BCRA - Senate Version of the AHCA

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 3, 2014
3,751
7,328
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Last edited:

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
I like this:
10:40 - 142 pages text released
10:50 - "Bill hits older people hardest"
11:03 - Democrats, including Sanders, slam the bill.

23 minutes to read a 142 pages bill and draw consequences about it?!?!??
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I like this:
10:40 - 142 pages text released
10:50 - "Bill hits older people hardest"
11:03 - Democrats, including Sanders, slam the bill.

23 minutes to read a 142 pages bill and draw consequences about it?!?!??
See, you'd have all your staff members start on page 1.

I, on the other hand, would give each staff member a chapter, and have them report what they found.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,906
Criminal Mexi Midget
I like this:
10:40 - 142 pages text released
10:50 - "Bill hits older people hardest"
11:03 - Democrats, including Sanders, slam the bill.

23 minutes to read a 142 pages bill and draw consequences about it?!?!??
how big was the ACA bill and how long did people have to draw consequences?
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
See, you'd have all your staff members start on page 1.

I, on the other hand, would give each staff member a chapter, and have them report what they found.
It would still take more than 23 minutes to read, analyze, discuss findings, prepare a response.
[doublepost=1498145526][/doublepost]
how big was the ACA bill and how long did people have to draw consequences?
As with any controversial law, I am fairly certain that Republicans slammed ACA in about the same timeframe. This is exactly what is sick about our legislative process.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Then you end up with a summation that sounds like a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant for the first time. ;)
Right. Because reading is sooo hard.

What are these mysterious symbols scribed into this paper?

It defies understanding!
[doublepost=1498146308][/doublepost]
It would still take more than 23 minutes to read, analyze, discuss findings, prepare a response. ...
Obviously not. The issue is pretty well understood. One could cut to the meat of law, ignore the fluff, and get a good idea of it in a very short period of time.

I know you don't believe that, but I'm sure that people can find key parts of the legislation and see quickly what it means.

Again, reading, it isn't that hard.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
Right. Because reading is sooo hard.

What are these mysterious symbols scribed into this paper?

It defies understanding!
[doublepost=1498146308][/doublepost]

Obviously not. The issue is pretty well understood. One could cut to the meat of law, ignore the fluff, and get a good idea of it in a very short period of time.

I know you don't believe that, but I'm sure that people can find key parts of the legislation and see quickly what it means.

Again, reading, it isn't that hard.
I disagree but oh well. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 3, 2014
3,751
7,328
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Right. Because reading is sooo hard.

What are these mysterious symbols scribed into this paper?

It defies understanding!
[doublepost=1498146308][/doublepost]

Obviously not. The issue is pretty well understood. One could cut to the meat of law, ignore the fluff, and get a good idea of it in a very short period of time.

I know you don't believe that, but I'm sure that people can find key parts of the legislation and see quickly what it means.

Again, reading, it isn't that hard.
If you truly believe each page stands on its own ... from a government document no less .... :rolleyes:
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
466
They pass this and when the pendulum swings the USA will have Medicare for All.
[doublepost=1498147185][/doublepost]Such a turd of a bill, cut taxes for 1% and remove benefits from the less well off.

It literally does *nothing* to help any of the reasons they claim Obamacare is "collapsing".
 

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 3, 2014
3,751
7,328
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
They pass this and when the pendulum swings the USA will have Medicare for All.
[doublepost=1498147185][/doublepost]Such a turd of a bill, cut taxes for 1% and remove benefits from the less well off.

It literally does *nothing* to help any of the reasons they claim Obamacare is "collapsing".
What I am looking for are specifics on reversing the current withdrawal of Insurance companies ....

Watching the various responses and saw one that was interesting; ACA - did it actually address the smaller percentage that needed it or did it destroy the overall marketplace (including insurance via employers)
 
Last edited:

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,355
UK
Anyway, it'll likely still remove healthcare from ~20 million Americans.

Another nail in the coffin for the Republican party.
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
466
What I am looking for are specifics on reversing the current withdrawal of Insurance companies ....

Watching the various responses and saw one that was interesting; ACA - did it actually address the smaller percentage that needed it or did it destroy the overall marketplace (including insurance via employers)
Profitability is what drove insurers out of states. Why be on the exchange when you lose money? The ACA is partly to blame because it mandated good coverage that couldn't be denied/capped/limited.

The reality is costs in the USA are way out of whack and nothing in the market is going to correct that so long as there is a massive private insurance scheme where insurance companies are rolling all over in Benjamins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 3, 2014
3,751
7,328
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Profitability is what drove insurers out of states. Why be on the exchange when you lose money? The ACA is partly to blame because it mandated good coverage that couldn't be denied/capped/limited.

The reality is costs in the USA are way out of whack and nothing in the market is going to correct that so long as there is a massive private insurance scheme where insurance companies are rolling all over in Benjamins.
I found that question I posted interesting as I look back at my employer coverage since the inception of the ACA.
  • Premiums flat till next year (going up)
  • Deductibles tripling or more
  • CoPay increases
  • Tighter limits on catastrophic coverage.
Wonder if the BCRA could alleviate or reverse this....
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
Still has to pass and they only have about a 2 senator margin of error. They still have to debate it, negotiate it, listen to the public weigh in on it. It's a long way from becoming a law.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,355
UK
I found that question I posted interesting as I look back at my employer coverage since the inception of the ACA.
  • Premiums flat till next year (going up)
  • Deductibles tripling or more
  • CoPay increases
  • Tighter limits on catastrophic coverage.
Wonder if the BCRA could alleviate or reverse this....
US healthcare costs have been rising for decades. Plus it's clear the Medicaid expansion was the key plus of obamacare. I guess you need a public option.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
I found that question I posted interesting as I look back at my employer coverage since the inception of the ACA.
  • Premiums flat till next year (going up)
  • Deductibles tripling or more
  • CoPay increases
  • Tighter limits on catastrophic coverage.
Wonder if the BCRA could alleviate or reverse this....
You can't tax insurers more, make them cover more, make them cover more people, and not expect the one insured to share a bigger burden of the cost (deductible and co-pay).

Listen, regardless of what they do, democrats or republicans, someone is going to be pissed. More people are insured, insurers can't cherry pick healthy people and exclude the ones with pre-existing conditions, in turn everyone who already had insurance has seen theirs go up tremendously in order to cover all that. People who could never fathom getting insurance because of cost or illness can, they're thrilled. People who's co-pay went from $10 to $40 are fed up and can care less what happens to those lesser off. When this country wraps it's head around the idea that healthcare and health insurance isn't about "me" rather "us", the easier it will be to fix it and have people accept the fix.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
See, you'd have all your staff members start on page 1.

I, on the other hand, would give each staff member a chapter, and have them report what they found.
As well as I'm sure a lot of it was borrowed from the house bill which they have had plenty of time to analyze they just needed to know which parts were kept in the Senate bill, which wouldn't take more than a couple minutes to recognize.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
US healthcare costs have been rising for decades. Plus it's clear the Medicaid expansion was the key plus of obamacare. I guess you need a public option.
Believe it or not Gruber, the chief architect and fella who basically stated they lied because we're too stupid, admitted after the fact that the majority of people who enrolled in the medicaid expansion were medicaid eligible even before the expansion. So that was basically for nothing, but I know a lot of people who like to tout it as a major achievement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 3, 2014
3,751
7,328
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Was watching an evaluation of Schumer's initial response and a couple of things came that struck me as WTH?!?
  • Trump called the ACHA mean. So Schumer calls the BCRA meaner
  • Schumer rolls out what is wrong (couches it as "may"..)
  • When challenged on the assumptions the response was "these may be correct, we just don't know"
    • - why the fear mongering? :confused:
  • What is up with the fear mongering instead of optional solutions?
Seeing if I can find an unbiased or mostly unbiased review of the bill. So far most of the published articles have been fear mongering and finger pointing. :oops:
 

alex2792

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2009
768
2,136
This, just like ACA is destined to fail, you can't force insurance companies to have to cover everyone without also making it mandating that people must by insurance by imposing VERY severe penalties (jail sentence, HUGE fines etc.). The current ACA tax is a joke, which is why many younger (healthy) people don't buy insurance. No insurance company can afford to cover the sick without having many healthy people in the risk pool, it's simple math really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn and JMacHack

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,355
UK
This, just like ACA is destined to fail, you can't force insurance companies to have to cover everyone without also making it mandating that people must by insurance by imposing VERY severe penalties (jail sentence, HUGE fines etc.). The current ACA tax is a joke, which is why many younger (healthy) people don't buy insurance. No insurance company can afford to cover the sick without having many healthy people in the risk pool, it's simple math really.
I guess a public option is the only answer.
[doublepost=1498151354][/doublepost]
Believe it or not Gruber, the chief architect and fella who basically stated they lied because we're too stupid, admitted after the fact that the majority of people who enrolled in the medicaid expansion were medicaid eligible even before the expansion. So that was basically for nothing, but I know a lot of people who like to tout it as a major achievement.
If they were all eligible anyway why do the CBO think cutting it will take people's healthcare away?