quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 08:17 schreef Wombcat het volgende:[..]Beginnen die nu ook al met fakenews
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 09:52 schreef Euribob het volgende:[..]Nee, dan ga je precies hetzelfde doen als al die complotdenken op the_Donald. Daar zijn ze bij gebrek aan beter ook allemaal aandacht aan het vragen voor "verdachte" sterfgevallen.
twitter: sarahkendzior twitterde op maandag 06-03-2017 om 18:25:33 If there was ever something you wanted to do, or someone you wanted to tell you loved, now is the time. I'll leave it at that for the moment reageer retweet
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 07:43 schreef Re het volgende:[..]Rand is tegen elke vorm van taxes voor healthcare dus de aanpassingen gaan hem niet ver genoeg, hoe meer onverzekerden beter
quote:THE HOUSE G.O.P. HEALTH-CARE PLAN IS HARMFUL, REGRESSIVE, AND WRONGre are at least two ways to look at the American Health Care Act, the Obamacare-replacement proposal that House Republicans released on Monday. Looked at up close, it perhaps isn’t quite as extreme, in some respects, as previous G.O.P. proposals. But if you step back and consider what enacting this bill would mean for the health-care system as a whole, and for American society as a whole, it is far from moderate and reasonable.The bill aims to take a wrecking ball to the principle of universal coverage. If enacted, millions of Americans would end up without any coverage. For many people who purchase individual policies, especially older people, it promises fewer services for more money. And it also proposes a big tax cut for the rich, which would be financed by slashing Medicaid, the federal program that provides health care to low-income people.Some of these provisions haven’t yet received the attention they deserve. Much of the initial coverage of the bill has focussed on how much of the 2010 Affordable Care Act this Republican proposal would retain, rather than what it would demolish. “A curious thing has happened to the Republican replacement plan as it has evolved through multiple drafts: it has begun to look more and more like Obamacare itself,” Vox’s Sarah Kliff, whose health-care pieces are essential reading, wrote on Monday. Larry Levitt, a well-known health-care expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said on Twitter, “One wonders whether House Republicans would like to make bigger changes to the ACA, but are limited by budget reconciliation rules.”These observations were perfectly accurate. The G.O.P. bill would keep some of the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the ban on insurers turning away people who have preëxisting conditions, and the ability of young adults up to the age of twenty-six to obtain coverage through their parents’ policies. The G.O.P. proposals “do not repeal the ACA,” Timothy Jost, another noted health-care expert, wrote at the Health Affairs Blog on Tuesday. “They leave in place the ACA’s titles affecting Medicare, quality of care, program integrity … indeed virtually all of the ACA except for its insurance affordability provisions, individual and employer mandates, taxes, and Medicaid reforms.”Some ultra-conservative Republican groups, including the Koch-brothers-supported Americans For Prosperity, have announced that they will oppose the American Health Care Act because it doesn’t go far enough. But the fact that the Kochs don’t like the bill, and that it preserves some things that would be politically impossible to strike down, doesn’t make it reasonable.Back in January, Donald Trump promised that the replacement for Obamacare would provide “insurance for everybody.” By endorsing the American Health Care Act, on Tuesday, Trump has broken his pledge. Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and his colleagues aren’t talking about universal coverage. Instead, they use weasel words such as “universal access.” Roughly speaking, that means that if you can afford an insurance plan, and you choose to buy one, you will be able to do so. The A.C.A. was fundamentally different. To provide near-universal coverage, it relied on legal mandates, hefty subsidies, and a big expansion of Medicaid. The Republican proposal would eliminate the mandates, replace the subsidies, and gut the Medicaid expansion.How many millions will end up uninsured if this bill passes? The Congressional Budget Office, once it has analyzed the proposal, will provide its best guess. Rather than wait for the C.B.O. to complete this work, Ryan and his colleagues are trying to hurry the legislation through the committee stage in a few days. According to some reports, they want the entire House to vote within a month. The reason for the rush should be obvious: the more you look at the G.O.P. proposal, the more damaging it appears.The reason there was an individual mandate in the A.C.A. was to force healthy young people to buy insurance. If you don’t do that, too many older and sick people end up in the insurers’ risk pools—a problem known as “adverse selection”—which can produce a deadly spiral of rising prices and falling enrollment. The G.O.P. plan seeks to avoid this outcome by allowing insurers to charge people a premium of thirty per cent for signing up if they have previously allowed their coverage to lapse. But this seems unlikely to solve the problem. Given the price of insurance, many healthy people will surely take the chance of staying uncovered, and pay the extra thirty per cent only if they get sick.Meanwhile, for families that earn less than fifty thousand dollars a year and can’t obtain coverage through employer plans, the A.C.A. offers subsidies that can total to eight or ten thousand dollars a year. (The subsidies need to be this large because private insurance is so expensive.) The House G.O.P. plan would replace these federal subsidies with refundable tax credits, which, in many cases, would be a lot smaller—leaving people of modest means to fork out more from their own pockets.To be sure, Republicans claim that some people will end up paying less than they do now. Since their bill would allow insurance companies to jack up the premiums older people pay, this claim almost certainly won’t apply to the group in most need of healthcare. If others do end up paying less, it will be largely because insurers will be allowed to offer them cheaper, lower-quality plans, with less coverage and even higher deductibles. “But, what good will it do a person making $15,000 a year to get a premium credit only large enough to buy a plan with a $3,000 or $5,000 deductible?” Bob Laszewski, a Washington-based consultant and health-care blogger, asked on Wednesday.What good indeed?By contrast, the rich, especially the very rich, stand to benefit greatly from the American Health Care Act. Families earning as much as a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year would be eligible for a tax credit of four thousand dollars. Many households earning more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year would get an even bigger present. Under the A.C.A., these very high earners were hit with a new 3.8 per cent Medicare tax on their investment income, such as interest and dividends, and a 0.9 per cent surtax on their ordinary income. The House G.O.P. plan would eliminate these taxes and make up for some of the lost revenue by repealing the most successful and cost-effective part of Obamacare: the expansion of Medicaid, which enabled as many as ten million low-income Americans to get covered.For political reasons, the bill would delay the Medicaid-expansion rollback until 2020. In three years, though, the A.C.A. expansion would “freeze,” and the states, which administer Medicaid, would no longer be able to enroll the types of people who gained access to coverage under the 2010 reform. Over time, this change would lead to a substantial rise in the number of uninsured. In addition, the House G.O.P. proposal would change how the rest of Medicaid is financed. At the moment, the federal government covers almost all the bills that patients run up, with no upper limit. Under the new system, starting in 2020 Washington would pay the states only a fixed sum for each enrollee. Experts agree this would eventually lead to a big cut in funding, and, unless the states stepped in, a big drop in coverage.This “shameful Republican assault on Medicaid,” as I referred to it a couple of weeks ago, isn’t a bit part of the House G.O.P. proposal, or an addendum: it’s a central component. “Indeed,” Timothy Jost commented, “the bill is not so much an ACA repeal bill as it is an attempt to change dramatically the Medicaid program.” Ryan and his colleagues won’t portray things this way, of course. They’ll continue to insist they are looking to “give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance.” The truth is very different.
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 11:22 schreef Monolith het volgende:Opiniestuk van John Cassidy over 'Ryancare':[..]New Yorker
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 11:56 schreef SureD1 het volgende:[..]Thanks! Zowel de NYT als de WAPO berichten ook dat er genoeg tegenstand vanuit de GOP komt tegen dit plan. De NYT rekent voor dat vooral 50-60 jarigen getroffen worden door het nieuwe plan. Dat is in die zin raar omdat daar een groot deel van de Trump stemmen zit...
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 12:07 schreef Monolith het volgende:[..]Obamacare was er wel redelijk door te krijgen omdat het in ieder geval een stap richting universal healthcare was. Alle Democraten in de senaat + 2 independents stemden voor en alle Republikeinen tegen. In het huis was er iets meer ruimte voor tegenstand, met 34 tegenstemmen uit de Democratische partij. Een vervanging van Obamacare is echter veel lastiger omdat de GOP verre van eensgezind is. 'Weg met Obamacare' is zo ongeveer de enige gemene deler, maar wat dat precies moet inhouden en wat de vervanging moet doen daar lopen de meningen heel erg uiteen. De conservatieve hardliners gruwelen van alles wat lijkt op 'socialized medicine', terwijl er ook veel Republikeinen zijn die wel degelijk een achterban tevreden moeten houden die profiteert van overheidssteun op het gebied van de zorg. Feitelijk is dit de tweedeling in de partij die ook Boehner de kop kostte destijds. Ryan was min of meer de man die de verschillende vleugels van de partij wist te verenigen, maar de vraag is of ze op het gebied van een alternatief plan wel te verenigen zijn.
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 12:10 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:[..]Vrij goede samenvatting dit.Zijn er eigenlijk ook Democraten die voor aanpassing van de ACA zijn? Ik zie Joe Manchin regelmatig langskomen als een tegendraadse democraat, bijvoorbeeld.
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 12:18 schreef antiderivative het volgende:[..]Het zullen waarschijnlijk de Democraten in "red states" zijn. Manchin idd, Heitkamp. Check de stemmingen over de Trump nominaties, het zijn meestal dezelfde groep Dems die door liberals steevast "fake democrats" genoemd worden.
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 08:13 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:[..]Toch raar, de mensen die zo klagen dat links bestaat uit niet werkende uitkeringstrekkers hebben zelf blijkbaar wel de tijd om hele nachten wakker te blijven en hun gal uit te spugen over dit forum.
quote: Op woensdag 8 maart 2017 14:18 schreef WhiteBeard het volgende:Wikileaks heeft trouwens ook weer een grote hoeveelheid info online gezet over het nationale spionage netwerk in de VS. Pogingen om echt Grote Broer te installeren. Onder Obama is de VS verder opgeschoven naar een fascistische staat. Doe de netwerkstekker maar uit je TV en de stroom eraf