Like I mentioned, they've been talking about purchasing across state lines for a long time now. It was talked about during the GOP presidential debates and Trump mentioned just a few days ago that his health plan would include that. I think the GOP feels trapped by the pre-existing condition portion of the ACA. They realize they can't get rid of the mandate without getting rid of that, so just came up with a more privatized version of the same thing. Maybe they do want it to pass, but I don't think this is really what they want at all.

I think that was just campaign rhetoric from Trump. Insurance companies don't want the competition and thus it's not happening.

There are parts of the ACA that everyone liked. The pre-existing condition part is popular even among Republican voters. Getting rid of that would have pissed off even Republicans. There are issues with the ACA but a lot of the repeal completely talk came from people who don't have a clue what it is anyway.

This works out great for Republicans. Repealing it completely would have caused a disaster among their supporters when they realized what it meant. So they change a few minor things around and sell it as a repeal because those people are stupid and don't know the difference. The insurance companies get a big handout which is good for their campaign coffers going forward. And it allowed them to put massive tax cuts in for the rich which has always been what Republican politicians wanted to get out of it. Sure it's an economic disaster down the road, but no one really cares about the deficit anyway.

From what I've seen the new bill is horrible - it 'pretends' to keep pre-existing coverage, but binds it with the ability to increase premiums if someone wasn't insured for a while ... this to me is asking insurance companies to collaborate to ensure that minor snafu's happen when people change jobs or insurers, it will only take a days loss of cover to allow them to raise your premium and get rid of a problem customer.

Combined with the plans general 'f*ck the poor' attitude I think its bloody attrocious ...

And not only does that 60 year old get less in subsides, but insurers would be allowed to raise the ratio of how much more they can charge the elderly compared to the young from 3-1 to 5-1.

+1000

This provision is going to increase massively the problem of job lock, which is a drag on economic growth. And while I understand why some people are uneasy with or hostile to the mandate associated with Obamacare, is it really worse than giving insurance companies an enormous economic incentive to discontinue insurance for as many people as often as possible?

As much as I dislike him, I have to hand it to Mcconnell. He's doing a great job of letting Trump and Ryan take all the heat for repeal/replace.

This does not seem like a winning political message.

McConnell is one of the most gifted politicians I've ever seen.

The fact that he looks like a huge goober leads to constant underestimation. But if you just look at his track record, it's pretty amazing.

huge goober

It does if you hate the poor and minorities like his constituents do.

6 pages of the 113 page proposed TrumpCare bill deal with making sure that if someone on Medicaid wins the lottery, they are removed from Medicaid.

Hey, that makes sense. If you win the lottery, you won't need Medicaid anymore.

But to spend 5% of your landmark healthcare reform legislation on that?

If you were to make a list of the top 1,000 issues in American health care, would the fact that some people win the lottery make that list? I don't see how it does.

The fact that the GOP sees this as a politically winning portion of the bill is telling. The GOP base really seems to live in this bizarre world where lots poor people are actually secretly rich people who just choose to live in squalid poverty because . . . (and that's where they lose me).

They live in this bizarre world where poor people are victims by their own design. Bootstraps, etc.

The End.

Without even digging into it, Trump took what he saw on Fox News and blamed Obama.

Except, it was Bush. pic.twitter.com/qfseaUdnkl

— Jordan Uhl (@JordanUhl) March 7, 2017

Good. Old people cost more to insure than young people, they should pay more.

Let's bring back that early 60s elderly poverty rate!

Gosh, that'd almost make it work like ... {gasp} insurance

Don't think it will matter. TrumpCare or RyanCare or WhoCares is dead on arrival anyway. There isn't a single conservative constituency that has come out in support of it. I'd be shocked at this point if the bill ever even came up for a vote.

You're looking at this wholly the wrong way - this is INTENDED to fail, the concept is they'll throw shit at a wall and blame each other until such time as the now neutered ObamaCare gets to the stage where people will see anything which comes after it as good .... sad but true.

First they came after the health insurance of the lottery winners, but I said nothing because I am not a lottery winner.

But, I think this is the thing that some folks are ignoring, without pre-existing condition exclusions and requiring insurers to offer plans to anyone (I didn't see that aspect get repealed), AND the only thing that insurers are going to be able to do is to charge a 30% surcharge to monthly premiums, and considering that is the 'solution' for getting rid of the individual mandate, you are going to run into a health insurance death spiral.

There is nothing stopping people from not having and jumping on an insurance plan right before they are having a major medical procedure - and if they only allow one open enrollment period, then some folks (but not all) you can wait until then, and then have your major medical procedure. The extra 30% of premium for not having continuous coverage is peanuts compared to all the money you 'saved' by not getting any insurance at all.

Health insurance companies are going to be failing left and right with this - or getting merged together.

You are definitely right that the will of the people was done. My problem is never with the system in these things, because in a free country it's impossible to have a government significantly worse than the one you deserve. Even from your point of view though, why did we have eight years of Obama and eight years of Clinton? It was largely the same people who put those people in office. I also find it interesting, per your quote above, that so many of the things you consider to be the only sane direction fly directly in the face of the plain language of the Constitution. For all of the references to saving a dying nation, it would seem it's death warrant was written on it's founding from your point of view, in which case it was never really alive to begin with.


I think it's at least possible here that you and others don't really understand the point of view of the school-choice advocates. Giving someone a choice who had none before is very much relevant from that perspective. It squares exactly with the situation today; that's how bad they think our public schools can be in some/many cases, to the point where they'd do almost anything not to have to send their children there.

For example, someone I knew in the homeschooling movement, who is not at all a particularly extreme case, said the best-to-worst education choices were(this was just over 20 years ago, and I think the perspective has only grown since):

1. Homeschooling.
2. Private schooling
3. No school
4. Public school

They weren't joking. They very much believe no school at all was better for their children than having them poisoned by the public school system, in an area of the country(rural Midwest) that is not known for some of the worst problems that plague education in America. I think this is one of those cases where DeVos(who I don't expect to be good at her job) was simply echoing a perspective that is simply so foreign to certain viewpoints that they do not understand it. What are commonly known as 'anti-education' viewpoints on the 'left'(for lack of a better term) are considered by others to be, as JIMGA might put it, the only sane approaches. They're not anti-education, and they generally don't demonize teachers(the person mentioned above was one).

"Chaffetz: Americans May Have To Choose Between New Phone, Health Insurance"

That tells you everything about how some of these fucking assholes view it. They look at folks poorer and think "Well, by golly, why don't they just bootstrap themselves up, they can't do it because we give them too much stuff."

News flash, Chaffetz, you fucking shat out turd of a motherfucking buffoon, it's not "Medication or iphone" for me. It's medication or fucking death. Ok? I suffer from motherfucking Crohn's disease and both osteo and rhumatoid arthrits. We've tried several medications to counter it, but none worked.

I ended up in the hospital five or six times, with various inflammatory issues, some of which I've detailed here (diverticulitis, iritis, and infections in the leg). So finally, we found a drug that worked. Not enough to get me back into the workforce (yet), but enough that I'm not making multiple trips to the ER each year and in great misery most of the other times.

Guess how much it costs per year without insurance, you fucking smug waste of good oxygen and carbon dioxide. Between ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED bucks.

Oh wait, that's not per year.

That's per month.

And that is ONE of the ten or so medications I'm on.

So, you fucking assmouthed shitgibbon, tell me how it's because we're all lazy fucking bums who need to be stopped giving shit because we'll work harder and we'll "earn it"

In short, you and your fellow Freedumb Caw-kaus Members can honestly, sincerely, and dutifily choke on my fuck.

I can only hope that the backlash within the Republican Party on this bill somehow pushes us toward single payer healthcare.

Wait, why does SirFozzie need a new iPhone every ten days? Might I suggest some sort of protective case?

The cynic in me thinks the goal of the hardliners is to keep the surcharge, make it retroactive, allow healthcare companies to reject for pre-existing conditions, and drop customers once they get sick. Once you opt out of coverage, you don't get a chance to get it back, and you're only covered as long as you don't require medical care.

Reading that back, it appears I'm 100% cynic.

The goal of the hardliners is "Fuck You Got Mine"

No talk about Wikileaks and the knowledge of an 'Umbrage' project within the CIA that allows them to false flag information?

To security establishment, WikiLeaks' CIA dump is part of US-Russia battle | Media | The Guardian

Honestly, it makes me chuckle more than anything. Anyone that thinks they know the situation likely only knows about 10% of the actual situation. One thing that is somewhat scary to me is just how little oversight the CIA really has from our elected officials. They're more rogue than I thought as far as how they acquire their information.

The CIA pretended to be the Russians, stole info from the DNC, then gave it to Wikileaks, all to help Trump win.

Because they work for Hillary and Obama.

Makes sense to me.

The irony here makes my eyes bleed.

I'm old enough to remember when MBBF thought the State Department e-mails and the Wikileaks e-mails were the same thing...

Going to mbbf's article and backing up to the original story instead of taking us from 0 to mbbf-land:

WikiLeaks publishes 'biggest ever leak of secret CIA documents' | Media | The Guardian


That, above everything else in these wikileaks dumps, goes straight to 1984 imagery to me.

While we're bringing up things that haven't been discussed yet, I haven't seen anyone touch on the fact that the Obamacare replacement bill would defund planned parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is already legally blocked from using federal funds for abortions. But that's not enough. The bill would also make it so that any private insurance plan that covers abortion services (except in cases of rape and mortal risk to the mother) isn't eligible for tax credits.

I didn't see that anywhere in the article.

I've come to accept the reality that I'm pretty much in the position that someone could be watching me at any time. Are they? Hell no, and it's a complete waste of time if they are. If they want to watch me jerk off or dance around naked, that's on them. It's gotten to be like the CC thefts. Even if your shit has been stolen, there are so many numbers and passwords and codes out there that it both makes it incredibly likely that your shit was taken sometime and unlikely that it'll be used by the sheer amount of information out there.

As long as neighbors aren't being hauled off and shipped to the front lines of the war or sent to the labor camps in North Dakota I think we're pretty far from living in the totalitarian surveillance state.

Yes, your being watched. My Tv, laptop, Echo, all being used. The next phase of life on this planet is going to be very different from the relative freedom from that type of intrusiveness that we've had before. But on the flipside, all the tech advances will make things much better too. There's two sides to that coin. I don't believe that living in a shack in Montana, totally disconnected from society because your afraid someone might see on your webcam is the best way to move forward for me.

Shutting down planned parenthood worked great for Indiana.

Bovada has Pence at 9-1 to win the 2020 presidential election. That might be worth taking a flier on.

Indiana is never a good example for anything.

Goes straight to Dr. Who imagery for me...

You have got to be shitting me.

Text - H.R.1275 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I can't gauge whether this is the World's Greatest until I see how tall it is.

dola

It's depressing to see how bad the Dems are at the political game. They keep calling the healthcare bill Ryan care as if anyone outside of his district gives a damn about Paul Ryan. It has to be called Trumpcare. Everyone has heard of the president and research shows the president's popularity effects that party all the way down to state level races. There's a reason the ACA wasn't called Baucuscare.

At least the AARP understands how to play and is calling the age-rating the Age Tax.

Republicancare or Trumpcare would have been the best ways to attack it. Fortunately, I don't think this is going to require much attacking.

In other news ... we are on the ground in Syria. I'm not sure the rationale/benefits outweighs the risk but it seems that Trump will have a more aggressive foreign policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politi...ria/index.html

I thought this WP article on the differences between Obamacare & Trumpcare most clearly spelled out the deltas to me.

In a way, I stand to benefit from this with increased HSA contribution but it puts early retirement (and medical insurance) somewhat in doubt. Looking forward to more details and calculation of budget impact.

How the House Republicans’ proposed Obamacare replacement compares - Washington Post

I find it funny that their idea to pay out blocks of cash to the states, over 10 years, nothing after, and no where is that money compensated for inflation. So over time, the value of the benefit to the states for covering the high-risk pools will be in decline and eventually seriously starved of capital which should lead to a necessary decrease in the coverage for those same pools.

And how the Dems haven't jumped all over allowing the companies to jack rates up by 30% for lapses in coverage isn't considered a tax or penalty or some other attack on public is beyond me. There's plenty here, they need to get with it.

Ellison needs to get his people in motion over this.

Oh, and supposedly this plan was approved by the Donald. Why in god's name are they not nailing him to the wall with his claims that he wants better, cheaper coverage for all? I mean, he said it. He's a liar, on the scale of Obama and his you like your plan you keep it line.

Oh and I wish that we could make an HSA work, but there's no way. We already spend way too much on our medical, I'd never get anything put away, it would be contribute, spend, and that's it. Even when we were healthy all around, we never could have made that work.

I like the idea of them on paper, but in practice, at least for us, there's no way that could ever work for us.

My thoughts on HSA is contribute to it but do not use the funds until retirement (e.g. after is had time to grow tax free). Medical expenses now would be paid out of pocket.

Neither her nor there, but I was in Dallas today and had some time between meetings and was near the SMU campus. I toured the GWB Presidential Library. Excellent experience. I didn't vote for W in either 2000 or 2004 but respected him as a President and even more so as a man, husband and father. It was nice to be reminded that we can find commonality in spite of sometimes stark contrasts. I'd recommend the museum to all, if nothing else than for the 9/11 exhibit, but I found it particularly meaningful in today's world.

Less than three days after it was revealed and before it was scored by the CBO, at 4:30 am Ways and Means gaveled out their portion of the healthcare bill with no changes.

I'm beginning to think complaints about the ACA process were insincere.