What Is Happening With Trumpcare?
http://buzzflash.com/commentary/what-is-happening-with-trumpcare
Before his inauguration in 2017, Trump made this promise : "We're going to have insurance for everybody. People can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better". Now, a year-and-a-half later, it is time to test the validity of this promise. Without any question, it is one lie after another.
Republicans and the Trump administration have failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) after multiple attempts, but have sabotaged it in a number of ways. What we now have is chaos and confusion throughout the system, increasing numbers of uninsured and underinsured, health care costs going through the roof, worse patient outcomes as more people forgo care they cannot afford, and increasing bureaucracy as private insurers game the system for maximal profits at the expense of patients and their families.
This summarizes some of the many ways that Americans are worse off than ever in this increasingly unsustainable system that is Trumpcare, which places unfair and cruel burdens on a growing part of our population.
Crises Throughout the System
These are some of the impacts of Trumpcare that put the US health care system in crisis.
1. Inadequate access to care
According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, there are 28 million Americans uninsured today, with this number growing to 32 million in 2019 and 41 million in 2025. Tens of millions more are underinsured, especially as the Trump administration has relaxed many of the ACA's requirements that have previously protected patients, such as banning insurers' denials based on pre-existing conditions and offering short-term plans just short of one year with such limited coverage as to be considered " junk insurance ." Most of these short-term plans exclude coverage for preventive care, maternity care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and pharmaceuticals. Some have annual deductibles up to $10,000 and copays up to 50 percent. Access to care has been further reduced by budget cuts to community health centers, Planned Parenthood, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and mental health care.
2. Increasing disparities
Disparities in access to health care can be based on many factors, including age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability status and geographic location. They vary widely from one state to another. As one example, low-income adults in Alabama are almost seven times more likely than high-income people to skip care because of cost.
3. Unaffordable costs of care
There are no significant mechanisms to contain prices or costs of health care under Trumpcare, which was also true of the ACA. Both continue to rise at rates far higher than the cost of living, making health care unaffordable for much of the population. The 2018 Milliman Medical Index finds that the typical working American family of four covered by an average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) pays an average of $28,000 a year for health care, insurance premiums, cost-sharing and forgone wage increases (for the employer contribution). That is almost one-half of the median income for families of four in the US of about $59,000, obviously a crushing burden compared to the other necessities of life, such as food and housing. People in their 50s who are admitted to a hospital end up with a 20 percent drop in their income that can last for years, even when they have health insurance.
4. Inadequate quality of care
Despite spending far more on health care than any other country in the world, the US continues to have major deficits in quality of care. According to the ongoing cross-national studies of the Commonwealth Fund of 11 advanced countries, the US still ranks last or next to last on access, equity, health care outcomes and administrative efficiency. There are many reasons for our poor quality of care, including large numbers of uninsured and underinsured, profiteering by hospitals, drug companies and other providers, the number of people who forgo necessary care because of costs, and big differences from one state to another in access to care. Privatized Medicare and Medicaid programs typically have lower quality of care as they emphasize profits over service.
5. Instability and volatility
Increasing consolidation through mergers of corporate stakeholders have rendered our system more and more volatile. As insurers buy up networks of clinics and hospitals, patients, even when insured, often lose their choice of physician and hospital as continuity of care goes by the wayside. As one example, UnitedHealth , one of the nation's largest health insurers, employs more than 30,000 physicians while owning 230 urgent care clinics and 200 surgery centers. As insurers gain a freer hand under the Trump administration, they are at more liberty to deny coverage and services , even to the point of questioning the need for emergency room visits.
6. Deteriorating safety net
In the aftermath of the GOP's tax cut bill in December 2017, the deficit has spiked, prompting Republicans and the Trump administration to make wholesale cuts in safety net programs. These groups are especially vulnerable and hard hit:
- Retirees, who have depended on long-term care insurance coverage for nursing home care now find most of these insurers leaving the market.
- Women, 40 million of whom are on Medicaid and typically are the primary caregivers of their children, are especially vulnerable to cuts in safety net programs . Despite this pressing need, the Trump administration has been reducing family planning funding, promoting short-term "insurance" programs without maternity coverage, cutting food stamps, imposing new work requirements for Medicaid and proposing policies that would raise rents for low-income families.
- Residents of rural areas are hurt because rural hospitals and physicians -- especially dependent on Medicaid funding and essential for access to lifesaving services, maternity care and care for chronic conditions -- have suffered under Trump c are as the number of closures of rural hospitals continue to rise.
- A recent study by researchers at the University of California Berkeley and Stanford University has concluded that opposition to welfare has risen sharply among whites as racial anxiety appears to be driving conservatives' calls for deeper cuts in safety net programs.
Conclusion
As Americans increasingly suffer under an out of control, profit-driven system and as corporate stakeholders, their CEOs, shareholders and Wall Street revel in their gains, when will we shift our priorities to the needs of patients and their families?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
89 visitors
It's starting to look like Trump will be gone before he gets a chance to crate this "wonderful" "Trumpcare"
Maybe there is a "Pence Care" coming.
Pray that you don't get sick or pray that you die quickly?
Why is it that the very people who claim to be the most religious are the same people who are the least like their savior Jesus?
You really need to get your blinders off John.
201 countries are listed. 89 of those countries, 44%, do NOT have Universal Health Care .
Really sorry that the Dems haven't taken over and given everybody EVERYTHING they've ever asked for - without working for it. But, that's OK - that would ruin your daily Trump-Hate threads/seeds if they had.
Thanks for helping me to make my point 1st.
I went to your link, which shows a list of all the countries in the world and which ones have either free health care for it's citizens or universal health care.
This is a list of ALL the counties who are "no" on both counts. In other words these are the countries who do not have free health care or universal health care. All the other countries do.
Are you happy to see the U.S. on a list with this group of countries?
These are predominantly, if not entirely THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. The US stands out like a sore, embarrassed, thumb on this list.
One of the trillion lies from orange conman traitor in chief.
GOP health-care is
Get sick, die.
And hurry up about it
Wrong.
Trumpcare has left the building.
Trumpcare only exists in the fevered mind of Donald Trump.
Trumpcare is where you pay the premium but get denied any and all healthcare. It's a scam like Trump U.
No, you get medical care but, you have to see this guy,
Ironic that I was watching "The Rainmaker" last night. It was about an insurance company that sold policies to poor people for cash only and then didn't make good when the policy holder had a claim
The CEO didn't happen to get elected governor of a red state afterwards by any chance, did he?
By Scott! I believe he did...
No, in the alternate world this CEO actually went down with the company when it went bankrupt
People should not write articles if they know so little.
Item 1... Temporary policies have always been allowed under the ACA, have never been outlawed, they have always required medical screenings and they have always excluded pre-existing conditions. That was Obama, not Trump. So strike 1 in the Liberal Bullshit World Series.
Item 2... The plans are called "junk insurance" by Nancy Pelosi, who is so ignorant of her own law she told a room full of reporters she "could not buy insurance through the California exchange because she already had employer coverage"....which....if you were wondering .... is completely untrue. Add to that the fact that the citation in question comes from "The Progressive Populist", which exists because apparently the internet was running low on ignorant angry leftist blogs. So strike 2 in the Liberal Bullshit World Series for not even making an effort to hide the fact the source is bullshit.
Item 3.... The Trump changes to the regulations were only announced last month and haven't even taken effect yet. So of the "tens of millions" of supposedly "underinsured" people, the Trump regulations are responsible for exactly.....none. Strike 3. GTFO.
.....And that's just the amount of bullshit in his FIRST point.
Where in the bowels of the internet do you find whackadoodle hacks like this? Has alternet shut down? Is DailyKos taking the day off?
Trump has done or proposed exactly nothing to make his campaign promise come true.
And, your 1, 2 3 points are distractions from the issue that are virtually meaningless.
"Who knew healthcare would be so hard"
I'm glad to hear you finally admit that you believe factually accuracy is meaningless.
Correct. He's certainly not the first president to fail to deliver on a campaign promise, nor will he be the last.
Give him 8 years too. He's working on making the other promises he has actually accomplished....better.
Your an "Instant Gratification" type person....ain't ya.
The Republicans had from the time of Reagan to propose and, pass a healthcare bill, nothing happened with it until Obama became president and, he even used Republican proposals in the ACA but, the Republicans didn't accept it, in fact they have campaigned against their own proposals since that time, I wonder why.
Sorry, but try as you might, Democrats own every little bit of Obamacare, lock, stock and barrel.
Something can be factual but meaningless in the present context, and that is what your comments were.
Nancy Pelosi said something. So what?
Read,
oh, gee, still spouting nonsense about a plan so old and that members of BOTH parties firmly REJECTED it?
keep stretching.
Curious as to WHY Democrats would WANT to give any credit to the GOP for Obama's signature legislation and legacy.
That is rather ludicrous!
There is no reason to propose any new government mandated "Health" bill. Every adult on the planet knows they are going to need some kind of "Health Insurance" over their life time. It's the stupid asses that don't "Purchase" anything, that have this need for "Free Health" handholding by government.
Maybe your memory is too short to remember what the cost of health insurance was like before the ACA so, I'll refresh it for you, health insurance was expensive, unless you were lucky enough to get it from your employer and, that wasn't a guarantee because most employers didn't offer insurance to the average worker, except for workers comp., calling people "stupid asses" because they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance is like calling someone a stupid ass because they can't afford to buy a new sports car, the ACA is a necessary evil since the insurance company's are more interested in profit than they are in helping people.
Nope....I was a happy camper....BEFORE Obamascare came along and fiddled with the good thing I had !
It might be because, when Obama and, the Democratic Congress at the time wanted it passed they wanted everyone on board so, they figured something that had been originally proposed by the Republicans might be more "palatable" to the Republicans but, the Republicans had an agenda back then, "Make Obama a one term president" but, since that didn't work out for them they changed their agenda to "Repeal Obamacare at all costs".
Well, I'm happy for you but, their were millions of people without it and, they were unable to afford it or, had preexisting conditions that prevented them from getting health insurance at the time and, you want to return to that so, your idea, like the Republicans is, "If you get sick and, don't have health insurance, die and, do it quickly", nice.
The "Pre-Existing" condition is a myth. Insurance was ALWAYS available. They just didn't want to pay the price after they decided to get into the system after decades of not being there before it became a "Pre-Existing" condition.
Besides, 8 million or so, is a small percentage of the 300 million or so in this country.
bullshit, My mother died from a preexisting condition called cancer because no insurance company would accept her.
So, that's the price we must pay for our morals, 8 million people? Kind of reminds me of something else that happened, it would seem your heart is in the right place for the party you support.
Every political party has the goal of making opposition incumbents one-termers. To do otherwise would be stupid.
Please don't act as if Democrats don't want to make all Republicans one-termers, too. That would be dishonest.
He doesn't want to admit that.
My own mother had a pre-existing condition, but my dad worked in the mines and had good health insurance.
When did the Democrats or, the Republicans try to disable a presidency simply because they didn't like the man in office or, because, that man was from a different political party? I remember quite a few presidency's in my life and, none of them ever had the obstruction that Obama had during his time in office from the Republican side of the isle, you can try to say "Well, everyone does it" but, that is just bullshit and, you know it.
My Mom, Grandmother, Grandfather, numerous Aunts and Uncles and even my Dad...…. ALL died of a type Cancer.....and they Had Insurance.
Cancer does that....no matter how much money you have.
I find it hard to believe y'all are still whining about this now.
Look, what is the aim of political parties? To get their candidates elected? Can we agree that is a goal of a party? And how can that goal be accomplished if an incumbent belongs to another party? By making him a one-termer!
In any case, Obama was reelected, so this point is rather moot.
Most states had a non-profit health insurance provider that, before Obamacare, could not deny an applicant based on pre-existing conditions. In Michigan, it was Blue Cross Blue Shield. Of course that has changed since the implementation of Obamacare, but many people did not realize that they could not be denied by the non-profits and still get excellent coverage at an affordable premium.
I'm sorry to hear that but, if my Mom had, had proper insurance it would have been caught sooner and, it would have been cured, it was curable if caught soon enough, by the time they found it, it was too late, if she had insurance in the early stages they could have saved her but, she couldn't afford health insurance and, make her house payment and, utility payments as well so, she sacrificed her health, she only went to a doctor when she was really sick, which for her was rare. When she retired she went to get her Social Security and, Medicare, it was during a physical that they discovered she had cancer, they didn't know how far along it was at the time so they put her on chemo, she quit smoking and, tried to live healthier, they thought they had the cancer beat but, it turned up in her kidneys and, in other parts of her body and, she gave up, she died when she was in her seventy's, the last time I talked to her was on the phone, as she was dying, my sister Leta was there with her at the time in the hospice, it was just a few minutes later that she died.
You think that I say these things about the ACA because I'm some "bleeding heart liberal" but, actually, I could give a shit about anyone else except that I've lived through some terrible things and, I've seen what they can do to someone because, I've lived it and, I don't want anyone else to live it as I have. You can continue to fight against the ACA and, the other programs that help people but, I will be standing in your way every step of the way, not because I care but, because my mother and, my sister Beth cared, they were the "bleeding heart liberals" in my family, me, I'm neither liberal or, conservative, what I care about you wouldn't understand, you can't understand because, the only thing you care about is the your damned party, party above everything, that is what you care about, the only thing you care about.
But not at the cost of the nation they are suppose to serve.
The people in the country were the political party is should be aware that their country comes first, NOT THEIR PARTY, it has become evident that isn't the case anymore, especially with the Republicans.
So, everything be damned only the party matters now? Forget patriotism, forget humanity only the party matters so, whatever the party heads say is what you are suppose to believe? Sounds like communism or, Nazism to me party before country or, blood.
The only thing they had in North Carolina at the time was the Lions Club, they did what they could, AFTER she was diagnosed but, it wasn't much.
If something like the ACA had existed back then she might have been able to defeat it, this is what the doctors said, "If we had caught it earlier we could have done more."
Oh, gosh, don't go off the rails!
It isn't a crisis, and never was.
just some people got upset that it was expressed verbally what has always gone on.
She said something that demonstrates her utter ignorance about health insurance. But she's a raving leftist, so naturally you will take her statements as gospel.
Face it, Galen, some people don't have hearts the size of Texas....they have no fucking hearts at all!
I didn't say forget all that stuff--those are YOUR words. Are you going to argue against yourself?
It was much less expensive then than it is now.
Utterly untrue. 75% of Americans had health coverage prior to the ACA.
Which is liability insurance, not health insurance.
Seriously, is there ANY of this you intend to get right?
This is a huge problem in American society: We have people lacking even a basic grasp of a topic who are determined they know what's best for the rest of us.
Just stop.
Would it have helped back in 1993? While not identical in all respects, the Republican plan back in 1993 was the twin sister of the ACA. The only reason they didn't support it in 2010 was because it came from Democrats and President Obama who the Republicans had vowed not to work with regardless of whether it would benefit Americans or not. The partisan lines had already been drawn. As then Republican Senator George Voinovich said of the Republican meeting the day of Obamas inauguration, “If (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it, (McConnell) wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
"Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993?"
Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.
Among other features, the Chafee bill included:
An individual mandate;
Creation of purchasing pools;
Standardized benefits;
Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
"You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the Affordable Care Act," Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told PunditFact via email. "The guys were way ahead of the times!! Different crowd, different time, suffice it to say."
Please stop babbling.
The article isnt about Nancy Pelosi, so I didnt even bother to check into your assertions about her. Your other two numbered points werent any better.
Donald Trump never had a health care plan , did he? He made a campaign promise which I have quoted to you twice. He has utterly failed to even attempt to present a better plan than Obamacare, and knew it would satisfy his ignoramus laden fan base if he simply tried to destroy something that had Obama's name on it.
You, by talking about everything except Trump's failure, show you fulfill his expectations.
I am sorry you lost your mother under those circumstances. I know many have stories similar to yours. I don't believe anyone wanted to deny health coverage to anyone, at least I didn't, but thought there was a better way than Obamacare. When I say many...at the time 70% of the nation did not want Obamacare. Obamacare was passed though and hopefully we can improve on the restrictions and the cost associated with it.
My Mom died one year after it was actually diagnosed. She didn't go to the Doctor "Religiously", even with insurance.
Maybe in your party but, the rest of the country thinks that country and, blood should come before party.
Obamacare intended to do a few things. Insure everyone, or almost everyone, require all health insurance policies to cover pre-existing conditions, and help subsidize costs for low to moderate income people. These were all good goals, but because it was not actually mandatory for everyone to participate it could never get enough healthy , particularly young, people to join. Without mandatory participation, the individual mandate was just a phrase. There were certain elements of universal healthcare in Obamacare without the enforcement mechanism that was needed. Obama's problem is that he always trusted people , even on the other side of politics, to do the right thing, when that rarely happens in reality.
America simply needs to commit to a universal health care system like the rest of the civilized world has. Why should we be special? Pay for health care through taxes, just like we pay for everything else in the society. Sure everyones taxes will go up, but you wont have to pay health insurance premiums any more.
No one should profit off of health care. Does anyone have stock in the fire department? or in the public school systems? Why do we have a system where people can make money off providing health care? The only ones who should be getting paid are the doctors and nurses and people who actually work in the hospitals and clinics. Not investors.
10 Best Managed-Healthcare Stocks for This Year ...
3 Top Health Insurance Stocks to Buy in 2017 -- The …
Trump said that we would have better , cheaper health care when he got elected, and everyone would be covered.
Where is it?
Yeah, so do I but, the problem with that is most of them were diagnosed too late for the treatment to work on them because, I know others who were diagnosed early enough, like my sister-in-law and, my sister and, they're both fine now.
Yes, yes, it is only your party that has any patriots.
Got it.
/S
Why do we have a health care system where the heads of the organizations that provide health insurance are getting rich? Their commitment is not to provide the least expensive care possible it is to get rich themselves and make money for investors and other high level managers. Since no one is ever happy where they are, we can be sure that health care costs will never go DOWN as long as the system is defined by the profit motive.
Here is what you said,
So, even if their candidate is off the rails nuts or, a pedophile or, a racist or, a dictator wannabe, then it is up to the party to make sure he gets elected to office. Got it, party over country.
So, if the other party has a candidate in an office, such as the POTUS and, has the best interest of the country at heart and, is trying his best to do what is best for the country, the opposing party is to get that Mother out of office simply because they want that coveted position so much they are willing to destroy the country to get it. Got it.
No it's not moot, the Right is still trying to destroy everything Obama did when he was in office simply because it was Obama who did it.
I thought that was Obamacare.
Wasn't that the pitch?
Actually it was out of reach for most people before now.
So according to your own numbers that puts 25% of Americans without health insurance prior to the ACA so, if the population is 300 million then that means that's 75 million men, women and, children that don't have insurance and, so, that is 75 million too many.
Of course it is and, it is rarely in favor of the worker.
I don't know, I think I'm doing pretty good here, you three are the ones that are struggling.
Yep, maybe you should find out what you are talking about before committing to a topic.
Actually, it depended on your state of residence. In 38 states, there were risk pools who took anybody.
Only because of the propaganda spewed by the Right at the time it was being debated, the Republicans fought this tooth and, nail before it was even brought up for a vote in committee.
Where did I say that? It does seem as if the Republicans are losing members at a rapid pace though, ever wonder why so many life long Republicans would want to leave their party?
So, you think we should return to, "If your state doesn't have a high risk pool, go fuck yourself on health insurance"?
That's just not true. The overwhelming majority of people were covered. There is data. Math is a real thing. You're quick to scream "bullshit" in 36 point font, but you persist with your own.
Not mine. The US Census Bureau, but I remembered them inaccurately. It was actually only 16.1%.
It was actually 49.9 million, but yeah, that's too many.
Then why would you call it health insurance?
Except for the stuff you post, which is almost all wrong. But other than that....yeah...you're doing great.
So people who disagree with your bullshit assertions are "struggling to see"? Riiiiight. Has it ever occurred to you that if your points are indeed valid, actual data could be used to back them up?
OK then. We've reached the 7-year-old on the playground part of the discussion where you post "I know you are but what am I?" Tell me, do you stick your tongue out as you type? Are you going to have another tantrum and call me names now?
What propaganda would that be?
So, in the response to your post "I'm almost all wrong", well, that says a lot about you since I was using your numbers and, your "math".
Hey, Rip Van Winkle, how did you sleep through two Obama terms...?
*eyeroll*
If you're interested in an adult conversation, keep reading. Otherwise, don't bother.
High-risk pools were/are actuarially sound, and the current program is not. The better decision would have been either to create a federal high-risk pool or to mandate that every state have one and define the regulations for managing them.
If the Pelosi people knew what they were doing, that would have been in the original law. If the Trump people knew what they were doing, it would have been in the "repeal and replace" or whatever they called it.
High-risk pools force ALL insurers in a state to share in the claims of the highest cost people. Under the current law, they can avoid these highly toxic participants by simply avoiding the individual markets....which is why most of them have made that choice. If we reconstituted high-risk pools, we could force those companies to contribute on those claims, and then offer them a better contribution formula if they offered plans in the individual markets. That creates more options for consumers, pushes as much as half of the claims onto corporate plan sponsors, makes individual policies much more affordable, which attracts more low-risk applicants, which makes the plans more affordable still.
So opposing views are propaganda now. When one starts to be disingenuous...I lose interest.
Have a good day.
So, you slept through the Obama Administration, got it.
The difference today is, Trump isn't fit to be POTUS and, never will be, he is a possible traitor to this country, he received help from the Russians in getting elected and, he is Putin's butt buddy.
Having a risk pool and being able to afford coverage are 2 different things, and the ACA did improve access to care for MILLIONS who were unable to get that care prior. Bankruptcies due to medical expenses are down. Republicans have nothing except going back to the old days, which are not better for our health! They are allowing the worthless policies that cover nothing to be written again. And now costs are rising faster. GOP is lying to you all and has been for years, wake up.
A 600 page, trillion dollar law had three goals??
His primary problem was that he trusted Nancy Pelosi's competence.
This is very much like stating that "families in Manhattan simply need to get their daughters ponies like the civilized families in the Midwest have".
This is all simply about getting somebody else to pay your bills.
Really?? You buy your food with taxes? You bought your car with taxes?
How much do you imagine they will go up? Give us a number.
So....do you intend to buy all the private hospitals or just seize them? What about all the drug companies? Medical equipment companies? What about doctors who don't want to be government employees? Conscription?
The only argument against universal health care is that the haves dont want to contribute to the health care for the have nots.
If the rest of the world can do it, why can't the U.S. ?
Oh, the irony.
I realize you don't care whom you cite or what you post as long as "Trump bad".
I have no idea. It wouldn't have mattered.
He made hundreds. This is just your Pavlovian anti-Trump fixation of the day.
You attempt to make the point that he "fails to deliver on promises"....like people don't know he's a liar.
The US already pays twice as much per person total compared with other modern nations due to inefficiency...
We pay more for services, drugs and procedures to cover the uninsured and for huge profits for insurance cos.
We pay. We pay through the nose. The haves pay more now than they would under normal universal systems.
All of that does not even consider the real costs of treating chronic diseases that could be avoided lots cheaper.
-----------------------------------------------------
Jack, it's what this seed is about. If you are not addressing the topic of the seed [deleted]
I know you think you are "schooling" everyone you disagree with, but really, you are going to have to do a lot better. Your banter really isnt all that clever.
A rather child-like approach, but hey, whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
And the cure for all that inefficiency is government involvement?
Boy, now, THAT sounds like a GREAT plan!!
I hope it isn't necessary, but based on experience:
/S
No. It isn't. There are a myriad of arguments against single payer and even more against the socialized medicine you're now advocating. Even if it were the only reason, why do you believe yourself entitled to other people's money?
Several reasons, but cost is the primary. Best case scenario, a Bernicare type system will take $4 trillion/yr. We currently spend $1.2 trillion on government health programs, so we'll need to make up $2.8 trillion....additional revenue. Total federal income tax revenue for 2017 was $1.66 trillion, and total FICA revenue was $1.2 trillion....total of $2.86 trillion.
So you're going to need to double everybody's taxes and FICA.
And why? What do you actually gain that you couldn't get a better way, except groovy "feelings" for mathematically challenged leftists?
If you want "universal health coverage", then eliminate Medicaid, use the money you save to extend the ACA down to $0 income, eliminate the "Obamacare glitch", and require proof of health insurance in order to collect any other form of welfare. Then...for the complete assholes who just won't get covered because they have no reservations about using the ER and sticking the rest of us with the bill...allow the providers to collect that from the treasury and add it to the asshole's tax bill.
Make getting subsidized insurance easier. Modify the FAFSA system (which takes about 10 minutes) and just give people a voucher they can spend with the health plan of their choice.
Make the whole thing simpler. Standardize plans so there are 10-15 plans, and make all plans with the same label identical.
There is a TON of stuff we could do that isn't glamorous, but would actually work, and wouldn't cost $3 trillion.
Hey, it's not my approach but, it is what I got out of what you wrote so, if it's child-like then maybe it is you who should get a more mature outlook on politics.
Hello Mr. G...
Are you sticking to that story? Sure, okay the (R)s in Congress were not behaving like adults when they had their not so secret secret meeting (I have a hunch the (D)s had an impeach Trump at all costs meeting)
The so called predecessor to ACA was never voted on, did not go anywhere - it was shot down (I believe) for being unsustainable for an extended length of time.. Romneycare was designed for a State, and did not have the federal government involved to mess things up.. The ACA was flawed from the start, I think all involved knew it .. I know that one writer of ACA was not thrilled with the final product...
I know it helped people a great deal - but there was still x number of millions uninsured (before the current president took office) I will not go into my nightmare experience with ACA .. my point is that if ACA taught 'us' anything, it should be that something as major as national health insurance needs to be done in a bi partisan way - needs to benefit everyone, not just a million or so here and there ….. even think the States need to be part of the process - ACA was dependent on all States expanding Medicaid - when that did not happen .. millions were left out.
I also think that there needs to be skin in the game when it comes to programs like Medicaid .. never understood how subsidies could be paid out, so that insurance companies got the money - why not put that back into Medicaid - charge a premium .. have a deductible, make it function as a sustainable program .. (of course there are those that would be unable to pay) but at least the program would be taking some money in rather than just passing it out..
Okay shutting up now .. I am way late to the conversation..
I have never met anyone who thinks political parties don't all try to unseat opposition incumbents.
Wow.
I agree that the ACA isn't all that great but, it is a start, it can be fixed, it doesn't need to be repealed. Think about it, it took 7 decades to come up with the ACA, do we really want to repeal it and, spend another 7 decades trying to come up with a replacement, I sure as hell don't have the time for that and, I'd like something there before my grandson is ready to retire, after all he's already six. We take what is salvageable from the ACA and, put it in a new bill or, reform the ACA we don't need to replace it or, repeal it. Repeal and, replace is a good bumper sticker but, a really bad idea.
I never said that, what I did say was that those party's who wish to unseat an opposition incumbent over the safety of the country and, our democracy aren't patriots, they are fascists or, communists because they are putting party before country.
Over the safety of the country?
Are you implying that had Romney defeated Obama, it would have been dangerous to the country.?
EXPLAIN.
Because America is incredibly dumb. As Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
Did I mention Romney? Why no, no I did not. I'm talking about the last election, the one that all the intelligence experts say was tampered with by the Russians, the one that Mueller is investigating the investigation that the current POTUS says is a witch hunt but, which has caught quite a few witch's for something that is fake. All the fighting of the investigation and, the hamstringing of the investigation by the Right and, the president is dangerous to this democracy.
Just say no to ANY government involvement in healthcare
How is the brainless inaccuracy of the seed itself not pertinent to the seed?
Oh...that's right... it's something other than "Trump bad".
What a freaking load of crap that is.
Your words:
Who was the opposition incumbent you are referring to if you aren't referring to Obama?
And if you ARE referring to Obama, Romney was the one who ran against Obama, not Trump, sooooooo, if you AREN'T referring to Romney, WTF are you talking about?
No. We pay twice as much because the providers make twice as much.
We pay more because the providers make more.
That is the single most ridiculous thing on this seed, which is saying an enormous amount. Math is a real thing.
We spend $250 billion a year on obesity alone, because we're a bunch of lazy fat bastards who take no responsibility for ourselves (hence the love of single payer health insurance). Do tell us how Medicare for all eliminates obesity.
Unless you think unseating an opposition incumbent means voting in a new President because the incumbent is term-limited.
It also made coverage much more expensive and difficult for millions. Needlessly.
That has nothing to do with a booming economy. Nothing whatsoever. *eyeroll*
Please get it through your head right now that just because one group has no good ideas does not mean the current ideas don't suck also.
Tell that to anyone on Medicare and, see how many takers you get.
No argument from me Mr G.. I felt once implemented there was never going to be a repeal of ACA - a bipartisan group of adults should be able to make the necessary adjustments to 'fix' some of the problems through compromise .. subsidies will always be an issue … I do not think the bill as written is fixable .. but perhaps the Supreme Court has some suggestions : )
The title of the seed is very simple "What Is Happening To Trunmpcare"?
Donald Trump promised better and cheaper health care coverage for EVERY American.
You have complained and complained and complained on this thread about what you think Obamacare did wrong, but in all your dozen or so comments on this thread I didnt see anything that explains what Trump is doing to fulfill his campaign promise. If by some sad miracle he was to be re-elected to a second term, are we supposed to wait six more years for some improvement to the healthcare system?
Are we only concerned with the title of the seed now? Is this one of those vapid Millennial things like "I read an article online.....ok....well...I read part of an article online".....
So did Barack Obama. What's your point? Oh... that's right... your point in this and every single seed and post is "Trump bad".
So I have a couple of questions. First, why do you need lies to make Trump look worse? Isn't the truth bad enough? Doesn't he give you enough to work with on his daily Twitter feed?
Second, if you're going to use lies to make him look worse, why not use good ones? Why not say he eats children or he's secretly an alien softening us up for an invasion or that he made a pact with the demon Screwtape to deliver 60 million souls into hell or he's possessed by the reincarnated spirit of Attila the Hun?
Seriously, since you're not going to worry about the truth, the possibilities are endless.
Stop...and pay attention.... I am complaining that YOU have seeded an article that is factually incorrect. Is that easy enough to understand? Do I need to use smaller words?
We're not going to get improvement to the healthcare system. We had that chance in 2010, and gave it to people who didn't know what they were doing. So what we have is what we're going to have, for some time to come.
As it sits right now, I think the court would end up more political than judicial in the future, that is truly sad, the days of Thurgood Marshall are over there, now it is the days of a Donald Trump court we are looking at.
The Supreme Court is an honor and a life time achievement for a justice - I do not think politics will win over jurisprudence.
At some point 'we' need to get over the sky is falling and if it does not fall then 'Trump will have destroyed everything already' kind of thinking. My comment was actually smart assed, as the justices changed the wording within the ACA in order for it to be Constitutional .. which in and of itself is unconstitutional .. might not bother you, but it does me - so (possibly) right out the gate there is a difference in thinking what the role of the court actually is..
Never my intent to argue .. but the same nation that elected Obama elected Trump .. and the same nation will emerge out the other side of this .. if 'we' let it - do you know how many times I read about the (R)'s secret meeting 10 years ago .. now the (D)'s are exacting their revenge and obstructing and …………… enjoy it (?) … it is sad when 'we' become that which 'we' say 'we' detest … I never thought I would see such a divide as I have in the past decade'ish .. alas it seems the United States of America is becoming its own special blend of sectarianism .. Hooray?
Bush had his issues … The (R)'s thought they had to block Obama, the (D)'s 'need' to block Trump … seems to me that all it is creating is an executive branch that through acting on its own is taking power that does not belong to it …
In 99% of the justices chosen I would have to say I agree but, we have one right now that is being decided on by a Congress that is anything but, bipartisan, if it was I wouldn't worry. The Republicans slow tracked everyone of Obama's court picks and, then totally refused to hear the nominee for the SCOTUS Garland so that they could see who was elected president in the next election and, get a conservative court to run their agenda through, that's politics, not justice.
If what you say is true then it was a 5/4 decision with one of the current conservatives voting for the change, there has not been a "lopsided vote" in the SCOTUS since Bush 2 was in office
I know what the court should be, I was around when it decided that Nixon should turn over the tapes with 8 votes for him to do it, the two justices who Nixon appointed to the court voted against Nixon in that decision, that is the way the court is suppose to work but, I think Kavanaugh will vote in Trumps favor no matter what the evidence says and, with the current conservatives on the court I don't know how they will vote but, I have a pretty good idea that we are looking at something that will make us doubt the court for decades to come.
Elena Kagan: 87 days (May 10, 2010, to Aug. 5, 2010)
Sonia Sotomayor: 66 days (June 1, 2009, to Aug. 6, 2009)
The first date listed is the date of nomination, the second date is confirmation.
Doesn't really look like the GOP slow walked anything with those two picks.
Unless you think Democrats are now doing that to Kavanaugh.
You are certainly not wrong about Congress. If I felt like BK were a more extremist judge, I would be very concerned. I can certainly understand how you don't share my optimism, but I don't think he's significantly different than somebody like Merrick Garland would have been.
The Colorado baker case was 7-2, actually.
How long has the Kavanaugh hearings been going on now? He was nominated on July 9th, it is currently August 15th so, a little over a month, seems kind of fast to me and, the Republicans have been saying that it is moving too slow, why, the hearings have only been going on for the past two weeks, it seems to me that since you think the ones under Obama weren't slow walked that they Republicans can slow it down a little and, get the other information that the Democrats have been asking for or, do you think they have something to hide? I mean if we could wait almost three months for one, (Kagan) and, two months and, six days for the other, Sotomayor then we can wait until the end of September at the least for Kavanaugh. Right? Right?
We need to wait until after November 6th
I didn't know that Jack, thanks. Now, how many others since Bush were just 5-4, you know down ideological lines.
Sorry, where I live it is now September 15, 2018. He was nominated on July 9, 2018.
Where I come from, that is 67 days. His vote is scheduled for next Thursday, September 20, which will be a total of 72 days.
Maybe it is different where you live!
SMDH
No lopsided decisions since Bush 2?
Really want to stick with THAT?
And:
Please don't try to pee on our leg and tell us it's raining.
SMMFH
I dunno. It's an interesting question, actually.
I do know that I'm terrible at predicting what they're going to decide.
To a point so am I but, I have gotten it right on how the whole court will decide in certain cases, like Gay marriage, I looked at what was already on the books about marriage and, said, "Marriage in this country isn't set in religion, it is a civil contract between two people" and, "It was decided by the court that a "mixed marriage" was acceptable under the law and, not accepting it was a violation of civil rights" so, the court had to decide in favor of it. What is different here is that, I think, 33 states have laws limiting a woman's right to an abortion and, some, if not all of those states are run by Republicans, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, which I think he will be, a case could come up within the next year which would challenge Roe and, with him on the court it could be overturned.
Kavanaugh has given absolutely no reason to doubt hi when he says how important precedent is. Roe was precedent and confirmed in PP against Casey.
However, he has been said to have said, that precedent can be overturned by the SCOTUS, if he is confirmed he will be a part of the SCOTUS. Damn Texan, do I have to spell it out for you?
Doesn't EVERYONE know that SCOTUS can and HAS reversed itself?
How is stating a simple fact everyone already knows and has not been in dispute leads you to believe he will vote to overturn Roe?
Maybe he will be a part of LOTS of 5-4 decisions, and maybe he will be part of lots of 9-0 decisions--as the trend has been going since Bush 2.
Because your "Fearless Leader" has stated that he will only nominate people willing to overturn Roe.
Hmmm.....aren't you one of those always complaining about how Trump lies?
But you believe him in THIS instance, but no others?
That's so weak, dude!
Hmmmm….aren't you the one that is always believing Trump in everything he says and,
now you are saying he is lying this time?
That is so weak, Dude!
No, actually, I am not.
And we both know what happens if I ask for a quote of me saying anything like that, don't we?
Between his ears - and he believes it to be true.
Gee, maybe if Democrats showed any interest at all in working with Republicans on health care then things could be improved. It's kind of hard to keep a campaign promise when the other side refused to cooperate- just like the promises Obama made about closing Gitmo.
Republicans have control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency.
... but they can't do anything about health-care without the Democrats.
That says a great deal about the two parties.
"the Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees adopted nearly 190 Republican amendments while writing the legislation, according to data compiled by The New York Times."
190 Republican amendments, Democrats working hard to include them and worked tirelessly to create a partisan health care bill, yet not a single Republican vote. Why?
“If (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it,” then Republican Senator George Voinovich said of the Republican meeting held the day of Obama's inauguration. “(McConnell) wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
The false narrative about Democrats not being willing to accept Republican input on the ACA is just that, a total and complete lie. Republicans are the ones who have been stubbornly unwilling to reach across the aisle and compromise with Democrats to actually get things done for the American people. It's has become a war of attrition in a partisan battle for supremacy instead of two parties trying to actually improve the lives of their constituents and the blame lies largely at Republicans feet.
From the article you linked:
"Republicans have argued that many of the amendments that they proposed that were adopted in 2009 were procedural instead of substantive. For example, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, at the time said that the amendments she introduced successfully “were all technical.”
Sounds like most of those amendments didn't change anything. Even congressional staffers who wrote the bill made sure they were exempt from having to live under it. Apparently it was good enough for everyone else but not for them.
Republicans have nothing to work with!! They don't have any plans that actually work because they've been lying to the country since the ACA was passed! Most of the things they say about the issue are total crap showing they don't understand how it works at all! The fuckers control the entire country and still have nothing, don't try to blame anybody but them, how pathetic! Listen to them whining when they are ramming shit down our throats daily! THEY HAVE NOTHING!
They have border security, foreign policy that actually benefits the US, a desire to cut the waste out of bloated programs, getting rid of expensive regulations that don't work and safeguarding constitutional rights.
The Democrats need to stay out of the way and quit obstructing.
Conservatives love obstruction, don't give me that 'let's just work together' bs! Dems are not even being asked for any input whatsoever, just a vote, which of course they don't give. Stop this hypocritical whining about something republicans did for years, and they were allowed input! If republicans wanted to work with dems they merely need to ask. They don't. They want to do it their way, so y'all need to stop complaining about the results.
I doubt the GOP wants to ask for help from Democrats when all the Dems will ask for is to defund ICE, have a $15/hr minimum wage, free college for students who will drop out after the first week, less punishment for violent criminals and god knows what else. Republicans have to be the last stand against mob rule and socialism.
You'd be better off not believing all this extreme bullshit about what 'liberals' are. You have to understand that the left is full of all kinds of people and opinions, and they rarely are like what you and others here describe. You go right into hyperbole instead of specific things. When it comes to healthcare, few people, including politicians understand it very well. Until one sees the big picture a discussion is pointless. People don't even understand how it works, and that includes how insurance works! They don't understand all the costs and they don't understand the success the rest of the world has had in dealing with it. Most everything the GOP has said about healthcare and the ACA is a lie. And its a lie to say the country is better off without the ACA. How can we have a productive discussion when half the people don't know jack?
What Is Happening With Trumpcare?
talk to senator no name. aka: john mcstain.
the good news is... the rest of the neocons in congress have their days numbered as well.
People think government run healthcare will be all that if it ever happens.
Do you believe that?
Okay, I give you ..... the VA ...... so do you still believe it?
It is a wonder that anyone wants government involved this much and more in healthcare.
Like the government is better at spending our money than we are!
Are private military contractors better than our government run military?
Ya know....mercenaries
I thought this seed was about healthcare.
Yes? No?
Back on topic. Do you think the VA is doing a good job?
Go bitch at the person who made a snarky comment about the government spending our money. I was merely giving a suggestion that none of you would appreciate a privatized military.
As far as the VA, I don;t know. I don;t use it.
C'mon man. Don't try to tell me you haven't at least read about the problems with the VA.
Not that it really pertains to what i said but why would i? He's right. If the Fed had to follow the same rules they make my business follow they would have been bankrupt and gone long, long ago.
And to answer your question about military contractors, yes they can be damn good. Look at what a handful of good operators did in Benghazi.
I've heard some stories. Some hospitals do a good job and others don't. It's a mixed bag.
Don't tell me! Tell the people here who think that government can't do health care right
Was that sarcasm?
Well good for you.
I personally know know numerous vets that its failed or is failing. One good friend, a Vietnam vet, finally got his disability approved last year. Unfortunately he was diagnosed with cancer specific to agent orange years ago. Been fighting it off for over two years and finally got a terminal diagnosis this year but yeah, he finally got disability now that he’s basically dead.
Anyone who defends the job the VA does has either been living under a rock or has their head planted firmly up their ass.
Yeah, really happy for you that your meds are working out for you but the VA is clearly failing many others on numerous levels.
Not at all ...... was yours?
Seriously....all the bitching about what happened in Benghazi and you think the private contractors did an excellent job?
I don't want to go off-topic here, because I know you hate that, but military contractors are not the answer to anything. For one thing, they don't sign an oath to protect the Constitution so they aren't beholden to it
Like I said, it's a mixed bag. I've heard good things about Little Rock and some not so good things.
I’m not dissing the US military so don’t even try to intimate that I am. I have never done that here. Quite the opposite actually.
However, the only reason more lives weren’t lost there was because the private contractors went against orders to defend embassy personal. Federal agencies failed to defend the embassy, the contractors picked up the slack on their own accord and kicked ass in a terribly shitty situation. That isn’t the US military’s fault but rather the failure of the state department to deploy them fast enough.
Credit where credit is due. And they deserve all the credit for hanging it out there and saving lives. So yeah, considering the situation, they did do an excellent job.
Will you please point out where I said you were dissing the US Military? thanks so much
My pleasure.
I read it as implied with your snarky "sarcasm" comment in 9.2.8
That said, considering the situation, do you think those private contractors did a bad job in Benghazi?
An answer to that question would be much appreciated.
There was never any such thing. Like everything fat fuck proposes, it is/was completely empty.
Seed is a week old. Locking.