Why would I do that?
Kady M.
81

You “skewered” nothing. In fact, you repeated right-wing propaganda that was explicitly designed to make people think, “don’t worry, the atrocious bill they just passed isn’t that atrocious!”

In virtually every state in which a “high risk pool” has been established, it hasn’t worked because it’s remained underfunded. That is precisely what would happen here. Eight billion is a drop in the proverbial bucket — it doesn’t come close to being enough to fund high risk pools for all the states that would need them — and when one considers nearly one trillion cut from medicaid, it makes that paltry number even more starkly inadequate.

The argument seems to be, “hey, they can waive out, but they won’t!” This is not true (and obviates the need for the amendment in the first place). They absolutely would opt out — several have already indicated as much — and they would set up a farcical “high risk pool” that would go unfunded within a year, because the amount set aside is woefully inadequate. By that time, there is no way to “unwaive” the waiver and set things back to how they were before, the insurance industry and actuarial systems cannot function under such uncertainty, and millions and millions would be left SOL. These are people with preexisting conditions. It seems quite clear to me that you don’t actually know what is in this bill beyond partisan claptrap set forth in a few Lowry articles, yet you fancy yourself an expert. That’s pretty sad.

And your response to the other person’s observation that this will cut almost a trillion from medicaid? “Well there are always winners and losers!” That is not a response. That is a pitiful deflection. In this case, the losers are the poorest, sickest, and disabled among us, and your response is, “yeah, well, deal with it.” How crude. How cruel and unusual.

Not only that, but the way they have the reimbursements set up (the tax credits), they have cut them so drastically that one cannot reasonably expect them to cover any legitimate plan. They cap out at $4k; that’s simply not enough. Moreover, they’ve tied those credits to age rather than need, such that those who show a financial need for more credits won’t get them, while an older individual can get the full $4k regardless of how wealthy he or she is. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It’s designed so badly that it would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

And that 30% premium increase? Rather than going back into a pool to be used for others in the future (as with the penalty attached to the mandate), that 30% goes straight into the pockets of the for-profit health insurance administration. One couldn’t conceive of a larger transfer of wealth from the people to a private, for-profit company than this. It is mind-boggling. You’re paying the penalty to the health insurance industry, and it’s a penalty mandated by law rather than calculated by actuarial numbers determined by the companies. It makes less than no sense.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are and how terrible this bill is, but you seem more concerned about denigrating “fake news.” Shame on you for being uninformed (yet thinking you are).

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.