Trump fights for support ahead of healthcare vote

Two dozen GOP lawmakers remain firmly opposed to the legislation -- not because it will hurt the less fortunate, but because it won't hurt them nearly enough. Shameful.

CrazyJoeMAR. 23, 2017 - 06:54AM JST Two dozen GOP lawmakers remain firmly opposed to the legislation -- not because it will hurt the less fortunate, but because it won't hurt them nearly enough. Shameful.

It is shameful I agree, but in this climate I'll take a Republican voting the right way for the wrong reasons over a spineless jellyfish who votes the wrong way just because Trump told him to.

Haven't seen anything good about this legislation, only the bad. Where's the media showing both sides?

Found one source that seems even - showing the good and the bad. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/08/republican-health-care-bill-facts/98917660/

Pre-existing conditions still covered.

If you aren't insured continuously, there is a 30% extra charge for 12 months to get "back in."

Costs are based solely by age, not health status and raise every decade. This seems fairer.

There are 10 mandatory coverages still - this bothers me. I shouldn't be forced to buy coverages that I'll never need.

Tax credits are used rather than govt subsidies. This makes it harder for non-working people to have any coverage.

Medicate expansion continues until 2020, but states have to opt-in before 2019.

No extra taxes for NOT being insured.

HSA are expanded - higher savings allowed plus use for OTC needs, not just those prescribed by a doctor. That will help me with my $20/yr sudafed habit. Ok - maybe not. But $500 glasses.

Kids under 26 get to stay on their parent's plans.

So - there are things to like and things to dislike. Wish it would have made nationwide groupings, so that larger risk groups are possible.

Wish they offered a single-payer option, for people to choose. Let me pay into a plan and be covered anywhere in the USA when I move. Americans in my field/contracting tend to relocate every few years, so the hassle of getting different insurance based on location is that - a hassle. Just because I cross a state line shouldn't matter. IMHO.

He doesn't need to fight for my support ! Not one iota ! I FULLY support his impeachment !

Is there any other country in the world where politicians campaign that they will take away your health coverage? And get cheered for it. No doubt in the diminishing Trump strongholds they would yahoo and celebrate late into the night that they had got rid of Obamacare. That is, until they realised that they also had got rid of their own coverage and now had none.

This is classic Trump. Big talk on the campaign trail with no plan whatsoever as to what he was going to replace it with. This new proposal looks like someone saying, "give me something, anything, as long as it is not Obamacare".

The GOP is panicking now, making major changes to the bill within only hours of its vote. There will be no time to subject these changes to CBO ranking or any debate whatsoever. One such major change is to eliminate ten essential benefits that, according to the Affordable Care Act, must be offered as part of any insurance plan:

• Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services

• Emergency services

• Hospitalization

• Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care

• Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy

• Prescription drugs

• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover

• Laboratory services

• Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management

• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

If the GOP has its way, only women between the ages of 18 and 45 will foot the entire maternity bill of the US population. Typical: Force woman to have babies by drastically restricting female health options, then force them to cover the costs of bearing the child out of pocket, and finally drastically restrict social programs which could help them. Disgusting.

theFuMAR. 23, 2017 - 08:08AM JST

Pre-existing conditions still covered.

That's not a good point if the law it replaces also has that provision - as the Affordable Care Act does. If the new version is not superior to the old, it is at best a neutral, irrelevant point.

If you aren't insured continuously, there is a 30% extra charge for 12 months to get "back in."

That's a terrible idea. It mildly penalizes people wealthy enough to drop/add insurance on a whim but is a severe penalization to the people poor enough that they would consider dropping insurance because they can't afford it. And worst of all, it doesn't even cover the costs of insuring everyone. So like every other Republicare change, it penalizes the poor, unfairly advantages the rich, and still doesn't do the job it was supposed to do in the first place.

Costs are based solely by age, not health status and raise every decade. This seems fairer.

Only for values of "fair" where the price of health care is set by your age. And since that isn't how billing for healthcare works, it's in fact not remotely fair.

There are 10 mandatory coverages still - this bothers me. I shouldn't be forced to buy coverages that I'll never need.

That's the way insurance works. That's the way government services work. You're not paying for your personal protection, you're paying for society as a whole to be protected.

Think it through like this- in your town you pay a certain tax to cover the construction and maintenance of roads. There are some roads that get built and maintained which you will never drive on - given how most people mainly only travel between their home, work, and the places they shop at likely most of the roads you help pay for are roads you will never drive on. But if I said I wanted to not pay for any roads I didn't personally use, you'd say I was a delusional narcisistic nutjob who doesn't understand the basic premise that when everyone in a city is easily able to navigate, we all economically benefit. So it is with healthcare - as has been demonstrated in virtually every post-industrial country in the world apart from the US.

Tax credits are used rather than govt subsidies. This makes it harder for non-working people to have any coverage.

Yes, a failure of the Republicare system.

Medicate expansion continues until 2020, but states have to opt-in before 2019.

Which means states with anti-government leaders can kick citizens out of federal systems - in essence their personal ideological beliefs are more important than your need to get your cancer treated.

No extra taxes for NOT being insured.

Which is why Republicare will drastically increase the deficit - or force people in high risk categories to lose their insurance.

HSA are expanded - higher savings allowed plus use for OTC needs, not just those prescribed by a doctor. That will help me with my $20/yr sudafed habit. Ok - maybe not. But $500 glasses.

HSAs are idiotic. "Help, I can't afford to pay for the surgery I desperately need!" "Well, here's a very attractive savings account to put the money you don't have in. Now good luck with that surgery."

Without substantially upgraded need-based support, they're nothing but a tax-evasion scheme for the people wealthy enough to not need help paying for healthcare to begin with.

Kids under 26 get to stay on their parent's plans.

Not an improvement over ACA, so again, this is irrelevant.

So - there are things to like and things to dislike.

No, this is not true. The only things to like are things ACA already did. In every measurable way, Republicare is inferior to Obamacare. It will not make America healthier, it will force more people off of insurance, and it will do nothing to make the vast majority of Americans have cheaper healthcare.

What it will do is provide giant tax cuts to the mega-wealthy. We're not looking a healthcare plan. What we're looking at is the first visible manifestation of the kleptocracy Trump and his Republican lapdogs want to create.

HSAs are helpful for people with planned medical expenses. They provide pre-tax money for those expenses. They aren't useful for poor people, but they are useful for middle-income earners, the backbone of the US economy.

"Subsidies" is a bad word in the conservative realm. That explains why "tax credits" are used.

Every measurable way? Guess I'll agree to disagree. I wasn't trying to show how much better the new bill is. Was trying to show how 1-sided coverage has been and the comments here reflect that. Did I mention democrat? No. Did I mention Obama Care/ACA? No. I wasn't trying to be political. But you clearly are. Quite inflammatory comments.

I'm seeking a solution. ACA wasn't it. This isn't it either. If we remove the politics, perhaps there is a solution? Being ultra political just makes weak arguments unheard.

US health care isn't about making more Americans healthy. It is about providing more consumers of pharmaceuticals. Seeks that needs to be part of any solution - removing the profit motive.

My main concern for any plan is costs. Neither of the recent plans were as good as what I had before. My costs are 3x higher now than they were just 4 yrs ago - for less coverage.

It's about what the repubs are good at. Target the weak in society for their own unjustifiable glory. Bringing down cost to them means eliminate millions of people from receiving proper health insurance, proper health care. We are talking about people here, humans. Health care is not a privilege, nor should it be a business, it's a right and denying, withholding it, for whatever reason is serious neglect, bordering on criminal.

Fu, the original draft of the AHCA allowed individuals to roll over tax credits not used for insurance into an HSA, but this was dropped because of political issues: (get this!) some conservatives were worried that this would be a backdoor way for individuals to spend government funds on aborton! This is because the law prohibits insurers benefitting from government subsidies from offering abortion options, but HSAs don't.

The entire bill is political. The sole reason Trump could find to urge his party to support it was that, if they didn't, he'd be angry and they would lose in 2018. The former is true; the latter not so clear. Either way, zero legislatures are voting for this bill on its merits. It is the most craven cave in to political expediency I've seen in my 51 years.

theFuMAR. 23, 2017 - 09:17PM JST HSAs are helpful for people with planned medical expenses.

People don't need health insurance for "planned" medical expenses. The whole point of insurance is to protect people from medical expenses that can't be planned for.

They aren't useful for poor people, but they are useful for middle-income earners, the backbone of the US economy.

Perhaps you've not spent much time among middle-income earners. I have. I grew up surrounded by the rural middle class, and let me tell you I've seen families very nearly destroyed by a single untimely medical expense even with insurance, families that never had any extra money to squirrel away on BS "Heath Savings Accounts".

"Subsidies" is a bad word in the conservative realm. That explains why "tax credits" are used.

I subscribe to a pragmatic approach to governance that says you don't make policy based on one party having an ideological issue with a word you make policy based on what has been shown to work. Single payer healthcare systems have been shown to work across the developed world. This giant tax break for the ultra-rich disguised as a health savings account has never been shown to work anywhere - at best it's radical social experimentation, at worst it's a kleptocratic grab for whatever the Republicans can squeeze out of the Republic before they run it off a cliff.

I wasn't trying to show how much better the new bill is. Was trying to show how 1-sided coverage has been and the comments here reflect that.

You're going to have to work on your troll game if you think that's going to fool anyone.

What you were doing was clearly trying to create a false impression of bias on the part of people reporting on this travesty of a healthcare plan because you have nothing legitimately good to say about it. Because there is nothing legitimately good to say about it. Your only hope for pursuing your partisan agenda is creating FUD that there must be a secret conspiracy against it when even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office rates it poorly.

Maybe if he had spent less time threatening everyone if they didn't follow him and instead prepared a decent idea, he'd have more support. As it is, even his own party won't support him because their base is furious and even THEY know it's a dumb idea to scrap Obama care in favor of the... well, it's basically just less coverage and a huge tax cut for the rich, and that's all.

People are finally realizing they were duped, and Trump's own party is starting to see that following a lunatic like Trump -- something even the most partisan poster on this site has called him the past -- will only hurt you, and it IS hurting them.

People are finally realizing they were duped

Nope. Sorry. The political rhetoric has a long long way to play out yet. Too many stupid statements have been thrown around to assume that sanity will soon prevail. ObamaCare is evil in its every incarnation and must be completely destroyed, and the bits that may actually make sense can't be allowed to stand and must be replaced by things that don't make sense. Only then will irrational stupidity give way to some other less intense form of stupidity. With luck, the world will only become rather stupid, rather than the alternate of fairly insane. It's the best we can hope for at this stage...

Maybe if he had spent less time threatening everyone if they didn't follow him and instead prepared a decent idea, he'd have more support.

Maybe, but at least they are out in the open with this, direct and didn't try to sneak it by the way Obamacare was implemented. This is sausage being made, not pretty, but ultimately the final product will be a lot better.

As it is, even his own party won't support him because their base is furious and even THEY know it's a dumb idea to scrap Obama care

Not that it's a bad, the problem is to drastically bring the premiums down, that's the biggest problem with Obamacare. If they can get it just right appease the GOP and to a lesser extent the Dems, but most importantly, the people.

in favor of the... well, it's basically just less coverage and a huge tax cut for the rich, and that's all.

Not for the rich, someone has to pay for the thing, I know Democrats don't think about these things, but FREE healthcare is NOT FREE, someone has to pay for it, with Obamacare, the entire system was dependent on young people buying insurance, the majority of under 35 didn't, don't see the need for it and because of that, the responsibility fell on the already financially depleted middle class. What the GOP has done is the exact opposite which was stupid, but the idea that the elderly have more money to pay for this thing was equally a bad idea. Both did a p*** poor job with this, however, at least the GOP is directly doing all this in front of the American people and that speaks volumes.

People are finally realizing they were duped,

It's been 2 months, liberals are always impatient. Trump voters just want the thing repealed.

and Trump's own party is starting to see that following a lunatic like Trump

No, the only people that really think that are the typical cry baby Washington elites, his supporters do not.

-- something even the most partisan poster on this site has called him the past -- will only hurt you, and it IS hurting them.

For now, but he'll bounce back, every time, I thought Obama would fall, he rose back up and it's the beginning of his admin. and it's actually good all this is happening now and NOT later like the 3rd or 4th year of his admin.

No

Fact (no alternative!!) is that he and his buddies failed implementing his so-called health care plan.

That wasn't a failure, it was a huge blessing, No one said that making sausage would be pretty.

Now they have to start (more or less) all over again, convincing their own party members to agree.

That's how it's supposed to be, you have fiscal conservatives, moderate conservatives and libertarian conservatives, of course you are going to see conflict and heads bang, all have various ideas, most good, but the main thing is to ensure the people that they can keep the premiums down, if they can't it's just a waste of everyone's time.

Doesn't look too good now, does it?

Actually, it looks and feels better, their constipation is over.

bass4funkMAR. 24, 2017 - 05:01AM JST Maybe, but at least they are out in the open with this, direct and didn't try to sneak it by the way Obamacare was implemented.

Let's pretend for a moment this is not an outright lie on your part - it is of course, but let's pretend for a moment it is not.

How could any rational person possibly think this is a legitimate defense of a law that every objective party that has analyzed it says it will hurt America?

"We made a bad law in a manner that is open to the public!" is not a rational defense. It's the kind of thing people say when they have nothing actually good to say about the law but their partisan bias prevents them from dealing with criticism of the team they choose to cheerlead for. It's the kind of comment someone who puts party before country would say.

But of course, your comment is a lie, so let's get into that. Obama began meeting with stakeholders in the healthcare industry in March of 2009. Over the next year Congress heavily, at times vociferously debated what kind of law should be drafted until Obama signed their Affordable Care Act into law in March of 2010. There were debates for literally an entire year. Now, it is true that some of those debates were behind closed doors - but then the final product was always available for analysis before a vote was held. Republican partisan hacks tried to sell the lie that "Obamacare" had been "rammed down our throats" because they knew their constituencies were too busy watching "Duck Dynasty" to pay attention to the many and frequent news reports concerning how the ACA was shaping up. They made an appeal to right wingers' ignorance, and right wingers swallowed it.

Trump has only been in office for about 3 months, and for much of that time he wasn't even dealing with his ACA replacement - he was too busy shouting "boogity-boo!" and then pointing furiously at Muslims as though they were the ones who scared you. They literally announced their replacement to ACA before the Congressional Budget Office could analyze it - how can any rational person possibly believe that this tax break law has been negotiated more openly than the ACA? They literally don't even have it in it's final form yet - faced with enormous pushback from the public that doesn't want to be killed by losing their health insurance, the House literally gave the Senate permission to make changes to the bill and we haven't even seen what they will be yet. Talk about negotiating behind closed doors!

I have a question for you, Bass. When you lie like this, do you feel any shame at all? I mean, the lies are so obvious, surely you have to know you're going to get called out. Or are you so used to mindlessly parroting whatever far right talking points come out of 4chan or /r/pol or Sputnik that it doesn't occur to you to think about what you say, it's just a mindless reflex?