GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Oerets

After learning of the changes put forth. I fail to see any cost reductions, only increases.
Removing the mandate a 30% increase for a break in coverage? Not enough to cover preexisting conditions or lifetime cap removals. A tax break based on age instead of a subsidy for any who qualify? Those the most in need of assistance receive little to none.

Removing restrictions on profits tells me the only ones to save money will be the providers. Saving more for themselves!



Barney

It is basically a tax cut for the wealthy. My cynical belief is that no one is really serious about passing it because the GOP would be cut down in 2018 so they have come out with a bill that is doomed from the beginning. They want Schumer to filibuster so they can throw that bone to the Trump supporters in their districts who are now on the ACA. "Look its not our fault Schumer filibustered it" with crocodile tears and a secret sigh or relief. "We will get it next time!"

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

It is basically a tax cut for the wealthy.

Yes, this is a Dem talking point. But exactly how is this a "tax cut for the wealthy"? I can see how the potential rollback of the additional Medicare tax surcharge might be seen as a "tax cut for the wealthy", but that's a tiny piece of the proposed legislation, and might not be needed anyway since the small business tax credit gets axed.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, this is a Dem talking point. But exactly how is this a "tax cut for the wealthy"? I can see how the potential rollback of the additional Medicare tax surcharge might be seen as a "tax cut for the wealthy", but that's a tiny piece of the proposed legislation, and might not be needed anyway since the small business tax credit gets axed.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...307-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.40aeaae67233

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...307-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.40aeaae67233

So, you're not able to answer the question, just recycle talking points? Yes, the Trib and WaPo are simply regurgitating Dem talking points.

The articles you posted cite the Medicare surcharge as an example of a tax cut for the rich. In my post above, I recognized this but also cited the Small Business Tax cut, which would be rolled back under the proposed legislation. Neither you or the articles you cited address this.

So, I'll ask again - how is this a tax cut for the wealthy?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, I'll ask again - how is this a tax cut for the wealthy?

Among other things,

House Republicans plan to eliminate nearly every tax increase that was included included in the ACA, many of which were levied on high-income earners. Democrats insist that some tax increases were necessary to offset the cost of expanding coverage and overhauling the health-care system to ensure people received a minimum level of coverage.

Republicans say they’ve found a way to pay for wider coverage that doesn’t include taxes on the on the rich, which are the backbone of the current system. The new GOP plan would repeal two of the biggest-ticket taxes in the ACA: a 3.8 percent tax on investment income; and a 0.9 percent levy on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250, 000 for married couples filing jointly. Those two taxes hit fewer than four million households making up the top 2.5 percent of taxpayers, according to IRS data.

“Those taxes raise over $300 billion over a decade,” said Scott Greenberg, an analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation “The impacts of those taxes are largely on high-income households.”

Wealthy earners would also benefit from a rule to halve the penalty on using money from a Health Savings Accounts on expenses not related to health care”. Current limits allow individuals to directly transfer up to $3,400, and families up to $6,750, into an HSA without paying any taxes on the income.

“They’re very attractive to highly compensated individuals who have already maxed out other tax-preferred retirement plans,” said Gordon Mermin, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center. “They can use it in retirement as a retirement account. If it turns out they have health expenses and use it for that, then they’re not paying tax at all.”

Wealthy people already make up the majority of people using the accounts. Families earning over $60,000 made up nearly 65 percent of the total that contributed in 2014, according to recent data from the Treasury Department. Nearly two-thirds of those people earned between $75,000 and $200,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ans-for-taxes/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Among other things,

House Republicans plan to eliminate nearly every tax increase that was included included in the ACA, many of which were levied on high-income earners. Democrats insist that some tax increases were necessary to offset the cost of expanding coverage and overhauling the health-care system to ensure people received a minimum level of coverage.

Republicans say they’ve found a way to pay for wider coverage that doesn’t include taxes on the on the rich, which are the backbone of the current system. The new GOP plan would repeal two of the biggest-ticket taxes in the ACA: a 3.8 percent tax on investment income; and a 0.9 percent levy on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250, 000 for married couples filing jointly. Those two taxes hit fewer than four million households making up the top 2.5 percent of taxpayers, according to IRS data.

“Those taxes raise over $300 billion over a decade,” said Scott Greenberg, an analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation “The impacts of those taxes are largely on high-income households.”

Wealthy earners would also benefit from a rule to halve the penalty on using money from a Health Savings Accounts on expenses not related to health care”. Current limits allow individuals to directly transfer up to $3,400, and families up to $6,750, into an HSA without paying any taxes on the income.

“They’re very attractive to highly compensated individuals who have already maxed out other tax-preferred retirement plans,” said Gordon Mermin, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center. “They can use it in retirement as a retirement account. If it turns out they have health expenses and use it for that, then they’re not paying tax at all.”

Wealthy people already make up the majority of people using the accounts. Families earning over $60,000 made up nearly 65 percent of the total that contributed in 2014, according to recent data from the Treasury Department. Nearly two-thirds of those people earned between $75,000 and $200,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ans-for-taxes/

Do you actually read what you post, or are you just comfortable spouting Dem talking points as recycled by WaPo?

The first focus is of the WaPo piece is the Medicare surcharge. We've already dealt with that, and I still don't have a response to the question I asked.

The second part of - the paragraph highlighted above - is astonishing to me. Now we're defining "wealthy" as folks with earnings in the $60 - $75K range? Really???

Also, this income comparison of individuals who don't have HSA's is very misleading. Individuals on Medicaid - low income - are not going to participate in these plans. Individuals on Medicare are not allowed to contribute to HSA's. That removes a whole lot of samples from the statistics. You've also got to subtract union workers because HSA's aren't generally offered under union health plans. Finally, not every employer offers health savings plans. Of employers offering health plans to employees, just over half also offered a "high deductible health plan". Individuals who aren't enrolled in HDHP's cannot contribute to HSA's.

The point is that the comparison is apples and oranges.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Do you actually read what you post, or are you just comfortable spouting Dem talking points as recycled by WaPo?

Just to make it easy on you as you ape Paul Ryan's disingenuous talking points, TrumpRyanCare is a stingier version of Obamacare that cuts taxes on the rich, cuts Medicaid, and cuts subsidies for lower earners while introducing them for some higher ones. It's opposed by liberals and far-right conservatives alike, along with the AMA, AARP, Heritage, Club for Growth, and bunches of others. You can cheer-lead all you want, but this plan is going nowhere.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, I'll ask again - how is this a tax cut for the wealthy?

The Joint Committee for Taxation calls TrumpCare a $600 Billion tax break for corporations and the wealthy.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...rich/98866386/

Paul Ryan admitted as much in an interview with Tucker Carlson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...e_wealthy.html

Whell, it seems you, Trump and Ryan are the only people left supporting TrumpCare. Congratulations on the company you keep.

[JCricket]

Just a thought..........

What if way back when, when the AHCA was at it's design stage, the republicans that were in congress had gotten on board and tried to design a decent plan. What if they had tried to make something that would work instead of trying to block, sabatoge and destroy the Act? I wonder what the plan would have looked like?

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Just a thought..........

What if way back when, when the AHCA was at it's design stage, the republicans that were in congress had gotten on board and tried to design a decent plan. What if they had tried to make something that would work instead of trying to block, sabatoge and destroy the Act? I wonder what the plan would have looked like?

I wonder what America would look like, if way back in the 80's republicans had worked to make it better instead of trying to block, sabotage and destroy all the good things we had going for us for the benefit of the 1%?