Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Danny Bateman]

Pretty good tweetstorm from Ezra Klein relaying his thoughts on the updated GOP Senate healthcare bill:

 

 

 

#10 hits the nail on the head. This has become a Frankenstein amalgamation of competing interests that will not make a good healthcare bill. It's moving forward purely on political expediency, which is NUTS, because it's a horrendously unpopular bill.

[BigRedBuster]

After.......seven........years....of.......complaining.......about......Obamacare........this ..........is.......what.......we........get..........

 

[Danny Bateman]

This is why people should never put their faith in Mitch McConnell to do the right thing for America. He will always opt to do the right thing for the GOP instead.

[Danny Bateman]

Hmmm... This seems like it's totally above board. Nothing to see here.

 

[Fru]

Lots of integrity in the GOP.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

At this point it seems they're just trying to get something passed so they can say, "see, look what we've done!" Anything they've put forward isn't even a viable option at this point and is worse that what is currently in place. I watched an interview the other day with Trump saying he was waiting in his office to sign the bill. It appeared he was willing to sign anything and put his trust in the GOP putting a plan together that was 'fantastic" in their minds. I doubt he'd even read it to see how bad it truly was. He'd just sign it to say he "reformed" healthcare and when all the negatives came out he'd blame the others for the mistakes. Giant clown show at this point............

[Kiyoat Husker]

At this point it seems they're just trying to get something passed so they can say, "see, look what we've done!" Anything they've put forward isn't even a viable option at this point and is worse that what is currently in place. I watched an interview the other day with Trump saying he was waiting in his office to sign the bill. It appeared he was willing to sign anything and put his trust in the GOP putting a plan together that was 'fantastic" in their minds. I doubt he'd even read it to see how bad it truly was. He'd just sign it to say he "reformed" healthcare and when all the negatives came out he'd blame the others for the mistakes. Giant clown show at this point............

I do like how he is already throwing the GOP under the bus about their inability to pass this. Trumps loyalty is contingent on how popular he thinks it makes him.

[zoogs]

I mean, think about what #6 does. It offers tax dollars to be spent on plans that don't really do anything. That's a racket, funded by you and me. And this public money goes to whom?

 

I'm fine with spending tax dollars. Put them towards a good cause.

[Danny Bateman]

 

At this point it seems they're just trying to get something passed so they can say, "see, look what we've done!" Anything they've put forward isn't even a viable option at this point and is worse that what is currently in place. I watched an interview the other day with Trump saying he was waiting in his office to sign the bill. It appeared he was willing to sign anything and put his trust in the GOP putting a plan together that was 'fantastic" in their minds. I doubt he'd even read it to see how bad it truly was. He'd just sign it to say he "reformed" healthcare and when all the negatives came out he'd blame the others for the mistakes. Giant clown show at this point............

I do like how he is already throwing the GOP under the bus about their inability to pass this. Trumps loyalty is contingent on how popular he thinks it makes him.

 

 

Which again, is perplexing here, because this is a ridiculously unpopular bill.

 

BRI's bolded is correct. I've read in multiple places that GOP leadership has made the calculation they have to do something to replace the ACA. They've decided the price to pay if they don't (in terms of a depressed base) is more harmful than the backlash they'll receive from any non-R that hates this bill. They don't care what the end result is, they just want to pass SOMETHING they can point the GOP base to and say "we kept our promise."

 

This is, of course, an awful way to govern and legislate, and the onus is on us to show that if they don't care about us, we won't support them. Please, call your reps if you have time. This bill is garbage and will hurt people. People with pre-existing conditions are squarely in the crosshairs this time.

[Danny Bateman]

I mean, think about what #6 does. It offers tax dollars to be spent on plans that don't really do anything. That's a racket, funded by you and me. And this public money goes to whom?

 

I'm fine with spending tax dollars. Put them towards a good cause.

 

"Here, take this money and spend it on a cheap, worthless plan."

 

Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to drive fiscal conservatives nuts?

 

This bill also allows people to pay their premiums from their health savings accounts (HSAs), a favorite proposal among conservatives. As is, we have to pay our premiums with our pre-tax money and we get taxed on it later. Under this plan, HSA money is treated as post-tax money and is sheltered from taxation.

 

Ask yourself this:

 

1) Do I have an HSA?

 

2) Can I afford to squirrel away lots of money into an HSA to use on health expenditures?

 

3) Who is truly going to benefit from using large sums of saved money in an HSA and not having to pay taxes on them?

 

It's a tax cut for rich people.

[Red Five]

Sounds like the new and improved bill is already dead

[zoogs]

More than a tax cut for rich people, it's an excuse to hand out money to companies and call it "giving healthcare". I can understand propping up local industries perhaps, or investing in companies or research that may not yield fruit. This is different.

[ZRod]

 

I mean, think about what #6 does. It offers tax dollars to be spent on plans that don't really do anything. That's a racket, funded by you and me. And this public money goes to whom?

I'm fine with spending tax dollars. Put them towards a good cause.

 

"Here, take this money and spend it on a cheap, worthless plan."

 

Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to drive fiscal conservatives nuts?

 

This bill also allows people to pay their premiums from their health savings accounts (HSAs), a favorite proposal among conservatives. As is, we have to pay our premiums with our pre-tax money and we get taxed on it later. Under this plan, HSA money is treated as post-tax money and is sheltered from taxation.

 

Ask yourself this:

 

1) Do I have an HSA?

 

2) Can I afford to squirrel away lots of money into an HSA to use on health expenditures?

3) Who is truly going to benefit from using large sums of saved money in an HSA and not having to pay taxes on them?

 

It's a tax cut for rich people.

1. Yes

 

2. You can't squirel away very large amounts of money in an HSA annually (see #3). I put $100 a month in mine. And my employer automatically contributes a fixed sum every year (similar to a 401k). The money in savings can also be invested like a 401k or IRA.

 

3. I think you're misguided. You can only contribute a maximum of $7,750 to an HSA annually, and that is if you are over 55 and have a family. Myself being single and under 55, I can only contribute $3,350 annually. Not much of a tax shelter for the rich.

 

It's more of a tax break for the middle class. It's another one of those "step in the right direction, but needs work" things. I don't think we should be taxed on healthcare spending, and I think American's should also budget for future healthcare spending, but I don't think that should be tied to a high deductible insurance plan like an HSA is.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

I mean, think about what #6 does. It offers tax dollars to be spent on plans that don't really do anything. That's a racket, funded by you and me. And this public money goes to whom?

I'm fine with spending tax dollars. Put them towards a good cause.

"Here, take this money and spend it on a cheap, worthless plan."

 

Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to drive fiscal conservatives nuts?

 

This bill also allows people to pay their premiums from their health savings accounts (HSAs), a favorite proposal among conservatives. As is, we have to pay our premiums with our pre-tax money and we get taxed on it later. Under this plan, HSA money is treated as post-tax money and is sheltered from taxation.

 

Ask yourself this:

 

1) Do I have an HSA?

 

2) Can I afford to squirrel away lots of money into an HSA to use on health expenditures?

3) Who is truly going to benefit from using large sums of saved money in an HSA and not having to pay taxes on them?

 

It's a tax cut for rich people.

1. Yes

 

2. You can't squirel away very large amounts of money in an HSA annually (see #3). I put $100 a month in mine. And my employer automatically contributes a fixed sum every year (similar to a 401k). The money in savings can also be invested like a 401k or IRA.

 

3. I think you're misguided. You can only contribute a maximum of $7,750 to an HSA annually, and that is if you are over 55 and have a family. Myself being single and under 55, I can only contribute $3,350 annually. Not much of a tax shelter for the rich.

 

It's more of a tax break for the middle class. It's another one of those "step in the right direction, but needs work" things. I don't think we should be taxed on healthcare spending, and I think American's should also budget for future healthcare spending, but I don't think that should be tied to a high deductible insurance plan like an HSA is.

 

 

Agree to disagree. If it is a tax break for the middle class, it's a rather small one. So you personally save $1200 a year, but only if you spend it towards your deductible. You said you can also invest it in your 401k or IRA - why not just contribute to those accounts and get a higher match % if you wanted that many going towards retirement.

 

Here's an op-ed that aligns pretty well with how I feel about HSAs. The average family doesn't have the money to put towards them to make them useful since they're paired with high deductible plans. The tax savings per year are negligible for them but great for the wealthy who do have money to stow away.

 

Heck, they were originally devised by an insurance company with a big GOP donor as owner. Newt backed them as a way to try to get people off of Medicare.

 

It's a bad deal for working class families and horrible for those with chronic conditions. It is good for the healthy and wealthy. I feel our efforts could be better spent.

[BigRedBuster]

I have no problem with HSAs and think they should be used more. Just because they don't work hit everyone, doesn't mean they shouldn't be available.

 

What I think is stupid are the rules around them. I can't use one because my plan doesn't qualify. Why go they give a rip what plan you have. I still have expenses that they would help with.