REMEMBER THIS: Wednesday, June 28, 2017. Repealing and Replacing the Affordable Care Act: THE GOP SENATE REVEALS ITS INTENT- MORE GREED, DECEPTION, AND PRIVILEGE.

THE ARTICLE BELOW WAS PUBLISHED ON 6/28/2017, AND DEALT WITH THE ATTEMPTS BY REPUBLICANS TO ELIMINATE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.* 

THE QUESTION IS THIS: IN PRACTICAL TERMS, HOW ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER SERVED BY THE NEW TAX ACT? 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

YES, I KNOW THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WITHDREW THIS LEGISLATION BEFORE

A VOTE COULD BE TAKEN, BUT DON'T BE SUPRISED IF THE NEW "WORDING" IS JUST
"REPACKAGING" THE SAME MATERIAL YOU SEE BELOW.

The following is taken from excerpts contained in the NPR ARTICLE:  "GOP Senate Bill Would Cut Health Care Coverage By 22 Million", Written by SCOTT HORSELY.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Congressional forecasters say a Senate bill that aims to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026. That's only slightly fewer uninsured than a VERSION PASSED IN THE HOUSE .
Monday's report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office could give moderate senators concerned about health care coverage pause. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was quick to register her opposition to the bill.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wants a vote on the bill this week, before senators head home for the July Fourth recess. With Senate Democrats united in opposition, Republicans can afford to lose only two votes on their side and still pass the bill.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE BRINGS US TO THE FIRST IMPORTANT  POINT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
According to the CBO, the Senate bill does reduce the deficit by $321 billion over the next 10 years, which $202 billion more than the House version that passed last month. Although people buying insurance in the individual market would see lower premiums in many cases, the policies would cover less, and out-of-pocket costs would be higher.

The Senate bill would cut hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes over the coming decade, with most of the savings going to those at the top of the income ladder. At the same time, it would phase out the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, while offering less generous subsidies to those who purchase health insurance on the individual market. That combination is expected to reduce the number of people with insurance coverage by 15 million in 2018 and 22 million by 2026.

The CBO says low-income Americans in their 50s and early 60s would be disproportionately likely to lose their health care coverage under the Senate bill.

"Despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan," the CBO said.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What should we take from this?
Well the GOP are hoping that you pay attention to the "Reduce the Deficit" by 321 billion over the next ten years, and ignore everything else. For example, Do You see the line:

"The Senate bill would cut hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes over the coming decade, with most of the savings going to those 'at the top of the income ladder.".Well,This is an action that would increase the deficit, not lower it.

Tax Breaks/ Cutting Taxes are ways that allow the Individual or Business to keep more money, by owing less to the Government. Naturally, revenue from this area would be decreased, so the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE LESS TO SPEND.

To make up for this loss of revenue, and still shrink the deficit, the following must happen:
NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE MUST BE FOUND, OR CURRENT SOURCES MUST BE MADE TO CONTRIBUTE MORE...
...AND/OR...
...GOVERNMENT SPENDING MUST BE DECREASED ENOUGH TO OFFSET THE MASSIVE LOSS OF REVENUE, SO CUTS MUST BE MADE.
IT APPEARS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE HEALTH OF ITS CITIZENS TO MEET THIS NEED.

*AT THIS TIME 3 REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTED AGAINST REPEALING IT, SO IT WAS THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS PART OF THE GOP ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. AS WE KNOW NOW, THE ANSWER IS NO.