1) Create bill that raises taxes.
2) When someone wants to repeal it, complain that it is a tax cut even though it simply is getting rid of the taxes that only were raised because of the bill that was passed.

Concentrate on the idea that people will lose coverage(even in the flawed ways that many Democrats are doing it).

Imagine our dumb President and dumb Congress taxed income UNDER 100k at 95%, and then the Democrats came in in 2020 and repealed that. Would that also be a tax cut?

1) Create bill that raises taxes.
2) When someone wants to repeal it, complain that it is a tax cut even though it simply is getting rid of the taxes that only were raised because of the bill that was passed.

Concentrate on the idea that people will lose coverage(even in the flawed ways that many Democrats are doing it).

Imagine our dumb President and dumb Congress taxed income UNDER 100k at 95%, and then the Democrats came in in 2020 and repealed that. Would that also be a tax cut?

Yes, that would be a taxcut for the middle class and very welcome by most people.

Its not that it's a tax cut. It's who is getting their taxes cut.

And the tax cut for the rich is only the second half. If taxes for rich were being cut and everyone was keeping their coverage, no one would complain.

Yes, that would be a taxcut for the middle class and very welcome by most people.

Its not that it's a tax cut. It's who is getting their taxes cut.

And the tax cut for the rich is only the second half. If taxes for rich were being cut and everyone was keeping their coverage, no one would complain.

Did you even read the CNN article I just posted about the taxes that may be cut? If many of the taxes in the ACA hit the rich would it not stand to reason that repealing them would therefore benefit them? If MY taxes were not raised by the ACA why the hell would MY taxes be cut during its repeal?

Here is another article I just read from USA Today. It says it ran last week. In it it tries to spell out what happens to you the regular guy with repeal plan as it was then. Nowhere is there a big complaint that somehow the low and middle class loses out due to repealing taxes on the rich and employers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 487904001/

I think people shouldnt lose coverage. The secondary part is, well it sucks to lose coverage if the only true benefit will be to wealthy people.

This gets into the larger point and the far more concerning point. Once someone has a "government benefit" it's very hard if not impossible to take it away no matter how poorly the actual system is going. This is why the Democrats are sitting there saying "No changes at all to anything" and putting the Republicans in an unwinnable situation. The next time they are in power they will look to expand it and then the process repeats until every one of us has to rely on the government for our health or literally give up our benefits to pay for it on our own and double pay for health insurance.

I wish the Republican plan were better but I also understand that Obamacare was a trojan horse for single payer healthcare which is something Obama literally said before he became a probable Presidential candidate.

Well said. I would also add that the reason this has become such a complicated issue is that mandating insurance coverage -- with no lifetime caps, no limits on pre-existing conditions, free contraception with zero copays, outlawing of basic catastrophic plans, and zero incentives for consumers to even question the prices on treatments and medicines-- has been an enormous windfall for the health care industry. If you look at Lasik, which is not covered by insurance, the prices have come down almost to the point of absurdity (I've seen as low as $250). This is SOLELY because people must elect to pay for it out of their own pocket. If Lasik was covered by Obamacare, there is no doubt the price would have stayed in the thousands of dollars, or even increased.

The dirty little secret is that the biggest losers in an Obamacare repeal would not be poor patients (though obviously they would be affected), but healthcare providers.

Well said. I would also add that the reason this has become such a complicated issue is that mandating insurance coverage -- with no lifetime caps, no limits on pre-existing conditions, free contraception with zero copays, outlawing of basic catastrophic plans, and zero incentives for consumers to even question the prices on treatments and medicines-- has been an enormous windfall for the health care industry. If you look at Lasik, which is not covered by insurance, the prices have come down almost to the point of absurdity (I've seen as low as $250). This is SOLELY because people must elect to pay for it out of their own pocket. If Lasik was covered by Obamacare, there is no doubt the price would have stayed in the thousands of dollars, or even increased.

The dirty little secret is that the biggest losers in an Obamacare repeal would not be poor patients (though obviously they would be affected), but healthcare providers.

The biggest mistake in our healthcare system (also applies to college tuition) is that you have de-linked the costs of services with the payor. People don't even know or understand what everything costs, and in many cases really don't care. When was the last time you walked into a doctor's office and saw prices posted? Imagine going to Amazon.com, a restaurant, or a grocery store where you need to buy something, and you didn't learn the prices for what you purchase until 30 days later.

I think people care very very much what things cost, but like you said, wouldn't get a straight answer if they asked up front.

On the other hand, how much time should a sick person reasonably have to spend shopping around between various MRI providers? Shouldn't someone just go get an MRI? It's not like buying a TV.

How long would it take you to figure out what the cost of that procedure is from multiple MRI vendors? If you called, the first question they would ask is, "who is your insurer?" Which of course, why does your insurer matter in terms of how much the procedure costs?

The entire problem with the system is that people do not care what things cost, which is why our system costs twice as much as the next closest system on the planet.

Healthcare definitely should be like Amazon or a restaurant.

I have this shooting pain in my chest but no way am I springing 5 grand for a fucking MRI. Gimme that 32 dollar aspirin instead.

No it costs twice as much because the industry is built on profit. A drug that cost $4 is dispensed in the hospital at a cost of $100.

Bryan, you are getting caught up in another poster's wake who cried about tax cuts for the rich after it began being discussed yesterday evening. I think I made my point clear enough that taxes that would be repealed are not just some gift to the rich republicans.

I digress though and say that Rick is correct in if you want to disagree with the current repeal efforts look at coverage not taxes. From that point I made my opinion that you could repeal the ACA (which in my opinion is not working) and start from scratch better.

I got heat for that as I was not able to effectively explain that in my world you could buffer the effect of lost coverage in some manner between the ACA and a new plan. In the usual manner it is expected of me to have all the answers. Well guess what I am not in government and all I have to do is have my opinion. It is the job of the elected officials to implement those opinions or desires of the majority of their constituencies.

Everyone knows I despise the ACA and particularly how it was passed. Of course that makes me a killer of poor people and gift giver to the ultra rich. I will repeat what I said when all of this started years ago. It would have been cheaper, more effective and less cumbersome on the whole if the government simply gave all uncovered people a check for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Now we have a bad benefit we are stuck with that in all likelihood will never be fully repealed nor will it be fully fixed.

In closing my comments on the subject it affects me minimally at best and I think we are fucked in all sorts of directions because the country went down this road as it has done.

Dan Bernstein‏Verified account @dan_bernstein
Don't let this be watered down into being about "unity." It's a vital protest of racist policing, & now of a white-supremacist president.

Preview of next week's shows. A liberal host with plenty of name calling, and little facts.

He is correct.

No, he's not. "White supremacist" has different meanings. Bernstein is smuggling in one meaning when he really means (and can provide reasonable evidence for) another. He knows better and, more to the point, he calls people out on this rhetorical fudging all the time.

Either way, Trump's a jag.