If Graham-Cassidy isn't a purely partisan healthcare bill, I don't know what is

[usmbguest5318]

Take a look at the "winners and losers" by state if the Graham-Cassidy plan for gutting O-care passes.

By and large, there are a few exceptions, what the bill does is reduce funding to places where larger quantities of people live and increase it in places where fewer people live. It also "conveniently" happens that the lower population areas that will see increased funding are also "red states." (Though Trump won PA, MI, and WI, on the basis of one election cycle, it's hard to consider them "red" more so than, at best, "purple." That's why I used the 2012 "party" map.)

Who is it that's always complaining about redistributions of income and resources? I'll bet "dollars to donuts" those very same people don't much mind redistribution when it benefits their locality.

 

[Eloy]

The Republicans had better get it passed before the mid-term elections or it is history.

 

[TheOldSchool]

All the states that refused medicaid expansion and the federal funds that would have come with it, are now just going to get federal funds to pay for their healthcare sabotage. MAGA

 

[bendog]

All the states that refused medicaid expansion and the federal funds that would have come with it, are now just going to get federal funds to pay for their healthcare sabotage. MAGA

Precisely. The bill rewards states by retroactively EXPANDING Medicaid in their states without the states being EVER responsible for a state match, and further the bill still cuts the federal match from 100% to 90% in 20127. The gop cries "farirness" because states that expanded Medicaid get more money currently. And it cuts not only future funding, but it cuts funding by 10% in real terms. All while expanding the number of people to be covered. The bill also reduces spending increases for inflation, in that it indexes inflation to the overall economy rather than just healthcare. (It also just block grants the money going to subsidies for workers who earn more than the cutoff for expanded Medicaid, and it removes protections for min coverage and pre-existing conditions, but allows states to decide those issues for themselves)

I would be more than happy to debate the merits of federalism and block granting the money to the states. I actually think that is positive, and one of my criticisms of Obamacare in the first place. And, I would be more than happy to debate whether reducing the inflation indexing is a good idea. Again, I think the only way to control healthcare costs - IF the govt is essentially the provider of the actual insurance as it is with Medicaid - is just to cut the amount of money healthcare providers get to provide some specific treatment. (or change the entire formula and just give them X$ per person they cover)

However, this is just an attempt to cut the amount of funding healthcare gets, overall. And Graham wants to spend more on the military. So, it's a lie. Kimmell is right.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Republicans had better get it passed before the mid-term elections or it is history.

The mid-term elections haven't nearly as much to do with it as does the reconciliation deadline.

• Legislative Process 101—Budget Reconciliation - Indivisible Guide
  
• Senate Republicans are officially almost out of time to repeal Obamacare

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Take a look at the "winners and losers" by state if the Graham-Cassidy plan for gutting O-care passes.

By and large, there are a few exceptions, what the bill does is reduce funding to places where larger quantities of people live and increase it in places where fewer people live. It also "conveniently" happens that the lower population areas that will see increased funding are also "red states." (Though Trump won PA, MI, and WI, on the basis of one election cycle, it's hard to consider them "red" more so than, at best, "purple." That's why I used the 2012 "party" map.)

Who is it that's always complaining about redistributions of income and resources? I'll bet "dollars to donuts" those very same people don't much mind redistribution when it benefits their locality.

Interesting, since the CBO has not scored it yet.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All the states that refused medicaid expansion and the federal funds that would have come with it, are now just going to get federal funds to pay for their healthcare sabotage. MAGA

Precisely. The bill rewards states by retroactively EXPANDING Medicaid in their states without the states being EVER responsible for a state match, and further the bill still cuts the federal match from 100% to 90% in 20127. The gop cries "farirness" because states that expanded Medicaid get more money currently. And it cuts not only future funding, but it cuts funding by 10% in real terms. All while expanding the number of people to be covered. The bill also reduces spending increases for inflation, in that it indexes inflation to the overall economy rather than just healthcare. (It also just block grants the money going to subsidies for workers who earn more than the cutoff for expanded Medicaid, and it removes protections for min coverage and pre-existing conditions, but allows states to decide those issues for themselves)

I would be more than happy to debate the merits of federalism and block granting the money to the states. I actually think that is positive, and one of my criticisms of Obamacare in the first place. And, I would be more than happy to debate whether reducing the inflation indexing is a good idea. Again, I think the only way to control healthcare costs - IF the govt is essentially the provider of the actual insurance as it is with Medicaid - is just to cut the amount of money healthcare providers get to provide some specific treatment. (or change the entire formula and just give them X$ per person they cover)

However, this is just an attempt to cut the amount of funding healthcare gets, overall. And Graham wants to spend more on the military. So, it's a lie. Kimmell is right.

IN 20127. we will all be dead.

 

[fncceo]

If Graham-Cassidy isn't a purely partisan...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If Graham-Cassidy isn't a purely partisan...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Insofar as it's legislation that directly affects individual's access to healthcare and/or their ability to pay for either health insurance or health care, it is. There is nothing ethically right about being partisan on such matters.

 

[busybee01]

Take a look at the "winners and losers" by state if the Graham-Cassidy plan for gutting O-care passes.

By and large, there are a few exceptions, what the bill does is reduce funding to places where larger quantities of people live and increase it in places where fewer people live. It also "conveniently" happens that the lower population areas that will see increased funding are also "red states." (Though Trump won PA, MI, and WI, on the basis of one election cycle, it's hard to consider them "red" more so than, at best, "purple." That's why I used the 2012 "party" map.)

Who is it that's always complaining about redistributions of income and resources? I'll bet "dollars to donuts" those very same people don't much mind redistribution when it benefits their locality.

Interesting, since the CBO has not scored it yet.

The Republicans don't want a CBO score because they know what the result will be. More people losing coverage.

 

[g5000]

Like the other 60 repeals of ObamaCare, this is just more theater for the rubes. The rubes NEVER get tired of this shit.

I mean, 60 times, and the tards STILL fall for it EVERY time! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Trump and the GOP massively hoaxed the creduloids. They never had a replacement for ObamaCare.

Trump's tiny hands are empty. He never intended to fulfill his promise. He spits and jizzes in the Tard Herd's faces, and they think it's raining. They lean back, open their mouths, and swallow.

With this hoax bill, and the last two hoax bills, they can tell the tards, "We tried but them durned libruls stopped us...somehow..." and the tards will lean back and swallow. Again.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course it's political.

No doubt even the Republicans who vote for it know it's Pig 2.0, they know many will lose coverage, but re-election and fundraising are ALWAYS their top priorities.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

Here's my healthcare bill, get a job and pay for your own damn health insurance you mooching lazy government sponges.

 

[g5000]

Here's my healthcare bill, get a job and pay for your own damn health insurance you mooching lazy government sponges.

That's better than Trump's health care plan.

 

[bendog]

Like the other 60 repeals of ObamaCare, this is just more theater for the rubes. The rubes NEVER get tired of this shit.

I mean, 60 times, and the tards STILL fall for it EVERY time! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Trump and the GOP massively hoaxed the creduloids. They never had a replacement for ObamaCare.

Trump's tiny hands are empty. He never intended to fulfill his promise. He spits and jizzes in the Tard Herd's faces, and they think it's raining. They lean back, open their mouths, and swallow.

With this hoax bill, and the last two hoax bills, they can tell the tards, "We tried but them durned libruls stopped us...somehow..." and the tards will lean back and swallow. Again.

The only ideological difference besides some level of federalism in this bill and Obamacare is the individual mandate. But healthier people will still be taxed to proved HC to not so healthy people.

And that's why it's funny to see the quasi-libertarians prematurely shooting off over this.

 

[g5000]

Get a job you fucking lazy cancer boy!

 

[jc456]

obummerfail?

 

[jc456]

Take a look at the "winners and losers" by state if the Graham-Cassidy plan for gutting O-care passes.

By and large, there are a few exceptions, what the bill does is reduce funding to places where larger quantities of people live and increase it in places where fewer people live. It also "conveniently" happens that the lower population areas that will see increased funding are also "red states." (Though Trump won PA, MI, and WI, on the basis of one election cycle, it's hard to consider them "red" more so than, at best, "purple." That's why I used the 2012 "party" map.)

Who is it that's always complaining about redistributions of income and resources? I'll bet "dollars to donuts" those very same people don't much mind redistribution when it benefits their locality.

Interesting, since the CBO has not scored it yet.

The Republicans don't want a CBO score because they know what the result will be. More people losing coverage.

there is no way to get a positive CBO score. what is the CBO score with the failing obummerfail? it's all guesses. wow. about 25 million without coverage today? yep

BTW, before obummerfail only 12% were without coverage. it got worse under obummerfail. what did the CBO call out back then?

 

[basquebromance]

we should allow folks to buy across state lines to make health care affordable, it doesn't cost any money, instead of the Graham Cassidy big government $1 trillion spending boondogle

 

[basquebromance]

the problem with obamacare is the young healthy person pays for the 40 year old cancer patient. healthy people pay for folks who are sick.