"Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye," Democrats sang at Republicans. A few Democrats even waved goodbye.
This, the street riots and violence and the refusal to stand and applaud the wife of a soldier who gave his life for America has truly endeared the Democrats with the American people.
"Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye," Democrats sang at Republicans. A few Democrats even waved goodbye.
This, the street riots and violence and the refusal to stand and applaud the wife of a soldier who gave his life for America has truly endeared the Democrats with the American people.
It does show their lack of understanding of the fact that they weren't considered 'in touch' with the American people either.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
"Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye," Democrats sang at Republicans. A few Democrats even waved goodbye.
This, the street riots and violence and the refusal to stand and applaud the wife of a soldier who gave his life for America has truly endeared the Democrats with the American people.
It does show their lack of understanding of the fact that they weren't considered 'in touch' with the American people either.
the senate is gonna revise this bill, especially since there are already republican senators who are saying no to this.
the problem is that everybody now knows the names of all the republicans who voted for this in the house. so whether it passes or gets knocked down in the senate, it's not gonna be good for house members in 2018.
i would assume the bill would take effect immediately. but i dunno bro.
also, just FYI to the board:
there are only 1-2 issues in the bill that requires a 60 vote approval. most of the bill, however, only require a simply majority to pass, which republicans do have.
so as long as the bill in its entirety clears the budget reconciliation rules, all they need is a simple majority to pass.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Someone correct me on this if I have it incorrect, but my understanding is that those that get subsidies under the ACA will not get them under the AHCA. Instead, they will receive tax credits at the end of the year.
First, do I have the right?
Now, if you need a subsidy for the insurance you are receiving under the ACA, exactly how much is the tax credit going to benefit you. If you receive a subsidy, you aren't making much money to begin with. So again, how does the tax credit help you?
Can someone else please explain this one, supposedly, there are huge tax cuts for the wealthy in this bill. Simple question, how does that help those that needed subsidy.
The good news is this, no more mandates. (they were stupid anyway)
I'm wondering how this is an improvement over the ACA.
I'm all for repealing and replacing the ACA.. always have been as long as what you replace it with is better for the american people. if not, can you tell me the value of changing it?
This whole thing about "you can move to another state" thing is stupid also.
I'm really trying to understand and frankly, I just don't.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
We're all scratching our heads. And don't get me started on he fact that these people have (the dems did this under the ACA too) exempted themselves from this bill also.
TERM LIMITS!
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
.. " TERM LIMITS " .. Needed badly , but will never happen !
When the Senate take up the Bill you will Senator's ( like Rand Paul ) who will not let the Health Company Subsidies Fly just for starters .. Pre conditions will be a tough one to handle also !
Someone correct me on this if I have it incorrect, but my understanding is that those that get subsidies under the ACA will not get them under the AHCA. Instead, they will receive tax credits at the end of the year.
First, do I have the right?
Now, if you need a subsidy for the insurance you are receiving under the ACA, exactly how much is the tax credit going to benefit you. If you receive a subsidy, you aren't making much money to begin with. So again, how does the tax credit help you?
Can someone else please explain this one, supposedly, there are huge tax cuts for the wealthy in this bill. Simple question, how does that help those that needed subsidy.
The good news is this, no more mandates. (they were stupid anyway)
I'm wondering how this is an improvement over the ACA.
I'm all for repealing and replacing the ACA.. always have been as long as what you replace it with is better for the american people. if not, can you tell me the value of changing it?
This whole thing about "you can move to another state" thing is stupid also.
I'm really trying to understand and frankly, I just don't.
If your wealthy, your doing better with this. If you are older and middle class, it will cost you more. If you are older, have pre-existing conditions and poor you are really, really screwed. There is an interactive map in the article from Kaiser that you could put in income, age and your county and see how you do in the house plan.
Here Is What's In The House-Approved Health Care Bill
May 4, 2017·3:16 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
House Republicans approved their plan to replace the Affordable Care Act on Thursday.
Here's a rundown of key provisions in the American Health Care Act and what would happen if the Senate approves them and the bill becomes law.
Buying insurance
The bill would no longer require people to buy insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, if they want to use federal tax credits to buy coverage. It also would eliminate the tax penalty for failing to have health insurance coverage, effectively doing away with that requirement altogether.
In place of that mandate, the bill encourages people to maintain coverage by prohibiting insurance companies from cutting them off or charging more for pre-existing conditions as long as their insurance doesn't lapse. If coverage is interrupted for more than 63 days, however, insurers can charge people a 30 percent penalty over their premium for one year.
Tax credits
The House Republican plan would eliminate the income-based tax credits and subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act, replacing them with age-based tax credits ranging from $2,000 a year for people in their 20s to $4,000 a year for those older than 60.
Trump 'Confident' About GOP Health Care Bill's Prospects In The Senate
Politics
House Passes GOP Health Care Bill
Winners And Losers Under The House GOP Health Bill
Shots - Health News
Winners And Losers Under The House GOP Health Bill
That means some people will see their costs go up while others would pay less, depending on your age and where you live. This Kaiser Family Foundation interactive map shows how the change would play out across the country.
The map shows that a 27-year-old who makes $30,000 a year would see costs rise about $2,000 in Nebraska but fall by about the same amount in Washington state. A 60-year-old, however, would see costs rise almost everywhere, with increases of almost $20,000 a year in Nebraska.
Both Kaiser and the Congressional Budget Office found that, on average, older people with lower incomes would be worse off under the Republican plan than under the Affordable Care Act.
Tax cuts
The bill eliminates nearly all the taxes that were included in the Affordable Care Act to pay for the subsidies that help people buy insurance. Those cuts, which add up to about $592 billion, include a tax on incomes over $200,000 (or $250,000 for a married couple); a tax on health insurers and a limit on how much insurance companies can deduct for executive pay; and a tax on medical-device manufacturers.
Medicaid
The AHCA would make dramatic changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled.
The Affordable Care Act allows states to expand eligibility for Medicaid to single, nondisabled adults with incomes slightly above the poverty line, with the federal government picking up most of the cost. That meant single adults who earn up to $15,800 a year could qualify in the 31 states, plus the District of Columbia, that expanded Medicaid. About 10 million people enrolled under that expansion.
The Republican plan would gradually roll back that expansion starting in 2019 by cutting the federal reimbursement to states for anyone who leaves the Medicaid rolls. People often cycle in and out of the program as their income fluctuates, so the result would likely be an ever-dwindling number of people covered.
The House bill also converts Medicaid from an entitlement program, in which the government pays all the health-related costs for those who qualify, to a grant program. The federal government would give states either a set amount of money for each Medicaid enrollee or let them choose to receive a fixed-dollar block grant.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March that the bill would cut Medicaid spending by $880 billion.
Pre-existing conditions
The AHCA maintains protections for people with pre-existing conditions, with some important exceptions (see waivers, below). That means that someone with high medical expenses pays the same premium for the same policy as anyone else his age in his area.
State waivers
This section of the bill essentially amounts to an optional, state-level full repeal of Obamacare. It would give states the ability to apply for a waiver that lets them opt out of most of the regulations and consumer protections that were included in the Affordable Care Act.
States could apply for waivers that would allow insurance companies in their states to do three things: 1. Charge older people more than five times what they charge young people for the same policy; 2. Eliminate required coverage, called essential health benefits, including maternity care, mental health and prescription drugs, that were required under the Affordable Care Act; and 3. Charge more for or deny coverage to people who have pre-existing health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes or arthritis.
The waivers could also impact people with employer-based insurance, because insurers could offer policies that have annual and lifetime benefit limits, which are banned under the Affordable Care Act, and some companies may choose those policies for their workers to lower premiums.
States that get waivers would very likely see insurance companies offer many more policy options, some with fewer benefits and lower premiums.
Those states would be required under the law to create some other way to ensure that people with expensive illnesses are able to get health care, and the law provides up to $138 billion over 10 years for such programs, typically called high-risk pools.
However, an analysis released Thursday by consulting firm Avalere Health concludes that that amount would be inadequate for providing full health coverage for the number of people who now buy insurance in the individual market and have medical problems.
Overall impact
The House approved the bill Thursday without a full Congressional Budget Office analysis of its costs and how many people would be covered.
The CBO report from March concluded that over 10 years, 24 million fewer people would be covered under the bill who otherwise would have had insurance under current law.
That analysis also predicted that the House bill would cut federal deficits by $337 billion over those same 10 years.
However, changes to the bill since then would allow states to accept block grants for Medicaid; add about $38 billion for high-risk pools and maternity and childbirth care; and offer states waivers from regulations created by the Affordable Care Act. It's unclear how much these changes would affect the original CBO score.
I think it's high time we just put this on a national ballot and make it law ourselves.
bro, i always wondered why we don't do this.
understand the reason is because we vote for congress/president to make these kinds of decisions.
however, with the population size of our country, i really wish would would put massive policies like this to a vote. like they did Brexit.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i'm sure Trumpcare is gonna run as smoothly as Trump University.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Last week, Vox dug into the Republican healthcare bill and found a provision that would exempt Congress and its staff from many of the bill's effects.
This provision was bad "optics," as they say in Washington.
But instead of taking it out — like you would usually do with a provision you aren't wedded to and can't defend politically — the House passed the American Health Care Act with the exemption intact after first passing a separate bill that would repeal the exemption that would be created by the AHCA if both bills became law.
There's a reason for this mess, and it's not about Republicans in Congress not wanting to be subject to their law.
It's about Senate procedure.
Republicans are attempting to pass the AHCA through a process called reconciliation. This process, created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, allows the Senate to pass certain bills relating to the federal budget with just a simple majority. There is no need to get 60 votes — and, in this case, some Democratic support — as there is for other legislation.
A variety of complex rules govern what matters may and may not be considered through reconciliation.
One of those is that reconciliation must be conducted pursuant to reconciliation instructions passed by both chambers of Congress. That happened earlier this year — Congress sent reconciliation instructions to two Senate committees (finance; and health, education, labor, and pensions) that were designed to allow those committees to write bills making changes to healthcare policy.
The problem, as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget explains, is that Congress' healthcare is governed by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and that committee was not sent any reconciliation instructions.
Therefore, if a reconciliation bill makes changes to the way Congress gets its healthcare, it might become subject to a 60-vote threshold because it addresses a matter that is supposed to be the purview of a committee that doesn't get to participate in reconciliation this year.
Why would the AHCA need to touch Congress' healthcare in the first place? Because Obamacare included, at Republican urging, a provision requiring members of Congress and their staffs to buy insurance through the Obamacare exchanges.
That Republicans are in this position at all reflects how rushed and ad hoc their healthcare policymaking has been. They set about passing reconciliation instructions right after taking office because they hoped to repeal Obamacare very quickly. Since they didn't know what their repeal strategy would be, they didn't know which committees would ultimately need reconciliation instructions, and now it's too late for them to change which ones have them.
Now their hope is to enact the AHCA and the companion bill that would undo the congressional exemption created by the AHCA. That companion passed the House on Thursday unanimously with Democratic and Republican votes.
In the Senate, that bill would need 60 votes to pass because it's not a reconciliation matter.
Democrats clearly like the talking point that Republicans exempted Congress from the AHCA — and if the AHCA were enacted, Democrats would have the power to filibuster the companion bill and make it a matter of law. But politically, I'm not sure how it would land, as Republicans could say they are trying to apply the AHCA to Congress and it's Democrats who are blocking that simple bill from becoming law.
Of course, in all likelihood, the Senate will pass a healthcare bill that differs extensively from the AHCA, which might make moot the whole matter of needing to change the rules about Congress' healthcare.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i'm sure Trumpcare is gonna run as smoothly as Trump University.
Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll be as good as Trump Steaks or Trump Vodka.
Perhaps it will be as successful as Russia's recent Victory over the Liberal/Progressive/Globalist Hoard.
I agree. Comrade is happy.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
LOL well keep on beating this Russian conspiracy bs to death. The evidence with arrows about dealing and protecting Russian assets belongs squarely on those you seem to idolize but lets ignore that right? You seem to forget that these people like James Clapper and such asked about direct Russian interference in the election said at the time of his tenure there was no evidence nor did he know of any.
Now we have Antifa and Communists causing mayhem in the streets and who is welcoming it and nurturing these commies? Thats right the left but yes lets run the evil Russian hysteria its laughable.
The hypocrisy is stunning....the DNC is full on at war with its own progressive members. Lawsuits everywhere and you are still trying to use Russia as a cover hahaha best start gearing up for 2024 with all that mess. Funny part is I dont even have a true political side but if you can't see what caused all this then you are part of the problem.
Y'all get super sensitive when the Russian allegations get brought up.
Sign of guilt.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
LOL well keep on beating this Russian conspiracy bs to death. The evidence with arrows about dealing and protecting Russian assets belongs squarely on those you seem to idolize but lets ignore that right? You seem to forget that these people like James Clapper and such asked about direct Russian interference in the election said at the time of his tenure there was no evidence nor did he know of any.
Now we have Antifa and Communists causing mayhem in the streets and who is welcoming it and nurturing these commies? Thats right the left but yes lets run the evil Russian hysteria its laughable.
The hypocrisy is stunning....the DNC is full on at war with its own progressive members. Lawsuits everywhere and you are still trying to use Russia as a cover hahaha best start gearing up for 2024 with all that mess. Funny part is I dont even have a true political side but if you can't see what caused all this then you are part of the problem.
This administration is scared of something in the Russian connection, time will tell how deep it goes and your snowflake crying over it only fuels the flames.
Y'all get super sensitive when the Russian allegations get brought up.
Sign of guilt.
What?
How does anyone on here know of guilt or non guilt?
Super sensitive
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I likie this RUSSIAN tactic of 'What about _______' whe confronted with uncomfortable truths. More proof of guilt.
Her emails are a thing of the past after 9 investigations that we know about. Trump and Company are in the fire now with Russia and all indicators point to there being something to it. There IS some there thee.
Chelsea's mom has definitely got it going on with Arch
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Lol what? You talk about Hillary way more than anybody on this board. And that's a coors lite cold hard fact.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I find it weird that the Senate will write their own bill to pass so whatever the House just did is moot. What is the purpose of the House then. Maybe thats why nobody bothered to read it. If its going to be rewritten.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
