Again, you’re misreading it completely.
Right back at you, buddy!
This is fun!
Here’s an analysis from The New England Journal of Medicine (PDF file), page 5 and 6, one of the most well respected peer reviewed medical journals in the world:
Who you gonna believe? Bunch of liberal lefty doctors, or the strictly non-partisan Heritage Foundation?
Straw men to justify unbridled greed. Sad to say, the only thing that surprises me is how naked some people here are about it.
…lets, just for a minute, pretend that removing the ACA will have zero affect on the death rate.
What do you think will be the effect on personal bankruptcies in America? Will they go down? Will they stay the same? Or will they go up?
This may shed some light on that…
http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/
The discussion here was all about “Republicans are going to kill us all!!!11!!!”. My response was about that.
You want to discuss bankruptcies, do it with someone else.
…this discussion here is about the house passing repeal and replace. The discussion has since moved onto the senate passing repeal and replace. This discussion has broached topics as broad as “cheques vs money transfers” and “how much power the Federal government should have.” It isn’t about one single thing. And my question to you assumed that this “one single thing” has been decided in your favour.
This is the perfect place to discuss bankruptcies, especially as they relate to the rate of bankruptcy filings in relation to the implementation of the ACA, and what is likely to happen if the senate bill is passed into law. If you don’t want to discuss that here: then you are more than welcome to ignore my question. But I’m not off topic.
Lets concede for the purposes of debate that “no one extra is going to die.” What impact do you think this bill will have on the rate of bankruptcies?
How will the health of the workforce impact the GDP? Workers with access to health care are probably going to be healthier, less stressed and more productive. A healthier population has positive impact on many sectors of the economy. Large numbers of people that have to give up everything non-essential to afford healthcare impact industries that produce non-essential goods and services.
How will a large reduction in the number of insured impact employment in the medical and allied health professions? It’s not just doctors and nurses, it’s therapists and techs and unskilled workers of all sorts. Healthcare is 15% of the economy, the number of people employed in healthcare is orders of magnitude larger than those working in coal mines. How will TrumpCare impact the job market?
It’s not just about saving lives and preventing individual heartache and horror stories, it’s about making a stronger and healthier economy and society.
I thought Angela Davis was black.
For me personally? Keeping my better, old plan was more important than Medicaid and the individual mandate. One of us seems to be mistaken about whether premiums will go up or down under the AHCA. My understanding was that they are indeed estimated to decrease. Here is the CBO report:
[QUOTE=CBO Summary]
… In the agencies’ view, those key factors include subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures, and grants to states from the Patient and State Stability Fund, which would lower premiums by reducing the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures. … in the agencies’ view, lower average premiums enough to attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market. … About half the population resides in states that would not request waivers regarding the EHBs or community rating, CBO and JCT project. In those states, average premiums in the nongroup market would be about 4 percent lower in 2026 than under current law, mostly because a younger and healthier population would be purchasing the insurance. …
About one-third of the population resides in states that would make moderate changes to market regulations. In those states, CBO and JCT expect that, overall, average premiums in the nongroup market would be roughly 20 percent lower in 2026 than under current law … Finally, about one-sixth of the population resides in states that would obtain waivers involving both the EHBs and community rating and that would allow premiums to be set on the basis of an individual’s health status in a substantial portion of the nongroup market, CBO and JCT anticipate. As in other states, average premiums would be lower than under current law
[/QUOTE]
Like I said before, I don’t know the precise number, but I’m largely feeling rather unconcerned about the speculative ‘thousands’ / ‘tens of thousands’ estimates.
I wasn’t aware I was getting a quarter mil out of this deal. If that’s accurate, hell yes I support it.
The part about ‘lives driven into poverty’? It seemed like a rather trivial concern in the midst of a discussion on all the people this bill is supposedly going to murder.
No and none, but I guess anyone can give it a try if they don’t mind bleeding out in the infield.
And it’s largely on these grounds that I oppose Obamacare and welcome its demise: it made me poorer. I guess you could say that I’ve finally taken the SDMB’s advice and voted my own economic interest for once. Now feel free to carry on about how cruel and selfish that is.
[quote=“Okrahoma, post:1191, topic:785871”]
[/QUOTE]The “Native American” line particularly cracked me up. 
Let’s imagine for a moment you’re not young, healthy, and/or above middle class. You know, like most of the people who really need the help. You’ll have to excuse the assumptions on my part, as your post drips with the privilege of someone who has never had to worry about whether to pay for health care or food in any given month.
I addressed this at length here. Note I said premiums and deductibles, because lower premiums don’t mean much when you can’t pay the deductibles. Vox goes into detail about it here as well.
Yes, I suppose you would. It’s not hard to find people who will be affected by this, just like it’s not hard to find people who would have died without Obamacare.
Cruel, selfish, and shortsighted. If you honestly believe this bill will make things better for you, you’re either in a very specific demographic (young, healthy, don’t need health insurance, or rich enough to profit from the subsidies) or you haven’t really understood what’s going on here. It’s not like we can magically turn back the clock to 2008, or like this bill even tries to do that.
I haven’t found a clear explanation of how the rich are going to profit from the subsidies. Could you explain it to me?
As for the rest of your post, I’m in my 30’s, rarely consume healthcare services these days, but maintain insurance because shit happens. It currently costs more than my mortgage.
Careless wording on my part. I mean the tax cuts.
Well there you go. Thank you for explaining your perspective.
You’re only supposed to vote your own self-interest when that favors Democrats. Selfless sacrifice for the greater good is more moral otherwise.
And if you’re confused about “the greater good?” It means the Democrats’ plan. Always and forever.
It’s this sort of bullshit that makes you no longer worth engaging with.
OTOH, you’re all ready for your Fox News gig.
Yeah, I’m terrible. It’s all wrong, what I said.
Hey, remind me: in which aspects of the political realm do you think the Republican approach constitutes the greater good?
Why don’t you propose one, and we can debate it?
Seriously, name the current Republican policy that you think is the most unarguably, unassailably good.