(03-13-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  CBO: 24 million will lose health coverage under Trumpcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...78326e8884

It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

(03-14-2017 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  CBO: 24 million will lose health coverage under Trumpcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...78326e8884

It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting of Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  CBO: 24 million will lose health coverage under Trumpcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...78326e8884

It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

But by their metrics it isn't better for either end of the Republican spectrum. For the freedom caucus it still keeps too many people on Medicaid. For Republicans with souls, it doesn't offer enough coverage.

(03-14-2017 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  CBO: 24 million will lose health coverage under Trumpcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...78326e8884

It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

But by their metrics it isn't better for either end of the Republican spectrum. For the freedom caucus it still keeps too many people on Medicaid. For Republicans with souls, it doesn't offer enough coverage.

The only metric they are looking at is whether they will get re-elected in 2018.

(03-14-2017 01:22 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  CBO: 24 million will lose health coverage under Trumpcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...78326e8884

It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

But by their metrics it isn't better for either end of the Republican spectrum. For the freedom caucus it still keeps too many people on Medicaid. For Republicans with souls, it doesn't offer enough coverage.

The only metric they are looking at is whether they will get re-elected in 2018.

Agreed, but I don't see how this will help them. A lot of the people who were their support in 2016 believed the complete ACA repeal was just talk from Trump and that he would keep his promise to make sure that coverage was either maintained or expanded (just one aspect of the massive pretzel people twisted themselves into when they latched onto what they thought they heard as opposed to what they actually heard).

IIRC, I think I saw that the popularity of the ACA was rising as the consequences of repeal and replace were coming to light.

(03-14-2017 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:22 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It blows me away that, after ~8 years of constant conversation of how awful Obamacare was, this is the replacement plan that Republican leaders are trying to rally around. How do you not have something that is better and gets better outcomes than the system you rallied so strongly against?

Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

But by their metrics it isn't better for either end of the Republican spectrum. For the freedom caucus it still keeps too many people on Medicaid. For Republicans with souls, it doesn't offer enough coverage.

The only metric they are looking at is whether they will get re-elected in 2018.

Agreed, but I don't see how this will help them. A lot of the people who were their support in 2016 believed the complete ACA repeal was just talk from Trump and that he would keep his promise to make sure that coverage was either maintained or expanded (just one aspect of the massive pretzel people twisted themselves into when they latched onto what they thought they heard as opposed to what they actually heard).

IIRC, I think I saw that the popularity of the ACA was rising as the consequences of repeal and replace were coming to light.

Well if they pass the GOP bill, they can truthfully say that they repealed Obamacare. Check. A fee paid to the government for not having insurance is a tax, but a tax paid to an insurance company for not having insurance is a fee. So taxes have been cut. Check. And everybody who likes his doctor gets to keep his doctor. Checkmate.

By the time 2018 rolls around nobody will remember any of the details. All they will remember are the high points. Mission Accomplished.

This is similar to when Obamacare was passed. A fee paid to the IRS is not a tax in some situations, so we are not raising taxes. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. (Doesn't mean the doctor has to keep you though.) And now 20 million people have insurance that don't have it now, but wanted it. Never mind the fact that many of those people willingly passed on better policies at lower prices before Obamacare. They're paying so it's obviously affordable.

My point on the last part is that it's analogous to when Obamacare was passed from the other political viewpoint. All Obama's supporters wanted single payer and they got a monstrosity that nobody had read, that raised prices for most Americans, and empowered insurance companies to run the system. But by the time 2012 came around, all that people remembered was that he "delivered" on his promise. That is why the GOP is trying to hurry this along - they need as much time between the "repeal" and the election as they can get for people to forget the details of what happened.

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage...

They have replaced one mandate (that individuals buy coverage) with another (that insurers sell coverage after a lapse with a 30% penalty). It’s hardly a free-market solution.

FTR I care less about the ideology than whether the 30% penalty will actually work.

(03-14-2017 02:27 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage...

They have replaced one mandate (that individuals buy coverage) with another (that insurers sell coverage after a lapse with a 30% penalty). It’s hardly a free-market solution.

FTR I care less about the ideology than whether the 30% penalty will actually work.

It won't. I mean, what is the incentive for a healthy person to continue to have insurance to avoid paying a one time 30% penalty (unless I misunderstand how the penalty works)?

It will just cause someone to pay a 30% penalty the month before they need insurance for a procedure. And that 30% will just go into the P/L statement of the insurance company. And I have to imagine it will be hard to model/predict how much an insurance company will be able to make off of this to allow for them to adjust their rates for their clients.

(03-14-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It won't. I mean, what is the incentive for a healthy person to continue to have insurance to avoid paying a one time 30% penalty (unless I misunderstand how the penalty works)?

I am certainly skeptical.

(03-14-2017 08:50 AM)JSA Wrote:  Because from their perspective, these are better outcomes.

The end of mandated coverage, market driven "access" to policies, block-granting of Medicaid, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and tax relief.

Yes, that's the interesting thing - it's not surprising Paul Ryan is supporting these things, but it directly contradicts Trump's promises. He made a big deal about how he wasn't going to touch Medicare or Social Security, but this bill guts the Medicare trust fund. That's just the element most likely to anger his own supporters. Similarly, it's bad for older people and more rural people, the people who elected him.

A Rice study gets a mention in this Trumpcare critique (from the right).

(03-14-2017 01:55 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Well if they pass the GOP bill, they can truthfully say that they repealed Obamacare. Check. A fee paid to the government for not having insurance is a tax, but a tax paid to an insurance company for not having insurance is a fee. So taxes have been cut. Check. And everybody who likes his doctor gets to keep his doctor. Checkmate.

By the time 2018 rolls around nobody will remember any of the details. All they will remember are the high points. Mission Accomplished.

This is similar to when Obamacare was passed. A fee paid to the IRS is not a tax in some situations, so we are not raising taxes. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. (Doesn't mean the doctor has to keep you though.) And now 20 million people have insurance that don't have it now, but wanted it. Never mind the fact that many of those people willingly passed on better policies at lower prices before Obamacare. They're paying so it's obviously affordable.

My point on the last part is that it's analogous to when Obamacare was passed from the other political viewpoint. All Obama's supporters wanted single payer and they got a monstrosity that nobody had read, that raised prices for most Americans, and empowered insurance companies to run the system. But by the time 2012 came around, all that people remembered was that he "delivered" on his promise. That is why the GOP is trying to hurry this along - they need as much time between the "repeal" and the election as they can get for people to forget the details of what happened.

I suppose it all adds up to the idea that people get the government they deserve.

(03-15-2017 03:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:55 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Well if they pass the GOP bill, they can truthfully say that they repealed Obamacare. Check. A fee paid to the government for not having insurance is a tax, but a tax paid to an insurance company for not having insurance is a fee. So taxes have been cut. Check. And everybody who likes his doctor gets to keep his doctor. Checkmate.

By the time 2018 rolls around nobody will remember any of the details. All they will remember are the high points. Mission Accomplished.

This is similar to when Obamacare was passed. A fee paid to the IRS is not a tax in some situations, so we are not raising taxes. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. (Doesn't mean the doctor has to keep you though.) And now 20 million people have insurance that don't have it now, but wanted it. Never mind the fact that many of those people willingly passed on better policies at lower prices before Obamacare. They're paying so it's obviously affordable.

My point on the last part is that it's analogous to when Obamacare was passed from the other political viewpoint. All Obama's supporters wanted single payer and they got a monstrosity that nobody had read, that raised prices for most Americans, and empowered insurance companies to run the system. But by the time 2012 came around, all that people remembered was that he "delivered" on his promise. That is why the GOP is trying to hurry this along - they need as much time between the "repeal" and the election as they can get for people to forget the details of what happened.

I suppose it all adds up to the idea that people get the government they deserve.

And they deserve to get it good and hard!

(03-15-2017 04:13 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:55 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Well if they pass the GOP bill, they can truthfully say that they repealed Obamacare. Check. A fee paid to the government for not having insurance is a tax, but a tax paid to an insurance company for not having insurance is a fee. So taxes have been cut. Check. And everybody who likes his doctor gets to keep his doctor. Checkmate.

By the time 2018 rolls around nobody will remember any of the details. All they will remember are the high points. Mission Accomplished.

This is similar to when Obamacare was passed. A fee paid to the IRS is not a tax in some situations, so we are not raising taxes. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. (Doesn't mean the doctor has to keep you though.) And now 20 million people have insurance that don't have it now, but wanted it. Never mind the fact that many of those people willingly passed on better policies at lower prices before Obamacare. They're paying so it's obviously affordable.

My point on the last part is that it's analogous to when Obamacare was passed from the other political viewpoint. All Obama's supporters wanted single payer and they got a monstrosity that nobody had read, that raised prices for most Americans, and empowered insurance companies to run the system. But by the time 2012 came around, all that people remembered was that he "delivered" on his promise. That is why the GOP is trying to hurry this along - they need as much time between the "repeal" and the election as they can get for people to forget the details of what happened.

I suppose it all adds up to the idea that people get the government they deserve.

And they deserve to get it good and hard!

When Jimmy Carter said he wanted a government as good as the American people, Mort Sahl said, "God help us."

Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I have little to no faith that any word that comes out of Trump's mouth is grounded in any semblance of truth, especially after the release of his budget proposal, which rolls back a lot of his campaign promises.

But if somehow he decides to not sign this atrocious health care bill, then yeah, props to him.

(03-16-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I have little to no faith that any word that comes out of Trump's mouth is grounded in any semblance of truth, especially after the release of his budget proposal, which rolls back a lot of his campaign promises.

But if somehow he decides to not sign this atrocious health care bill, then yeah, props to him.

It looks like NIH takes a pretty good hit in the proposed budget.
That should play well locally.

(03-16-2017 01:21 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I have little to no faith that any word that comes out of Trump's mouth is grounded in any semblance of truth, especially after the release of his budget proposal, which rolls back a lot of his campaign promises.

But if somehow he decides to not sign this atrocious health care bill, then yeah, props to him.

It looks like NIH takes a pretty good hit in the proposed budget.
That should play well locally.

Everything takes a big hit in the new budget.

The budget basically means that we spend nothing on public services unless you consider a useless wall and some big boats and planes as public services.

This POTUS should just convince his wife to actually live with him so he can put those significant savings back into funding for things like the Arts, something that the modern conservative poster-boy Mr. Reagan didn't even touch once he thought about it.

(03-16-2017 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:21 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump told Tucker Carlson yesterday "We'll take care of our people, or I'm not signing it." Not completely clear, but sounded like he meant his supporters. Now politicians always need to take care of their base, nothing shocking there. But for the President to spend so much time bad mouthing the (majority of) voters who didn't vote for him and implying he doesn't give a crap about them, only "our people" is pretty un-presidential. Not to mention that if he means that, he won't be signing the bill.

Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I have little to no faith that any word that comes out of Trump's mouth is grounded in any semblance of truth, especially after the release of his budget proposal, which rolls back a lot of his campaign promises.

But if somehow he decides to not sign this atrocious health care bill, then yeah, props to him.

It looks like NIH takes a pretty good hit in the proposed budget.
That should play well locally.

Everything takes a big hit in the new budget.

The budget basically means that we spend nothing on public services unless you consider a useless wall and some big boats and planes as public services.

This POTUS should just convince his wife to actually live with him so he can put those significant savings back into funding for things like the Arts, something that the modern conservative poster-boy Mr. Reagan didn't even touch once he thought about it.

It's not about savings.

George Will:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/201...?amphtml=y