Another good description…
…of what’s really in the AHCA bill about pre-existing conditions.
If you have a family member or friend who’s still worried about this, email them that link.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…of what’s really in the AHCA bill about pre-existing conditions.
If you have a family member or friend who’s still worried about this, email them that link.
So to put this in similar terms that the media and the Dem’s would not hesitate to use …
OBAMACARE KILLED 80,000 PEOPLE IN 2015.
Have I got a grip on the take-away there?
…I bet you won’t read that in the WaPo or NYT.
People got what they voted for. Yes, they lied as they died, what else is new. And yes the innocent are punished along with the guilty, what else is new.
If the true number of people with pre-existing conditions is so insignificant, why not just keep the pre-existing conditions protection part of obamacare untouched? how is adding all those waivers going to help lowering premiums. This is once again a perfect example of ultra conservatives being stupid, it doesn’t have any substantial effects on cutting costs while generating unneeded bad publicity for the bill, its nothing but a gesture for the freedom caucus to appease to “Free Market” fanatics.
I hope Trump add this clause to the upcoming tax bill “only those corporations who support the tax bill in public will get a tax cut, any companies like facebook and Berkshire Hathaway who publicly condemn the tax cut as a way to rob the poor to feed the rich will be subjected to an higher tax rate since they are so compassionate in helping out the government, we have to honor their wishes to pay more.”
We need to have a tax system that people who advocate higher taxes will pay more taxes while people who advocate tax cut will pay less. We can’t let those virtue signaling liberal elites getting away with condemning president Trump’s tax reform bill as a way to gain praises from the liberal media and public while enjoying the tax cut at the same time.
you can’t have it both ways, it is not fair that the liberal billionaires can publicly call out the president’s tax reform as a way to earn praise from the media while enjoying the tax cut at the same time.
I like your idea, Dave. Let the virtue signalers pay the present tax rate of 39%. Just so they can feel virtuous. Me, I’ll be glad to live with all the guilt of lower taxes. 🙂
J.J. Says:
May 11th, 2017 at 11:01 pm
I like your idea, Dave.
**
Motion made and seconded. Call the vote.
@Neo – excellent find that link – thanks.
I’ve read those four layers quote several times, but I did not find anything about price, nor premium subsidies (nor have I spent much time researching all this).
Since there is a strong correlation between pre-existing conditions and age, and obamacare did allow price bands, where the highest could not be more than 3x the price of their lowest policy, will this new proposal keep those bands or will they be widened?
Under obamacare there were premium subsidies based on income. I understand the new plan to be tax credits rather than subsidies. Aside from the cash flow issue, there is a question of affordability. Do we know if the credits will match the subsidies or will they be significantly less “generous”?
It may well be that there is coverage, but the net out of pocket price may change dramatically.
We cannot talk about coverage without talking about affordability, if we want to retain those rust belt swing trump supporters.
If it is not clear to me (I really don’t see this as much of a repeal, but I’m also not a trump fan either, and his fans seem to be a constituency we keep hearing he is aiming for to please), then it sure isn’t clear to them, so I’m not sure what the celebration was about.
Anyway, the Senate is likely to change this all up.
So… we’ll see.
“it is not fair that the liberal billionaires can publicly call out the president’s tax reform as a way to earn praise from the media while enjoying the tax cut at the same time.” – Dave
Had a similar sentiment when Warren Buffett complained about paying “less” than his secretary.
There is nothing wrong with volunteering to pay more, if he thinks the tax code so wrong as is.
Well, we might infer from his choice to put in charity trusts his monies (a way to avoid taxes due on his passing?, and perhaps current write-offs as well?), as a vote of non-confidence in the government’s effective use of those funds.
So, does he really believe his own words on this?