• 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!

Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,843
Reaction score
98,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Full title: Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill: Report

This was happening while the country was losing its mind over a tweet of Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited over his head.

Senate Republicans have asked the Congressional Budget Office to score a revised version of their embattled health-care bill that includes Senator Ted Cruz’s proposed changes, as well as a version that does not, according to Axios. Cruz’s proposed amendment to the Senate GOP’s Trumpcare bill would allow insurers to sell health plans that do not meet the required standards of the Affordable Care Act — including the standards regarding preexisting conditions — provided they sell at least one plan that does. Cruz has already said he will not vote for the current GOP health-care plan, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), without the changes.

Cruz’s proposal could theoretically appease conservative Republicans, who want the BCRA to do more to gut Obamacare and drive down health-insurance premiums, as well as moderate Republicans, who want insurance plans to be available that maintain Obamacare’s protections for people who have preexisting conditions.

According to a GOP aide who spoke with Axios, the CBO has been asked to analyze versions of the BCRA both with and without Cruz’s amendment, and it’s not clear if the underlying non-Cruz version has also been revised from the version that the CBO released a score on last Monday. (That analysis indicated that the BCRA would cut the deficit by $321 billion but lead to 22 million people becoming uninsured over the next ten years and cut Medicaid spending by 35 percent over the next 20 years.)

GOP Asks CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised BCRA: Report

It's difficult to understand what would be attractive about a healthcare package that you might be able to pay less for, but would lack all of the protections the ACA offered, such as pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits, because even if you're healthy what would be the point of shelling out so much money for such for such a low value service? And keep in mind this new package (and by "new" I mean "old," because it would offer you healthcare that people received pre-2010) wouldn't be in comparison to one containing all the protections of the ACA. Rather, with the new bill, you would be able to choose between no healthcare protections versus the newer BCRA that cuts medicaid, and offers higher premiums for none of the ten essential health benefits.

But while it's difficult to understand why anybody would want this revised bill, it's no easier to understand than why Republican congressmen are trying to pass the BCRA in the first place since by kicking off 15 million people from medicaid after stripping the current program of 800 billion over ten years , and removing most of the ten essential health benefits (such as ambulance rides), so that the tax cuts can go to those making over $200,000, it has the abjectly unpopular rating of 17%.

Also of interest that despite the publicity campaign that Republicans have devoted only recently to undermining the credibility of the CBO, in secret they still acknowledge its importance and continue to work with it.

----------

For more on the ten essential health benefits:

1)Ambulatory patient services. [outpatient care]
2)Emergency services.
3)Hospitalization. [inpatient care]
4)Maternity and newborn care
5)Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
6)Prescription drugs.
7)Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
8)Laboratory services
9)Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management;
10)Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_health_benefits
 
Full title: Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill: Report

This was happening while the country was losing its mind over a tweet of Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited over his head.



GOP Asks CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised BCRA: Report

It's difficult to understand what would be attractive about a healthcare package that you might be able to pay less for, but would lack all of the protections the ACA offered, such as pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits, because even if you're healthy what would be the point of shelling out so much money for such for such a low value service? And keep in mind this new package (and by "new" I mean "old," because it would offer you healthcare that people received pre-2010) wouldn't be in comparison to one containing all the protections of the ACA. Rather, with the new bill, you would be able to choose between no healthcare protections versus the newer BCRA that cuts medicaid, and offers higher premiums for none of the ten essential health benefits.

But while it's difficult to understand why anybody would want this revised bill, it's no easier to understand than why Republican congressmen are trying to pass the BCRA in the first place since by kicking off 15 million people from medicaid after stripping the current program of 800 billion over ten years , and removing most of the ten essential health benefits (such as ambulance rides), so that the tax cuts can go to those making over $200,000, it has the abjectly unpopular rating of 17%.

Also of interest that despite the publicity campaign that Republicans have devoted only recently to undermining the credibility of the CBO, in secret they still acknowledge its importance and continue to work with it.

----------

For more on the ten essential health benefits:

1)Ambulatory patient services. [outpatient care]
2)Emergency services.
3)Hospitalization. [inpatient care]
4)Maternity and newborn care
5)Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
6)Prescription drugs.
7)Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
8)Laboratory services
9)Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management;
10)Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_health_benefits

Well you have one for the fake news and one for the real news!
 
One thing I've learned a about Republicans, they have Selective Amnesia
 
Full title: Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill: Report

This was happening while the country was losing its mind over a tweet of Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited over his head.



GOP Asks CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised BCRA: Report

It's difficult to understand what would be attractive about a healthcare package that you might be able to pay less for, but would lack all of the protections the ACA offered, such as pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits, because even if you're healthy what would be the point of shelling out so much money for such for such a low value service? And keep in mind this new package (and by "new" I mean "old," because it would offer you healthcare that people received pre-2010) wouldn't be in comparison to one containing all the protections of the ACA. Rather, with the new bill, you would be able to choose between no healthcare protections versus the newer BCRA that cuts medicaid, and offers higher premiums for none of the ten essential health benefits.

But while it's difficult to understand why anybody would want this revised bill, it's no easier to understand than why Republican congressmen are trying to pass the BCRA in the first place since by kicking off 15 million people from medicaid after stripping the current program of 800 billion over ten years , and removing most of the ten essential health benefits (such as ambulance rides), so that the tax cuts can go to those making over $200,000, it has the abjectly unpopular rating of 17%.

Also of interest that despite the publicity campaign that Republicans have devoted only recently to undermining the credibility of the CBO, in secret they still acknowledge its importance and continue to work with it.

----------

For more on the ten essential health benefits:

1)Ambulatory patient services. [outpatient care]
2)Emergency services.
3)Hospitalization. [inpatient care]
4)Maternity and newborn care
5)Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
6)Prescription drugs.
7)Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
8)Laboratory services
9)Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management;
10)Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_health_benefits

The way you need to scrutinize this debate is becoming preposterous. Just push an inordinate amount of convoluted information onto the voter and retain plausible deniability in the process. That's rich. People care about their healthcare. But, I know of no one outside of a political junkie that will run through the maze of BCRA (1), BCRA (2), and the AHCA. People elected these Senators to represent the people's interests, not the interests of an insurance industry. Does your bill guarantee the same level of patient protection under PPACA? If it doesn't how much extra money will you eventually be paying to the drug companies and hospitals, that won't be factored into a premium?

In my opinion, the 10 essential health benefits, should be the starting point for the debate. Okay, people need these 10 essential pieces to their healthcare, how do we guarantee the American people have these indispensable qualities in their healthcare plans?
 
Last edited:
Cruz’s proposed amendment to the Senate GOP’s Trumpcare bill would allow insurers to sell health plans that do not meet the required standards of the Affordable Care Act — including the standards regarding preexisting conditions — provided they sell at least one plan that does.

Sounds like an adverse selection nightmare.
 
Did the know-it-all CBO tell us that obamacare was going to crash and burn in only a few years like it has?

I think they are just clueless burocrats marking time till they can retire
 
Did the know-it-all CBO tell us that obamacare was going to crash and burn in only a few years like it has?

I think they are just clueless burocrats marking time till they can retire

What do you think? Learn-ed actuaries or clueless burocrats?
 
I, for one, am thrilled that Senator Cruz is standing up for my right to buy substandard insurance that can be canceled if I actually get sick. That's what freedom is all about!
 
Did the know-it-all CBO tell us that obamacare was going to crash and burn in only a few years like it has?

I think they are just clueless burocrats marking time till they can retire

The CBO did say if States didn't participate it would hurt Americans ability to get adequate Health Coverage ...

Example: People in Florida complain about the coverage and cost, but they don't blame their Governor, Congressmen and Senators on their "overt" actions to sabotage the people who leveled them.

So screw'em
 
I, for one, am thrilled that Senator Cruz is standing up for my right to buy substandard insurance that can be canceled if I actually get sick. That's what freedom is all about!

Me too. Finally, the mantle of freedom in healthcare, has been taken up by a patriot who loves America. Go CRUZ! Freedom! U.S.A.! Lifetime caps! Tax Cuts for the rich! Freedom to be kicked off insurance when you need it most so, the richest few keep more money they don't need!
 
Last edited:
Full title: Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill: Report

This was happening while the country was losing its mind over a tweet of Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited over his head.



GOP Asks CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised BCRA: Report

It's difficult to understand what would be attractive about a healthcare package that you might be able to pay less for, but would lack all of the protections the ACA offered, such as pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits, because even if you're healthy what would be the point of shelling out so much money for such for such a low value service? And keep in mind this new package (and by "new" I mean "old," because it would offer you healthcare that people received pre-2010) wouldn't be in comparison to one containing all the protections of the ACA. Rather, with the new bill, you would be able to choose between no healthcare protections versus the newer BCRA that cuts medicaid, and offers higher premiums for none of the ten essential health benefits.

But while it's difficult to understand why anybody would want this revised bill, it's no easier to understand than why Republican congressmen are trying to pass the BCRA in the first place since by kicking off 15 million people from medicaid after stripping the current program of 800 billion over ten years , and removing most of the ten essential health benefits (such as ambulance rides), so that the tax cuts can go to those making over $200,000, it has the abjectly unpopular rating of 17%.

Also of interest that despite the publicity campaign that Republicans have devoted only recently to undermining the credibility of the CBO, in secret they still acknowledge its importance and continue to work with it.

----------

For more on the ten essential health benefits:

1)Ambulatory patient services. [outpatient care]
2)Emergency services.
3)Hospitalization. [inpatient care]
4)Maternity and newborn care
5)Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
6)Prescription drugs.
7)Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
8)Laboratory services
9)Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management;
10)Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_health_benefits

wait until folks start running up against lifetime limits when they're fifty.

i think that the real squealing point, though, will be when states allow employers to completely **** their workers over with safe auto plans, especially when those employees used to be insulated from the whole thing. "wait, me? i only wanted those poor medicaid people to get screwed over! this wasn't supposed to affect MY PLAN!!!!"
 
Did the know-it-all CBO tell us that obamacare was going to crash and burn in only a few years like it has?

I think they are just clueless burocrats marking time till they can retire

Yea, the CBO forgot to factor in the continuous Republican sabotage, very careless of them.:wink3:
 
Yea, the CBO forgot to factor in the continuous Republican sabotage, very careless of them.:wink3:

Actually, the CBO report didn't ignore that at all:

Several factors may lead insurers to withdraw from the market—including lack of profitability and substantial uncertainty about enforcement of the individual mandate and about future payments of the cost-sharing subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket payments for people who enroll in nongroup coverage through the marketplaces established by the ACA.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

This is referring to the constant "Obamacare is going down in flames!" screaming coming from the President. If the marketplace format is under public siege from the President of the United States, then insurers aren't going to join the marketplace.
 
Sounds like an adverse selection nightmare.

How so? If it's clear that the plan you're paying a little bit less for has lifetime caps, doesn't contain the essential health benefits or protection for pre-existing conditions, versus a plan that costs much more, has lifetime caps, doesn't contain the essential health benefits but does have protection for pre-existing conditions, what's the disparity in information?
 
How so? If it's clear that the plan you're paying a little bit less for has lifetime caps, doesn't contain the essential health benefits or protection for pre-existing conditions, versus a plan that costs much more, has lifetime caps, doesn't contain the essential health benefits but does have protection for pre-existing conditions, what's the disparity in information?

So, Cruz is arguing, basically, the insurance companies need to be allowed complete, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism?
 
In my opinion, the 10 essential health benefits, should be the starting point for the debate. Okay, people need these 10 essential pieces to their healthcare, how do we guarantee the American people have these indispensable qualities in their healthcare plans?

S
Who says all people need these 10 essentials for good healthcare?
Why should people without children be required to buy a policy that covers pediatric care? Or people without psychiatric issues or drug addictions policies which cover that?
Or those who do not use prescription medication?
 
S
Who says all people need these 10 essentials for good healthcare?
Why should people without children be required to buy a policy that covers pediatric care? Or people without psychiatric issues or drug addictions policies which cover that?
Or those who do not use prescription medication?

Because you're part of a society that needs those things.
 
Full title: Senate Republicans Have Asked CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised Health-Care Bill: Report

This was happening while the country was losing its mind over a tweet of Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo edited over his head.



GOP Asks CBO to Score 2 Versions of Revised BCRA: Report

It's difficult to understand what would be attractive about a healthcare package that you might be able to pay less for, but would lack all of the protections the ACA offered, such as pre-existing conditions and the ten essential health benefits, because even if you're healthy what would be the point of shelling out so much money for such for such a low value service? And keep in mind this new package (and by "new" I mean "old," because it would offer you healthcare that people received pre-2010) wouldn't be in comparison to one containing all the protections of the ACA. Rather, with the new bill, you would be able to choose between no healthcare protections versus the newer BCRA that cuts medicaid, and offers higher premiums for none of the ten essential health benefits.

But while it's difficult to understand why anybody would want this revised bill, it's no easier to understand than why Republican congressmen are trying to pass the BCRA in the first place since by kicking off 15 million people from medicaid after stripping the current program of 800 billion over ten years , and removing most of the ten essential health benefits (such as ambulance rides), so that the tax cuts can go to those making over $200,000, it has the abjectly unpopular rating of 17%.

Also of interest that despite the publicity campaign that Republicans have devoted only recently to undermining the credibility of the CBO, in secret they still acknowledge its importance and continue to work with it.

----------

For more on the ten essential health benefits:

1)Ambulatory patient services. [outpatient care]
2)Emergency services.
3)Hospitalization. [inpatient care]
4)Maternity and newborn care
5)Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
6)Prescription drugs.
7)Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
8)Laboratory services
9)Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management;
10)Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_health_benefits

That is part of why it was so destructive to introduce ACA as it was and in the form it was. Good description!
 
So, Cruz is arguing, basically, the insurance companies need to be allowed complete, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism?

Yes, though as I suggested in the first post, it's astonishing how Cruz's proposal could be a reaction to the public outcry and 17% public support, or how it could be a reaction to the small handful of Republicans who oppose the BCRA. But then, when a bill is created in secret and has zero hearings, baffling is the only way one can describe the process Republicans have been using to craft this bill.

It's like if Congress created a bill in secret to catapult all people earning under $200,000 into the side of a barn, only 17% of people earning under 200k end up approving of said bill, so Congress offers a more affordable option whereby non-rich people can choose to be catapulted into outer space instead.
 
wait until folks start running up against lifetime limits when they're fifty.

i think that the real squealing point, though, will be when states allow employers to completely **** their workers over with safe auto plans, especially when those employees used to be insulated from the whole thing. "wait, me? i only wanted those poor medicaid people to get screwed over! this wasn't supposed to affect MY PLAN!!!!"

An interesting gimmick. I guess it will be like getting cancer after 45 years of smoking.
 
Because you're part of a society that needs those things.

And Cruz is suggesting that people in the society who do not need them, not to be forced to pay for them.
 
Me too. Finally, the mantle of freedom in healthcare, has been taken up by a patriot who loves America. Go CRUZ! Freedom! U.S.A.! Lifetime caps! Tax Cuts for the rich! Freedom to be kicked off insurance when you need it most so, the richest few keep more money they don't need!

Why would you keep taxes created by the ACA when you're looking to get rid of the ACA?

Oh and property rights has nothing to do with need.
 
And Cruz is suggesting that people in the society who do not need them, not to be forced to pay for them.

Until they do need them. Because humans get sick, grow older and get into accidents. The sick of today were the healthy of yesterday, the old of today were the young of yesterday, and those who are wearing a cast today were up and walking around without one yesterday.

A new narrative in the healthcare debate is the notion that being sick is a statement on the moral character of those who became ill.
 
So, Cruz is arguing, basically, the insurance companies need to be allowed complete, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism?

Cool ****. He needs to lower regulations on pharmaceuticals too so it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to even comply with the regulations. If it wasn't so goddamn expensive to meet regulations then it would be a hell of a lot easier to get into the industry.
 
Back
Top Bottom