A criminally inaccurate headline about Trumpcare on THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYT

[kpete]

Question to the New York Times: how do the poor benefit at all from this?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[yallerdawg]

1. This must be...

"All the news that fits."

[dalton99a]

2. Well, death will relieve their pain

[malaise]

3. On the other hand the picture is worth way more than 10,000 words

It's the quintessential gathering of the Cons - greedy sleazy ReTHUG white men

[world wide wally]

4. No wonder the NYT is failing

[Zambero]

5. The difference between life or death for many?

"Much less so", indeed.

[Hoyt]

6. Looks accurate enough to me -- Wealthy get tax cut and Poor get little/nothing.

Maybe it could have been worded a bit differently, but there wasn't much space to tell the whole story.

Actually some poor -- probably those who are young and healthy -- might do better under Trumpcare than ACA. Most others will probably be hurt if Senate doesn't make changes.
It is possible some slightly older folks will do better if states choose to apply for waivers allowing insurers to charge the heck out of those with pre-existing conditions, rather than continuing the community rating required unless waivers are approved by states. But most older and sick people will do worse, especially if subsidies for pre-existing conditions are inadequate for states who stick it to their poor with pre-existing conditions.

[angstlessk]

9. The young and the healthy might get cheaper insurance, but....

...they won't purchase health insurance...the young and healthy never did....THAT WAS WHY THERE WAS A MANDATE!

[Hoyt]

11. The Mandate was extremely important. But some young and healthy, who are smart

will say, jeeez I can get a $2000 tax credit if I buy health insurance (and assuming the youngster's state doesn't apply for a waiver to gut the 10 essential benefits), which is priced at $150/month and gives me free primary care visits and preventive care, reduces my exposure to high charges by doctors, and provides a limit on out-of-pocket costs. Some will buy it if they still end up paying a relatively small amount not replaced by tax credits. That's why I think a small subset of younger/healthy people will do better, at least financially and in the short-run, under the GOPer plan.

In any event, I think the Senate will improve it to some degree. And some blue states will not destroy whatever is left by applying for waivers. I think the fight moves to the States in that respect.

And No, I don't trust these GOPer bastards, but at least until we figure out a way to get majorities in Congress or elect a Prez, we can only hope for the best outcome under the GOPer regime.

[Cha]

7. Are they Fucking STUPID! How the fuck do the POOR

"benefit" at all, NYT!

Please Tell US

[bdamomma]

8. I am going to call it

Class War Fare. Rich vs Poor. Just posting this article. There are many more.

found this article from 2011.

http://www.alternet.org/story/152512/6_ways_the_rich_are_waging_a_class_war_against_the_american_people

[Ligyron]

10. True...

The resulting death may be preferable to the pain many poor will suffer.

But hey, it's the NYT right? One day they're OK, the next day - they print this shit.