• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Senate health-care draft repeals Obamacare taxes, bigger subsidies for low-income

Tovarisc

Member
Senate health-care draft repeals Obamacare taxes, provides bigger subsidies for low-income Americans than House bill
Senate leaders on Wednesday were putting the final touches on legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system by dramatically rolling back Medicaid while providing a softer landing to Americans who stand to lose coverage gained under the Affordable Care Act.

A discussion draft circulating Wednesday afternoon among aides and lobbyists would roll back the ACA's taxes, phase down its Medicaid expansion, rejigger its subsidies, give states wider latitude in opting out of its regulations and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes. While the House legislation pegged federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income as the ACA does. The Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill, but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also removes language restricting federally-subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.
Aides stress that the GOP plan is likely to undergo more changes in order to garner the 50 votes Republicans need to pass it. Moderate senators are concerned about cutting off coverage too fast for those who gained it under Obamacare, while conservatives don't want to leave big parts of the ACA in place.

Moderates who are on the fence about whether to support the Obamacare overhaul are likely to be pleased at the bill's approach to subsidies because they would be based on financial need, potentially preserving coverage for more people who got insured under the ACA.
Yet the Senate bill would go farther than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid spending. In 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index than the one used in the House bill. That move could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

In a move that is likely to please conservatives, the draft also proposes repealing all of the ACA taxes except for its so-called ”Cadillac tax" on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators had previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA's taxes.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.52895c66e027

Edit: Politico's article: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241473943&postcount=32
 
Let's see if Media's Moderate Darlings Murkowski and Collins raise a stink about the Planned Parenthood nonsense. I can't imagine that Ted Cruz and Rand Paul approve of the continuing subsidies, either.

Yes, Republicans fall in line, but they're also trying to please two diametrically opposed groups.
 
This bill doesn't seem FC approved at all. I'm not entirely sure they'll be on board with no abortion defunding and leaving a lot of the ACA intact. They want as hard of a repeal as possible.
 
Golly it's almost as if they're timing this so that they're not held responsible for millions of people suddenly not having access to healthcare.

And if Dems take over and try to fix it up again, they'll be criticized by Republicans for sabotaging the plan and not supporting it at all when that's literally what the GOP has been doing for the past 7+ years. It's so predictable that it hurts.
 

Snwaters

Member
I would say that the various factions of the Republican House will probably take issue with a lot of what's in here, and it'll become a game of hot potato in Congress, but at this point I won't be surprised if they squeak it through. We'll see.
 
I would say that the various factions of the Republican House will probably take issue with a lot of what's in here, and it'll become a game of hot potato in Congress, but at this point I won't be surprised if they squeak it through. We'll see.

You might have something there. The continued abortion funding will be anathema to Cruz, rumored to be a "no" yesterday, and to the Freedom Caucus when it hits the House again.
 
This sounds terrible, but at recoverable provided we get a competent government in 2020 or 2024.

Tying the subsidies to income is a huge relief.

They have to keep the Essential Health Benefits to pass this, no?

Starting in 2020, that threshold would be lowered to 350 percent under the Senate bill -- but anyone below that line could get the subsidies if they’re not eligible for Medicaid.

Does this mean that everyone below 350 percent FPL will be eligible for subsidies? As I understand it, there are people who were *supposed* to be covered by Medicaid expansion and cannot get the subsidies now.
 
I would say that the various factions of the Republican House will probably take issue with a lot of what's in here, and it'll become a game of hot potato in Congress, but at this point I won't be surprised if they squeak it through. We'll see.

I'd be inclined to cautiously agree if the the bill was too conservative and moderates were the ones angry at it. They'll fold for anything.

But the freedom caucus is insane and doesn't fold, so I don't really know what's going to happen. This draft seems DoA in the senate, let alone the House, but who even knows
 

RPGCrazied

Member
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.
 

WillyFive

Member
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.

Of course, not letting the drug companies get away with robbery and having the government pay everything.

Two things that the people in charge vehemently oppose.
 

THE:MILKMAN

Member
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.

As someone that has very recently had full use of the UK NHS I do feel sorry for those in the US (and anywhere with a similar system). I dare not think what it would have cost me to have what I had done here within the US system (no doubt 10s of thousands even with insurance).
 
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.

Yeah its single payer with gov cost controls. Right now insurance is just am middle man looking for a huge cut off you.
 

sangreal

Member
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.

I have insurance and pay twice that to see a doctor and then again for my monthly prescription. Oh and the premium too of course. Welcome to the HDHP/HSA future. You're not missing out until you have a serious injury or illness
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Moderate senators are concerned about cutting off coverage too fast

This is a remarkable statement. The bar for "moderates" has fallen so low that it no longer means anything from a policy standpoint. The only difference between them and the hardliners is the pace at which they fuck over the poor, not whether to do so.

The bill is designed to pass with 50 votes. There will be zero actual moderates who vote for it.
 
This is a remarkable statement. The bar for "moderates" has fallen so low that it no longer means anything from a policy standpoint. The only difference between them and the hardliners is the pace at which they fuck over the poor, not whether to do so.

The bill is designed to pass with 50 votes. There will be zero actual moderates who vote for it.

Sue Collins objects to your slanderous comments with a tremor in her voice.
 
This will be voted down by the GOP. It's too generous considering it's basically the ACA lite. They simply can't please everyone. It's not passing period.
 

sangreal

Member
This is a remarkable statement. The bar for "moderates" has fallen so low that it no longer means anything from a policy standpoint. The only difference between them and the hardliners is the pace at which they fuck over the poor, not whether to do so.

The bill is designed to pass with 50 votes. There will be zero actual moderates who vote for it.

There are zero moderates in the GOP Senate caucus unless you count the rank and file who have no positions and just vote however leadership tells them to
 

Ogodei

Member
This is a remarkable statement. The bar for "moderates" has fallen so low that it no longer means anything from a policy standpoint. The only difference between them and the hardliners is the pace at which they fuck over the poor, not whether to do so.

The bill is designed to pass with 50 votes. There will be zero actual moderates who vote for it.

The problem is that they've also got people in the caucus who think the bill doesn't go far enough, one of whom is unlikely to be convinced because he abhors the very basis of the affordable care act, which is the tax credit system (Rand Paul).

Lose one moderate because the bill's too nasty, lose another conservative because of abortion, and there you go.
 
The problem is that they've also got people in the caucus who think the bill doesn't go far enough, one of whom is unlikely to be convinced because he abhors the very basis of the affordable care act, which is the tax credit system (Rand Paul).

Lose one moderate because the bill's too nasty, lose another conservative because of abortion, and there you go.

And here comes Mike Pence to break the tie and save the day as the Moderate Darlings weep softly in the background!
 

sangreal

Member
I would say that the various factions of the Republican House will probably take issue with a lot of what's in here, and it'll become a game of hot potato in Congress, but at this point I won't be surprised if they squeak it through. We'll see.

The freedom caucus will cave as long as defunding PP stays in. Also let's not forget that every one of these special election victories means Paul Ryan can lose more votes
 

THE:MILKMAN

Member
I have insurance and pay twice that to see a doctor and then again for my monthly prescription. Oh and the premium too of course. Welcome to the HDHP/HSA future. You're not missing out until you have a serious injury or illness

It boggles my mind this seems to be a logical system to so many American's!?

I mean how does 100's of dollars in premiums and then additional costly co-pays/deductibles in most cases make more sense than a say 10% (or whatever it takes) hike in income tax for everyone that gives universal healthcare?

Business interests is the answer of course.... I just don't know why the American people allow the current system to continue without real protests!?
 

Beartruck

Member
This will hurt me. I don't have insurance. Few months ago I had an ear infection, the doc visit alone was $170, then another $50 for the meds.

There has to be a cheaper way to do this.
170 for just an ear infection? No cvs/walgreens minute clinics near you? Those can be much cheaper.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Politico's article out on this.

Politico
What's in the Senate's secret Obamacare repeal bill

The bill is expected to repeal the biggest parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and the employer mandate. It is also expected to defund Planned Parenthood for one year by kicking the women's health organization out of the Medicaid program. That provision could be dropped if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell needs votes from key moderates who oppose it.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said a Congressional Budget Office score of the measure would be available on Monday, if not Friday. Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, who is responsible for getting the legislation through reconciliation, told POLITICO on Wednesday that he’s confident that Republicans' priorities will make it through the process. “We’re trying to both keep it a short enough bill so that people could read it but covering enough things so that states will have the ability to do whatever they need to do,” Enzi said.
What we know:
— It would eliminate Obamacare’s subsidy program and replace it with a different structure to help low-income people afford insurance. But Republicans are still trying to craft an alternative that would prohibit coverage of abortion without violating the strict reconciliation rules enabling them to pass the bill without a Democratic filibuster.

— Republicans plan to offer states a waiver to opt out of major parts of Obamacare and create their own health care rules. The bill would alter a waiver that was part of Obamacare — known as 1332 waivers — and make them easier to obtain.

States would be able to waive Obamacare’s insurance requirements, including one requiring states to have an exchange, as well as rules for what benefits insurers must cover, what qualifies as a health plan, and the actuarial value of the plans.

It is not expected to allow states to waive Obamacare requirements that insurers accept everyone and charge the same rates, with few exceptions. The House waived the latter requirement, triggering a storm of criticism that it was abandoning people with pre-existing conditions. Keeping the Obamacare requirements would mark a victory for GOP moderates but prompt pushback from conservatives, who want the waiver to be broader and allow more exclusions.

— The bill is expected to roll back Obamacare’s enhanced Medicaid spending — which is likely to force governors to cut coverage — over four years beginning in 2020. Earlier Senate conversations called for a three-year phase out. This is a coup for moderates who worry about cutting off coverage abruptly. States would still be allowed to expand Medicaid through 2019.

— The bill is also expected to dramatically reshape Medicaid. Instead of an open-ended entitlement, states would get a set amount of money per person. In a win for conservatives, the Senate is expected to cut the program as aggressively as the House did until 2025 or 2026 and then make payments that grow in line with inflation. States are expected to have significant new flexibility for how they run their Medicaid programs. Republicans are likely to include a carve-out for certain children with complex medical needs, according to several sources.

— The bill is expected to repeal Obamacare’s taxes, but how soon that is done is fluid because it would likely depend on how much tax revenue is needed to cover other costs associated with the GOP plan.

— Cost-sharing subsidies to help pay insurers for low-income individuals' out-of-pocket expenses are expected to be continued through the annual appropriations process, requiring a 60-vote threshold.

— Lawmakers are weighing moving a House-approved fund that provided $115 billion for states to stabilize their insurance markets to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Doing so would preserve restrictions on federal funding of abortion.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/21/what-is-in-gop-senate-obamacare-repeal-plan-239812
 

RPGCrazied

Member
I have insurance and pay twice that to see a doctor and then again for my monthly prescription. Oh and the premium too of course. Welcome to the HDHP/HSA future. You're not missing out until you have a serious injury or illness

I have. In 2009 I had my gallbladder out. I was there a week. Almost died. The total bill was around 140k. I'd rather not go through all what I had to do to wipe that clean, but it wasn't pretty or easy to do.

170 for just an ear infection? No cvs/walgreens minute clinics near you? Those can be much cheaper.

My CVS doesn't have that function. Small town sucks.
 

kirblar

Member
It boggles my mind this seems to be a logical system to so many American's!?

I mean how does 100's of dollars in premiums and then additional costly co-pays/deductibles in most cases make more sense than a say 10% (or whatever it takes) hike in income tax for everyone that gives universal healthcare?

Business interests is the answer of course.... I just don't know why the American people allow the current system to continue without real protests!?
Employer-linked healthcare is something that people take for granted w/o realizing how insane it is.

You have people yelling at companies who don't want to provide health benefits... and some of them don't realize that the companies aren't the problem, the system which depends on them doing what the government should be doing is!

The system screws over self-employed and gig work people, as well as part-timers.
 

sangreal

Member
It boggles my mind this seems to be a logical system to so many American's!?

I mean how does 100's of dollars in premiums and then additional costly co-pays/deductibles in most cases make more sense than a say 10% (or whatever it takes) hike in income tax for everyone that gives universal healthcare?

Business interests is the answer of course.... I just don't know why the American people allow the current system to continue without real protests!?

It sucks for businesses too

It's only good for the handful of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter because they don't want to have to negotiate with a public monopoly who can tell them to pound sand
 

Beartruck

Member
Politico's article out on this.
Jesus christ. Its not enough for these guys to sabotage Obamacare and basically render it useless, they've also got to blow up planned parenthood and Medicaid while they're at it, In the same bill. How is this better than a straight repeal?

Edit: Also this thing is basically states rights out the ass. It basically reads like "Blue state? Slight downgrade. Red state? Get ready to die."
 

THE:MILKMAN

Member
Employer-linked healthcare is something that people take for granted w/o realizing how insane it is.

You have people yelling at companies who don't want to provide health benefits... and some of them don't realize that the companies aren't the problem, the system which depends on them doing what the government should be doing is!

The system screws over self-employed and gig work people, as well as part-timers.

It sucks for businesses too

It's only good for the handful of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter because they don't want to have to negotiate with a public monopoly who can tell them to pound sand

Yep it is quite the huge problem but I really do feel one that has a relatively simple solution but I feel it would be more cold dead hands than gun control.

I wonder what the rough cost would be for what I have had done recently (with/without insurance)?

2x initial ER visits by ambulance then transferred to specialist hospital
VATS Bullectomy surgery
3x chest drains (2 powered ones post surgery, 1 standard)
23 days stay in hospital over 2 visits
2x blood pleurodesis?
~30x chest X-rays (really!) This was questioned by myself, ward manager and the X-ray team eventually...
Plus all the drugs/food/pain relief etc

If anyone could guesstimate?
 

KingV

Member
What's shocking to me after reading the is how this supposedly passes the Byrd Rule for reconciliation.

If this big of a policy change passes the 50 vote threshold, then the filibuster is effectively meaningless and should be discarded by the Dems at the first opportunity.
 
This is a remarkable statement. The bar for "moderates" has fallen so low that it no longer means anything from a policy standpoint. The only difference between them and the hardliners is the pace at which they fuck over the poor, not whether to do so.

The bill is designed to pass with 50 votes. There will be zero actual moderates who vote for it.

The problem with "moderate" and "center" are that they are relative terms.
 

Bookoo

Member
What's shocking to me after reading the is how this supposedly passes the Byrd Rule for reconciliation.

If this big of a policy change passes the 50 vote threshold, then the filibuster is effectively meaningless and should be discarded by the Dems at the first opportunity.

Hasn't the filibuster has already been rendered meaningless?
 
It boggles my mind this seems to be a logical system to so many American's!?

I mean how does 100's of dollars in premiums and then additional costly co-pays/deductibles in most cases make more sense than a say 10% (or whatever it takes) hike in income tax for everyone that gives universal healthcare?

Business interests is the answer of course.... I just don't know why the American people allow the current system to continue without real protests!?

every time I talk with co-workers who have family in Germany and other places it's the same thing "it takes forever to see a doctor, they aren't as good. etc, etc" they have no answers to my argument of costs just that doctors are more "thorough" here, whatever that means. it boggles the mind that we have come to accept this.
 
Hasn't the filibuster has already been rendered meaningless?

Not quite, at least not the legislative one. They crafted this bill to meet reconciliation requirements specifically so they could avoid the filibuster. McConnell and the Republicans want it to stay around because they know they'll need it someday.
 

Foffy

Banned
Can we find a way to repeal and replace this in the same way that they wanted to repeal and replace the ACA?

This looks toxic as fuck.
 

Foffy

Banned
When will enough be enough for the American proletariat?

- Climate change
- Lack of education
- Lack of health care
- Expansion of precarity
- Automation

All of the above need to happen in dangerous degrees for this "waking up"
to happen, it seems...
 

Zips

Member
Sounds very much designed to bring the water to a slow boil so the American population dies without realizing - at least until it's too late. Worst effects targeting a time when Democrats are likely to have control again, so things can be blamed on them when it all goes to shit.

It will pass. Cuts what the crazies want, but in a slower, more subtle way so the 'moderates' feel they can slink by without severe damage.

Any holdouts will be told it's now or never due to reconciliation, and will cave.
 
Top Bottom