Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACHA

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Because when you say medicaid cuts you portray as some sinister evil thing that will drown puppies, kill people, drive people to bankruptcy etc. Instead of looking at it objectively as to what the bill actually proposes and assessing it honestly, there is this constant knee jerk reaction to make it look as evil as possible no matter what the truth actually is. The Democrats have been doing this consistently by portraying reduction in the increase in spending as budget cuts. It isn't.

I don't expect or ask anybody to agree when there is honest and arguable differences of opinion on how things are done. But that doesn't happen. It is accuse, blame, attack, mischaracterize, raise up images of hateful, racist, sexist, selfish evil, etc. And that is not useful in addressing any problem or achieving any productive goal.

I'm not labeling the cuts as anything but cuts, per CBO scoring, and noting Trump promised to be unique among all the GOP candidates and NOT cut Medicaid. He broke the promise without even a blink of an eye.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

What did he propose, exactly? I have a feeling you're going to try to somehow try to convince me that "insurance for everybody" and "no cuts to medicaid" meant insurance for 20 million fewer people and massive cuts to Medicaid.

The House is proposing a per capita amount per enrollee and/or block grants to the states to determine how best to use that money for their own people. It is a realistic approach that we all better understand sooner rather than later that the federal government is not a goose laying unlimited golden eggs, but any program that consumes billions more year by year by year and makes more and more people dependent on it will have to collapse under its own weight of unpayable debt. The Senate bill also puts more responsibility on the states where it should have been all along.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Meanwhile, back here in the real world,

Deep cuts to Medicaid put rural hospitals in the crosshairs - Jun. 24, 2017

We'll see. The Democrats and their surrogate media are highly unlikely to tell anybody the truth about much of anything regarding this.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

I'm not labeling the cuts as anything but cuts, per CBO scoring, and noting Trump promised to be unique among all the GOP candidates and NOT cut Medicaid. He broke the promise without even a blink of an eye.

Show me in the budget where Medicaid expenditures will be less in the 2018 budget than they are in the 2017 budget. Then we can discuss 'cuts' because unless there is a decrease in spending, there are no cuts.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Show me in the budget where Medicaid expenditures will be less in the 2018 budget than they are in the 2017 budget. Then we can discuss 'cuts' because unless there is a decrease in spending, there are no cuts.

I'm just quoting CBO. And the GOP will uses the "cuts" in Medicaid to offset the big tax cuts contained in the healthcare bill. So what the GOP wants is to have it both ways - claim there are no cuts to Medicaid, but at the very same time in the same bill, use those Medicaid cuts to offset $hundreds of millions in tax cuts while claiming the bill is revenue neutral or will even reduce deficits somewhat. The intellectual dishonesty in that is pretty staggering.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

The House is proposing a per capita amount per enrollee and/or block grants to the states to determine how best to use that money for their own people. It is a realistic approach that we all better understand sooner rather than later that the federal government is not a goose laying unlimited golden eggs, but any program that consumes billions more year by year by year and makes more and more people dependent on it will have to collapse under its own weight of unpayable debt. The Senate bill also puts more responsibility on the states where it should have been all along.

You're making an argument for cutting Medicaid spending, which is fine, but not what we were talking about. The cuts will dramatically affect states' ability to cover their poorest citizens, seniors in nursing homes, etc. If you want to claim that such spending wasn't sustainable and cuts necessary, OK, I don't agree but that's the policy dispute. What's not in dispute is the AHCA cuts $100s of billions from Medicaid versus current law.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

I'm just quoting CBO. And the GOP will uses the "cuts" in Medicaid to offset the big tax cuts contained in the healthcare bill. So what the GOP wants is to have it both ways - claim there are no cuts to Medicaid, but at the very same time in the same bill, use those Medicaid cuts to offset $hundreds of millions in tax cuts while claiming the bill is revenue neutral or will even reduce deficits somewhat. The intellectual dishonesty in that is pretty staggering.

And I'm saying that unless they spend less in 2018 than they will spend in 2017 there are no cuts. I don't care what CBO calls it or how a dishonest MSM, social media, or people on message boards characterize what CBO said about it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

You're making an argument for cutting Medicaid spending, which is fine, but not what we were talking about. The cuts will dramatically affect states' ability to cover their poorest citizens, seniors in nursing homes, etc. If you want to claim that such spending wasn't sustainable and cuts necessary, OK, I don't agree but that's the policy dispute. What's not in dispute is the AHCA cuts $100s of billions from Medicaid versus current law.

Well done re stating what the current talking points are and how a hostile (to President Trump and anybody on the right) media characterize it--such being dutifully parroted on social media and on message boards.

Let's see what the truth is. Unless there is less spending in 2018 than there is in 2017, there are no cuts.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

And I'm saying that unless they spend less in 2018 than they will spend in 2017 there are no cuts. I don't care what CBO calls it or how a dishonest MSM, social media, or people on message boards characterize what CBO said about it.

How would YOU characterize what CBO said about it? Compared to current law, the AHCA will spend $834 billion less over a the 10 year period. This is from table 3, here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628aspassed.pdf

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Well done re stating what the current talking points are and how a hostile (to President Trump and anybody on the right) media characterize it--such being dutifully parroted on social media and on message boards.

Let's see what the truth is. Unless there is less spending in 2018 than there is in 2017, there are no cuts.

So, a plan that spends approaching a $trillion less than current law will have NO effect on states' ability to cover their poorest citizens? How is that possible?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

How would YOU characterize what CBO said about it? Compared to current law, the AHCA will spend $834 billion less over a the 10 year period. This is from table 3, here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628aspassed.pdf

View attachment 67219148

HR 1628 was declared dead on arrival in the Senate. It is no longer an issue.

 

[ataraxia]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

We'll see. The Democrats and their surrogate media are highly unlikely to tell anybody the truth about much of anything regarding this.

Or Republicans and their surrogates are highly unlikely to ever see the truth, even if it hits them over the head.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

HR 1628 was declared dead on arrival in the Senate. It is no longer an issue.

You're avoiding the question :roll:

I guess it's not a "cut" it's just a reduction in spending, NOT a "cut", compared to current law. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!! George Orwell would be proud.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

You're avoiding the question :roll:

I guess it's not a "cut" it's just a reduction in spending, NOT a "cut", compared to current law. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!! George Orwell would be proud.

A reduction in the increase in spending is not a cut in spending. I don't care what math you use.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

A reduction in the increase in spending is not a cut in spending. I don't care what math you use.

Yes, of course. Just for example if Tennessee was scheduled to get $3B in 2019 in Medicaid funding under current law, and now will get only $2.5B, that's not a cut, it's just a reduction in the amount, which is totally different. Tennessee has $500 million less to spend covering poor people, but it makes a lot of difference that we properly not call it a cut but just a reduction in the amount of the Medicaid grants due.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Yes, of course. Just for example if Tennessee was scheduled to get $3B in 2019 in Medicaid funding under current law, and now will get only $2.5B, that's not a cut, it's just a reduction in the amount, which is totally different. Tennessee has $500 million less to spend covering poor people, but it makes a lot of difference that we properly not call it a cut but just a reduction in the amount of the Medicaid grants due.

Again a cut in what is scheduled can be less of an increase but is not necessarily a cut in spending. We cannot do everything we want to do with a finite amount of money in the pot.

 

[ForeignRightist]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Doesn't really matter does it considering 5 GOP senators are claiming that they will not support the bill.

I believe it only took 3 to oppose it for it to not pass?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Doesn't really matter does it considering 5 GOP senators are claiming that they will not support the bill.

I believe it only took 3 to oppose it for it to not pass?

How do we know if they are actually going to follow through?

 

[ForeignRightist]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Very good point.

But it isn't a very good PR move to publicly decry the bill, and then suddenly support it.

Republicans like principles, and to lie right to the faces of your possible voters isn't exactly a good way to secure their support.


But hey, I am no politician, who knows what they're going to do.

 

[Perotista]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

You often hear that the number who will lose their insurance under ACHA as being between 14 and 23 million people. That is way short of the real number. The real number will be much larger because they aren't counting the number who will lose their health insurance as the ACHA cuts the largest health care insurer in the nation. The largest insurer covers 75 million people. Yes one insurer covers over 75 million Americans and it is called Medicaid. It covers even more people than Medicare by a long shot. And as this program is cut deeply over the next few years, many of those presently covered by Medicaid will of course lose their insurance, including the 63% of older people in nursing homes that are covered by Medicaid. So if you have a mother or father in a nursing home, well, you will either have to pay up abuot an average of between 6 and 7 thousand dollars a month, or take them to your home. And don't expect to get any home care to help as that too is covered by Medicaid. You are on your own. So the 14 to 23 million Americans that you know will lose their health insurance under ACHA that had it under the ACA is only the beginning. The actual number will probably be more like 50 million who will lose it in the long run.

I don't know if your numbers are right or wrong. What I do know is if the two major parties don't come together to work something out there will be millions without health insurance as more and more insurance companies pull out of the ACA. If what I have been reading is true, you're going to have a portion of Tennessee and the whole state of Iowa with no insurance companies at all within the ACA and between 8-10 state where the ACA will have but one company.

Right now it seems the AHCA is a loser and the ACA is quickly becoming a loser. What good is the ACA if there are no insurance companies to offer insurance? Here is an example of what I have been reading:

All eyes are on Anthem (ANTX), which has said it's reviewing its participation next year. If it pulls out, more than 256,000 residents in Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia would be left with no options -- unless another carrier steps in, according to data crunched by Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funds health care research and grants.

...

Last year, when Aetna's exit left an Arizona county without any insurers, state and federal regulators prevailed upon that state's BlueCross BlueShield to step in.
"The insurer states turn to is the Blues plan," said Cynthia Cox, associate director at Kaiser Family Foundation.
Other large insurers, including Aetna (AET) and Molina Healthcare (MOH), are weighing their future on the individual exchanges too. While their departure would leave only one Wisconsin county without other options, it would leave many Americans with only a single choice of insurer next year.

More insurers abandon Obamacare. Who might be next? - Apr. 5, 2017

Bottomline, One party can't do it alone. It takes both major parties, they need to sit down, talk, debate without all the hyperbole, come to a meeting of the minds and do what is good for America. Right now going to the AHCA is going to hurt people, keep the ACA is going to hurt people even if the supporters of the ACA won't admit it. They should read about what is happening. It's time for both parties to get off their darn high horse.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Doesn't really matter does it considering 5 GOP senators are claiming that they will not support the bill.

I believe it only took 3 to oppose it for it to not pass?

What a lot of folks expect is these Senators will oppose the bill this weekend, demand changes, they'll pass next week, and that will bring on the reluctant to a Yes vote. Several people have pointed out a few things that some Senators are demanding, such as treatment for opiods and other drugs, were left off the bill but are pretty cheap in the big picture. So it gives Sen. Turtle room for a little political theater to add those next week, make the Senators look good for holding out for their folks and demanding changes for the people of their state, etc.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

I don't know if your numbers are right or wrong. What I do know is if the two major parties don't come together to work something out there will be millions without health insurance as more and more insurance companies pull out of the ACA. If what I have been reading is true, you're going to have a portion of Tennessee and the whole state of Iowa with no insurance companies at all within the ACA and between 8-10 state where the ACA will have but one company.

Kind of hard to 'come together' with a bill negotiated in secret with 13 GOP Senators, no Democrats allowed, and no one else allowed to see the bill much less suggest changes as the process went along. It's also hard to make informed decisions without hearings and testimony by healthcare experts. The GOP Senate decided ZERO of those hearings was the right number. From what I hear, they're allowing a whopping 20 hours of debate on this thing next week. That will include the time to offer amendments. So from unveiling to votes, the GOP plans to allow roughly a week. We don't even have the CBO score yet....

Right now it seems the AHCA is a loser and the ACA is quickly becoming a loser. What good is the ACA if there are no insurance companies to offer insurance? Here is an example of what I have been reading:

All eyes are on Anthem (ANTX), which has said it's reviewing its participation next year. If it pulls out, more than 256,000 residents in Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia would be left with no options -- unless another carrier steps in, according to data crunched by Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funds health care research and grants.

...

Last year, when Aetna's exit left an Arizona county without any insurers, state and federal regulators prevailed upon that state's BlueCross BlueShield to step in.
"The insurer states turn to is the Blues plan," said Cynthia Cox, associate director at Kaiser Family Foundation.
Other large insurers, including Aetna (AET) and Molina Healthcare (MOH), are weighing their future on the individual exchanges too. While their departure would leave only one Wisconsin county without other options, it would leave many Americans with only a single choice of insurer next year.

More insurers abandon Obamacare. Who might be next? - Apr. 5, 2017

Bottomline, One party can't do it alone. It takes both major parties, they need to sit down, talk, debate without all the hyperbole, come to a meeting of the minds and do what is good for America. Right now going to the AHCA is going to hurt people, keep the ACA is going to hurt people even if the supporters of the ACA won't admit it. They should read about what is happening. It's time for both parties to get off their darn high horse.

Yes, no doubt the ACA needed changes to make it work, but it's hard to do that when one party ran for years on repealing it, and once they got the House, changes to the ACA weren't even considered, in favor of about 94 meaningless votes to repeal it instead.

 

[Perotista]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Kind of hard to 'come together' with a bill negotiated in secret with 13 GOP Senators, no Democrats allowed, and no one else allowed to see the bill much less suggest changes as the process went along. It's also hard to make informed decisions without hearings and testimony by healthcare experts. The GOP Senate decided ZERO of those hearings was the right number. From what I hear, they're allowing a whopping 20 hours of debate on this thing next week. That will include the time to offer amendments. So from unveiling to votes, the GOP plans to allow roughly a week. We don't even have the CBO score yet....



Yes, no doubt the ACA needed changes to make it work, but it's hard to do that when one party ran for years on repealing it, and once they got the House, changes to the ACA weren't even considered, in favor of about 94 meaningless votes to repeal it instead.

The problem as I see it is one party went it alone with the ACA and the other is going it alone with the AHCA. When that happens it should be no surprise the other party will be against it 100% such as the Democrats today against the AHCA and the Republicans against the ACA. What we need is some cooperation here. Much like there was cooperation back on Medicare. Just look at the votes taken in congress when Medicare passed and compare them to the ACA and I suppose will be the same with the AHCA, only reversed.

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare and 58% against it before it was introduced to congress.
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

As you can see medicare was more of a bipartisan affair with public approval behind it. The ACA was done solely by one party with the public against it at the time. Huge difference. But unless, somehow, we can get the two parties off their high horses to come together on something, it is America as a whole who will suffer.

 

[katzgar]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

Doesn't really matter does it considering 5 GOP senators are claiming that they will not support the bill.

I believe it only took 3 to oppose it for it to not pass?

just 2 are needed

 

[katzgar]

Re: Do you want to know the real number of people to lose their health care under ACH

I don't know if your numbers are right or wrong. What I do know is if the two major parties don't come together to work something out there will be millions without health insurance as more and more insurance companies pull out of the ACA. If what I have been reading is true, you're going to have a portion of Tennessee and the whole state of Iowa with no insurance companies at all within the ACA and between 8-10 state where the ACA will have but one company.

Right now it seems the AHCA is a loser and the ACA is quickly becoming a loser. What good is the ACA if there are no insurance companies to offer insurance? Here is an example of what I have been reading:

All eyes are on Anthem (ANTX), which has said it's reviewing its participation next year. If it pulls out, more than 256,000 residents in Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia would be left with no options -- unless another carrier steps in, according to data crunched by Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funds health care research and grants.

...

Last year, when Aetna's exit left an Arizona county without any insurers, state and federal regulators prevailed upon that state's BlueCross BlueShield to step in.
"The insurer states turn to is the Blues plan," said Cynthia Cox, associate director at Kaiser Family Foundation.
Other large insurers, including Aetna (AET) and Molina Healthcare (MOH), are weighing their future on the individual exchanges too. While their departure would leave only one Wisconsin county without other options, it would leave many Americans with only a single choice of insurer next year.

More insurers abandon Obamacare. Who might be next? - Apr. 5, 2017

Bottomline, One party can't do it alone. It takes both major parties, they need to sit down, talk, debate without all the hyperbole, come to a meeting of the minds and do what is good for America. Right now going to the AHCA is going to hurt people, keep the ACA is going to hurt people even if the supporters of the ACA won't admit it. They should read about what is happening. It's time for both parties to get off their darn high horse.

what is happening to the ACA is exactly what should be expected of a new program based on unknown actuarials. Congress could fix it just like was done to social security, medicaid and medicare but republicans have been dick heads. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-exchanges-20160805-snap-story.html