(06-27-2017 12:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:09 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Getting back on topic, Senator Lee is saying no now as well. McConnell may only have 46 yes votes now or maybe even fewer? I bet they table it for next session. Otherwise, he's looking at a pretty embarrassing set back.

I think he'll force a vote anyway.

If the vote loses, then he'll be absolved of health care, and will be able to wash his hand and move to tax reform.

I think the GOP owns health care going forward. If they do nothing and things deteriorate they are blamed for failing to fix it when they promised to do so for the last almost decade. If they pass it they get blamed for the escalating insurance costs (premiums will eventually go up more slowly than the ACA but deductibles will go up even more) from their fix. There best bet is to come back after the 4th and pass some bipartisan fixes to the biggest issues in the ACA. Keep it low profile and move forward. After all these years of yelling repeal and replace I'm skeptical that they have the intestinal fortitude to do it though. Tribe over country and all.

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

It is all relative. Rapidly escalating costs are more popular than the even more rapidly escalating costs of the BCRA.

(06-27-2017 01:19 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think the GOP owns health care going forward. If they do nothing and things deteriorate they are blamed for failing to fix it when they promised to do so for the last almost decade. If they pass it they get blamed for the escalating insurance costs (premiums will eventually go up more slowly than the ACA but deductibles will go up even more) from their fix. There best bet is to come back after the 4th and pass some bipartisan fixes to the biggest issues in the ACA. Keep it low profile and move forward. After all these years of yelling repeal and replace I'm skeptical that they have the intestinal fortitude to do it though. Tribe over country and all.

Never forget the golden rule in politics: politicians are self serving.

McConnell is no different. He is tired of his ugly, double-chin showing up on the front page day after day. He wants to be done with this.

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Largely due to prescription drugs, which neither the ACA nor McConnell's plan address.

Rapidly escalating costs were the norm prior to the ACA, as well.

(06-27-2017 02:32 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Largely due to prescription drugs, which neither the ACA nor McConnell's plan address.

Rapidly escalating costs were the norm prior to the ACA, as well.

Anything medical, has a huge markup. Supplies, devices, you name it.

(06-27-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Allowing pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps are popular?

Republicans have always been in favor of fixing the pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps issue. Hardly a core part of Obamacare.

(06-27-2017 02:32 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Largely due to prescription drugs, which neither the ACA nor McConnell's plan address.

Rapidly escalating costs were the norm prior to the ACA, as well.

Link on the drug part? I don't recall seeing anything splitting it out.

Yes costs were escalating rapidly before, but its gone into overdrive.

The legislative branch has managed to turn this idea into a toxic mess.

(06-27-2017 02:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  Republicans have always been in favor of fixing the pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps issue. Hardly a core part of Obamacare.

Because ACA was created with the intention of raising premiums?

(06-27-2017 02:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:32 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Largely due to prescription drugs, which neither the ACA nor McConnell's plan address.

Rapidly escalating costs were the norm prior to the ACA, as well.

Link on the drug part? I don't recall seeing anything splitting it out.

Yes costs were escalating rapidly before, but its gone into overdrive.

That is a good example of perception over reality.

(06-27-2017 02:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  Republicans have always been in favor of fixing the pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps issue. Hardly a core part of Obamacare.

Because ACA was created with the intention of raising premiums?

No. Obamacare was created to destroy our medical system as it previously existed and force the country into socialized medicine.

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Yup.

With the majority of that number being those that would supposedly opt out of something they are now getting for free.

Now, why on earth would anyone do that?

Hint: They wouldn't. CBO has gone mostly the way of the Dodo bird.

(06-27-2017 11:42 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:52 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Well the truth is that there will still be a mandate, just in a different form. If a person fails to get coverage within 63 days after losing / dropping coverage they can't get it for 6 months.

That is not a mandate.

Yea, what?

That means a young healthy person could simply go 63 days without, then go another 10 yrs without paying in a dime, decide to settle down and have kids, enroll after the 6 months elapses and Jr. is covered and everything with him 3 months later.

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  At this point just table it and move on. Allow Obamacare to struggle through it's death throes and die a natural death.

yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Yes, to those getting it for free or with a bigass subsidy to make it cost next to nothing. Another entitlement.

(06-27-2017 02:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  Republicans have always been in favor of fixing the pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps issue. Hardly a core part of Obamacare.

Because ACA was created with the intention of raising premiums?

No, because it was created with the intention of having it fail and the WhiteHorse Knight Federal Gubment would take over. Leaving us with single payer garbage.

(06-27-2017 03:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:32 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  yet the only part of the ACA that gets any air time are the exchanges, and those only impact 11 million Americans.

but much of the ACA is very popular and is not thought,by most Americans, to be "Obamacare".

Rapidly escalating costs are popular?

Largely due to prescription drugs, which neither the ACA nor McConnell's plan address.

Rapidly escalating costs were the norm prior to the ACA, as well.

Link on the drug part? I don't recall seeing anything splitting it out.

Yes costs were escalating rapidly before, but its gone into overdrive.

That is a good example of perception over reality.

You don't want to perceive reality, so you create your own perception. I realize that you Democrats are prone to that.

Obamacare's design created a good bit of the escalation.

(06-27-2017 06:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Yup.

With the majority of that number being those that would supposedly opt out of something they are now getting for free.

Now, why on earth would anyone do that?

Hint: They wouldn't. CBO has gone mostly the way of the Dodo bird.

And the CBO isn't even using current numbers. And they know the current numbers would create different results.

http://kylewingfield.blog.myajc.com/2017...alth-bill/

"For example: In a scrum with reporters right after the caucus luncheon today, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida pointed to a new criticism of the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the Senate bill that I’d overlooked:
“The one place I think everybody feels like we need to know more — look, CBO just told us, the baseline they’re basing these coverage losses off (is) a baseline that isn’t real. They’re basing it off 2016 numbers that in some cases are off by 200 percent. Five million of the 22 million of losses are people they think might be added to the Medicaid rolls by new states that decide to expand in the future. But on, basically, guesswork, they’ve admitted.
“I think the first thing we need is an actual CBO score on what the actual insurance marketplace looks like right now. Because the baseline they’re using to compare this bill to is March 2016 numbers that are way obsolete at this point.”
You may recall I’ve previously explained the CBO’s estimate of an Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill was bound to be fraught with error because it uses as a baseline its projections of what it thinks would happen in the future under Obamacare, and compares any new bill to those. The problem is that the CBO has consistently overestimated how many people would buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, but it hasn’t lowered its projections for future years to take account of its past mistakes. Until it does that, it is bound to overestimate — perhaps by many millions — the number of people who would “lose” insurance under a reform. (I’m not going to rehash the entire argument here, so if you haven’t read it please click here.)
What I didn’t catch in my initial perusal of the latest CBO report was this paragraph, which may have been what Rubio was talking about:
“In the projections published in January 2017, the direct spending and revenue effects of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions and the total number of people projected to be uninsured were similar to those in the March 2016 baseline, but the number of people projected to purchase subsidized coverage in the marketplaces was smaller, and the average subsidy per person was larger. If this legislation was evaluated relative to the January 2017 baseline rather than the March 2016 baseline, it is unclear how different categories of insurance would be affected and whether the budgetary effects would differ noticeably.”
Emphasis added. The big question is why the CBO wouldn’t have used the January 2017 baseline instead of the March 2016 one, which obviously lacks an entire year’s worth of data and experience with Obamacare — including even higher premiums, even larger deductibles, and even more disappointing exchange enrollment. The closest the report gets to providing an explanation is this line: “The agencies have not had time to undertake a follow-on analysis of the effects of this legislation under that baseline.”
Or, as Rubio put it: “They said they’re busy.”"

(06-27-2017 08:43 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:14 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  HR25 is an additional tax. Why you believe the falsehood about the 16th amendment getting abolished is beyond me.

No it's not. Hush your pie hole about things you're so obviously and tragically ill informed of.

He is uninformed on the subject....but..I have zero confidence that anything like HR25 will ever be enacted. It takes away the most powerful tool that government has over the citizens....Withholding. Those in power will NEVER relinquish the ability to reach into your paycheck and take what they believe belongs to them to spend to satiate the sycophants that elected them without a grass roots amendment to the constitution. They will never do it on their own...and...there seems to be no grass roots movement afoot to do it.

(06-27-2017 01:19 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 12:09 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Getting back on topic, Senator Lee is saying no now as well. McConnell may only have 46 yes votes now or maybe even fewer? I bet they table it for next session. Otherwise, he's looking at a pretty embarrassing set back.

I think he'll force a vote anyway.

If the vote loses, then he'll be absolved of health care, and will be able to wash his hand and move to tax reform.

I think the GOP owns health care going forward. If they do nothing and things deteriorate they are blamed for failing to fix it when they promised to do so for the last almost decade. If they pass it they get blamed for the escalating insurance costs (premiums will eventually go up more slowly than the ACA but deductibles will go up even more) from their fix. There best bet is to come back after the 4th and pass some bipartisan fixes to the biggest issues in the ACA. Keep it low profile and move forward. After all these years of yelling repeal and replace I'm skeptical that they have the intestinal fortitude to do it though. Tribe over country and all.

No. Both gangs own this. The Dems enacted it and GOP just rubber stamped it.

(06-27-2017 09:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:43 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:14 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  HR25 is an additional tax. Why you believe the falsehood about the 16th amendment getting abolished is beyond me.

No it's not. Hush your pie hole about things you're so obviously and tragically ill informed of.

He is uninformed on the subject....but..I have zero confidence that anything like HR25 will ever be enacted. It takes away the most powerful tool that government has over the citizens....Withholding. Those in power will NEVER relinquish the ability to reach into your paycheck and take what they believe belongs to them to spend to satiate the sycophants that elected them without a grass roots amendment to the constitution. They will never do it on their own...and...there seems to be no grass roots movement afoot to do it.

For someone who's older than me, you sure do swallow what the government feeds you re:HR25. You've been around long enough to know the government never eliminates a revenue stream. Never. HR25, should it ever get passed, is an additional tax. Not a replacement tax.

But continue with the childish name-calling and patting Paul on the back for his witty dig.