House Republicans/Ryan Finally Release ACA Repeal (lol) and Replace (lol) Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ponn said:
How is a tax credit going to help pay my higher MONTHLY premiums and deductibles now that there is no individual mandate? Oh wait, they will have HSA's or some shit so i'm screwed for a year then when I get my tax return I can put that in my HSA and partly pay for my insurance with my own money with no actual subsidies or help from the government. THANKS REPUBS!!
can I just opt into the free gun to shoot myself with plan instead?
Click to expand...

I believe the tax credits are advanced monthly

but yeah, get an hsa and put all that extra money you have into tax-free savings

that about sums up every republican healthcare plan

you do have extra money, right?
 
The 30% surcharge will do exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to do. People will drop coverage and ensure it stays dropped until they get sick and need insurance.
 
Blader said:
What is going on his district that he can just glide to victory nine consecutive times?
Click to expand...

Some districts are so Republican that their Reps could literally start shooting them at county fairs and they'd still vote GOP.

This thing is a disaster; it shouldn't be hard at all with some protest to get a few Senators to flip on this shit heap. If anyone in a state that Hillary got 40% or more votes for this bill, they'll lose their seats if they're running in 2018. That alone will scare at least 3 people to flip.
 
StoOgE said:
So,

We have

1) 30% premium increase if you lose coverage. This is so he can technically say there is no "mandate" to buy insurance, but basically makes it too expensive for people to buy if they lose coverage or are poor.

2) Has not been scored by the CBO, likely because it will show that people are losing coverage.

3) Is not a repeal of Obamacare *at fucking all*, it's a shitty patch.

4) Uses Block Grants for Medicare and Medicate mandate expansion that *will* run out, leading to an underfunding of those programs so that he can "save them" in a decade with privatization.

5) Relies on high risk pools to guarantee "access to coverage" for pre-existing conditions without actually ensuring coverage or affordability of coverage.

This is a shit sandwich and is dead in the Senate. Just like all of this other shining stars chief legislative "accomplishments".

We should thank him, because every fucking proposal he puts forth is great ammo to use against the Republican party in the mid-terms. Like when Romney and this shitbag had to run away from his proposals for medicare and medicaid in his hilarious "budget"
Click to expand...

This will not get 60 votes.
 
Plinko said:
I mean, come on.
Click to expand...

Pretty much like me in freshman college when i was assigned to write a thousand word essay about a houston art museum visit. and with the help of my literary and grammatical prowess i was able to steer the topic to Dark Souls and put like almost 400 words down just on it.. next 600 was easy.
 
The Albatross said:
The 30% coverage thing... That would probably break even with the penalty for not having insurance under the ACA for most people right? My GF (now wife) didn't have insurance for about 2 months between jobs and I believe it was like $570 penalty.

So, the average monthly premium for Americans is $235 on the individual market. So... if you take 30% of that, it's $70 or so. So worse case, you'd pay $700 more a year (that is, if you don't have insurance for Jan and Feb, and then have it at that premium for the rest of the year). So it looks like worst case you could pay like $130 more, though if it's one month later, then it breaks about even with the current penalty.

BUt, that's just my guess based on reading the text, I'm no expert.
Click to expand...

Son, premium assistance is going away.

My wife and I pay 700 dollars a month for insurance because we don't get subsidized by the ACA.

That's 210 dollars or 2,520 dollars for the year for our family if we lose coverage. Now, think of what a family of 4 looks like. Because the current tax penalty only applies to tax payers. A premium increase applies to the policy.

The point remains, he managed to lawyer his way out of calling it a "mandate"
 
Paul Ryan must have wanted to energize the democratic base. As if we didn't need more of a reason.

The talking points against this are going to be starting within the hour lol.
 
sangreal said:
I believe the tax credits are advanced monthly

but yeah, get an hsa and put all that extra money you have into tax-free savings

that about sums up every republican healthcare plan

you do have extra money, right?
Click to expand...

Compete across state lines! By making sure all insurance companies leave any states with consumer protections and relocate to some shithole willing to take them in exchange for zero consumer protection. And then we will get the "price competition of a free market" by all being forced to buy shitty insurance with zero consumer protection from Delaware. Just like credit cards.
 
Boke1879 said:
Yea this won't pass the Senate. The CBO will show how much all this will cost and how many people will be dropped from this.
Click to expand...

Future headline. "Paul Ryan introduces legislation to make CBO findings top secret and only accessible by the Speaker of the House."

I mean, it's basically what they're trying to do with the satellites that give us information about climate change.

Boke1879 said:
Paul Ryan must have wanted to energize the democratic base. As if we didn't need more of a reason.

The talking points against this are going to be starting within the hour lol.
Click to expand...

"Dear Paul, thank you for doing this 2 days before the Women's strike."
 
NullPointer said:
Just as Trump has repeatedly promised this is cheaper, offers better care, and covers everybody.

Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
What trump promised sounds like single payer universal healthcare to me. But isn't that bad? I thought Republicans want everyone to know that's bad? GOP can't help but name shit bills innocent sounding names a la Patriot Act.
 
jtb said:
The 30% surcharge is such a morally appalling and functionally ineffective replacement for a mandate. It's cruel and stupid.
Click to expand...

It's another way to justify systemic inequalities as personal character deficits.

If you lack health insurance for X period, you're stupid because "you know the risks" or some other circus act of cock suckery because the spin is so hard they're creating gravitational waves.

You know these sociopaths will use that as an excuse. They will blame curation as character. It overlaps deeply into the dualistic delusion they constantly adhere to. You see it in their disgusting religiosity which they weaponize and their climate change denial.
 
Stumpokapow said:
The planned parenthood section is an unconstitutional bill of attainder on its face.
Click to expand...

Not if planned parenthood was the only recipient of those funds. Then it's more "government giveth, government taketh away."

Now, if the money given to planned parenthood is money that's actually given to a class of health-care providers and they specifically name planned parenthood out of the group, then yes.
 
C6RkHs1UYAAC8-A.jpg:large


Thank goodness Paul Ryan is thinking of those CEOs making above $500K who can't reduce their taxes with this deduction.
 
The Albatross said:
The 30% coverage thing... That would probably break even with the penalty for not having insurance under the ACA for most people right? My GF (now wife) didn't have insurance for about 2 months between jobs and I believe it was like $570 penalty.
Click to expand...

? there is no penalty under the ACA for going without insurance for 2 months between jobs. The coverage gap exemption allows you to go 3 months without coverage (technically longer because you only need coverage for 1 day in a month)

not really relevant to anything, just that if she really paid $570 for missing 2 months she should look into getting that back
 
The Albatross said:
The 30% coverage thing... That would probably break even with the penalty for not having insurance under the ACA for most people right? My GF (now wife) didn't have insurance for about 2 months between jobs and I believe it was like $570 penalty.

So, the average monthly premium for Americans is $235 on the individual market. So... if you take 30% of that, it's $70 or so. So worse case, you'd pay $700 more a year (that is, if you don't have insurance for Jan and Feb, and then have it at that premium for the rest of the year). So it looks like worst case you could pay like $130 more, though if it's one month later, then it breaks about even with the current penalty.

BUt, that's just my guess based on reading the text, I'm no expert.
Click to expand...
That is note even remotely close to being accurate for premiums. Triple that number and it might come close. You grabbed the average premiums from 2013

Edit: I exaggerated. I was thinking family. It's still outdated. It's about 100 more for individual. It's 800 plus for a family
 
PeakPointMatrix said:
There's no way this passes right? I need to know whether to devote actual worry to this or not.
Click to expand...

Can't say 'no way' in this political climate, but I'd be shocked.

Once people see the penalty (so basically, it's a fucking mandate) and someone breaks down how many are going to lose coverage, I'd be surprised if it gets through the House... Much less the Senate.
 
PeakPointMatrix said:
There's no way this passes right? I need to know whether to devote actual worry to this or not.
Click to expand...

No. This is the "House Republican" plan. This was always going to be batshit crazy and unpassable in the Senate. Just like all their budget proposals.

The Senate Republicans will likely trot something out that is far more moderate and looks a lot more like Obamacare with a few provisions that are conservative red meat.

The only question is if House Republicans in the Freedom Caucus will vote for it, and if they won't, will moderate House Dems come over to help pass it.

They will then proclaim Obamacare dead, all the states that didn't take the medicare/medicade expansion will jump on board, premiums will drop in those states, insurers will re-enter the marketplace and "TrumpCare" will be called a rousing success even though it's going to mostly be the same fucking thing.
 
jtb said:
The 30% surcharge is such a morally appalling and functionally ineffective replacement for a mandate. It's cruel and stupid.
Click to expand...
If you even factor in the potential of companies jacking up the premiums (like they always do annually) before counting surcharge that 30% is even more scary.
 
Republicans love those penalties. They do similar shit with Medicare Plan D. If you don't subscribe the year you are eligible they tack on a penalty per month you did not get it and with Medicare part D that penalty is for life not just a one time thing
 
UnObtainium17 said:
If you even factor in the potential of companies jacking up the premiums (like they always do annually) before counting surcharge that 30% is even more scary.
Click to expand...

Right, so a 15% premium increase in a state will be an additional 4.5% increase for those who lost coverage. So it winds up looking more like a 34.5% penalty because you pay it on future premiums, not a flat amount like the penalty in the ACA
 
It's the penalty part of the mandate without an actual mandate. At best it punishes those who briefly lost coverage but still want to do the "right" thing by purchasing insurance again. It actively incentivizes forgoing coverage.

It's obviously a cynical, willful attempt to capitalize on irrational feelings regarding the mandate.
 
sangreal said:
I believe the tax credits are advanced monthly

but yeah, get an hsa and put all that extra money you have into tax-free savings

that about sums up every republican healthcare plan

you do have extra money, right?
Click to expand...

Wait, thats how ACA works, so it is a subsidy then? When I signed up for ACA after losing my job on LTD it said it was like a tax credit and it would be worked into my taxes so if I way lying about income or my income changed I would be liable for paying back the subsidy used to lower my monthly premium on the marketplace. If it works the same then the bigger question is how much are the subsidies now, being based on age is not a good sign.
 
Funny thing about the medicaid caps. Here in AZ it will especially screw people over because the state has done everything in it's power to lower the cost of medicaid. Why does this screw them over? Because, the caps are based on the historical costs of medicaid within a state. So if you are in a state that has been generous with medicaid support your state will have higher caps than a state that has been stingy. It's essentially fucking over red states even harder.
 
StoOgE said:
No. This is the "House Republican" plan. This was always going to be batshit crazy and unpassable in the Senate. Just like all their budget proposals.

The Senate Republicans will likely trot something out that is far more moderate and looks a lot more like Obamacare with a few provisions that are conservative red meat.

The only question is if House Republicans in the Freedom Caucus will vote for it, and if they won't, will moderate House Dems come over to help pass it.

They will then proclaim Obamacare dead, all the states that didn't take the medicare/medicade expansion will jump on board, premiums will drop in those states, insurers will re-enter the marketplace and "TrumpCare" will be called a rousing success even though it's going to mostly be the same fucking thing.
Click to expand...

there's no political advantage for ANY democrat still in office to cooperate here. Democrats are livid with Republicans right now.
 
Manmademan said:
there's no political advantage for ANY democrat still in office to cooperate here. Democrats are livid with Republicans right now.
Click to expand...

There is some fear if they release a plan that "fixes" Obamacare some Dems in swingy districts may take it in the house.

Similar fears to any kind of infrastructure bill.
 
toddhunter said:
Before: it will cost me if I don't have health insurance. Better get health insurance.
Now: it will cost me more if I get health insurance. Better not get health insurance.

It comes down to the fundamental evil of the republican party. Health insurance is a bad thing and poor people can do without.
Click to expand...
Well. That sure is something.
 
Ac30 said:
This would fuck over a lot of their base though? Although with this Trump may have him between a rock and a hard place. Plus, nuking the fillibuster... hoo boy. Tyranny of the majority here we come.
Click to expand...

Lurking a hard conservative leaning board, some of them are having a hard time figuring out if this is a good or bad move. Someone outright said they're using "how mad the libs get" as a determination.
 
i think the best part about changing the mandate to a surcharge is that instead of paying a tax to the government you pay an even more ridiculous premium to for-profit insurance companies

god, if we don't have single payer universal healthcare by 2021 this entire country is fucked forever
 
StoOgE said:
There is some fear if they release a plan that "fixes" Obamacare some Dems in swingy districts may take it in the house.

Similar fears to any kind of infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...

historical tendency has the party in power losing seats in the midterm- that would be the republicans. Add to that overwhelming, record breaking numbers of democrats getting involved in local politics, ACLU, rioting in town halls, etc since the Trump election, and the smart thing for any democrat in a "swingy" district for 2018 is to do absolutely nothing.

getting caught in the fallout is way, way worse.
 
Nobility said:
How on Earth do they expect the Senate to pass this?

Republicans going to avoid their town halls until midterms?
Click to expand...

They'll just assume it's paid protesters.

Dehumanize dissent as manufactured and act as if the smell of your own farts are the roses of authenticity.

This is the GOP in action.
 
It's exactly the same, just worse. But they won't attach "Obama" to the name so their idiot base will eat it up and champion it. Because they are idiots.
 
Something I forgot to mention.

This increases the age band.

Basically, older folks (50-64) can pay up to 5x a young person pays in this new bill.

Currently, it's 3x under the ACA.

So older folks will be hit pretty hard. And they're more likely to get sick, too. So...yeah.
 
Ponn said:
Wait, thats how ACA works, so it is a subsidy then? When I signed up for ACA after losing my job on LTD it said it was like a tax credit and it would be worked into my taxes so if I way lying about income or my income changed I would be liable for paying back the subsidy used to lower my monthly premium on the marketplace. If it works the same then the bigger question is how much are the subsidies now, being based on age is not a good sign.
Click to expand...

yes, it is the exact same thing with a worse calculation. The only other difference is you're allowed to buy shittier insurance with it than the ACA allows

from their talking points:
The Obamacare subsidy system did not work because the law required the subsidies only be used
to purchase expensive, one-size fits all coverage. Further, the subsidies could only be used on
the government exchanges. The lack of competition on the exchanges — where one-third of U.S.
counties have only one insurer on the exchange— has made the complicated Obamacare subsidy
unworkable or not useful for millions of Americans
Click to expand...

oh and if you have any leftover (lol) you can put it in your hsa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Anyone have experience with Snapdragon X laptops? Need advice lol.
3
261
Puscifer replied
Bill Burr and Billy Corgan Family Reunion Gone Wrong
33
3K
simpatico replied
Star Wars: Starfighter comes to theaters on May 28, 2027, directed by Shawn Levy and starring Ryan Gosling
2
61
2K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Ryan Coogler Has Spoken To Gillian Anderson About ‘X Files’ Reboot: “Fingers Crossed There”
20
812
RJMacready73 replied
Tom Cruise's next movie sounds like a huge ego trip for him lol
41
3K
Trilobit replied
Top Bottom