Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Some figures

  • Medicare Expansion:  As of about a year ago, the number of people eligible in the 32 states that put Medicaid expansion in place would be approximately 8.2 million
  • Exchange Sign Ups: According to the numbers from the Obamacare website, there were about 12.7 million Americans who signed up on the exchanges in 2016.

So the CBO suggests that twenty 24 million Americans could lose insurance by repealing and replacing Obamacare with the new plan the GOP is looking at. Interestingly, the total number of people who are currently benefiting (or could benefit) from Obamacare is only 20.9 million. Other provisions of the law (such as children staying on the plan) are retained in the new plan, and even if they were not, most states already had laws that allowed for this.

Now even if every single one of these people went from insured to uninsured (which is not even close to being realistic considering most people on the exchanges previously had insurance)... this number suggests that 3.1 million Americans who currently have private insurance (that in no manner, shape, or form is benefiting even one penny from Obamacare) would lose insurance?

There is some suggestion that the CBO is making some assumptions about the amount of people who would "choose" to drop their insurance if the mandate was lifted. But someone voluntarily choosing to be uninsured is not an indication of any lost benefit. Unless, of course, you see a benefit from being told what you have to do by the Government?

Note: Gallup uninsured polling suggests that the number of uninsured has gone from around 15% prior to the passing of Obamacare, down to about 12%. Simple math suggests that a little more than 9 million more Americans are stating they are insured since the passing of Obamacare. Yet somehow the CBO suggests that 24 million will be negatively effected?

Update: Forbes has a good article on how the CBO got from point A to point B on this one. Apparently it includes a projected loss of future gains, including their estimates that the amount of people on the exchanges will go up by 50% and than the eighteen states that have not expanded Medicaid will do so and start to insure people.  (Forbes argues that neither suggestion has much merit.) This is similar to those "job's saved" number that the previous Administration made up. Only in this case it's the CBO projecting a number that is basically defined as "future insured lost" .


The Good: The CBO suggests that after some growing pains for the first couple of years, that Americans will actually see an overall decrease in health care premiums (in spite of less Government assistance). Moreover, there would be a budgetary savings for the Federal Government over the old plan. 

The Bad: Short term, cost (premiums minus subsidies) may go up, and some (although certainly not 24 million) will lose their coverage. Obviously things would be confusing for a while.

The Ugly: The CBO actually shows that more people will lose the insurance than have actually benefited. Simply stated, the CBO is no longer seen by most as a reliable objective source of this information. They seem more of a means for one side or the other to use for political purposes. This is unfortunate.

New poll shows "voters" essentially spit on the plan to replace subsidies with tax credits. This is a generic question and breaks down largely on Party lines. Like it or not. This issue is probably not going to swing many people. Republicans are in nearly full favor of the changes, while Democrats are nearly lockstep in their opposition.   
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters favor replacing subsidies with tax credits to help those who cannot fully afford health insurance. Thirty-nine percent (39%) are opposed, but one-in-five (19%) are undecided about the new proposal. 


KD, 2.5 Million Jobs this year, nice said...


America's CEOs ramp up hiring plans at fastest pace in 3 years

by Matt Egan @mattmegan5 "

Did CBO account for the explosion of Jobs and people getting work and benefits of work?

opie said...

Yep, CH, pauline and menstra child are going to be the ones you take it up the ass smiling that trump is our leader. Not to mention those whose medicaid will be block grants, which means cut. I really am enjoying you all squirm like the worms you are. LOL

House Speaker Paul Ryan pressed that point in a series of appearances Monday night, suggesting that the budget office had found that the House bill would increase choice and competition and lead to lower prices. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, issued a statement saying, “The Congressional Budget Office agrees that the American Health Care Act will ultimately lower premiums and increase access to care.”

But the way the bill achieves those lower average premiums has little to do with increased choice and competition. It depends, rather, on penalizing older patients and rewarding younger ones. According to the C.B.O. report, the bill would make health insurance so unaffordable for many older Americans that they would simply leave the market and join the ranks of the uninsured.

The remaining pool of people would be comparatively younger and healthier and, thus, less expensive to cover. Other changes would help make health insurance skimpier — cheaper, but with deductibles that are higher than those criticized by Republicans under Obamacare.

Speaker Paul Ryan at a news conference on the Affordable Health Care Act last week. He has said that increased choice and competition will lead to lower prices. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
Under the G.O.P. bill, the C.B.O. finds that insurance premiums would first spike, by 15 percent to 20 percent more than under Obamacare over the next two years. But by the end of a decade, the average plan would cost 10 percent less than it would under the Affordable Care Act. (Over all, though, 24 million fewer people would have insurance, it found.)

Insurers price their products by spreading out the cost of care for their customers. In general, older customers cost substantially more to cover than younger ones because they have more health needs and use their insurance more. By discouraging older people from buying insurance, the plan will lower the average sticker price of care. But that doesn’t mean prices will get lower for everyone.

Currently, the subsidies under Obamacare are devised to help limit how much low- and middle-income Americans can be asked to pay for health insurance. The Republican plan works differently. It increases the amount that insurers can charge older customers, and it awards flat subsidies by age, up to an income of $75,000.

On premiums alone, prices would rise by more than 20 percent for the oldest group of customers. By 2026, the budget office projected, “premiums in the nongroup market would be 20 percent to 25 percent lower for a 21-year-old and 8 percent to 10 percent lower for a 40-year-old — but 20 percent to 25 percent higher for a 64-year-old.”

Roger Amick said...

The Ugly: The CBO actually shows that more people will lose the insurance than have actually benefited. Simply stated, the CBO is no longer seen by most as a reliable objective source of this information. They seem more of a means for one side or the other to use for political purposes. This is unfortunate.

It's fortunate that your credibility is approaching Trumpian levels. It is managed by the Republicans, who run both houses of the legislative branch of the government.

You continue your attacks on everything you disagree with. The CBO is far more credible than a blogger from Minnesota. They have highly intelligent and trained analysts, with decades of experience in analysis of government actions.

But ignore, at pathological levels, on the real fact, that President Trump flat out lies almost every time he either speaks or tweets. The man has managed, in less than 100 days in office, every single ounce of credibility. Foreign leaders must deal with him because he is the President. But they will not, in private, believe a damn thing that comes out of his mouth. He puts our country in danger, every time he opens his mouth , or posts tweets when he is angry.

Good grief.

rrb said...

But ignore, at pathological levels, on the real fact, that President Trump flat out lies almost every time he either speaks or tweets. The man has managed, in less than 100 days in office, every single ounce of credibility. Foreign leaders must deal with him because he is the President. But they will not, in private, believe a damn thing that comes out of his mouth. He puts our country in danger, every time he opens his mouth , or posts tweets when he is angry.

thanks a bunch rog, but if i want to read "occupy democrats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!" opinion i usually just go to their website.

the reality is that trump is governing exactly as he said he would to those who elected him. he's keeping his promises.

and to those who never supported him... they can go fuck themselves.

elections have consequences, right alky?

and trump? well, he's proceeding with the consent of the governed.

Commonsense said...

Opie and Roger are reduced to raging impotent irrelevancy.

♫ Happy days are here again! ♫

rrb said...


they've occupied that position since CH started this blog.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

I notice you never actually analyse or provide any evidence that my numbers are incorrect. I provided links with left leaning independent sites to verify that the numbers I am using are factual. I provide my work and logic, which you do not refute...

You simply resort to ad hominen attacks on my character?


There are certain things that are simply beyond reputation and title. Basic math is one of them. If I state that 8.2 million plus 12.7 million does not equal 24 million. Then it really doesn't matter if I run a blog, run a government agency, or am the emperor of the world. I am still correct.

Loretta Russo said...

"You continue your attacks on everything you disagree with"

LOL, rich I tell ya.

KD, said...

The Liberal have their issue to defeat the Republican Plan.

More babies of American Parents will be born under the Republican Plan.

KD, Work and get Health Insurance, got that was an easy fix said...

♫ Happy days are here again! ♫ "


Hillary used a fake email name when she was actually the Sec of State and not a peep of out rage, yet Exxon Tillerson used one when he was at the head of that fine company that employees 83 K people. And now that he is the Sec of State the "resist we MUCH" crowd is going ape ass shit crazy.

KD said...

CHT you have been a very good man to Roger Krugman and like all Liberals he has been a complete horses ass.

USSC Nominee is going to sail into his JOB the thing is will any of the Demsocrats vote for him, that is other then the ones up for re-election in 2018?

rrb said...

You simply resort to ad hominen attacks on my character?


because simply put, what you're dealing with is not an honest man, not a smart man, but just another garden variety hack like you'd find in the comment sections of occupy, democrat underground, or kos.

Commonsense said...

Sadly that's true. LScott would have been the better liberal poster had he stayed.

KD, Fake Christian Polosi Hates more babies being born said...


So CBO is not allowed to "dynamically Score", that is stupid.

As we have seen 400,000 new jobs in 1 1/2 months , they do not take into account a growing Job Market where people no longer need to take from my wallet to pay for their Health Insurance.

Roger Amick said...

Your numbers are not based on the truth, but based on Trumpism truth.

Commonsense said...

Unlike you, most people can count.

opie said...

Happy days will be you paying all kinds of money to buy a policy provided by trump and the minions. Good, makes my day. Maybe your microwave can send us some pictures. LOL

CH saying his numbers are great is like trump saying the cbo is wrong......funny CH, you are almost as perfect a poster as pauline thinks he is.

opie said...

Commonsense said...
what's next for you d0pie?
an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?
Goes with his super-duper x-ray goggles that lets him see Air Force 1 from over a mile off.

Another quality thought posted by our cultist leader who has the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Nothing like following the idiot which you do exceptionally well especially when you post how evolution is fake and GW is a hoax.......

opie said...

CH, you make this statement," I am using are factual. I provide my work and logic, which you do not refute..
(although certainly not 24 million) will lose their coverage"

Not bad, but there is nothing that you can do or assert that your opinion of the will hold water....It most certainly will be wrong putting in your terms.

opie said...

Higher rates and millions tossed off plans is your idea of a good plan. Wonder if you will get a refund check like you did for busch and spend it on camping gear from china.......At least the CBO does what it is told, run by an appointee pushed by price. BTW there are no federal laws that prohibit interstate sales of insurance. Something the trump plan has nothing to improve, but the R's keep flapping their lips.

opie said...

Yep, spicer is as full of shit as kellyanne and her microwave with video..
From the wapost
Spicer dings the CBO for having greatly underestimated the number of people who would buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, in particular a projection that 23 million would be on the exchanges by 2016; it actually was 10 million.

But this was just one part of a larger estimate — how many would gain insurance — that CBO got largely right. CBO projected that 30 million people (89 percent of the population under 65) would lack insurance in 2016, when the actual number turned out to be 27.9 million (89.7 percent).

So Spicer is playing a bit of a shell game here. He is trying to discredit CBO’s larger coverage estimate — that 24 million fewer people would have insurance by 2026 than under current law — by focusing on an error in an element of the larger forecast. But apples to apples, CBO got the larger forecast mostly correct.

A 2015 study by the Commonwealth Fund concluded, “The CBO’s projections were closer to realized experience than were those of many other prominent forecasters.”

As for the “three-prong plan,” the two other elements have not been unveiled and thus CBO could not consider them. The third element — major changes in insurance regulations — would require the support of at least eight Democrats in the Senate, which is highly unlikely at this moment.

Yes pauline, the CBO is as clueless as you.....LOL

opie said...

Yep...going be a screwing of biblical proportions for some poor trump voter

According to the CBO, 64-year olds making $26,500 per year would see their premiums increase by an estimated 750 percent by 2026. While they are on track to pay $1,700 under the current law, the CBO projects the American Health Care Act would force them to pay $14,600. Even if you grant that inflation will allow them to make slightly more money by 2026, that's still about half of their income going to health care.

opie said...

Where' the tax returns???? Where's the tapp's???? Where's the millions of illegal votes? Where's the birth certificate?

caliphate4vr said...

They are with the turboencabulator

Fucking dumbass

Roger Amick said...

Dispute your numbers. The White House diffs with you.

Trump administration shifts away from 'insurance for everybody'

That is another example of what Mr. Trump said on 60 minutes. But are you calling him out for that?
Hell No.

The White House shifted away from President Trump's stated goal of providing "insurance for everybody" on Tuesday, instead promising that the House GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare offers "more people the option to get healthcare."

The altered tone from Press Secretary Sean Spicer comes as the bill faces new scrutiny, including a report Monday from the independent Congressional Budget Office concluding that 24 million fewer people will have insurance by 2026 under the GOP plan.

Spicer took issue with that analysis, in part by insisting that it failed to take into account separate actions Republicans say they plan to take after their initial bill.

Spicer called the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare the first of three prongs in the administration's strategy, but he declined to specify what actions will take place in the next two prongs, referring questions to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Democrats and some Republicans have cast doubt on whether Congress can pass a second bill (the proposed third prong, after the first bill would become law and the regulations to enforce it would be enacted), given that doing so would require support from Democrats.

Even as the administration has often deferred to Ryan and has declined to label the proposed bill as "Trumpcare," Spicer said Trump is proud of the bill.

Roger Amick said...

Millions of people who get private health coverage through the Affordable Care Act would be at risk of losing it under the replacement legislation proposed by House Republicans,

Starting in 2020, the plan would do away with the current system of Medicaid that was providing premium subsidies based on people’s income and the cost of insurance where they live.

Instead, it would provide tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per year based on their age. I know what it costs to get your own insurance without Medicare, in my case, because I don't need Medicaid. But for three months before I got on Medicate, my premiums for a high co pay, on California Care. Because we make a better than average income for retirees, my payment after the Carpenter's Union stopped baying for health insurance. I don't remember the maximum, but it was a very high number. For a low level plan, the monthly cost was just under $665 per month. The tax break was a whopping $91.00 per month.

The tax breaks t $2,000 to $4,000 per year based on their age. But then you have to look at the co pays under almost any of the insurance companies. With Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage with Medicare costs about $180 per month. That's $3,600 a year. The maximum out of pocket is $4,400 in medical and pharmaceuticals.

So let's look at the retirees, most of whom have good defined benefit pensions, or less as good as a 401k, that can be eaten up in no time if they have a serious health problem. They don't make $100K. Most are at the most, half of that. And let's say that under the Republican plan, one of them has a health problem like I had two years ago. i spent almost a month in the hospital and a rehab facilitie. i paid under the Carpenter's insurance. was less than $2,000. The insurance paid $162,000. For an average income retiree, who gets whopping $4,000 tax credit to purchase their own insurance. Would it cover something like I may go through in a year or so, will run close to $250,000. How much of the plan you think is just hunkey dory, would pay?

Under the plan you think is so good, but the credits would not cover nearly as much of the cost of premiums as the current subsidies do, at least for the type of comprehensive coverage that the Affordable Care Act requires. The central issue is the tax credits are not going to be sufficient. The AARP and the MDA and most hospital groups differ with you too.

I really don't know where you get your numbers from, the main reason that your numbers do not accurately the true costs of medical insurance in the private market.

Ryan is still a Ayn Rand Republican. Governments can't do anything well. It's total B.S. I liked it when I was under 25, but then I saw reality. You seemed to have gone the other way.

Loretta Russo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger Amick said...

Despite suffering from a past heart attack and diabetes a woman was able to receive medical coverage through Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.
Health care winners, health care losers
Wednesday, 8 Mar 2017 | 11:55 AM ET | 02:35

The new Republican health plan tries to keep the popular parts of Obamacare, such as allowing children to stay on their parents plans until age 26, and making insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, while getting rid of parts people don't like such as the individual mandate.

It also expands tax credits.

GOP leaders are calling the American Health Care Act, released on Monday, the first three phases in the process of repealing and replacing Obamacare, under a budgetary process that will ultimately allow them to pass the bill through a simple majority in the Senate.

But critics say the bill will not help stabilize the individual market or result in lower prices.

"The risk here is we've got these fundamental reforms that include tax repeals, that undermine the system," said Michael Barnes, managing partner at the DCBA law firm in Washington and a former confidential counsel in the White House Office of drug policy under the George W. Bush administration.

One of the things that has drawn the most criticism from conservatives is the way the GOP bill widens the use of tax credits, prompting them to call it "Obamacare lite." Republican leaders and the Trump administration pushed back on that charge.

"We need to equalize the tax treatment for the purchase of coverage," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. "Those … in the employer-sponsored market, they get a tax benefit for buying health coverage. Those folks that are out there in the individual small group market, (get) no tax benefit and that's what this plan would (fix)."
How GOP tax credits works

The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits for lower-income Americans, but under the GOP plan the big difference is how tax credits would be calculated, and who would get them.

Under the ACA: Your income and the cost of your insurance determine your tax credit, phasing out for those earning more than $47,000 in 2017.

Under the GOP plan: Refundable tax credits are based on your age and get phased out if you earn more than $75,000 year, starting at $2,000 annually for individuals in their 20s, and up to $4,000 for those in their 60s. For a household with multiple adults, the maximum tax credit would be $14,000 a year.

The former administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid said the GOP tax credit changes would result in lower-income people losing ground on affordability.

"The president says he's going to put forward a replacement bill that would cover the same number of people more affordably. This unfortunately doesn't do that," said Andy Slavitt, who served as CMS director during the last two years of the Obama administration.
Tax credit winners & losers

The GOP plan could result in less generous benefits for many of the ACA's winners — older, low-income people. The ACA's losers — high income earners who got no Obamacare tax credits —would gain new tax breaks to buy insurance, as well as relief from the repeal of taxes on high-income earners that helped pay for Obamacare.

Roger Amick said...

Here are five things to know about what the CBO said:
It would cut the deficit...

The CBO projects that the plan, if enacted, would cut the federal budget deficit by $337 billion by 2026
...because it slashes Medicaid This is a big reason that the number of people who will NOT be covered, and the tax credits won't be sufficient for millions of older people. In other words, Hurry up and die

The plan restructures the state-federal Medicaid health plan for the low-income, disabled and elderly. It limits what the federal government puts into the plan — to the tune of $880 billion — and would result in 14 million fewer people being covered by Medicaid.
It would cover many fewer people

About 24 million fewer people would be covered by 2026 compared to now, the CBO estimates. Besides the 14 million losing Medicaid coverage, the plan would also pull federal subsidies from low-income customers who buy non-group plans on the private Obamacare markets.
It would raise premiums, at first

Premiums would go up as healthy people drop out of health insurance and companies struggle to bring in enough cash to pay out on their remaining, presumably sicker, customers. But the CBO projects premiums would be 10 percent lower by 2026. This would be in part because companies could offer skimpier, cheaper health insurance plans — except for older people. A 64-year-old would pay up to 25 percent more.
Bare-bones plans would come back

The GOP proposal eventually lets companies offer skimpier, cheaper health insurance plans. These are attractive to younger, healthier people who gamble that they won't get heart disease or cancer, but can mean higher rates for older people, even if they are not sick. The Affordable Care Act currently specifically seeks to limit these plans as much as possible because they sometimes slammed customers with sky-high deductibles and co-pays.

C.H. Truth said...

Wow... it's amazing isn't it?

This is really quite simple my brainless friends who only cut and paste. People will pay what they previously paid for insurance before there was a thing called ACA.

If someone wasn't paying outrageous costs prior to ACA (when there was no public help, just a private insurance system)... there is no reason to believe that changing from a subsidy to a tax credit will suddenly "increase" their old premiums from when they got nothing.

I know a handful of people who have been on the exchanges to purchase insurance (because their company dropped coverage. About half have stopped using the exchanges all together.

They would suddenly become eligible for a tax subsidy even though they are not tied to purchasing one plan from the exchange. The CBO pretends these people may "lose coverage".

KD said...

Roger and Opium, why did so many Major Health Insurance Companies ditch ObamaCare after fully supporting it?

Roger Amick said...

What about the subsidies that help consumers pay for insurance?
The House proposal replaces the ACA’s subsidies with refundable tax credits that would be tied to age, with people under 30 eligible for a credit of $2,000 a year, increasing to $4,000 for those over 60. The size of a tax credit would grow with the size of a family, but would be capped at $14,000.

The tax credit also begins phasing out at an income level of $75,000 for an individual, but the fade is gradual. According to Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, the tax credit would “disappear for a 29-year-old when income reached $95,000 and for a 60-year-old when income reached $115,000.”

The upshot is that a broader group of people with higher incomes would be eligible for some federal help in buying individual coverage. Under the ACA, subsidies cut off at under $50,000 in income for an individual.

However, the House blueprint means that the federal help would be sharply reduced for people with lower incomes. The ACA subsidies are also tax credits—typically, advance credits paid to insurance companies to lower the cost of health-insurance premiums. But under the ACA, the subsidies are tied to premiums, while the House proposal offers a flat sum, with a consumer on the hook for the difference between that and the full cost of the plan. In addition, the House outline doesn’t include cost-sharing subsidies that help lower-income people pay deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs under the ACA.

What sort of health plans would I be able to buy?
Under the House proposal, individual health plans would still be required to include 10 “essential health benefits” laid out in the ACA, including maternity care, prescription drugs and mental-health coverage. The ACA’s limits on out-of-pocket costs also remain in place.

However, in 2020, the ACA’s metal-tier requirements go away. Currently, the health law sets up different levels of plan richness, ranging from bronze, which covers about 60% of a consumer’s costs on average, to platinum, which covers 90%. The lack of clear levels will make it more challenging for consumers to shop, said Michael Z. Stahl, a senior vice president at insurance agency HealthMarkets Inc. “The whole design of the metal tiers was to make them comparable,” he said.

People in the lower income bracket, need to hurry up and die.

Roger Amick said...

Every single comparison to your claims, even the WSJ disagrees with your"analysis"

Every single one.

You don't like the c/p because you are simply wrong.

Much more intelligent and truthful analysis on the legacy blog destroys your totally inaccurate comments.

rrb said...

People in the lower income bracket, need to hurry up and die.

or they can just keep going to the ER which they have done since before 0linsky-care, during 0linsky-care, and right up until today.

you keep conflating "insurance" with "access."

the poor have always had ER access to care; the law says they must be seen and treated.

you're an intellectually dishonest hack, liver boy. and no amount of cut n' pastes here or on the gaslight/alky blog is going to change that.

C.H. Truth said...

Every single comparison to your claims, even the WSJ disagrees with your"analysis"

Actually the Wall Street Journal does not disagree with my analysis. I don't believe you really read that article. (I can only assume you are confusing "quotes" within the WSJ from third party people as being the same thing as WSJ analysis). Nor does Forbes. Nor does most any independent business type publication. They are all in agreement that the CBO is well overstating the number of people effected.

Forbes, for instance, suggests that the CBO number could be off by as much as 19 million... suggesting that the real number of lost coverage would be closer to 6 million.


Again Roger... why do you immediately go towards personal attacks and questioning my intelligence?

rrb said...

Again Roger... why do you immediately go towards personal attacks and questioning my intelligence?

perhaps because that's the last refuge of an intellectually bankrupt hack.

C.H. Truth said...

Bottom Line Roger -

The CBO estimates actually project (mathematically speaking) that the new healthcare plan would actually drop insurance overage rates to well below where they were before ACA went into place.

So here is a simple logical test for you: A challenge to use your own brain and logic for a second.

- Let's assume that ACA never was passed.
- Let's assume that this new plan of tax credits to help with insurance premiums was the only healthcare plan we ever saw.

How would offering people tax credits to help purchase insurance actually "raise" the rate of the uninsured?

If your logical answer is: "It wouldn't. It would probably help get some people insurance and probably lower the rate of uninsured" - Then you would be:

-agreeing with me
-understanding why the CBO estimates cannot possibly be correct.

rrb said...

Under the House proposal, individual health plans would still be required to include 10 “essential health benefits” laid out in the ACA, including maternity care, prescription drugs and mental-health coverage.

well there's a flaw. two actually.

maternity care should be on a per need basis. why pay for it for life when you may only have one or two kids. post-menopausal women pay for something they'll never need. the same goes for mental health care. liberals obviously need this as the reaction to trump's election has illustrated. but for the sane, why pay for something you'll never need? why should i have to pick up the tab for d0pie's and the alky's shrink sessions?

Roger Amick said...

The WSJ has a graph showing the number of Americans losing insurance coverage versus the House bill. The link is not available, but the graph shows a comparison between those lose insurance vs TrumpCare. The non functional link shows the difference is extreme. When I can get it, I will post it.

I have a busy day, my lovely Panamanian Queen has a check engine light that I need to get fixed at the Mazda dealer. The old man will go to the gym. You would be surprised. I've always been stronger than most, because of my size. It continues despite my health issues.

Trump didn't pay a much income tax in 2005 compared to most. He tweeted FAKE NEWS.

The lying President is still standing by his wire tapping bs.

rrb said...

Trump didn't pay a much income tax in 2005 compared to most.

and this speaks to exactly why he didn't release his returns.

what you or any of your comrades on the left will never be able to comprehend is that trump pays very little actual "income" tax. he doesn't earn an income in the traditional sense like most of us on here who draw our income from an employer. the left is and always has been too fucking stupid (or intellectually dishonest) to be able to discern the difference between income, cap gains, or alternative minimum tax.

the super wealthy like trump live off their investments and have a myriad of write-offs at their disposal. when they buy a durable good it's often paid for by the business. and real estate purchases are not viewed in the traditional sense like we buy houses as a primary residence. they're investments.

so at the end of the day trump didn't take the bait from the left and succumb to the trap that was set. intellectually honest people will never blame him for that.

hacks like you and ralph maddow on the other hand...

Roger Amick said...

"How would offering people tax credits to help purchase insurance actually "raise" the rate of the uninsured? "

Millions would not be able to afford it. You ignore that fact every single time.

If a retired family making under approximately $30.000 the tax credit would not even close to making insurance financially affordable. Up to $60,000 it would be a significant percentage of their income.

But someone making $10,000,000,would get a $259,000 tax cut.

Roger Amick said...

Check it out.

C.H. Truth said...

Millions would not be able to afford it. You ignore that fact every single time

Again... what part of this do you not understand:

There was a time when we didn't have ACA and we had over 95% of the country happy with their insurance.

According to Gallup polling from the time Obama was passed/implemented - somewhere between six and ten million less people now say they are uninsured.

So if less than 10 million people have garnered insurance since the implementation of the ACA law...

prior to which there was no subsidies of any sort....

How does changing from one form of subsidy to a tax credits.... actually create a situation where 24 million would lose insurance?


That's akin to suggesting that providing tax credits to help pay for insurance would somehow push 14 million people out of the insurance market?

C.H. Truth said...

I have a busy day, my lovely Panamanian Queen has a check engine light that I need to get fixed at the Mazda dealer. The old man will go to the gym.

Sure Roger... as you always do when you are backed into a corner and don't have an answer.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...

Check it out.

YOU should check it out.

s l o w l y.

repeated posting of a link you have either failed to read or read but failed to comprehend solves nothing.

and since you're getting your clock cleaned on this topic you had better race off to deal with your latest excuse to disappear.

and the check engine light on wifey's rice burner? tighten the gas cap. you'll save yourself a trip to the dealer.


The Trump Effect

US Home Builder are showing high confidence as they pour money into a lagging sector , Single Family Homes. This is great for Home Depot stock, which I own.