╌>

Trump isn't letting Obamacare die; he's trying to kill it

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  johnrussell  •  7 years ago  •  104 comments

Trump isn't letting Obamacare die; he's trying to kill it

theconversation.com

Trump isn't letting Obamacare die; he's trying to kill it


Simon Haeder





Early on the morning of July 28, Republicans were dealt a surprising blow when Sen. John McCain (R-AR), along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), voted against the latest installment of GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In light of Republicans’ failure to undo the ACA, President Trump was quick to react on Twitter, stating that he would simply “ let ObamaCare implode ” and have Democrats own the consequences. With Republicans holding all positions of power in Washington, D.C., these statements are startling by themselves.

However, with Congressional efforts in limbo, the Trump Administration seems to be going a step further than “letting” Obamacare fail. Indeed, it has emphasized an alternative strategy: actively sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.

Cutting outreach … and misdirecting it


From the get-go, the Trump Administration quickly sought to impair the success of the Affordable Care Act. In one of its first moves, the Department of Health and Human Services under the direction of Secretary Tom Price pulled advertising for the federal government’s enrollment entity, healthcare.gov.

People in their twenties are more likely to not buy health insurance, in large part because they are healthy and do not think they need it. Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com

The advertising has proven important to reach 18 to 34-years-olds . Enrolling these “young invincibles” is crucial for stabilizing risk pools because they are generally healthier and seek less medical care. States running independent campaigns, like California and its insurance marketplace Covered California , have been very successful in recruiting young people.

In an ironic twist, the Trump Administration used advertising funding intended for the promotion of the Affordable Care Act for a series of social media promotions attacking the law .

Also, in mid-July, the Administration moved to end contracts for enrollment assistance in 18 major cities. Contractors helped individuals navigate the often challenging enrollment process in such places as libraries, businesses and urban neighborhoods in these cities which had been identified by the Obama Administration as high priority.

Finally, the window for the next open enrollment period has been cut in half compared to previous years, thus making it difficult for time-pressed people and those who need enrollment help to enroll.

Many of these actions have triggered calls for inquiries into potential malfeasance by Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) .

Spreading misinformation


Vice President Mike Pence is playing a part in the effort to end Obamacare. Gino Santa Maria/Shutterstock.com

Trump Administration officials have been actively traveling the country and pushing talking points that are often false, or, at the very least, highly misleading and incomplete. Prominently featured in these efforts has been Vice President Mike Pence , who blamed Medicaid expansion for the backlog of disability cases in Ohio.

A favorite focus has been on increasing insurance premiums . While it is true that premiums have risen in many places, well over 80 percent of individuals purchasing insurance in the ACA marketplaces are eligible to receive premium subsidies that shield them from these costs. Moreover, 59 percent of enrollees are also eligible to receive cost-sharing subsidies that shield consumers from rising out-of-pocket costs, another favorite Republican talking point.

Efforts to spread misinformation about the ACA has been coupled with equally misleading information about Republican repeal-and-replace efforts. For example, Republicans consistently argue that draconian reductions to the Medicaid program are not actual cuts, a position that virtually all health experts disagree with.

Republicans have repeatedly and persistently argued that the ACA is facing imminent implosion. Again, this position is in direct opposition to that of most health policy experts.

Trump Administration officials’ preferred vehicle for outreach has been social media. For example, there has been a nearly constant stream on Twitter by HHS Secretary Tom Price focusing on “ collapsing exchanges ”, rising premiums , and how the ACA is “ wreaking havoc ” on America. These claims are in direct contradiction to expert analyses or at very least incomplete and highly selective .

Spreading uncertainty


Far from providing a major overhaul of the American healthcare and insurance system, the ACA provided a mere extension of the existing system , a system that relies extensively on private businesses to implement government policy.

Arguably, one of the most crucial components of the ACA is the active cooperation of insurance companies . And unlike with previous health reform efforts, insurance companies have been on board with Obamacare from the beginning.

Yet, insurance companies, both for-profits and non-profits, are first and foremost businesses that need to generate profits to stay afloat. Crucial in this endeavor is legal and regulatory certainty, which allows for long-term planning and helps guide investment decisions.

The constant undermining talk by the Trump Administration has done much to shake the confidence of insurance companies in the ACA. Entering a new market and spending resources to seek new enrollees require significant investments. Insurers do not want to see these potential investments wasted.

One of the most prominent issues in this regard has been the Administration’s lack of commitment to paying the ACA’s cost sharing subsidies . These subsidies help low-income consumers in the insurance marketplaces to shoulder out-of-pocket costs like co-payments for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Most importantly, the ACA requires insurers to cover these costs for their low-income enrollees. Insurers are then reimbursed by the federal government. Last year, reimbursements amounted to $7 billion .

Failure to pay these subsidies would be damaging to insurance markets. Insurers would still be required to make the payments for qualified individuals. However, they would not receive federal reimbursements. This would likely lead to massive premium increases as insurers are seeking to recover their payments. It could also potentially trigger an exodus by insurers.

Not surprisingly, given these uncertainties, insurance companies have left many markets and refused to enter new ones .

The situation is made worse by the Administration’s announcement only days after taking office that it would not enforce the ACA’s individual mandate and the associated tax penalty. While the Administration has reversed that decision for the 2016 tax year, it is unclear what will happen next tax season.

A flawed law doesn’t mean it’s horrible


As Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reightfully pointed out on the last day of the vote-arama on the Republican health care plan, Obamacare is not without its flaws. It does little to contain health care costs or improve the quality of health care provided in this country. Millions of Americans are left without insurance. Some parts of the country lack insurers .

Yet, undeniably, the ACA has done much good by providing coverage to more than 20 millions of Americans and added benefits to millions more.

Republican efforts in Congress to do away with the Obama Administration’s signature accomplishment have been rather bumpy. While Republicans may still be successful, they have certainly taken much longer than President Trump’s promise to repeal the ACA on Day One.

The verdict about the effectiveness of the Trump Administration’s effort to actively undermine the ACA is still out. Yet the efforts appear deliberate and they have been ongoing since the Administration took over the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Actively seeking to bring hardship to millions of Americans by sabotaging their health coverage is certainly highly questionable from a moral and ethical perspective. Future inquiries may also prove that they are illegal.

Perhaps most concerning, in my opinion, when the President of the United States and his closest advisers consistently spread false and misleading information, Americans are bound to lose. They may not only lose their health care coverage. They may also lose trust in their government and their elected leaders, and, eventually, in democratic government itself.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell    7 years ago

Trump Administration officials have been actively traveling the country and pushing talking points that are often false, or, at the very least, highly misleading and incomplete. Prominently featured in these efforts has been Vice President Mike Pence , who blamed Medicaid expansion for the backlog of disability cases in Ohio.

A favorite focus has been on increasing insurance premiums . While it is true that premiums have risen in many places, well over 80 percent of individuals purchasing insurance in the ACA marketplaces are eligible to receive premium subsidies that shield them from these costs. Moreover, 59 percent of enrollees are also eligible to receive cost-sharing subsidies that shield consumers from rising out-of-pocket costs, another favorite Republican talking point.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
link     replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

I agree with you on the most, but I need to ask if a system is not " sustainable " that is that the facts show that over time it will bankrupt any budget, what should one do?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     7 years ago

trump is a vindictive bastard. Who never had any business being president.

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant    7 years ago

To say insurance companies are not profiting from the ACA is disingenuous at best. Insurance companies always make money.

Even if they lowered pricing, vs yearly rate increases, they would still make money. Just not as much as they planned to make.

They could even make more than they did years past and still call it a loss. Simply stated, the losses are accounting smoke & mirrors for the stockholders.

Insurance companies always make money.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  One Miscreant   7 years ago

Nice to see you here, Miscreant,  hopefully many more will follow, cause this site is fukin dead right now.

When you are used to hundreds of us online verse a few here online.. Well I hope it grows cause I'm not much of one for talking to myself much. If it doesn't i'll soon be looking elsewhere but I hope not because this seems to be a well developed website, I hope we can all enjoy it for a while.. Thanks to the owners for opening it up to the public.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

No, not dead. Quiet, with bursts of sudden activity. Like a Sun. Stay a while and relax. The site will come to you and grow on you.

No offense, but we hope it never grows to hundreds. After awhile all of that talk just become static and we like clear signals and conversation. We hope you and others will also.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

No offense taken , but I'll bet it grows to hundreds as nbc newsvine dies.

Personally I like variety so... I have no problem with lots of different ideologies being represented.

I hope this influx doesn't hurt the ones here though, It seems like many of you have known about and have used this site for years.

I have a feeling it is going to be changing whether anyone wants it to or not now though. NBC newsvine has thousands of users. As it shuts down many of them will be looking for new chat rooms that are similar. This one is. 

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

Could be. Still we hope it will stay manageable. Welcome!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Thank you. I hope we don't ruin your site.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

He's a small town boy....crowds freak him out, LOL!

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

I tried theNewstalkers after NV reformatted a few years ago and I like it but the problem was lack of responders. I just wasn't getting any responses to any of my obviously brilliant posts - not very satisfying.

So I'm hoping there are enough people coming over from NV so there are good exchanges of ideas.

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  One Miscreant   7 years ago

At the end of the day, it's OK for insurance companies to make money. 

I think the problems with health care costs isn't really them. It's not their fault that hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have a huge monopoly on services heavily enforced by the government. Insurance is at the end of the day a risky competitive business and if costs of what they cover are artificially high, premiums have to rise with it.

As for ACA, overall I'm a fan but I see huge outnesses with it. The single biggest outness by far is that the legislation was actually written in part by huge health care interests and they are guaranteed full retail for all their services. Without a doubt, ACA did not cut costs. They did insure over 15 million Americans which I applaud - everyone should have coverage. 

It's a reflection of the Medicare reforms Bush did when he was President. Seniors did get better benefits and AARP endorsed it. But they did it by baking in huge costs to satisfy special interests. The best monopoly corrupt contributions can buy.

 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     7 years ago

I find his statements and actions to be beyond belief...Saying ''screw you'' to a large percentage of the population. 

The republican party promised for 7 years a cheaper, better health care plan...They couldn't deliver and Trump wants to blame everyone but himself and use his vindictive nature against the citizens of the U.S.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    7 years ago

In his anger he is going to hurt a lot of people and the worst pat of all is that he just does not give a damn. He is psychopathic. He has no empathy whatsoever. He is striking out like a spoiled 4 year old.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

He is psychopathic.

I'd say he's actually a megalomaniac. 

megalomania

noun  meg·a·lo·ma·nia  \ˌme-gə-lō-ˈmā-nē-ə, -nyə\ 

 

Symptoms of megalomania:

.

- sleeplessness.

- hyperactivity, garrulity.

- narcissism (narcissism).

- aggression in relation to people around them, bullying.

- frequent change of moods.

- concentration on own thoughts, ignores others advice.

- a mania for greatness or grandiose performance.

- lack of interest to the opinion of people around them.

- a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

- a condition or mental illness that causes people to think that they have great or unlimited power or importance.

- revaluation by the patient of the self importance, physical and mental abilities.

.

All symptoms of megalomania.

.

Disease is dangerous with possible development of a depression and aphrenia.

(aphrenia) full blown mental meltdown.

.

Megalomania isn’t considered as an individual disease, but as a symptom at maniacal syndrome, paranoia, or as one of complex inferiority complex types. Megalomania is a disorder of mentality at which the consciousness or behavior of the person is seriously broken. It is shown in revaluation of own importance, popularity, wealth, power, significance.

 

.            

      Well, Hello Mr. authoritarian style megalomaniac president Trump,

                                         We were just talking about you. 

 

.

 

.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

He has a multiple diagnosis. Narcissistic Personality disorder fits also. Megalomania is a prime symptom. I haven't read the DSM-V yet, but I know he is in it...lurking.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

I really don't care what he is I just wish he wasn't the president.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
link   tomwcraig    7 years ago

Any sort of replacement for the PPACA needs to have two main things inserted into it as requirements:

1) Pre-existing conditions being covered

2) Requirement that all plans by each insurance company are offered in every area of every state.

These two things would allow everyone to participate and allow each person to choose the plan that is best for them.  It would increase competition, but the main issue is that some states like New York, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin have much different requirements than other states.

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  tomwcraig   7 years ago

I agree that pre-existing conditions should be covered.

What to cover is tricky. I actually favor ACA more than not, but from purely self interest it screws me over personally. One thing is before ACA, I had a low cost policy that insured with a 5000 deductible per incident. So the idea was that if anything is under 5000 dollars, I'll pay for it (prevention like physicals were still covered) but anything over that is totally covered.

This incidentally is what "insurance" is. Something that spreads the risk and allows you to get by if something very serious happens.

In theory according to many liberal thinkers, I was too stupid to know what was good for me which I found especially galling. With ACA, basically I'm having money extorted from me in terms of much higher premiums to cover other people for more routine things.

I have a different take on what we should do. To me, we way over-insure at the bottom but way under-insure at the top. The 8 to 10K "out of pocket" limit on your insurance is a disgusting and cruel joke so many people discover the hard way. So what I want is everyone has insurance kind of like what I had, but there is none of this nonsense of being remotely as "reasonable and customary" as insurance gets and there is no max - if it costs 10 million dollars for someone to get better, that's what it costs. If you get someone that needs long term extensive care, you %)(&)&_ cover it!!

If it's 5K or less, you make payments. If you're low income, you make small payments but you pay something. 

And no one is refused treatment - ever. 

And one benefit I see of having payments at the bottom is that if you the person are paying the costs, watch the costs come down. When insurance pays for it you don't care how much it costs. But you care a lot when you're paying for it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
link   TᵢG  replied to  markpup   7 years ago

That has been my philosophy on insurance too.   Insure for the expensive surprises and cover the affordable out of pocket via HSA.    Routine preventative should be covered to encourage healthy practices and for early detection.

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  TᵢG   7 years ago

Yes I agree that if I buy a policy that's a high deductible it should cover prevention.

Insurance companies are smart about this. My last insurance actually paid me 75 dollars to go out and get a physical. That's always a good investment for them.

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  TᵢG   7 years ago

I'm skeptical about HSA though. For that you need a crystal ball - OK what's going to be wrong with me and my family this year? And I'll put that much money aside. 

If (when) you get it wrong, you either lose the money you put aside or don't have enough to cover your expense.

To me, it would be more sensible to just go back to being able to itemize medical expenses that are out of pocket.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
link   tomwcraig  replied to  markpup   7 years ago

I actually agree with you about how people need to treat insurance, but my philosophy has always been (due to having a pre-existing condition) to keep everything as low priced as possible with a low deductible and low OOP.  The Republicans had an idea early on in the PPACA debate to allow HSAs to roll-over if you do not use all of it.  The problem was the Democrats actually shot that down.

 
 
 
markpup
Freshman Silent
link   markpup  replied to  tomwcraig   7 years ago

Not only that, but the deductible for medical expenses increased from 7.5 to 10 percent to help pay for PPACA. This was one of several "hidden" taxes for the new legislation. So I'd imagine if Democrats didn't want to let you roll over HSAs, it was to help pay for the bill.

In essence, if you allow a rollover on an HSA, you might as well just go back to allowing people to itemize their out of pocket medical expenses which in my mind is the reasonable thing to do. 

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02    7 years ago

let this damn law wither and die---if dems think they are going to do a fix with repubs helping they can forget that..most people are not signing up for the UNAFFORDABLE care act because dems wrote and implemented a POS bill that no one wanted and now that it has failed they don't want to admit it sucks.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

If this law dies, so do 100's of thousands of people because of lack of proper medical care they would otherwise have under it. The problem is not with the law. The problem is with heartless bastards like Ryan and Trump who WANT this to fail and are sabotaging it on purpose, just to score political points and because they lost a vote in the Senate!!! Like a bunch of fucking crybaby school children, playing life and death with OTHER people's lives! Grow the fuck up!

Well, this is not a fucking political game! This is not republican or democrat or left or right, it is about real, living, breathing, loved human beings! This is real life and death! Anyone who thinks this is just about a law or dollars and cents or ideology has their head up their ass so far that they can't see the human, the very real human, cost of their stupidity, vanity and ego! Be a human being for once and forget your political party!

If this law dies then people will die and their deaths will be on people like YOU!!!

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
link   tomwcraig  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

They won't lack care.  That is the biggest fallacy of the entire argument from the beginning.  All the PPACA actually does is address INSURANCE not Health Care.  People still go to Emergency Rooms or Urgent Care centers for their health care.  It's just with the PPACA everyone was required to purchase insurance.  The costs were never addressed except to artificially RAISE them by increasing taxes on things like MEDICAL DEVICES.  Actual care was never addressed.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

If this law dies, so do 100's of thousands of people because of lack of proper medical care they would otherwise have under it. The problem is not with the law. 

I think the problem IS with the law and is exacerbated by the hubris of enacting a law without a single republican vote while knowing that the law will collapse of its own weight if republicans don't agree to shore it up. 

The fundamental problem with Obamacare has always been how to pay for it. The law relies on younger people to pay premiums rather than pay the penalty for not enrolling. However, young people (like my own son) quickly figured out that the penalty is lower than the insurance so he decided not to enroll. His reasoning was that his health is good and the only care he's likely to need is catastrophic care, which he can get in any emergency room and then sign up for Obamacare later if he needs anything longer term. Trump can expand the exemptions for paying the penalty, stop advertising Obamacare, and make it even more likely that young people don't enroll. 

Obama knew that the cost of the Obamacare deductibles on low income people was prohibitively expensive so he subsidized it by executive order. Republicans sued him over it. Although Trump continues to pay the subsidy, he hasn't committed to continue paying it and has, instead, called it a bargaining chip. Meanwhile, those in the middle class who aren't eligible for the subsidy (and who are forced to buy comprehensive insurance that covers care they dont need) struggle to pay their own costs while subsidizing others. Insurers are unsure of what will happen and many intend to request price hikes or withdraw from the exchanges altogether. That will make things worse.

Democrats cannot expect Obamacare to survive completely intact and republicans cannot expect to repeal the law like a tablecloth trick . . . snatching the tablecloth out from under the dishes without breaking anything because they may actually break every dish on the table. Both sides can play partisan games but, at the end of the day, they are going to have to sit down together and come up with a bi-partisan heath care plan. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

According to the CBO, the overwhelming majority of people who would "lose" insurance under the various repeal bills are those who would voluntarily refrain from buying health insurance without the individual mandate.

But claiming it's get taken from them or ripped from them is much more histrionic and plays with the Democratic base better. 

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

over 30 million people LOST their insurance plans when they started obamacare and were forced into buying much more expensive plans...guess dems consider that a win for them though, but hey at least they have that insurance card even when it has a $5000 deductible so they can't use it 

dems messed up the health insurance of millions in order to cover a minority of people who had no insurance.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

According to the CBO, the overwhelming majority of people who would "lose" insurance under the various repeal bills are those who would voluntarily refrain from buying health insurance without the individual mandate.

But claiming it's get taken from them or ripped from them is much more histrionic and plays with the Democratic base better.  The public who scared by the though of millions uninsured were spooked by misleading propaganda. 

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02    7 years ago

no one is going to die if they do not have the UNaffordable health insurance--millions are dropping coverage because they can't afford it--others have useless coverage because the deductibles are so high they can't even use their insurance---the ONLY people who think this bill is good are the ones getting their insurance bill paid for by others...the ones doing the paying out the nose --not so much.-the leeches are responsible for this bill going down and dying..if they took respsonsiblity for their own bills then that would be fair, not when they use others to pay for it for them.

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02    7 years ago

       I think the problem IS with the law and is exacerbated by the hubris of enacting a law without a       single republican vote while knowing that the law will collapse of its own weight if republicans            don't agree to shore it up. 

right now we have way too many people being subsidized and getting free care thru medicaid--it is the middle class paying sky high premiums that are paying for this--premiums in mccains own state have risen 125% and will go up even more next yr...it has become UNaffordable for millions and they are simply dropping care...dems don't seem to give a shit--their answer tax us some more and give insurance co a few more billions of our tax money...this law is deeply flawed and hurts millions of us americans..the subsidies are a joke, you have to pay your insurance bill and then you get a so called tax deduction to help pay a small part of the subsidy.

the insurance policy themselves are nuts--why in the world would a 60 yr old grandma have to pay for abortions and maturnity care and prostrate exams....all that does is drive up the cost for them..

let's face it dems stuck with this POS bill and now they want to wash their hands of it--i am plenty pissed off at the rino's that voted no to repeal--i wish them all the worst in their own districts..i hope the mobs give them hell..

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
link   tomwcraig  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

Here is the thing that most people in support of the PPACA don't realize:

Most of the deductibles aren't met until well over a half year into the plan as they are $1500 at the base, even for employer plans.  That means for 6 months or more, you are paying full price (according to the agreement between your doctor, pharmacy, and insurance companies) for your doctor visits and medications.  This means that for 6 months you are paying premiums and getting barely anything in return for those $400+ premiums (and, yes, that $400+ premium is the average).  And, if you are a healthy person, you get nothing back at all.  You might as well go to the Emergency Room for your health care and not have any insurance.  As I keep telling people, you want a plan with a low deductible, low OOP, and a low premium and the PPACA provides none of that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig   7 years ago

You might as well go to the Emergency Room for your health care and not have any insurance.

The ER will treat you , then send you the bill. Unless you are poverty level or below you do not get "free" health care at an ER.

 

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

illegals do--i have seen plenty of times--they get free care, even if it is for a cold and then walk away--there is no way for a hospital to collect..

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

illegals do--i have seen plenty of times--they get free care, even if it is for a cold and then walk away--there is no way for a hospital to collect..

How many? How often? Most of all, how to you have the fucking super power to see that they are here illegally and not just other Hispanic Americans (remember they were here first and most Hispanic Americans can trace their citizenship way back further then you can) who have been left behind by the medieval ideas of health care the current right wing of the GOP is putting forth? The simple and undeniable truth is that the majority of people who used the ER for basic health care before the ACA were poor white Americans and not just poor Brown Americans.

If you ever, and I am begging you, see someone who you feel, because of the color of their skins and that they may be Hispanic and here illegally and receiving illegal medical care, then go up to any officer at that particular hospital and report it. Those officers are required by law and at the expense of being fired if they don't follow through, with anyone who says that someone in this country is getting medical service that they should be paying for, but are receiving illegally. DO THIS! REPORT THEM! Or shut the fuck up because all you are doing is spreading myths and lies that have been told to you and you have zero actual proof that what you are saying is true! And do you know why? Because it is NOT true!

PROVE IT!

If you do not report them then you are full of shit and not a good American.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Whether she can spot an illegal alien or not, her point is that they use the emergency rooms. Can she prove it? Of course not. The places where it's most likely to happen are in the fucked up sanctuary cities who make it a point not to ask about legal status. Since, according to you, illegal aliens aren't using emergency rooms, there shouldn't be any harm in passing a law that requires people to provide their legal status as part of the emergency room paperwork. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1ofmany   7 years ago

If someone comes in bleeding from the head or howling in stomach pain you want them to show you their papers before they get treated? lol. 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

If someone comes in bleeding from the head or howling in stomach pain you want them to show you their papers before they get treated? lol. 

The timing for filling out paperwork depends on the injury but you do fill it out. Just make legal status a question in the paperwork. It's very simple.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

''illegals do--i have seen plenty of times--they get free care, even if it is for a cold and then walk away--there is no way for a hospital to collect..''

Katlin02, please explain to me how with your super powers your able to determine who is and who isn't an illegal...Skin color means nothing, for example are you able to determine that the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese are illegal. How about the if you see a white person, Russian or Canadian for example are you able to determine if they are illegal by looking at them?

If you saw me in the ER, would you call me illegal? I'm not white but a red man? You know an Indian who has been in North America for thousands of years before your family even thought of coming here. 

By your standards I could call you an illegal. See how that works.

If you want to debate ACA at least use logical arguments, not the ''Great Karnac'' ploy.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

If you saw me in the ER, would you call me illegal? I'm not white but a red man? You know an Indian who has been in North America for thousands of years before your family even thought of coming here. 

I would. But then again I have been waiting for years for the NA's to go back where they came from! Wink

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

medicaid expansion allowed the working poor to have health insurance. why are you against that?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
link   tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

The only reason for the Medicaid expansion was to offset the INCREASED premiums of the PPACA compliant plans.  Yes, that is right, the PPACA was created with increasing the costs of insurance rather than controlling those costs despite the claims of the law's crafters and supporters; hence, Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill in order to see what is in it outside the fog of controversy."  They knew it was increasing insurance costs artificially and still pushed it through.

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02    7 years ago

we have to give people a choice in insurance and a choice in plans across the board--that is the only way to bring down insurance costs......it is too regulated by gov--

as far as medicaid expansion, it dumped 13 million able bodied people into medicaid that the rest of us are paying for..medicaid has gotten way out of hand--too much is covered under it--it should just be BASIC insurance not drug treatment, hormone treatment, viagra pills, BC pills and abortions--

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

as far as medicaid expansion, it dumped 13 million able bodied people into medicaid that the rest of us are paying for..

precisely the point . people who get up and go to work every day , but work at a low salary and cannot afford health insurance, were able to get it

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

precisely the point . people who get up and go to work every day , but work at a low salary and cannot afford health insurance, were able to get it.

But others have to shoulder the burden for the low income people while shouldering their own to pay for expensive comprehensive coverage they don't need. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell    7 years ago

But others have to shoulder the burden for the low income people

If people "other" than the low income don't shoulder the burden, who's left to shoulder it?

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

how much of your earnings should someone have to give up to support this thing ? 50%-60%--how much are you willing to pay for all this ?--

i am not willing to pay extra taxes for it..i pay for my own health insurance and always have, i am not rich either, it is a matter of priority..too many just want to such off the earnings of others thinking they got theirs for free, to hell with anyone else.

i know plenty of people on medicaid and they would bitch if they had to pay $10 for a dr office visit while that pack of cigs is stuck in their pocket--i have seen it many times.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

There are always people that abuse any program.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katlin02   7 years ago

.too many just want to such off the earnings of others thinking they got theirs for free, to hell with anyone else.

Yeah, so many people want to stay dirt poor just so they can get free doctor's visits

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

By punishing success and rewarding laziness you certainly are not giving them incentive to grab their bootstraps and pull themselves out of poverty. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

Dean , there will always be poor people. They are part of a capitalistic system just as much as you are.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

There have always been poor people and it was never right for them to take from others. Now LBJ and the Dems have given them a way to vote to have the government do the stealing for them. The end result is the ghettos of Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. The more poor people they create the more people like Harry Reid can live like kings. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

The existence of poor people allows people like you to be wealthy. You don't seem to comprehend that.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

If a poor person sweeps the floors or hires in at an entry level position then he gets food on his table through a paycheck in return for his labor. He also gets healthcare coverage as part of his compensation. 

I owe nothing to the bum that spends his day watching television. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

'' He also gets healthcare coverage as part of his compensation. ''

That is a crock of shit dean. And most of the poor are working poor. 

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

Many companies that have low wage workers do not offer health insurance at all.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

Which companies? If you are full time?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago
health care costs

Employee health insurance is on the decline, and for small businesses, it's gone from bad to worse.

The share of small companies providing insurance plummeted from 47% to 38% between the years 2000 and 2011, according to a report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

 

 
 
 
katlin02
Freshman Silent
link   katlin02  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

because with obamacare the price of premiums these small companies paid rose well beyond affordable also--why pay for them when they could dump them onto the medicaid roles which is exactly what they did...they also kept their employee level at 49 to make sure they were not FORCED to provide coverage.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  JohnRussell   7 years ago

"Yeah, so many people want to stay dirt poor just so they can get free doctor's visits"

In many cases, yes. I'm glad you see it.

 
 

Who is online



MrFrost
CB
shona1
Jeremy Retired in NC


77 visitors