“Morality” in Washington is a politician stripping billions from one group of people and giving it to another group he or she thinks deserves it more. It costs the politician nothing, and buys him power, the only coin that’s worth anything in his world.

I would like to hear what level of income you consider “aren’t rich, never were rich, and don’t particularly care if they ever become rich.” Then you could look up how much government “morality”–apparently the only kind you recognize–this “majority” actually pays for.

In the parable of the Widow’s Mite, her gift may have rightfully caused the widow’s soul to shine before heaven, but even as a kid it occurred to me that two cents wasn’t going to buy much charity for the rest of the poor.

Fun Fact: The World Health Organization has described North Korea’s health care system as “the envy of the developing world.”

Interesting fact: the cost of medical procedures and supplies in the US is about 10 times similar costs in most of the rest of the world. That vast cash flow is in fact the entire, and sole, point of American Healthcare in it’s current form. Hospitals are optimized for wealth, not health.

What it comes down to is rich people don’t want to pay taxes to send poor people to the doctor. Neither do people who think they are entitled to be rich because they believe only they have a work ethic and no one else does. And neither do people who have convinced themselves they would be rich if it just weren’t for those damned poor people and those damned liberals.

Fortunately, a lot of people who aren’t rich, never were rich, and don’t particularly care if they ever become rich are still willing to share their own wealth to help their fellow Americans and their kids be healthy. And sooner or later those people will prevail because they ARE the majority.

A White House analysis of the GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare shows even steeper coverage losses than the projections by the Congressional Budget Office, according to a document viewed by POLITICO on Monday.

The preliminary analysis from the Office of Management and Budget forecast that 26 million people would lose coverage over the next decade, versus the 24 million CBO estimates. The White House has made efforts to discredit the forecasts from the nonpartisan CBO.

Tens of millions that would have had insurance wont under this plan… how do you think that would work out?
Who do you think will pick up the bill when they get sick? Because SOMEONE will have to, unless you just let them die on the street… ANOTHER thing Trump assured us he wouldn’t let happen… just like he assured us that he wouldn’t cut medicaid and assured us EVERYONE would be covered….

You are ok with JUST 10 million? Roughly the population of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Hawaii combined?

Of course there are many in your party that feel this isn’t enough- they want to see more…

And what do you think will happen when the 64 year old making $26,500 a year has their premium jump from $1,700 to $14,600… do you think they have the ability to stay on insurance, or will they fall off the roles as well?

I guess you, like Chaffetz, want them to buy 20 fewer i-phones?

Or do they deserve to die, because they obviously didn’t have what it takes if they are poor by that age?

And how do you square 10 million with Trump’s promise that EVERYONE will be covered?

Those with pre-existing conditions, the parasites you referred to that are driving up everyone’s insurance rates- (Those who are less conservative than you think of them as “%27 of adult americans under the age of 65″ or just “52 million of our fellow human beings”)…. how will they fare?

The high risk pools have been tried before and they did not fare well… often running out of money, and many included 6-12 month waiting period for coverage, as well as much higher premiums. The GOP bill provides $100 billion OVER 9 YEARS to the states for the high risk pools- no one thinks that is nearly enough.

It also cuts medicaid by $880 billion over 10 years- (Again something Trump promised he wouldn’t do) the states will either have to cut programs or raise taxes to make up the shortfall… Mental health coverage will no longer be required, so that will get cut first- but thats ok, that means a larger number of people can buy guns!

%42 of medicaid funding goes to the disabled, but those folks are just dead weight dragging us down, right?

%70 of nursing home patients end up on medicaid- and while many of them probably would vote republican, they probably don’t vote- so no loss there.

Medicaid also covers 75% of the births of poor children… this is where gutting medicare helps you- most of those kids would grow up to vote democrat… so if they die at birth that helps you a lot… just as long as they aren’t aborted its all good!

Please point it out.

Then open the CBO report again, turn to page 25 and 26, and read it carefully. Particularly this:

CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes. One way to assess the range of uncertainty around the estimated effects of the legislation is to compare previous projections with actual results. For example, some aspects of CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage and related spending made in July 2012 (after the Supreme Court issued a decision that essentially made the expansion of the Medicaid program under the ACA an option for states) can be compared with actual results for 2016. Projected spending on people made eligible for Medicaid because of the ACA was about 60 percent of the actual amount. The number of people predicted in 2012 to purchase insurance through the marketplaces in 2016 was more than twice the actual number. The decline in the number of insured people from 2012 to 2016 was projected to be 23 million, and the decline measured in the National Health Interview Survey turned out to be 20 million. CBO and JCT have continued to learn from experience with the ACA and have endeavored to use that experience to improve their modeling.

That comparison of projections with actual results and the great uncertainties surrounding the actions of the many parties that would be affected by the legislation suggest that outcomes of the legislation could differ substantially from some of the estimates provided here. Nevertheless, CBO and JCT are confident about the direction of certain effects of the legislation. For example, spending on Medicaid would almost surely be lower than under current law. The cost of the new tax credit would probably be lower than the cost of the subsidies for coverage through marketplaces under current law. And the number of uninsured people under the legislation would almost surely be greater than under current law.

That second paragraph is the only thing you can safely take to the bank in this report. Previous CBO reports on this subject were wildly wrong on the exact numbers, and not in Obamacare’s favor.

Yes, fewer people will be insured. A lot of them will be because the government is no longer forcing them to buy insurance. 24 million is not an accurate number.

Then maybe we can start dealing with the real issue, which is not how many people have an insurance policy, but how many people have an insurance policy that doesn’t suck.

Life is great under Obamacare if you qualify for a subsidy. The rest of us, not so much.