world

Senate Republicans unveil Obamacare replacement bill

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Well, all the poors will get jobs in coal mines and sweat shops soon. They will be able to afford some kind of healthcare!

This is a grandiose plan!

As 2017 Jesus said "It's your fault if you are poor. Nobody gonna help you."

7 ( +7 / -0 )

/sarcasm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A reasonably informed observer can accurately predict the functional impact of almost any proposed Republican legislation without reading a single word of the text. It will:  

Sadistically punish the poor. 

Callously impoverish and further cripple the middle class. 

Greedily enrich the wealthy and powerful.  

How many times do we Americans have to see the same script before we know the ending

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is not a "health bill." A health bill would try to improve the healthcare system by increasing access, either by cutting costs or increasing subsidies. This does not even pretend to do either.

This is a tax bill, pure and simple.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The whole idea for punishing the poor is to motivate them not to be complacent with their status.

While in theory it might work, in reality it doesn't for many social reasons.

Healthcare is one.

In case of serious ilness, some have only 2 choices.

Bankrupt their family.

Live with a disability or die

Sometimes both of them.

This is one start point toward poverty.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Looks like we'll be returning to the days where people with no insurance show up at hospitals when their illness gets critical, then taxpayers pay for it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Anytime legislation causes something to cost 3x more in 3 years, expect outrage. That is the ACA for my family and middle class families like who buy our own insurance.

Higher premiums were expected, but not 3x higher. There simply wasn't any higher priority in my voting the last 3 yrs than to get the ACA repealed.

If we move to a single payer health care system - or at least provide it as an option - then most Americans will get used to waiting 6-12 weeks for non-emergency services. Of course, the really wealthy and those with company-provided insurance won't be impacted.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

If we move to a single payer health care system - or at least provide it as an option - then most Americans will get used to waiting 6-12 weeks for non-emergency services. Of course, the really wealthy and those with company-provided insurance won't be impacted.

Yeah, that's what the country needs, less choices and more government intrusion.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Yeah, that's what the country needs, less choices and more government intrusion

Yeah! Let the plebs die in the streets. What a great choice!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

TheFu: supply and demand. If there is a demand, then supply would follow.

That said, plastic surgery pays more than being a family doctor...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yeah! Let the plebs die in the streets. What a great choice!

Why is it that liberals have to be so melodramatic and all doom and gloom, that's why people are sick and tired of Democrats, negativity and hate all the way.

No one is saying that, I would be in favor of helping those that absolutely need assistance and can prove it, but if you can physically work, get up, throw some coffee down your throat and get a job like everyone else and stop mooching off the system.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

that's why people are sick and tired of Democrats, negativity and hate all the way.

Says the guy who criticized Obama for some made up idea that Obama made America look bad to the rest of the world, even though said poster doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of America.

Said poster is literally the bastion of hate and negativity on this site.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Ok so who has actually read it?

There were protesters in wheelchairs on site with 15 mins of its release and Chuck Schumer was already reading from a prepared statement within 30 mins.

Shouldn't they at least pretend to read and understand it first? That way they can discuss the contents?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Ok so who has actually read it?

Not the Republicans.

Shouldn't they at least pretend to read and understand it first? That way they can discuss the contents?

You don't say. Yet just as some on the left are protesting it without having read it, some on the right are supporting it without having read it.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If what most Reps are presenting was actually better than Obamacare, I would want Trumpcare. But it is not before, not now and most likely wont ever be.

My biggest complaint is that even with insurence, before and after Obamacare, common people still have to pay out of pocket $20 to $50 to go see the doctor and much more for the emergency room and ride the ambulance. $50 for medications. Then you have to pay again just to be reevaluated before getting another prescription just to have to pay for more medication.

And those are only the generics and only for one type for a month. Imagine having to pay for multiple medicines, every month with check ups all the time. And what is the saddest part is that you have to pay about $50 to $100 a month per individual just to have insurance. I mean WTF!?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Republicans were supporting it initially based on the fact that their party leaders drafted it. Of course they are not going to say they dont support something they havent read. Now that they have read it, 3 or 4 have already come out and said they cant support it as written. That is fair and will have to be dealt with.

It was the Dems side Pelosi and Schumer giving speeches already about the supposed content of something they had obviously not had time to read yet. It was obvious as Schumer was talking, everything was vague (its meaner) or prefaced by the statement it MAY this, it MAY that. Also, pretty convenient a bunch of protesters had already been prestaged at the location.

Its disingenuous to pretend to talk specifics about the contents of something you havent read.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Says the guy who criticized Obama for some made up idea that Obama made America look bad to the rest of the world, even though

I don't make up stuff and video doesn't lie. And let me apologize, I don't care what the world thinks meaning as long as the US puts its citizens first, let everyone worry about their own country. I want a president that cares about America and not a president that wants to take care of the entire world. That is what I meant about making America look bad.

Said poster is literally the bastion of hate and negativity on this site.

Naw, bro. I don't hate anyone, I'm not a hating guy really, but I do dislike a president that refuses to put his country first and that is why I was happy when the 8 years finally came to a much needed end.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

How this will all end will be interesting to watch - some GOP senators are upset that it's gone to far; others, that it hasn't gone far enough. But by losing the individual mandate while retaining prohibition against discrimination against the already sick, the plan as currently written would absolutely destroy the private market. No insurer could make money under such a scenario, so all of them will simply return to insuring through corporations. It will be actually worse than the status quo ante - it will be impossible to buy private insurance.

The good news is that coverage for Trump, Pence, and members of Congress would also revert to status quo ante, meaning 75% of their health insurance would be paid for by taxpayers. Plus, for an extra $600 a year, congressmen get access to the Office of the Attending Physician in the Capitol, staffed by Navy doctors (including specialists), nurses, technicians and pharmacists.

So the bill is not all bad - if you like that kind of thing.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Despite celebrating its passage at the time, the president later privately bashed as "mean" a version approved last month in the Republican-led House of Representatives

How do we know what he really thinks of this one then?

How do we know he's not gonna do the same thing?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why is it that liberals have to be so melodramatic and all doom and gloom

Oh I don't know bass, maybe its got something to do with throwing 2million people off insurance isnt something that makes me feel particularly cheerful.

, that's why people are sick and tired of Democrats, negativity and hate all the way

Is that why only 13% percent of people approve of the house bill?

No one is saying that, I would be in favor of helping those that absolutely need assistance and can prove it, but if you can physically work, get up, throw some coffee down your throat and get a job like everyone else and stop mooching off the system.

Nonsense, that is exactly what you support if you support this bill.

40% of medicaid patients are disabled. 50% of recipients children. I guess lazy children and disabled need to get off the butts and start working?

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4649499/donald-trump-wants-to-cut-medicaid-heres-what-the-program-actually-does/%3Fsource%3Ddam

When even more conservative groups such as the US chamber of Commerce compare this bill to "treating an already weak patient with leaches," its a safe bet this bill is garbage.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

THe proof will be in the pudding of course.

Whether Republicans pass their healthcare bill or not, they now own healthcare. And it's Trumpcare from March next year either way, whether they replace or poison pill ACA.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So why are they doing this?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If only the Democrats hadn't screwed everything up with Obamacare...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Looks like we'll be returning to the days where people with no insurance show up at hospitals when their illness gets critical, then taxpayers pay for it.

Yep, just with low/no income people getting extremely subsidized insurance.

Being poor has never been easy anywhere. Having a little money, then getting serious illness has always been a problem in the USA. Families earning $150K/yr can easily go bankrupt due to a serious illness.

I wouldn't have an issue with an optional single-payer plan. The lefties here have convinced me of that. Heck, I'd probably sign up for it rather than paying 3x what I paid pre-ACA. BTW, I'm on the cheapest ACA plan available in my state.

We all have to make choices with the money we have to spend.

So why are they doing this?

In 2017, 2 of 4 providers in my state left the marketplace. ACA is dying. Supply is drying up. Doing nothing will be a complete failure for the Democrats.

It is about money AND helping as many people as possible. The ACA got the wrong mix in the solution. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

There is a balance our politicians are attempting to strike, all without being in the ACA plans. That should be illegal. The ACA was too much money. It outraged anyone having to pay for it AND subsidize very poor people.

So - Superlib - are you buying your medical insurance through the ACA market? yes or no?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I get my insurance through work, but I did use the marketplace a number of years ago.

What worries me is that we're getting further away from fixing Obamacare and going to a system that's cheaper by excluding tens of millions of people. I don't get why this country can only provide affordable insurance as long as we exclude a massive chunk of our population. In reality the only group that can close that gap is the federal government and if we take them off the table then there is no workable plan, except to just exclude people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What worries me is that we're getting further away from fixing Obamacare and going to a system that's cheaper by excluding tens of millions of people.

Then the Democrats should have never been greedy and tried to take over the insurance system, they started to roll that ball.

I don't get why this country can only provide affordable insurance as long as we exclude a massive chunk of our population.

Gruber and Emanuel with the help of the Democrats could have tried to overhaul the system for the 20 million that didn't have it, they didn't have to take on the entire system, everyone could foresee the outcome of this and here we are. Also, stop comparing other countries to the US, we have over 320 million people and at the current climate of the financial situation, not to mention the National debt we have, there is no way we can sustain a system like this indefinitely and we are already seeing what is happening in the market and how now both parties are making the biggest mess ever. Once you let government take over the entire system, things go from bad to worse.

In reality the only group that can close that gap is the federal government and if we take them off the table then there is no workable plan, except to just exclude people.

This is what you get, but if you want to cover everyone like the liberals do, then you have to make the system fair and that means that people that have preexisting conditions have to pay more, it costs more for care and more to keep them alive, that is the downside of not being excluded to having proper care. Why should the burden be on me to have to pay more for my premiums if I don't need or take care of myself or will never use the policy? This was essentially the problem with Obamacare. Rich people pay as they go and the poor get free healthcare subsidized by the middle-class tax payers, it's not fair and that is the problem now that the GOP faces to decide who will have to pay more because the bottomline is, someone will have to burden the cost and from Obamacare, the young 20s to 40s age group is not really going to do it as we have seen, so that leaves it to the elderly, which is something I don't like, but it's that or nothing, at least the way it stands now, But you can't have your cake and eat it, someone will sadly have to make a big sacrifice in order to keep this system going.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

From CNBC;

"In the swing states Trump carried ... voters gained health insurance coverage in large numbers from Obamacare. They included 376,000 whites without college degrees in Ohio, 355,000 in Michigan, and 242,000 in Pennsylvania, according to an Urban Institute analysis.

Trump states such as Kentucky (279,000), Arkansas (128,000) West Virginia (119,000), also reduced the proportion of noncollege whites without health insurance by 47 percent or more. All have Republican senators who have wavered on the legislation."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 I would be in favor of helping those that absolutely need assistance

make the system fair and that means that people that have preexisting conditions have to pay more, it costs more for care and more to keep them alive.....Why should the burden be on me to have to pay more for my premiums if I don't need or take care of myself or will never use the policy?

the poor get free healthcare..... it's not fair

How do you fathom that people that have preexisting conditions do not need assistance ? Why is it not fair to help the poor who are poor because they cannot work because they have preexisting conditions? Would it be fair if you had a preexisting condition and needed help?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

if you want to cover everyone like the liberals do

OK, so if the liberals want to cover everyone, who do the Republicans want to cover?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How do you fathom that people that have preexisting conditions do not need assistance ?

They shouldn't be turned away and should be given the proper care and shouldn't be refused adequate health services, but since it costs more to keep these people alive, then they should pay more. Why do I have to pay more in premiums to care overall for those people or pay for people that are UNWILLING to work. Again, this is why we are in this mess. The Democrats got too greedy and decided to overtake the entire system and there was No need to reinvent the wheel, all they had to do was modify the system, I would have been in favor for helping the 20 million that didn't have any insurance. I had from my company excellent coverage, no problems, never any worries. There were millions of Americans that had excellent coverage from their employer, but the way the system is now, people are losing their coverages left and right, premiums are through the roof, Obamacare has been the law of the land 7 years now and insurance companies are bailing out as fast as they can because they are losing money like a sieve, people can't afford these high premiums and that is another reason why the Democrats lost big, healthcare is a big issue, but people want affordable healthcare, the choice to see or keep their physician they are comfortable with. Now is saying kick people out that don't have coverage, leave them to die, that's a fabricated lie, but the system cannot sustain itself in its current form and is eroding rapidly, so now the GOP (as slow as they are) need to work on bringing premiums down, balance the budget and lower taxes to drastically fix this mess or it will implode and if you want to cut costs, then you have to make tough decisions especially if you are covering 320 million people and adding all the unnecessary provisions that many people don't need in their policies has got to end. That money has to come from somewhere and even if you snag it all from the wealthiest 1% it wouldn't be nearly enough.

Why is it not fair to help the poor who are poor because they cannot work because they have preexisting conditions?

We should help these people and cover them, if they can't work because of some disability that's different, but if they have the power and can work, they should work. Why do I have to pay for someone that is totally capable of working, but refuses to? Why does my plan contain add ons like prenatal care? I'm never going to use it or need it, how is it fair I have to pay into that. No way! This is just one of the issues that makes people crazy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

since it costs more to keep these people alive, then they should pay more

Please explain how they pay, if their preexisting condition stops them working and denies them insurance.

Why do I have to pay more in premiums to care overall for those people

This is what real patriotism is about, solicitude for your fellow citizen; not rah-rah-rahing at every military strike that kills foreign kids. A nation with a healthy population is better for all those who live there.

Why does my plan contain add ons like prenatal care? I'm never going to use it or need it, how is it fair I have to pay into that.

What strikes us non-Americans as unfathomable is why you should need a 'my plan' in the first place. Why not a simple 'Pay according to your means, receive according to your needs' nation-wide 'plan'? Do you think it benefits you as an American to have mothers and babies across the country denied the prenatal/postnatal care they need, resulting in a generation of possibly orphaned kids needing more of your tax dollars to make it to adulthood? (Remember those kids start off at a disadvantage because their families were too poor to be able to afford health insurance in the first place)

U.S. Has The Worst Rate of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World : NPR

You realise your taxes also go to pay for roads you'll never drive on, schools your kids will never attend, parks you'll never relax in? Do you object to paying taxes, too?

millions of Americans that had excellent coverage from their employer

Meaning that you have to be in work to get the cover. Lose your job and you're in trouble. Lose your job due to ill-health, and you're in big trouble, with bills coming in, no income and no insurance because of your 'preexisting condition'.

I had from my company excellent coverage, no problems

You mean, I'm all right Jack.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please explain how they pay, if their preexisting condition stops them working and denies them insurance.

It should be granted on a case by case basis, if for some reason they can't, then there should be other alternatives, of course.

This is what real patriotism is about, solicitude for your fellow citizen; not rah-rah-rahing at every military strike that kills foreign kids. A nation with a healthy population is better for all those who live there.

I'm sorry, but I am as patriotic as they come and because of that, I am taking this position, I want the system to be fair as well as afford for everyone and I feel it is very unfair that I have to pay an extra $300 more to cover other people or provisions. And yes, we do need a strong military, maybe the world and our enemies don't (and pray for that) but we do and desperately, but there are a lot of wasteful entitlements that should be dropped and we could use that money for better healthcare.

What strikes us non-Americans as unfathomable is why you should need a 'my plan' in the first place. Why not a simple 'Pay according to your means, receive according to your needs' nation-wide 'plan'? Do you think it benefits you as an American to have mothers and babies across the country denied the prenatal/postnatal care they need, resulting in a generation of possibly orphaned kids needing more of your tax dollars to make it to adulthood? (Remember those kids start off at a disadvantage because their families were too poor to be able to afford health insurance in the first place)

I never said that. I have always advocated in helping the people that can't afford or absolutely are incapable of working. I get it. I'm a compassionate person, but as it stands, Obamacare is going to implode and that air is running out very fast and we need to come up with a better system and that means, something fair and affordable, the premiums are killing people and that's why everyone wants the unnecessary provisions stripped out of their coverages that are not needed. 

U.S. Has The Worst Rate of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World : NPR

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/country-by-country-life-expectancy-the-worlds-15-healthiest-countries-163790/15/

Maybe I need to move to New Jersey. ROFL

You realise your taxes also go to pay for roads you'll never drive on, schools your kids will never attend, parks you'll never relax in? Do you object to paying taxes, too?

No, I don't object to that, but I do vehemently object to the government taking 60% of my money which is way too much just for entitlements, that's one of the reasons why I left California and millions are leaving California, it's become a tax absorbing socialist State, pathetic! And if it were not for the geeks in Silicon valley and the Hollywood snobs, California would have fell to the bottom of the ocean a long time ago.

Meaning that you have to be in work to get the cover. Lose your job and you're in trouble.

No, with my former company, I was covered at least after I left the company for an additional 8 months and by then I found another job and if I didn't then I must be a pathetic loser, so I never had that problem. Now I just pay as I go, I would never take that mess that we have now.

Lose your job due to ill-health, and you're in big trouble, with bills coming in, no income and no insurance because of your 'preexisting condition'.

Not necessarily and especially if you have a government job and I never had, nor would I ever work for the government. I always worked in the private sector, more money, more control.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

if for some reason they can't, then there should be other alternatives, of course

Of course. Like what, waiting till you're at death's door then staggering into E&A?

yes, we do need a strong military

Once again you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills. I never mentioned the need or otherwise for a strong military. I was talking about the difference between your version of 'patriotism' (=what the rest of the world sees as nationalism/jingoism/flag-waving bellicosity) and real patriotism, i.e. love and compassion for your fellow citizen, which you show a marked lack of.

I never said that.

It's exactly what you said, bass. You stated clearly that you object to paying for prenatal care when you yourself are never going to need it, (not being in possession of a working uterus, I presume). You don't want to pay for it, but you think it should be paid for. By whom, the unborn child?

I want the system to be fair as well as afford for everyone and I feel it is very unfair that I have to pay an extra $300 more to cover other people

You're talking in circles. You want everyone to be covered, but you as an affluent /person (you keep telling us) don't want to pay anything to help cover the less well-off. If not you and your fellow lucky affluent Americans, who do you propose should be paying for those who cannot pay for themselves?

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/country-by-country-life-expectancy-the-worlds-15-healthiest-countries-163790/15/

Maybe I need to move to New Jersey. ROFL

I thought you said you could read? The article you linked to mentions Jersey (you know, where the cows come from), not some state in North America. rofl. (It don't deserve capitals)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Of course. Like what, waiting till you're at death's door then staggering into E&A?

Thats another reason why congress can't come to an agreement on how to solve this. But the way it is, you cannot be denied, No matter what, but the offset is, you will have to pay more if you can work, if not, then each case will be juedged accordingly.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills.

As opposed to yours? Lol

I never mentioned the need or otherwise for a strong military. I was talking about the difference between your version of 'patriotism' (=what the rest of the world sees as nationalism/jingoism/flag-waving bellicosity) and real patriotism, i.e. love and compassion for your fellow citizen, which you show a marked lack of.

Whatever, I could care less what the thinks, of they don't like it, oh, well....

It's exactly what you said, bass. You stated clearly that you object to paying for prenatal care when you yourself are never going to need it,

Yes, so they can easily make up that money from private donations without a doubt. So as long as it's done within the private sector, I don't mind at all.

(not being in possession of a working uterus, I presume). You don't want to pay for it, but you think it should be paid for. By whom, the unborn child?*

No, by private institutions, I'm from California, home of the feminist vegan (yuck) culture, where Hollywood elites reign supreme.

I thought you said you could read? The article you linked to mentions Jersey (you know, where the cows come from), not some state in North America. rofl. (It don't deserve capitals)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/05/23/though-the-u-s-is-healthcares-world-leader-its-innovative-culture-is-threatened/#3b8f3a2977eb

Sorry, I meant this article, my bad! I'm not as wise and all knowing as every so called liberal that walks the Earth! Yes, they lost over 1000 legislative seats not since the reconstruction period that's what a college degree gets you nowadays? ROFL

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sorry, I meant this article, my bad!

You lost me. That article doesn't mention any kind of Jersey, new, bovine or otherwise. So why should you consider moving to New Jersey? And why would doing so be funny enough to have you rolling on the floor?

I'm not as wise and all knowing

No need to spell it out bass, I think most folk have twigged by now. It verges on the painful.

they lost over 1000 legislative seats not since the reconstruction period that's what a college degree gets you nowadays

What does that mean? (T'ain't even grammatical). And what connection does it have with the article you link to? Boasting about being the 'world leader in medical innovation' is a bit pointless if basic medical care is so expensive expectant mothers have to rely on charity for their standard prenatal care.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What worries me is that we're getting further away from fixing Obamacare and going to a system that's cheaper by excluding tens of millions of people. I don't get why this country can only provide affordable insurance as long as we exclude a massive chunk of our population. In reality the only group that can close that gap is the federal government and if we take them off the table then there is no workable plan, except to just exclude people.

The liberals overreached. Covering everyone is too expensive with the current budgets.

Do you realize the the federal government doesn't make money, right? It TAXes people living here (companies don't pay taxes) and TAKEs the money from us.

Health care isn't a federal govt responsibility any more than the govt should provide everyone with butter or cheese or shoes or TVs or internet service or social security or free land or ... America wasn't founded on hand-outs. It was the responsibility of the family to take care of their relatives who need help. Good or bad, that's the history.

That disagreement that wasn't resolved when the ACA was forced onto the nation. I don't think it ever will be resolved, since many of the fly-over states still hang onto those independent-from-govt ideals.

ACA has collapsed because it isn't possible for for-profit health companies to make profit at it. If they could, then why has the number of companies offering ACA plans in my state reduced 50% in 2017 fro 2016? There isn't any money in it. Profit is a motive for companies. The ACA parts of each health insurance company are losing money, while the typical, corporate coverages are making profits. Why is that?

I've had health coverage in the corporate world most of my working life, usually without any deduction from my paycheck for it. I was fortunate to have worked at the 7 different companies I worked at. Then I struck out on my own and learned the new world about health care. HIPPA was forcing all sorts of medical electronic documents onto companies who didn't want or need it. I don't know if it was better at the time or not. I just know that IT inside health care is totally screwed.

Why is the USA extremely expensive for health care compared to the rest of the world and what can be done to fix it? I have a few ideas, but those will never be allowed. After all, almost 20% of the total US economy is healthcare related.

I think the only solution is to start a single-payer health care system that allows {x}M people to be added each year based on income and employer size. It would be completely optional to those eligible.

So, the liberals want to cover everyone regardless of cost. I can understand that. As a human, I'd rather my taxes go towards health care than the DoD every day of the week, but all the soccer mom's want to prevent and punish every possible attacker of their children. That's deemed more important than helping dying people.

If it were an easy problem to solve in the American for-profit corporations world, then we would have solved it long ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites