“Relief for the Rich Act”

In his op-ed piece, Understanding Republican Cruelty, Paul Krugman explains the redistribution of wealth going on with Republican health legislation:

More than 40 percent of the Senate bill’s tax cuts would go to people with annual incomes over $1 million — but even these lucky few would see their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.

So it’s vast suffering — including, according to the best estimates, around 200,000 preventable deaths — imposed on many of our fellow citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket change. And the public hates the idea: Polling shows overwhelming popular opposition, even though many voters don’t realize just how cruel the bill really is. For example, only a minority of voters are aware of the plan to make savage cuts to Medicaid.

In fact, my guess is that the bill has low approval even among those who would get a significant tax cut. Warren Buffett has denounced the Senate bill as the “Relief for the Rich Act,” and he’s surely not the only billionaire who feels that way.

It’s fucked up to see an administration so hostile towards the people they represent.

“a garbage bill that can’t pay for itself”

Friend and DE contributor Bryan Larrick on his experience with Obamacare:

Obamacare has faced regular attacks from the Republican Party, since before it was even passed. It was victim to such rhetorical fantasies as death panels and the like. The act fit in nicely with all of the other fevered conspiracy theories surrounding the Obama administration, and like all those others, none of the dastardly things said about Obamacare were true. And these false narratives about the act still hold sway among members of Congress as they pander to the extreme members of the party’s base. When he announced the AHCA, House Speaker Paul Ryan, one of the most craven men ever to serve in Congress, said, “This unified Republican government will deliver relief and peace of mind to the millions of Americans suffering under Obamacare.”

Did I write that Paul Ryan was craven? Because it actually takes some stones to stand in front of a bank of microphones and say something so utterly, completely untrue. Suffering? Suffering?! Tens of millions of Americans who did not have health insurance before Obamacare now have it. These are people who no longer have to worry about financial destruction should they get seriously ill. Also, because they have insurance, these millions are now more likely to seek out preventive care, which leads to a healthier and longer life, and lowers the overall cost of healthcare in the long run. I am one of those people.

Bryan admits the ACA is not perfect, but what Republicans are proposing with the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is straight up hostile to the people of the United States.

The term ‘Obamacare’ was a nickname Republicans came up with to place blame on Obama for creating what they saw as a horrible healthcare system. The negative connotations — and ignorance — towards ‘Obamacare’ are so strong in certain parts of the US that people will say they agree with the goals of The Affordable Care Act but don’t like Obamacare. Jimmy Kimmel was nice enough to do a multi-part series to show this in action.

I find it ironic that in hindsight, ‘Obamacare’ could end up having positive connotations in light of the shit sandwich Paul Ryan has presented with the AHCA and what many of his fellow Republicans are rejecting.

No, you shouldn’t always listen to your elders.

Noam N. Levey on the losers in Trump’s victory:

Americans who swept President Trump to victory — lower-income, older voters in conservative, rural parts of the country — stand to lose the most in federal healthcare aid under a Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, according to a Times analysis of county voting and tax credit data.

Among those hit the hardest under the current House bill are 60-year-olds with annual incomes of $30,000, particularly in rural areas where healthcare costs are higher and Obamacare subsidies are greater.

In nearly 1,500 counties nationwide, such a person stands to lose more than $6,000 a year in federal insurance subsidies. Ninety percent of those counties backed Trump, the analysis shows.

And 68 of the 70 counties where these consumers would suffer the largest losses supported Trump in November.

We’re seeing a scary scenario unfolding.

Oh, and the irony:

Meanwhile, higher-income, younger Americans — many of whom live in urban areas won by Democrat Hillary Clinton — stand to get more assistance in the Republican legislation.

Is this what Trump voters think “Make America Great Again” looks like?