Study: Trump healthcare plan would end coverage for 21M and cost about $270 billion over 10 years.
77 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A new analysis reports that [URL="http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump"]Donald Trump[/URL]’s healthcare plan would result in about 21 million people losing health insurance and cost about $270 billion over 10 years. [URL="http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/measuring-trumps-healthcare-plan/"]The analysis[/URL], from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), looks at the healthcare plan that Trump [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/271576-trump-releases-healthcare-plan"]released earlier[/URL] this month, which includes many popular Republican concepts.
Trump’s plan calls for fully repealing ObamaCare, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects would lead to 22 million people losing health insurance. The CRFB, using previous CBO estimates of the component parts, finds that Trump’s replacement would only add coverage for about 1 million people. [/QUOTE]
[URL]http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/272918-study-trumps-healthcare-plan-would-cause-21m-people-to-lose-coverage[/URL]
:dance::terrists::dance:
Only the Great will survive.
Super human beings?
See the free market works!
it will provide compedative service (if it feels like it) at competitive prices (that it will arbitrarily set) and save taxpayers billions (that they will promptly spend on insane insurance plans)
Question.
Don't you have to seek out insurance yourself like privately? or is it different in the US?
[QUOTE=Passing;49934179]Question.
Don't you have to seek out insurance yourself like privately? or is it different in the US?[/QUOTE]
Yes you have to seek it yourself, but the government subsidizes some plans based on your income bracket. You can go to healthcare.gov to find an insurance plan that fits your income bracket.
[QUOTE=Passing;49934179]Question.
Don't you have to seek out insurance yourself like privately? or is it different in the US?[/QUOTE]
You don't have to, per se. Most jobs come with insurance. You still pay for it, though, it's deducted from one's paycheck most of the time.
[QUOTE=TestECull;49934292]You don't have to, per se. Most jobs come with insurance. You still pay for it, though, it's deducted from one's paycheck most of the time.[/QUOTE]
Most jobs do NOT come with insurance, else this wouldn't be a topic.
It doesn't look like the CBO takes into account the plans that had to be cancelled because of the high bar the ACA set for insurance plans. Plans that would presumably come back if ObamaCare was ever repealed. And it also doesn't tell us anything of the savings a lot of citizens would get back once they could ditch their insanely expensive plans. I'm not sure I trust this report.
I have expensive medicines I need for my mental illness but because I am covered by Medicaid I don't need to worry about that. I'd rather not lose that and I have genuine fear of not being able to afford it. Is that fair to me? If I can't afford my medications and no ones willing to take me in, I can't work a job. If I can't work a job I can't get medications. Is that fair to me at all Fat White Lump?
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/blog/proposed-medicaid-block-grant-would-add-millions-to-uninsured-and-underinsured[/url]
Here's another study on the implications of a Medicaid Block Grant.
Let's [del]make America great again[/del] fuck this country in the asshole so hard it'll vomit bloody semen and die.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49934673]I have expensive medicines I need for my mental illness but because I am covered by Medicaid I don't need to worry about that. I'd rather not lose that and I have genuine fear of not being able to afford it. Is that fair to me? If I can't afford my medications and no ones willing to take me in, I can't work a job. If I can't work a job I can't get medications. Is that fair to me at all Fat White Lump?
[URL]http://www.cbpp.org/blog/proposed-medicaid-block-grant-would-add-millions-to-uninsured-and-underinsured[/URL]
Here's another study on the implications of a Medicaid Block Grant.[/QUOTE]
People like Fat White Lump and the other libertarian cronies are usually sociopaths who'd throw you in the showers and gas you if it meant they could save some money on taxes.
[QUOTE=toaster468;49934338]It doesn't look like the CBO takes into account the plans that had to be cancelled because of the high bar the ACA set for insurance plans. Plans that would presumably come back if ObamaCare was ever repealed. And it also doesn't tell us anything of the savings a lot of citizens would get back once they could ditch their insanely expensive plans. I'm not sure I trust this report.[/QUOTE]
ok but like having actual standards for insurance coverage, that aren't even as high as all the countries with socialized medicine would provide, is the only way to ensure that americans aren't tossing money at bad services.
We could let you buy a car with no seatbelts, no bumpers, no safety glass, or airbags, but you're going to die in an accident. the state shouldn't let insurance companies sell plans that don't cover what people actually need, even if they sell them cheaper
[QUOTE=27X;49934337]Most jobs do NOT come with insurance, else this wouldn't be a topic.[/QUOTE]
This is correct. Its often a benefit, but its not a given. And since many people are only part time employees they get almost zero benefits at all.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49934861]ok but like having actual standards for insurance coverage, that aren't even as high as all the countries with socialized medicine would provide, is the only way to ensure that americans aren't tossing money at bad services.
We could let you buy a car with no seatbelts, no bumpers, no safety glass, or airbags, but you're going to die in an accident. the state shouldn't let insurance companies sell plans that don't cover what people actually need, even if they sell them cheaper[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of people (around 90%) were happy with their insurance coverage pre-Obamacare.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49934856]People like Fat White Lump and the other libertarian cronies are usually sociopaths who'd throw you in the showers and gas you if it meant they could save some money on taxes.[/QUOTE]
Ha, get a fucking load of this guy. Libertarians are one of the few people actively trying to give the people a shitload of rights, and yet he's comparing us to fucking nazis. You really have your head that far up your ass? We are nothing like Trump supporters, we actually give a shit about the people. Fat White Lump is in no way a libertarian in anymore the way the grand wizard likes Hilary (yes, I made that comparison, get the fuck over it). Also, from what I've seen half the libertarian vote is voting for Sanders so we aren't a bunch of redneck tea partiers.
Point being, get the fuck off your high horse.
I mean, yes you can argue libertarian ideas aren't the best, but don't go around comparing them to Trump. only a true fucking dumbass thinks libertarians are as bad as Trump (We're only as bad as Hilary).
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934876]The vast majority of people (around 90%) were happy with their insurance coverage pre-Obamacare.[/QUOTE]
Happy or not, the vast majority of people were happy before airbags too,doesn't mean we go back to the way it was, those junk plans didn't cover anything but routine checkups, everything else was out of your own pocket. People are happy with their insurance until they have a heart attack, then realise they can't pay for it, and have a second one
[QUOTE=Sableye;49934927]Happy or not, the vast majority of people were happy before airbags too,doesn't mean we go back to the way it was, those junk plans didn't cover anything but routine checkups, everything else was out of your own pocket[/QUOTE]
There's an inherent difference between the car and the insurance plan: You don't know what you're missing before airbags were invented or popularized, but you sure as hell know when your insurance plan doesn't cover something you need done. I doubt people would say that they were happy with their insurance coverage if it didn't cover them well.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934937]There's an inherent difference between the car and the insurance plan: You don't know what you're missing before airbags were invented or popularized, but you sure as hell know when your insurance plan doesn't cover something you need done.[/QUOTE]
People don't think about emergency coverage, do I have to be as blunt as a brick about it? People are ignorant and stupid about what healthcare needs they actually NEED, mandating a minimum coverage level that covers emergencies, routine health, and other things saves people from unforeseeable ruin
The plans that didn't meet the ACA standards were junk
[QUOTE=Sableye;49934941]People don't think about emergency coverage, do I have to be as blunt as a brick about it? People are ignorant and stupid about what healthcare needs they actually NEED, mandating a minimum coverage level that covers emergencies, routine health, and other things saves people from unforeseeable ruin[/QUOTE]
Phew, it's a good thing smart people like you are there to take care of them.
As a side point: The majority if cars already had airbags before a law was ever passed about it. Information, not legal coercion, is the best way to change customer behavior.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934943]Phew, it's a good thing smart people like you are there to take care of them.[/QUOTE]
Now your just trolling. The airbag analogy is pretty damn accurate, people thought they could just hold on and didn't need airbags, lots of people were maimed and killed, the government mandated airbags even as car companies said it would ruin them, the airbags saved many many lives and traffic deaths fell as a result
[editline]15th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934943]
As a side point: The majority if cars already had airbags before a law was ever passed about it. Information, not legal coercion, is the best way to change customer behavior.[/QUOTE]
Cars had seatbelts at best not airbags, learn yourself some history, only a few select models came with them before the 1970s safety regulations dictated they be equipped
[QUOTE=Sableye;49934952]Now your just trolling. The airbag analogy is pretty damn accurate, people thought they could just hold on and didn't need airbags, lots of people were maimed and killed, the government mandated airbags even as car companies said it would ruin them, the airbags saved many many lives and traffic deaths fell as a result[/QUOTE]
Like I said, the majority of cars already had airbags before any law forcing them was put into effect. This happens all the time. A trend is already in effect, a law is passed, and people give the law credit for the trend that was already happening. By the time the law passed in 1991 (that required all cars to have frontal airbags by 1994) higher end cars were already starting to implement side airbags.
Also, early airbags weren't even that safe. As airbag technology improved more cars used them.
I almost feel like, at this point, USA should just elect Trump to speed up the inevitable global monetary reset. Burn it all down and start fresh with smaller numbers.
Interestingly enough, a study done on frontal accidents concluded that people with just seatbelts actually had a lower chance of getting a head injury than people with seatbelts and airbags:
"The population restrained by airbag alone... had 120,002 occupants, out of which 6.30% had at least one type of head injury. The population restrained by belt alone was by far the highest with 8,819,166 occupants, out of which 2.76% sustained a head injury. 1,406,535 occupants with both airbag and belt restraint sustained 3.51% head injuries " ([URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217397/[/URL])
Even when only looking at severe injuries, the combination of airbag and seat belt was only slightly better than seatbelt only, and was actually worse when looking at only non-head injuries.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49935033]I almost feel like, at this point, USA should just elect Trump to speed up the inevitable global monetary reset. Burn it all down and start fresh with smaller numbers.[/QUOTE]
You realize that will not happen until after we're all dead, right? 2008 proved that nobody was willing to let it burn for long.
[QUOTE=pentium;49935103]You realize that will not happen until after we're all dead, right? 2008 proved that nobody was willing to let it burn for long.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that's because we had options. We are now even farther in the bucket and Trump is going to plop down a nice fancy wall and other ridiculous expenses while cutting taxes. What's the worst that could happen?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934876]The vast majority of people (around 90%) were happy with their insurance coverage pre-Obamacare.[/QUOTE]
"Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.
And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year."
You fuckers are so Stockholm syndromed into liking the backwards piece of shit system you have.
"wow we are so happy"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49936787]"Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.
And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year."
You fuckers are so Stockholm syndromed into liking the backwards piece of shit system you have.
"wow we are so happy"[/QUOTE]
the other thing is that i assume that the number, is americans that actually had health insurance
so while 90% of americans with health insurance might have been happy, what does that say about the near-50 million americans that [B]didn't have health insurance[/B]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934876]The vast majority of people (around 90%) were happy with their insurance coverage pre-Obamacare.[/QUOTE]
Did this research have nothing but 2 options, happy and not happy? Or are you lumping together ratings like slightly satisfied and moderately satisfied to make the statistics more favorable?
Are people with chronic diseases more or less likely to be happy with their insurance? And people who have suffered accidents? What's the disparity between those and the people who don't rely on it as much?
Does this research say anything about the ease of getting insurance in the first place? Are people happy with that process? What about the ones that don't have insurance?
[editline]15th March 2016[/editline]
The reasoning behind the airbag thing is solid. You've explained the specifics of why airbags might not be the best example, but you've yet to tackle the logic behind it. People being ok with the current system in no way guarantees that it's the best there is.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49934943]Phew, it's a good thing smart people like you are there to take care of them.
[/QUOTE]
Taking care of its people and saving them from stupidity is one of the primary functions of the government.
*Dirty socialism intensifies*
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.