So here's how disastrous the new health care bill actually would be

And there's no one better to break down the particulars of this genocide health care bill the Republicans are hanging themselves with, than Ezra Klein. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...republican-health-care-bill-perverse-cbo-ahca He understands every facet of this new bill and where it is headed into the future, if passed. He paints a gloomy picture, so pay attention. Intelligent, debatable feedback is encouraged. Anything beyond that which personally attacks the messenger or the thread creator will be ignored. Responding to nonsense or personal attacks, doesn't move the dial of the debate forward. All it does is expose one's ignorance and juvenile foolishness, while proving he or she lost what argument they may have had before that individual ever gets started.

 

The whole bill (as is) is DOA.

Even with major revisions, it won't clear the House if it takes funds from Medicaid (or Medicaid Expansion).

DOA.

 

To cite:

"The policy is particularly bad for the old, the sick, and the poor. It is particularly good for the rich, the young, and the healthy."

And then we add to that the anti-social budget that was proposed today, and we see what direction Trump want to take the country in. If you are young, healthy, rich, and have a job you are fine. everyone else, not so much luck.

 

Where is Sarah Palin when you need her? She needs to get her butt out there and start screaming 'death panels, death panels.'

 

I couldn't have picked a worse person to outline anything than Erza Klein. He has almost no credibility on anything.

You probably couldn't have picked a worse person to explain the healthcare bill. Erza Klein has no credibility; no expertise on anything. So why should I listen to him, because he has an opinion?

So does everyone else.

 

Well, the mortality rates have been rising. In her defence, she wasn't wrong.

 

You think they are bad with insurance, try thinking what it will be like without it.

 

The only people who won't be lucky are the people who choose not to get health insurance.

 

That's the worse argument I've ever heard; because in a world where everyone is forced to have health insurance, mortality rates should not be increasing.

 

She picked up on a meme and repeated it. This was never anything other than idiotic right wing noise. The irony is that the provision that the noise machine latched onto when they started yelling "death panels" was proposed by a Republican.

 

That's nice. Mortality rates are rising and medical are increasing. What provisions are in the current health care law that can prevent this?

 

Don't worry. We can find dozens of other people who say the same thing.

 

Yes, we can. That is the point.

 

To be fair, with the little time even for the ACA all you're seeing with mortality rates, is the initial influx of deadly health issues being diagnosed, & running their course, along with those prior to the ACA running out their races.

It's not even been a decade since the ACA was signed. Any type of real change to the positive regarding mortality rates, would take at least 20 years to be seen. Many of these deadly health troubles, take decades to become essentially death sentences.

 

That is not even relevant, because we also hear of the immediate success stories in regards to life-saving treatments that would not have been administered without the health-care law. If that is the case, the changes in the health care law could have helped the people you are referring to as well.

Mortality rates have increased, life expectancy has dropped. Why is this occurring when we are supposedly more healthier with the Affordable Care Act?

 

It's completely relevant.

Sorry to say it, but the "Bronze" plan which, Most of your poor that got insurance have, isn't any type of holy grail in terms of breakthrough medical science extending lives, or eliminating deadly diseases.

And again, RE: mortality rates...It's been less than a decade since the ACA passed. A small drip in the bucket of time. Same goes for life expectancy. Hell, the fact that many need to work multiple jobs still, to afford their "Affordable" health insurance may play a part in both cases.

 

Irrelevant. Majority of the people only acquired bronze plans because they were forced to do so. That will be rectified shortly.

That argument is faulty, in more ways than one. It doesn't explain why mortality rates have edged up with a greater expansion of health coverage when it already been proven that health coverage and mortality rates are greatly correlated (mostly a 25% higher risk of death WITHOUT being insured, privately or publicly).

Mortality rates have not increased before the ACA, not directly after either. More than 5 years after. Majority of the effects of the law has already run its course; it hasn't lowered cost, improved quality or increased care.The numbers show that more coverage reduces mortality. That's not debatable. The Affordable Care Act has failed in that regard. People do not want to wait a decade before things are going to work out.

 

Thanks! The last three sentences in my thread opening explain everything that needs explaining.

 

It's a bad bill, but it's better than Obamacare.

The government just needs to get out of the medical insurance business altogether.

 

Ezra (not Erza) is a brilliant (albeit somewhat nerdy) political analyst who has far more credibility and expertise than you or any other brainwashed partisan groupies.

 

Unless the Gubmint wanna cut healthcare COSTS, keem them bastages the hell outta healthcare.

 

Utterly false equivalence!

Boomers reaching their Sell By dates have nothing whatsoever to do with the ACA or imaginary "death panels" that don't exist.

 

Without the ACA subsidies that make insurance affordable that is not a "choice" any longer!

 

I had tried to point out this type of thing a bit earlier... Don't expect any conversion...

 

Yet another false equivalence.

Unless you can PROVE that the increase in mortality has anything at all to do with health insurance you are fallaciously conflating two entirely different issues.