- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: American Health Care Act (Obamacare Replacement) introduced
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:57 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:57 am to BamaAtl
quote:Shockingly we agree on something.
No. It's a purposeless bill [...] and it's only being considered because of a cynical attempt to keep an empty campaign promise.
quote:Nope. Obamacare has already harmed millions. And the tax implications in the bill (in effect) an income subsidy to everyone at the same rate. There is no benefit in the bill that has a minimum income to qualify.
that would harm millions and help millionaires,
2
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:57 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I've yet to read a single positive analysis of this bill. Leftists hate it. Liberals hate it. Libertarians hate it. Establishment conservatives hate it. Radical conservatives hate it. As far as I can tell the only constituencies it appeals to are House leadership and insurance CEOs.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:57 am to TrebleHook
Bernie Sanders plan would be better than this dog shite
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:58 am to TrebleHook
quote:
This bill sucks. It won't pass imo
I hope you are correct.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:59 am to Taxing Authority
As I predicted, Republicans are doing something that allows them to simultaneously say (A) we promised to change Obamacare and we did, and (B) you should still blame Obama for healthcare's problems (so vote for us again).
The bill basically does nothing to fix Obamacare and may make it even more unaffordable in some ways.
The bill basically does nothing to fix Obamacare and may make it even more unaffordable in some ways.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 8:59 am to JabarkusRussell
quote:
Why can't they just go back to what was in affect before Obamacare minus eliminating the preexisting condition issue?
That would create chaos in the market and make the price of health insurance jump even more than it would have if they did nothing to healthcare and left Obamacare continue along its death spiral. The GOP looked at doing that in Jan and saw that option was a no go. Plus if they did that then the GOP would own any f**k ups with healthcare.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:00 am to TrebleHook
Sadly you may be right. Squatting in the no man's land of healthcare is resulting in us taking the negatives of both sides at the moment.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:01 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Won't pass.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:02 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Obamacare has already harmed millions
Shades of difference - there was no intent to specifically harm due to the ACA. This bill specifically targets lower-income seniors and would lead to 20-30M people losing insurance specifically because of it.
quote:
And the tax implications in the bill (in effect) an income subsidy to everyone at the same rate.
So another unfunded mandate? And Bill Gates gets the same subsidy as a 61 year-old with an income 300% of poverty level? Great program, guys!
Additionally, the helping millionaires is more pointing toward the removal of the ACA taxes that targeted millionaires, as well as the health insurance CEO kickback.
This post was edited on 3/7/17 at 9:04 am
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:03 am to JabarkusRussell
quote:
Why can't they just go back to what was in affect before Obamacare minus eliminating the preexisting condition issue?
The filibuster.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:03 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The fact of the matter is that the pre-existing condition issue would be much less of an issue if your insurance wasn't tied to your job. Most people who could not get insurance because of their conditions had been laid off and/or quit sometime in the past, which started it all.
I agree with much of this. The best way to solve it is single-payor, obviously.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:03 am to Iosh
quote:
I've yet to read a single positive analysis of this bill
There's a good reason for this.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:04 am to BamaAtl
The best way to solve it would be getting rid of the link between employment and healthcare. Unfortunately too many vested interests rest on this.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:05 am to Iosh
quote:Nope. The House leadership is all alone on this one.
it appeals to are House leadership and insurance CEOs.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:06 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. The House leadership is all alone on this one.
It removes the cap on tax benefits for CEO compensation for insurance companies (which was at $500,000). I guarantee the Humana CEO, making $14M+, loves this bill.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:08 am to Taxing Authority
Well I think the continuation of the state-based restrictions on health insurance is a pretty big giveaway to insurance companies (and therefore CEOs)
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:09 am to Iosh
quote:
I've yet to read a single positive analysis of this bill. Leftists hate it. Liberals hate it. Libertarians hate it. Establishment conservatives hate it. Radical conservatives hate it.
That's usually a sign of a good bill. This is the exception to that rule though. It is utter garbage. No wonder they kept it hidden and want to rush it through before the CBO scores it.
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:12 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Shades of difference - there was no intent to specifically harm due to the ACA
Entirely untrue. Just look at the Cadillac Tax. Directly aimed at harming those with good policies. Go look at the 300% multiplier. Directly aimed at harming those that had "cheap" insurance because they were low risk. The additional income "surcharge" directly aimed at harming those with higher incomes. And we can easily go second-order and look how the bill targeted employers >50 employees. And gawd bless you if you don't have enployer-provided insurance. quote:Good grief. There is a lot to criticize in this bill without resorting to lying.
This bill specifically targets lower-income seniors
quote:I suppose you're against equal treatment by the government? Ok.
And Bill Gates gets the same subsidy as a 61 year-old with an income 300% of poverty level?
And it's a bit silly to craft legislation to "equalize" ONE PERSON.
quote:
Additionally, the helping millionaires is more pointing toward the removal of the ACA taxes that targeted millionaires
Letting people keep their own money isn't "helping" them. If a person with a gun walks by and doesn't rob me--I dont' consider that "help". This post was edited on 3/7/17 at 9:14 am
Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:15 am to BamaAtl
quote:
I agree with much of this. The best way to solve it is single-payor, obviously.
Nope.Posted on 3/7/17 at 9:15 am to BamaAtl
quote:Nope.
It removes the cap on tax benefits for CEO compensation for insurance companies (which was at $500,000). I guarantee the Humana CEO, making $14M+, loves this bill.
Page 12 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News