#factsonlyIf the Heritage Foundation finds your replacement to be awful you done goofed.
House GOP reveals AHCA: Update - Repeal of ACA IS BACK ON
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
The People Helped by the Republican Health-Care Bill
Under the GOP’s plan, a 30-year-old would receive $2,000 to put toward insurance, and a 60-year-old would get $4,000. But the important thing is that those amounts would apply to anyone who makes up to $75,000 (or $150,000 if it’s a married couple filing jointly). After that threshold, they would titrate down in 10 percent increments. (Vox’s Sarah Kliff has a more thorough rundown here.)
Compare this to Obamacare, under which people who earn more than about $48,000 don’t get any subsidies—no matter how old they are. As I’ve interviewed Trump supporters at the inauguration, in Pennsylvania, and in Tennessee, I’ve found that many of them make just over that threshold, and they’re angry that Obamacare doesn’t seem to take them into account. If they earn, say, $60,000, they don’t feel rich—in fact, their incomes are about average for American households—yet they can’t afford health insurance. They’re also resentful that people on Medicaid are getting something for nothing. Perhaps that’s one reason why people who earned between $50,000 and $100,000 were more likely to vote for Trump.
A comparison tool released by the Kaiser Family Foundation (based on the February 10 draft of the GOP plan) shows that in most of the country, a 40-year-old making $50,000 would be better off with the GOP’s age-rated tax credits than they were under Obamacare’s:
Kaiser Family Foundation
Of course, the new GOP plan also allows insurers to charge older people five times as much as they do younger people. That might not matter for the 40-year-old making $50,000, but it will almost certainly eat up the extra funds a 60-year-old making the same amount would receive under the GOP plan.
Because of that, older people in that $50,000 to $75,000 band might not actually find cheaper premiums under the GOP plan than they did under the Affordable Care Act. Still, they might feel they’re getting some help—any help—from the government, where before they received none, and feel less resentful as a result.
Many Trump Supporters Are Going to Love This One Part of the GOP Health-Care Bill
---------
Not to mention, once you turn 65, you can apply for Medicare and you can't have a Medicare and marketplace plan at the same time unless you already had a marketplace plan, turned 65, and have to pay a premium through Medicare
Don't start laughing yet folks. This bill may not die the death we think.
Under the GOP’s plan, a 30-year-old would receive $2,000 to put toward insurance, and a 60-year-old would get $4,000. But the important thing is that those amounts would apply to anyone who makes up to $75,000 (or $150,000 if it’s a married couple filing jointly). After that threshold, they would titrate down in 10 percent increments. (Vox’s Sarah Kliff has a more thorough rundown here.)
Compare this to Obamacare, under which people who earn more than about $48,000 don’t get any subsidies—no matter how old they are. As I’ve interviewed Trump supporters at the inauguration, in Pennsylvania, and in Tennessee, I’ve found that many of them make just over that threshold, and they’re angry that Obamacare doesn’t seem to take them into account. If they earn, say, $60,000, they don’t feel rich—in fact, their incomes are about average for American households—yet they can’t afford health insurance. They’re also resentful that people on Medicaid are getting something for nothing. Perhaps that’s one reason why people who earned between $50,000 and $100,000 were more likely to vote for Trump.
A comparison tool released by the Kaiser Family Foundation (based on the February 10 draft of the GOP plan) shows that in most of the country, a 40-year-old making $50,000 would be better off with the GOP’s age-rated tax credits than they were under Obamacare’s:
Kaiser Family Foundation
Of course, the new GOP plan also allows insurers to charge older people five times as much as they do younger people. That might not matter for the 40-year-old making $50,000, but it will almost certainly eat up the extra funds a 60-year-old making the same amount would receive under the GOP plan.
Because of that, older people in that $50,000 to $75,000 band might not actually find cheaper premiums under the GOP plan than they did under the Affordable Care Act. Still, they might feel they’re getting some help—any help—from the government, where before they received none, and feel less resentful as a result.
Many Trump Supporters Are Going to Love This One Part of the GOP Health-Care Bill
---------
Not to mention, once you turn 65, you can apply for Medicare and you can't have a Medicare and marketplace plan at the same time unless you already had a marketplace plan, turned 65, and have to pay a premium through Medicare Don't start laughing yet folks. This bill may not die the death we think.
Good luck, women! Under the GOP health care bill, it’ll be tougher to have a baby — and tougher not to
“The number of women of reproductive age who were uninsured dropped by a third between 2013 and 2015,” Adam Sonfield, a senior policy manager of the Guttmacher Institute, explained by phone.
“We have a lower unintended pregnancy rate than we’ve had for decades,” said Dr. Anne Davis, consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health, in another phone interview. “Our abortion rate is the lowest it’s been for decades, and [we’ve also seen] lower pregnancy rates for teenagers. Across the board, all positive changes.”
The Republican bill is designed to reverse these gains in many ways, but perhaps the most alarming part is the attack on Medicaid. There are more than 19 million women on Medicaid, and 70 percent of them are of reproductive age. Not only does Trumpcare roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA; it’s designed to decimate the entire program, leaving only a ghost of what existed before the ACA was passed. Stripping millions of women of Medicaid coverage will severely undermine pregnancy prevention and maternity care in this country.
“Three-quarters of all public dollars for family planning come from Medicaid,” Sonfield said. “Half of all births in this country are covered by Medicaid, including two-thirds of all unplanned births. So you start making major changes to Medicaid, the way they’re planning to do, and the implications for reproductive health are extreme.”
“In 332 of the 491 counties that Planned Parenthood health centers served in 2010, Planned Parenthood served at least half of the women obtaining publicly supported contraceptive services from a safety-net health center,” Kinsey Hasstedt, another senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a January article. “In 103 of these counties, Planned Parenthood sites served all of these clients.”
That said, women who buy health insurance on the private market could struggle to find adequate maternity coverage if they do become pregnant. The Republican bill does away with the bronze, silver and gold ratings system under the ACA (that makes it easy for consumers to figure out the level of coverage they’re getting) and lets insurance companies push more consumers into plans that offer less coverage.
“If insurance companies are allowed to offer skimpier plans with higher cost sharing, that would impact, say, maternity coverage,” Sonfield said. “It means you could see the cost share for maternity coverage go up quite a bit.”
Good luck, women! Under the GOP health care bill, it’ll be tougher to have a baby — and tougher not to
“The number of women of reproductive age who were uninsured dropped by a third between 2013 and 2015,” Adam Sonfield, a senior policy manager of the Guttmacher Institute, explained by phone.
“We have a lower unintended pregnancy rate than we’ve had for decades,” said Dr. Anne Davis, consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health, in another phone interview. “Our abortion rate is the lowest it’s been for decades, and [we’ve also seen] lower pregnancy rates for teenagers. Across the board, all positive changes.”
The Republican bill is designed to reverse these gains in many ways, but perhaps the most alarming part is the attack on Medicaid. There are more than 19 million women on Medicaid, and 70 percent of them are of reproductive age. Not only does Trumpcare roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA; it’s designed to decimate the entire program, leaving only a ghost of what existed before the ACA was passed. Stripping millions of women of Medicaid coverage will severely undermine pregnancy prevention and maternity care in this country.
“Three-quarters of all public dollars for family planning come from Medicaid,” Sonfield said. “Half of all births in this country are covered by Medicaid, including two-thirds of all unplanned births. So you start making major changes to Medicaid, the way they’re planning to do, and the implications for reproductive health are extreme.”
“In 332 of the 491 counties that Planned Parenthood health centers served in 2010, Planned Parenthood served at least half of the women obtaining publicly supported contraceptive services from a safety-net health center,” Kinsey Hasstedt, another senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a January article. “In 103 of these counties, Planned Parenthood sites served all of these clients.”
That said, women who buy health insurance on the private market could struggle to find adequate maternity coverage if they do become pregnant. The Republican bill does away with the bronze, silver and gold ratings system under the ACA (that makes it easy for consumers to figure out the level of coverage they’re getting) and lets insurance companies push more consumers into plans that offer less coverage.
“If insurance companies are allowed to offer skimpier plans with higher cost sharing, that would impact, say, maternity coverage,” Sonfield said. “It means you could see the cost share for maternity coverage go up quite a bit.”
Good luck, women! Under the GOP health care bill, it’ll be tougher to have a baby — and tougher not to
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
How would Ohio be affected by GOP health care plan?
The analysis shows, for example, that in Hamilton County, a 60-year-old with an income of $20,000 would see their federal tax credit drop by 35 percent under the GOP proposal. A 27-year-old with that same income would see receive 11 percent more in tax credits to cover the cost of insurance.
A person who is 40 years old and earns $20,000 would see the value of their tax credits increase by 24 percent — from a $2,410 credit under the Affordable Care Act to $3,000 under the GOP plan. Someone the same age — 40 — and earning $75,000 would receive no assistance under the ACA but would get a $3,000 tax credit under the GOP plan.
How would Ohio be affected by GOP health care plan?
----
With the right wordsmithing, this could definitely work. This part of the article seals up the republican vote at 3 levels: young, middle-aged, high income. Then you just the blame any/all budget shortfalls on immigrants, pensions, and lazy muhfukkas
The analysis shows, for example, that in Hamilton County, a 60-year-old with an income of $20,000 would see their federal tax credit drop by 35 percent under the GOP proposal. A 27-year-old with that same income would see receive 11 percent more in tax credits to cover the cost of insurance.
A person who is 40 years old and earns $20,000 would see the value of their tax credits increase by 24 percent — from a $2,410 credit under the Affordable Care Act to $3,000 under the GOP plan. Someone the same age — 40 — and earning $75,000 would receive no assistance under the ACA but would get a $3,000 tax credit under the GOP plan.
How would Ohio be affected by GOP health care plan?
----
With the right wordsmithing, this could definitely work. This part of the article seals up the republican vote at 3 levels: young, middle-aged, high income. Then you just the blame any/all budget shortfalls on immigrants, pensions, and lazy muhfukkas
It's a good plan honestly
He doesn't want to own healthcare and GOP wants to win next year
DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
Jonah
XBOT Suicide Prevention Squad
How would the GOP health plan play out in Mass.?
The proposal would also affect the Medicaid expansion that was a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion enrolled a new category of people: those who are poor but didn’t fall into other eligibility groups, such as pregnant women or disabled people.
Starting in 2020, no new people in this category could enroll. In Massachusetts, 300,000 people qualified for MassHealth under the expansion. The vast majority already had coverage; they had been buying state-subsidized insurance but switched to MassHealth, which is free. But it’s not clear, with the other subsidy reductions in the GOP plan, whether people who can no longer enroll in MassHealth would be able to find an affordable health plan.
Any change to MassHealth funding will have a huge impact in Massachusetts, because the program is such a big part of the state’s health care system, covering 1.9 million people, or more than one-quarter of the state’s population. An initial review of the bill by state officials concluded that Massachusetts could suffer significant Medicaid losses, though no precise dollar amount was available.
That’s a concern for hospitals, which pay for the care of the uninsured.
“The options are: The state would have to come up with more money, it would have to reduce the population that’s covered now, or it would have to change the benefits,” said Lynn Nicholas, chief executive of the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association. “And none of those are palatable.”
Q. What happens to the individual mandate?
A. The requirement that nearly everyone have health insurance — or pay a penalty — is central to both the federal and state health care laws. The individual mandate ensures that enough healthy people buy insurance to spread the risk. Without it, insurance specialists predict, people will wait until they’re sick to buy coverage, and insurance prices will soar.
The GOP proposal essentially eliminates the individual mandate at the federal level by repealing the penalty.
But the Massachusetts individual mandate remains in force, along with the state penalty, which ranges from $252 to $1,164 a year. This may help keep premiums lower in the state by keeping younger people in the insurance pool.
But there’s a twist, noted Eric Linzer, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, the insurers’ trade group.
The proposal in Congress would replace the mandate with a 30 percent surcharge on people who buy insurance after letting their coverage lapse. It’s not clear whether that requirement would apply in Massachusetts, given that the state still has an individual mandate.
Q. Can Massachusetts go back to how things were before the Affordable Care Act?
A. Not really. The original state plan, adopted in 2006, depended on federal money allocated through a Medicaid waiver program, which eases regulations so states can experiment with new ways to provide coverage. That waiver was recently revised, and money from it continues to support the state subsidies. It’s unclear whether anything in the revised waiver allows for additional support for state insurance subsidies.
Audrey Shelto, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, noted that Massachusetts was able to achieve the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation — less than 3 percent — by providing coverage to low-income people through Medicaid expansion and subsidies.
“And both of those are really attacked in this proposal,” she said. “From whatever way we look at it, this looks really bad.”
But Michael E. Chernew, a health care policy professor at Harvard Medical School, offered a less apocalyptic view. Massachusetts is in a stronger position than most states, with high employment, a robust economy, and a longstanding commitment to universal health coverage, he said.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ay-out-mass/YWvvozK8qX2mehxOv5qjtJ/story.html
The proposal would also affect the Medicaid expansion that was a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion enrolled a new category of people: those who are poor but didn’t fall into other eligibility groups, such as pregnant women or disabled people.
Starting in 2020, no new people in this category could enroll. In Massachusetts, 300,000 people qualified for MassHealth under the expansion. The vast majority already had coverage; they had been buying state-subsidized insurance but switched to MassHealth, which is free. But it’s not clear, with the other subsidy reductions in the GOP plan, whether people who can no longer enroll in MassHealth would be able to find an affordable health plan.
Any change to MassHealth funding will have a huge impact in Massachusetts, because the program is such a big part of the state’s health care system, covering 1.9 million people, or more than one-quarter of the state’s population. An initial review of the bill by state officials concluded that Massachusetts could suffer significant Medicaid losses, though no precise dollar amount was available.
That’s a concern for hospitals, which pay for the care of the uninsured.
“The options are: The state would have to come up with more money, it would have to reduce the population that’s covered now, or it would have to change the benefits,” said Lynn Nicholas, chief executive of the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association. “And none of those are palatable.”
Q. What happens to the individual mandate?
A. The requirement that nearly everyone have health insurance — or pay a penalty — is central to both the federal and state health care laws. The individual mandate ensures that enough healthy people buy insurance to spread the risk. Without it, insurance specialists predict, people will wait until they’re sick to buy coverage, and insurance prices will soar.
The GOP proposal essentially eliminates the individual mandate at the federal level by repealing the penalty.
But the Massachusetts individual mandate remains in force, along with the state penalty, which ranges from $252 to $1,164 a year. This may help keep premiums lower in the state by keeping younger people in the insurance pool.
But there’s a twist, noted Eric Linzer, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, the insurers’ trade group.
The proposal in Congress would replace the mandate with a 30 percent surcharge on people who buy insurance after letting their coverage lapse. It’s not clear whether that requirement would apply in Massachusetts, given that the state still has an individual mandate.
Q. Can Massachusetts go back to how things were before the Affordable Care Act?
A. Not really. The original state plan, adopted in 2006, depended on federal money allocated through a Medicaid waiver program, which eases regulations so states can experiment with new ways to provide coverage. That waiver was recently revised, and money from it continues to support the state subsidies. It’s unclear whether anything in the revised waiver allows for additional support for state insurance subsidies.
Audrey Shelto, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, noted that Massachusetts was able to achieve the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation — less than 3 percent — by providing coverage to low-income people through Medicaid expansion and subsidies.
“And both of those are really attacked in this proposal,” she said. “From whatever way we look at it, this looks really bad.”
But Michael E. Chernew, a health care policy professor at Harvard Medical School, offered a less apocalyptic view. Massachusetts is in a stronger position than most states, with high employment, a robust economy, and a longstanding commitment to universal health coverage, he said.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ay-out-mass/YWvvozK8qX2mehxOv5qjtJ/story.html
Althalucian
All Star
I could see this working
It all comes down to the intelligence of the American people.
...
...
...
So yeah, it could work.
Jonah
XBOT Suicide Prevention Squad
DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
Can't wait for this rally. Cacs coming out to get their shyt taken away
"LET US DIE! LET US DIE! LET US DIE!"
The sad part of this is that Trump wants to support the bill because it will be something he can move to his "win" column and if it doesn't pass, he'll look like a loser.
He doesn't know anything about fixing healthcare and doesn't care to. Doesn't care that it does shyt and is as useless as a degree from Trump University.
Foxmulder
Superstar
There's Republicans who won't vote for this bill. How can this plan work?