Trumpcare Back From Dead Again: Cassidy-Graham Cruelest Version Yet, Has 49 Votes

[paralleluniverse]

Trump and the GOP refuse to give up on ripping healthcare away from millions of people. They have another repeal plan, Cassidy-Graham, which currently has 49 votes in the Senate, just 1 vote short of passage. They must pass this by September 30 or else reconciliation expires, a deadline which greatly increases the chance that they will ram this thing through no matter what.

This is the cruelest, most destructive, most radical version yet of Trumpcare, which will rip healthcare away from 32M people.

Cassidy-Graham isn't a healthcare plan, it's a massive healthcare cut, around $700B in healthcare spending, it kills off the exchanges, kills off all subsidies and the Medicaid expansion and sends the rest of the money to the states as block grants. And after 2027, it just ends. The money completely stops. So it's actually worse than a straight repeal.

Only people as delusional as the GOP can believe that cutting $700B in healthcare spending = better healthcare, and that giving the leftovers to the states to do... something = better healthcare. WTF are the states going to do to make it better? Nothing.

Protections for pre-existing conditions are gone as states can waive them away. Phony liar Cassidy even went on Jimmy Kimmel to coin the Jimmy Kimmel test which says that sick babies, like Kimmel's, shouldn't be price discriminated against, which is exactly what ACA ended and what Cassidy-Graham brings back.

More details here and here.

[Kujako]

Doubt it can pass, but it is always interesting to see how much the Republican party hates poor people.

[TZucchini]

Why is it that all Republican health care plans ultimately reduce the number of people that have health insurance, while all Democrat health care plans ultimately increase the number of people that have health insurance?

[Stormdash]

Why is it that all Republican health care plans ultimately reduce the number of people that have health insurance, while all Democrat health care plans ultimately increase the number of people that have health insurance?

Because gullible schmucks are more worried about who has insurance than the quality, breadth, or cost of available care? I can mail everyone in the country a health insurance card. Nobody would take that insurance, but everyone would be insured, so FIXED, right?

[Edge-]

Because gullible schmucks are more worried about who has insurance than the quality, breadth, or cost of available care? I can mail everyone in the country a health insurance card. Nobody would take that insurance, but everyone would be insured, so FIXED, right?

Note - Republican plans remove consumer protections and lower coverage requirements. I've yet to see them introduce a plan that maintains those protections and requirements introduced with the ACA without allowing states to opt-out, knowing full well that a number of states will absolutely opt-out which will undermine the whole system anyways.

Not sure where you found your strawman, but he's pretty poorly constructed.

[TZucchini]

Because gullible schmucks are more worried about who has insurance than the quality, breadth, or cost of available care? I can mail everyone in the country a health insurance card. Nobody would take that insurance, but everyone would be insured, so FIXED, right?

The ACA objectively increased the quality of coverage provided by health insurance plans.

[Stormdash]

The ACA objectively increased the quality of coverage provided by health insurance plans.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. If providers will not accept the insurance, there's no point in having it, and all those wonderful el-cheapo-through-redistribution highly subsidized bronze-and-under plans? it's only a small portion of practices that will accept this insurance. Why? Because so few of the billable services are ultimately approved under them, because they are garbage. The range of health insurance products that still get paid on and therefore are still accepted are prohibitively expensive, even when subsidized, and far more expensive before the ACA basically prohibited actuarial science from being a factor in the insurance industry.

[unfilteredJW]

Because gullible schmucks are more worried about who has insurance than the quality, breadth, or cost of available care? I can mail everyone in the country a health insurance card. Nobody would take that insurance, but everyone would be insured, so FIXED, right?

Another cocaine and unicorns post.

/eyeroll

[paralleluniverse]

Why is it that all Republican health care plans ultimately reduce the number of people that have health insurance, while all Democrat health care plans ultimately increase the number of people that have health insurance?

Because the ACA raises taxes on the rich to fund healthcare expansion and protections.

The GOP, being class warriors for the rich, wants to cut taxes on the rich, which means cuts to healthcare spending and protections . Cutting healthcare spending = less people with healthcare and less protections.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for demonstrating my point. If providers will not accept the insurance, there's no point in having it, and all those wonderful el-cheapo-through-redistribution highly subsidized bronze-and-under plans? it's only a small portion of practices that will accept this insurance. Why? Because so few of the billable services are ultimately approved under them, because they are garbage. The range of health insurance products that still get paid on and therefore are still accepted are prohibitively expensive, even when subsidized, and far more expensive before the ACA basically prohibited actuarial science from being a factor in the insurance industry.

Totally wrong.

All ACA plans, including the lowest Bronze level, have all minimum essential benefits.

Good plans are not prohibitively expensive with subsidies, because the subsidies cap the cost of the benchmark plan as a small % of income, no matter the price hikes,

[Sormine]

Doubt it can pass, but it is always interesting to see how much the Republican party hates non-millionaires.

I think that's a more appropriate way to put it

[Gestopft]

Hopefully in their rush to screw people, the GoP screws itself the hardest. I mean....are they TRYING to get voted out of office with this shit?

[TZucchini]

If providers will not accept the insurance, there's no point in having it

This is really a non-issue for the vast majority of people. The networks may have narrowed a bit, but there are still plenty of doctors that take bronze exchange plans. Sure, there's probably a few examples of out of network problems, but Republicans aren't solving them.

actuarial science

Medical based discrimination is something we should seek to eliminate from society, not expand upon. Unless you're OK with genetic tests determining the premium I should be paying? That type of thing is just plain wrong. If you want to do it to a teenager with a bad driving record, or a business owner with a bad financial score, fine. But increasing my premiums because I was diagnosed with ALS is just plain wrong.

[Xeones]

Because gullible schmucks are more worried about who has insurance than the quality, breadth, or cost of available care? I can mail everyone in the country a health insurance card. Nobody would take that insurance, but everyone would be insured, so FIXED, right?

The republican plans do nothing to address quality, cost, or availability.

Obamacare is objectively better.

[Heladys]

Doubt it can pass, but it is always interesting to see how much the Republican party hates poor people.

What's more interesting is just how stupid people are going to be in not holding the republicans to account for it. So much herp-derp voting against their own interests regardless, it's damn near comedy at this point.

[Breccia]

Stinks of desperation. Besides all the usual people against it -- you know, medical professionals and organizations -- Rand Paul has come out against it. No really, he fucking hates it. Based on what's in and what's out, I don't expect the best band name ever "McCain and the Women" to vote yes, either.

It also faces opposition by the hard conservatives of the House as well, as it is "Obamacare Lite".

And then, even if it passes, the Senators and Reps get to explain to their voters why they just took their health care.

If the GOP wants to do something, it's clear they need to move quickly. Pushing the budget and debt ceiling off the table for 3 months helps, but this still comes at a time when there's a fair amount going on. The CBO could really slap their shit around by dragging their feet for a day or two before coming out with the same scathing report on this health care cut -- that's what it is, a cut -- that they gave to everything else the GOP came up with.

[Zan15]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. If providers will not accept the insurance, there's no point in having it, and all those wonderful el-cheapo-through-redistribution highly subsidized bronze-and-under plans? it's only a small portion of practices that will accept this insurance. Why? Because so few of the billable services are ultimately approved under them, because they are garbage. The range of health insurance products that still get paid on and therefore are still accepted are prohibitively expensive, even when subsidized, and far more expensive before the ACA basically prohibited actuarial science from being a factor in the insurance industry.

in what world are doctors not accepting ACA plans? have any citations?

the coverage in these plans are almost exactly the same as a basic insurance offered by non aca plans. they cover the same shit just at much higher levels of patient responsibility.

What services do you think are not covered under bronze plans?

[Wyrt]

Don't they need 60 votes in the senate for it to pass?

[Edge-]

Don't they need 60 votes in the senate for it to pass?

No, just like they didn't before. It's being done under reconciliation (only 51 votes necessary, technically 50 given Pence as he casts the tiebreaker).

[Sky High]

Stinks of desperation. Besides all the usual people against it -- you know, medical professionals and organizations -- Rand Paul has come out against it. No really, he fucking hates it. Based on what's in and what's out, I don't expect the best band name ever "McCain and the Women" to vote yes, either.

It also faces opposition by the hard conservatives of the House as well, as it is "Obamacare Lite".

And then, even if it passes, the Senators and Reps get to explain to their voters why they just took their health care.

If the GOP wants to do something, it's clear they need to move quickly. Pushing the budget and debt ceiling off the table for 3 months helps, but this still comes at a time when there's a fair amount going on. The CBO could really slap their shit around by dragging their feet for a day or two before coming out with the same scathing report on this health care cut -- that's what it is, a cut -- that they gave to everything else the GOP came up with.

ah that Freedom caucus, so horrifically awful they somehow come around to the right side on this issue, for all the wrong reasons of course.

[Wyrt]

No, just like they didn't before. It's being done under reconciliation (only 51 votes necessary, technically 50 given Pence as he casts the tiebreaker).

I thought they could only do that once a year per topic and they used theirs for the bill McCain killed.