What's wrong with the Republican replacement bill for Obamacare?

What's wrong with the Republican replacement bill for Obamacare?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

haha, but seriously guys, we can't let him have the nuclear codes

#imwithher

Where is your leaf?

you must be a muslim shitskin

Essentially, his plan is a separate bank account for insurance. It will make people with severe health disabilities unable to afford health insurance

Worse than flat repeal as far as covering people, will basically bankrupt/kick poor seniors off of insurance, and health savings accounts are a giant joke because even a $10,000 one will drain in 1 night at a hospital.

very poor quality shilling.

It keeps the pre existing conditions clause which is the primary cause of the skyrocketing premiums. So it wouldn't fix the problem. It just pretends too but does not.

Isn't that a good things though?

Survival of the fittest etc?

No repeal of the mandate, no repeal of the core Obamacare system, no end of the antitrust exemption

It's a failure through and through

Arguably yes, but feels get in the way of that

Government needs to fuck off.

As far as I know, its pretty much Obamacare with most of the taxes shuffled around, except with the "cadillac" tax eliminated.

You're never going to get a healthcare system with the previous preexisting conditions method. It's not happening. The country will explode if they try to touch it.

Problem is that like you're saying, they pretend they're dealing with it but they aren't. Instead they just try to hobble the parts that support it.

It's good for healthy adults, but very bad for old people, poor people, and for some reason ... people who won the lottery

desu fuck people who win the lottery

30% penalty to insurances if you leave the market and come back and other taxes that aren't fully repealed. Either way I think Rand Paul and co. will eventually get the changes they wants and the bill will pass.

Regardless, the success of the new healthcare system will depend more on how the economy reacts to the new tax plan than this bill.

It's going to cause people to lose health insurance. Many of the affected people are Trump supporters and this could very well close the book on a 2020 Trump victory.

The idea of "access" to health insurance is a fraudulent statement, as Col. Sanders points out, "I may have access to purchasing one of Mr. Trump's beachfront properties, but that doesn't mean I can afford it."

This isn't even to mention the fact that this plan will cut taxes for the wealthy. Who, let's be real, don't need any more of the taxpayers' goddamned money.

Yep, that's the problem with giving out entitlements, it's extremely hard to repeal them once in place

>"I may have access to purchasing one of Mr. Trump's beachfront properties, but that doesn't mean I can afford it."
What is wrong with this, shill?

Let's be honest here. Most of the provisions will be delayed to 2020 or later before they activate. There's a high chance that a Democratic wave election will be in power in 2020 or at the latest 2024. Particularly if this current thing really does kick 24 million off of insurance. And they'll probably gut Ryancare and replace it with something even closer to single payer than ACA ever was.

it reinforces the idea that the federal government should be in the healthcare business, which is ludicrous.

It means that for most people in this situation 'Access' is a meaningless word.

It's as useful as a glass of water 100 miles away is to a man dying of dehydration.

Based user knows what's up. Fuck off feds

How is the man dying of dehydration the tax payer's responsibility?

It's worse than obamacare by all metrics

to lefties, people lose coverage

to righties, it's not a real repeal by any means as it keeps 90% of obamacare

to everyone, our premiums will continue rising because now healthy people will just drop out until they are sick under no penalty

it's a full blown disaster and terrible for trump

>which is ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous? Basically every other developed nation in the world works that way.

People are currently paying to NOT have Obamacare, at this point kicking them off free would be a favor.

By the way, Sanders is a fucking idiot.

Millions lose their healthcare.

Where in the constitution does it say health is a guarantee, and that the federal government is to provide care? I'll wait...

Something as large and complicated as health care needs to be handled at the federal level. State-level won't work.
Because we live in a society and depend on one another. We're not (((atomistic individuals))). Pay your goddamn taxes.

Why even have a replacement?

Just go back to how things were before?

Young people are paying because they think A) they're bulletproof, too bad that when random acts of god happen they die, get crippled, go bankrupt or get all their care on the taxpayer/hospital's dime anyways and B) The Premiums are indeed too high, because the system is pretty shit. I don't think anyone will argue that ACA is a pretty shit system, the problem is that the previous system and Ryancare are both even worse shit systems.

>By the way, Sanders is a fucking idiot.
Won't get an argument from me there

I got hit by a car while cycling and that shit cost me 3,800, didn't even have any breaks, only went for one follow up treatment. PIP only covered 2 grand and I couldn't sue because I was moving out of state. Cost me 1800 bucks cash, and the bitch got out of her car to yell at me after destroying my ride. Had it been a broken collar bone, that'd be my whole health savings account, and it was an unavoidable calamity that happened in a second.

You didn't answer my question. How is the man dying of dehydration the tax payer's responsibility?

>if this current thing really does kick 24 million off of insurance

is it really an 'if'?

as soon as this law passes I'm canceling my plan. I pay 230/month for what amounts to a shitty catastrophic plan that caps my expenses at 7.5k/year. I'd have to get hit by a truck while not driving (since my car insurance covers accidents) and get cancer in the same year for this to be worth it.

really i'm just paying so fat faggot baby boomers can keep gobbling down bacon while popping 20 prescription heart pills a day.

If the government provides the man the water, the government must receive that revenue from somewhere, so it probably will be the taxpayer's responsibility.

Constitution was written before anyone even invented the concept of health insurance.

You're almost as bad as those mudslimes you despise clinging to Sharia Law in the modern age.

Shit changes.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

Eventually, very sick people do go to the hospital. There's lots of people that ignore their minor health problems in hopes they will go away, but were preventative screenings covered with a small copay, the taxpayer would ultimately save money.

Prevention is the best medicine, and insured people can prevent all sorts of problems.

When you have baby backed bitches like Paul Ryan standing up and preaching this shit like it's going to help Americans, there is something wrong. While you may not agree with many of the progressive political talking points, Berndog is absolutely correct that access is meaningless when health care cannot be afforded. But what would i know, I'm JUST A PLANT I got a big bush 9/11

The Clean Water Act.

you didn't sue to motorist? Niggah even if you were doing something wrong you probably would have won.

You're retarded.

>Because we live in a society and depend on one another. We're not (((atomistic individuals))). Pay your goddamn taxes.
Specifically, the government is the institution that resolves collective action problems.

does a crappy job of bringing down prices in the health industry. They hope that their tax credits will cover the cost of premiums, but they aren't enough.

The plan either needs more gibs, or more deregulation of the industry/incentive to bring down cost.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

Your problem is really more that the ACA system is a hobbled, horrible mess that needs to be fixed so that you can get some decent plan offerings honestly. I don't think anybody would argue the way it works right now is pretty shit.

Like you, I pay $150 a month for insurance I don't really use much of because I have to. But a dollar of preventative care, screenings and health maintenance is worth $100 of hospital care. So since I'm young and Ryancare seems to be willing to suck the cock of the young white guy at least, I'll keep insurance if it doesn't spike in price. But then again, my $150 a month buys me decent $1k annual expense health insurance unlike your shitty garbage plan.

Actually, the government is the institution that creates collectives action problems.

I'll be moving back to my homestate in September, and I will then have 6 months or thereabouts to file my claim and take her to court. Never made a statement to GEICO, my lawyer flaked on me because he had bigger fish to fry, but I'll return to this for sure. Documented damage to the bike and my injuries, I really should have been more aggressive, but I was a college senior and this shit popped off a week before finals, lost me my job and I spent a long ass time playing catchup on bills. If I had kids or a mortgage I would've been FUCKED.

Because when the man is brought to the hospital for dehydration without insurance the taxpayer is going to pay 1000x more than the cost of that water in treating such an easily avoidable problem.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

What prohibits the government from doing so? Why does it need the right to do so? Are you ever planning on defending your implicit statements or just keep asking questions?

What's wrong with the government doing so?

Nobody wants to give up entitlements once they get them.

This is why the govt has gotten so massive.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution.
As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The 1972 amendments:
Established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States.
Gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.
Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.
Made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions.
Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants program.
Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.
Subsequent amendments modified some of the earlier CWA provisions. Revisions in 1981 streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of treatment plants built under the program. Changes in 1987 phased out the construction grants program, replacing it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, more commonly known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This new funding strategy addressed water quality needs by building on EPA-state partnerships.
Over the years, many other laws have changed parts of the Clean Water Act. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed by the U.S. and Canada, where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life.

>Dude Ron Paul lmao
I'm not following. Do you know what a collective action problem is? Define it so we're on the same page.

What prohibits the government from doing so? Why does it need the right to do so? Are you ever planning on defending your implicit statements or just keep asking questions?

What's wrong with the government doing so?

Just die like a man.
Also lets get back to cutting taxes and exporting beans

Read nigga.

If that man doesn't get that easily provided, almost cheap water, he'll be taken to the hospital. The Hospital will then be on the hook for the man's care for dehydration. If the government doesn't cover his care then, the hospital goes out of business.

This is the reason why Hospitals are currently screaming about this shit. They and the Taxpayer are the ones on the hook for the problem that could have been avoided by giving that man a cup of water.

The Government has the right to defend its taxpayers.

>If the government doesn't cover his care then, the hospital goes out of business.
Then they shouldn't treat people that cannot pay.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

Because doing so is necessary to maintain a system of equal freedom. Read Kant.

>Then they shouldn't treat people that cannot pay.

You're hopeless

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?
What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

Because doing so is necessary to maintain a system of equal freedom. Read Kant.

Did Kant write the bill of rights?

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

Well, you broke the thread with this autism. Congrats on pissing into this ocean of piss, the shadowmasters glisten with perspiration as the heat of your bile powers their machines of infinite confusion and chaos.

OP, I want to know what issue that you, specifically, had with Obamacare

Does Trumpcare fix that issue?

Kant stated that such things as you just stated are suppositions that are not apriori. In fact almost nothing has any a priori intrinsic valuation, so we are free to institute any reality we want.
I don't want to take care of someone that I feel nothing for in the hope that karmically someone will take care about me. I'd much rather make my life better and those close to me.

whats gives the government the right to order that mans murder over a cup of water

> provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Paying for that man's water protects the taxpayer from the later health costs and provides for the general welfare by keeping the hospitals from closing.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?
see

The Purpose of a Government is to Keep it's peoples Alive.

Hospitals are morally obligated to treat people in an emergency before checking their finanical status or demanding payment.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

No, just really dull and dense philosophy.

I see your technique, but it's flawed. Nothing gives anything any rights outside of a general agreement. If people agree the government has the right, then it does.

>it's still mandatory for you to buy a private product
>there are no longer any subsidies to help you pay for it

First of all, that's not very conservative. second of all, why not just shoot everyone who makes less than $80,000 per year directly in the heart?

Do you understand that I have to pay something in the area of $700-1200 a year to NOT have insurance under this bill? If I don't even fucking want insurance, I still have to pay the insurance companies. Really conservative, guys. Good fucking job.

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

See above.

>Nothing gives anything any rights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

eminent domain

The categorical imperative grounds all moral duties. It not only justifies the state, it constrains the set of permissible political arrangements.

Think about it. Our man-made laws can be faulty. If our Constitution told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

>moral duties
What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

>morally obligated
Which box do I have to check on my taxes to opt out of accepting the government's morals? Is there a fee for that too?

What gives the bill of rights any rights?

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

The government already does so, thus proving that it has the right to do so.

>Shit changes.

Which is exactly why the Constitution can be changed.

If you can't get the votes to legally change it, then FUCK YOU and your muh feelings, it stays the same.

might

It's not the government's morals, it's the Hospitals.

If you want to let the Hospitals all go out of business, the fee is the low cost of your life whenever something happens and you need them.

It removes the mandate.

A nigger can rape and kill your daughter, does that mean he has a right to?

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

see

That's not what I heard. Source?

I just asked you a question, can you answer it? You site the bill of rights, it is meaningless. No government has any power outside of people agreeing on it having that power. It has no a priori power for anything, including making a bill of rights.

No, it shifts the mandate.

HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE US GOVT HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE LEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE OVER ITS GIVEN GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND THERE ARE AGREED UPON LAWS WHICH GUARANTEE BASIC SAFETY FOR CITIZENS.

how autistic can one person be?

What gives the government the right to use the tax payer's money to provide that man water?

What gives you the right to live in American and not get raided by sand niggers on the regular?

see