Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't really get what the point is if they're getting rid of the pre-existing condition protection. That's the only thing that actually makes the gov't subsidy worth it... otherwise, the gov't is still pumping tons of (taxpayer) money out to subsidize healthcare costs and not getting much back for it. Might as well just repeal the whole thing rather than basically creating a Mr Hyde ACA.
I want it to pass. The GOP will be wiped out next year in the midterms by all those people without insurance or those over 50 paying massive premiums. Watch out for those pre-existing conditions cause they are back.
They are going to give money to states and let them spend it however they want. Seriously?
Costs go up when government gets involved. Obamacare is a perfect example.
I understand this argument and appreciate the concern BUT it seems all this replacement stuff is trying to take govt. out of the whole thing but it looks like we will see HUGE increases in our premiums.
I don't really get what the point is if they're getting rid of the pre-existing condition protection. That's the only thing that actually makes the gov't subsidy worth it... otherwise, the gov't is still pumping tons of (taxpayer) money out to subsidize healthcare costs and not getting much back for it. Might as well just repeal the whole thing rather than basically creating a Mr Hyde ACA.
This is a good point -- and I understand you to say they should just go back to the way it was before Obamacare?
I understand this argument and appreciate the concern BUT it seems all this replacement stuff is trying to take govt. out of the whole thing but it looks like we will see HUGE increases in our premiums.
Am I missing something?
It doesn't take gov't out of healthcare..... the federal gov't is still using taxpayer funds to subsidize healthcare. It's just they turn the money over to the state, and the state gov't chooses how to dole out the money. Not sure if that's better or not but the feds are still making the decisions about how much and when.
From what I can gather -- and I own the fact that I'm not really on solid ground with this issue. ...I'm trying.....anyways....the idea of repealing was the main goal. BUT voters -- both Republican and Democratic realized that a bunch of them were going to be in trouble if it was repealed and we would go back to the days of so many people having no health care. So now the Republican politicians are trying to devise a plan that is seemingly trying to work towards keeping health care for most but at the same cutting as much of the federal involvement.
Problem is all it does is shift --- premiums will be higher for more people -- or that seems to be the conclusion from all of these suggested plans.
It doesn't take gov't out of healthcare..... the federal gov't is still using taxpayer funds to subsidize healthcare. It's just they turn the money over to the state, and the state gov't chooses how to dole out the money. Not sure if that's better or not but the feds are still making the decisions about how much and when.
THANK You for taking the time to explain it to me. I do appreciate it.
Like you -- the idea might work but yikes -- some states make such stupid decisions -- lol.....I know shouldn't be the federal govt.'s job to police them -- it is up to the voters in the state.
This is a good point -- and I understand you to say they should just go back to the way it was before Obamacare?
I'm for ACA (with some fixes) but in this case, I think a complete repeal would be better than Graham-Cassidy. G-C is kind of like the worst of both pre-ACA (pre-existing condition discrimination) and ACA (taxpayers subsidizing other people's healthcare). What's the point?
THANK You for taking the time to explain it to me. I do appreciate it.
Like you -- the idea might work but yikes -- some states make such stupid decisions -- lol.....I know shouldn't be the federal govt.'s job to police them -- it is up to the voters in the state.
The interesting thing is it would also shift the balance of which states get the funding. So big Dem states that expanded Medicaid like NY and CA will lose a lot of that funding (compared to ACA) while red states that did not expand Medicaid (like ahem Graham's state) will get more funding. This is why Rand Paul is saying it's still the same "un-conservative" policy... it just shifts who gets the money and who doesn't. We're still paying the money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
