You still have to pay a penalty if you forego insurance, you just pay it to the insurer instead of the government. The bill calls it a “penalty” to “encourage continuous health insurance coverage.”
They will call that eliminating the mandate, but I don’t see how that’s factually accurate.
There’s also supposed to be no more added tax on the wealthy to help pay for AHCA - so some people benefit directly.
If you don’t have insurance, who are you paying the penalty to? Or did you mean, you pay a penalty when you eventually (decide to / have to) sign up?
Yes.
Payment to rapacious private corporation: good!
Payment to government under popular control: bad! Very, very bad!
it’s seems quite simple to me, really. 
It’s a win the same way that the Atlanta Falcons out-scoring the New England Patriots twenty-one to three in the first half of the Superbowl is a win.
Also factual would be “Trump Lies Again - New Health Bill Costs More, Covers Fewer”
If you never get insurance, then you never have to pay? Right? 
Reported for forum change. There’s no factual answer here. Just opinion.
Moderator Action
I think this will do better in GD.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
I don’t know what all the fuss was about. After all, didn’t the House pass repeals 37 times when Obama was in office? Besides, many if not most of those that voted for this piece of crap did so with fingers crossed behind their back and praying that the Senate euthanizes this bill.
Anecdotal but in my experience the people who voted for Trump are motivated primarily over their animus towards libruls.
They are likewise turned off by policy discussions.
The result is that as long as it pisses off libruls it is good and nevermind that it hurts them too. If they are hurt they have a bewildering ability to make it the fault of libruls (e.g. if they lose their healthcare it is because Obama made them buy insurance so now it is his fault that they had it to lose…Thanks Obama!).
Seriously, head on over to Reddit’s page The_Donald. The contortions they make so that Trump is never wrong is beyond belief. If you try to post anything resembling a coherent argument you will be banned (there is a subreddit for people banned from The_Donald called, you guessed it, BannedFromThe_Donald).
[sup]I spelled “libruls” like that on purpose.[/sup]
It is a win because now those 217 republicans in the house are less likely to lose a primary in their home districts. That is all they really care about. The base of the GOP hates the ACA, and by passing this bill they placate their base a little bit, and make losing a primary from the right a little less likely.
IMO it satisfies the rank-and-file people who find insurance too expensive and want something done about it. It’s shallow and problematic, but it will result in people paying less for insurance.
Opposition to individual mandate is largely ideological. Most people actually want health insurance if they could afford it.
What people are actually unhappy about is the high cost of health insurance. So Republicans have been blaming that on Obamacare. But the only parts of Obamacare they can point to are the requirement on whom & what need to be covered - i.e. people with preexisting conditions, and medical care that sound frivolous and/or voluntary. And now that they are in power, they have to at least pretend to dial down those requirements.
Said another way, it *might *become cheaper. It *will *become a less complete = lower quality product. At least at the bottom-most tiers.
How so? I’m not challenging you really, but in my brief readings I don’t see an economic mechanism for how premiums would decrease.
There’s no mechanism, and there’s an embarrassingly huge omission on my part - not all people are going to pay less. There’s a target market of people complaining about expensive insurance that will likely gain it naturally, as the CBO projects an eventual decline in premiums for the younger and healthier groups, and also by the return of catastrophic coverage plans and other products not subject to the ACA standards. Or as LSLGuy said, lower quality products. Which they want.
But I’m not seeing any way in which older and unhealthy people pay less for insurance.
I heard Trump hung up a banner that read OMISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
This bill is a way to fuck over people with pre-existing conditions.
There’s no way to know how these supposed high-risk pools are going to be set up in the states that request a waiver (of which my state will surely be one because the governor hates nothing more than the idea of health care for the poor and sick). This state used to have a high-risk pool before the ACA, but it was prohibitively expensive and for some idiotic reason the high-risk candidate - who already had a condition for which he/she needed care - had to be off other insurance for at least a year (if memory serves) and had to have proof that he/she had been rejected from all other insurance.
If it’s set up like that again, then someone like me will have to go without insurance or care for a long time, then pay the extra penalty to the insurance company. I don’t know if it will be set up like that, but I wouldn’t be surprised. And then the premiums will likely cost at least as much as a Cobra payment, and who knows if the allotted money will actually be used to help. I’m sure the Pubbies in my state will find some way to get out of that, too.