Obviously there's no way of being 100% certain about this because the GOP still hasn't actually presented their ACA replacement bill (and in fact, have been playing a rousing game of Where's Waldo with it all afternoon), but we do have a pretty good idea of what it's gonna look like, thanks to a recent draft version of the bill which was leaked a couple of weeks back.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has crunched the numbers and compared what things look like financial assistance-wise under the ACA, the HHS Secretary Tom Price's "Empowering Patients First" bill and the recent "House Discussion Draft" bill to see how the GOP versions size up...and it's not pretty.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
--― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
While this project has received high praise as a useful resource, one problem with it is that the numbers aren't static--between the high churn rate of the individual market and Medicaid, as well as the fact there's no limited enrollment period for Medicaid (you can sign up year-round), the enrollment figures are constantly changing.
I don't have a county-level breakout of the updated number, but I'm assuming that each county/congressional district has increased roughly proportionately:
While this project has received high praise as a useful resource, one problem with it is that the numbers aren't static--between the high churn rate of the individual market and Medicaid, as well as the fact there's no limited enrollment period for Medicaid (you can sign up year-round), the enrollment figures are constantly changing.
While this project has received high praise as a useful resource, one problem with it is that the numbers aren't static--between the high churn rate of the individual market and Medicaid, as well as the fact there's no limited enrollment period for Medicaid (you can sign up year-round), the enrollment figures are constantly changing.
Case in point: As of the beginning of January, roughly 640,000 Michiganders were enrolled in "Healthy Michigan", our name for ACA Medicaid expansion. By the end of January, that number had increased to just over 646,000.
For the most part, Republican Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a fairly hands-off approach when it comes to both the Affordable Care Act and Donald Trump. He pushed for both Medicaid expansion and a state-based ACA exchange, but while he managed to get the former through the GOP-controlled state legislature (albeit 3 months late and with a few conservative trimmings), he failed on the latter front, and pretty much shrugged it off after that. Since then, Michigan's implementation of ACA Medicaid expansion has quietly been pretty damned successful, with 646,000 Michiganders (strike that...it's now up to 666,000!) enrolled in the program...over 6.5% of the entire state's population. Beyond that, however, Snyder has been fairly quiet about the ACA overall to my knowledge.
For weeks now, one of the rallying cries in Congressional and Senatorial Town Halls across the country has been "Care, not Chaos!". There's a whole website about it and everything. There's a bunch of different organizations dedicated to preserving the Affordable Care Act...but some of them are taking a different approach, by reasonably stating that if the GOP is absolutely dead-set on repealing the law, they should at least make sure there's a decent replacement plan ready to go the moment that the ACA is shredded:
Thirty million people will lose their health insurance. Insurance premiums will skyrocket. Hospitals will lose billions. And if the Medicaid program is cut, state and local governments could raise taxes on hardworking families to make up the difference.
We must work together to make healthcare better and more affordable for all. Our healthcare system is far from perfect, but repealing our healthcare without an immediate replacement plan that protects our care will put the health and financial security of millions of Americans at risk.
In remarks at a press preview of his budget priorities on Monday, President Donald Trump teased the idea that, after working with his team and in consultation with Republican governors, he is nearly ready to unveil his plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
“We have come up with a solution that’s really, really, I think very good,” he said, before proceeding to say nothing about what that solution looks like. One issue, according to Trump, is that health insurance policy is difficult. “It’s an unbelievably complex subject, nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.”
Needless to say, this is utter horseshit. Many, many people know just how complicated healthcare policy can be (and yes, I prefer to use the single word "healthcare" as opposed to "health care". Get over it).
However, until around October 2013, I was not one of them.
Obamascare: 60% of online Obamacare defenders 'paid to post' hits on critics
A majority of online and social media defenders of Obamacare are professionals who are "paid to post," according to a digital expert.
"Sixty percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time," said Michael Brown. "They were paid to post."
His shocking analysis was revealed on this weekend's Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, broadcast on Sinclair stations and streamed live Sunday at 9:30 a.m. Her upcoming show focuses on information wars and Brown was describing what happened when he had a problem with Obamacare and complained online.
Brown said that social media is used to manipulate opinion, proven in the last presidential election.
OK. First of all, "social media is used to manipulate opinion" isn't exactly a "shocking analysis".
