Republicans introduce new health care bill This Week!

[Eloy]

Republicans will introduce their much-awaited bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, a senior House Republican aide told NBC News on Sunday.

"We are in a very good place right now," said the aide, who asked not to be identified.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, told NBC News: "We are now at the culmination of a years-long process to keep our promise to the American people."

A draft bill obtained by NBC News would repeal much of the current law, also known as Obamacare, within the next few years and set in place a Republican vision of health care.

The draft legislation would provide expanded tax credits and health savings accounts for individuals while reducing federal spending on tax subsidies and Medicaid and practically eliminating the employer and individual mandates to provide and carry health insurance.

Republicans to introduce health care replacement bill this week

So now you libs can quit crying about the Republicans not doing anything about Obama Care. No, it won't work like Obama Care either, because they are getting rid of the penalties that FORCE people to buy a product they don't want, need or can afford. Without the force part of the bill, Obama Care could never work; not that it's worked out very well anyway.

Less government regulation, less money government steals from working Americans, better for business and taxpayers, and a sigh of relief from everybody. Good bye Obama legacy.

Believe it when I see it

You will not see a successful Trumpcare bill because the Republicans are already divided and there will be no support from the Democrats.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course you won't read it. That's the point. I posted proof of what I said, and you can't post proof to refute it.

Starting teacher salaries range from $45,530 (bachelor’s degree, no prior teaching experience) to $74,796 (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree plus 30 credits, 7.5+ years teaching experience). Teachers who have a master’s degree but no teaching experience will start at $51,425.

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres...462-2536040A9133/0/salary_schedule_101812.pdf

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

While that might not sound overly generous, remember that welfare benefits aren’t taxed, while wages are. So someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.

http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

Or do you have a problem with the New York Post as well?

So our own posts admit that an ENTRY level teacher makes $45,530 and a Welfare recipient who checks off every bell and whistle would still only make 38K if she loads up on government cheese... You do realize 38K <45K, right?

 

[JoeB131]

It's in big colorful letters on the card itself. Also, because they buy so many things with cash, they swipe the card, and get a second bill for their cash items. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

So let's see, you are looking over their shoulders when they cash out and following them around in the parking lot to see what they drive... Naw, you're not an obsessed racist at all.

No, it's because we have teachers unions in this country.

Teachers in other industrialized nations are unionized, too. That one doesn't fly. The real problem, is that they spend more in Evanston than Chicago.

Right, that's why when you go to low income neighborhoods during the day, you have people walking all over the place. I have HUD homes in my neighborhood, and they stick around for a hell of a lot longer than a couple of years. Hell, I have one right next door to me. Their cars are in the drive when I leave for work in the morning, and they stay there most if not all day.

I think you need to stop stalking the neighbors..

 

[Vandalshandle]

"If it were up to me, women wouldn't get a dime of any assistance until they were fixed first. Same goes with males who do not support their children. It's pure stupidity to encourage poor people to procreate, because in most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So we breed more and more poor people, and then can't figure out why we can't solve poverty."
(Ray from Cleveland)

Although Ray is about as RW as one can get, I do not recall any post of his quite this offensive. Basically, he advocates treating the poor like animals. Sadly enough, this seems to be the new norm of the GOP as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"If it were up to me, women wouldn't get a dime of any assistance until they were fixed first. Same goes with males who do not support their children. It's pure stupidity to encourage poor people to procreate, because in most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So we breed more and more poor people, and then can't figure out why we can't solve poverty."
(Ray from Cleveland)

Although Ray is about as RW as one can get, I do not recall any post of his quite this offensive. Basically, he advocates treating the poor like animals. Sadly enough, this seems to be the new norm of the GOP as well.

Why is that treating poor people like animals? I don't ask of them what we don't do for ourselves.

What do working couples do when they can't afford anymore children? That's right, they are forced to use birth control. Working people (some of whom want to have a much larger family) can't because of financial reasons. Yet, the poor keep popping kids out like popcorn because we the taxpayers are forced to support them.

It's the Democrat way: reward failure and penalize success. The Republican way is just the opposite. Now ask yourself, what would be better for the country, rewarding failure or slowing down failure?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"If it were up to me, women wouldn't get a dime of any assistance until they were fixed first. Same goes with males who do not support their children. It's pure stupidity to encourage poor people to procreate, because in most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So we breed more and more poor people, and then can't figure out why we can't solve poverty."
(Ray from Cleveland)

Although Ray is about as RW as one can get, I do not recall any post of his quite this offensive. Basically, he advocates treating the poor like animals. Sadly enough, this seems to be the new norm of the GOP as well.

Why is that treating poor people like animals? I don't ask of them what we don't do for ourselves.

What do working couples do when they can't afford anymore children? That's right, they are forced to use birth control. Working people (some of whom want to have a much larger family) can't because of financial reasons. Yet, the poor keep popping kids out like popcorn because we the taxpayers are forced to support them.

It's the Democrat way: reward failure and penalize success. The Republican way is just the opposite. Now ask yourself, what would be better for the country, rewarding failure or slowing down failure?

Doubling down, huh Ray?



Have you ever heard of the word, "dehumanize"?

 

[Papageorgio]

The GOP knows it can't piss off its "base", so we're going to get another Frankenstein's monster.

I'm dreading this. The Dems gave us a pig, the GOP will give us a pig with lipstick.
.

The Democrats screwed it up and the Republicans are ready to follow suit.

 

[edward37]

The GOP knows it can't piss off its "base", so we're going to get another Frankenstein's monster.

I'm dreading this. The Dems gave us a pig, the GOP will give us a pig with lipstick.
.

The Democrats screwed it up and the Republicans are ready to follow suit.

it's dead on arrival ....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let's see, you are looking over their shoulders when they cash out and following them around in the parking lot to see what they drive... Naw, you're not an obsessed racist at all.

It's not too hard to figure out when they are standing less than two feet away from you. God forbid you get one of those baby formula people in front of you. It takes them ten minutes to cash out.

Teachers in other industrialized nations are unionized, too. That one doesn't fly. The real problem, is that they spend more in Evanston than Chicago.

No, the problem is when the teachers think they can swindle more money from the public, they go on strike until they get a raise. That's how we are paying more than anybody else and getting so much less for our money.

I think you need to stop stalking the neighbors..

Kind of hard to. They (and their ten kids) are out there making noise nearly all day. Then in the evening around 11:00 or 12:00, they are coming home slamming their car doors and yelling at each other. I predict a lot of police visits here in the summer because I'm not going to be awaked at night because of jobless lowlifes staying up all night.

HUD people don't belong in the suburbs. They belong in the inner-city.

 

[Papageorgio]

The GOP knows it can't piss off its "base", so we're going to get another Frankenstein's monster.

I'm dreading this. The Dems gave us a pig, the GOP will give us a pig with lipstick.
.

The Democrats screwed it up and the Republicans are ready to follow suit.

it's dead on arrival ....

We will get some new legislation out of it, one that will benefit everyone except the working middle class. Obamacare screwed the middle class and so will this bill.

It's the way it has always been, both parties love to screw over the middle class.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We dont have the highest tax rate in the world. Just how long will you continue to spew that bullshyte. Try reading and stop listening to right wing lies

View attachment 116442

How long will it take for you to understand the US tax system?. The published rates do not matter as much as the EFFECTIVE rate, after deductions and write-off's. Our effective rate is 30-40% lower

That all depends on the business. Some will pay that rate while others pay almost nothing in taxes.

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

 

[frigidweirdo]

As an American doctor who recently visited A&E I have a message for British people

"
To receive this care all my cousin had to do was provide her name and birthdate. No co-payments, no pre-authorisations, no concerns about the radiologist or orthopaedic surgeon being out of network. The nursing triage was wonderful and actually doing nursing (I hate seeing nurses relegated to charting). The nurse practitioner clearly knew what she was talking about and had reviewed the films with the radiologist. The surgeon only did the part of my cousin’s care that needed a specialist. It was a great use of resources.

Everyone I spoke with at the hospital loved the NHS, and honestly it showed. While the hospital was a veritable maze and in need of the updating that they appeared to be doing, the equipment was fine and the people, i.e. the things that really matter, were great."

Up north, we get a lot of Canadian truck drivers. While waiting to get unloaded, we go outside and have BS sessions. I always try to bring up healthcare with those drivers to get the inside scoop. The younger and middle-aged drivers brag about the Canadian system. They love it. The older drivers? Most of them told me to keep what we have or we will be sorry.

Socialized healthcare is great for superficial needs. But the major stuff happens when we get older. That's when you need serious care and need it quick to get out of pain or return to work.

Maybe, then again I know people who went through major healthcare problems in the UK and didn't come out of it too badly, I mean, cancer and the like you don't come out of it great, but you can come out of it not badly no matter how good the doctor.

Canada has expensive healthcare too. Don't think that it's what I'm talking about. I know the British healthcare system, I know the US, I know the healthcare system of various countries I've lived in. Do you? Or are you relying just on what some truck drivers say?

Since this has been a long ongoing discussion for many years, I've done a lot of reading. The Canadian thing is something that supported what I have read about their system. I didn't knock the system entirely as I said many younger and younger middle-aged people love it. the real question is do we want that here?

You have to understand that when we have a choice of insurance coverage, a choice of hospitals and facilities, a choice in doctors, you can pretty much get what you want if you can afford it. If it ends up being a government system, there are no choices. You get what they give you.

This can be demonstrated by the VA when patients have no other insurance and no choice but to get care at the VA. Or we can look at Medicare and Medicaid where doctors and facilities are rejecting new government patients because they can't afford the loss.

Government healthcare takes a lot of responsibility and costs off of our backs, but it doesn't come without negatives as well.

Once we put government in charge of our healthcare, we lost that choice. Like Obama Care, it's a bridge that you burned because it would be impossible to go back to where we were when all the associated problems arise.

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

So VA doesn't work well. Well, hardly surprising when the govt is run by the rich for the rich, hey? Maybe if the system changes then the people can run the country for the people.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As an American doctor who recently visited A&E I have a message for British people

"
To receive this care all my cousin had to do was provide her name and birthdate. No co-payments, no pre-authorisations, no concerns about the radiologist or orthopaedic surgeon being out of network. The nursing triage was wonderful and actually doing nursing (I hate seeing nurses relegated to charting). The nurse practitioner clearly knew what she was talking about and had reviewed the films with the radiologist. The surgeon only did the part of my cousin’s care that needed a specialist. It was a great use of resources.

Everyone I spoke with at the hospital loved the NHS, and honestly it showed. While the hospital was a veritable maze and in need of the updating that they appeared to be doing, the equipment was fine and the people, i.e. the things that really matter, were great."

Up north, we get a lot of Canadian truck drivers. While waiting to get unloaded, we go outside and have BS sessions. I always try to bring up healthcare with those drivers to get the inside scoop. The younger and middle-aged drivers brag about the Canadian system. They love it. The older drivers? Most of them told me to keep what we have or we will be sorry.

Socialized healthcare is great for superficial needs. But the major stuff happens when we get older. That's when you need serious care and need it quick to get out of pain or return to work.

Maybe, then again I know people who went through major healthcare problems in the UK and didn't come out of it too badly, I mean, cancer and the like you don't come out of it great, but you can come out of it not badly no matter how good the doctor.

Canada has expensive healthcare too. Don't think that it's what I'm talking about. I know the British healthcare system, I know the US, I know the healthcare system of various countries I've lived in. Do you? Or are you relying just on what some truck drivers say?

Since this has been a long ongoing discussion for many years, I've done a lot of reading. The Canadian thing is something that supported what I have read about their system. I didn't knock the system entirely as I said many younger and younger middle-aged people love it. the real question is do we want that here?

You have to understand that when we have a choice of insurance coverage, a choice of hospitals and facilities, a choice in doctors, you can pretty much get what you want if you can afford it. If it ends up being a government system, there are no choices. You get what they give you.

This can be demonstrated by the VA when patients have no other insurance and no choice but to get care at the VA. Or we can look at Medicare and Medicaid where doctors and facilities are rejecting new government patients because they can't afford the loss.

Government healthcare takes a lot of responsibility and costs off of our backs, but it doesn't come without negatives as well.

Once we put government in charge of our healthcare, we lost that choice. Like Obama Care, it's a bridge that you burned because it would be impossible to go back to where we were when all the associated problems arise.

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

So VA doesn't work well. Well, hardly surprising when the govt is run by the rich for the rich, hey? Maybe if the system changes then the people can run the country for the people.

Can't argue about the VA. Everyone has horror stories. However, with the exception of the donut hole in Medicare RX, it is the best coverage I have ever had, and my career was as a health insurance executive. The problem with the VA is that they have always been underfunded. This should not surprise anyone very much. The American government pretty much treats all vets like shit. as far as I know, they are still denying that Agent Orange hurt anybody.

Regarding the Canadian plan, my best guess is that it is not very good for Canadian truck drivers, but Palin admitted that she used to use it, rather than to rely on whatever was available to her in Alaska.

Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care | The Huffington Post

 

[ScienceRocks]

The healthcare bill that
Adds more debt
Kills its patients
Adds more suffering
and enriches the rich!

 

[frigidweirdo]

The healthcare bill that
Adds more debt
Kills its patients
Adds more suffering
and enriches the rich!

What's not to like? said the billionaire president.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

Nobody is told what to think. Hil-Liar introduced her socialized healthcare system in the 90's, and it cost her husband the loss of Congressional leadership for the first time in over 40 years.

Then DumBama came out with Commie Care. It not only lost him the leadership of Congress and the Senate, but most governorships across the country and most recently, the White House.

No, middle-class people don't want government dictating what kind of care they get no more than we wanted government forcing us to buy insurance we didn't want or couldn't afford. It's totally un-American.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

We have a health system for profit. That's it. It's just like any other business. People get an education, people invest money to open up facilities, larger operations buy out smaller operations, FOR PROFIT!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 116442

How long will it take for you to understand the US tax system?. The published rates do not matter as much as the EFFECTIVE rate, after deductions and write-off's. Our effective rate is 30-40% lower

That all depends on the business. Some will pay that rate while others pay almost nothing in taxes.

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

Nobody is told what to think. Hil-Liar introduced her socialized healthcare system in the 90's, and it cost her husband the loss of Congressional leadership for the first time in over 40 years.

Then DumBama came out with Commie Care. It not only lost him the leadership of Congress and the Senate, but most governorships across the country and most recently, the White House.

No, middle-class people don't want government dictating what kind of care they get no more than we wanted government forcing us to buy insurance we didn't want or couldn't afford. It's totally un-American.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

We have a health system for profit. That's it. It's just like any other business. People get an education, people invest money to open up facilities, larger operations buy out smaller operations, FOR PROFIT!

I told you about insults.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How long will it take for you to understand the US tax system?. The published rates do not matter as much as the EFFECTIVE rate, after deductions and write-off's. Our effective rate is 30-40% lower

That all depends on the business. Some will pay that rate while others pay almost nothing in taxes.

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and ***** over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How long will it take for you to understand the US tax system?. The published rates do not matter as much as the EFFECTIVE rate, after deductions and write-off's. Our effective rate is 30-40% lower

That all depends on the business. Some will pay that rate while others pay almost nothing in taxes.

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

How Much Do Large Corporations Pay In Income Tax ? Probably Less Than You Think

"
How Much Do Large Corporations Pay In Income Tax ? Probably Less Than You Think"

"Facebook is indicated as having an overall tax rate of 40.5%."

"a "Provision for income taxes" of $2.506 billion which, rounded, works out to 40.5%."

" It is $273 million. That means that Facebook actually paid 10.9% of its pretax income in income taxes."

"Another disclosure not currently required, although there is a proposal on it, is the breakdown of the amount paid, so we don't know how much, if any, of the $273 million was paid in federal income taxes."

"it would not surprise me at all to find that Facebook has never actually paid any federal income tax, despite the substantial provisions that you see."

So, apparently the rich don't run the govt, because they pay soooo much in taxes, yet we don't know how much they pay, but we can guess that it's not very much.