Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[PleaseBlitz]

48 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Respectfully, I do not agree with this.  In particular, Bolded. 

 

 

 

It's fine if you disagree with the CBO, but you were and are making factual statements that the CBO directly refuted.  The fact is they are the only economists that I know of that were tasked with analyzing this bill, so unless you have some kind of economic analysis to go along with your disagreement, then it's just your opinion about the bill (as, I assume, neither an economist or lawyer) against a bunch of economists who analyze legislation professionally.  As to your specific arguments:

 

Quote

The problem here is that the CBO takes into account, folks who are getting subsidies for ACA coverage.  It does not reflect the costs associated by those who must bare the weight of those increases.  

 

Yes, it absolutely does.  Read the report.

 

Quote

This of course, says nothing about the actual service provided.  There are not enough facilities, not enough healthcare assets to provide proper care and this is not addressed in the CBO, so far as I can tell.  Just to get quality healthcare, we have to sink in stupid amounts of money to build and train the proper facilities and personnel.

 

Cutting a trillion dollars (or, more precisely, 1.022 trillion) from the existing system to fund tax cuts for the wealthy does not support your vision of a better healthcare system.  It's the opposite, in fact.  1 trillion dollars is certainly a "stupid amount of money" but it's already in the budget.  

 

Quote

I just don't agree.  The CBO has been way wrong about healthcare but that is because it reflects data that is submitted and not all data.  You can't depend on it because all too often, it's used as a tool by one side or the other to try and force legislation.  Cost will escalate over the next few years, even more then it already has.  This is about to become very painful for a lot of Americans.

 

This is all just your opinion, not really supported by anything (which you are entitled to, of course).  "I just don't agree" it what I usually hear when people are faced with overwhelming evidence, but just don't want to change their pre-existing perception.  Personally, I just don't agree that the Capitals are cursed, all evidence to the contrary.  

 

Again, I'll choose to believe the professional economists that produced a detailed report.  Even if the CBO is not exactly on the money (and they were only given a few days to do this), I haven't seen anything else with any credibility that attempts to claim that this bill would do anything except exactly what the CBO says.  

Edited June 27, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Hopefully that will be the next phase after (hopefully) the Senate bill dies.  And involve a transparent process with lots of healthcare policy experts, not divas triangulating their reelection chances.  

 

I would depend on the Senate Bill dying.  I think that what will happen is that the Bill will get passed, at least some version of it, or another Bill will be passed.  I don't believe Obamacare survive.  I think it will fail on it's own but doesn't really matter.  To many people have too much invested in this.

[LD0506]

Pretty good for a Tuesday, Trumpcare going down like the ****in Indianapolis

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I would depend on the Senate Bill dying.  I think that what will happen is that the Bill will get passed, at least some version of it, or another Bill will be passed.  I don't believe Obamacare survive.  I think it will fail on it's own but doesn't really matter.  To many people have too much invested in this.

Politically speaking, the best thing the GOP can do is absolutely nothing.  Let the 45 percent of Americans in counties with zero or one choice for Ins Companies decide who to blame.

[twa]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

My employer got notice today that our current insurance will no longer participate after December due to uncertainty in ACA.  This will make the 5th different insurance I've had over the last 10 years.

 

Blue Cross

Kaiser

Aetna Innovation

Federated Cigna

...

Whatever comes next.

 

At least you were able to keep your Dr 

[PleaseBlitz]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Politically speaking, the best thing the GOP can do is absolutely nothing.  Let the 45 percent of Americans in counties with zero or one choice for Ins Companies decide who to blame.

 

Only about 11 million people get healthcare off of the exchanges, so I don't think anywhere close to 45% of Americans will be giving a damn.  

[Kilmer17]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Only about 11 million people get healthcare off of the exchanges, so I don't think anywhere close to 45% of Americans will be giving a damn.  

Even more reason to not do anything about it.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Even more reason to not do anything about it.

 

Very true. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Quote

It's fine if you disagree with the CBO, but you were and are making factual statements that the CBO directly refuted.  The fact is they are the only economists that I know of that were tasked with analyzing this bill, so unless you have some kind of economic analysis to go along with your disagreement, then it's just your opinion about the bill (as, I assume, neither an economist or lawyer) against a bunch of economists who analyze legislation professionally.  As to your specific arguments:

 

 

Please explain to me how the CBO refuted what I said.  It is a fact, Health costs are going up significantly.  Taxes are going up significantly, if Obamacare is left in place.  That represents a huge increase in spending that will be put towards Obamacare.  Obamacare is no longer subsidized by borrowed money.  It now has to be paid for by Tax payers in full.  Can we agree that the CBO has been way wrong in the past, with regards to Healthcare?  There will be another scoring done in the next few weeks.  I will bet good money that the results of that scoring will be much more favorable.  If they are, are going to defend those findings as you are defending these?  I will not.  I will say the same thing, and that is, you can not trust the CBO because it's based on data you ask it to research.  It is a tool used to facilitate a position and it is often very inaccurate.

 

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Quote

 

Yes, it absolutely does.  Read the report.

 

 

Cutting a trillion dollars (or, more precisely, 1.022 trillion) from the existing system to fund tax cuts for the wealthy does not support your vision of a better healthcare system.  It's the opposite, in fact.  1 trillion dollars is certainly a "stupid amount of money" but it's already in the budget.  

 

 

Where do you get the "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" from?

 

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

This is all just your opinion, not really supported by anything.  "I just don't agree" it what I usually hear when people are faced with overwhelming evidence, but just don't want to change their pre-existing perception.  Personally, I just don't agree that the Capitals are cursed, all evidence to the contrary.  

 

Again, I'll choose to believe the professional economists that produced a detailed report.  Even if the CBO is not exactly on the money (and they were only given a few days to do this), I haven't seen anything else with any credibility that attempts to claim that this bill would do anything except exactly what the CBO says.  

 

Perhaps it is but show me where the CBO has been completely accurate, with regards to Healthcare.  Show me the proof that suggests the CBO is a trusted tool, with which to guage accuracy, in terms of Healthcare projections.  Honestly, the "pre-existing perception" comment reflects your position more then mine, IMO.  I qualify my states with, IMO.  You throw up the CBO as definitive proof when it has never been right about healthcare projections, ever. 

 

I'm OK if you choose to believe in the CBO but I am not OK with you trying to tell me that the CBO is a good source, form which to base decisions on future cost around.  That's not going to happen.  They have continually been wrong and that is not an overstatement of fact. 

 

I encourage you to put faith in whatever method you feel comfortable with but before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, show me proof that the CBO is a trusted source.

 

This is an important topic to me.  It is costing me money hand over fist to support Obamacare and I am not exaggerating when I say I can not get prescriptions covered or even visits scheduled in a respectable time frame.  It should not take 6 months to see a Dr.  I am not getting subsidized for my healthcare so I am paying the full amount required by law.  I am also seeing increases in up front costs that are intrusive, to be honest.  

 

I respect that you have your own opinions and you trust the CBO but that doesn't mean I do not know what I am talking about or that the CBO is accurate.  We disagree.

[LadySkinsFan]

PleaseBlitz, I wish I could "like" a thousand times over your post at the top of the page.

[ABQCOWBOY]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Only about 11 million people get healthcare off of the exchanges, so I don't think anywhere close to 45% of Americans will be giving a damn.  

 

But the CBO projected those numbers and the CBO  calculates off of the the originally projected numbers.  This is one of the reasons the CBO is going to be rescored and the numbers are going to be more favorable for the new Healthcare Bill. 

 

The rescoring won't make a hill of beans to me because I don't think its a very reliable projection to begin with but just an example of why I believe this.

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

But the CBO projected those numbers and the CBO  calculates off of the the originally projected numbers.  This is one of the reasons the CBO is going to be rescored and the numbers are going to be more favorable for the new Healthcare Bill. 

 

The rescoring won't make a hill of beans to me because I don't think its a very reliable projection to begin with but just an example of why I believe this.

 

More favorable than what? You mean as in it will be less than 22 million people losing health care?

[ABQCOWBOY]

29 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Politically speaking, the best thing the GOP can do is absolutely nothing.  Let the 45 percent of Americans in counties with zero or one choice for Ins Companies decide who to blame.

 

The problem, of course, in that situation is that millions of Americans are suddenly without any coverage but more importantly, no healthcare available to them.  That would be a very a painful, very irresponsible course of action IMO.  What's more, the failure of Obamacare, though it would be 100% on the Democrats, should it happen, will be blamed on the Administration that is currently in office.  It would not be fair but that's what would happen IMO.

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

More favorable than what? You mean as in it will be less than 22 million people losing health care?

WHo are these 22 million?  Where does that number come from?

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

WHo are these 22 million?  Where does that number come from?

The CBO. He is saying that he doesn't believe the CBO and that the numbers when the Senate bill is rescored will be more favorable. Just looking for clarification on the more favorable part. 

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Please explain to me how the CBO refuted what I said.  It is a fact, Health costs are going up significantly.  Taxes are going up significantly, if Obamacare is left in place.  That represents a huge increase in spending that will be put towards Obamacare.  Obamacare is no longer subsidized by borrowed money.  It now has to be paid for by Tax payers in full.  Can we agree that the CBO has been way wrong in the past, with regards to Healthcare?  There will be another scoring done in the next few weeks.  I will bet good money that the results of that scoring will be much more favorable.  If they are, are going to defend those findings as you are defending these?  I will not.  I will say the same thing, and that is, you can not trust the CBO because it's based on data you ask it to research.  It is a tool used to facilitate a position and it is often very inaccurate.

 

 

Where do you get the "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" from?

 

ETC........

 

I already, in minute detail using your quotes and quotes from the CBO report, showed where it directly refuted you.  I'm not walking you through this anymore.  

 

Saying that the CBO has "continually been wrong" is both an overstatement of fact and sort of ridiculous when you have failed to provide ANYTHING that says anything different from any reputable source.  I'm not walking you through this anymore.

 

I get the "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" from the CBO report, which it is now very clear that you have either not read or do not understand.  Specifically, it states:

 

Quote

• The largest increases in deficits would come from repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage, including repealing a surtax on net investment income and repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers.

 

Do you know who pays taxes on investment income?  (Hint:  It's the wealthy).  If you look at the included chart, it also says that $541 billion in budget increases comes from, quote, the "Repeal or delay of taxes on high-income people ...."  I'm not walking you through this anymore.

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

The problem, of course, in that situation is that millions of Americans are suddenly without any coverage but more importantly, no healthcare available to them.  That would be a very a painful, very irresponsible course of action IMO.  What's more, the failure of Obamacare, though it would be 100% on the Democrats, should it happen, will be blamed on the Administration that is currently in office.  It would not be fair but that's what would happen IMO.

 

Are you aware that the current administration is very much undermining Obamacare? 

[ABQCOWBOY]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

More favorable than what? You mean as in it will be less than 22 million people losing health care?

 

I promise you, that number will change.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

The CBO. He is saying that he doesn't believe the CBO and that the numbers when the Senate bill is rescored will be more favorable. Just looking for clarification on the more favorable part. 

The whole thing has me twisted around.  I dont see where that 22 mill comes from except that was the original estimate of how many would sign up (a number that ended up being about half that amount)

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

Are you aware that the current administration is very much undermining Obamacare? 

Obamacare is failing on it's own.  The GOP is simply fanning the flames to speed it's demise.

[PleaseBlitz]

23 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

But the CBO projected those numbers and the CBO  calculates off of the the originally projected numbers.  This is one of the reasons the CBO is going to be rescored and the numbers are going to be more favorable for the new Healthcare Bill. 

 

The rescoring won't make a hill of beans to me because I don't think its a very reliable projection to begin with but just an example of why I believe this.

 

****ING **** NO.  The CBO did not PROJECT the enrollee totals, they are counted and announced by the government agency tasked with doing the counting.  

Edited June 27, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[TradeTheBeal!]

ABQ-bot is functioning optimally.  The "I believe/I feel" software upgrade is especially effective.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Are you aware that the current administration is very much undermining Obamacare? 

 

Literally since day one if I remember correctly. 

[Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The whole thing has me twisted around.  I dont see where that 22 mill comes from except that was the original estimate of how many would sign up (a number that ended up being about half that amount)

Obamacare is failing on it's own.  The GOP is simply fanning the flames to speed it's demise.

Obamacare would not be failing on it's own if there was any co-operation from the GOP.  

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

****ING **** NO.  The CBO did not PROJECT the enrollee totals, they are counted and announced by the government.

 

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

ABQ-bot is functioning optimally.  The "I believe/I feel" software upgrade is especially effective.

 

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Literally since day one if I remember correctly. 

 

Got to admire people that don't want to trust the CBO but will trust Donald "the biggest ****ing liar as POTUS ever" Trump. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Hersh

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Hersh said:

Obamacare would not be failing on it's own if there was any co-operation from the GOP.  

 

The GOP didnt want it then.  They dont want it now.  They are offering a terrible plan to do something else.

 

How would you have them cooperate given those existing parameters?

 

Nope.  Let it die on the vine.  Then have a real debate on how to address the healthcare crisis in the US.

[ABQCOWBOY]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I already, in minute detail using your quotes and quotes from the CBO report, showed where it directly refuted you.  I'm not walking you through this anymore.  

 

Saying that the CBO has "continually been wrong" is both an overstatement of fact and sort of ridiculous when you have failed to provide ANYTHING that says anything different from any reputable source.  I'm not walking you through this anymore.

 

I get the "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" from the CBO report, which it is now very clear that you have either not read or do not understand.  Specifically, it states:

 

 

Do you know who pays taxes on investment income?  (Hint:  It's the wealthy).  If you look at the included chart, it also says that $541 billion in budget increases comes from, quote, the "Repeal or delay of taxes on high-income people ...."  I'm not walking you through this anymore.

 

It is not an overstatement, its the truth.  

 

So, because it's the wealthy, it's OK?   That's bull**** but whatever.  

 

It's not a tax cut, it's less spending over a 10 year period.  Not one dollar less will go to healthcare.  It will simply cut future costs.  Because the burden of this is on "The Wealthy", which apparently makes it all good, it is incorrectly called a tax cut they the left but that's not what it is.  On second thought, it's better you are done, "Walking anybody through this".  I'm good with that.