Politics, Politics, Politics

House may vote on the GOP health-care bill Friday, after the new version wins a few GOP moderates

House Republican leaders huddled with more moderate members of the GOP caucus for two hours Wednesday night to drum up support for the latest version of the American Health Care Act, after the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus threw its support behind the newly amended health-care bill on Wednesday and influential outside conservative groups dropped their opposition. After the meeting, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said "we got a few more to yes tonight — yeah, a couple moderates," and did not rule out a House vote as early as Friday. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), chairwoman of the House GOP conference, said it is "yet to be determined" if the House votes on ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b1b68662-9f44-3d32-bef3-6451293567fb/house-may-vote-on-gop.html
 
House Speaker Ryan says vote on 'new' Obamacare replacement will happen 'when we have the votes'

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday there was no specific date for a vote on the latest proposal to repeal and replace major parts of Obamacare, saying Republican leaders would call that vote only when they know they will win it.

"We're going to go when we have the votes," the Wisconsin Republican told reporters, echoing a refrain by GOP leaders that has been heard for weeks.

Ryan also said he was not going to be bound by an "artificial deadline" to try to pass the new version of the American Health Care Act.
Ryan, who won support from a key conservative House group on Wednesday for the revised bill, said, "I would argue that this is the bill that moderates would be more likely to vote" for.

He noted that GOP Rep. Tom McArthur, a member of the moderate Tuesday Group, had helped negotiate the new bill with the conservative Freedom Caucus chief Rep. Mark Meadows.

And he said that people with pre-existing health conditions would be protected "even better ... under our plan" than they are now under Obamacare.

That claim was immediately met with scorn from Obamacare supporters.

The new version of the ACHA would allow states under certain conditions to waive Obamacare rules that prevent insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for coverage than healthier people, and that require insurance plans to provide a certain set of minimum essential health benefits.

The speaker and President Donald Trump were badly embarrassed last month when Ryan was ****** to cancel a scheduled vote on that bill at the last minute once it became clear the ACHA would fail to pass in a full House vote.

Although Republicans control the House, two dozen or more conservative and moderate GOP members were poised to vote against the bill for various reasons, dooming its chances of passage.

But since then, Republicans have worked to amend the ACHA to alleviate some of those concerns. However, the GOP has avoided bringing amended versions to a vote because the leadership knew it still did not have enough support within the Republican caucus.

On Wednesday, the bill got a big boost when the Freedom Caucus came out in favor of the new bill.

But the changes designed to assuage concerns of conservatives could make it difficult for moderates to support the bill.
Republicans opposed to the bill or uncertain about it are leery of changes to Obamacare that would lead to a sharp increase in insurance premiums and a reduction in the number of people with health-care coverage.

On many of their minds is the fact that every House seat is up for grabs in the mid-term elections in November 2018. The fear among a number of GOP members is that their constituents will blame them for any fallout from a new health-care law.

Asked about the fear of losing seats, Ryan said Thursday: "I think people's seats are at risk if they don't do what they said they were going to do."
Ryan was referring to repeated promises by Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/house-speaker-ryan-says-vote-171929912.html
 
Arnold S already said it.....the politicians are picking the voters instead of the voters picking the politicians!


John Kasich unloads on 'horrific' gerrymandering

Ohio Gov. John Kasich blasted the "horrific" gerrymandering of Congressional districts during a recent interview with Business Insider, saying it "further polarizes people."

"All this gerrymandering has just carved people up into safe districts, but they're not safe, because they have to fear primaries," the Republican governor told Business Insider Monday while on tour promoting "Two Paths: America Divided or United," his new book.

"If you're a Democrat, it's from the left. If you're a Republican, it's from the right," he continued. "So it further polarizes people. And then when you have the public, which is increasingly sort of knowledgeable about what's happening, compromise [becomes] like evil. So the system is dysfunctional. Gerrymandering is horrific."

Republicans currently hold a 238-193 majority in the House. That strong majority is somewhat due to the Congressional map that has been in place since the 2012 elections. In 2016, Republicans won about 51.5% of the House vote nationwide and roughly 55% of the seats.
In Kasich's state of Ohio, Republicans currently control 12 seats while Democrats hold four. Republicans captured 58.2% of the House vote in 2016, winning 75% of the seats.

There is currently a case before the Supreme Court that could have huge implications for gerrymandering moving forward. That case involves a bipartisan group of voting rights activists who say Wisconsin's State Assembly district lines were gerrymandered so extremely that the GOP gained a large majority while losing the popular vote to the Democrats.

Kasich, who was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said he hopes the Supreme Court sides with the advocates.
"They have to draw more reasonable lines," he said, adding that "we're trying to do something about it in Ohio."

Kasich then took a shot at what he believes to be a huge problem in presidential politics: "The role of money."

"You get a handful of billionaires who can basically buy the White House," he said of the campaign finance system he deemed "terrible."

"It's disgraceful," he continued. "So the changes need to come."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/john-kasich-unloads-horrific-gerrymandering-190323862.html
 
this guy is in over his head and ******* is about to hit the fan from several different directions
I'm honestly starting to think this is a Russian conspiracy of a magnitude not even imaginable. This is an effort to bring the US to its knees ... as payback for Reagan/Bush years of helping crash the Russian government.
 
I'm honestly starting to think this is a Russian conspiracy of a magnitude not even imaginable

got to agree with you on that... Russia hacking here... backing Iran/Syria/S.Korea... the planes "testing" us
the hacking the French elections supporting another Trump like person wanting to end NATO... it just goes on
 
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin can't guarantee middle class wouldn't pay more under tax plan

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin today told ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos that he couldn’t say how Donald Trump's sweeping tax overhaul plan would affect the president personally, while also declining to guarantee that middle-class families wouldn't pay more under the proposal.

"I can't make any guarantees until this thing is done and it’s on the president's desk. But I can tell you, that’s our number one objective in this," Mnuchin said on "Good Morning America."

The blueprint, which the White House unveiled Wednesday, calls for dramatically cutting federal taxes for businesses and simplifying rules for individuals. The plan would slash corporate taxes to 15 percent for large and small businesses, as well as consolidate categories for individual taxpayers, lowering the top bracket from nearly 40 percent to 35 percent.

But the Trump administration left key questions about the tax plan unanswered, such as how it would affect the middle class and the wealthy. Mnuchin avoided sharing further details of the plan in the interview with "GMA" this morning.

"The details of taxes are very complicated and we're committed to working quickly and getting this done," the treasury secretary said.
Another "objective" of the plan, Mnuchin said, is to ensure no absolute tax cuts for the wealthy. But when pressed further by Stephanopoulos, he declined to make any guarantees on that point as well, and said he couldn't say how the plan would affect Trump himself, amid continued calls for the president to release his tax returns.

"Let me just say this isn’t about President Trump’s tax returns; this is about the American public’s tax returns," Mnuchin said. "This is about creating economic effect for small and medium-sized businesses and making sure they have the same opportunities as large corporations."
During a press briefing at the White House Wednesday, Mnuchin told reporters the president has "no intention" of releasing his tax returns.

"The president has no intention. The president has released plenty of information and I think it's given more financial disclosure than anybody else and the population has plenty of information,” Mnuchin said Wednesday when pressed at the briefing by ABC News' Jonathan Karl on whether the U.S. public has the right to know what's in Trump’s tax returns. "What this is about is creating jobs and creating economic growth."
Experts interviewed by ABC News Wednesday largely agreed that the proposed tax cuts would significantly reduce federal revenue and balloon the federal deficit. One analysis, by the bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, estimates that Trump’s tax plan would cost anywhere between $3 trillion and $7 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade.

Experts also said the broad brushstrokes of the blueprint lack the necessary details on the issue's more complex and controversial questions.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/treasury-...dle-class-113240550--abc-news-topstories.html




Experts weigh in on impact of Trump's tax plan

Experts are already taking issue with president Trump's newly-released tax plan -- in particular the White House's claim that economic growth would offset huge losses in government revenue from the proposed corporate tax cuts.

The plan calls for the corporate tax rate to be slashed from 35 percent to 15 percent. And the new plan would consolidate the seven tax brackets for individuals and reduce them to only three brackets: a 10-percent bracket, a 25-percent bracket and a 35-percent bracket.

Right now, the highest individual federal income tax rate is just shy of 40 percent. Trump's plan also doubles the standard deduction, meaning that a married couple would pay no taxes on the first $24,000 they earn.

The plan, summarized on just one page to reporters at the White House, lacks many of the details needed to make projections about its long-term effects.

Alex Raskolniknov, a tax professor at Columbia Law School, was alarmed by the lack of precision in the plan. "If this were any other president, this would have been a huge embarrassment of a "plan,'" he wrote to ABC News. "He's had more detail in his tax plan when he was running for president. What was all the hype about this time? ... It's hard to take this seriously ... except it comes from the President of the United States."
And every expert who spoke to ABC News said that the plan would result in a large drop in federal government revenue and a spike in the federal budget deficit.

“This is all candy and no vegetables,” said Marc Goldwein, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Goldwein said he thinks a 25-percent to 28-percent corporate tax rate would strike a good balance between economic competitiveness and fiscal responsibility.

Economists have estimated that Trump’s tax plan could cost between $2 and $7 trillion over the next decade. An analysis by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., concludes that a 15 percent corporate tax rate would reduce federal revenue by about $2 trillion over a decade, while the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center puts that estimate at $6 trillion. The bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget offers a range of costs from between 3 and 7 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the next decade.

“This is probably not to be taken seriously. It’s too huge a revenue loss. It is so fiscally reckless that it appears to be willful sabotage of the U.S. economy,” said Daniel Shaviro, a tax professor at NYU School of Law.

Economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who lead the Congressional Budget Office under former President George W. Bush, agreed that the economic growth won't be enough to offset the massive loss of revenue.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/experts-weigh-impact-trump-tax-plan/story?id=47038615
 
Same old tax & spend "Trickle Down Economics" the Republicans have pushed for 3 decades now. They feel "revenue neutral" tax cuts or spending increases are so important UNTIL they get the opportunity to implement their "spending for the rich/corporations" ... then its always "tax cuts pay for themselves" ... its worked so fucking good that it put the first $10 trillion of national debt on the books. I honestly thing Trump is purposely trying to crash the US economy.

The big, self-proclaimed DEAL MAKER isn't making deals like he said, and he can't run rough shod over anyone his size. He's a loser ...
 
I honestly thing Trump is purposely trying to crash the US economy.

If you remember right... he once said that it would make people like him even more wealthy!
I don't know if he is just listening to bannon to much... or if he is pissed he is not liked ratings so low.. and just doing everything he can to make himself more money before the sky falls ...his speech once said he thought people like himself should pay more taxes.. he once talked about our "national treasures"... and now he is selling off the rights.... so far everything he has done is the exact opposite of what he stated during the campaign... but we ... most of knew better... what is so disturbing is that 96%.....still believe!

he made another statement a while back ... that he thought once he was president all of this would be forgotten and he could just...?
what we are supposed to forget all the Russia/WikiLeaks and etc?
although what's really funny... and shows you ... even more... what a republican is like... all of a sudden 52% of republicans see no problem with Russia and are willing to work with them.... wonder how they would feel if it had been a democrat they helped?

I think he knows that sooner or later he will be in deep *******....Flynn is looking at some serious jail time... I think before they shut the cell door he will squeal like a pig!
 
I'm honestly starting to think this is a Russian conspiracy of a magnitude not even imaginable. This is an effort to bring the US to its knees ... as payback for Reagan/Bush years of helping crash the Russian government.

You may very well be right, but I would think you would be OK with that.
 
Right now Russia has to be sitting around laughing their ass off and gloating about all the ******* they have stirred!
they got Trump in here.... and the country is so divided and falling apart... it has to funny to them..... they are working on France... and backing another person making the same kind of statements that trump did.... wanting to be less friendly with the US and wanting to pull out of nato... right now they are pulling all the strings... what they didn't count on was Trump trying to show people he is not tied to Russia and bombed Syria.... but then that all could have been just a front... put on by Trump and Russia to take the heat off Trump's Russian ties.... after all Russia was getting a little mad at the cost of Syria... and we hurt what with the bombs?.. they were warned an hour ahead of time...the airport was in good working order the next day.. Syria started using their "drum bombs" the next day.. out of the airport we "destroyed....
and now a bunch of the Republicans that were against Trump before... all of a sudden have changed their view of him...Great move on Russia's part pulling Trump's strings!

if you remember right a while back congress' investigation into the Russia thing was being impeded and falling apart because of ties to Trump.... and the senate one was the one un-biased and going forward... now all of a sudden after the heat.. congress is back on track... and after the Syria bombing the senate one is falling apart!
 
A key part of Trump's tax plan just hit a roadblock with Republicans

Some Republicans aren't too happy with a key part President Donald Trump's tax plan. The rough outline the administration released on Wednesday said all deductions would be eliminated except for those from charitable donations and mortgage payments. One of the deductions that faces the chopping block is the state and local tax deduction (SALT). Americans can deduct the amount they pay in state and local taxes from their federal return, saving them money on that filing. While eliminating the SALT deduction could save the federal government a massive amount of money, it also benefits many people in three states: New Jersey, New York, and California. According to the Committee for a Responsible ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9ff0bfbc-36aa-3676-848b-66ed95232ef8/ss_a-key-part-of-trump's-tax.html

Donald Trump, Tax Cuts for the Rich Won’t Boost the Economy

Hunter Blair Thu, Apr 27 2:12 PM PDT

For all the talk of high-minded, growth-oriented tax reform, all the Trump administration offered on Wednesday as the president announced his tax plan was an unsurprising package of tax cuts for the rich and corporations: Top-earning individuals will be taxed 35% instead of 39.6%, big businesses will be taxed 15% instead of 35%, and it will all be financed by debt.

The sparse, one-page proposal actually doesn’t deviate much from Trump’s campaign plan, which the Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimated would raise the national debt by $7.2 trillion over the first decade, and by $20.9 trillion over two decades.

Despite claims from the administration, economic growth will absolutely not make up the difference. While the economy could still benefit from a short-run fiscal boost to spending, tax cuts for the rich are a terribly inefficient way to do this. High-income households save more than low- and moderate-income ones, so any fiscal measure aimed at boosting demand should be targeted away from the rich, not toward them.
Prospects for boosting growth with tax cuts over the longer horizon look nearly as bleak. Cuts to the corporate income tax increase profits, but those profits eventually go to shareholders in some form. This increases the returns to savings, which incentivizes households to save more instead of spending. But this channel looks like it will be very weak in coming years, as there has been a savings glut for the past decade or more.

This means that increasing the supply of savings is not really relieving any constraint on growth. Further, cuts to the corporate income tax incentivize all private savings (including household and business savings), but if cuts aren’t offset by either reductions in spending or increased tax revenue from other sources, they reduce public savings by increasing the deficit. In the long run, this pushes up interest rates, which would then discourage private savings. Supply-side economics has been tried time and time again, and tax cuts simply do not spur much growth at all, let alone enough to pay for themselves.

let me highlight these two

Cuts to the corporate income tax increase profits, but those profits eventually go to shareholders in some form.
Supply-side economics has been tried time and time again, and tax cuts simply do not spur much growth at all, let alone enough to pay for themselves.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/donald-trump-tax-cuts-rich-211232788.html

What Trump's Tax Plan Could Mean for You -- The Motley Fool

Donald Trump's stunning election upset promises to bring major changes to the current tax structure in the U.S. Trump has pledged to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes across the board and spending money to overhaul the nation's infrastructure. During his campaign, Trump outlined his plan for restructuring the current tax code to make it more streamlined and efficient. Here's a breakdown of what Trump wants to do to your tax bracket. If you're in the middle class If you are one of the millions of middle-class Americans, your tax bill could either rise or fall depending upon your circumstances. Trump's plan would eliminate the "head of household" filing status and raise the standard deduction ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/a38...9b439d99d/ss_what-trump's-tax-plan-could.html
 
let me highlight these two

Cuts to the corporate income tax increase profits, but those profits eventually go to shareholders in some form.
Supply-side economics has been tried time and time again, and tax cuts simply do not spur much growth at all, let alone enough to pay for themselves.


point them out AGAIN!
 
Supply Side "trickle down" might could work IF Republicans proposed it on a revenue neutral basis, however, they haven't the balls to make those necessary adjustments to entitlements to offset their humongous, revenue starving tax cuts. They know they want to get re-elected in order to get their OWN entitlements, which most don't deserve. Instead, they cut the taxes, then implement back door service related taxes to take back their tax cuts from the middle-poor wage earners.
 
Supply Side "trickle down" might could work IF Republicans proposed it on a revenue neutral basis, however, they haven't the balls to make those necessary adjustments to entitlements to offset their humongous, revenue starving tax cuts

I don't think they give a *******... they will take what they can .... make all the adjustments necessary to help those that don't need it.... and let the next pres worry about fixing it.... and then say things are all his fault

but in some ways it is hard to have sympathy for the middle class.... they don't get off their ass and vote!
the right is a small minority.... and yet they win all these elections.... because the left just doesn't get involved
although I think that might change next election... but will they keep it up.... doubt it
 
They stated this morning...,.and even Trump said it this morning... they are going to save pre-existing conditions... only now it will be up to the state to provide... although the states still have the option of opting out!... so there you go... you are fucked!


GOP congressman: Greater risk, greater premium

Congressman Mike Kelly (R-PA) says raising premiums on Americans with pre-existing conditions might be necessary for insurance companies to stay in business. ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a9b79c89-cd5c-3461-a8f3-e61902aafab5/gop-congressman:-greater.html



Why Republicans Can't Replace Obamacare

It’s a flawed program. Everybody knows it. Premiums are too high. Deductibles are too high. Doctor and hospital networks are too narrow. Millions are gaming the system by staying uninsured until they get sick or by stopping their premium payments in the ninth month – knowing that they won’t have to pay medical bills for the rest of the year. Insurers are leaving in droves. One third of the counties have only one insurer left. After Blue Cross leaves, in most cases there will be none.

So, why can’t Republicans do anything about it?

For the answer to that question you have to delve into the conservative mind.

For most of the 20th century, Democrats were on offense. Republicans were on defense. Democrats, or shall we say liberals, were dedicated to reform. Republicans, at least conservative Republicans, were committed to defending the status quo. Conservatives honed their skills in filibustering, tabling, offering unfriendly amendments and in other ways stopping liberals from doing whatever it was they wanted to do.
They didn’t develop the skills to reform anything. They didn’t need them.

Remember Bill Buckley’s definition of a conservative? “It’s someone standing athwart history yelling stop.”

Then came Ronald Reagan. Reagan Republicanism is associated in the public mind with change – tax reform, deregulation, etc. It was an era of conservative change worldwide. In the latter two decades of the 20th century, Margaret Thatcher pioneered the techniques of privatization in Britain. More than 30 countries privatized their social security systems to one degree or another. Many countries – including some formerly communist eastern European countries adopted a flat tax. Sweden implemented school vouchers for public school children.

You could summarize all this by saying that a huge role reversal took place. Reform came from the right. Resistance came from the left. As with the rest of the world, so it was in the United States.

But not so fast.

It may be helpful to remember that the deregulation of our major regulatory agencies began under Jimmy Carter and was championed by Sen. Teddy Kennedy. Parallel to the Kemp-Roth Republican tax reform was the Bradley-Gephardt Democratic version, dedicated to the same goal: broadening the base and lowering the rates. And welfare reform? It was one of the key planks in Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign for the presidency.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngo...licans-cant-replace-obamacare/2/#6c70c9d5b2ee
 
Politics
What GOP health care bill really says about pre-existing conditions

President Trump says the revised House GOP health care bill would protect people with pre-existing conditions, but a multitude of experts and advocates beg to differ. The latest change to the bill, called the MacArthur amendment after its author, Republican House member Tom MacArthur, would allow states to opt out of several key Obamacare insurance regulations. Two of these are critical for protecting those with health care issues obtain policies that are affordable and cover their treatments. Obamacare revolutionized health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions who buy policies on the individual market. Prior to the health reform law, consumers with a medical issue -- even if it were years earlier and completely resolved -- could be denied coverage or charged much more in premiums....

The MacArthur amendment keeps Obamacare's guaranteed access clause, which requires insurers to provide policies to those with pre-existing conditions. MacArthur and other politicians cite this part of the bill to say that the sick and formerly sick would continue to be protected.
But the bill would allow states to apply for waivers that could greatly change the cost and quality of their coverage.

States could opt out of the law's essential health benefits measure, which requires insurers to cover 10 main benefits, including hospitalization, prescription ******* and other services.

Insurers in those states would likely offer skimpier policies that don't cover all the treatments and medications that those with medical issues need. Carriers would be hesitant to offer more comprehensive policies because they would attract consumers with costly conditions.
the amendment would also allow states to change Obamacare's community rating provision, which bans insures from charging more based on their medical history. Under the revised bill insurers could charge more based on their medical history.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/news/economy/obamacare-trump-pre-existing-conditions/
 
Republican accidentally tells the truth about GOP health policy

As the Republicans’ health care crusade continues, we’ve grown accustomed to hearing GOP lawmakers present their regressive ideas in the most politically palatable ways they can think of. Occasionally, however, a GOP official will slip and say what he’s actually thinking. TPM highlighted just such an instance late yesterday. A Republican congressman said Monday that an amendment to the GOP’s American Health Care Act would require sicker people to pay more in insurance costs than people “who lead good lives.” In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Monday, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was asked about an amendment he supports to Republicans’ health care effort that would allow states to opt out of health- ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e48b51...840a994/ss_republican-accidentally-tells.html


GOP still looking for healthcare votes
Betsey Guzior,American City Business Journals Mon, May 1 7:55 AM PDT

White House economic adviser Gary Cohn told CBS “This Morning” that he's confident a revised healthcare replacement bill has enough support to win a vote on the House floor this week. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, however, has not scheduled one, The Hill reported. President Donald Trump, in an interview with “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson, said he thinks the new bill will guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. “Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, ‘Has to be.’” But the bill’s language still will give states the option of dropping that mandate,which could ******* individuals with prior health conditions such as cancer or heart disease ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c783a377-4114-3961-9775-2e9a11e94e27/gop-still-looking-for.html
 
...Republicans in Congress are mostly Reaganites ... they want to turn everything over to the various states and let the states handle it. That's why they wish to shed any kind of entitlement off to the states ... a nationally sponsored & funded health care system was NEVER on the Republican's agenda.
...I'm always confused when Trump talks about Lincoln as his favorite president. Lincoln was for federal control of the states; just the opposite of Reagan and Trump.
 
BEST ARTICLE SO FAR... on how the republicans are going to fuck the American public



Obamacare Repeal Is Really Just A Giant $1 Trillion Cut To Health Care Programs

If the policy details are too confusing, just focus on the money.

Republicans are trying very hard to disguise what the American Health Care Act would actually do.

They keep insisting their bill, which would repeal the Affordable Care Act, would “lower premiums and improve access to quality, affordable care,” as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) put it last month.

Any time analysts point out the ways in which those promises are misleading or false ― or cite the Congressional Budget Office prediction that the AHCA would leave about 24 million people without health insurance ― Republicans insist that a combination of new tax credits, state innovation, and so-called high-risk pools will take care of people better than the current system does.

This is not true. And perhaps the clearest evidence is in those CBO numbers.


1.png


For all of the policy gobbledygook flying around these days, health care policy is a pretty straightforward question of resources. People who are sick or injured need expensive medical care, the kind that requires insurance. Most poor people can’t afford that insurance on their own and many middle-class people can’t either.

The Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law known as Obamacare, addressed this problem by putting new federal money into the health care system ― primarily by offering tax credits to help people pay for private coverage and giving states money to expand their Medicaid programs.

The AHCA would reverse that, putting less money into private insurance assistance and taking a huge chunk out of Medicaid funding.
All told, it works out to about $1 trillion less in federal spending on health care.

“Even in our expensive health care system, cutting a trillion dollars in federal support is a big deal,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, told HuffPost. “Without that funding, millions of people couldn’t afford health insurance, and many would go without needed health care and face medical debt.”

Take that money away, and the people who now depend on it will mostly be stuck. Some will be poor, some will be middle class, and some will be people with serious medical conditions. All will face a difficult choice: They won’t be able to pay for the medical care they need, and so they will face financial hardship ― or go without care altogether.

It’s roughly $200 billion less for private insurance

Broadly speaking, the American Health Care Act makes two main sets of changes to insurance coverage. The first would affect people who buy private insurance on their own, rather than through employers. The GOP bill would take away the tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act, and replace them with tax credits that use a different formula.

These credits would mean less assistance for people with low incomes or high insurance premiums. The new tax credits would also add up to substantially less money than the existing ones. Under the GOP bill, tax credits would cost the federal government $357 billion over 10 years, instead of the $663 billion that the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits would cost.

The Republican bill does have some provisions to offset that decline. The best-known is a provision to fund high-risk pools, which are special insurance programs for people with pre-existing conditions. But these provisions add up to just a little more than $100 billion over 10 years, which is not nearly enough to make up the gap.

This is a big reason many experts think the high-risk pools wouldn’t work. To provide the kind of comprehensive coverage now available through the Affordable Care Act, they would need a lot more government money.

It’s roughly $800 billion less for Medicaid

Of course, the really big fiscal change in the American Health Care Act is the one that, at least in the last few weeks, has received the least attention: the proposed cuts to Medicaid.

Under the Republican proposal, the federal government would phase out funding for expanded Medicaid eligibility ― and then, going forward, change the formula for calculating federal support for the program. The result would be $839 billion in cuts over the next 10 years.

States wouldn’t be able to compensate for these large and growing federal funding shortfalls.
Edwin Park, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Republicans frequently insist that these Medicaid cuts won’t hurt anybody, because the program needs reform anyway and the cuts would encourage states to innovate. But Medicaid’s shortcomings have as much to do with underfunding as waste. (Many doctors won’t see patients at such low reimbursement rates, making it hard for some Medicaid recipients to find specialists.) No serious analyst thinks it’s possible to take that much money out of the program without people losing access.

This is why the single biggest source of people losing coverage under the AHCA would be from declining Medicaid enrollment ― to the tune of 14 million over the next decade, according to the CBO projection.

“States wouldn’t be able to compensate for these large and growing federal funding shortfalls without harming beneficiaries through cuts to eligibility, benefits and provider payments,” said Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The Republican bill does throw a little money at safety-net hospitals, in order to help those institutions offset the costs of doling out more uncompensated care. But the total investment is just $48 billion.

That’s a pittance, relative to the size of the Medicaid cuts.

It won’t get better with the amendments

When experts think about the net effect of the GOP repeal bill, they frequently cite an additional set of changes: elimination of the mandates on employers (to provide insurance) and individuals (to get coverage). Those mandates generate revenue today, and the CBO includes those amounts in its tallies of “coverage” provisions because they cause more people to get health insurance.

But those provisions amount to $200 billion total, which is hardly enough to offset the nearly $1 trillion reduction in spending and tax credits. And, in any event, they are more like a new tax break than putting money into helping people pay for health care.

The other footnote to these figures is that they are a bit dated. The CBO hasn’t analyzed the bill since late March, and since that time Republicans have introduced new amendments that would give states the option of waiving key insurance regulations, including the prohibition on charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions.

It’s difficult to be sure how those amendments would change the agency’s assessment and it’s possible that, given the chance to analyze this latest version of repeal legislation, the CBO would conclude the new bill represents a smaller reduction in what the federal government is spending to help people pay for their medical care.

But it would still be a cut, and a pretty massive one at that ― which means, one way or another, the overall effect of the bill would be greater exposure to punishing medical bills, not less.

Republicans might still think their legislation is defensible on the merits, because they favor smaller government on principle ― or because they are so eager to reverse the tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans that the Affordable Care Act put in place.

But that is not the case Republicans are making. They are promising their proposal would make it easier for people to pay their medical bills, even as they drain the health care system of nearly $1 trillion in federal funding.

That is not a credible argument.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-health-care-bill_us_59089a06e4b0bb2d0871e21b
 
Last edited:
Back
Top