jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (133 posts)

Congress Voted To Repeal Obamacare

  1. colorfulone profile image90
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    Trey Gowdy posted this article link on Facebook minutes ago.

    It is the beginning of the end of Obamacare and a legacy.
    http://thirdestatenewsgroup.com/breakin … d-to-know/

    The repeal legislation will go to the Senate next. A complete repeal is expected according to the article, and then the bill will move to President Trump's desk.   Replace and repeal.

    This is another major Trump victory.

    1. Will Apse profile image88
      Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, many more poor American's are likely to die unnecessarily.

      The next victory will probably be million dollar tax cuts for the wealthy.

      Notice a pattern?

      1. colorfulone profile image90
        colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        "Our plan provides every American with access to affordable coverage. Low-income individuals not on Medicaid will receive a refundable tax credit to purchase insurance (meaning they get assistance even if they do not pay income tax). States can also further help low-income Americans through a new Patient and State Stability Fund."
        https://housegop.lpages.co/ahca-faqs/


        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13517448.jpg

        Sick of hearing repealing Obamacare will lead to healthcare cancellations and people losing insurance. That is exactly what Obamacare did!

        1. Will Apse profile image88
          Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Obamacare meant 20 million Americans gained healthcare coverage.

          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13517456.jpg

          The new plan will mean fewer people lose out under Trump but it is still a disgrace to condemn so many of your fellow citizens to unnecessary suffering.

          But then the rich need their tax cuts.

          As to that nonsense in your quote, why do you believe this stuff? Or anything that comes from Trump.

          It is like half a nation acquired brain worms, lol.

          Up is down, down is up.

          1. colorfulone profile image90
            colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Under President Trump the poor won't have any tax, and taxes are reduced for everyone on up.  He is chipping away at decades of over regulation and taxation.  Americans will be happier!

            What are taxes like in the UK?  Are they fair for everyone in your opinion?
            ______________
            "The American Health Care Act (AHCA) as amended delivers relief from Obamacare’s taxes and mandates that have hurt job creators, increased premiums, and limited options for patients and health care providers. It returns control of health care from Washington back to the states and restores the free market so Americans can access quality, affordable health care options that are tailored to their needs. 

            Obamacare was based on a one-size-fits-all approach that put bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care. The law led to higher costs, fewer choices, and less access to the care people need.

            The AHCA will deliver the control and choice individuals and families need to access health care that’s right for them. And provide the freedom and flexibility states, job creators, and health care providers need to deliver quality, affordable health care options."
            https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/

            1. Will Apse profile image88
              Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Of course taxes in the UK are not fair. Our economy has been successively skewed to suit the needs of the wealthy just as yours has over the last thirty years.

              I realise there a good number of reasons why you will not see this:

              It is hard to understand why someone with millions wants to acquire more by taking from the already disadvantaged. It makes for distrust of humanity in general. Notions of equity and fairness dominate ordinary peoples belief systems but not necessarily those of the elites.

              The poor are taught from birth that the wealthy are superior and know what is best.

              You do not want to accept that you have been part of the great grinding heel that has fallen on the face of ordinary people across the world in the last few decades.

              You might ask why I care. Dead Americans? What that has that got to do with me?

              Problem is the poison spreads. The more your one per cent is able to grab, the more every other one per cent wants to grab. Until it is a feeding frenzy.

              Not that Democrats are much better of course. The nightmare simply unfolds more slowly with an Obama at the helm rather a Trump.

              1. colorfulone profile image90
                colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I've been aware of it, but I will not accept it because that would be accepting defeat to pure evil.  I'll stay in the fight.

              2. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "It is hard to understand why someone with millions wants to acquire more by taking from the already disadvantaged."

                This is one of the major failures of socialism.  First, the wealthy aren't taking anything from the already disadvantaged; reducing taxes isn't "taking from the disadvantaged".  It's leaving money with whoever owns it.

                Second, neither you nor anyone else has an ethical right to play Robin Hood.  Somehow this very simple fact slips right through the cracks, as if the socialist thinks they own all the wealth of a nation, including what belongs to others.

                1. Will Apse profile image88
                  Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  If I had a million dollars I would certainly try to make another. But not by destroying public services (which is what tax cuts inevitably mean), or driving down wages or making the goods or services that everyone needs (like water, healthcare, education, housing) more expensive.

                  I certainly would not actively seek to destroy trade unions which protect peoples livelihoods, regulatory authorities which maintain public standards, distort reality by investing in Breibart-type misinformation or a hundred other dirty tricks to cheat people out of a decent life.

                  But every time you make the rich, richer this is what you are doing. You give them more power to con, bully, bamboozle and steal (by rewriting the laws in their favor).

                  This is what political power means in cash terms:

                  https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13517835.png

                  https://www.census.gov/data.html

                  Up until 1980 pretty much everyone was getting richer. But you really let your masters pull a fast one. Your own fault for being so naive.

                  1. wilderness profile image92
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "If I had a million dollars I would certainly try to make another. But not by destroying public services (which is what tax cuts inevitably mean)"

                    Only if you define "public services" as providing cradle to grave support of those that don't do a good job of it themselves.  There is no need to deny funding to roads, military, police or other govt. services.

                    And yes, there was a definite need to "destroy unions", although that is a gross exaggeration of what we see.  Unions became too powerful, doing exactly what you decry the rich do, and it had to be stopped.

                2. Nathanville profile image91
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, let me play ‘devil's advocate’ and ask:-

                  •    How many millions of dollars does it take to feed and clothe a multi-billionaire?
                  •    Does a MacDonald not cost the same for a millionaire than it does for someone on the minimum wage? 

                  If a super-rich person pays a greater portion of their income in taxes their disposable income is still massive compared to that of a low paid worker.  Taking just 1% extra from a low paid worker could mean the difference between eating a proper diet and being malnourished.  Taking 10% extra from a multi-millionaire isn’t going to make a great deal of difference to his or her lifestyle.

                  These two videos demonstrates this in much greater detail, and while it can be seen from the 2nd video that inequality has also increased in the UK over the past 30 years; the differences in inequality in the UK pales into insignificance compared to the USA.

                  Wealth Inequality in America:  https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

                  Inequality in the UK:  https://youtu.be/tvN8zvovDrY

                  In these videos, if you compare the chart for actual income distribution from the poorest to the richest people in the UK (at 3 minutes into the 2nd video) it’s almost identical to what American’s think ideal wealth distribution should be in the USA (shown at 2:40 in the 1st video).  Whereas if you go on and watch the 1st video to the end you’ll see that 1% of Americans own 40% of the nation’s wealth.

                  1. wilderness profile image92
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "How many millions of dollars does it take to feed and clothe a multi-billionaire?"

                    Don't know, and don't care.  Whatever the figure is doesn't mean that you have the right to take anything beyond what you decide the rich "need".

                    "Does a MacDonald not cost the same for a millionaire than it does for someone on the minimum wage? "

                    Exactly so.  Then why do you demand that the millionaire pays 100X as much for the services of government?

                    However many excuses you come up with to rob the rich because "you know better than they how it should be spent" (Obama's words) it still doesn't excuse that you are stealing what they own for your own purposes, and whether you, I or anyone else think those purposes are "good" is irrelevant.  A clear violation of ethics and morals, yet one that is integral to socialism.

                3. Will Apse profile image88
                  Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Who is talking about socialism? After WW2, capitalism and western democracy demonstrated, for the first time really, that they could really deliver for ordinary people.

                  But the victories of those decades have slowly been eroded and people born now are likely to be worse off than their fathers and grandfathers.

                  And it all comes down to the capacity of the wealthy to suck up more and more of a country's resources. This has been much studied and it is absolutely obvious to anyone willing to look.

                  But forget the studies.  You can see it in the increasing desperation and rage of ordinary people, especially Americans. Why vote for a Trump if you not very, very angry?

                  And the anger is understandable. Life gets harder and more insecure every year.

                  Not only that, social mobility in the US is constantly declining (worse than the UK and Canada even, far worse than more liberal European countries) so you cannot even console yourself with the delusion that 'anyone can be a billionaire'.

                  None of this would have been possible without a series of big lies:

                  Trickle down economics as  justification for tax cuts. No one has demonstrated that tax cuts boost an economy except in very rare and special circumstances.

                  People organizing in democratic ways to make sure their voice is heard is evil (unions, protests)

                  Supply side economics (driving wages/costs down) will boost economies. The cost of important stuff never downs down.

                  Mommy and Daddy rich guy have your interests at heart. Sadly, the more deferential and accommodating you are, the worse the deal you will get.

                  And now we are back to that old favorite of desperate regimes: Nationalism. Foreigners are the root cause of all evil. Jews, Slavs, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims... any group will do.

                  I really shouldn't care I suppose. The gullibility of my fellow humans is hardly my responsibly, lol.

              3. Nathanville profile image91
                Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Will, I spotted your reply just after I posted mine.  Although I gave a more positive response, I fully concur with your statements.  My reply is more positive in that I tried to keep politics out of it and looked at the UK tax system in principle, rather than what the Tory’s do e.g. when the Tory’s (and New Labour to a lesser extent) are in power then taxes are reduced for the super-rich at the expense of the poorest in society.

            2. Nathanville profile image91
              Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Colorfulone, accepting that no tax system is perfect, then yes in my opinion taxes on wages in the UK are fair for everyone. 

              Specifically because they are progressive taxes, and there are two taxes on wages that run in tandem (Income Tax and National Insurance) that together while they ensure the wealthiest take the biggest tax burden also ensures the wealthiest only make marginal contributions towards social welfare e.g. State Pensions.

              Consequently, having two different types of taxes on your wages that are paid together makes taxes on wages in the UK complex (too complex for me to explain in detail here); but generally the low paid don’t pay any taxes on their income e.g. those earning less than £11,500 ($15,000), and although everyone else might pay more in taxes in the UK than the USA the social benefits to all (including the wealthy) more than makes up for any additional taxes we might pay e.g. the NHS, Child Benefit, State Pensions and PIP (Personal Independence Payment) for disabled people etc., are not generally means tested so most everyone benefits; especially the NHS which is free to all at the point of use regardless to their social status or wealth.  Therefore, generally most people have a good or descent standard of living, and sufficient disposable income for holidays and mod cons for the home etc. 

              For example, most people in the UK have two annual holidays a year; which they couldn’t do if the tax system was burdening.  I and my wife for example, with me having taken early retirement my only income is my works pension and the carers allowance I get because of my wife’s medically diagnosed bad back, and my wife’s only income is from her part time employment (3 days a week) and her PIP income because of her bad back.  Yet, we can still afford two weeks holiday in France and Belgium each summer, and a further weeks holiday somewhere in the UK.

              These two videos will probably explain some of this better than I can: -

              How to calculate your Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions:  https://youtu.be/P5PJukoyVTs

              UK Tax System Explained With Pie: https://youtu.be/zHNosFrBHeI

              1. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Interesting.  What social benefits are paid to the wealthy in the UK?

                1. Nathanville profile image91
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, non-means tested (which means everyone is entitled to them) social benefits that even the wealthy are entitled to in the UK include:-

                  •    PIP (Personal Independent Payment)
                  •    Child Benefit.
                  •    State Pension.
                  •    Free NHS (National Health Service).
                  •    Free Education until the age of 19.
                  •    Free Bus travel from the age of 66.

                  PIP is a benefit for disable people, and for those on the higher rate e.g. more severely disabled, then they can also qualify for the Motability Scheme where they’re entitled to a free new car fully taxed and insured.  As explained in this short video:-  https://youtu.be/8KMTi8oPL9w

                  After doing some extensive research (as tax and benefits is a complex subject in the UK) the breakeven point e.g. the point up to which typically the average person in the UK gets more social benefit from the tax system than they pay in (taking into account all social benefits and not just welfare) is about £38,800 ($50,000).  But even then the rich and super rich still get something from the system, it’s not all take and no give; as listed above.

                  How the Other Half Live was a British TV series where each week a wealthy family would sponsor a poor family, a short clip which shows the two extremes of social class in the UK from one of the episodes can be seen in this video:  https://youtu.be/P_ylCVzWO1A

                  1. wilderness profile image92
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    *Shudder*  This whole "share the wealth" is just foreign to the ideals that made America.  I realize it has been going on for centuries in the UK, but until recently Americans simply did not recognize stealing from one to give it to another as a good thing.  Although we've always had charitable programs, we only began to force certain groups of people to foot the bills for others recently

              2. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Hello again nathanville, I would like to offer an American's perspective on part of the last part  of your comment.
                "  I and my wife for example, with me having taken early retirement my only income is my works pension and the carers allowance I get because of my wife’s medically diagnosed bad back, and my wife’s only income is from her part time employment (3 days a week) and her PIP income because of her bad back.  Yet, we can still afford two weeks holiday in France and Belgium each summer, and a further weeks holiday somewhere in the UK."

                I don't want to sound insensitive, or address any personal aspects, so I will just use the maximum "carer's Allowance, and PIP allowance numbers that I found online.

                You, (let's call this a generic "you"), get a pension, your wife, (and a generic wife), is able to work, (even if only part-time), yet you could possibly still draw  up to 200 pounds, ($260.00), per week, (carer's allowance and PIP, and possibly pension credits and housing allowance.

                No wonder you can afford three weeks vacation per year.

                Of course that example is simplistic, and only intended to address the concept of your statement - not you or your personal circumstances, and I am aware that a possibly similar analogy might be drawn to our system of Social Security Disability Insurance, (SSDI), but it doesn't sound like it would really be comparable.

                Just an under-informed perspective, but that is how it looks to this American.

                GA

                1. Nathanville profile image91
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Hi GA, good to hear from you.  No you’re not being insensitive or personal by any means.  You’re debating very sensibly on a cultural point from an American perspective; which I respect.

                  If my wife was severely disabled to the point where she could only get about by car e.g. get to work by car then she would be on the enhanced rate of PIP and get the enhanced Mobility (which would include a free car with car tax and insurance also paid for).  In that case between us it would be the $260 per week you quoted. 

                  However, my wife’s condition isn’t that debilitating so she only gets the basic PIP of £55.65 per week.  Plus, because they are taxable and our income is over the tax threshold e.g. the point at which we start paying tax, then between us we do pay about £6 tax a week on those benefits.

                  In my case, the carers allowance is means tested, so if I was working and earned more than £221 per week I wouldn’t get the carer’s allowance.  However, although my works pension is taxable, pensions are not included in the means testing for the carer’s allowance.  So the fact that I get a pension doesn’t affect my entitlement to the carer’s allowance.  The key issue in my case, to qualify for the carer’s allowance, is that I have to look after my wife for more than 35 hours per week; which I do as I am now the househusband.

                  In contrast, PIP is not means tested, so even the wealthy would be entitled to it if they wanted to claim, although in practice I doubt few would bother. 

                  We don’t get housing allowance because we own our house; I paid the last of the mortgage shortly after I took early retirement so we now fully own our home.  Besides only those with an income (including pension) of less than £11,500 per year and who rent accommodation would be entitled to housing allowance. 

                  If you’re paying a mortgage then it’s your responsibility to keep up the payments to pay off the capital, even if you’re unemployed.  Although under those circumstances the Government would usually pay the ‘interest only’ (none of the capital) so that you don’t lose your house and become homeless; but ultimately you would need to get a job in order to pay the full mortgage to avoid having to eventually sale it to pay off your mortgage debt.

                  I have worked all my life (paying my taxes) from the age of 16, so yes I do have my pension credits fully paid for; which means that when I reach the age of 66 I will also be entitled to the full State Pension.

                  I fully agree with you, we don’t financially need the extra £118 per week we get between us for the PIP and carer’s allowance to survive; it’s PIN money.  In my case I use it for DIY, in my wife’s case she’s investing the extra money so that she can work towards taking early retirement.

                  The extra money we get from PIP and the carer’s allowance has nothing to do with our ability to afford three weeks’ vacation per year.  My wife only started receiving the PIP a year ago; where as we’ve always taken three weeks’ vacation per year ever since we were first married life.  Even since 2011, when I took early retirement and my wife switched to part-time working (so that she could spend more time at home with me), although our only joint income for those five years was just my pension and what she earned part time, we’ve still been able to afford to have our three weeks’ vacation each year. 

                  I’m fully aware that to an American all this may seem strange, and the likes of some (Americans) call if theft from the rich, but it’s perfectly natural to the European culture to the point that even the wealthy Europeans don’t consider it theft from them; and they benefit from the system as well e.g. a billionaire in Britain gets free healthcare (NHS) and State Pension etc. just like everybody else.

                  It just demonstrates the divergence of American and European Culture.   

                  In fact (although personally I don’t like him) Lord Alan Sugar, a self-made British multi-Billionaire was a Labour (Socialist) Peer for many years, as shown in this video:  https://youtu.be/hUd7fJFiXd4

                  My favourite British self-made multi-billionaire, Sir Richard Branson, is also very socialist in his views, as shown here: - Sir Richard Branson’s own words: “Put Your Staff 1st, Customers 2nd, and Shareholders 3rd”  https://youtu.be/NPiCYoX-S_I

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    While I appreciate your explanation of your circumstances nathanville, it was the finish of your comment that was my original point. It is a cultural difference in perspective.

                    I was not thinking of the credibility of the entitlement to those benefits, or even the thought of it being a case of 'taking from the rich' to pass around to others.

                    When I think of benefits for a caregiver, it is the sense of taking care of an invalid-type person. Addressing your explained circumstances as a generic example, your wife is not an invalid unable to do for herself, (of course that isn't an implication that you don't supply care for your wife in any ways), so my American view is that a similar case here... shouldn't qualify for your Carer's allowance. Although, as I mentioned our SSDI program, I could see it as being comparable to your wife's PIP.

                    Those benefits are not free. Your taxes pay for them. Your, (British citizen), perspective is that you are ok with that. Even knowing that your taxes could be lower without examples such as yours.

                    My American perspective is not ok with it. If my taxes must support such programs - I want them to be entirely need-based, not universally applied.

                    As a note; What little I do know about Mr. Branson leaves me very impressed with his perspectives. But I do not have the impression that his are great philanthropic efforts to aid the "downtrodden." My impression is that his perspectives derive from an understanding of the 'rightness' of treating people as people, and not as tools or means.

                    GA

                2. Nathanville profile image91
                  Nathanvilleposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  GA, for clarification; a point which most Americans seem to miss.  The taxes on income in the UK are complex because instead of just having one simple progressive and stepped income tax, in the UK we have two different types of taxes on income that everyone pays. 

                  The purpose of having two taxes is to try to put the greater burden of tax for the purpose of welfare on those who would most benefit from it e.g. the middle class and low paid.  This part of the income tax is called NIC (National Insurance Contributions) and is applied at 12% on the low paid and middle classes, but at only 2% on income of the wealthy earners e.g. those earning more than £150,000 per year.

                  So although the super-rich may pay more in Income Tax, they pay a lot less as a percentage on their NIC contributions.  The income tax they pay for is revenue to the Government that pays for roads, defence and education etc.   The NIC element of the income tax is meant to cover things like State Pension, the NHS and Social Welfare etc., which the middle classes and the poor most benefit from; albeit the superrich also get State Pension and the NHS (Health) is free to them at the point of use as it is for everyone else.

                  This short video fully explains:  https://youtu.be/s2PMKEDSPVQ

      2. promisem profile image93
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        People without health insurance have a 40% higher death rate.

        http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … -coverage/

        And yes, Trump's next victory will be his goal of killing the American AMT tax, which will allow him to pocket tens of millions of dollars more every year.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      It hasn't gone to the Senate yet, so at this moment no laws have been changed. If it does pass the Senate, it will likely result in:

      24 million more people uninsured
      Increased premiums in the short term
      less incentive for comparatively healthy people to sign up for health insurance
      insurers being able to charge five times more for older enrollees
      Medicaid being stripped of funding (to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy)
      insurers being able to charge higher premiums for people with existing medical conditions, under certain circumstances

      In what way would that be a victory?

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Because it is sustainable?  That would be a huge victory over what we have now, where we pay huge premiums for plans that we can't afford to use and that we won't have for more than a few years anyway, until the country goes bankrupt trying to give what it can't afford.

        I'd think that anyone that actually thinks about it rather than promoting an emotional response to a financial problem wouldn't have to ask how it would be a victory.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Medicaid is not being gutted to make healthcare sustainable. It's being gutted to fund tax breaks for the extremely wealthy. That's a victory for people whose income is over $250,000 per year. Not such a victory for the majority of working people (including those who voted for Trump in the first place).

          And yes, I expect people to react on an emotional level when their health care is jeopardized because the president wants to give tax cuts to his wealthy friends. Also, based on what we saw in local town hall meetings this year, I expect that the majority of people (including Trump supporters) will not see this as victory, but a betrayal. You and the Republican party have until 2018 to convince them otherwise. Good luck with that.

          1. wilderness profile image92
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            But you are assuming that those rich people don't own that money.  In truth the "victory" is in keeping what they own - not so much of a victory!

            Same with those tax cuts: that those people are able to keep their belongings out of the greedy clutches of those that want what they cannot afford isn't the "victory" you're trying to insinuate.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              By continuing to be part of society, extremely wealthy people are consenting to make a direct financial contribution to society (represented by government). That contribution is part of the social contract that comes with citizenship.

              They are free to renounce their citizenship and live somewhere else, which would effectively end the social contract between them and society. If not, then they must abide by the rules that govern society.

              Unfortunately some extremely wealthy people want all the freedoms, protections and opportunities that living, working and doing business in society provides, but at the same time are trying to change the rules so they have to pay less of a direct contribution.

              Everyone in society has the right to try to change the rules that govern society. Unfortunately wealthy people have an unfair advantage because in modern society money equates to political influence. So the more money you have, the more influence you have, and the louder voice you have.

              The result is what we see now. The rules are being changed so less is paid as a direct contribution to society by the extremely wealthy, at the expense of health care programs that mainly help the extremely poor.

              That is not happening because it is right, or because it makes the most sense. It is happening because the voices of the extremely wealthy are louder than the voices of the extremely poor, and because Donald Trump also happens to be one of the extremely wealthy who wants to pay less.

              That's not a victory. It's a travesty.

          2. colorfulone profile image90
            colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            The American Health Care Act reduces taxes by $1 Trillion which reduces the taxes on Americans.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.

            -Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.

            -Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.

            Shows me that the Republicans can govern on President Trump's campaign promise to cut taxes while skinning the Obamacare cat.  Its brilliant!   This is what Trump meant when he said, "We want a very big tax cut, but cannot do that until we keep our promise to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare." 

            Added:  "Based on information from a variety of government and private sources, CBO estimates that Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds," the CBO said.

            "Of that amount, roughly $390 million is provided through the Medicaid program and less than $1 million is provided through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Medicare program combined," said CBO. "The remaining amount, approximately $60 million, is provided through the National Family Planning Program, which operates under Title X of the Public Health Service Act (commonly referred to as Title X). Funding for that latter program is subject to appropriation."

            The de-funding for the Elephant has been addressed in the bill.  Oh, I guess its another cat skinned.

            1. Will Apse profile image88
              Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, but which Americans?

              A hundred dollar a year cut in taxes is no consolation for the poor who will lose all kinds of services not just healthcare.

              And do the billionaires really need another million dollars a year?

              A few of the things you will lose, so the rich can be richer:

              The National Institutes of Health, is getting a budget cut of 18 percent. Your nation will get sicker.
              The Environmental Protection Agency loses 31 percent. You will get sicker
              The Department of Housing and Urban Development loses 13 percent. Evictions and homeless will rise
              The Department of Agriculture loses 21 percent. But who needs to eat?

              1. colorfulone profile image90
                colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                National Institutes of Health will get a $2 billion funding boost.  I hope the wasteful spending and incompetence is done away with.

                Environmental Protection Agency's wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars needs to get clipped.  The EPA's mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuses have been investigated, ongoing.  They haven't kept good records either. Lots of corruption and incompetence there. 

                Department of Housing and Urban Development - Ben Carson found more than $500 billion in accounting errors after he took over as director. Lots of corruption and fraud there.

                Department of Agriculture's corruption and wastefulness needs to end also.  We have a bunch of fat cats getting fatter off the American taxpayers. A lot of people would like the see the department shut down, you can read about the corruption.

                President Trump has inherited a mess.  I don't like the corruption and am glad there are people who are working hard to clean up the mess. The incompetent corrupt opposition is scared and should be.  Can Trump totally clean up the corruption?  I doubt it, because the corrupt politicians and corrupt bureaucrats won't let him.  Its very disgusting on the corruption and incompetent levels.

                Maybe a good government shut down could bring some common sense back to DC. No money, no funny.  (Can we try to stay on topic a little better, without throwing everything into the mix?)

            2. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              So no reliable source in all of internetland had anything negative to say about any of these tax cuts? You couldn't find a single valid criticism of them anywhere on the web? Go on, I bet you could if you really tried.

      2. colorfulone profile image90
        colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        We will have to wait and see what gets hammered out.  I don't see your negative ideas of a likely scenario happening though.  In fact, I see the opposite will develop to the positive.  Keep the faith, at least its on the planning table!

    3. Misfit Chick profile image91
      Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is another major - and temporary and rushed and ultimately expensive - Trump almost-victory. It still has to pass through the rest of Congress; and the 'ultimately expensive' part is us re-repealing this new anti-healthcare act in a few years. Neat. Why is healthcare one of our biggest dividing issues? Did you HEAR what Trump SAID about Australia's healthcare system? He's so damn clueless and so are his anti-healthcare supporters.
      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520538.png


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520540.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520541.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520542.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520543.png


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520544.png


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520546.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520547.png




      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520551_f1024.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I like the first one - if liberals can't force others to pay for what we want but cannot afford it means we're going broke.  Whatever happened to responsibility for ourselves - how did we get to the point that we require someone else to provide for our wants and call it a "right" as we do it?

        1. Misfit Chick profile image91
          Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Proving for WANTS?! It is only a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' among conservatives who see it as paying for the laziness or incompetency of others - when that isn't always the case.

          How to you explain away Trump's comments about Australia's healthcare system? It almost sounds to me like he read up on it on his way to this meeting and decided it sounded pretty good. That would not surprise me.

          There are very good reasons why most major countries now have healthcare policies for the masses - cuz its CHEAPER in the end being one of them.

          The GOP could have done the responsible thing and 'fixed' what we already had instead of insulting the majority of the American people the way they are. We can READ. We can see the benefits in other countries; and we are clueless as to why GOP insist on clinging to their ignorance.

          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520584.jpg


          https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520585.jpg


          https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520587.jpg


          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520588.png


          https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520591.jpg


          https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13520595.jpg


          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13520596.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image92
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            But it's not about laziness or incompetency of others - it's about forcible taking what you want but cannot afford.  A far different thing, but somehow the liberals of the country deny even discussion of the morality of the act.

            I could be mistaken, but believe Australia has a one payer system; the government pays for all health care.  No insurance involved.  And, given that we wish to provide care for all citizens, that's a far better system than giving 10% or more to insurance companies while (in theory) providing care with the rest.  Trump is correct in that regard, and doubly so in that ObamaCare paid the insurance companies to provide an insurance plan that denied the poor any care at all.

            1. Misfit Chick profile image91
              Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              "But it's not about laziness or incompetency of others - it's about forcible taking what you want but cannot afford."

              Healthcare policy is meant similar to the way we require people to have car insurance whether they can afford it, or not. If they don't have it, they get fined. Healthcare is being looked at the same way by those of us who can see the sensibility behind it. And besides, if you can't afford it - you don't pay for it. Under Ocare, its FREE. If you're someone who just doesn't WANT to carry it cuz you've got better things you want to spend your money on - screw you, buy HI so the American people aren't paying for your car accident, later.

              "A far different thing, but somehow the liberals of the country deny even discussion of the morality of the act."

              What the heck are we doing, now?

              "I could be mistaken, but believe Australia has a one payer system; the government pays for all health care.  No insurance involved.  And, given that we wish to provide care for all citizens, that's a far better system than giving 10% or more to insurance companies while (in theory) providing care with the rest.  Trump is correct in that regard, and doubly so in that ObamaCare paid the insurance companies to provide an insurance plan that denied the poor any care at all."

              Aside from that last ignorant sentence, this is really an enlightened perspective - especially for a conservative GOP, if that's what you are. Do you understand that the Dems have always wanted - and it is what Bernie was running on - a 100% FREE-for-the-people healthcare system along with free college?

              Obamacare was the FREAKIN COMPROMISE between the two extremes of THAT and NO healthcare like the GOP want!! Obamacare is as bad as it is as much because of GOP as because of Dems.

              We're not going anywhere on healthcare until both sides understand that. At the moment, only moderates are capable of grasping that wild & crazy concept. It really sucks to high heaven to be in the middle between two EQUALLY ridiculous sides!

              1. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "Forcibly taking what you want? How?"

                Fail to pay your taxes - whether minimal or in the millions - and you will quickly find out how.

                "Under Ocare <health insurance>, its FREE."

                If so, the insurance company has no costs associated with your insurance, which in turn means the doctors don't charge, hospitals have no employees, etc.  No, it definitely isn't free - we just force someone else to pay for it, that's all.

                "What the heck are we doing, now?" <Discussing the morality of legally stealing from those that have more than we think they should have>

                I'm trying, but you're just claiming that health care is, or should be, free, while pretending that if someone else pays for it that it is then free.  It isn't, of course; the bills must be paid by someone and that means dollars exchanged.

                "Aside from that last ignorant sentence <that the poor get insurance they can't use>"

                Sorry, but I got some of that insurance.  deductibles of $12,000 for my wife and I, which effectively made them unusable as I don't have $12,000 per year to put into health care.  Not ignorant, then, but from direct, personal experience.

                "a 100% FREE-for-the-people healthcare system along with free college"

                And there we go again with that "free" healthcare that is only "free" because you aren't paying for it.  Instead you will force someone else to foot the bill, whereupon it isn't "free" at all.

                Yes, it sucks to be in the middle, seeing and experiencing just how poor the design of the system is.  We simply have to get off the fence and decide if we're going to force charitable donations onto the rich, paying for health care for other people, or let it go.  Forcing them to not only pay for other's healthcare but also an unusable insurance plan is insane.  (Which is probably a pretty good description of how our government works today, with violently partisan lawmakers that are incapable of compromising with each other.)

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  You keep repeating this idea about taxes. I don't know if you saw my previous response to this idea, but my thinking is essentially this:

                  If people choose to keep their US citizenship then, in exchange for the protections, freedoms and opportunities that brings, they must abide by the rules of society, which includes the requirement to pay taxes.

                  That requirement (and the government's authority to enforce it) exists only because society has consented to taxation being a condition of living in society, i.e. part of the social contract that comes with citizenship.

                  The government does not (and cannot) force anyone to remain a US citizen. People can, if they choose, renounce their citizenship and go somewhere taxation is not a requirement of living in society (here is a list of countries by income tax rates if you're interested).

                  So I think playing taxes is less like being robbed at gunpoint by the government, and more like abiding by the terms of a contract that you have implicitly accepted by retaining your citizenship.

                  Like any other contract, people are entitled to try to change the terms if they want to. In this case that would mean campaigning for lower taxes etc, but they still have to abide by the rules while they're doing that.

                  From a moral perspective, I think people are on shaky ground if they have benefitted from living in society, but don't want to make a direct financial contribution to that society, even though they have the means to.

                  That's seems to be the position of people like Donald Trump. They aren't saying they want their tax dollars to be used more effectively or more efficiently. They are saying they want to pay less, even though they have the means to pay more, and they are getting what they want, not because it's right, but because money equates to political influence, and they happen to have lots of money.

    4. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "another major Trump victory"?  What have been the others - or even one?  A supreme court justice who changes nothing.  What else?

      1. colorfulone profile image90
        colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        President Trump has signed 13 Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in his first 100 days, more than any other President. These resolutions nullified unnecessary regulations and block agencies from reissuing them.

        Since CRA resolutions were introduced under President Clinton, they’ve been used only once, under President George W. Bush.

        The Wall Street Journal editorial: “So far the Trump Administration is a welcome improvement, rolling back more regulations than any President in history.”

        President Trump signed 30 executive orders during his first 100 days.

        President Trump has worked with Congress to enact 28 laws during the first 100 days of his Administration.

        You can find more information on the White House website because of President Trump's historic victory.

        BTW, Neil Gorsuch is proving to be exemplary.

      2. promisem profile image93
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        He signed a lot of empty executive orders in front of photographers.

        1. colorfulone profile image90
          colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Executive Order on May 04, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
          Executive Order on May 01, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on the Establishment of the American Technology Council
          Executive Order on April 29, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses
          Executive Order on April 29, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy
          Executive Order on April 28, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy
          Executive Order on April 27, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection at the Department of Veterans Affairs
          Executive Order on April 26, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of Education
          Executive Order on April 26, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act
          Executive Order on April 25, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America
          Executive Order on April 21, 2017
          Presidential Executive Order on Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens

          That's just page one of four EOs.  None are empty.
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ive-orders

          I don't get why all presidents give away the pen after signing each EO, (they all get their picture taken with whomever is their to witness the signing).

          1. promisem profile image93
            promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I understand he signed executive orders. But they have little impact on the country.

            1. wilderness profile image92
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              The flood of illegals crossing the border has slowed considerably.  That's not a "little impact".

              Texas has passed a law against sanctuary cities as a result of his orders.  That's not a "little impact", either.

              1. Misfit Chick profile image91
                Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                You're right, Trump has had an impact:

                Increase in violence in cities like Seattle as a result of the increase in emboldened hate.

                Increase in ugly divisive behavior between citizens who disagree with each other by heaps & bounds.

                We may have less immigrants sneaking in, but our own citizens are turning against each other.

                Passing laws against sanctuary cities isn't a good thing. Its more hate formed into a law.

                Repealing business & banking regulations that were put in place to prevent the last financial fiasco from happening again. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ation-view

                Repealing regulations for environmental protections so that businesses can rape the planet for their very important profits (as opposed to insisting on green energy) - sorry, that isn't going over well.

                Ridiculous spending on things they KNOW we will be 'reversing' in a few years - really uncool.

                Insulting the American people with the rushed & forceful way they are handling something as delicate as an Ocare 'replace'.

                None of these things are good, but yeah - they are having an impact. Trump's fans may be happy, but that isn't saying much good about them when they consider absolutely everything he does to be brilliant. It has been an amazing 'impact' and not in a good way.

                Thank God for the French!!! LoL!

                1. wilderness profile image92
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  You're blaming Trump because liberals cannot accept that they no longer control the White House and take it out on everyone that voted for Trump?!?  Doesn't sound reasonable to me...

                  Laws against sanctuary cities is absolutely a good thing.  For government to shield law breakers and hide them from the law is not good and must be halted.  We are either a nation of laws or we are not; sanctuary cities are declaring that the only laws that they will enforce are the ones they like, and that is unacceptable.

                  Ridiculous spending - you mean like padding the pockets of insurance companies by forcing young health people to buy over priced insurance?  You really think liberals aren't smart enough to accept that such things are not good for the people OR the country?  Perhaps you're right.

                  You mean as in insulting people ("enact ObamaCare and then you can read it and see what's you just voted for") over ObamaCare? 

                  It doesn't say much for liberals that they refuse to see good in anything Trump has done.  Like starting the fight against sanctuary cities or instituting policies that reduce illegal border crossings.  Or perhaps it does, but it doesn't say anything good about them.

                  (After the past few months watching the reaction in other countries, I'll go out on a limb and predict that we'll see more people overseas stepping up to the plant and claim responsibility for themselves, ending the perpetual growth of socialism in other countries.)

                  1. Misfit Chick profile image91
                    Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    France was expected to continue the right-wing populist swipe across the planet - especially after Trump won. People were sure the rest of the world would fall. But, there is obviously a glimmer of hope.

                    I understand that you erroneously insist on calling everyone you doesn't agree with your outrageous claims a liberal. I've countered that so many times with you, its ridiculous. I'm not a liberal - I'm a middle-of-the-road MODERATE. Do you even know what that is?

                    Obama is considered to be a moderate - you have him labelled wrong, too. Liberals want absolutely FREE healthcare & college. You know, the stuff that REALLY terrifies you with regard to socialism.

                    As I've said, Ocare WAS the compromise between the two extremes of absolutely NO healthcare and 100% free healthcare. Oh yeah, it needs to be fixed because BOTH SIDES have their BS all over it.

                    You say you’re pro-life, but then you want to limit health care for my disabled son
                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act … c672c0ba51

                    The thing that infuriates me the most is having to redo all of this healthcare stuff all over again in a few years - after we FINALLY got a good start on one. Maybe the next version will be better, yet; but continuing to go back & forth is wasting us a bunch of money.

                    The upshot is, we're sick of working with the extremes of either side. When we manage to get ahold of a majority (which shouldn't be very hard at all, now); we will simply not work with GOP like they have not worked with us. Complain about Dems all you want - at least they TRY to work with the other side, with the results being crap like Obamacare!

                    I mean, really... GOP think they are God's gift to this country in the literal kind of way. They don't need anyone else but themselves and their rich puppetmasters. I hope the next healthcare bill after this one IS 100% FREE for absolutely everyone in this country JUST to spite you all. If socialism is what makes you nervous, I'm becoming all for it. I'd say Bernie has a really good chance of winning the next election, now - so that should work out nicely. WOOT!!

              2. promisem profile image93
                promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Really? What's the actual impact? I haven't seen anything other than Republicans are having a harder time hiring illegals for their farms and factories.

                1. wilderness profile image92
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Which means more jobs right off the bat.  Now add fewer illegal drivers, fewer drivers without insurance, fewer kids in schools, fewer food stamps to put out.

                  Is that enough or do you need more?  Maybe that Democrats used to hiring illegal labor can't do it as easily now?

                  1. promisem profile image93
                    promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    All idle speculation. When you have actual proof, feel free to get back to me.

    5. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The DEMONcrats are still fighting Trumpcare.   Well, the SOONER Obama"care" is repealed, THE BETTER!

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you as this so called repeal is yet to be seen.

        1. wilderness profile image92
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          If "repeal" means "changed almost beyond recognition" (and that is what seems to be the case) it WILL happen.  Through legislation or through economic collapse, it WILL happen for it is not sustainable the way it is.

          1. Credence2 profile image83
            Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It is certainly not going to be any more sustainable, politically or otherwise with the GOP version. What makes you think that McConnell will successfully herd the remaining holdouts without meaningful concessions to the GOP ideal, one way or the other? I am not not seeing that now.

            1. wilderness profile image92
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Not referring to "politically" sustainable.  We all know that the "politics" of ObamaCare requires nearly infinite expenditures (and taxes) - that's what is not sustainable.  If we the people cannot understand that we are not children, able to get whatever we wish from our parents (no cash?  Just use your card!) then we as a nation will not succeed.

              1. Credence2 profile image83
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Wilderness, so whatis your solution? Do you go back to the period beforeObamacare? Uninsured people cost us all, one way or the other. Because if you are flesh and bone and are mortal there is always the risk of illness or injury. Do we return to medical doctors and institutions providing emergency care at no cost  to indigent ones? Or do we leave them to die in the street? Who pays? In any case? it is pay me now or pay me later.

                The principles of the 'New Deal' are a fixture in American life and it will not be changed without political trouble for the GOP, that's a given.

                Itis not that I don't see your concern for a collectivist mindset going amuck, but how far back do we have to go to find the America of your liking? Maybe, the way things were prior to 1900? Really, is that realistic for you?

                I would really like to know....

                1. wilderness profile image92
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  The primary suggestion I have is to include a primary care clinic next door to every ER and all patients to the ER are met with triage and instructions as to where to go.  Yes, return to the days of purchased insurance (purchased by the patient, not a stranger on the other side of the continent).  Or do away with insurance entirely; the pad-the-pockets of insurance companies at taxpayer expense for that was, is and always will be madness.

                  The New Deal never, ever included cradle to grave care for anyone wanting it, but that's what we're getting to, and real quick.

                  Personally, I would not be adverse to what we had (in the way of entitlement programs) in the 60's or 70's.  But the question is two sided; what would you consider reasonable?  Give everyone $50,000 each year?  Give everyone a house, a car, all clothing and food, any utility needs, unlimited health care, an unlimited phone, a computer with internet, etc.?  What would you say is strictly up to the individual to provide for themselves?

                  1. Credence2 profile image83
                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    What if the patients are unconscious or do not have an insurance policy? How does one pay medical bills of say 60-70K?

                    I reply to this and say Single Payer. The costs of medicine and physicians are rising faster than inflation, not everybody can afford catastrophic medical expenses. In every other developed country this is not a problem, why here? The situation prior to Obamacare was unsustainable in my opinion. So, we disagree here...

                    I think that basic health care for every citizen should be included with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I am on another page from your opinion here as well.

                    Sixties or Seventies? I am surprised. We had all of these 'social programs' in place by then. Is it just the Health Care issue that is your problem, then?

                    Funny, though, while I would have thought that you would have been content with BC 'before civility/civilization' America of the 19th century. You, at the same time take me to want a totally socialist existence down to proving everyone a free toothbrush?

                    I support Social Security as providing a minimum floor to prevent people from a point of poverty where they cannot survive. I never said that that necessarily meant that they were to be comfortable on a feather bed. The program, if not gutted by the GOP, should be basically sustainable as is.

                    Over and above that, we are all obligated to work for the things that we want. Outside of a minimum 'Health care' standard for all, that you will disagree with, the other consumer based goods and services you speak of should be obtained by those who are willing pay for it.

                    Again, either of us really can claim to the extremes, I am comfortable with more aspects of collectivism than you and less enamored by the free and open market as solving all of our ills.

  2. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 5 months ago

    One mismanaged government program traded for a different flavor of the same bureaucracy. And Planned UnParenthood gets to keep killing babies on the public dole.

    Not what we hired these guys to do.

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "Q: Does your bill cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, who provide critical health care services to women?

      A: Our plan imposes a one-year freeze on federal funding for organizations that provide abortion services. Instead our legislation increases funding for Federal Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which are community-based, patient-centered organizations that provide health services to medically underserved individuals. Unlike boutique clinics such as Planned Parenthoods that generally only provide reproductive health services and abortions, FQHCs provide comprehensive medical, dental, mental health and other primary care services. These services also include STD testing, cancer screening and family planning and contraceptive management. "
      https://housegop.lpages.co/ahca-faqs/

      We have a new Supreme Court Judge, and I hear Kennedy may be stepping soon.  Somethings will take time, but keep the faith and I'm sure there will be many good changes coming to America.

  3. colorfulone profile image90
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    List of Obamacare Taxes Repealed in the American Health Care Act, totaling $1.2 TRILLION.

    The bill abolishes the following taxes imposed by Obama and the Democrat party in 2010 as part of Obamacare:

    -Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.

    -Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.

    -Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.

    As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama had promised repeatedly that he would not raise any tax on any American earning less than $250,000 per year. He broke the promise when he signed Obamacare. With the passage of the House GOP bill, tens of millions of middle income Americans will get tax relief from Obamacare's long list of tax hikes.

    Read more: http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-taxes … z4gAeav3lz

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Very good, I hope that's true.

      1. colorfulone profile image90
        colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        There is no doubt there is still work to do. But I believe the Republican’s health care plan is the right first step towards fixing a complex and crumbling system.  Maybe we won't need to get rid of Paul Ryan.

      2. Will Apse profile image88
        Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Let's hope you or anyone you know does not get sick, lose employment, bleed the family dry paying for healthcare and end up dead long before other similarly unfortunate people in more equitable countries.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          http://thebullelephant.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Thomas-Sowell-on-Medicine.jpg

        2. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I'm all for a sensible and fair system where every citizen has the right to basic and life saving medical help. What we had with Obamacare wasn't even close. Every company won at the expense of the average citizen.  Of course, we might stand a fighting chance of implementing one if we weren't footing the bill for the costs of developing new drugs for the world and didn't live in a system where doctors expect six figure incomes.

          1. Will Apse profile image88
            Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            This idiotic notion that the US is somehow super-important in developing new drugs and treatments needs to be dealt with.

            But maybe I don't need to. Trump is cutting back on research of all kinds so that stuff will just fade away.

            Anyway... Maybe tomorrow when I have time. You will need to be able to read graphs. Last time I tried it was obvious that graphs were challenging, lol.

          2. wilderness profile image92
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Personally I don't mind my surgeon earning 6 figures.  And when I think of the football player that earns the same I REALLY don't mind.

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I agree with your first sentence. Wilderness, let me emphasize what I just said. I used the words "I agree" in response to your post. Please remember this moment.

              1. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I hear that Hell has frozen over... smile

                1. promisem profile image93
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  LOL. Yes, it has.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 months ago

    I just want to end the tax penalty for not having insurance. That is not the American way. The American way is toward freedom, not tyranny.
    Thanks for NOTHING, OBAMA et all!

    Thanks for this freedom of speech.

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely, I struggle to find anything to thank Obama for.   I am beyond fed up with the Democrats on the Obamacare issue.  They act like five year old brats. 

      President Obama's direct lies from "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" to "everyone's costs will drop $2500.00 per families" to their lies now about all the "losses" that will come from its repeal. Its nauseating.

      What they said then and now are all lies...all falsehoods they knew were false at the time they said them. So, now when the current Democrat leadership scream about the repeal and lie again and again... I am amazed by their continued deception and attempt to keep a failing program that has made healthcare less accessible and more expensive.

      It is not acceptable, but the Democrats are bemoaning the repeal of the Obamacare "lie". Such  ilk, lie and promote the idea of "controlling" health care for their own political reason with zero concern about how the bogus legislation has adversely affected real people. Its like they are "the adversary" of "We The People".

      Rant over.

    2. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!

    3. promisem profile image93
      promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      The tax penalty was meant to stop the practice of people who:

      1. Hide assets
      2. Have a big medical bill
      3. File for bankruptcy
      4. Dump their costs on the rest of us
      5. Drive up our premiums
      6. Live in a big house in Florida that bankruptcies can't touch

      Now that my health insurance will rocket up to $30,000 a year, I have no choice but to cancel it. Fortunately, the new bill will allow me to follow the above tactics so I don't lose everything I have worked for my entire career.

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You forgot to mention the primary cause for the penalty: to force, using financial weapons, the purchase of insurance that was excessively expensive and unwanted.  It was never to prevent any of the things you list, not even #4.  If we don't want to pay for their costs there is nothing in this world forcing us to do so.

        The result of that penalty was, and is, to force the people least able to afford it to cover the expected health care costs for high risk groups.

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I didn't offer an opinion. I offered simple facts. Why do you think so many people weren't buying health insurance before ACA? Everything I describe above was a known practice.

          I suggest you do more research on how to protect assets legally from bankruptcy. The Enron executives are a classic example.

          The ACA penalty was chump change for anyone who wanted to play the above game. The new bill makes it even easier.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    You know, if the Republicans really wanted to do something to improve the Affordable Healthcare Act, they could have started passing legislation to improve it seven years ago. This is all a dog and pony show to get them re-elected.

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      One of the biggest problems with the Republicans has been that they were divided, "a house divided cannot stand".   Finally, only days ago they were able to unite, "united we stand". 

      Still 20 Republicans voted 'No".  I hope voters don't forget who they are, no way should they be re-elected to anything, except maybe a dog and pony show.  ...  They voted to kill babies!
      Andy Biggs (AZ-5)
      Mike Coffman (CO-6)
      Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
      Ryan Costello (PA-6)
      Charlie Dent (PA-15)
      Dan Donovan (NY-11)
      Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
      Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3)
      Will Hurd (TX-23)
      Walter Jones (NC-3)
      David Joyce (OH-14)
      John Katko (NY-24)
      Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
      Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
      Thomas Massie (KY-4)
      Patrick Meehan (PA-7)
      Dave Reichert (WA-8)
      Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
      Christopher Smith (NJ-4)
      Michael Turner (OH-10)

      Credit for list:  https://www.hermancain.com/we-wont-forg … st-in-2018

  6. crankalicious profile image86
    crankaliciousposted 5 months ago

    The best part about the new healthcare bill is that it makes the people who use healthcare the most pay the most for their premiums. Insurers will be able to raise premiums on those who use the services most, exactly how it should be.

    Thus, those with pre-existing conditions will have to pay far more in the health insurance than those of us who are healthy and lead good lives. And old people will have to pay far more for health insurance than those of us who are healthy and lead good lives. This is exactly what Tom Price said on Fox and Friends, in case you want to follow up on the veracity of this.

    There are specific provisions in this new healthcare bill that will dramatically increase the premiums on those people most likely to need healthcare.

    Those who play need to pay!

    There are also big cuts to Medicaid. No more government-run healthcare! If the Republicans can just get rid of both Medicaid and Medicare completely, we will be free of government interference in our healthcare system.

  7. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 5 months ago

    I haven't been involved in this discussion, just stumbled across your post Misfit.
    Our "Gift" is that we ALL have inherent Rights, which come from God...not Gov. 
    The Gov is "Limited", via the U.S. Constitution, in what they can and cannot do.
    The ONLY thing that Conservatives and most Republicans want to "Limit" is the Government!
    When was it decided that the Government was to be in the health care business anyway? Who decided that should be added to their Job Description? Are we to ignore all of the ongoing Problems at the V.A.? Also....who decided that the Gov could hold onto our money better than us?  I may or may not get the money they've been 'Holding' for me. My children definitely will not get theirs.
    A "Limited" Government is the best Government!

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      There are some very good Christian health care programs that people can get in on, some have been around for thirty years.  Christian Healthcare Ministries (CHM) is a non-profit ministry, not insurance, but people helping each other pay their medical costs.
      http://www.chministries.org/

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Any organization that requires a "gift" or "donation" rather than a "premium" and has no legal obligation to cover any of your costs is one to stay as far away from as possible.  That your "gift" goes through an escrow arrangement, separating this CHM from you yet another step is another reason.

        Although it is set up as an insurance, complete with deductibles and pre-existing conditions, it fails to guarantee payment of a single dime.  That the language is described as "sharing" rather than "paying" is nothing but a legal scam, IMO, and a requirement that the purchaser must attend church regularly reinforces that.

        Sorry, but no thank you.  I'll do without before sending a dime to those people.

        1. colorfulone profile image90
          colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Oh, I understand.  Going by faith isn't for everyone, not even when CHM has been around for decades and has always been an option to Obamacare.  Low cost, a ACA wavier and no penalties.

          Being honest, I have not taken advantage of the service myself because I don't attend church.

          1. wilderness profile image92
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Both the Mormon and Catholic churches have been around for decades (the Catholic for 2,000 years) but I would not trust either one of them either, and they both claim to have a direction connection to God.

            1. colorfulone profile image90
              colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Did you mean to type, "would not"?   Because then I would tend to lean the same way about the Mormon church and Catholic church...um, religious institutions.

              1. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, - that was a typo and should be would NOT.  Yes, religious institutions...such as an institution that requires church attendance to pay medical bills that you have paid a "gift" for already.  Somehow I doubt that attendance of a Mosque, or maybe a pagan ritual, would count much with them.

                1. colorfulone profile image90
                  colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Just having the word "Christian" might be enough of a line in the sand.  Using the word "Christian" would drive some people to self-destruction.  Life is funny that way.

    2. Misfit Chick profile image91
      Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Did you even READ my original post about this? I have NEVER EVER EVER said that Obamacare is perfect - what I SAID is that it is a compromise as bad as it is because BOTH GOP & Dems have two extreme views about what heathcare should be; and Ocare is the result. Just because Obamacare isn't what it should be; doesn't mean that the GOP have any right AT ALL to gut it and replace it with 'just their' ideal. It will no-doubt be one of the fastest things that we replace after we kick Trump out. More expense because of GOP STUPIDITY & SELFISHNESS.

      Again, WHY did Trump PRAISE Australia's countrywide heathcare coverage?

      And one more time again... Why are you so offended about being required to carry health insurance when we already require car insurance for the same reasons - or be penalized for not having it?

      "When was it decided that the Government was to be in the health care business anyway?"

      I'm responding to this with the following link - which you obviously did not read the first time - along with my usual biting cartoon commentary cuz I know most GOP & T-fans LOVE 'funny', in-your-face reality.

      You say you’re pro-life, but then you want to limit health care for my disabled son -
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act … 4e16e254df


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523639.png


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13523640.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523641.png


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13523642_f1024.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523643.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13523644.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523645.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523647.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523649.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523651.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13523652.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13523654.jpg


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13523655.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You understand that we are required to carry car insurance, if we choose to drive, to protect the other driver?  That collision insurance, or uninsured motorist, to protect the insured, is entirely voluntary? 

        Medical insurance protects no one but the insured, and is not voluntary,  Under ObamaCare anyway.  You are deemed unfit to make your own, very personal decisions about protection or where you will spend your money, and are thus forced to do as the bureaucracy wants you to. 

        There is no other law in the land that forces you to buy something you don't want - there is always a choice, even if it is not to drive a car on public roads.

        1. Misfit Chick profile image91
          Misfit Chickposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Of course there is a choice - you can either choose to buy it or be fined. Its the way car insurance works; and we require people who drive to carry it BECAUSE of the possibility of hurting someone ELSE.

          What you fail to understand, is that when people don't carry health insurance 'we the people' STILL cover it - except, its much more expensive to cover with the way you and the GOP view 'freedom'. Its very much like what Don W. talks about taxes & being part of a society, above.

          I'd rather help people in the beginning of a problem when it is less expensive and more likely to be 'healed' - instead of people waiting to eventually go to the emergency room and die shortly afterwards. End of life services are very expensive, even moreso when it could have been prevented.

          What do you have to say about the link I left? Ignored it, no doubt.

          You are ALWAYS in here, Wilderness - you don't do any research or read anything beyond what you already THINK you know.

  8. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 5 months ago

    Also, the Shriner's Hospitals, around since the 1920's, (unbelievable) still thriving today on donations, because a majority of people are compassionate, understanding, loving and giving!

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      That's right!   That is how St. Jude works too.  There are options because caring people are willing to pay for or share the costs.  It works and saves lives.

  9. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 5 months ago

    Whew, I had to scroll and scroll and scroll....to get past the so-called 'funnies', aka wasted space, I forgot my point.

    1. colorfulone profile image90
      colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Now, that's funny...kind of what happens with me too...just keep scrolling down and never bother to read them. 

      I see Maryland’s largest healthcare insurer is planning on raising rates by 50%.   CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield will raise rated a 35% increase in Virginia and 29% increase in Washington DC.  Not good!

      "The ‘death spiral’ occurs when sick people who need expensive coverage stay in the insurance pool as healthier individuals opt-out of the marketplace. The result is rapidly increasing insurance costs which translates to higher premiums and massive deductibles.

      As a result, many insurance companies are cutting their losses and dropping out of the Obamacare exchanges."  (Hannity)

      1. wilderness profile image92
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Couple that opt-out by healthy people with unrealistic government price controls and it isn't a "death spiral", but a "death slide" straight to the bottom.  Living in a pretend land never works very well, whether the pretense is set up by government bureaucrats of individuals.

        1. colorfulone profile image90
          colorfuloneposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Its like a steep ski slope.  Intended?

          1. wilderness profile image92
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Doubtful.  There were very few "winners" in ObamaCare.  Some political points made early on, but that's it for those that voted that boondoggle into place.

            1. Will Apse profile image88
              Will Apseposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I thought the figure was 18 million?

              And of course, the health corporations were allowed to continuing profiteering.

              1. wilderness profile image92
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                18 million what?  People with fine sounding insurance they can't use because of high deductibles?  Personally, I don't call that "winning".

                They sure did (profiteer)  That's why they are dumping ACA plans everywhere we look!

                1. GA Anderson profile image82
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Hey Wilderness, I just heard Aetna is pulling out of two states completely - citing losses of $900 million - supporting Obamacare mandated coverage, since 2014. I guess that would mean that even huge premium increases wouldn't be enough to make a profit.

                  So much for the "greedy" healthcare insurance companies rational.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image92
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I heard that, as well as quite a few others.  Just a part of why it isn't workable - government price controls never are.

                    Or maybe we could require any company offering insurance to also offer ObamaCare health insurance.  Geico, State Farm, etc.  They could make up their losses on car insurance - a plus as without cars on the road the pollution will go down and people will be healthier.  Or on home insurance; the tiny, cheap homes resulting would do wonders for our energy consumption.  Wonder that it hasn't been instituted already!

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago

    In the past, no one expected anything from anyone, not even their parents! If their parents ended up helping them, that was an unexpected bonus! Some might have even refused the help of their parents because they wanted to be self-reliant and not burdensome.


    Weird! yikes !!!!!!

    1. Misfit Chick profile image91
      Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      There are still many people with this kind of 'pride' - and others of us have had to give into it for extra help, at times. I'm one of those people. While I am not on any government programs at the moment, a couple of them (food stamps & Obamacare) have helped me through a few low-down months in the past. (Trust me, I had absolutely NO additional luxuries being funneled to me. My parents have always lived paycheck to paycheck while managing to carve out a meager retirement fund. They gave me $50 to help me cover my electric bill, once - and that is all.)

      That is what those programs are for - to help people get a leg up. The fact that GOP sympathizers buy into their dogma that absolutely everyone who uses these programs are lazy, good-for-nothing criminals who perpetually abuse them is just another GOP propaganda LIE. If they are being abused, its because there is not enough money within government programs to provide the additional jobs needed to HELP monitor & police abuses.

      This is actually as big of a problem as 'not having enough money' to go around. These agencies are overloaded & overwhelmed every single day; and the people who work in them with such a deficit of help (and often low pay to begin with) deserve kudos for their determined, helpful spirits despite the hardships. (If you've worked in these places, they are HARD to work in - just based on the gargantuan amounts of negative social situations they are trying to help people manuever through. Most of them are really ugly and NOT for the faint of heart.)

      These days I help people who are on these programs. While there are some chronic 'gimmee' cases; there are far more people who just need help getting to the next rung of the ladder. They are no different than you or I when it comes to pride and wanting to take care of their own. Many of them actually eventually acheive the goal of independence with the help of government support. Others of them come close and probably will never get off things like Obamacare for help with healthcare needs.

      I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it again... Obamacare wasn't perfect bcuz of GOP as much as bcuz of Dems - they need to work together a LOT better. I blame BOTH political parties for its failure. Neither 1 extreme nor the other is going to win on this issue (well, maybe after Tman is out, Universal Healthcare will finally be seriously considered - we'll see); and arguing over it for DECADES has been VERY expensive.

      I really think that the next president we elect as POTUS will be for Universal Healthcare. Just a hunch... America has caused most of its own homeless & healthcare crisis'. Its time we seriously address these problems from the perspective of inclusion instead of indifference while watching them get worse.

 
working