Republican health care bill raises premiums for older, poor Americans

>Why the drastic increase? There are two main reasons: Under Trumpcare, insurers would be allowed to charge older Americans more, while the government would give lower-income Americans smaller subsidies to pay for coverage. Currently, insurers are only allowed to charge older customers three times what they charge younger individuals. The Republican plan would allow them to charge five times as much. Meanwhile, under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government gives people tax credits based on their income and the cost of insurance, which cap premiums as a percentage of their earnings. Trumpcare's premiums are only based on age—they don't take income or cost coverage into account—so poorer households tend to lose out. They're also set to grow more slowly, which doesn't help matters.

>There are some winners in this bargain. Obamacare doesn't offer premiums subsidies for households that earn more than 400 percent of the poverty line. So some middle- and upper-middle-income Americans may come out ahead. A 40-year-old making $68,200 in 2026 would pay $6,500 under Obamacare; with Trumpcare's tax credit, he'd pay just $2,400 for an insurance plan that was only slightly less comprehensive. A 21-year-old with the same salary would benefit similarly, while a 64-year-old would pay slightly less than under Obamacare.

>The CBO has often been criticized—perhaps unfairly—for its estimates about Obamacare's coverage effects. But its budgeteers were largely on target regarding the Affordable Care Act's effects on premiums. Republicans are already objecting that the office's estimate did not account for the way deregulation through the executive branch will bring down costs, by allowing insurers to sell less expansive policies. But that doesn't help older Americans with significant medical costs much. And as I mentioned before, these premium comparisons assume customers will buy far less comprehensive coverage. There's every reason to believe the projections on this table are at least directionally correct about what the effects of Trumpcare would be.

>So you could call it a trade-off. Younger, higher-income Americans pay less, while older, poorer Americans—many of whom are likely Trump supporters—pay far, far more for less useful insurance. This is part of a bill, mind you, that would force many of these lower-income households into the individual market by cutting hundreds of billions from Medicaid. These trade-offs might be less severe if Republicans weren't determined to turn their legislation bill into a vehicle for massive, regressive tax cuts. But hey, everybody has their priorities.

republicans realize the older generation is passing away; the demographics that typically leaned conservative and republican.

in a bid to curry favor with younger voters, they're going to use their authority to sell out their old base of support in favor of a younger electorate, and hope that much of the former dies over the next four to eight years.

>>121902
We aren't democrats. We'll do what's right regardless of politics.

>>121903
You make funny joke. I get it because Republashits are the worst about this.

>>121916
>no u

Can democrats make a single criticism beyond no u and blatant protection?

>>121903
Fair enough; I guess that's also a reasonable reading of these statistics..

Although I would like to point out that Trump promised not to touch medicaid during his campaign. It would be nice if he at least had the courtesy to explain his change of heart to Americans that will be hurting because of his support of this legislation.

>>121898
>People who use the most care are charged more

Are you people really this stupid?

>>121921

I don't think most people find the mere fact that individuals perceived at higher risk should pay more into the pool to be disconcerting.

It's the fact that some people will be rendered invalids by a plan that constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest because subsidies come in the form of tax breaks.

>>121921
It was already regulated- they could only charge 3 times as much, republicans now are regulating it to be five times as much.

If insurance companies had their way, they would probably charge 7, 8, 10 times as much- whatever they thought made the most profit- thats the free market.

We're not arguing over who should pay more, but what would be best for American citizens overall.

>>121902
The flaw in your logic is that people are living longer than ever. Baby Boomers have only begun to retire, and their medical needs are going to completely fuck everything, just like their generation has fucked everything since their birth.

>>121920
Heathcare is in transition. It'll be 3 phases.

Honestly I think Trump wants everyone talking about shitty Obamacare and Trumps taxes so they can work in peace.

>>121945
I think Trump is just taking marching orders from republican leadership in congress on this one.
He's not done much to make a convincing case that he's bothered by the nitty gritty details of achieving effective policy, having gone from promising universal healthcare to sure whatever paul ryan wants without a moment of explanation.

>>121902
That makes no sense. That's like trying to earning someone's friendship by shitting on their grandma.

>>121956
Well, of the share of 21 year olds that have grandmas in that income bracket, presumably they're less inclined to view this plan in their interest. I'm not sure that's most 21 year olds.