Trump abandons AHCA, Senate Dems protest GOP strategy to pass

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that the moves are designed to shed a light on the bill because the secretive process shows Republicans are "ashamed of it, plain and simple."

"These are merely the first steps we’re prepared to take in order to shine a light on this shameful Trumpcare bill and reveal to the public the GOP’s true intentions: to give the uber-wealthy a tax break while making middle class Americans pay more for less healthcare coverage," Schumer said. "If Republicans won’t relent and debate their health care bill in the open for the American people to see, then they shouldn’t expect business as usual in the Senate."

While a good number of Senate GOP members have also expressed frustration about the closed-door process being used to pass the bill, none have publicly rejected the tactic. In a statement, the Republican National Committee called the move a "a pure partisan game aimed at placating the far-left."

>>150445
How do Dems support Obamacare, it litterally sucks for everyone

>>150461
This, it's absolute trash. Almost $200/month and insane deductibles - $150 for Dr visit, $200 for ER, full price for scrips - for me as a single, perfectly healthy 24yo nonsmoker. All so some POS hoodrat single mother of 6 can save $100/yr

>>150461
Poorfag min wage NEET here. I get enough of a subsidy to completely cover a silver plan with a $0 deductible 25% coinsurance $950 out of pocket max. First time I ever had health insurance as an adult.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"The ACA has caused a significant reduction in the number of people without health insurance, with estimates ranging from 20–24 million additional people covered during 2016. Increases in overall healthcare spending have slowed since the law was implemented, including premiums for employer-based insurance plans. The Congressional Budget Office reported in several studies that the ACA would reduce the budget deficit, and that repealing it would increase the deficit."

So it's adding healthcare to about 7% of the entire US population, and saves the state money. In a simplistic analysis, sure, some people had premiums go up. On the other hand, having poor people not have health care doesn't actually save you money. Hospitals still treat people if they're dying from a car accident whether they have health care or not, and covering those costs means they just have to charge everyone else more anyway. At least this way there is a system in place to manage these different effects.

It's the same reason we have seatbelt laws. Yeah, dumbasses that don't wear seatbelts should have the "right" to do so and kill themselves. In practice, so many survive accidents but come out mangled enough that the increased burden on the healthcare system isn't worth letting them have the freedom to injure themselves - others are affected.

>>150475
>in a simplistic view some people had their premiums go up
Literally everyone who wasn't poor had their premiums go up. Mine went from $100 a paycheck, to $250 a paycheck. My copay was $1000 now it's $4000 and my old out of pocket was $2500 and now it's $8000.

But whatever I deserve it because I. Ale $60,000 a year so I'm rich and deserve to be punished for it. Thanks libshits for making me pay unemployed neets doctor bills.

>>150475
>some people had premiums go up.

It didn't have to be that way. Republicans obstructed every attempt to fix the weaknesses of the initial bill (insurers locking out certain regions) which is still an order of magnitude than what they want (no reform).

When the ACA passed, hundreds of public hearings were held, multiple Republican amendments were included, and it took a year. The Republicans never expected to be rewarded with the opportunity to make good on their promise to come up with a better piece of legislation, so they're scrambling to come up with something that will pass by the skin of their teeth with as little opportunity for public scrutiny as they can manage.

>>150470
>>150465
I feel like this highlights the problem of Obamacare really nicely. You basically get better coverage if you're poorer.

Really they should just work on improving the ACA. That is bound to lead to better results than having the Republicans draft some dodgy shit up and stuff it down everyone's throat in an insanely short timespan. It's better for market stability and continuity too.

>>150479
My point was that you were paying for them either way, but this way you're actually seeing the numbers attached to your name. In time, the increased coverage should bring costs down across the board. I agree that your personal changes in this case were ridiculous; I don't think anyone wanted that outcome. A bigger root cause here is just the fact that healthcare in the U.S. is ridiculously expensive - I would have tried to cut out insurance as the middlemen rather than make it mandatory, but neither party was putting that forward as an option.

>>150482
>>150483
These are both right. ACA isn't a perfect solution at all, and it has some serious flaws. It shouldn't have been the solution put forward, but the wasteful lack of compromise between the two parties means we aren't going to get any good progress on this issue in the near future. Trying to help reign in premiums by targeting the bloated healthcare costs is better than pulling ACA off and wasting time and resources by implementing a different half-baked plan.

Congressmen have a unique health care plan anyway, and don't have any skin in this game.

>>150487
Agreed.

I also feel like it's worth mentioning that the ACA is nearly 1000 pages long with all the amendments, while the House AHCA ran all of ~150 pages. The ACA is also somewhat readable whereas the House AHCA has no structure at all. Just a low effort bill.

To think you can "fix healthcare" with a 150 page bill is delusional, but then again I'm pretty sure the Republicans never thought that the AHCA would fix shit. It was a political band aid so they had something to show for their promises of fucking shit up.

>>150461
>it litterally sucks for everyone
Yeah, we should just go back to the days when 20% of the American people didn't have insurance, and would just go to the ER and then not pay their medical bills.

Obamacare is good for the health care industry because more people are getting routine care.
It's good for people because more of them get proper health care.
It's good for the insurance industry because it's America's best chance of avoiding a single-payer system that would basically destroy the health insurance companies.
The flaws in the system are largely the result of the GOP undermining it.

>>150488
It's true, the republicans didn't have an actual plan in mind, on this issue they were certainly just garnering support by contrarianism. I wish people that are casting votes would be even slightly more discerning. They like to pick whoever says what they're feeling, without any verification of qualifications. It doesn't even take more than a few minutes...

>>150479
>Mine went from $100 a paycheck, to $250 a paycheck.
In most cases this happened because your previous insurance was some half-assed bullshit.
In addition to the millions of people who got affordable health care for the first time ever, millions more went from being semi-covered to having actual decent coverage.

Oh, and I'm deducting 10 points for superfluous (and inaccurate) use of "literally".
That word has become the "fidget spinner" of the English language, and you should be embarrassed to just throw it into a sentence for emphasis.

>>150482
>The Republicans never expected to be rewarded with the opportunity to make good on their promise to come up with a better piece of legislation,
THIS
Republicans saying "repeal and replace" is like a drunk that secretly hopes his friends will hold him back when he tries to take a swing at somebody.

Their plan is utter shit, but more importantly Obamacare is a remarkably conservative piece of legislation.
It's America's best chance for avoiding real socialized medicine.
It's a great boon for the healthcare industry, and it ensures that even the working poor (and their small-business employers) have to help pay for health care in America instead of just going to the emergency room or relying on a spouse that works for a fortune-500 company to cover the family health care.

Both Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan had similar plans, and if Obama wasn't a black democrat, Paul Ryan would fight tooth and nail to defend the ACA.

>>150461
It's just virtue signaling and people so young they don't remember regular insurance

>>150470
So its welfare

>>150496
>Obamacare is a remarkably conservative
You need to die asap plz

>>150495
Except that was literally the case.
Also
>that appeal to authority combined with a Harry Potter reference
Pathetic.

>>150470
Why do you even need health insurance at that age?

Obamacare is socialism. It's not a sensible fix.

>>150498
>>Obamacare is a remarkably conservative
>You need to die asap plz
We're the only "civilized" nation on Earth that still requires most individuals to pay for their own health insurance.
The only way this law doesn't look conservative is if you're so far right that even the average Muslim looks like a communist.

>>150500
>>that appeal to authority
???
>Harry Potter reference
???

Did you reply to the wrong post, or are you just retarded?
Don't forget: under the GOP plan, a learning disability is a per-existing condition.

>>150500
>Except that was literally the case.
p.s.: It wasn't "literally" the case.
I'm not poor and my premiums didn't go up.
Besides, even if it were actually true, using "literally" means you're trying to keep people from thinking you meant it metaphorically.
Learn to English.

>>150506
>deducting 10 points because of a word
>as if you're in a superior position to judge or grade other posts
>assuming yourself to a higher position of authority because you think of yourself as an authority
>not providing an argument, merely arguing semantics
>only response is to attack my intelligence
Bad news for you on that pre existing condition there mate. What's it like to be so delusional you can only argue in fallacies?

>>150502
>Why do you even need health insurance at that age?
>implying you can't get hit by a bus at the age of 20.
Also, how do you know how old he is?

And my daughter was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at 18.
EVERYBODY needs health insurance.

>>150508
If you don't mind me asking, what state are you in?
I never looked up the difference between the state specific implementations for the ACA, but I could imagine that in (probably red) states they handled it worse than in others.

>>150504
Switzerland here, we're plenty civilized as far as I'm concerned and you have to pay for your own shit here too. I think the ACA was actually partially inspired by our model.

There's pretty decent subsidies for really poor people though, and I think we have much less of them than the US.

>>150511
>>deducting 10 points because of a word
OK, granted, Rowling used this , BUT it's a common thing in British education, and not specific to Harry Potter.
>>150511
>>assuming yourself to a higher position of authority because you think of yourself as an authority
No, I'm not the authority here.
The dictionary is.
I'm sorry that you're unhappy that I speak English better than you, but ultimately it's your own fault.
>>150511
>>not providing an argument, merely arguing semantics
I DID provide an argument here: >>150495

You chose to ignore it in favor of defending your poor grammar and understanding of the English language.

>>150514
>what state are you in?
Virginia.

>difference between the state specific implementations for the ACA,
I already had decent insurance before the ACA, so it's likely my policy was unaffected by the law.

>>150500
>>150511
Shit dude, you are getting BTFO, retreat and do some heavy thinking.

>>150515
I think Switzerland has a lot fewer poor people than the US. Your country has a nice level of functioning and well-designed systems and a population that isn't completely ass-backwards. Even if the US had much better regulations and systems in place, there's so much incompetence and self-destruction going on (both in the government and the general public) that we still wouldn't see major improvement for some time.

>>150512
Sucks man. But the point of health insurance is just in case of emergency, not for a collectivist welfare program for the wealthy and healthy to support the poor and unhealthy.

It's basically government mandated charity

>>150527
Actually you have it exactly backwards. That is how insurance of any kind works, doofus. The unnafflicted subsidize those who are afflicted. That's true whether it is health insurance, car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, etc.

>>150531
Insurance is to insure. Like insure you from a disaster. Not to saddle people with your garanteed drain on the pool.

What's the point for the healthy and wealthy to even join the insurance program if it's a garanteed net loss?

Fire, flood, all those are optional. Health and car insurance are a racket

>>150502
Please look up the definition of Socialism.

>Don't think that word means what you think it means...

>>150527
>>150532
So that guy's daughter suddenly developing arthritis at age 18 isn't a disaster? You, of course, have taken steps beyond health insurance to alter your own life should you wake up tomorrow with a sudden onset of arthritis?

Insurance is not a "racket", but if anything the problem is that the companies that provide insurance are profiting off misfortune and colluding to ensure that they stay in business despite any national externalities.

>>150488
To think you can fix over 30 years of healthcare problems in 4 and see results in 3 is insanity.

Thinking and politics just don't mix.

>>150532
What you don't understand is that if folks without insurance get ill or in a car wreck then you are STILL going to pay for that, except it's going to be more expensive for the tax payer if they don't have insurance. It's not a racket. Insurance costs for EVERYONE will go down if we can get everyone participating in the market. because the share necessary to subsidize the most sickly folks will go down per insurance customer.

>>150535
Alright how about this - I don't want health insurance. I'm healthy and I want the increased risk because I'm safe and am not worried.

Why do I have to opt in? Just to help a nigga out?

>>150541
See these posts:
>>150538
>>150475
It would be great if you could pass on insurance and let whatever happens, happen. I would like it to be that way too, since I am also young and healthy. Unfortunately, a fair enough number of young and healthy people are going to have unexpected accidents (say, by a car while walking in town) and sent to hospitals that we can't have that system in place. A hospital won't just let you die because you chose not to have insurance. They will treat you, and pass those costs on to everyone else. So really, you're forced to pay in partially to help a nigga out, and partially so we ain't helpin' yo nigga ass out if YOU get unlucky.

>>150541
No, you also have to opt in because it isn't just an increased to YOU and YOUR HEALTH and finances. You are putting everyone else at risk as well because if you get sick without insurance, we STILL have to foot the bill for your treatment when you seek it out at an emergency room, and it will be MORE expensive for us to do so if you don't have insurance, because insurance companies negotiate lower prices with hospitals for treatments, whereas they can charge an individual whatever the fuck.

This is honestly why we need a single-payer system. Healthcare isn't like other markets because every one will be treated for catastrophic illness even if they can't pay for it.

>>150549
>>150546
I don't give a fuck about anyone elses health and I don't need anyone to give a shit about mine. What is this, a fucking ant colony?

>>150559
It doesn't matter because we HAVE to give a shit about yours and you HAVE to give a shit about ours, because when either of us end up at the fucking emergency room we get treated on the tax payer dime, and it's MORE expensive for everyone involved if you aren't insured you mongrel. I don't know how many more times I can repeat this before it finally sinks in.

>>150560
Why? Health isn't a right and your only argument is we have to opt into a ponzi scheme to offset the cost.

Some people are winning in this system, most are losing

>>150561
>Health isn't a right

Ok nevermind, there's no point in having this conversation. The entire industrialized West aside from the US has agreed that it is, so the burden of proof is on y'all, not us.

>>150559
If you aren't treated, you'll get worse. Maybe you shrug something off, but then come down with an infection. You don't want them to take care of you yet, but the pain becomes so great that you end up going to the hospital anyway. Eventually your hard attitude is overcome by your biological drive to survive. At that point they have to use more expensive techniques and resources to make you recover, let alone survive, than they would have needed after the initial accident. We're again saving our own wallets by treating you pre-emptively. Maybe you die anyway, and who pays for the disposal of your body? If you're broke, we have to pay some guy to drive your ass to some contaminated dump to drop your corpse off. Even in that best case scenario, it still costs us some money, and we would never do that because of the disease risks. Disposing of a corpse is still a somewhat expensive proposition.

No matter how you slice it, we need to have it this way. It's just a fact of reality. Your only option is to hide out innawoods so no one knows you exist in the first place. But if you want to be a part of society and enjoy things like Internet and food you didn't grow yourself, you unfortunately have to accept all the responsibilities that come with it.

>>150562
Lol you don't have a right to be health that's retarded. Some people have better genes and some people get unlucky. Even more decide to live lifestyles that have detrimental effects on their health, and some even result in disease and the requirement to take life sustaining drugs.

Food is a necessity for life, as is a certain amount of health treatment. Should the government mandate free food for all, subsidized by farmers and food processors in addition to the taxpayer?

Are we then to say that we are owed the knowledge and skills of the doctor and surgeon - that they aren't selling a service to make a living, but rather they are doing their duty by keeping people healthy (regardless of how they choose to live).

Insurance is a gamble - I will let go of some money now so I don't rack up debt if I have an emergency. If you never have an emergency, all is well but now you have less money. Mandating insurance totally defeats the purpose of insurance, and makes it "communal distributism of goods" for the "betterment of the whole". Nevermind that those who work hard will get fucked and those who live slovenly, unhealthy lives will be rewarded.

The whole idea is detrimental and will lead to Communism.

>>150569
...so, you didn't read any of the posts in the thread apart from that one sentence? Thanks for your signfiicant intellectual contributions here.

>>150569
fuck you faggot

>>150577
Salt is not a right either, but it certainly is nice

>>150569
when will people stop believing the myth that hard work is the only factor in success
if that was true I think there'd be a lot less white men running the world, but I might be crazy

>>150598

Hard work is definitely a factor, but talent and luck are also key components to success. For instance, it doesn't matter how skilled and hard working you are if you catch a disease that kills you or get into a car accident. These are things outside of our control, and risk management skill can only help you to a point, after which it's still a dice roll.

>>150608
so what's wrong with having the government reduce the risks of some of those dice rolls? Especially when life and death is concerned? In principle. we can argue about execution for ages, but it seems like people are more opposed to universal healthcare in any shape or form.

>>150598
Haha what a cuck

>>150610

I'm not that guy (>>150569), I'm actually in agreement with you.

>>150610
Because dice rolls are what make life worth living

>>150598
Start up the rotors

>>150475

>The ACA has caused a significant reduction in the number of people without health insurance

>make it illegal not to have insurance
>people buy insurance to avoid penalty
>SEE GUYS? IT HALPED PEOPLE!

>>150618
Except a lot of those people make so little money they would've been exempt from the penalty anyway. And if you make a lot and really just hate health insurance, it's probably cheaper just to pay the penalty.

>>150624
Most Americans don't like Obamacare, including liberals. It was rammed through without popular support and ended up sucking dick.

I don't see why paying a fine is ok, it's not. You shouldn't be punished for not wanting to be part of this wealth redistribution program

>>150626
>It was rammed through without popular support and ended up sucking dick.

I think this is misleading.

A small subset of Americans did see their costs increase from what they would otherwise be without the ACA.

In particular, younger and healthy Americans who wouldn't buy insurance or would only buy very limited and cheap policies. Of course, if they did encounter catastrophic illness, they would probably end up in the emergency room. Prior to the ACA, that still meant taxpayers would be on the hook for whatever emergency coverage they couldn't afford. Unless they were part of the small subset of young American that could afford comprehensive insurance after a major incident, they wouldn't be able to afford any sort of preventative care and would have to rely on emergency care at public expense.

A small subset of Americans who weren't young and healthy also saw their premiums rise from what they'd otherwise be, and that was largely because the Dems wanted to regulate which regions that insurers would be able to lock out but a Republican controlled legislature wouldn't allow that. Which meant some folks did have to change their providers or were on exchanges with only one plan.

Even then, for most Americans, the ACA was beneficial all around. They saw their costs decrease from what estimated cost otherwise would be, and their lifetime and yearly benefits cap and mandated coverage increase, dedictibles decrease, and preexisting condition to no longer be valid grounds for denial of coverage, to the point where everyone was essentially guaranteed full coverage regardless of their income and catastrophic illness they encountered.

Among this crowd, some still found the bill unpopular because they were expecting it to lower premiums even further or because they were ideologically opposed to it. For liberals because many liberals were expecting Obama and the Dems would pass a public option or single payer.

(continuing)

So to say the ACA was simply unpopular is I think misleading, because most folks still thought it was a clear step in the right direction. They were expecting we would build on it or transition to a single-payer or public option to control costs. When the prospect of something far worse came up, most folks started to approve of the status quo with the ACA.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/affordable-care-act-gains-majority-approval-first-time.aspx

>>150640

The average cost to an American family was 25% premium increase under Obamacare

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article110203782.html

As time goes on and rates increase, Americans opinions on Obamacare have become increasingly negative

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/04/opinions-on-obamacare-remain-divided-along-party-lines-as-supreme-court-hears-new-challenge/

One of the main reasons Obamacare remains popular amoung the left is that they see it as a legacy bill for the left, and anything the GOP / Trump put out is opposition. Amoung independents and right wingers it's a trash bill.

>>150642
>The average cost to an American family was 25% premium increase under Obamacare
simply not true
>The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans.
>unless they switch plans.
This was the entire purpose of the exchanges.

>As time goes on and rates increase, Americans opinions on Obamacare have become increasingly negative

First of all, rates increase anyway. According to the CBO, rate increases under Obamacare were projected to happen much the same regardless of the ACA
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf

Even so, some rate increases had nothing to do with the law itself as republicans refused to legislate or renew programs that initially kept costs down.

>One of the main reasons Obamacare remains popular amoung the left is that they see it as a legacy bill for the left, and anything the GOP / Trump put out is opposition.

Obamacare is popular because it solved the problem of lack of effective and affordable health insurance for the working class. As in, health insurance that does what it does in most of the civilized world: guarantee affordable coverage in case of catastrophic illness, i.e. what useful insurance is meant to do.
Improve productivity and piece of mind by giving people access to preventative care when they were otherwise too much of a liability for private insurance to want to cover, rather than arbitrary as fuck policy of only emergency care guaranteed by taxpayers.

>Amoung independents and right wingers it's a trash bill.
Among a minority of folks with ideological bone to pick.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/affordable-care-act-gains-majority-approval-first-time.aspx

>>150626
>rammed through without popular support and ended up sucking dick.
this is particularly misleading.

>In 2012, 51% of Wisconsin voters cast ballots for Democrats in the state legislative races, compared with 48.6% for Republicans. But Republicans still won 60 of the 99 seats in the Assembly.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gerrymander-wisconsin-20170619-story.html

Our elections are grossly undemocratic; most folks wanted Democrats to stay in power and fix the bill, but Republicans broke our system of congressional elections.

Even if they're so callous that they don't care about people not getting needed healthcare because they can't avoid it and/or going into debt five or six figures into debt for getting care, I don't get how anti-universal healthcare people look past the benefits of having a healthy populace.

If people don't get healthcare, then more people are sick. Sick people spread illness to others. This reduces productivity. Sick people either miss work or go to work at a lower efficiency and possibly get other people sick and continues the cycle. It also tangles up resources that wouldn't have been spent if the initial people had care that could have nipped the illness in the bud. Because a lot of stuff only gets worse when you let it go untreated.

As for people who DO get the care and end up in debt for it, that's less money they're contributing the economy. They can't buy consumer products, real estate, make investments, start their own business, pay for higher education, etc because that money is going toward paying horribly inflated medical bills. If people are buying and investing less, then the economy suffers.

Public health affects the whole country.

>>150645
>>150644
Why are liberals so smug in the face of resounding evidence contrary to their perception?

>>150647
Thats stupid logic. "Muh benefits of a healthy population".

That's like saying "can you imagine how much better it would be if everyone had a great paying job, we should just garantee that" or "wow free college would make everyone smart with no debt"

It's an oversimplified view that completely ignores that complex ramifications of money and value transfer and the specific roles, values, needs, and wants of the individual. If you continue to transfer the responsibility of health, wealth, and education from the individual to "society" (the state) then you remove the motivators and value of those factors to a government that can't possibly know what is best for the individual in question, so it will make sweeping generalizations for the sake of simplification and effeciency.

You can't make legislation based on feelies. No matter how sensible this stuff sounds, it's going to result in abysmal failure and depressing mediocrity and eventually it will collapse.

>>150667
Funny how several developed nations not only have universal healthcare and free college, but also get better results while paying less money per person. But I guess that fact hurts your feelies.

>>150667
Your analogies are doing the oversimplifying.

>You can't make legislation based on feelies.

"Feelies" are important with respect to quality of life. It's important that society be able to deliver as high a quality of life to its citizens as possible. And the more money you have, the less each extra dollar impacts quality of life. But that's far from the only consideration. You can subtract that from the equation altogether and universal healthcare would still be the most sensible approach.

>No matter how sensible this stuff sounds, it's going to result in abysmal failure and depressing mediocrity and eventually it will collapse.

Nobody is doing this, to say economic interest wasn't a consideration is just false. It was the greatest consideration with respect to reform.

Universal health insurance coverage has major implications with respect to quality of life, piece of mind, worker productivity, and ability to make for a more meritocratic system wherein people aren't restricted from working where their skills are best leveraged on the basis what which insurance policies are offered.

Allowing people access to taxpayer subsidized emergency care without any guarantee of preventative care was arbitrary and counterproductive as hell. Financially it makes absolutely no sense.

And if we're talking about single-payer healthcare or a public option, then an insurance pool that can include everyone has massive negotiating power for managing costs.

>it's going to result in abysmal failure and depressing mediocrity and eventually it will collapse.
Almost every developed economy has a more sophisticated health insurance system designed to approach universal health insurance coverage. It's only in the US where we have so many myopic folks that see sensible government involvement as a march toward communism or some nonsense.

>>150672
Those countries won't be around for long lol. Democratic socialism / EU is in the economic tank and refugees are sucking them dry / fucking up their shit

>>150487
ACA was never meant to be a perfect solution, but the lack of state-by-state exchanges and GOP insistence on doing nothing until they had a supermajority kinda scrambled that.