Repealing the ACA under Trump

[BigRedBuster]

[RedDenver]

 

Where does this figure even come from? Seems a little over dramatic to me.

 

The CBO hasn't even weighed in on yet on this version of AHCA (that should tell you something about how bad this bill is that the Repubs don't want to have time for analysis of it), but here's an article from March on the previous iteration of AHCA, which had far more protections than the version that just passed the House. Here's the main point:

But Medicaid expansion has not been spread evenly throughout the US, and the Supreme Court ruled it was an optional feature of the ACA in 2012. This was clearly a loss for poorer Americans but it was a win for science: It led to a series of natural experiments across the country, in which researchers have compared the mortality rates in places that expanded coverage with the rates in places that didn’t.

The researchers behind this 2012 New England Journal of Medicine study took advantage of that variation: They compared what happened to health in three states (New York, Maine, and Arizona) that expanded Medicaid eligibility since 2000 to neighboring states without expansions, covering a period of five years before and five years after each state's expansion. They found mortality declined in places that expanded Medicaid by 20 deaths per 100,000, unlike neighboring states that didn’t expand Medicaid. Extrapolating that to the estimated 20 million who could lose health insurance with an ACA repeal, other researchers have suggested this would translate to 43,956 deaths in the US per year.

Massachusetts has also offered a natural experiment for researchers who want to understand the impact of expanding health insurance on mortality rates. The state underwent a health reform in 2006 with the goal of providing insurance to almost all of its residents — and it became the model for the ACA. The best paper on this, published in 2014 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, compared the mortality rates in Massachusetts counties from 2001 to 2005 (before health reform expanded insurance) and 2007 to 2010 (after health reforms) to changes in control counties with similar demographic and economic conditions. Here, they found that the health insurance expansion prevented 320 deaths per year since it began in 2006. If that pattern holds for the ACA, the White House Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that it means 24,000 deaths per year nationwide are averted because of the ACA. (Others, including researcher Harold Pollack, have made the same calculation.)

 

 

[knapplc]

The GOP plan for Obamacare could kill more people each year than gun homicides

 

I'm sure I could find a site citing 29,000 deaths, but 24,000 is close. They spell out in the article where they come up with these numbers.

 

For comparison, 9/11 saw a little less than 3,000 people die, and it fundamentally altered the course of American freedom forever. So even if it's 1/5th of these estimates, it'd still be worse than the worst terror attack(s) on American soil, ever.

 

So it's not a crazy thing to say, regardless of the numbers. It's still thousands more than need to die because the Republicans have a stick up their ass over Obamacare.

[knapplc]

[ZRod]

Whoever they are ;)I would give a pass to people who were bystanders. There's fair criticism for not paying attention, sure, but especially for younger people who are just beginning to wake to political issues (for me, this began happening around 2012-13, for example. And I learned more about healthcare and the ACA in the last couple of years than in either of the two previous election cycles). There's a distinction between people who are blind to things or who casually follow along and those who fight tooth and nail for this vision of the world.

I fail to see that distinction when people flaunt the proposals of those they casually follow as something they're not. Ignorance is not a defence here...

 

I refrained from commenting on Obamacare because I knew little about it. But I know a pile of sh#t when I smell one, and it doesn't take much effort to smell this steaming pile from a mile away. There's no excuse here.

[zoogs]

I'm not trying to refute what either of you guys are saying here. The answer to "whoever they are" is of course, almost exclusively Republican legislators. The "shucks, the state of politics these days" is an appeal that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

 

I think the heat should be directed to those legislators though primarily. The reason we're in this mess is because not enough people have been presented with a case compelling enough to untether themselves from these disgusting political agendas. Convicting folks isn't going to win them over, which is ultimately what's needed. If anything is clear, we all think of ourselves a s smart open-minded people who can appreciate a solid, evidence-based argument.

[commando]

if the republicans are going to take healthcare away from 24,000,000 americans they could at least hide their giddiness over doing so.

[JJ Husker]

 

Yeah, I would not lump conservatives into this. I would, however, hold accountable those groups who have made pushing this stuff their life's work. Whoever they are.

 

Wouldn't those groups consist of ... conservatives?

 

Or should I say Republicans? Which would be more appropriate?

 

Forgive me, but when you celebrate stripping healthcare from 24 million people, there may be a lil splash back.

Problem is there are conservatives, myself included, that do not support this and detest it as much as anybody. So, I don't care what you call the a$$holes that voted for this, but blaming all conservatives is not an accurate grouping. Republicans might be another story. Not sure there are any good ones left.

[knapplc]

[Fru]

 

I guess heartbeats don't matter when they're outside the womb.

[Danny Bateman]

A few things...

 

Note in the map Knapp posted in post #787 how dark Nebraska is. I noticed this when maps came out for the initial iteration of the AHCA. Our state, specifically the rural central and western part of the state, must be pretty well off under the ACA, because we get absolutely raked over the coals in the AHCA. Yet, Rep Adrian Smith voted for this...

 

Kenny Bell still rocks.

 

The numbers on those deaths if this becomes law are real. The numbers are fuzzy right now because so many aspects of this crap-pile are in flux, but make no mistake, people will be priced out of healthcare, will hit their spending limits, and will DIE.

 

Why in God's name do we absolutely flip out about the existential threat posed by radical terrorists (32 US deaths in 2014) and look the other way about gun-related deaths (33,559 US deaths in 2014)? That's over 1000 gun deaths to every 1 death by a terrorist.

 

Or deaths from having healthcare taken away, for that matter? It's odd how so many can get fanatic about the former and shrug with disinterested indifference about the latter two.

 

AtBone, I wish you and yours all the best in that fight. Support them as best you can. Cancer is an awful thing to go through.

 

To learn more about the plan, I recommend that Vox plan BRB posted in #816. Vox approaches the issue from a liberal perspective, but they have EXCELLENT explanations of the legit implications of the bill as written.

 

Sadly, the analysis for those facing cancer under AHCA is not good... This shows the expected cost increase for various positions. Cancers are all at the upper end:

 

[knapplc]

$140,000 is a debt most Americans could never pay off.

 

You get cancer under Trumpcare, and you're going to be priced into poverty.

 

We are the only first-world nation where this is possible. Think about that.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Yeah, I would not lump conservatives into this. I would, however, hold accountable those groups who have made pushing this stuff their life's work. Whoever they are.

Wouldn't those groups consist of ... conservatives?

 

Or should I say Republicans? Which would be more appropriate?

 

Forgive me, but when you celebrate stripping healthcare from 24 million people, there may be a lil splash back.

Problem is there are conservatives, myself included, that do not support this and detest it as much as anybody. So, I don't care what you call the a$$holes that voted for this, but blaming all conservatives is not an accurate grouping. Republicans might be another story. Not sure there are any good ones left.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Polls show lots of conservatives would rather fix the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions protection rather than repeal and replace.

 

These politicians are going down this path on their own. Only the diehards in their own base will fully support this bill with no questions asked.

[zoogs]

Yes, but we need our government to stop helping everyone and start working for the people and corporations who least need it. It's urgent, you see.

[knapplc]

Healthcare is too important and too complex to pass legislation without proper vetting. It is unconscionable that they voted to pass this before the CBO released its analysis.

 

And here are the statements from Nebraska's Republicans, all of whom voted YES on this damned thing. Listen to this load of horsesh#t: