Refresher on the deal: Trump agreed to give Carrier, a unit of United Technologies, up to $7 million if it continued to employ at least 1,069 people at the facility for 10 years, rather than moving it abroad in search of cheaper labor, as originally planned. Carrier also vowed to invest $16 million into the plant. But just a month after the deal was made, CEO Greg Hayes said the $16 million would be invested in automation.

But the bill also would change how the subsidies are calculated. Under the Senate plan, subsidies are tied to income and cost (if you make less and live in a place with expensive coverage, you get a larger subsidy), as is the case with the ACA. But they would apply only to people making up to 350 percent of the federal poverty line, about $42,000 this year; the cutoff under the ACA is 400 percent. And the bill would raise the amount that some people are expected to contribute to their insurance. A 60-year-old earning about $24,120 a year (about 200 percent of the federal poverty line) is currently expected to pay about $1,550 in premiums. Under the Senate bill, that would be $2,412. A 30-year-old earning that amount, however, would be expected to pay slightly less, about $1,400 under the Senate bill, compared with $1,550 under current law.

As with the House bill, the number of uninsured will likely be projected to grow under the Senate bill. Some could join the ranks of the uninsured by choice if the individual requirement to buy insurance were to go away. But others would be priced out of the market. A pending report from the CBO, due by early next week, will help clarify who might be uninsured under the Senate bill. But there would likely be an increase among at least three groups: 1. low-income people who currently qualify for Medicaid but would be cut from the program, 2. older adults, because insurers would be allowed to charge them higher premiums under the Senate bill than they can under current law, and 3. young and healthy adults who might have less incentive to buy insurance in the absence of the individual mandate. It would likely also include a swath of middle-income adults who are already uninsured, those who receive little in the way of help to buy insurance but still face relatively high premiums.

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:this is dark.

all jersey's wet dreams are coming true.

Some of the conservative health care policy people are a bit happier about this version than the House bill. Been busy at work this week. Will read about it this weekend in more detail. I don't really care about the tax aspect of the bill, and seems like the marginal gains conservative policy wise will be wiped out by the bill's massive unpopularity & taking ownership of the issue from the Dems and ACA, and will get us to Medicare for All in the first term of the Klobuchar-Booker presidency in about four years.

Still don't think it will pass.

I don't see any reason to be long term optimistic that Americans will vote in their best interest, but congrats to you on the org you build your entire identity around taking away peoples access to affordable healthcare.

Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover
Laboratory services
Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

JFLNYC wrote:The richest society in the history of the Earth is about to cut off/make unaffordable healthcare for it's older and poorest.

pacino wrote:we finally made a step in the right direction and now we want to almost go back to the old system instead of tweaking a few things

pacino wrote:i dont play golf so i have no idea if that's a faux pas or not, i guess so?

idk, who cares

pacino wrote:i dont play golf so i have no idea if that's a faux pas or not, i guess so?

idk, who cares

I'm waiting for a reporter to say "Many people say there's no way you're smart enough to orchestrate the Russian meddling in the election, so you must be innocent. What do you have to say about that?" so they can record his confession.