LOL, yes, let's complain about the 25% that would be uncovered while ignoring that the other plan truly covers no one after it becomes too expensive to use or they are left with nothing once the companies pull out altogether. Let's make perfect the enemy of good in order to make an argument to stick with terrible.
A few other fun facts: - will result in more babies (yea!) because defunding PP reduces access to birth control - AARP estimates $8.4k hike in Premiums for a 64-year old making 15k a year, plus copays. - Trump WH called out so-called CBO for being smarter and must not be trusted.
I work in healthcare as well. Govt insurance is good for covering lots of people while private insurance makes a lot of profit for insurers.
Insurance isn't complicated... the more people you have paying, the cheaper the costs are. The GOP plan will be worse than ACA without a doubt. Premiums will still rise and folks will be getting less for their money.
They are predicting a rise in premiums of about 10% short-term with the hardest impact on the elderly. Given the huge bump in premiums most people will experience, combined with te 24 million losing health insurance - and you just have to laugh at the mess Republicans have created for themselves. It's funny to watch them self-destruct over Obamacare. They can't even find a way to repeal. The current bill is DOA in both chambers. So much for TrumpCare or RyanCare or DonaldDoesntCare.
Curious why your chose to use the FREOPP forecast of ACA, other than they predict a declining market as part of their own pitch to replace to replace ACA?
I'll ask for a third time @Commodore, since you keep ignoring a direct question: Should people who cannot pay for medical care, and do not have health insurance, be given treatment?
I totally agree, but I keep asking the question because I want to know @Commodore 's opinion. He's said that he's fine with 24 million people losing health coverage so long as he maintains his own. Because of his refusal, or inability, to see that these people will still enter the healthcare system when they need treatment and that the cost of their inability to receive insurance/pay for care will be passed onto him, I want to know a fundamental component of his beliefs on the subject: should sick poor people, unable to pay for healthcare, receive medical treatment? I have a feeling which way the wind blows here, but I'd like to hear it from him.
I don't know what Commodore believes, but there is a growing, if often unspoken, belief within the far right that people who can't afford treatment should get care from charity hospitals and that's it. A big part of that is that the narrative pushed to them is that the people "mooching" off the system are illegal Mexicans and lazy people who don't want to work.
Which is one step away from saying they're fine with people dying due to lack of healthcare if those charity hospitals get overwhelmed and are unable to handle the amount of patients they'll receive.
I mean they won't say that (most of them) but yes, that's what many believe. They believe we are on the verge of becoming Greece, that America has been destroyed, etc. and that the culprits are the illegals and the lazy people who get free healthcare and destroy out schools. We can't afford it anymore! We don't have the money! We're going bankrupt! Here, taking my grandchildren's social security! Take their Medicare! Won't be there anyway! Free markets!
It's so weird to me that philosophical opposition to increases in tax revenue, which would fend off all of the doomsday economic scenarios they love to envision, would be placed above the reality of people dying from treatable disease. On a basic human level, the lack of empathy is flabbergasting. Why the undying sympathy for those who can afford it in spades at the expense of millions of others? Would they look into the eyes of a poor person suffering from untreated cancer and be proud to show them what a hedge fund manager did with his new tax break?
