trump, price on AHCA: "phase 1 sucks, but trust us on phases 2 and 3"

[icehorse]

Really? Trust you guys that these undisclosed “phases 2 and 3” will turn this horrible phase 1 around?

George Stephanopoulos, why didn’t you press him on this point?

Video: Price says passing health care bill through House and Senate 'a fine needle' to be thread

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like Obamacare....lawmakers weren't supposed to read the bill before passing it.
That turned out poorly.

 

[Kirran]

Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!

Ahh, you beat me to it, I was trying to find the video.

Spoiler: The Plan. Adult Language.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Obamacare was also supposed to be a phase 1 toward single payer systems. It's primary downside is that most on it are already sick. You need to share risk with healthier pops for it to really work.

I can see Trump pivoting toward a single payer concept, to fulfill his campaign promises (no other way to do it, honestly). If so, I and the Dems would support that glorious madman for as long as he isn't distracted by a butterfly and forgets what he supported in the first place.

 

[james dixon]

How can anyone support a habitual liar who says whatever the listener wants to hear knowing it is a lie?

The Republicans have earned the title “Republicons “. May they sleep well at night keeping the nightmares to a minimum.

 

[icehorse]

Sounds like Obamacare....lawmakers weren't supposed to read the bill before passing it.
That turned out poorly.

(Giving you a legit opportunity to close in on a 100k!):

But ACA was evaluated to increase the # of folks covered, this AHCA has been evaluated to DECREASE the # of folks covered. Seems like a MUCH bigger leap of faith, no?

 

[Quetzal]

Sounds like Obamacare....lawmakers weren't supposed to read the bill before passing it.
That turned out poorly.

I really hope they take their time. I understand they want to appeal to their base and make improvements, which I am in full support of. However, I would much rather they take a year or two to really think through everything. My fear is that they will rush it through in the first 6 months in the name of "progress" and making the same goobers of the ACA.

 

[sun rise]

Sounds like Obamacare....lawmakers weren't supposed to read the bill before passing it.
That turned out poorly.

Wrong. People had a LONG time to read the Obama health care law. Trump/Ryan care, on the other hand, is being rammed through not giving people a chance to read it. Compare this timeline.

• July 2009: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan for overhauling the health-care system. It’s called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

• August 25, 2009: Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate Democrats’ 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.

• September 24, 2009: Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60th vote.

• November 7, 2009: In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.

https://resources.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca

 

[sun rise]

And as to the outcome, the actual act was mangled to get Republican votes and the Republicans refused to go along with any technical fixes in yeas long attempts to get the law to fail. The blame rests with the right wing.

 

[Revoltingest]

(Giving you a legit opportunity to close in on a 100k!):

But ACA was evaluated to increase the # of folks covered, this AHCA has been evaluated to DECREASE the # of folks covered. Seems like a MUCH bigger leap of faith, no?

If it's unknown it's unknown.
But Obamacare (despite what the media say) caused a lot of people who previously had insurance to lose it.
The numbers? I don't know.
But it affected people I know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong. People had a LONG time to read the Obama health care law. Trump/Ryan care, on the other hand, is being rammed through not giving people a chance to read it. Compare this timeline.

• July 2009: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan for overhauling the health-care system. It’s called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

• August 25, 2009: Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate Democrats’ 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.

• September 24, 2009: Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60th vote.

• November 7, 2009: In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.

https://resources.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it...."

 

[icehorse]

But Obamacare (despite what the media say) caused a lot of people who previously had insurance to lose it.

Can you be more specific? Are you saying that that's true on the whole, or just specific cases? My understanding was that on the whole, the ACA covered a lot more people than it "un-covered".

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you be more specific? Are you saying that that's true on the whole, or just specific cases? My understanding was that on the whole, the ACA covered a lot more people than it "un-covered".

Insurance here saw a drastic reduction in legal sources, & a many fold increase in prices.
It affected self-employed types I know, ie, those in the subsidizing-of-others class who
don't have an employer providing it.
People say that more are now covered by insurance, but the opposite is true in my small world.
One guy has a weird program with like minded folk (religious fundies)....they pool money to
cover each other, but not for abortion, AIDS, or any other sin related malady. It's a riskier kind
of insurance than what he could afford before.

 

[Quetzal]

Insurance here saw a drastic reduction in legal sources, & a many fold increase in prices.
It affected self-employed types I know, ie, those in the subsidizing-of-others class who
don't have an employer providing it.
People say that more are now covered by insurance, but the opposite is true in my small world.
One guy has a weird program with like minded folk (religious fundies)....they pool money to
cover each other, but not for abortion, AIDS, or any other sin related malady. It's a riskier kind
of insurance than what he could afford before.

Hmm, this seems to be a locality/state issue. In my small world, more are covered and premiums have gone up a bit, but not enough to tar and feather the program as a whole. That is what makes this discussion so difficult to have since there are so many sides of the story that vary greatly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm, this seems to be a locality/state issue. In my small world, more are covered and premiums have gone up a bit, but not enough to tar and feather the program as a whole. That is what makes this discussion so difficult to have since there are so many sides of the story that vary greatly.

Not difficult....just more complicated.
What's difficult is that we don't know what the Trump admin will ultimately implement.
We're jumping out of the frying pan, but does the fire await?
(Pretentious sounding, eh.)

 

[Quetzal]

Not difficult....just more complicated.
What's difficult is that we don't know what the Trump admin will ultimately implement.
We're jumping out of the frying pan, but does the fire await?
(Pretentious sounding, eh.)

The scary part is we won't really know until it happens. Then comes the implementation which may or may not go smoothly. As you like to say... we will see.