Paul slams Ryan on health care

Again, this will only hurt those most vulnerable families, not only in New Jersey, but also in rural areas in MS and Texas.

Yes, there are winners in this bill. They also did not mention that premiums would have been higher without ObamaCare. A key feature of the ACA is that it requires a minimum level of coverage.

This would be a heavily disruptive way to reestablish a strong health care guarantee, particularly for people who already have insurance through their jobs, but the guarantee would be much firmer than it is under Obamacare, and unlike the AHCA, it would leave everyone who loses a plan they like with real coverage, automatically. By 2015, that number had fallen to 9.4 percent. In an early 1960s video, then actor and future President Ronald Reagan warned that such governmental health initiatives would constitute “socialized medicine”, which would lead to an erosion of American freedoms. And there’s really no way in which stripping health insurance from 24 million people, many of them low-income, is protecting anybody, or making anybody safer. What he didn’t mention is that the estimate was thrown off when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could decline to expand their Medicaid systems, as 19 states have done.

As the Atlantic observed past year, Trump clearly fancies himself a “protector” – a leader whose top priority is keeping the American people (at least, insofar as he defines “American”) safe.

The new measure would replace the tax subsidies for health care purchase with refundable tax credits tied to individual age and income. Some would choose not to have insurance because the bill ends the mandate that people buy insurance or pay a penalty.

While Ryan defended the numbers, the Trump White House cast doubt on them, with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price calling the claim that 14 million more people would be uninsured “just not believable”. Budget hawks are skeptical about Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan and senior GOP lawmakers have rejected major pieces of his upcoming budget proposal. In unison, they cried “repeal” at the very mention of former president Barack Obama’s 2010 health-care law and the subsidies it extended to millions of uninsured Americans to buy coverage. For instance, someone between the ages of 27-30 would receive $2,000; 30-40 would receive $2,500, and so on, topping out with a $4,000 credit for those 60-and-up. The Republican plan, meanwhile, is projected to take coverage away from between 6 million and 15 million Americans. The GOP tax credits are not created to keep pace with rising premiums, as the Obama subsidies do. Older adults could not only see a decrease in financial assistance to pay for premiums, but their premiums could increase as well. Republican governors fear that millions of people now covered by Medicaid could be dropped, a step the governors warn could hurt GOP candidates in their states. States that had already expanded the program would continue to receive enhanced federal funding for current enrollees who remain on the program. Adding new enrollees to the previous Medicaid recipients means that one in four IL residents is on Medicaid.

The reform would encourage states to experiment with ways to make Medicaid better, and more cost-effective. Critics blame the programme’s structure for its shortcomings. Now the federal government offers a generous matching payment to states that expand their programs. He also emphasized that changes to Medicaid would not arrive until 2020 – but that timetable could be sped up to next year if more conservative House members get their way, a change which might threaten support from local Republicans from more moderate districts.

“Roughly 60 percent of our revenue, and this is true for most hospitals, comes from government-sponsored programs like Medicare and Medicaid”.

Perhaps Boehner will be proved right in the end.

“And I think going in and doing a rescue mission to help people who are hurting because of Obamacare is what we’re trying to do”, he explained.