Wait! There's hope! The Pubs have a fix for the ACA!

[KingOrfeo]

Unfortunately, however:

Oops: GOP Bill Would Strip 1 Million Workers Of Health Coverage

Sahil Kapur – February 25, 2014, 4:55 PM EST29021

A Republican-led bill designed to "save American workers" would cause 1 million workers to lose their health care coverage and increase the deficit by $74 billion, according to Congress' official scorekeeper.

The legislation, offered by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and 208 co-sponsors as a tweak to Obamacare, would change the definition of a full-time work week under the health care law from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. The aim was to mitigate the effect of the law's employer mandate, which says businesses with 50 or more workers must offer insurance to full-time employees.

An analysis of the bill, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, found that it would cause 1 million people to lose their employer-based insurance coverage. The report projected that more than 500,000 of them would end up getting coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Care Program or the Obamacare exchanges. The rest, CBO and JCT said, would become uninsured.

The legislation would also lower the amount the federal government collects in penalties from businesses who don't abide by the employer mandate. As a result, the report found, the deficit would go up by $74 billion over 10 years.

Titled the "Save American Workers Act," the bill was touted by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) as part of the GOP's winter 2014 agenda. It cleared the House Ways & Means Committee on a party line vote earlier this month and was slated for a full House vote perhaps as early as next week. Of the bill's 208 cosponsors, seven are Democrats.

The CBO findings are problematic for Republicans in part because they've raised hell about insurance cancellations and market disruptions due to Obamacare's minimum coverage standards and other provisions.

A spokesman for Young didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

"[A]s the administration continues to stumble through implementation of the law, many Americans are still confused with how this sweeping law will work and what its impact will be," the congressman said upon introducing his bill. "Repealing this redefinition [of 'full time employment'] and restoring it to the historical norm ensures this bill not only protects working poor and middle class employees, it also ensures that laws governing employment are consistent."

The reality, it appears, is less simple.

"I think this shows that [the Republicans'] repeal agenda will actually hurt or destroy jobs, and make it harder for people to get health insurance," said Alex Nguyen, a spokesman for Democrats on the Ways & Means Committee.

CBO-JCT Analysis Of H.R. 2575

 

[Aquagal]

I thought this said Pubes.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Nice soros blog info.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Repeal is the answer.

That's simply not going to happen, Grampa Urine.

You're deluding yourself if you think that is even remotely possible.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I thought this said Pubes.

"Oops: GILLETTE Bill Would Shave 1 Million Crotches From Razor Coverage"

 

[unregistered]

 

[jeninflorida]

Is there hope...that your lazy welfare ass will ever get a job?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I said it was the answer. I didn't say anyone would avail themselves of that truth, Mr. Downsouth.

<whine snip>

So your answers are not grounded it truth. Thanks for clearing that up, Grampa Urine.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

When Democrats propose and pass hair [sic] brained communism that predictably fail . . .

The British and Canadian systems are not "hare-brained communism," so why would this one be? And they never predictably failed, so why should this one?

 

[RobDownSouth]

My answer was the truth, Mr. Downsouth...but you can't handle the truth.

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it was a clue-by-4 hitting you in the unibrow, Grampa Urine.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think "hair brained" is more insulting.

We are not talking about those systems.

Yes, we are; they provide a basis for comparison. In any country, a health-care system would have to be a lot more communistic than either of those before you could fairly slap a "communist" label on it. And in any industrialized country, there is no reason to expect systems like them or less so (the ACA is less so) to "predictably fail," because they have not failed elsewhere.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The answer, if we are interested in freedom, and a free society, is to repeal the hair brained idea as simply an unsustainable hair brained idea repugnant to American ideals. Get it G.C.?

American ideals are not what you think they are.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

I know more about them than you do, commie youngster.

Apparently not, unless your username/persona here is some kind of elaborate long-running Poe's-Law satire. If so, it will be more credible if you dial it back a bit; just a suggestion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's a communist idea plain and simple. Try and deny it if you want, but the truth remains. It is failing, those other systems are tiny compared to the scope of this monstrosity. It is unsustainable, own it.

How can it be communist here if a far more comprehensive UCH system in Canada is not?

How can it be unsustainable here if a far more comprehensive UHC system in Canada is not? (Not, certainly, because it is "un-American." Remember, nothing is economically unsustainable on account of cultural/political traditions alone. After all, as you are fond of saying, the laws of economics are carved in stone. )

 

[Liar]

I said it was the answer. I didn't say anyone would avail themselves of that truth, Grand Cyclops.

When Democrats propose and pass hair brained communism that predictably fails, the answer isn't to challenge the Republicans to come up with a version of hair brained communism of their own. The answer, if we are interested in freedom, and a free society, is to repeal the hair brained idea as simply an unsustainable hair brained idea repugnant to American ideals. Get it G.C.?

Since you obviously endorse calling stuff names which they are not, I shall hereonafter refer to you as a pineapple. I assume you will have no problem with this.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since you obviously endorse calling stuff names which they are not, I shall hereonafter refer to you as a pineapple. I assume you will have no problem with this.

He's not gonna get it unless you demonstrate to him what a pineapple is; and waving it before his eyes obviously won't do. Only rectal insertion will bring it home to him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]