According to KFF.org, in Cooke County, a 40-year-old earning $50,000 annually would receive nothing under the Affordable Care Act but, under the House proposal, would receive a $3,000 tax credit in 2020.
"Since Obamacare is collapsing and is unsustainable, Rep. Nunes strongly supports the GOP replacement plan, which will allow for more competition cheaper prices, and more locally based care, while protecting those with pre-existing conditions and those who want insurance but can't afford it", said Jack Langer, a Nunes spokesman.
The Medicaid cuts would also slash funding for treatment of drug addiction, which Trump had vowed to expand.
"California has the most to lose because we had the greatest expansion of coverage under the Affordable Care Act", Anthony Wright, executive director of the Sacramento-based advocacy group Health Access, said on a conference call with reporters. Insurance, by its nature, is about shared risk.
"What that means is people don't have insurance they don't go to the doctor".
"Our working families, our most critical people, are actually going to have to pay more". And what deductibles are you willing to absorb?
What if you choose not to have insurance?
The same theories apply to homeowners insurance.
Poor: The new plan would roll back much of the provisions put in place to protect low-wage earners under Obamacare. It also would allow Americans to save an unlimited amount in health savings accounts and to buy insurance across state lines. Among the latest to leave is Humana, one of the nation's largest health insurers, which announced in February that it will stop selling Obamacare health plans next year for the same reason that others have pulled out of the marketplaces: With so many relatively healthy people avoiding Obamacare plans due to their fast-rising premiums and enormous deductibles, Humana reports that it is losing money on a sicker-than-expected customer mix. This third-party payment disrupted the feedback loop that is necessary for markets to operate efficiently. But the ones presented by House Republicans have instead provoked opposition from the American Hospital Association and other groups. That sounds somewhat OK, given that older people tend to have more health issues.
In their plan, which "takes coverage away from the people who need it the most, Washington Republicans found a way to give massive tax breaks to the CEOs of health insurance companies, as well as to America's billionaires", Bustos said.
The House bill is by no means ideal, but it is at least a beginning.
Aiming to reduce the role of government in health care, the GOP plan would repeal unpopular fines that Obama's law imposes on people who don't carry health insurance. Others could find cheaper plans that better suit their needs; they want to be covered if they get cancer or some other life-threatening disease or have an accident but are willing to pay out of pocket for routine visits for a common cold. Thus, numerous 11 million low- and moderate-income working families receiving subsidies wouldn't appreciate the consequences for several years.
Barletta said he supports the tax credits even though some in his party don't.
Republicans could not say Wednesday whether the replacement legislation would insure more people than now and House Democrats are opposed to moving forward without an answer to that question.