Skip to main content

Trumpcare = Trump doesn't care

If there's one thing people should take from the new healthcare proposal, now referred to as Trumpcare, it's that Donald Trump and the other leaders of the Republican Party don't care. While the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is anything but a perfect law, it did help pave the way toward the lowest uninsured rate in this country's recorded history. Over 22 million who were uninsured prior to the ACA's implementation now have health insurance because of it. What is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projecting with regard to the American Health Care Act (Trumpcare)? Over 24 million losing healthcare. What's worse, even after Donald Trump claimed the CBO was biased prior to their reported analysis, the White House followed the CBO's projection by themselves predicting 26 million more would be uninsured following the implementation of the AHCA. Let's look at those numbers a bit more closely.

Obamacare: +22 million insured

Trumpcare: -24 million insured

Difference: Obamacare +46 million/Trumpcare -46 million

So the uninsured rate would climb from approximately 28 million to 52 million, or to put it another way, from 10.9% to 20.2%, the lowest to the highest such reading in recorded history. Not only is there that grand disparity (not so grand for 24 million people), there's also a stark contrast in the two healthcare plans' tax credits. Here's how they compare:

Lower-income ($20,000)
Age 27: Affordable Care Act (ACA) - $3,225, American Health Care Act (AHCA) - $2,000 (+/-$1,225)
Age 40: ACA - $4,143, AHCA - $3,000 (+/-$1,143)
Age 60: ACA - $9,874, AHCA - $4,000 (+/-$5,874)

Middle-income ($40,000)
Age 27: ACA - $103, AHCA - $2,000 (+/-$1,897)
Age 40: ACA - $1,021, AHCA - $3,000 (+/-$1,979)
Age 60: ACA - $6,752, AHCA - $4,000 (+/-$2,752)

Higher-income ($75,000)
Age 27: ACA - $0, AHCA - $2,000 (+/-$2,000)
Age 40: ACA - $0, AHCA - $3,000 (+/-$3,000)
Age 60: ACA - $0, AHCA - $4,000 (+/-$4,000)

So, according to Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and company, those making $75,000 a year should receive the same amount of aid as those making $20,000 a year. Fascinating...

When it comes to projected net premiums for 2026, the numbers are even worse for "Trumpcare."

Incomes of $26,500
Age 21: ACA - $1,700, AHCA - $1,450 (+/-$250)
Age 40: ACA - $1,700, AHCA - $2,400 (+/-$700)
Age 64: ACA - $1,700, AHCA - $14,600 (+/-$12,900)

Incomes of $68,200
Age 21: ACA - $5,100, AHCA - $1,450 (+/-$3,650)
Age 40: ACA - $6,500, AHCA - $2,400 (+/-$4,100)
Age 64: ACA - $15,300, AHCA - $14,600 (+/-$700)

Let's delve deeper into the numbers here and see what percent of these groups' incomes would go to their healthcare premiums.

Incomes of $26,500
Age 21: ACA - 6.4%, AHCA - 5.5%
Age 40: ACA - 6.4%, AHCA - 9.1%
Age 64: ACA - 6.4%, AHCA - 55.1%

Incomes of $68,200
Age 21: ACA - 7.5%, AHCA - 2.1%
Age 40: ACA - 9.5%, AHCA - 3.5%
Age 64: ACA - 22.4%, AHCA - 21.4%

In the GOP's plan, those making $26,500 pay a larger percentage of their income on premiums than those making $68,200. How in all that is logical does that make sense? Worst of all, in the GOP's plan, those aged 64 or older would pay over 55% of their annual incomes on their premiums!

So, under the American Health Care Act, the uninsured rate will nearly double, tax credits will decrease for those who need it most and increase for those who need it least, and those who typically need healthcare coverage the most will wind up spending more than half their annual incomes on AHCA premiums. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it's widely known, may not be perfect and may need some fixing up, but Trumpcare is a national embarrassment and showcases that Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and the other heads of the GOP do anything but care about the American people.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ahca-obamacare-replacement-winners-and-losers-tax-credits-2017-3

http://www.newsweek.com/trumpcare-obamacare-health-insurance-trump-paul-ryan-cbo-congressional-budget-567393

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201641/uninsured-rate-holds-low-fourth-quarter.aspx

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"