’s akin to year one of the AHCA.

Why would Bruce Poliquin vote for this bill? Why would 216 of his colleagues vote for this bill? Why would anyone vote for this bill?

About Phoenix McLaughlin
Phoenix McLaughlin works at the National Endowment for Democracy helping to foster political development in Asia. Phoenix lives in Washington, D.C. now, but was born and raised in Norway, Maine. In between, he has studied and/or worked in Colorado, Nepal, India, France, Ethiopia, and Augusta. All opinions expressed on this blog are solely his own and do not represent his current or former employers.

/---- How many terrorist. Have you invited into your home?