It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans release Obamacare replacement bill

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: trollz
I'm one of the many people who haven't been able to have health insurance since Obamacare, so hopefully there will be some major changes.


I've got some bad news for you...




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Wait!!!!

How is this better?
Seems like even more people will be uninsured....as the fines will make sure those at the low levels of income cannot afford to get insurance should they get sick.
And the platinum plan as the "gold standard"....WTF???? Some states/areas don't even offer that now!!!!!
IF you make $15,000 or less, I guess you are just not important enough to get medical care with this now bill.

Getting rid of subsidies in favor of tax credits? If a person cannot even afford the current subsidized premiums and HUGE deductibles, they sure as hell cannot afford the full premium...usually at least $500. a month....with the promise of a tax credit. *spit*

And what are "pre-existing" conditions? Occasional life-long migraines? Controlled epilepsy? Diabetes? Flat feet? Glaucoma? Allergies? OCD? IBS?
Seems like almost everyone has something, especially as we age.

Only good thing I see so far, at least they are not lying as before and calling it "affordable"



I have not been able to read-up on this issue completely, but from what I have read it appears the Republicans did not really think this one through very well.

At least Chaffetz was honest in saying that some people may lose their healthcare.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That's actually something I'm wondering about. The House had two very different plans in the works. The one that got released is all of one plan, and none of the other (which the leadership backed). I'm wondering if someone jumped the gun here and they published their plan, to brand it as the official plan before a consensus had been reached. Thinking it would be popular, and get through Congress that way.


(post by justme2 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
My employer provides me pretty good insurance coverage, to which I contribute a good portion to. Under Obamacare, there would be a 40 percent excise tax on employers’ plans that cost more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families set to start in 2020.

More than likely my employer and several other businesses across the country that offer good coverage for their employees would just lower the coverage plan to avoid the tax. The Republican plan will keep this but delay it till 2025. Shouldn't they be trying to make it easier for people to get the best coverage and not making it harder and only available to people who are already wealthy? They can take this bill and stick it.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

If you typed faster you wouldn't have to invest hours, just minutes.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Just like I thought. It's just another handout to the health insurance industry but this time with the added caveat of f***ing over the poor.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Having paid attention to when the ACA was first debated and passed, reading the ACA and now the new Trumpcare bill, the following can be stated:

This is going to cause problems and ultimately may not survive the count challenges that will come from such.
The first impression of this, is that this bill was hastily written, it is going to cause problems and hurt far more than it seeks to help. It removes all of the mandates, which means that not only does it remove the individual mandate, it also removes the business ones as well. So a business with say 50 employees can now choose not to offer health insurance to anyone.

It also will allow something far worse to affect the people, and that being the government now can come in, in the case of insurance and lottery winnings to go to reimburse the state for medicare expenses. Think about it, you have a parent, you have cared for, even having to leave your job to ensure that they are taken care of, and they pass away. They have insurance and you stand to inherit and benefit from such, but then the state comes in and takes part, beyond the taxes to reimburse for the medical that they paid. That is written in.

And it does nothing to control the costs of medical treatments, nor covers or mentions other aspects of health care that should be, like dental, vision and finally the actual medicines. If you think that this is not important, take a look at any sort of medical bill, for a person who was in say the hospital and the cost of common things and items, like cotton, gauze, asprin and other items, and you see where the prices are often twice if not more than what one could pick up at any drug store, or supermarket, even the high end ones.

Now let us also consider those with life long conditions, like say the coal miners who require long term health care, but are living in poverty, this is going to harm them as well. In fact the only one who this bill seems to benefit will be those with money and the insurance companies, everyone else is not getting a benefit at all. In fact the way it is written, those who are starting out, get the best deal, while those who are older, and would be using insurance far more often, are ending up with far higher amounts to pay.

If a person can not afford health insurance now, this is going to be worse, cause it offers tax credits, instead of say helping out with the costs when the bills are due. And what if the amount is far greater than the actual tax credit, then what?
But what is going to cause far more problems and the courts will get involved will be the part on immigrants, and this is going to be far worse for all of us, and especially those of some minorities. Now a hospital or medical provider, or even insurance can now ask to see if you are a legal citizen of the country. Can’t provide papers and they could either refuse services or charge a person full price for the services that they receive. So that is going to cause far more problems in the long run, and the courts and attorneys are going to have a field day with that as well.

During the entire ACA debate, it was hard enough to get it passed through both the house and senate, with a lot of political dealings go on. And ultimately the Republicans will need a few Democrats to sign off on and get on board to pass this without controversy. If they do not, it is not going to be good. And if the democrats get into power again, they will do what the republicans have been trying to do for the past 7 years, and that is repeal and replace, causing more and more problems in the long run for all around.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Just like I thought. It's just another handout to the health insurance industry but this time with the added caveat of f***ing over the poor.


It creates a bunch of hidden tax increases too. If you start taking away tax money, you either need to cut spending or add taxes elsewhere. That's what bothers me about the obsession the right has with tax privileged accounts. Yes, it lowers the income tax but the government still needs that revenue which means you need to raise/create taxes elsewhere to pay for it. Ultimately moving us from a progressive to a regressive tax system.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Think about it, you have a parent, you have cared for, even having to leave your job to ensure that they are taken care of, and they pass away. They have insurance and you stand to inherit and benefit from such, but then the state comes in and takes part, beyond the taxes to reimburse for the medical that they paid. That is written in.

Many states already have laws that will reimburse them for medicaid....seizing the assets of those who received medicaid benefits.

I don't know about insurance payouts, but yes, when the house is sold, state medicaid wants theirs.

These have have in be place for a few years, at least.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
It also will allow something far worse to affect the people, and that being the government now can come in, in the case of insurance and lottery winnings to go to reimburse the state for medicare expenses. Think about it, you have a parent, you have cared for, even having to leave your job to ensure that they are taken care of, and they pass away. They have insurance and you stand to inherit and benefit from such, but then the state comes in and takes part, beyond the taxes to reimburse for the medical that they paid. That is written in.


I hadn't commented on this part. This bill basically rewords parts of the original, but you still have to cross reference it with the ACA because it modifies that. It's nothing new for Medicare to confiscate an estate to pay for expenses, that has always been the case, even before the ACA. If I was reading this correctly, that can now be done to reimburse insurance companies too. Or for example, if you choose to not have insurance, accumulate a large fine, then get sick and decide you want to live, and receive ER care to stay alive. Your estate could be on the hook if you don't have enough money. Basically adding in estate taxes for the poor, while we're removing them from the wealthy.

That's how I understood it, but I wasn't really pursuing the point because it's so backwards that I assume I have to be taking those parts wrong.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Medicare...or medicaid....from what I read it is for medicaid only????



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
no tax credits for a plan that covers abortion

that makes trump a liar


You do understand that Trump isn't writing this bill, correct?



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

Medicare...or medicaid....from what I read it is for medicaid only????


It could be medicaid, I get the two confused pretty easily. Either way, it's standard practice and has been for decades. If you get help from those programs, you more than likely won't be able to leave anything to your children. In a sense, it sucks, but in another sense... how else do you think the program is being paid for?

Both I and my mom get help from those programs, so it's something that I've basically simply accepted my entire life. There will be no inheritance and any assets I accumulate over my life will go to the state in the end.

I got the sense reading this bill that that provision is being expanded. I think a lot of people who throw fits over inheritance taxes will be upset by it but... that's life.
edit on 7-3-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
No mandate!


yay!!!


Yay! Insurance markets will collapse!! Woo hoo!



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I saw this coming a mile away. Why didn't you invest in an insurance brick. Trumps a businessman...did you actually think that Trumpcare would favor the consumers?

My stock just went up enough to pay for my health care. People are so naive!



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You are misunderstanding Section 133--it in no way says that you owe 30% of the premiums for the entirety of uncovered time prior to enrolling.

Where in the hell did you get that idea? It plainly states that the 30% penalty--which is 30% of the monthly premium of the plan through which the individual is seeking coverage--will be added to the monthly premium, but on if there has been at least 63 consecutive days lacking coverage.

Also, the "look-back period," where the insurance company can see if you didn't have coverage for any period of time, is only 12 months, so again, where do you get the idea that you have to pay 30% of the total premiums for the totality of uncovered time in your life prior to seeking coverage?

You really missed the mark on this one.

 


ETA:


originally posted by: Aazadan
Making everything a tax rebate is the very definition of a handout.

No, because taxed money was the individual's property (earnings) first, the government's forced removal of it makes it the government's property second. If the government gives some of that back, it's not a handout, it returning misappropriated earnings.
edit on 7-3-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This is a plan for insurance companies first. The only legit improvement to Obamacare would be adding a public option. But republicans aren't interesting in helping people-- they just try to sell people on helping insurance companies. And their biggest bet is a "repeal and replace" of anything will be good enough for their voters.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Aazadan

You are misunderstanding Section 133--it in no way says that you owe 30% of the premiums for the entirety of uncovered time prior to enrolling.

Where in the hell did you get that idea? It plainly states that the 30% penalty--which is 30% of the monthly premium of the plan through which the individual is seeking coverage--will be added to the monthly premium, but on if there has been at least 63 consecutive days lacking coverage.

Also, the "look-back period," where the insurance company can see if you didn't have coverage for any period of time, is only 12 months, so again, where do you get the idea that you have to pay 30% of the total premiums for the totality of uncovered time in your life prior to seeking coverage?

You really missed the mark on this one.


It's possible, that's how I read it though. I could be wrong, I'm basing it though on Rand Pauls description of the fine when he gave an interview on it the other day. It's also the only thing that makes fiscal sense because the concept of insurance simply doesn't work if you can go without, and then get on it when you become sick.



No, because taxed money was the individual's property (earnings) first, the government's forced removal of it makes it the government's property second. If the government gives some of that back, it's not a handout, it returning misappropriated earnings.


It's not your earnings until it's in your hand. Tax money is not your money. You have what you have. Besides, you're going to pay that money anyways. 47% of federal revenues come from income taxes. If the government stops collecting that money, what exactly do you think they're going to do? I'll give you a hint, it's not going to involve cutting spending by 47%.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join