DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... House GOP releases bill replacing Obama health care overhaul

Bush deregulates Financial Industry > Bubble Bursts > Businesses lose customers because they cant get financing > Businesses stop hiring him

Nope. Not a middleman. Not anymore a middleman than me buying ad space from google.

Sounds like a win to me.

Customers don't need to go to a middle man - they just go straight to the financing source, and in the process, they don't pay the middleman.

I'm apparently missing something?

Yes you are. But thats ok.

Nah, I'm not.

TOP REPUBLICAN SENATOR: Obamacare replacement plan 'can't pass' the Senate, GOP should 'pause, start over'

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/top-republican-senator-obamacare-replacement-133200674.html

Sen. Tom Cotton, the influential Arkansas Republican, used Twitter on Thursday morning to express his displeasure with House Republicans' new healthcare legislation and the speed at which it was advancing through Congress.

"House health-care bill can't pass Senate w/o major changes," Cotton tweeted. "To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don't get it fast."

Numerous senators have expressed misgivings about the Republican replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law better known as Obamacare. Some, including Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, have criticized the law as not going far enough in its repeal. Others have worries about the future of Medicaid funding. The opposition has health-policy experts wondering whether the law can make it through the upper chamber.

Cotton's state of Arkansas is one of 34 states and the District of Columbia that went ahead with the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. That has allowed more than 11 million people nationwide to access Medicaid insurance and has become incredibly popular in the states where it has been expanded.

The new GOP bill, the American Health Care Act, would end the funding for Medicaid expansion in 2020 and shift to a per capita system of block grants that many experts say would result in less Medicaid funding for states. Additionally, the law would not allow anyone to be added to the expansion rolls after 2019, slowly decreasing the total number of Americans covered by Medicaid.

Cotton also said he was opposed to the fast track on which the bill was moving through the House. The AHCA was introduced Monday evening by the GOP leadership and is now being reviewed by committees before it goes to the House floor for a vote.

"GOP shouldn't act like Dems did in O'care," Cotton wrote. "No excuse to release bill Mon night, start voting Wed. With no budget estimate!"

Cotton was referring to the fact that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has not released a score for the AHCA. The score gives estimates on the budget impact of the bill and how many Americans' health coverage would be affected.

Cotton is a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump, who has publicly supported the law and attempted to win over conservatives to get the law through Congress.

Despite this, Cotton made his opposition to the bill's existing form known Thursday.

"What matters in long run is better, more affordable health care for Americans, NOT House leaders' arbitrary legislative calendar," Cotton said.

This is a relief!

The Govs of states that expanded Medicare did so on short sited thinking knowing that they would not be around in 2020 when their state has to pick up 10% of the bill for the the expansion. They were glad to sign up and get 100% fed participation knowing they would be gone when the future admins have to figure out how to fund the reduced federal payments. So the citizens in those states best be prepared for novel tax hikes in the next couple years.

I saw some data from the CDC when i was going a project recently that had to do with manufacture of CAT scan machines so I looked into it.

Apparently, the countries of France, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the Britain have approximately the same number of citizens combined as the United States.

As of a few years ago, those countries combined had 4,868 working CT scan machines... the US, with about the same total population, has 10,300. We have 34 CT scan machines per one million citizens while many of these countries have 12-15 per on million. Your average CT scan machine costs between $500K and $900K.

Now there are several possible reasons for this that I can come up with:
1. We are more spread out with more rural areas than most of those countries.
2. We use them a lot doing CT scans for things that other countries don't do CT scans for
3. We don't use them a lot and they sit idle while still being a really big expense
4. We are just impatient which is why every hospital and care center has to have at least one because driving across town would just be too inconvenient

(for the record, the numbers for MRI machines are similar)..

So regardless of the reason, this is indicative of a big cost driver in our healthcare, either we are overprescribing CT scans based on the practices of the rest of the civilized world or we have million dollar machines sitting idle a lot so we can have the convenience of having one close by if we need it... I think it's the latter. That's why a CT scan in the US costs $600-$1000 but only about $250 in Germany.. because they have fewer machines, the use them more, the per usage cost goes down.

Just a thought.

Doctors overprescribe scans because they dont want to be sued for misdiagnosing something. I just paid 2K for nuclear scan for a nonexistant problem that turned out to be a vitamin deficiency. Could have solved it with simple blood tests.

Non existent problem?

Or "doctor gets paid for doing this"?

Yes, there is a lot of CYA in health care. But really, should the first thing be "CT scan, or MRI, or whatever this nuclear scan is"?

Its kind of a complicated story. My PTH was slightly elevated so he was determined to prove that my parathyroid gland has a tumor. So he ordered a scan that came back negative. No tumor. A blood test revealed that I am very vitamin D deficient, which can also cause an elevated PTH.

All that needed to happen was a blood test.

But CYA is the medical standard these days.

Vitamin D deficiency is no joke. I was not out in the suyn very much for quite a long time, and my doctor did my regular blood work, and it came back very, very vitamin D deficient. People have to get out in the sun a little bit each day, because the body requires sunlight to manufacture Vitamin D. I was incredibly lethargic, and my doctor prescribed this 150,000 IU Vitamin D ....... and that got my levels back to normal. Now I just take a daily 5000 IU vitamin D. They're cheaper than the prescription.

I was really fatigued also. I had stopped taking my vitamins for a while, so started taking them again and felt much better. I read that 70% of people living up north have vitamin D deficiency because they dont go outside in winter.

Vitamin B12 is another one I have problems with. I used to have to give myself B12 injections because the part of my intestine that absorbs it was mostly removed. So I have a really difficult time absorbing it.

Potassium also.

I have to keep up on the vitamins or bad stuff happens.
B complex vitamins will make you feel amazing though. I see why they sell that in those energy shots/drinks.

j/c

Another part of this bill was discussed on NPR this morning with a CEO of an Insurance Company and it got to impacts of the poor and Medicaid.

I have included an analysis from NPR about Ryans house plan and the fact that the white house may be looking to go even more conservative than what was proposed; and then the CEO put out a couple statements that floored me; I don't know what year specifically they were from, but I think he said it was within the last couple of years.

A) 1 out of every 2 babies born are covered with Medicaid.

B) the healthcare of 1 out of every 3 school age child is paid by Medicaid.

C) 1 out of every 2 senior in long term nursing care is paid by Medicaid.





Medicaid

The biggest changes the Republican bill would make are to the Medicaid program. Starting in 2020, it would roll back federal funding for the ACA's expansion that allowed states to provide Medicaid coverage to all low-income individuals under 138 percent of the poverty level, rather than just the specific categories of poor people (children, pregnant women, elderly, disabled) who were previously eligible.




Analysis: GOP Health Plan May Not Fix The Problems They Want To Fix

Thirty-one states opted to expand access to Medicaid. People who are covered under the expansion would continue to be funded by the federal government after that, but states would no longer be allowed to enroll anyone under those expanded criteria. And an enrollee who loses eligibility for the expansion program could not re-enroll.

But the bill would go further as well, making changes to the underlying Medicaid program that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., described as "the biggest entitlement reform in the last 20 years."

Currently, Medicaid costs are shared between states and the federal government, but the funding is open-ended, so the federal government pays its percentage of whatever states spend. Under the proposed bill, the amount of federal funding would be capped on a per-person basis, so funding would go up as more people qualify. But that per-capita amount might not grow as fast as Medicaid costs, which could leave states on the hook for an ever-increasing share of the costs of the program.

"Capping federal contributions to the Medicaid program will likely force states with already tight budgets to limit eligibility and cut benefits to at-risk Americans," said the American Public Health Association in a statement.

But the Donor class needs their 600 Billion dollar tax breaks, so let them die.

and also looking up the other stuff at lunch, the ACA caps what insurance companies can charge older people (age 50-64) before they enroll in Medicaid. It was 3x a younger persons policy, the repubs are now raising it to 5 times.

I am still trying to find anything in this that meets what Trump that corresponds to Coverage for all, cheaper and better coverage. This is a mirror 180 degree of what was said.

Good. Make them have to pay for their medical insurance. I'm tired of having to pay for the older generation's medical needs. Just because I am young and healthy, and I'm not a hypochondriac doesn't mean I should be punished.

A review from Brookings of the House plan and how they think that the CBO will score it

Editor's Note: This analysis is part of The Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.


Loren Adler
Associate Director, Center for Health Policy, Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy


Matthew Fiedler
Fellow - Economic Studies, Center for Health Policy, Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy
On Wednesday a pair of House Committees began considering Republicans’ Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal legislation, the first formal step toward consideration of that legislation by the full House of Representatives. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the effects of this legislation are not yet available, and it appears they will not be available until after both committees have voted on the bill.

In anticipation of the official CBO estimates, this blog post draws upon prior CBO estimates and analysis to assess how CBO will likely expect this legislation to impact insurance coverage. The table below illustrates the CBO’s likely estimates for this legislation.


Get health policy updates from Brookings

There is significant uncertainty about exactly how CBO will model these provisions and how it will expect the various provisions to interact with one another. Nonetheless, we conclude that CBO’s analysis will likely estimate that at least 15 million people will lose coverage under the American Health Care Act (AHCA) by the end of the ten-year scoring window. Estimates could be higher, but it’s is unlikely they will be significantly lower.[1]

CBO ACA estimates final



A Starting Point: CBO’s Prior Estimate of Repealing the Individual Mandate

As a starting point, CBO recently estimated the effect of one important provision of the House legislation: repealing the individual mandate. CBO estimated that repealing the mandate would cause many people, especially healthy people, to drop their insurance coverage. That, in turn, would drive premium increases in the individual health insurance market, causing still further coverage losses.

In total, CBO estimated that individual market premiums would rise by 20 percent and that 6 million people would lose individual market coverage by 2026. On top of that, CBO estimated that repealing the individual mandate would reduce the number of people with employer coverage by 2 million and reduce Medicaid coverage by 7 million, bringing the total coverage loss to 15 million.

Effects of Ending Enhanced Match for Medicaid Expansion and Imposing a Medicaid Per Capita Cap

The legislation’s provisions curtailing federal support for state Medicaid programs would add substantially to these coverage losses—likely several million more.

First, the legislation would reduce the share of Medicaid costs that the federal government pays for low-income adults in the ACA’s expansion population, from 90 percent under current law to each state’s regular Medicaid match rate; the regular matching rate varies across states but averages 57 percent. The legislation would allow states to continue receiving the enhanced match rate for individuals who are currently eligible until those individuals leave the program. However, due to income fluctuations and other factors, relatively few people remain continuously enrolled in Medicaid for years at a time. As a result, by the end of ten-year scoring window, this provision to reduce the Medicaid match rate would differ little from simply eliminating the enhanced match rate entirely.


As a result, by the end of ten-year scoring window, this provision to reduce the Medicaid match rate would differ little from simply eliminating the enhanced match rate entirely.

The coverage losses associated with curtailing federal funding to Medicaid expansion states will likely be significant. Under current law, CBO estimates that the number of Medicaid enrollees who are eligible because of the ACA totaled 12 million in 2017 and will grow to 17 million in 2027, driven largely by additional states deciding to take up expansion. Even after accounting for reductions in Medicaid enrollment attributable to repeal of the individual mandate, discussed above, more than 10 million people would be projected to remain in the expansion population in 2027.[2]

Because of the increased cost to states under AHCA, additional expansions will be much less likely to occur, putting much of the projected increase in expansion enrollment at risk. CBO is also likely to expect that some states that have already expanded will end their expansions; indeed, this will occur automatically in states whose expansion legislation makes the continuation of the enhanced matching rate a condition of continuing expansion. Given their low incomes, the substantial majority of individuals losing Medicaid coverage would become uninsured, particularly in light of the reductions in financial assistance for individuals seeking individual market coverage discussed below.[3] All told, it seems likely that CBO would project coverage losses in this group on the order of an additional several million.

In addition to ending the enhanced matching rate for Medicaid expansion, the legislation would impose a “per capita cap” on state Medicaid programs. Under the House’s proposed per capita cap, the per enrollee amount on which states could receive federal matching funds would be capped at the state’s fiscal year 2016 level of per enrollee spending, adjusted for growth in the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care and the share of Medicaid beneficiaries in different eligibility categories.

Analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that the cap would fall short of accommodating projected growth in states’ Medicaid costs, in part because linking the cap amounts to a price index would not accommodate changes in health care utilization over time. Moreover, as the CBPP analysis notes, this likely understates the provision’s impact. Under the proposed per capita cap, states receive less federal funding if their spending is above the cap, but receive the same funding they otherwise would if spending is below the cap. This one-sided risk has the effect of magnifying the expected impact on states, since the lost funding if spending turns out to be higher than projected is not matched by higher funding if spending turns out to be lower than projected. CBO’s standard practice is to take account of this kind of “one-sided bet” when scoring program changes, and they are therefore likely to project larger state funding losses.

It is uncertain how CBO will expect states to cope with those shortfalls. CBO has previously identified four broad ways in which states could respond: finding additional funds elsewhere in their budgets; reducing provider payment rates; reducing the quality and extent of the benefits they provide; and curtailing eligibility or outreach for certain beneficiary groups. It seems most likely that CBO will assume that states take some combination of these four paths. This suggests that CBO will score this provision as causing additional coverage losses, although the magnitude of those losses is unclear.

Effects of Modifying the Structure of Subsidies for Individual Market Coverage

The legislation would also make additional major changes affecting the individual health insurance market. Most important, the legislation would repeal the ACA’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, which help low- and middle-income people purchasing individual market coverage pay their premiums, as well as out-of-pocket costs like co-payments and deductibles. In the place of the ACA’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, the legislation would introduce a new tax credit with a markedly different structure.

Under the ACA, the premium tax credit is based upon the actual cost of the coverage options available to an individual in their area; it is most generous for the lowest-income individuals and phases out gradually as income rises, with eligibility ending at 400 percent of the federal poverty level, $47,520 for an individual and $97,200 for a family of four in 2017.

By contrast, the new tax credit would have the same dollar value everywhere in the country and would be adjusted only by age, not the cost of coverage in an individual’s local area; the value would be the same at all income levels up to $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for a family, above which the credit amount phases down gradually. Rather than rising with premium costs, like the ACA’s tax credit, the value of the tax credit would rise with the Consumer Price Index plus one percentage point.

As illustrated in work by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation, the new tax credit would be substantially less generous for lower-income people, particularly those who are older and live in higher-cost areas. However, many higher-income people would qualify for larger tax credits, particularly young people who live in low-cost areas. Incorporating the elimination of cost-sharing reductions would likely magnify this pattern. This complex pattern of changes in the value of the tax credits makes it challenging to predict exactly how CBO will expect this provision to affect insurance coverage, as it will depend crucially on how different population groups respond to the changed incentives. However, it is possible to make some educated guesses based on information that is available.

To start, it seems safe to assume that, in the aggregate, the House Republican legislation will not spend more and may spend considerably less on individual market subsidies than the ACA, particularly in the long run.[4] To see why, note that Republican leadership appears to wish not to increase deficits in this legislation. Indeed, the terms of the reconciliation instruction that Republicans intend to use to pass AHCA require this legislation to be at least deficit neutral in order to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.

The legislation implements tax cuts costing about $600 billion over ten years, creates new state grants costing $100 billion over that period, and will incur significant additional revenue losses from repealing the ACA’s employer mandate. Thus, increasing total spending on tax credits while avoiding an increase in the deficit is likely impossible, even taking into account the bill’s Medicaid cuts. And since House Republicans have reportedly received private CBO scores of prior versions of the bill that included this tax credit, drafters should have had enough information to adjust the size of the tax credits in order to ensure that spending on the credits does not exceed that level. Note also that even if AHCA spends the same amount as the ACA on individual market subsidies over the ten year window as a whole, the AHCA subsidies are particularly likely to fall short of the ACA subsidies in the later years of the budget window due to the slower indexing rate that applies to the new credits.

With a comparable or smaller pot of subsidy dollars, the only way to increase insurance coverage is if the dollars are redeployed in a way that is more efficient in increasing insurance coverage. The shift of subsidy dollars toward higher-income individuals is likely to make the subsidies provided under the AHCA less efficient in increasing coverage, for two reasons.

First, CBO has indicated in the past that it assumes that higher-income individuals’ coverage decisions are less responsive at the margin to changes in subsidies. Second, CBO has similarly indicated in the past that it believes subsidies become particularly effective as they approach 100 percent of the gross premium; spreading subsidies more thinly over a larger population will tend to reduce the number of people with very low net premiums. Third, coverage rates are higher at higher income levels, so a larger fraction of additional subsidy spending on high-income individuals goes to people who would have enrolled anyway.


There is also a real risk that the very large reduction in subsidies in high-cost areas would threaten the stability of the individual market in these areas.

The effects of shifting subsidies toward lower-cost areas are more complex, and the net effect on coverage is unclear. On the one hand, shifting subsidies toward lower-cost areas will likely increase the number of people with very low net premiums. On the other hand, to the extent that coverage rates are already higher in these areas due to their lower costs, a larger fraction of subsidy dollars will go to people who would have purchased coverage anyway. There is also a real risk that the very large reduction in subsidies in high-cost areas would threaten the stability of the individual market in these areas. CBO stated in its estimates of so-called “repeal and delay” legislation that fully eliminating subsidies would risk a near-complete unraveling of the individual market as healthy individuals dropped coverage, driving premium increases that spurred still larger coverage losses. In some high-cost areas, the magnitude of the loss in subsidies would be very large in proportional terms, raising a similar prospect of substantial unraveling in these markets.

The shift in tax credits toward younger people could, however, increase the efficiency of the subsidy dollars in increasing the number of people with coverage. As with the shift toward lower-cost areas, shifting subsidy dollars toward younger people will likely increase the number of people with very low net premiums, likely increasing the number of people with coverage. Coverage rates are also lower for this group, so a smaller share of additional subsidy dollars provided to this group is likely to accrue to people would purchase coverage anyway. Notably, relaxing the restriction on how much premiums can vary with age from a 3 to 1 ratio to 5 to 1 ratio, as the AHCA does, will amplify this effect. (This potential shift highlights one respect in which the change in the aggregate number of people with health insurance is an imperfect metric of the overall effects of a policy change. Older people are at greater risk of needing health care, so the benefit of having health insurance in terms of improved access to care and improved financial security will generally be larger for the old relative to the young.)


Related Books


Policy Challenges from Demographic Change

Policy Challenges from Demographic Change in China and India


Edited by Karen Eggleston ·

2016



BSP volume 1 number 2

Behavioral Science & Policy


Edited by Craig Fox and Sim B. Sitkin ·

2016



Global health challenges

Global Health Challenges


By Julio Frenk, Louise O. Fresco, Phua Kai Hong, and Pablo Kuri-Morales ·

2016


A final consideration is that the availability of premium subsidies at higher income levels, combined with the elimination of the ACA’s employer mandate, may increase the likelihood that a significant number of employers drop coverage. This might be particularly likely in low-cost areas since the tax credits will be particularly valuable relative to the existing tax preference for employer coverage and may be comparatively more successful in ensuring a stable individual market. It was rumored that CBO predicted such changes under the initial leaked draft bill. CBO estimates of legislation modifying the employer mandate imply that repeal of the employer mandate by itself would have only a small impact on the number of people with employer coverage and the number of uninsured. But the broader availability of subsidies could cause much larger reductions in employer coverage. While most of the employees losing coverage would obtain health insurance through the individual market or Medicaid, if this occurred, it would likely cause some drop in overall coverage levels. With different aspects of the change in subsidy structure pointing in different directions, it is not possible to be certain about the net effect on insurance coverage without a more detailed analysis like the one CBO will soon provide. However, our best guess is that the reduction in the overall size of the subsidies, combined with the shift of subsidies toward higher income levels and the risks to the stability of the individual market in high-cost areas will outweigh any benefits from shifting subsidies toward younger adults, leading to a reduction in coverage overall. At a minimum, we doubt that these provisions will significantly mitigate the coverage losses from repeal of the individual mandate.

Other Provisions Affecting Individual Market Coverage

There are two other provisions included in the legislation, not discussed above, that may drive some increase in insurance coverage. The first is introducing a late enrollment penalty for people who do not maintain “continuous coverage.” This penalty would require individuals who enroll in individual market (or small group market) insurance coverage and had a break in coverage during the prior year to pay the insurer an additional premium equal to 30 percent of the cost of their plan for one year. The logic of this provision is that more people will purchase coverage today in order to avoid having to pay a higher premium later.

Because CBO has not previously released an estimate of a similar provision and the economics literature on this type of provision is limited, we are uncertain what CBO will conclude about the penalty’s effectiveness. There is, in our view, good reason to question how effective this type of penalty is likely to be. Many people who purchase coverage will likely not place significant weight on the penalty, either because they do not understand it, expect to have coverage from a large employer or Medicaid in the future, or simply do not anticipate needing coverage in the near term. In addition, unlike the individual mandate, a late enrollment penalty is also unlikely to have substantial effects on coverage decisions outside the individual market. Nevertheless, it is plausible that CBO will conclude that this type of incentive has some positive effect on insurance enrollment decisions.

The second relevant provision is ACHA’s “Patient and State Stability Fund.” The Fund would give states grants that they could use for a variety of health-care-related purposes, some of which (like providing additional financial assistance to individuals or operating a state-funded reinsurance program) could promote higher health insurance enrollment. Over most of the ten-year budget window, the legislation would provide states with $10 billion annually, although no grants are offered for 2027 or later, so the program would have no effect on coverage in the long run.


Related


7006814717_890ca511d4_b

Paying for an ACA replacement becomes near impossible if the law’s tax increases are repealed








nurse005

Can Canadian-Style Healthcare Work in America? Vermont Thinks So.








doctor003_16x9

Improving Health Care Quality: The Path Forward







Even focusing on the years where funding is provided, however, it is doubtful that CBO will score large effects on insurance coverage. For one, these amounts would be relatively modest in relation to total individual market premiums. Calculations based on CBO’s January 2017 baseline projections imply that CBO expects aggregate individual market premiums to be on the order of $175 billion in 2026, after accounting for repeal of the individual mandate.[5] This implies that the best case scenario is that these funds could be used to achieve a roughly 6 percent reduction in individual market premiums in 2026, accounting only for the federal funding, or around 9 percent after accounting for the matching contribution states would be required to make under the program rules. A premium reduction of this size would likely have only a moderate effect on individual market enrollment.

Moreover, CBO’s estimate of the actual effect of these grants is likely to be considerably smaller than this best case scenario. CBO will only score the grants as affecting insurance coverage to the extent that the funds will be directed toward activities that will increase insurance coverage and the activities are ones that states would not have undertaken in the absence of the grant funds. Given the high degree of flexibility states will have in determining how these funds are used, it is likely that CBO will conclude that at least one of these conditions will fail to hold for a large fraction of grant dollars.

Conclusion

CBO previously estimated that repealing the individual mandate would cause 15 million fewer people to have health insurance. From our analysis, it appears unlikely that potential coverage gains from the legislation’s late enrollment penalty and grants to states are enough to make up for the additional coverage losses from the elimination of the enhanced federal match rate for the ACA’s Medicaid expansion population and the legislation’s per capita cap.

The precise coverage impacts of the legislation’s changes to the structure of individual market subsidies are uncertain, but our view is that the CBO will most likely conclude that these provisions result in a reduction in individual market coverage that adds to the coverage losses caused by repeal of the individual mandate.

Altogether, then, it’s plausible that the AHCA will increase the number of uninsured persons by more than 15 million, and unlikely that we’ll see a number much less than 15 million from the CBO.


[1] This analysis focuses on effects on insurance coverage at the end of the ten-year window because some of the provisions of the legislation would phase in gradually over time.

[2] At least a portion of the reduction in Medicaid enrollment attributable to repeal of the individual mandate would likely be in population groups that were previously eligible for Medicaid.

[3] Estimates by Matthew Buettgens and Genevieve Kenney of the Urban Institute imply that, under current law, around half of the individuals gaining Medicaid coverage when a state expands would otherwise have been uninsured. That fraction would likely be substantially higher under ACHA because individuals with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level who lose Medicaid coverage would be eligible for much less generous financial assistance to purchase individual market coverage than they are today.

[4] For these purposes, the relevant measure of costs includes not only the direct spending on individual market subsidies under the two bills, but also any effects on the cost of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage. To the extent that the two credit structures generate different levels of employer coverage, differences in this latter component could be important.

[5] CBO projects that the aggregate amount of premium tax credits claimed in fiscal year 2026 will be $83 billion. In 2016, premium tax credits covered around 73 percent of the gross premium for subsidized enrollees, suggesting that total projected premium payments for subsidized enrollees would be around $114 billion in 2026. CBO projects total individual market enrollment of 20 million for 2026 versus subsidized enrollment of just 11 million, so this implies that aggregate premiums in the individual market as a whole would be around $207 billion. Finally, to adjust for repeal of the individual mandate, we increase this amount by 20 percent to account for the resulting increase in premiums, then scale it down to by the ratio of 14 million to 20 million to account for lower individual market enrollment, leading to a final estimate of $174 billion.

I certainly hope you don't consider yourself as a caring person, a 'Christian' or any other kind of quality person there Mr. Scrooge!

And I certainly hope you don't get old some day...

Now I understand that you are young and healthy and I'm happy for you. But youth is not eternal and someday you might find yourself in this position; so be careful what you wish for...

sarcasm went flying over your head, bro.

i hope that was anyway...

Wasn't purple. If it was sarcasm, then my bad... if not, then I said what needed saying.

My dad is in a gd nursing home and has been for 3 1/2 years with advanced dementia. Before that we cared for him in his home (mostly my step mom) and when he walked out of the house at 4:30 in the morning, when he got out of the car driving down a state route, when my step mom was tired of cleaning [censored] off the hallway wall and leaking through the adult diaper and stripping the bed (every single day) we paid for home help for another 6 months and adult church day care (neither could handle him because he was getting bad). He had to be put in a home and we had to go through all of the paperwork for the nursing home and we have self paid for the first 3 years (about 175k) for the home on top of all the Medicare bills that he ran up.
Now, him and my stepmom have no money left, I went with her to fill out the 1/2 day worth of paperwork for Medicaid. She felt like crap having someone else take care of him, but she has nothing left except her 1 car and the house for now.
He sure as hell isn't a hypochondriac, worked in the mill before he went to GM for 42 years. Medicaid for elders is a safety net when you got nothing left. What the hell you want for them to do, throw him out on the street.

Yes, exactly. We can't hand out entitlements to the people who actually pay taxes for them.

You really should think about the depth of your man-crush for this guy.

Not sure if you are talking about Trump or Cenk Uygur? But either way there is no man crush. I can't stand Trump and Cenk is just the anchor for TYT Liberal Progressive News. You should check TYT out, you might learn some stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks

And there are several shows under the TYT Network umbrella. It's the biggest online news organization in America with viewership higher than all the major media cable TV shows.

Yea, I have heard of TYT...

From smug to insane in 8 minutes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpyKuzoFW40

I quit watching Fox News because it became insufferable in its partisanship... I've only watched MSNBC a handful of times for the same reason... what makes you think I'm going to watch something with the words "Progressive" and "Liberal" in their name? On what grounds should I expect anything even CLOSE to an unbiased opinion?

You'd be surprised how often they tell both side with no bias and how often they give the other side credit while attacking their own.

Pelosi: Congress Must Read ObamaCare Replacement Before Vote

HAhahaha, oh, can't see to type right now,

sniff, he, snort bawhahahahaha

yeah.... that one is pretty rich...

I think it is a real shame how the Democrats and the Media have joined forces to bash the new healthcare plan and mislead the public.

Both are saying the CBO says 24 million would lose their coverage.

This is not true as they leave out the part where the CBO said...

"While millions are projected to lose insurance under the plan, the CBO projected this would largely be due to individuals opting to drop coverage in the event the so-called “mandate” is lifted."

To this point, Ryan said, “Our plan is not about forcing people to buy expensive, one-size-fits-all coverage. It is about giving people more choices and better access to a plan they want and can afford. When people have more choices, costs go down.”

-ObamaCare forces you to be in the plan or pay stiff penalties, the new plan allows you to completely opt out if you want no part of it.

Excuse me?

Didn't your Vice President call the bill a no go? Didn't that GOP senator from Arkansas blast it? Did GOP senator Paul come out will his own plan because that bill didn't cut it?

Your own leadership can't even unite over it. Don't go blaming the dems or the media.

While it is true, you would not be forced to buy coverage, lets call a spade a spade: this plan does zero to reduce the high cost of healthcare, and it belongs in th trash with obamacare. Trump will get voted out because of it. The American people are smarter than this crap.

It may or may not pass but the people should at least be told the truth.

Wait and see if Trump blesses this plan and costs going up. This is the number 1 issue affecting America. He will get voted out.

And if they get it right?

Then he will be the hero and no one can deny it.

But you wouldn't vote for him anyway, again!