Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Sour Masher]

Good to see that the CBO score on the "health care" bill is in, and it only leaves 23 million people uninsured over the next decade. BUT! On the good side, it looks like it's going to give the top percentage of earners a very large tax break! And the people who will be affected the most are going to be the poor and the elderly...but we already knew that.

Yes, but you are forgetting all the imaginary jobs this will allow those rich folks to create, well, until their employees get sick or die, assuming they have employees, but of course they do, because all rich folks are job creators, right? I mean, I know trickle down economics has been proven not to work and everything, but I'm sure this time, whatever money saved by rich folks won't be spent on 20k spa retreats for their pets.

[DMT]

Joe Scarborough disgusted by the incessant lying by Republicans about AHCA.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/watch_morning_joe_scarborough_scalds_gop_politicians_who_keep_looking_into_cameras_and_lie_every_day

[Hornsby]

Really solid, easy to understand, piece on the CBO's score of the AHCA by fivethrityeight. Oh, you can get coverage, but it probably isn't going to cover you very well...

Health care: Uncovered

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’s nonpartisan policy analyst, released a much anticipated report on the House bill to repeal and replace parts of the Affordable Care Act. It was by most accounts, including ours, not good for the prospects of the American Health Care Act, which passed the House earlier this month. While coverage of the report tended to focus on the 23 million people who would lose insurance under the law, or the slight reduction to the federal deficit that it would deliver over 10 years, beyond those headline numbers were some revealing descriptions of how the insurance market would change under the bill. The AHCA, as described by the report, would create a system in which many people with pre-existing conditions can’t afford insurance, the industry sells plans too skimpy even to be considered coverage by the CBO’s standards, and patients in some states struggle to get access to services such as treatment for substance abuse and maternity care.

Currently, plans offered through the ACA’s insurance marketplaces must cover what are known as Essential Health Benefits, 10 categories of services including ambulatory, maternal and mental health care. Under the GOP House bill, coverage requirements would become less stringent, and the CBO thinks that as a result, private insurance plans in some states would stop covering pediatric dental care, maternity care and treatment for substance abuse, among other things. Patients who needed those services could end up paying thousands of dollars out of pocket. Those assumptions likely stem from the fact that before the ACA, those services were routinely excluded in states that didn’t mandate them by law.

The CBO also predicts that the insurance market might start encouraging people to buy skimpy plans. A little-reported passage describes how the agency foresees the insurance industry offering bare-bones coverage priced to match closely the amount a person is eligible for in federal subsidies. In effect, this would allow people to buy government-subsidized health insurance for next-to-nothing, but the plans “would not provide enough financial protection in the event of a serious and costly illness to be considered insurance,” in the words of the CBO.

The AHCA is something of a dead letter, at least in its current form — the Senate is now working on its own bill, which may bear little resemblance to the House version. But the CBO report still carries an important reminder: Fewer regulations on the insurance industry can reduce the cost of premiums, but it can also leave Americans with plans that don’t cover services they need, or without coverage altogether.

[baldgriff]

Really solid, easy to understand, piece on the CBO's score of the AHCA by fivethrityeight. Oh, you can get coverage, but it probably isn't going to cover you very well...

So I was thinking about this late last week.....

If the government mandates that you are required to spend your money in a certain way or for a certain product - is that thing being mandated really a right?

[GwynnInTheHall]

So I was thinking about this late last week.....

If the government mandates that you are required to spend your money in a certain way or for a certain product - is that thing being mandated really a right?

Like School Vouchers?

[Hornsby]

Like School Vouchers?

Hah! I see what you did there...

[baldgriff]

Like School Vouchers?

I dont believe that I am going to be mandated to spend "my" money on buying a School Voucher - specifically because I dont have children in school.

I say "my" money because when it comes to healthcare I am required to spend money from my budget specifically for the purpose of making sure I comply with a government mandate that I pay for what some say is my "right" to healthcare.

The funds are not coming from some government budget that is allocating from my tax payment, rather I am paying it directly to an insurance company and have to show proof that I have coverage in order to avoid some fine.


There are plenty of things I dont agree that my tax money goes to, but I dont get to specify how my taxes are spent.

[Sour Masher]

Like School Vouchers?

This is sort of off topic, but you gave me a good segue, so...Oklahoma is a state that has put the GOP education agenda into affect--cut taxes, cut funding, offer more "choice," and it has led to arguably the worst public education system in the country. Nearly 100 school districts and counting have had to make extreme budget choices, like dropping down to 4 days a week for school. This on top of outdated textbooks and the lowest paid teaching jobs around, which doesn't bring in quality talent. I don't know what I'd do if all of a sudden, my kids didn't have school to go to on Mondays.

Of course, this just makes it so poor and middle class children have that much of a harder time trying to compete with those who are born with more resources. Is that okay to Republicans? If you want your kids to have an equal chance, work harder and pay for their education! And to you kids out there, you don't deserve the same education opportunities as richer kids, because your parents didn't work hard enough to give you those opportunities. So, somehow overcome your crappy educations so that you can afford to send your kids to better schools! Is that the American dream?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.561a0dc2f2d5

[Hornsby]

I dont believe that I am going to be mandated to spend "my" money on buying a School Voucher - specifically because I dont have children in school.

I say "my" money because when it comes to healthcare I am required to spend money from my budget specifically for the purpose of making sure I comply with a government mandate that I pay for what some say is my "right" to healthcare.

The funds are not coming from some government budget that is allocating from my tax payment, rather I am paying it directly to an insurance company and have to show proof that I have coverage in order to avoid some fine.


There are plenty of things I dont agree that my tax money goes to, but I dont get to specify how my taxes are spent.

And if you don't have insurance, and get hurt/sick and have to go to the hospital, the taxpayers get to pick up the tab. Is that fair?

[baldgriff]

And if you don't have insurance, and get hurt/sick and have to go to the hospital, the taxpayers get to pick up the tab. Is that fair?

If the government decides it wants to spend it's money on compensating the hospital for caring for those without healthcare that again is up to the government. I may or may not agree with it, but once its in the government coffers its not my choice.

Rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution:
- I can choose how I voice my ideas and can freely disagree with the government as I choose.
- I can choose which Church I want to go to - or not go to for that matter
- I can choose whether or not I will house soldiers whether or not we are at war
- I can choose whether I want to purchase a gun
- I can choose whether I want to vote or not (just like women can)

The greatest thing about the rights listed above is I get to exercise how I use that right. The government doesnt mandate how or whether I use that right I get to make the decision.

If healthcare is a right, as many here have contended, then isnt this something that we should all be able to exercise a manner that we all see fit.

[Hornsby]

If the government decides it wants to spend it's money on compensating the hospital for caring for those without healthcare that again is up to the government. I may or may not agree with it, but once its in the government coffers its not my choice.

Rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution:
- I can choose how I voice my ideas and can freely disagree with the government as I choose.
- I can choose which Church I want to go to - or not go to for that matter
- I can choose whether or not I will house soldiers whether or not we are at war
- I can choose whether I want to purchase a gun
- I can choose whether I want to vote or not (just like women can)

The greatest thing about the rights listed above is I get to exercise how I use that right. The government doesnt mandate how or whether I use that right I get to make the decision.

If healthcare is a right, as many here have contended, then isnt this something that we should all be able to exercise a manner that we all see fit.

Good to know that you're comfortable with others picking up the tab for you. Interesting choices of "rights" you think you have...

[baldgriff]

Good to know that you're comfortable with others picking up the tab for you. Interesting choices of "rights" you think you have...

Again - I pay my taxes and have every year and now I actually am now paying more for worse insurance through my employer because we moved and my wife could not keep her job at her Fortune 200 employer. So no one is picking up the tab for me.

That said what the government does with the funds is up to them - even though I dont agree with much of the spending the allow.

As and aside it sounds like you dont want the government picking up the tab if I choose to go without healthcare (whether I can afford it or not). That's pretty conservative of you... sarcasm included.


Regarding the "Interesting choices of "rights" " I think I have... I am curious why you think you dont have them. This is what I see:

- Pretty clearly we are having this conversation, so we have the freedom/right to disagree and discuss government policy
- I dont recall your religious background - I havent been to church regularly for over 6 years (long story - probably a different thread) - however we arent mandated to attend any place of worship
- Has the government forced you to take in military soldiers or operators?
- We both choose not to purchase guns - I however have contemplated it frequently and once the kids are out of the house I may actually do so.
- We both choose to vote in a manner that each of us deems appropriate

Please tell me what I am missing here.

[Hornsby]

Again - I pay my taxes and have every year and now I actually am now paying more for worse insurance through my employer because we moved and my wife could not keep her job at her Fortune 200 employer. So no one is picking up the tab for me.

That said what the government does with the funds is up to them - even though I dont agree with much of the spending the allow.

As and aside it sounds like you dont want the government picking up the tab if I choose to go without healthcare (whether I can afford it or not). That's pretty conservative of you... sarcasm included.


Regarding the "Interesting choices of "rights" " I think I have... I am curious why you think you dont have them. This is what I see:

- Pretty clearly we are having this conversation, so we have the freedom/right to disagree and discuss government policy
- I dont recall your religious background - I havent been to church regularly for over 6 years (long story - probably a different thread) - however we arent mandated to attend any place of worship
- Has the government forced you to take in military soldiers or operators?
- We both choose not to purchase guns - I however have contemplated it frequently and once the kids are out of the house I may actually do so.
- We both choose to vote in a manner that each of us deems appropriate

Please tell me what I am missing here.

I'm really disinterested in your trolling questions frankly, you seem to do this about one a week and I made the mistake of actually answering. Won't happen again, I assure you.

But as long as I'm here, I have ZERO issues paying for someone's health care, as long as they are in a position of not being able to afford any insurance at all, you've made it clear that you just don't LIKE the idea of having to alleviate the burden on your fellow taxpayers.

You really think that the Government would give you a choice as to whether you'd be housing soldier, if it ever came to that unlikely point?

All of the "freedoms" that you think that you have are slowly being eroded, the only way to keep them is to fight for them, and most people are content to simply sit and watch TV, not even bothering to keep up with what's going on in the world. We are no longer an informed populace, we are largely sheep that simply go along because it's easier to do so.

Buy all the guns that you want. That seems to be another one of your peccadillos...nobody is threatening to take your guns (if you had them), and nobody really cares if you have them.

And yes, you are free to vote the way you want, but your vote doesn't necessarily could the same in different places around the nation. Gerrymandering and voter supression are rife in certian states, and THAT changes the political landscape, which changes the landscape of the nation.

[baldgriff]

Hornsby

First off - this portion of the discussion about whether something being a right and being forced by the government was (and is) an honest question.

You were the one asking me my opinion about "And if you don't have insurance, and get hurt/sick and have to go to the hospital, the taxpayers get to pick up the tab. Is that fair?" only to follow up your question later with "I have ZERO issues paying for someone's health care, as long as they are in a position of not being able to afford any insurance at all, you've made it clear that you just don't LIKE the idea of having to alleviate the burden on your fellow taxpayers."

I didnt state that I dont Like the idea of having to alleviate the burden on my fellow taxpayer. What I stated was "If the government decides it wants to spend it's money on compensating the hospital for caring for those without healthcare that again is up to the government. I may or may not agree with it, but once its in the government coffers its not my choice."

Also you were the one who wanted to discuss the various rights that I "think I have". Seemed easy enough to turn to the Constitution and demonstrate that we still have those rights. The point that was missed related to those points is that we all have the choice to exercise that right. We are not obligated to spend one penny of our money to comply with that right, its just there.

My apologies if you think I was trolling you - it was not intended - I actually thought we were having a good conversation until you decided to shut down the discussion:
by calling me a troll,
taking the moral high ground,
making some comment about do I really believe the government would give me a choice about housing soldiers
rambling on about how our freedoms are eroding away and then contradicting yourself by
telling me to buy all the guns because nobody is threatening to take them away, and nobody care if I have them. Then
telling me to go ahead and vote how I want - with a qualifier about gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Honestly if anyone became a troll, it was you. Up until your latest response it seemed like a really interesting conversation.

Oh and yes I think gerrymandering is a bad practice that should be abolished. In case you were interested.

[Hornsby]

Showing once again that Politicians DON"T represent us in any way, shape or form. The GOP in the Senate is trying to sneak the ACHA past without hearings, joining the house in purging Obamacare from the books. This despite the CBO scores, the lack of coverage for millions more people, and finally, a FOX News poll that indicates that only 17% of Americans approve of the AHCA, and 62% disapprove. Almost 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want this, but unless a few GOP Senators cross the aisle, it's gonna happen.