Well, Donnie has revivified much of the Nixon administration, so why not firebomb Brookings?
The headline should reflect the upper bound, long-term estimate.
A lot of people are covered by family plans. Do their estimates take that into consideration?
Is it 30,000,000 accounts, and 30,000,000 x 3 people?
No surprises here, I guess. One thing in this discussion that I think in part explains the divide between repubs and Dems on this issue is the use of their verb âto loseâ. While Dems see millions âlosingâ coverage, the repubs see millions having the choice whether or not to purchase coverage - and exercising that choice accordingly. So depending on your political persuasion, millions âlosingâ coverage can look like success or failure.
Thereâs a strange mirror between Repub and dem positions on healthcare. With broad strokes, repubs are obsessed with preserving life at all costs for the first few months from conception, while Dems are obsessed with extending life at all costs
Exactly! I was about to say the same thing, quoting the end of this article: 'After 2026, the losses would become far more severe, with more than 30 million people losing insurance âbecause of the additional changes to the Medicaid program under this legislation.â â
Since post-2026 provisions are an important part of the bill this shouldnât be a footnote!! The headline should say that more than 30M people will lose coverage under Graham-Cassidy.
How nice of you to frame the Republican argument as just letting folks make one of several reasonable choices. Thatâs a completely false explanation. When youâre a 60-year old who makes $30,000 per year and your health care premiums rise to $12,000 or $14,000 annually (which is projected with this bill), not buying health insurance IS NOT A CHOICE. You canât afford it if you want to eat or live anywhere but under a bridge.
Itâs 32 mill in 2027. Thatâs the # people should use.
But what the Republicans wonât, canât, or havenât even thought of is that those who choose not to buy coverage will still be taken care of in the advent of a health crisis. Yes they get a bill, but most wonât be able to pay it. Then there will bankruptcies.
As for what coverage will look like then that will be up to the state that they live in. So each state legislature will have the ability to deny covering things like pregnancies, prevention of pregnancies, medications-Oh you have insurance but your insurance doesnât cover the medications youâll need to control your _______________(fill in chronic condition).
Iâve said if before but here are the death panels the Republican screamed about.
I agree with you. The counter point is that that person may well never have had health insurance, and the question arises why everybody else should suddenly start paying their premiums for them (whether this 60 year old wants them to or not, covering medical procedures that may total more than this 60 year old has ever taken home in lay), ultImately gifting more and more money to private companies.
Donât get me wrong, Iâm very much in favour of a modern public health system like most other western countries. But itâs always worth looking from the other perspective. The forced imposition of a profit motive in health insurance companies is a major flaw in the current system. if you want a universal healthcare system (which we all should), it should be run by the state on behalf of all people, not a few shareholders.
Agreed. On the plus side, hopefully some states will come up with something much better than the current status quo.
And what happens to people in the meantime (or in the states that donât come up with something decent) is just collateral damage? Iâm not willing to accept that on behalf of my fellow citizens.
Also note those notes in the rightmost column. Which basically mean that these are the best-case numbers.
Sorry, ukky, but you donât get to play the âboth sides do itâ false equivalency game. What you are oh so conveniently ignoring is something called âreality.â Nobody âchoosesâ to not have coverage. Rather they âchooseâ to prioritize food and shelter over coverage, praying that they will not get ill or suffer an accident.
Thereâs a strange mirror between Repub and dem positions on healthcare. With broad strokes, repubs are obsessed with preserving life at all costs for the first few months from conception, while Dems are obsessed with extending life at all costs
And, again, no. Democrats are âobsessedâ with giving people access to health care. That is not even remotely the same thing as âextending life at all costs.â
Even for you, this was a dumb post.
They canât; the money isnât there, as youâve been told repeatedly. Itâs funny how you continue to ignore this.
Edited to add that there have also been multiple stories pointing out that it is likely impossible for the states to set up the kind of infrastructure to set up even a less-than-ideal program in the time allotted. And that there is no mechanism for extensions or a fallback plan.
I agree with you. But they also largely live in states that have consistently voted Repub across all levels of government, and you canât say theyâve done so being unaware that repubs wanted to repeal obamacare. Elections have consequences, and you canât force universal healthcare on an electorate that doesnât want it.
A large chunk of money currently used for health care is needed to give tax relief to the beleagured billionaires of this country. True Patriots would understand that critical need and not begrudge the 32 million losers cut off from health insurance. Ya gotta get your priorities straight!
Yes, actually we can, particularly since they said that they would replace it with something âbetter.â And the polls and interviews all confirm that. And thatâs not even taking into consideration the confusion that far too many have about âObamacareâ vs. the âACA.â
Only to the extent they currently pay any taxesâŚ
On a serious note, why canât states correspondingly increase their own taxes to make up for the drop in federal funding, partially or fully offsetting the decreases in federal taxes?