There continues to be serious debate about the pros and cons of Paul Ryan's proposed health care bill. I watched Tom Price interviewed and questioned about who may lose healthcare as a result of the new bill. When a politician refuses to answer a question, as Price has done on more than one occasion regarding those who may lose coverage under the new bill, it causes me suspect the worst. It would be great to read how others view the potential loss of healthcare coverage under the bill that is now being proposed.
All I am sure of is that congress is exempting themselves from whatever they pass. Oh good. I always find that comforting. I heard the rich are going to get taxpayers to pay for their insurance. Probably wrong. You can take that however you want. Also heard that the working poor, who don't owe taxes, will get a refund on the taxes they don't pay. Yippee
Two things: The bill alters the way subsidies are managed. No longer based on income the subsidies are based on age. I guess a good thing for Trump supporters but the insurance companies are now allowed to charge 5x for older customers vs younger ones. What's this mean? Younger people will lose the subsidies with no reduction in cost and will lose insurance. Older people will get bigger subsidies but those subsidies and more will be eaten up by the rise in rates so older poorer people will lose insurance coverage. Of course doing away with the mandate and eliminating taxes will also close off revenues that pay for those subsidies so I see the plan driving huge deficits.
From what I've been able to gather, this may be a windfall for health care insurers. Also, based on the federal Medicaid contribution reduction that is assured by 2020, there will be far less coverage affordable coverage available. IMO, this was confirmed by Price's refusal to answer this question when asked. Without a broad risk pool, young, old, healthy and sick, someone/something will have to pay for the additional cost for pre-existing condition coverage. We can all be confident that the cost of any pool imbalance will be rest on the shoulders of those insured. It's curious that GOP officials want this measure passed prior to the CBO's cost analysis
I don't think anybody knows, not even most of the House. I think the description given may or may not be related to the substance of the bill. I think their description consists of a group generated list of good sounding phrases. When one GOP official says not to worry, the people with pre-conditions will still get medical insurance and we won't pull the rug out from Medicaid, and the very next GOP speaker says Obamacare? GONE!, you know it's the keystone kops running the show. The only thing that was consistent with Ryan's flowing words was his total belief that the constituency is godawful stupid.
Ryan's stinker is going nowhere, certainly not beyond the Senate chamber pot, but the Congressional Budget Office will seal its fate in any event - and hyper-partisans won't be able to resort to their usual whining that the CBO is not objective:
Well, some less-well-off folks may lose insurance, but hey, we get FREEDOM. Freedom of choice - you want health insurance or food? Pay the rent or health insurance? You get the freedom of choice! I particularly like how the proposed tax credits are biased toward the upper incomes. What a nice, christian, touch.
