• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: AHCA Would Leave 24 Million More Uninsured by 2026

Conservative said:
Obviously you chose to ignore the part of how that number got to 24 million because you truly are a socialist and expect the taxpayers to fund whatever program you want. The CBO is PREDICTING how many people will drop out because the penalties will no longer exits for not having insurance.

“Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums,” the CBO said.

I understand that choice is only an issue for you when it comes to abortion but people choosing not to be insured is their choice, forcing them to be insured is unamerican
Click to expand...

The problem is the uninsured who can afford insurance are just freeloaders. They know if they get in a bad accident or have a heart attack, they'll get treated in the ER and the rest of us will pay the bill. If their baby is born early, we'll pay for the NICU, etc.
 
Lutherf said:
I would suggest that choosing not to be covered is not the same as "losing" your coverage. The CBO also notes that "many" of those who would choose to be uninsured are only insured now because of the penalties imposed on them.
Click to expand...

Notice how MSM spin that.....

Of course you are correct.
 
Conservative said:
Obviously you chose to ignore the part of how that number got to 24 million because you truly are a socialist and expect the taxpayers to fund whatever program you want. The CBO is PREDICTING how many people will drop out because the penalties will no longer exits for not having insurance.

“Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums,” the CBO said.

I understand that choice is only an issue for you when it comes to abortion but people choosing not to be insured is their choice, forcing them to be insured is unamerican
Click to expand...

Such a childish rant making so many assumptions about me. Sorry my post left you so butt-hurt. Grow up.
 
NIMBY said:
White House officials: We disagree strenuously with the CBO report but we haven't read it yet.

AND, the worst parts of trumpcare will hit after the 2020 elections, with GOPs hoping to keep their remaps.

CBO leader appointed by Price .
Click to expand...

I wonder if the sad reality is that nobody can fix health care until we truly adopt a universal single payer system that covers everybody? In the meantime we get a Democratic program that is dumped when the Republicans get in office . And a few years down the road the weaknesses of the GOP program will doom it and we get another half assed effort that fails to deliver.

Until we get universal single payer for all - we will continue to half ass it.
 
JasperL said:
The problem is the uninsured who can afford insurance are just freeloaders. They know if they get in a bad accident or have a heart attack, they'll get treated in the ER and the rest of us will pay the bill. If their baby is born early, we'll pay for the NICU, etc.
Click to expand...

GOP lawmakers can't have trumpcare's 337 billion without the 24 million.

And to think Price appointed the head of the non-partisan CBO .
 
vash1012 said:
Oh f*ck off, I misremembered. It says they may start decreasing in 2020 and be lower by 2026 so its close enough.
Click to expand...

AFTER the 2020 elections, as Sen. Cotton has actually come out and admitted .
 
Crovax said:
Let's see..

From the article:



Lower deficits and lower premiums seems like a pretty good deal for me.
Click to expand...

It does away with the banning of junk insurance. So sure, you'll pay lower premiums but when you get sick you won't be covered for squat. So basically, stealing money from you.
 
JasperL said:
The problem is the uninsured who can afford insurance are just freeloaders. They know if they get in a bad accident or have a heart attack, they'll get treated in the ER and the rest of us will pay the bill. If their baby is born early, we'll pay for the NICU, etc.
Click to expand...

How many people under ObamaCare pay their own freight...all of it? Not very many, only 10 million Americans inside and outside of ObamaCare pay all of the costs for their insurance.

Without Subsidies, Health Coverage Is Pricey For Many : Shots - Health News : NPR

Bye-Bye goes your argument.
 
Lutherf said:
I would suggest that choosing not to be covered is not the same as "losing" your coverage. The CBO also notes that "many" of those who would choose to be uninsured are only insured now because of the penalties imposed on them.
Click to expand...

From the article:

The CBO, along with the Joint Committee on Taxation, found that 5 million fewer people would be covered under Medicaid by 2018, and 14 million fewer people would enroll in the program by 2026. Meanwhile, 6 million fewer Americans would be covered in the individual market by 2018, but by 2026, only 2 million fewer people are expected to be covered. That's in part because fewer employers would offer insurance to their workers, driving more people to the individual market.
In total, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured by 2026 under the GOP plan, compared to 28 million who would lack insurance under the current law.
Click to expand...

Not all is by choice.
 
Folks, we've been down this road before. We went through all the arguments and had it out and now I see those same arguments popping up again. This is just another reminder that Obamacare was about the best stop gap plan you could come up with even though it was far from ideal.

Please, for the sake of your fellow Americans... let's just forget this whole repeal and replace business and just leave Obamacare alone. If you want to do something, try and find ways to shore it up, help it function better, keep the system solvent so that more people get more healthcare; not the other way around.
 
Lutherf said:
I would suggest that choosing not to be covered is not the same as "losing" your coverage. The CBO also notes that "many" of those who would choose to be uninsured are only insured now because of the penalties imposed on them.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, not being able to afford coverage is the same thing as 'choosing' not to be covered, amirite?
 
NIMBY said:
GOP lawmakers can't have trumpcare's 337 billion without the 24 million.

And to think Price appointed the head of the non-partisan CBO .
Click to expand...

And what would you expect to pay for booting 24 million people off of the insurance rolls? 10% savings? 20% savings? 30% savings? NO!... Amazingly we've actually managed to increase the price of coverage by 20% increases on your premiums for the next two years. So you're going to pay a whole lot more until 2026 where you'll finally be able to save a little bit. Just give me 20$ a year for the next 6 years and then I'll give you 10 back. It's a GREAT deal!

This might set a record for the most stupendously awful piece of legislation ever written. It's replacing your car because you were annoyed with a rattle, so you take one home one that gets worse mileage, looks worse, costs more, breaks down all of the time, and has the exact same rattle.. except twice as loud.
 
JasperL said:
The way I look at the CBO score is the equivalent of them telling us water is wet. Obviously that pile of dung was going to drive up the rate of uninsured by many millions.

I'm increasingly convinced the GOP has no desire to actually pass any "replace" plan at all.
Click to expand...

Being against something is easy. Coming up with a better idea is not.
 
NIMBY said:
Ryan will have a hard time discrediting a report from the non-partisan CBO trump used to love and whose head is Ryan's guy .
Click to expand...

Ryan needs a wakeup call in the same manner Eric Cantor did.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The problem with that argument is that young adults tend to not need much of any medical services, and as is the case with so many they are judgment proof because they dont have any assets, so as long as the law stays in effect that Emergency Rooms have to treat them insurance tends to work against their interests.
Click to expand...


Right, it makes some financial sense to be a freeloader.

How many of these 24 million are going to end up better off by not having insurance? Remember that according to ObamaCare the main reason to make sure these healthy young adults have insurance was to force them to subsidize everyone else, which considering all the ways we have ****ed over young people Obama's demand was really ****ed in the head.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's a pretty unusual question. How many would be better off without homeowner's insurance if taxpayers/other homeowners picked up most of the bill after a fire even if I don't carry insurance? Is that an argument against fire insurance? Doesn't make much sense to me any more than it does to note that most people not actively sick are better off most years by not having health insurance. I was probably 40 before I had a single year with more in $claims than $premiums.

Second, if you're got employer coverage, one big reason that arrangement works is you have big pools and the young and healthy subsidizing the sick and old. In the individual market, the reason it does NOT work is the young and healthy either can't afford insurance at all, or they choose to freeload of those with insurance, skewing the insured sick and old, with high premiums. It's tough to fix the non-employer market with millions of healthy people dropping out and offloading their catastrophic health insurance on me and the rest of the insured.

Finally, people are whining about the costs of insurance under the ACA and the mandate. The CBO analysis predicts a 15-20% increase in premiums because those young people don't sign up. So the sick and old, who are already sort of screwed by ACA if they don't get subsidies, will be more screwed, paying higher premiums. How many of them will be better off under the Trump/Ryan plan?
 
lurchadams said:
From the article:



Not all is by choice.
Click to expand...

From the report itself -
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the
legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the
penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not
to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to
avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher
premiums.
Click to expand...
 
lurchadams said:
USA Today link:

CBO: Obamacare repeal will increase uninsured by 24 million by 2026

Excerpt of USA Today Article:



I'm sure the GOP supporting this bill will continue to try to discredit the CBO report, but this will make the bill a harder sell to many.
Click to expand...

The REAL news is that the CBO estimate means that ObamaCare repeal can be done through budget reconcilliation.

There's nothing the Democrats can do to stop it now. As for the CBO estimates on the uninsured, they were wrong about the number of insured added under ObamaCare
 
JasperL said:
Right, it makes some financial sense to be a freeloader.



First of all, that's a pretty unusual question. How many would be better off without homeowner's insurance if taxpayers/other homeowners picked up most of the bill after a fire even if I don't carry insurance? Is that an argument against fire insurance? Doesn't make much sense to me any more than it does to note that most people not actively sick are better off most years by not having health insurance. I was probably 40 before I had a single year with more in $claims than $premiums.

Second, if you're got employer coverage, one big reason that arrangement works is you have big pools and the young and healthy subsidizing the sick and old. In the individual market, the reason it does NOT work is the young and healthy either can't afford insurance at all, or they choose to freeload of those with insurance, skewing the insured sick and old, with high premiums. It's tough to fix the non-employer market with millions of healthy people dropping out and offloading their catastrophic health insurance on me and the rest of the insured.

Finally, people are whining about the costs of insurance under the ACA and the mandate. The CBO analysis predicts a 15-20% increase in premiums because those young people don't sign up. So the sick and old, who are already sort of screwed by ACA if they don't get subsidies, will be more screwed, paying higher premiums. How many of them will be better off under the Trump/Ryan plan?
Click to expand...

The Elephant in room is that our health care costs as a nation are extremely high for a bad product, and is not affordable for the nation. No manipulation of who pays what is going to change that unless you have some way to make other nations pay, which is not going to happen. We can not fix this broken sector of the economy by price gouging the young, and especially the males since they were also forced to subsidize the females.

First of all, that's a pretty unusual question.
Click to expand...
You will find that I do that a lot, which tends to make reading me a valuable use of time.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
That might be fine with me as having people on insurance is not the goal, managing our nations finances and keeping people reasonably healthy if they want to be healthy is.
Click to expand...

Yes. If someone loses their job or business, and just finds out their kid has been diagnosed with leukemia, what's important is that he wants his family to be healthy, and he will be fine, right?
:roll:
 
Fenton said:
The REAL news is that the CBO estimate means that ObamaCare repeal can be done through budget reconcilliation.

There's nothing the Democrats can do to stop it now. As for the CBO estimates on the uninsured, they were wrong about the number of insured added under ObamaCare
Click to expand...

Yes. I think the GOP should just listen to the Freedom Caucus and just repeal, with no replace. What happened to government involvement in healthcare being unconstitutional? Do it, guys. It's great for the budget, it's constitutional, and it will be easy.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. If someone loses their job or business, and just finds out their kid has been diagnosed with leukemia, what's important is that he wants his family to be healthy, and he will be fine, right?
:roll:
Click to expand...

Public Policy should never be driven by the wants and needs of one theoretical individual or family.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. If someone loses their job or business, and just finds out their kid has been diagnosed with leukemia, what's important is that he wants his family to be healthy, and he will be fine, right?
:roll:
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that "persons " child qualify for Medicaid " Chip " then ?

Even under the old system we had before the disaster that is ObamaCare that child would have been covered.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. I think the GOP should just listen to the Freedom Caucus and just repeal, with no replace. What happened to government involvement in healthcare being unconstitutional? Do it, guys. It's great for the budget, it's constitutional, and it will be easy.
Click to expand...

So do I, but thats not going to happen. That said, at least Ryans bill is a huge improvment over ObamaCare and thanks to the CBO score its going to be passed no matter how much the Democrats and their supporters wine and cry about it.

Elections have consequences, maybe the Democrats should run a better candidate next time if theyre so concered with everyone's healthcare
 
lurchadams said:
Being against something is easy. Coming up with a better idea is not.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we all knew they'd throw out this kind of garbage. The problem is the GOP really doesn't care about poor people getting insurance or health coverage. It'd be fine if that happened, and all, but it's not a priority for them, so we get stuff like this that will predictably throw millions of the poor off the rolls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom