TrumpCare
 

Has anyone found a good summary of the GOP's proposed plan? This one has some interesting stuff, including removal of a cap on CEO salaries.

I also found an article yesterday (can't find it now) saying that six pages of the proposed plan have to do with denying a subsidy to anyone who wins a lottery. Six pages.

This must have something to do with news awhile back about a lottery winner who still qualified for food assistance.

And I've heard that the new plan includes a work requirement. I don't know if the plan also includes support for that work requirement -- like job training, transportation, child care, etc.

God forbid a poor person gets something for nothing. :(

I've seen a number of articles on Vox discussing some of the more common elements (penalties, tax breaks, etc.). I haven't seen anything about a work requirement.

Did you hear that Fox News basically implied that poor people can't be that bad off since most of them have refrigerators?

Not all poor are created equal.

What's wrong with requiring someone to work for their food and housing? I do it, not because I'm required by the state, but by my conscience.

Why can't folks who are able to work be required to do so?

Hell, FDR did it...

I did. I also heard yesterday than all poor people should stop buying iphones and use the money instead for health insurance: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...lthcare-iphone

I think one of the reasons for this is they need to draw a real wide line between a poor schnook winning a lottery, and some wealthy puke inheriting the family fortune. The two are pretty much the same in practice so they need to dig a moat between them on paper. Besides, the multicolor crayon font needs a lot of white space.

Here is the full text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...-bill/277/text

I actually enjoy reading this crap so I definitely have my evenings planned for the next few days weeks!

One oversimplified analysis I read boiled down to:
* The top one percent by income will get big boosts. (I note in passing that it seems to me most lottery winners are not in the top 1% of income before they win that jackpot nor afterwards, just for the time when that jackpot counts as income.)
* The bottom 50% or more are going to get screwed more than an Ikea cabinet.

Curiously, the bulk of the Donald's popular support was from that bottom 50%. I wonder if any Trumpists are going to decide that this is what wakes them up.

Can anybody provide reliable cites to correct what I've stated here? Pretty please? PLEEEEEEEASE?

I saw it called "DonTCare" this morning. I believe that, henceforth, that shall be it's name.

Someone who's "able" isn't necessarily going to find work -- for many reasons -- and I don't want to see them go without health care.

Well, FDR did it by providing the jobs, and moreover by providing jobs that gave a direct, concrete return of public value for the public expenditure. Some of that CCC infrastructure, for example, had fantastically great ROI, outliving its builders as it continued to support transport, recreation, and economic development for the rest of the century.

Help me here. What do CEO salary caps and making the richest richer have fuck-all to do with health care?

Whut??

QFT. I'm all for peeps having to work, IF there are jobs out there for them to do. We clearly need a massive investment in our crumbling infrastructure about now--it'd be a great way to get many Americans back to work--at a LIVING WAGE.

A cell phone is not a luxury item, GOP. For some, it's their only connection to the internet, computers being a luxury item (or at least priced like they are).


That Utah Congressman is stupider than a box of hair.

That mean old America-hating Obama put a cap on their asses.

Ah. Not, of course, that the execs would ever cheat themselves out of the raises they had "earned". So it was just another tax; too small, alas, to make a dent in our busted budget.


From Jag's cite:

And to think that E.F. Schumacher once suggested a spread of 14-1.

I'm not crying for the CEOs but I wonder how much bigger a corporation the average CEO is overseeing these days versus the old days of 46-1. In theory, if CEOs actually make a difference based on pay, then good CEOs add more value to large companies than small companies and so the higher pay is justified since they are overseeing larger companies.

In reality, of course, while there are certainly good CEOs, often CEO compensation is not tied to their abilities, even with stock options which not only reward short term performance but also are frequently repriced if the share value falls, which is the worst of both worlds since it encourages short term gain with no downsides for failure.

Their choice. If you can work, you should.

I'm pretty liberal about recognizing conditions that prevent one from working. I'm very understanding about disabilities that, while not obvious or even visible, prevent one from keeping gainful employment.

My point exactly.

I agree with Plink in principle, but the difference between "able" and "capable" is great. There are issues such as a person's physical or emotional ability to do specific type of work which might not be available to them. In this case, is the government supposed to assume care of this person, to provide them with jobs that are within their specific skill set? Or should it be left to the marketplace to develop the field to fit these skills?

I've seen multiple articles saying that the new bill will give insurers the ability to charge higher premiums (up to 30% higher) for enrollees who have not had any insurance coverage in the last 62 days. They are saying that this is the individual mandate in a different set of clothes (although this "penalty" is going to the insurance companies and not the government - I wonder who lobbied for that provision!). But when I read through the bill, I can't find the language that would allow for it (and none of the articles I've read have a specific cite). Any ideas on how I could find it in the original bill?

I'm also not seeing any specifics in the bill on the tax credits that everyone is writing about.

The Obamacare bill was so much easier to read.

Another issue is that there are some people we don't want in the workforce, so it's better for all of us to just pay them to stay home.

It's become routine to see stuff in the news about home health aides, nursing home staff, and child care workers who are abusing the people in their care. Many of those workers are fulfilling the work requirement necessary for various forms of public assistance.

damn, I never thought of that.

and those jobs are always looking for employees. :(

Are you referring to antisocial types who rub their colleagues the wrong way? I suppose having them work from home would be preferential, if their field allowed such provisions.

No, not referring to them. The antisocial, we will always have with us. :)

We're talking about a work requirement for TrumpCare.

You don't have to put them in charge of anybody. There's always a roadside that needs cleaning up and weed whacking.

Nobody uses prisoners for that anymore? Or juveniles doing their community service?

Even low-skilled jobs -- if not done well, by people who have no stake -- have consequences.

How about the food industry? Full of low-skilled jobs and unmotivated workers, and the results are contaminated food.

I personally believe that there are constructive ways to deal with people who just plain don't want to pull their own weight. But perhaps all that might be a bit far afield for this thread.

Over the next ten to fifteen years more and more people won't be able to find work that pays. Not just sorry asses but people who want to do something constructive with their time. If they are left to fend for themselves with no way of earning income they will drop out of the economy. Refugee camps kept out of walled communities at gunpoint. The rich will live in automated wealth with no real reason that automation couldn't provide for all. Guarantee everyone a comfortable income, education and healthcare, and most will find constructive things to do. Create content, innovate, invest, be political, have hobbies, travel, socialize and all the things people dream of doing if they had the time. And yes some will do nothing but sit at home, jerk off and troll the internet.

That's the problem for some folks. But this percentage of useless masturbating internet voyagers is so vanishingly small as to literally not have an impact on the big picture. But it's all certain groups (not naming names, but they're usually republicans) tend to harp on. The welfare queens, the layabouts, blah blah blah.

Even the greatest of ocean going vessels will have barnacles. Those barnacles do not really impact the voyage or the lives of the passengers on the ship. And before you say "but that's why we scrape barnacles off! so we should scrape those people off too?!?" No...it would be more analagous to say if the barnacles never exceeded a certain amount, you'd never bother to take them off because it's not worth the effort.

So it goes with the lazy, the incompetent, the stupid, the belligerent and selfish. Those who cannot or will not contribute. (or just those who you may perceive that way even though they're not really) Who cares - let them be - they're not really hurting anything. There aren't enough of them to matter. Focus more on your contribution than the contributions of others and stop whining just because someone else ALSO got what you have!

What gets me are the greedy, utter idiots who would love to end Social Security outright so they can put those "payroll taxes" in their own pockets. I don't know how many of the 56 million now getting checks would suddenly be destitute. Ten million, maybe? (Comparison: about half a million people are homeless now.) Can you say societal collapse?

I found a better (more readable) version of the bill: https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

The far right Republicans -- who strongly overlap with the Tea Party movement -- are openly challenging Paul Ryan for the AhCA being insufficiently different from the ACA.

I read an analysis that the far right / Tea Party knows only how to obstruct and fight -- and that they root for the Donald, so they are almost forced to mess with Congress.

Fun times!

I hope they make the plan go up in flames.:harumph:

Why should they work for minimum wage when public assistance pays so much more? Or should public assistance pay less than minimum wage? What if they're single moms with no access to day care (happens a lot right here in River City, as you may know)?

The problem isn't giving the poor something for nothing. The problem is offering the poor nothing but poverty. You can work your ass off and still be too poor to buy food and medicine.

Politifact rates that one as "Mostly False"

Numbers may vary state-by-state, but in general, the line that the poor won't work because they make too much money doesn't pass the smell test.

Which plan? ACA? AhCA? Obstruct everything? Or some other vast eternal plan?

That problem has a simple and effective solution. Free daycare should be available in every town for any brat over about 2 years old. Free food should be available at municipal soup kitchens in every town. Free housing should be available in male and female barracks. Existing bus service should be funded and expanded for free transportation in every town above 10,000 population. Free wifi should be available at all of the above locations and in town centers. Cops and cameras make sure you are safe and/or keep you from causing trouble. Free basic health care for all. And that is the total scope of public assistance.

These services should be free to all on a walk-in basis. Anyone who shows up except wanted criminals. The program would directly address the true need and be cheap enough to offer to all without sinking the republic. It would also help the people who need it the most while providing incentive for people who can work to do so. Go ahead and use the program to go to college or go on permanent vacation, that's totally fine. People who truly need these things would be grateful. You'll be able to tell the chiselers by the whining. Either way, anyone who wants more can damn well work for it.

Well, this would represent a serious public safety net, to be sure. It would also be way more than we do for poor folks now. It would also mean significant new bureaucracies to build and run these services across thousands of towns. I reckon you meant the "simple" part less than seriously.

On a dollar basis I'm not so sure. No section 8 housing, no paying anyone's rent, no goverment cheese, no food stamps, etc. No homeless desperados means less prostitution and reduced property crime. More people getting jobs and paying taxes. If you add it up I think a program like this just might break even.

How does the US compare with other countries, as far as providing a safety net?

Watching British TV/movies and reading British novels over the years, I hear about families being "on the dole". How does that work?

My point wasn't that welfare is a a boon. My point is that wages for all but the highly-skilled, well-educated or fortunately-sired are embarrassingly low. Single moms in my town are lucky to make between $9 and $10 an hour. Subtract cost of living and day care and you have to make a decision -- food or electricity?

And I agree with that. Probably the best thing that could happen to the economy in its present state is a rise in wages, even accounting for the inflation that would cause. I just don't agree with the notion that people on public assistance make more than minimum wage; it was just some minor pedantry on my part, not contesting the overall message.

Meanwhile, here, in the Great State of Washington, my dumbass, poverty stricken, republican, Trump-supporting neighbor is complaining because the Social Security COLA sucks, people (other than her - she deserves them) use food stamps and the newly increased state minimum wage means that she is making the same as the burger flippers in her part-time gig as a janitor at the local clinic.

She worked HARD to get the $1 over minimum that she had before. Her wages have gone up 53 cents per hour because of the state mandated $11. She's bitching because now she's making minimum wage again.

Uhhm. 53 cent raise. Not enough, but it's a good start.

I cannot wrap my head around the mental gymnastics/malfunctioning it takes to come to that conclusion.

[QUOTE=eleanorigby;1352618]He probably has no conception of what it is like to poor.

Chaffetz may also lack perspective on the actual costs of health care, and/or smartphones, given that he himself pays regular price for neither (Congressional "gold level" health plans are subsidized, and they get their iPhones free).

Note to self: no longer use colorful colloquialisms here. :rigs:

As a Republican, I'm admitting that the current plan running through Congress is terrible, and that Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself.

I thank the House Freedom Caucus and Rand Paul and Mike Lee, as well as other principled Republicans, standing up to this garbage Obamacare-lite. I have faith they'll come up with an excellent ObamaCare repeal-and-replace.

You have to have faith. Because they have shown no evidence of being able to even understand the issue.

Thank you for stopping by (or socking up, as the case may be).

At a high level, what would you consider to be the key elements of an excellent ACA replacement bill?

BOOM!

I love you, man...