Skip to main content

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) talks to reporters during a series of votes in Washington December 17, 2011. The U.S. Senate voted on Saturday to extend a payroll tax cut for two months in legislation that also attempts to force President Barack Obama to appro
The Affordable Care Act is now the status quo. You need look no further than a new health insurance bill being developed by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to see that. You also don't need to look further than its first title [pdf] to see that it's a purely political document. The first thing it calls for is repeal, the only proof you need that this isn't any kind of serious effort to work with Democrats in making changes to Obamacare to improve it. But at the same time, it does put forward some policy ideas that essentially exist within in the framework of the law, a recognition that straight across repeal and a return to the pre-Obamacare world is no longer an option.

The proposal maintains some of the stuff of Obamacare that's working well and that's popular: no more lifetime limits on medical claims, and people can remain on their parents' policies until they're 26. From there on it's a mix of old obsessions (tort reform, health saving accounts), deregulation, and ultimately less protection for the people Obamacare helps the most.

For example, they'll let insurance companies charge older people a lot more for premiums. Under current law, they can only charge older people three times as much for premiums than younger people; Republicans want them to be able to charge five times as much. States could change that rating, if they wanted, under the Republican senators' plan. The individual mandate is gone, as is the ban on insurers rejecting people because of pre-existing conditions. That's replaced by requiring insurers offer insurance to anyone who has maintained "continuous coverage." The proposal overview doesn't say how this would prevent people from buying junk insurance, then upgrading it when they got sick. As far as the people with pre-existing conditions, this plan would help states restore the high-risk pools some of them maintained to cover the sickest.

The Republicans would replace the subsidy lower-income Americans get with a less generous one. Now subsidies are available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty limit, Republicans would replace it with a tax credit to people making up 300 percent of poverty, and require means testing for that help. The tax credits would be funded by capping the tax cut employers get for contributing to employees' health insurance (yes, a tax increase for business proposed by Republicans, believe it or not).

It would also end the Medicaid expansion and basically block grant it, giving states more "flexibility" to choose how to spend federal Medicaid dollars. What happens to the millions who've gained coverage through expanded Medicaid? The plan doesn't really spell it out, but if states choose not to provide it to people with higher incomes than they currently do, then those newly insured folks are out of luck.

Pretty much everybody would be, as the National Journal summarizes: the GOP plan is "for people to pay for more of their health care." But, hey, it's some progress. It's still pretty much crappy, but it acknowledges that Obamacare and its reforms changed the health care landscape.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (40+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:12:59 PM PST

  •  The GOP 2014 campaign slogan (29+ / 0-)

    "We got nothin' -- but he's still black!"

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:21:13 PM PST

  •  Do they repeal the taxes on high income taxpayers? (5+ / 0-)

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:22:49 PM PST

    •  Not from what I've seen so far (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Medicare stuff seems to be pretty much left alone.

      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

      by Joan McCarter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:18:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is this the plan Bill Kristol promised Paul Ryan (7+ / 0-)

    would announce January 1, 2014?

    I would love to see the CBO score for this.

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      Just from Senate Rs.

      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

      by Joan McCarter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:19:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ...even if ObamaCare ever (13+ / 0-)

    gets repealed (not possible), one thing is for health policy henceforth can ever be viable without addressing lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, young people, mandates etc etc...and that is in itself is a win for Obama for having completely changed the landscape of health debate and for forcing the republicans  to address the issue.
    -Remember as far as health Care is concerned, until ObamaCare, republicans just wished the issue would go away and any debate was barely cosmetic...

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935 --Talk of foresight--

    by tuma on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:34:40 PM PST

  •  You do have read beyond the first title (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, Joan McCarter, lcbo

    If one was going to come up with a legitimate alternative to Obamacare, repealing Obamacare would be the first step.

    It's only in the second section that it is clear that the proposed replacement is bad (though this is totally not a surprise).

    I admit, however, that I couldn't read beyond the third section (Section 202).  At that point I concluded this was laughably unserious and not even worthy of further reading.

  •  Because More is Less™. /GOP2014 (4+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:48:56 PM PST

  •  I'm hoping that... (11+ / 0-)

    ...this year's tax return has a box to check to get a refund for all the time wasted by the House and Senate.

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

    by itsjim on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:50:06 PM PST

  •  And they'll make damn sure the website works. eom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joan McCarter

    "So, am I right or what?"

    by itzik shpitzik on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:50:37 PM PST

  •  The rich still pay nothing. Execs have insurance (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, shoeless, zane

    that pays for everything, copays too.

    my last boss bought sunscreen at the dermatologists office and then "exceUcare" reimbursed

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51:36 PM PST

  •  Repealing the insurance mandate (0+ / 0-)

    would save plenty of people money.  Hopefully the Democrats will rob the Republicans of this talking point.

    "Why are there 40 million poor people in America? When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy."- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Cassiodorus on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:52:13 PM PST

    •  aka, don't get sick & die quickly (nt) (0+ / 0-)
      •  If you want to defend -- (0+ / 0-)

        "tax raises" for people who can't afford to buy insurance they can't afford to use, be my guest.  I'd prefer not to see the Republicans riding into office on this talking point.

        "Why are there 40 million poor people in America? When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy."- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by Cassiodorus on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:09:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  talking points don't get Republicans elected (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and besides I'll take the "your healthcare coverage actually provides coverage" talking point over the "you don't need healthcare coverage because you can always walk into the emergency room" one you think is going to sweep Republicans into office.

          •  Since when? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            talking points don't get Republicans elected

            Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

            by gooderservice on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:42:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the Sunday talk shows aren't moving any needles (0+ / 0-)

              What gets Republicans elected:

              - "likeability" and "relatability" and other personal opinion crap.
              - Commercials on the tv & radio
              - Campaign workers to help people get to the polls.
              - Voter suppression.
              - Lawyers

              What the politicians say doesn't matter nearly as much as how much they say it, how often, and how loudly.

  •  I imagine Morning Joe will find this a responsible (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, JML9999, geez53

    plan to improve the "flawed and compromised" Obamacare.

    •  compromised (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you like Healthcare Law and Sausages you should watch neither being made.....

      to paraphrase Churchill who was Quoting Bismark IIRC

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:22:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are they still on ............. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Even Aljazeera is a better choice than Mourning Blow that early in the am. I know it's just me, can't handle blowhards and lapdogs before my first cup is consumed.

      21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

      by geez53 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:47:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so, their idea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, merrywidow, lcbo

    is to give us a slightly-improved version of what we already couldn't afford.

    Yeah, that sounds like the GOP-T: it didn't work, so try it again, hoping that no one will notice it's just a new label on the same crap.

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:53:42 PM PST

  •  Is it possible to stop talking (4+ / 0-)

    about every time the GOP puts up another superfluous bill to repeal the ACA?


    DKos should only comment on this if and when one of these things gets traction.

    Otherwise, the headline could always read, "Same thing, different day."

  •  Approval of the health care law... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle

    basically even now, and should continue to rise...

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:59:03 PM PST

  •  Maybe a better First Title would be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    merrywidow, lcbo

    the We Don't Really Give A Shit About Health Care So Long As the Insurance, Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Industries Remain Profitable Act of 2014.

    Republican health care "reform" "plans" are not and have never been designed to help anyone who currently lacks insurance or is paying more than they can afford for it. At most they're designed to help those who already have it, can already afford it, and don't really need it. But the reality is they're only interested in "free market solutions," meaning, "solutions" that keep the profits flowing to providers, manufacturers and insurers.

    "Tort Reform"? Another term for letting providers and manufacturers off the hook for the harm they cause.

    "Sell Policies Across State Lines"? Another term for letting insurers avoid regulation and taxes, and charge the highest premiums for the least coverage.

    "Health Savings Accounts"? Another term for letting already-rich people create their own discrete personal private insurance pool and not have to bother with actuaries.

    "Tax Credits"? Another term for letting already-rich people write off their medical costs at taxpayer expense.

    The day the GOP comes up with a policy that helps anyone in need get anything they need, I'll praise Jesus and promise to go to church every Sunday for a year.

  •  Welcome to the RAPE Act. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    merrywidow, dawgflyer13, scott jones, lcbo

    ...Republican senators said their legislation, known as the Patient, Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, ...
    Without changing anything but the word sequence, this proposal could be called the Responsibility, Affordability, and Patient Empowerment Act, or
    RAPE Act.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:03:03 PM PST

    •  Reminds me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Of when Canada's splintered Conservative party reunited and for one shining moment they labeled themselves the Conservative Reform Alliance Party.

      Never was an acronym more apt. Unfortunately some bright spark finally realized what the acronym spelled. LOL

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

      by lcbo on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:17:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Uncle Sugar loves Obamacare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dawgflyer13, Bethesda 1971

    and Republicans feel jilted.

  •  When you live check to check you don't have any $$ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dvalkure, lcbo, Brooke In Seattle

    left to layout ahead of time to wait for a tax credit.

    This truly is indicates how clueless the GOP is about income inequality.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:08:55 PM PST

  •  We already (0+ / 0-)

    pay more than all or most other countries. Let's make things more expensive? I guess I'll keep going to the ER penniless so the hospital passes the bill on to customers. So far that's kinda working as long as I survive.

  •  Thanks, but no thanks, GOP. nt (3+ / 0-)

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:14:56 PM PST

  •  Republican plan in a nutshell: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  Only in America, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    land of "Misbehavin' Housewives Of Dumbfœck", can one of its two major political parties build its entire raison d'être — and sustain it for eight years — upon offering nothing, proposing nothing, obstructing everything, shooting spitballs from the tall grass, serving as a nature preserve for diagnosable cretins and social throwbacks...

    ... yet still poll higher than Democrats (just barely) on which party is stronger on the economy!

  •  Good succinct report (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As for healthcare.  When it comes to long term care in a for profit hospital I would prefer the option of a pistol and a bullet in order to avoid the suffering.  

    Anyone who has been mistreated at the hands of pharmaceutical manufacturers, physicians and the healthcare system as a whole can understand this.

    If you haven't just wait.

    For those who need less than long term care, health insurance may postpone bankruptcy.  Medical costs are the single largest factor in bankruptcies in the U.S.

    As for the 'Repukes'.  They have, as an old adage from Texas  goes, "Peed in their chili" and have shown they have lost contact with reality by continuing to serve it up and encouraging everyone to eat it.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:19:22 PM PST

  •  I'm seeing a glass half full here.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jim bow

    While way weaker and leaving the poor out entirely as usual, I see this as a big step forward.  Many of the elements of Obamacare are embraced.  I think the conversation may have turned a corner.  Now that 14 million or so have been insured under Obamacare in one fashion nor another its dawning on the knuckledraggers that you just can't toss them all to the wolves.

  •  After reviewing the National Journal summary, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it seems to me that this plan would do more for people who already have insurance and don't really need to use it, than it would do for people who don't have it and really do need it. It purports to control costs by what strikes me as wishful thinking, although the ACA's cost controls depend on a lot of variables too. But this plan, if I'm reading the description correctly and the description is fair, tells us that prices will go down if Americans are required to take greater risks with their health than they already are, pre- or post-ACA. Make people pay more of their medical costs out-of-pocket in order to make them "more aware" of what those costs are, and thereby make them reluctant to seek treatment unless and until they really, really feel they really, really need it and it's really, really worth the cost. Am I reading that right?

    I always thought the goal of health care reform was to reduce risk, and give people peace of mind that they're covered in case of a catastrophe, and that their insurance will cover them when they need it. What this proposal does is encourage people (if not outright compel them) to take chances with their health.

    Am I wrong?

  •  Give us a break! (0+ / 0-)

    ACA is not in place.  WTF is wrong with these idiots.  They are jerking everyone's chain here.  They do not have a replacement plan for ACA.  They are just putting this out there to keep the media focused on "Obamacare".  The more it stays in the news the more it can be called out by the republicans for being too costly and not helping the right people and for being a "train wreck" and having a web site that is a disaster.  November is not that far away.  This is their plan.  They do not give a fuck about health care for American citizens that can not afford it.  

    I will chill out now - - - - - D.A.M N. !

  •  continuous coverage (0+ / 0-)

    They say a health insurance  company can't refuse you if you have had continuous coverage. That's how they get around the individual mandate.

    My question though if you do that doesn't the amount of charity care those who are insured have to pay for by increases go up?

    •  What's "continuous coverage?" (0+ / 0-)

      As an actuary, I'd like to know how long someone can go without health insurance before insurers can flat out refuse to issue a contract to him/her.  30 days?  90 days?  6 months?  And how long will the insured be allowed to underwrite this scofflaw (if that's the right word)?

      Also, let's say a 27-year-old male refuses to get health insurance, and then gets married.  Will the insurance company be allowed to refuse his spouse because of his neglect to purchase health insurance?  What about their future kids?  What will be the rating rules for insurers to price on these things?

      This whole thing is a lot more complicated than Republicans make it out to be.  There's a reason it took so long to write the ACA.

  •  High-risk pools suck (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, annan, jim bow, AnnCetera

    Because only the sickest people are in there, and it is a small-sized pool, rates have to be very, very high to cover the costs. Even with tax credits such a policy would probably be much more expensive than Obamacare and many high-risk policies offer less coverage.  Also note: many people with chronic and/or serious health conditions are less able than most folks to pay huge sums out of pocket for healthcare premiums and the stuff their insurance doesn't cover. This is why generally state high-risk pools have done little to bring coverage to the uninsured. Anyone who is advocating them as a solution is probably not familiar with their costs and benefits (or lack thereof).

  •  First amendment to the Repeal and Replace Act II (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lcbo, AnnCetera

    Sec. III, Paragraph 2, sentence 4 shall read:

    All medical services associated with lady parts and lady libidos (see Huckabee v Females) shall be rendered on pay-as-you-go basis only and be billed at twice the rate of any erectile dysfunction treatment.

    21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

    by geez53 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:35:10 PM PST

  •  Oh great (4+ / 0-)

    Now we'll have to spend a week watching everyone pretend that the Republicans have a competing plan, and arguing about it's "details", and hear the Republicans pretend to sell it while Democratic  clownheads like DWS and Steny Hoyer provide "the other side" and then we'll hear that "the President refuses to compromise", and the phrase "come to the table"  and finally "We'll have to leave it there" says Anderson. Except they won't leave it there, the world's most insipid and at the same time most dangerous Kabuki will continue night after night.

    Bold at inappropriate times. Mediocre at best.

    by steep rain on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:48:12 PM PST

  •  Hard to see how everybody would pay more. (0+ / 0-)

    First thing I can see is that men might pay less because it's not clear that the ban on gender-specific risk pools is retained.  Women tend to have higher medical costs, a fact reflected in health insurance rates until the ACA.

    Also, the return of pre-existing condition exclusions means rates could be lower for everybody else  --- at the expense of leaving those with chronic conditions royally screwed.

    Finally, people my age could, in theory, be screwed because of the increase from 3 to 5 times young people's rates, but might not:

    1.  If young people are paying substantially lower rates, 5X might or might not be more than  3X in the current scheme.

    2. Older people on average cost about 3X more in medical expenses.  There is no pressure to got to 5X for healthy older people. Again, the elimination of the pre-existing condition exclusion would likely result in lower rates than the current scheme.

    3.  Don't forget that older here is limited -- from 65 up, you are on Medicare, not Obamacare.

    All of those notes, however, apply to pressures on the true price of coverage, not the end-result for those who qualify for subsidies.

    I know that my family's rate -- with a giant asterisk because I am still unable to get my college-aged daughter on our plan --- stupid, stupid system that can't let us do what the law says we have a right to do, stupid system that required us to file an appeal and could leave her without insurance for 90 days -- nearly doubled over last year.  Presuming we are ever able to get our daughter on the plan, it might more than double.  That's pre-subsidy, though.  Don't know if we'll be up or down in the end because of the questions surrounding our inability to get coverage for our daughter.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:52:34 PM PST

    •  Many in employer-provided plans ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... would pay more as the tax subsidy for employer-provided health insurance would be capped.  Employers with older, sicker, disproportionately women, etc. workforces and/or those in higher cost-of-living areas (i.e., NY, MA) would choose to offer less generous plans -- causing their employees to be saddled with higher deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc.  

      Don't get me wrong -- I would prefer to replace the entire subsidy for employer-provided health insurance with a combined (1) progressive tax credit to purchase health insurance on the Exchange, (2) ban on the age and smoker ratings, and (3) elimination of the Exchange's bronze and silver plans.  But that would still mean many would pay more for health insurance (i.e., those who are part of younger, healthier workforces), although I feel the nation as a whole would be better off as they would see the true cost of health insurance, and their health insurance would be independent of their job.

      And the average 64-year-old male has 5-7 times the health care costs of that of a 24-year-old male.  For women, this ratio is more like 3:1.  So many of those 55-64 would be priced out of the individual insurance market.

      •  There would be winners and losers. (0+ / 0-)

        Went looking again for statistics.  Didn't find yours, but did find a per-capita (both genders) chart that had a 65 Year old (not relevant, quite, because 65 gets you Medicare) as about 6.5 times more than a 20 year old, but there are a couple of problems with that data that goes beyond the slight stretch in age:

        It was based on actual health care costs, and so would include the costs of chronic conditions, which would be the pre-existing conditions left out by the Republican plan.

        Also, average might not be a good measure, depending on an insurers' to create finer-grained risk pools than the population at large.

        That 64 year-old mail (and 65 year old) male number probably includes both smokers and non-smokers, fit and unfit. If companies can adjust for smokers (even ACA allows that) and obesity (I don't think ACA allows that), what would that older > younger cost differential be?  What would it be for somebody 60? 55?

        ACA is predicated on making some people (most people, actually) pay more in order to make health care available and (in theory, at least) affordable for others.  The subsidies help to moderate the effect for people who make lower incomes, but the rates ain't so great.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:52:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Older people pay more? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott jones

    Have they LOOKED at their base recently?

    well, at least some form of reality seems to have penetrated, but dudes, no, no, no.


  •  Wow. It only took 15 years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott jones

    The Republicans JUST NOW come up with their own health plan to counter Romneycare - I mean -  Obamacare?  It's a couple elections too late.

  •  Chris Christie has your block grant right here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dvalkure, Brooke In Seattle

    Hey as long as you vote the right way (proof required) Christie will be happy to provide you with your Medicaid coverage.  You didn't, oh well, forgetaboutit.

    If there is any lesson from the Hoboken mayor's story, it is that the last thing one should want the Federal government to do is give governors control over Federal money.

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

    by Do Something on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:27:40 PM PST

  •  Means testing means what (0+ / 0-)

    I'm curious what their plan intends with the means testing. Does means testing require that savings be depleted on high premiums before subsidies are approved? How will this work on their website?:)

  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)
    The tax credits would be funded by capping the tax cut employers get for contributing to employees' health insurance (yes, a tax increase for business proposed by Republicans, believe it or not).
    That is not correct.  The principal effect of the  proposal would raise taxes on individuals.  Under current law, the value of employer-provided health insurance is excluded from the employee's gross income. The cost of insurance is also deductible by the employer (as compensation).

    The proposal would cap the exclusion, resulting in higher employee income taxes.  Of much lesser impact, the employer would pay slightly more in FICA taxes, but nowhere near as much as employees.

    The deduction by the employer would not be changed.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:04:29 PM PST

  •  GOPers propose "Unaffordable Healthcare Act" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dvalkure, lcbo

    because they have to do the opposite of Obama

  •  Why don't we ever see the 1% demanding... (0+ / 0-)

    Tort reform to limit the ability for "people" (wink, wink) to sue for Patent Violations?  Copyright Infringment?  Trademarks? Libel?

    Just think how much that would free up the courts if businesses were limited to $250,000 for their frivilous lawsuits and were forced to pay damages if they were unable to prove their case before a judge.

    It surprises me that all of these 1% America loving citizens hadn't thought of this before.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:16:15 PM PST

  •  The hospitals will not be amused (0+ / 0-)

    It will be just like before.  Costs will be higher, and ironically the costliest patients - the older ones - will be more likely to be uninsured because their insurance is going to cost even more.  Between that and the cutting back on medicaid, the hospitals will collapse under the weight of uncompensated care. And the high risk pools will be asked to absorb everyone the insurance companies don't want anymore, thus becoming unsustainable as many were or were becoming before Obamacare.  

    I don't mind looking at other ways of doing things, but tell me how this is different than what we had?

  •  Less covered, less care, costs more &raises taxes! (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah, that's Thuglican health care in a nutshell.

    And any D that doesn't rip that off in reply to a Thug saying 'we have a bill! or such b/s should be timed-out in the corner for stupidity and malpractice.

    Funny thing, for all their market-savvy success in bamboozling media and some voters to the contrary, its always the Thuglican plan on everything else too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site