What would it mean to put children first?

Posted bydatingjesus 5 Comments on What would it mean to put children first?

50ba295e6bba00271e460cf62b1afbc5Bruce Lesley, of @First_Focus and @Campaign4Kids, explores that here. The proposed repeal of Obamacare (to be replaced, so far, by….uh…do you hear crickets? How did crickets get on this blog?) could have devastating effects on children and young people, according to this Georgetown University study.

Couple that with information from this Economic Policy Institute study which looks at the continuing and corrosive effect of segregated schools on all children, and we’re looking at rolling the clocks back for everyone under the age of 18.

But yeah. Make America Great Again. By all means.

 

Published by datingjesus

Just another one of God's children.

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

  1. Today the CBO published an updated report on the effects of partial repeal of ObamaCare® if Republicans continue on the replacement path they pushed last year (HR3762).

    In brief, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:
    • The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.
    • Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.

    An ObamaCare® repeal would, however, Lavish Medicare Tax Cuts on 400 Highest-Income Households. Each Would Get Average Tax Cut of About $7 Million a Year.. So there’s that.

    The Republican plan to replace existing Medicaid/CHIP programs with a Clintonesque block grant program is also deeply flawed. As Don McCanne explains here, block grants “can be set at an amount of payment that is lower and that does not increase at the same rate as health costs, thus shifting Medicaid costs from the federal government to the states…reducing federal regulatory oversight.” We’ve seen how block grants that ended “Welfare As We Know It” have failed our nations neediest citizens. By turning access to healthcare for the poor over to the whims of ideologues and cash strapped States, the block grant system that ended welfare will also serve to end healthcare as we know it.

    The only logical replacement for the likewise deeply flawed and unsustainable ObamaCare® is an expanded and improved Medicare-for-All…like HR676. If Democrats in Congress don’t stop trying to save Obamacare® through piecemeal negotiations with the Trumptini, they will be as responsible as Republicans for sentencing tens of millions of Americans to a life of misery and excess preventable mortality, not to mention an increased loss of financial security for all Americans.

    Reply
    1. Reply
    2. Reply

      1. I think it has a very good chance. Public opinion polls and surveys are showing increased acceptance of universal, publicly funded healthcare.

        The problem is ideologues…especially those in the Democratic Party…that are in the pockets of corporate persons keep telling us it’s not feasible. It’s a lie that’s becoming increasingly apparent. The numbers add up.

        Like I said, if Democrats in Congress continue to act in the best interests of profit over patients…like Cory Booker and 12 other Democrats just did the other day when they scuttled legislation proposed by Bernie that would allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada…Single Payer will continue to flounder. When the American people learn that instead of paying 9 to 15 percent..and more… of their income for barely adequate coverage they could be paying 3 to 7 percent for guaranteed comprehensive coverage and still save the nation a couple trillion dollars over time? They’re going to be pissed.

        What we need right now is someone to convince The Donald that the President who signs Single Payer into law will be the next bust on Mount Rushmore.

        Reply
        1. Reply
Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: