permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Of all the pesky pledges that the republicans have broadcast over the years, none has been more stringent then ending the ACA.

They have been in a fever piched effort for 7 years, v****g to repeal the act, vowing to end the blackmans plan in a nano minute if simply given the chance.

Well now they have the chance. In power like none other.. so what is the hold up?

seem finding a plan is causing a problem for them..

That well tuned machine is having an ignition problem..

This is a nice piece of reporting. If you wish to read the rest, follow the link my friends..

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-republican-health-care-blueprint-falls-far-short?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Congressional Republicans have been working on a health care reform plan – behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny – for more than seven years. Periodically, GOP leaders assure everyone that their alternative to “Obamacare” is nearly complete, and its unveiling is imminent, only to quietly change the subject soon after.

As lawmakers left Congress late last week for a week-long break, the Republican replacement for the ACA still doesn’t exist, but House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) didn’t want to send his members home empty-handed – especially knowing that they’d face concerned constituents, fearing what GOP lawmakers might do to their families’ health security – so Republicans left DC armed with an outline of some vague ideas about where the majority party is headed.

That’s the good news. We’re a long way from having a real, detailed GOP plan to consider, but we can at least take a closer look at what Ryan & Co. have come up with thus far, which is better than literally nothing.

The bad news is, you’re really not going to like the Republican outline. A New York Times editorial yesterday summarized the key provisions nicely:
In a half-baked policy paper released on Thursday, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, trotted out washed-up ideas for “improving” the country’s health care system that would do anything but. For example, the paper calls for reducing spending on Medicaid, which now provides insurance to more than 74 million poor, disabled and older people. Many millions of them would be cast out of the program.

The Republican plan would also force most people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer to pay more by slashing subsidies that the A.C.A., or Obamacare, now provides. The proposal would allow families to sock away more money in health savings accounts, which may sound good at first but would primarily benefit affluent people who can afford to save more.
As is always the case, the devil is in the details, and the specifics of the latest Republican “plan” – I’m using the word loosely – can’t be examined in earnest because they don’t yet exist.

That said, we know enough about the effects of the key GOP priorities to understand the damage that would follow the implementation of the Republican ideas. Dismantling how Medicaid works, for example, would do brutal harm to millions of low-income Americans.

And we haven’t even touched on the politics yet.

robmull Loc: florida

It's so hard to see through the teary-eyed smeared BS you print, frosty, I don't get by "frosty;" you little (D)evil, you. Hummmmmmmmm. What's that "crushing" {(D) 7th floor WH} noise I keep hearing??? GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT "45" DONALD J. {BORN AGAIN} TRUMP )R)!!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Mull,

It will still be several more months or year before you start to understand..

Maybe never...

Rivers

Pure l*****t propaganda and bulls**t. It never ends...sigh.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Tell me Rivers,

What is the GOP plan???

Have you even heard of one?

Rivers

Yep. Dr. Price has submitted his plan more than once. Sen Rand Paul with another senator submitted their plan last week. If you would broaden your news sources you would know that. You l*****ts vultures on a limb knock the GOP just because their healthcare plans don't mesh with your schedule. Ryan said they have a 200 day plan, and we're only 30 days into it. They will eventually mesh their ideas and plans together and come up with a consensus...it may not be according to your schedule, or likes, but we don't give a damn whether you like it or not. Obamacare was, and is a disaster, and if you don't understand that, you haven't done any REAL research or reading on it.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

never heard of Dr Price, but I have seen a plan by Rand Paul. May not be the one you speak of.. Also about 12 more versions that are being pushed by one group or another..

After all this work over 7 years, you think they are on the verge???

Rivers

Pay attention the Trump's cabinet picks, and you would know who Dr. price is...Secretary of Health & Human Services. Dr. Price has submitted a plan on several different occasions while a member of the House. Plans available for comparison are Rep. Tom Price’s 2015 Empowering Patients First Act; House Speaker Paul Ryan’s 2016 A Better Way: Our Vision for a More Confident America proposal; Sen. Bill Cassidy’s 2017 Patient Freedom Act; and Sen. Rand Paul’s 2017 Obamacare Replacement Act. These will eventuality be merged into one plan sometime within the next 170 days or so. Remember, The Democrats didn't immediately come up with the ACA and develop it overnight, it was nothing more than many parts of Hillary's old Healthcare Plan that she worked on and submitted when Bill was president...they just took it off the shelf and dusted it off, and used many parts of it for the ACA. And, if you remember the Senate v**ed 99 to 0 against on her plan back then. I expect the establishment GOP types will muck up the works some, but they all know that they have to come up with a final plan, and fairly soon. Now, if the Democrats are smart, they will get involved with the GOP in drafting a final plan. It's true that the GOP had zero v**es for the ACA, mainly because they weren't allowed to read it, no one was. But, if they're smart (Democrats), and if they don't want to see their party anymore marginalized than it already is, they will get involved and make it a bi-partisan solution. Whether you want to admit it or not, the ACA's cost was backloaded, and the biggest brunt is coming due this year and the next couple of years, and the cost is huge. And, there isn't enough money budgeted for it this year. Most all of the big insurance companies have pulled out of the plan, one big one 'Humana' just pulled out recently. The deductibles are high, the cost is high, and goes up higher and higher each year, and the caps are low. Contrary to what the Democrats want everyone to believe is that plan is not popular and there aren't as many people on the program as they advertise...the real number is around 14 million with many on Medicaid.

buffalo Loc: Texas

One thing about it, you can bet your ass if the ACA is repealed and a right arm of the corporate party (republican) plan replaces it that keeps the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations in the loop will go UP, just like they have with the ACA. One fallacy of the ACA was the mandate. It was supposed to force healthy uninsured people, especially the young, to purchase health INSURANCE from a private, for profit health INSURANCE corporation and that extra income from the mandate and the expansion of medicaid was supposed to be used to offset additional health CARE expenses generated for private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations by the pre-existing condition mandate. It didn't work. Then there are those, such as myself, that were self employed or retired , and not yet eligible for Medicare or a subsidy, that could not afford the ridiculously high premiums with their ridiculously high deductibles demanded by PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT health INSURANCE CORPORATIONS!

If, wh**ever plan the "republicans" come up with keeps the private, for profit health INSURANCE CORPORATION as MIDDLEMAN in the loop medical CARE costs will NEVER be affordable for the average American and the poor, no matter what plan is conjured up, will ALWAYS have to be subsidized by taxpayers, just like before the ACA.

It is time for CONGRESS to stop putting the interests of private, for profit health INSURANCE CORPORATIONS and BIG PHARMA over constituent needs! It is time for Congress to pass HR676 (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All).

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

Ricko Loc: Florida

Rivers-Ironically, those left wingers who love the ACA are not subject to any of its many deficiencies and do not
know anyone who is adversely affected. According to the CEO of Aetna, the ACA is in a death spiral. I would be
inclined to take his word over that of Maddow, Permafrost , Raylan, CoolBreeze and the self proclaimed professor
(KHH1) who spends most of his time on OPP. lol America First !!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Ricko,

WHAT!!! The word of a CEO over my word???!! Damn, the idea...LOL

I have to concede this one to you. I have no connection to ACA so I can see that some would think that disqualifies me...

But my opinion is that when the GOP comes out with a plan it will not be much different then the present version.

I also think they need to "fix" the act rather then repeal without and active replacement..

Ricko Loc: Florida

Perma-the GOP needs to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks . The ACA is favored by those who are
subsidized by the taxpayer and those who qualify for expanded medicaid. It is an absolute disaster for everyone
else who pays full premiums. Would you even consider buying a plan , as a single person, which costs $430.00
monthly and has a 6K deductible ?? Probably not ! But what if the government forces you to buy that plan or pay a percentage of your income which exceeds the cost of the plan as a penalty ? You probably would take the lesser
of the two evils in that it at least provides you with catastrophic coverage as it is useless until you have spent 6K
out of pocket on doctor's visits. In your opinion, would that be a fair choice to ask/require a person to make ?? America First !!!

buffalo Loc: Texas

I agree with you, Ricko. I am single and do not qualify for a subsidy but am far from rich. The only obamacare plan(s) offered me were Blue Cross/Blue Shield's bronze and silver plans. The Bronze plan only pays 60% instead of 80%. The silver plan's premium for me was $378 plus a $6000 deductible which I cannot afford. It cost me $695 in additional federal taxes for 2016 for not having unaffordable health INSURANCE. Think of how many self employed, retired but not yet old enough for Medicare, and working young people that fall into that category. It is estimated to be 30 million.

Now wouldn't it make more "health CARE" sense by "upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said."

http://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/medicare-for-all-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year/

The financing of such a plan would save 95% of taxpayers money mainly by eliminating the ridiculously high.

HR 676 (Section 211, Appendix 2) specifies a financing plan
for single-payer that includes
• Maintaining current federal financing for health care
• Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income
earners
• Instituting a modest tax on unearned income
• Instituting a modest and progressive tax on payroll, selfemployment
• Instituting a small tax on stock and bond t***sactions
The following progressive financing plan would meet the
specifications of HR 676:
• Existing sources of federal revenues for health care
• Tax of 0.5% on stock trades and 0.01% tax per year to
maturity on t***sactions in bonds, swaps, and trades
• 6% high-income surtax (applies to households with
incomes > $225,000)
• 6% tax on unearned income from capital gains, dividends,
interest, profits, and rents
• 6% payroll tax on top 60% of income earners (applies to
incomes over $53,000, tax paid by employers)
• 3% payroll tax on the bottom 40% of income earners
(applies to incomes under $53,000, tax paid by employers)

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

It is time for Congress to stop putting the interests of the private, for profit middlemen-Health INSURANCE CORPORATIONS AND BIG PHARMA before the health care of US citizens!

Ricko Loc: Florida

buffalo-makes sense to me. America First !!!