╌>

There Is No GOP Obamacare Replacement And There Never Has Been

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  5 years ago  •  110 comments

There Is No GOP Obamacare Replacement And There Never Has Been

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

















Politics

There Is No GOP Obamacare Replacement And There Never Has Been

710c91c0-4b9c-11e7-8912-374be9390b1b_H-1   Jeffrey Young, HuffPost   16 hours ago






This iframe is not allowed

If you’re the sort of person who still believes President   Donald Trump’s promises on   health care, there’s probably nothing at this point that could dissuade you from the notion that Republicans have a “fix” at the ready to replace “Obamacare.”

If, however, you’re the sort of person who pays attention to the world around you, you have good reason to believe that Trump’s latest vow to reform the health care system is as   bogus and disingenuous   as all his others.

On the heels of the Justice Department’s announcement Monday that it is fully backing a lawsuit that would   eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act   ― a decision   Trump reportedly directed himself   ― the president has begun making big promises that he and the Republican Party are on the verge of revealing a tremendous new plan that will make American health care great for everybody.

“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,”   Trump told reporters   in the White House Wednesday, according to a pool report. On Tuesday,   he said, “The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care. You watch.” He later   tweeted   the same thing.

This is, to put it in simple terms, hogwash. And it’s the same hogwash Trump and the GOP have been trying to pour down America’s throat for a decade.

Here is the truth: Trump has no idea what he wants to do about the serious flaws in the American health care system. For Trump, touting health policy is akin to the teetotaler president telling consumers that Trump Vodka is “great-tasting.”   He   has no clue   about either of these things. How could he?

5bc6f72f18c3460e1fac0101cf331013

At one point last year, Trump went so far as to brag about “record sales” of health plans his administration authorized. In fact, there were   literally none of those plans   available for sale.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump made vague, outlandish promises to concoct a plan that would   cover every American   at a lower cost. Such a plan has never been seen. During the repeal push two years ago, Trump’s White House never even bothered coming up with its own proposal, leaving the task instead to   Congress, which similarly had no idea what it wanted to do, beyond repealing the dreaded Obamacare and simply gutting the safety net, which has been   the party’s goal for several decades at least.

Republicans do not have a plan because there is   no way for them to have a plan. Americans want less-expensive health care and less-horrible health insurance. Cutting   Medicaid   and   Medicare   and throwing away the health insurance subsidies from the   Affordable Care Act   will not achieve those results.

The private sector has always controlled the health care system, even after Medicare and Medicaid came into being in 1965, so turning over more of it to the vicissitudes of the marketplace seems   a dubious approach   to solving the problems that very system has created in its quest to maximize profits.


 
Here is the truth: Trump has no idea what he wants to do about the serious flaws in the American health care system.

Last week marked the nine-year anniversary of President   Barack Obama   signing the Affordable Care Act into law. Obamacare has its very real problems, chiefly that there remain millions of people who can’t afford health insurance and medical care or are barely fitting it into their budgets. But the law also extended health coverage to something like 20 million people who were uninsured before, and it includes a guarantee that no one can be turned down for health coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Throughout those nine years and the preceding year and a half of legislative activity around the ACA, the   GOP   has promised   over and over and over again   that it would have a great plan that reduced health care costs and made sure people had access to affordable health insurance.

In the years Republicans   controlled the   House   and Senate during Obama’s and Trump’s presidencies, they also voted dozens of times to repeal the entire law or major components of it. Republicans and conservative activists got lawsuits to dismantle the law before the   Supreme Court   twice and failed both times. This   latest case   could go the same way.

That same lawsuit was an issue during the   2018 congressional elections. Combined with the congressional repeal effort the prior year, these things gave   Democrats   concrete examples of the GOP’s hostility to health coverage programs and to rules protecting people with pre-existing conditions. The Republicans’ electoral strategy was to respond to these obviously true things by   simply lying about them and claiming their preferred policies would have the opposite effect.

What Trump and his “party of health care” have failed to come even close to doing is proposing a credible alternative plan that would achieve anything close to the Affordable Care Act’s results. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The repeal-and-replace bill House Republicans   passed in 2017   would have led to more than 20 million additional uninsured and higher health insurance premiums for anyone not lucky enough to be young and/or healthy. The   Senate   version, which   failed to pass, would’ve   produced similar results.

In the current political context, Trump backing a lawsuit to shatter the Affordable Care Act and making transparently meaningless promises about   health care reform   is even more ridiculous because Democrats control the House. Among Democrats, the only question about health policy is whether to   shore up Obamacare   or to commit to a   fully government-financed health care system. If Trump were to come out in favor of those things, it would be truly stunning.


 
Trump backing a lawsuit to shatter the Affordable Care Act and making transparently meaningless promises about health care reform is even more ridiculous because Democrats control the House.

As president, Trump has shown time and again that his real health care agenda amounts to less health care, less security and fewer people covered. Trump has used many tools to undermine and sabotage Affordable Care Act programs ― which he   straight-up promised to do   as soon as he took office. It’s one of the few promises he’s kept. 

Under Trump, the federal government has encouraged states and health insurance companies to   reintroduce junk insurance   with few benefits and huge potential out-of-pocket costs that make the worst Obamacare plans look good by comparison. The   Trump administration   has pushed states to seek new limitations on coverage of low-income adults on Medicaid,   including work requirements. Arkansas, the first state to adopt work requirements, has quickly proven that the policy is working as intended and has   kicked 18,000 people off their health coverage   in less than a year.

For those who see these latest comments from Trump and wonder if they might be going insane, you have company: House Minority Leader   Kevin McCarthy   (R-Calif.)   reportedly agrees   that it’s crazy Trump is talking about health care again. At least one Republican leader knows when it’s time to stop talking rubbish.

  • This article originally appeared on   HuffPost.


















Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    5 years ago

On the heels of the Justice Department’s announcement Monday that it is fully backing a lawsuit that would   eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act   ― a decision   Trump reportedly directed himself   ― the president has begun making big promises that he and the Republican Party are on the verge of revealing a tremendous new plan that will make American health care great for everybody.

“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare,”   Trump told reporters   in the White House Wednesday, according to a pool report. On Tuesday,   he said , “The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care. You watch.” He later   tweeted   the same thing.

This is, to put it in simple terms, hogwash. And it’s the same hogwash Trump and the GOP have been trying to pour down America’s throat for a decade.

Here is the truth: Trump has no idea what he wants to do about the serious flaws in the American health care system. For Trump, touting health policy is akin to the teetotaler president telling consumers that  Trump Vodka is “great-tasting.”   He   has no clue   about either of these things. How could he

At one point last year, Trump went so far as to brag about “record sales” of health plans his administration authorized. In fact, there were  literally none of those plans  available for sale.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump made vague, outlandish promises to concoct a plan that would   cover every American   at a lower cost. Such a plan has never been seen. During the repeal push two years ago, Trump’s White House never even bothered coming up with its own proposal, leaving the task instead to   Congress , which similarly had no idea what it wanted to do, beyond repealing the dreaded Obamacare and simply gutting the safety net, which has been   the party’s goal for several decades  at least.

Republicans do not have a plan because there is   no way for them to have a plan . Americans want less-expensive health care and less-horrible health insurance. Cutting   Medicaid   and   Medicare   and throwing away the health insurance subsidies from the   Affordable Care Act   will not achieve those results.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2  Trout Giggles    5 years ago

Even Tom Cotton, trmp's biggest ass licker said there is no plan

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     5 years ago

If the ACA is overturned there may be some that are in for a surprise...The pre existing condition, caps on life time medical etc are going to disappear. I believe that the rural hospitals are in for one hell of a hit as well.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @3    5 years ago

I've seen a lot of medical facilities spring up in the last 5-6 years. I bet a lot of those are going to be closed.

I'm thankful I have TriCare because I have a pre-existing condition and if I had to rely on private insurance I would probably be near to death by now

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Quiet
3.1.1  cms5  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    5 years ago
I'm thankful I have TriCare because I have a pre-existing condition and if I had to rely on private insurance I would probably be near to death by now

The PPACA is private Health Insurance. It regulates who they must provide coverage to, how much they can increase premiums each year, etc. It regulated employers and what they can and cannot do regarding their group health insurance plans based on the number of employees.

We've had an Act already in place since 1996...HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - prevented Health Insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions...all one needed to do was prove they had previous coverage within the past 90 days. Insurers must send letters stating dates of coverage once you lose coverage. This helped people who changed jobs, got divorced, lost their jobs...all receiving coverage for pre-existing conditions. BUT that isn't free - they too had to pay Health Insurance premiums.

What we have not had is AFFORDABLE CARE. Since the PPACA regulates a middle-man (Health Insurance) and fails to address the real drivers of the costs of Health Care - Hospitals, Health Care Providers and Pharmaceuticals...costs continue to rise. Health Insurance Premiums rise because they must cover ALL pre-existing conditions without younger healthier people contributing to overall premiums. Health Care in this Nation isn't cheap...over-regulating only one end of this monster won't solve the problem. Maybe now the two parties can take a seat and address the entire issue...and come up with a resolution that benefits the entire Nation.

I know there's a huge desire for Medicare for All. Other than an extreme cost to cover everyone...I haven't heard much about what the Health Care Industry thinks of that idea. How is the current Medicare plan working for Seniors? There should be an overhaul of the current Medicare plan. Fix it to where it works for the Senior Citizens currently covered...no gaps and no holes...then let's discuss expanding that to cover everyone. Don't forget about that gap in coverage...you know, the part they don't cover and won't pay. They too use private Health Insurance.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  cms5 @3.1.1    5 years ago

I know what HIPAA is.

As for the rest  of your screed......

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Quiet
3.1.3  cms5  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    5 years ago

Great! Then you know you'd be able to rely on private health insurance coverage without the PPACA!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  cms5 @3.1.3    5 years ago

meh

You didn't read my comment.

I'm on TriCare. So now.....

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Quiet
3.1.5  cms5  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.4    5 years ago

Oh...I read your entire comment. Just putting your fears of 'near death' to rest.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  cms5 @3.1.5    5 years ago

You don't know anything about me and what I suffer from.

My point was....if I weren't on TriCare and if there was no such thing as Obamacare, I wouldn't be insurable. Pretty sure I wrote my original post in English, but I can't read it and comprehend it for ya

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.7  Don Overton  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.6    5 years ago

The comments suggest more a lack of wanting conversation and more of just beliegerience 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
3.1.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.7    5 years ago
The comments suggest more a lack of wanting conversation and more of just beliegerienc

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with several members here in NT. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Kavika   replied to  cms5 @3.1.1    5 years ago
How is the current Medicare plan working for Seniors? There should be an overhaul of the current Medicare plan. Fix it to where it works for the Senior Citizens currently covered...no gaps and no holes...then let's discuss expanding that to cover everyone. Don't forget about that gap in coverage...you know, the part they don't cover and won't pay. They too use private Health Insurance.

It works fine for me and my wife...Thanks for asking. What gaps are you talking about, I've not experienced any nor has my wife.  If you're talking about RX, yes there is a ''donut hole'' the most out of pocket you have to be responsible for is $5,000. Medicare pays 80% and the supplement covers the rest. The supplement is paid for as a separate entity as is the RX plan.

We've been covered by Medicare since 2005.....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    5 years ago
As for the rest  of your screed......

It's actually pretty accurate.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.6    5 years ago
My point was....if I weren't on TriCare and if there was no such thing as Obamacare, I wouldn't be insurable.

Prior to the ACA, 38 states maintained risk pool coverage for just such occasions.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @3.1.9    5 years ago
It works fine for me and my wife...

It normally does, TBF.

But the way it exists now, it's too expensive to expand it to everyone.  There are other ways to get universal coverage that are actually plausible.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.12    5 years ago
But the way it exists now, it's too expensive to expand it to everyone.  There are other ways to get universal coverage that are actually plausible.

I wasn't advocating that we go full medicare to all citizens of the US. I would think that being the greatest country on earth, we should be able to come up with a health plan that would cover all of our citizens at a responsible cost. And provide coverage to those that are in need of financial help. 

It seems to me like a very good investment for both our country and our citizens. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.11    5 years ago

38 states...what if one happened to live in one of the non-38 states?

SOL I say....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.10    5 years ago

I really don't give a shit

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4  Ronin2    5 years ago

The PPACA, AKA Obamacare sucks. It beyond sucks. 

Want the world's biggest lie- it is the PPACA, that benefits nothing but insurance companies.  Cost controls- insurance companies are smarter than the government (whose politicians on their payroll). They used their increased leverage in the stock market and funds gained from the captive customer created by the PPACA and buy, merge, or partner with hospitals to lock their competitors out. Then charge their captive customers anytime they go out of the limited scope of hospitals and doctors they partner with. The really smart ones are getting into physical fitness centers as a form of preventative health care- and are rolling those costs into their policies as well.

Unfortunately the PPACA is here to stay, just not the exact same from state to state. The Supreme Court held up the individual mandate as a tax; but struck down the federal government compelling states to expand Medicaid or risk losing their current funding.

The Republicans do not have a plan to replace the PPACA; nor do the Democrats have a plan to fix the glaring problems with the PPACA.  Which is exactly the way the insurance companies want it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
4.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @4    5 years ago
The PPACA, AKA Obamacare sucks. It beyond sucks. 

Says someone who never needed it.  I love to see people who have no experience pontificate about things of whichthe know nothing. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @4    5 years ago
The PPACA, AKA Obamacare sucks. It beyond sucks. 

And yet, after almost 10 years, the GOP cannot come up with anything better. 

Either the PPACA doesn't suck as much as you claim, or the GOP is so horrendously bad at doing things that they should have never graduated kindergarten.

Or both.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    5 years ago
And yet, after almost 10 years, the GOP cannot come up with anything better. 

As many problems as it has, it's still far better than the system we had before, at least for the millions of Americans who had preexisting conditions. The insurance companies are going to take their pound of flesh no matter what if they're involved, so we either sacrifice the most vulnerable allowing them to be kicked off insurance because of their heavy costs and their lack of ability to pay for care, or we kick out insurance companies and go to a single payer system. I don't really see any other options, and neither party is willing to pull the trigger either way.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.1    5 years ago

We've got to get insurance companies out of the picture but at the same time we need price controls

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.3    5 years ago

I heard of them, too. You don't get your medical bills paid, but you get lots of thoughts and prayers!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.3    5 years ago
I'm calling the Jesus Insurance company. I heard an at for it on the radio.

They won't let you in due to pre-existing circumstances.

  • You've trimmed your beard.
  • You've worn mixed fabric clothing.
  • Odds are you've seen porn, disallows your access.
  • Do you wear rings or a necklace?  Sorry you don't qualify.
  • Eat bacon?  Blocked!
  • Tattooed?  Not allowed in.

That insurance is basically impossible to qualify for.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
4.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    5 years ago
Odds are you've seen porn,

In this case those "odds" are 100%.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.7  Don Overton  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.3    5 years ago

The Lord says you have to help yourself.  There are many medical manuals out there on google but I don't believe any of them tell you how to give yourself colonoscopy or frontal lobotomy

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @4    5 years ago
the PPACA, that benefits nothing but insurance companies

It benefits a lot of people who couldn't otherwise afford insurance.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.3.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @4.3    5 years ago

Wow, thank you for that, and you are correct. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.3    5 years ago

One thing we agree on.  Good on you Tacos.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
4.3.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  lib50 @4.3.1    5 years ago

It seems we've found what could be the only thing I''ve ever agreed with Tacos about.  So, credit due:  +1.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.3.4    5 years ago

It's true. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.3.6  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @4.3.5    5 years ago

Don't let it go to your head!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    5 years ago

And never will be.  These shit-fer-brains have been promising (read: bullshitting) ever since 2010 to "repeal and replace" and they had legislative majorities for 6 of those years and both the Congress and WH for the last two years and couldn't/wouldn't do fuck-all about it.  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
5.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5    5 years ago
both the Congress and WH for the last two years and couldn't/wouldn't do fuck-all about it. 

that's what happens when a traitor like mccain says he will vote for repeal and replace and then last second votes against.

I also blame the traitorous neocons in the GOP but there is no blame for trump, they had every chance.

 as for obamacare itself? 

it was not even signed into law yet and I said that law will die a slow and painful death.

I like the preexisting conditions and kids on parents plans, universal medical coding... nothing wrong with any of that.

too bad the left wrapped those good things up in so much crap when they wrote obamacare. had they left all the crap out those things would have stood on their own.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1    5 years ago

You keep talking about your 'predictions'.  [DELETE]

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
5.1.3  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    5 years ago
Your Magic Eight Ball is cracked/whack!

I've read all the books. and I understand your constant "whack attacks" are nothing more than a defensive measure and your only trying to convince yourself the orange man will go down in spite of all reality to the contrary.

when you have something to add to a conversation besides attacking me? let me know k?

until then?[DELETED]

cheers :)

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1.3    5 years ago
you can whack off all ya like.

I'll whack to that, after i pour another drink

.

Doctor prescribed   of course

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
5.1.5  lib50  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.4    5 years ago

I need some medicinal smoke after that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @5.1.5    5 years ago

Me too, which I will take care of shortly.  Too bad it's  not doctor prescribed.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @5.1.5    5 years ago

Yeah...but you gotta love his word play

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
5.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1    5 years ago
that's what happens when a traitor like mccain says he will vote for repeal and replace and then last second votes against.

You mean you believe the fairy tale that that's what Rs and Scumbag would have done if McCain had voted for just the repeal?  There was never any "R and R" plan and there still isn't despite that vote being 2 years ago.  There was nothing preventing the Rs from offering plan and THEN seeing if it would have been able to replace the PPACA.  And there's still nothing preventing them from doing so.   So where is it.  Would you pay for a horse that you've never seen?  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.9  Dulay  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1    5 years ago
that's what happens when a traitor like mccain says he will vote for repeal and replace and then last second votes against.

McCain NEVER said he would vote for the underlying bill. Oh and BTFW, the bill did NOT replace ANYTHING, it ONLY repealed parts of the ACA. 

I also blame the traitorous neocons in the GOP but there is no blame for trump, they had every chance.

That's right, y'all never hold Trump responsible for his lack of leadership. 

I like the preexisting conditions and kids on parents plans, universal medical coding... nothing wrong with any of that.
too bad the left wrapped those good things up in so much crap when they wrote obamacare. had they left all the crap out those things would have stood on their own.

Which 'crap' are you speaking of? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
5.1.10  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Dulay @5.1.9    5 years ago
McCain NEVER said he would vote for the underlying bill

https://twitter.com/mschlapp/status/1108194050316951552?

or, you can believe cnn's "fake news...  

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.11  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.9    5 years ago

Every post from certain posters read like this:  jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.12  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1.10    5 years ago

Ignoring reality and the truth is a precursor to a large dip in intelligent ability

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
5.1.13  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.12    5 years ago

then why do you and others on the left continue to ignore reality?  

trump is not going down.

obama, his admin, fbi and doj along with the clintons?  in deep shit.

the attempted coup failed, it is game over for "the resistance", 

and now it is time for a traitors justice.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
5.1.14  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1.13    5 years ago
is a precursor to a large dip in intelligent ability.

let me fix this for you don...

is a precursor to a large dip in intelligence.

 

your welcome :)

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @5.1    5 years ago
that's what happens when a traitor like mccain says he will vote for repeal and replace and then last second votes against.

No, that's what happens when you don't even have a dog turd for a plan to revamp one of the largest sectors of the economy. 

but there is no blame for trump

Of course not, he could strangle an infant on national television and you would be rooting for him. The only question you would have at the end is "why didn't that baby thank Trump for killing it?"

too bad the left wrapped those good things up in so much crap

What "crap" exactly? Like, what specifically do you hate about the ACA? And I mean specifically, not bullshit generalities. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
Junior Silent
6  tomwcraig    5 years ago

There shouldn't be a government sponsored health insurance plan or plans as shown by the PPACA.  Remember, for an affordable insurance plan, you want one with a low premium, low deductible, and low OOP.  The PPACA only allows plans with a moderate to high premium, a high deductible, and a moderate to high OOP.  Before the PPACA, my family's farm had a health insurance plan with a $0 deductible.  The deductible alone meant that ALMOST EVERYTHING would be paid for by the insurance company.  Now, the farm has a health insurance plan with a $1500 deductible, which means that the employees or the farm has to pay $1500 BEFORE the insurance plan would cover anything for any given procedure.  That is the boondoggle that the Obama Administration and Democrats lead by Pelosi and Reid left us when they passed it in 2010.

If they wanted us to have affordable insurance, the PPACA approved plans should have been required to have a $0 to $500 deductible as that is the affordable range for most people.  Instead it is $1500 or more and on top of that you are paying $400+ premiums EVERY month.  You fall and break your arm and need surgery to fix it and are forced to stay overnight due to complications, for example.  (When I was going through chemotherapy in 2002 and 2003, I believe it was $24,000 a night to stay over before you get any sort of treatment.  It has been a LOOOONNNGGG time since I saw one of the billing statements from that time period.  And, my stays occurred every 3 weeks for 6 treatments alternating between 3 and 5 days.  Granted the second round of treatments were cut short after 4 treatments due to complications.)  So, $24,000 a night just to stay, plus medications that would cost you the $1500 for the deductible and unless you have a good paying job to begin with or are on Medicaid could you actually afford the $1500 you would have to pay?  Now, the OOP for the PPACA is usually around $5000, which means that you would have to stay 3 different times paying the deductible before everything else would be covered without you having to pay anything.

The deductible is what you pay for a single incident.  The OOP is what you have to pay in deductibles before the plan will cover anything else without you having to pay anything other than the premium.  The premium is what you pay just to have the plan in the first place and is usually paid monthly, quarterly, or yearly.  The monthly premium is the full-priced premium that most people pay because they cannot afford to pay a lump sum up front.  The quarterly and yearly premiums are lump sum payments usually given at a discount for paying the lump sum.

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Quiet
6.1  cms5  replied to  tomwcraig @6    5 years ago
Now, the farm has a health insurance plan with a $1500 deductible, which means that the employees or the farm has to pay $1500 BEFORE the insurance plan would cover anything for any given procedure.  That is the boondoggle that the Obama Administration and Democrats lead by Pelosi and Reid left us when they passed it in 2010.

Health Insurers must cover pre-existing conditions...that raises their costs. Plans that had reasonable deductibles became plans with larger and larger deductibles...because the costs for low deductible plans went through the roof!

The PPACA over-regulated itself into the ground.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
6.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  tomwcraig @6    5 years ago
There shouldn't be a government sponsored health insurance plan or plans as shown by the PPACA. 

Then you need to stop using Medicare if you are on it or refuse to sign up for it when you're eligible.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7  Nerm_L    5 years ago

I am a participant in Obamacare.  My experience has been that Obamacare is all about the money; Obamacare doesn't have anything to do with health care.

My first experience was a doctor's visit to check on an ailment.  I was required to go through a mandatory physical/screening and the doctor refused to discuss the ailment I was concerned about until the results of the screening were available.  I dealt with eleven people: 1 doctor, 1 nurse, 2 phlebotomist, and 7 different receptionists, record keepers, and floor guides.  The visit cost $1,300 (mostly paid by Obamacare) and I did not receive any medical treatment.  I had the same ailment and concerns afterward and was not allowed to discuss that during the visit.

I was just a pass-through agent used to transfer public funds to a private medical clinic.  I rarely need to visit a doctor; it can be more than a year between visits.  But all the visits after that first one have been the same, I'm treated like a lab rat and leave without receiving any medical treatment.  Somehow all of that 'free' Obamacare screening has been transformed into mandatory screening that prevents receiving medical treatment.  

Don't tell me the private sector is more efficient.  I've not experienced that much bureaucracy in any government office (and I was a Federal employee).  My father used VA medical facilities and I thought that was bad.  But my experience with Obamacare has been worse.   

I can receive the same level of non-treatment from a witch doctor.  All the high tech voodoo hasn't provided me any more medical treatment than blowing smoke up my arse.  If Obamacare is eliminated I don't believe I'll lose anything.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @7    5 years ago

More nonsense - is that all you have?

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
7.1.1  Don Overton  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    5 years ago

You got that correct.:)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    5 years ago
More nonsense - is that all you have?

Obamacare did not change the nonsense of medical networks.  Obamacare only increased access to in-network medical facilities.  People are only allowed access to the doctor of their choice who is in the coverage network.  And those networks are constantly changing.

Obamacare did not include any requirement for transparency on costs, prices, or alternatives.  Whatever a doctor orders is what is provided.  Patients have little or no information to make choices and do not have any idea about cost before receiving medical care.

Obamacare did not strengthen safeguards against fraud committed by medical providers.  The onus is on the patient.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    5 years ago

I don't think there is a lot of dispute that much about Obamacare could be improved or even changed. However, the real world alternatives, so far, have just been to go back to what we had. That's not helpful. It seems like no one is seriously tackling this problem, and those who say they are seem to be focused more on politics and ideology than they are on problem-solving.

The criticism of the Republican Party on this point is more than justified. They have been howling that they have superior ideas, but we have yet to see them. 

We hear a lot about things like choice and privacy and I agree those are important concerns, but that is not justification for doing nothing. Total socialization of medicine may not be the best solution, but it should be clear to everyone by now that allowing medicine to be a totally free market system is a policy that will fail millions of people.

Three goals: Cheap Medicine, Quality Medicine, Universal Care. We probably can't get to all three, but we need an organized effort that gets us as close as possible. I believe the solution will require some sensible fusion of free market forces and government regulation.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
8.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 years ago

I have to say I'm impressed you understand and are speaking out.  This issue is probably the most impactful for all Americans and too important to allow ignorance and misrepresentations.  This is really life and death and bankruptcy.  There are so many (all) other countries that do it better and cheaper, there is a lot to look at for solutions best for us.  Thank you for your honesty and look forward to debating options with you.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
8.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 years ago
The criticism of the Republican Party on this point is more than justified. They have been howling that they have superior ideas, but we have yet to see them. 

Absolutely true.  For years they've been talking 'Repeal and Replace' but have not yet provided a plan. The only idea I've heard so far out of the White House involves block grants which only punts the issue down to the states.

When talk of the PPACA started up, I hoped they would just enhance/increase/fix Medicaid as the initial talk was really about bringing medical insurance to the millions of un-insured. But that's not where they went and so they messed it up. Seems to me they tried to tinker with only one side (insurance and payments) while ignoring costs, care and people.

I don't have a solution but working in the health insurance industry, I have seen many doctors and medical providers stop accepting Medicare & Medicaid patients as the re-imbursement rates are too low to cover costs. A lot of people talk about European models of health care but a lot of those countries are having financial issues related to the costs, hell the Finnish Cabinet just resigned after being unable to reform their healthcare. The entire healthcare system in the US is built around money and it takes a lot of money to get started. How many people are going to be willing to go to medical school and coming out maybe a million dollars in debt only to get a job that pays them $75k annual? I think if the government just comes out and reduces payments and mandates costs we will see many providers and institutions just quit as they cannot afford to stay open.

If we could go back in time and build a medical industry from the ground up, perhaps we could build a mix of government owned/managed and private owned/managed to cover more people while maintaining cost and quality. But with what we have now? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
8.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Snuffy @8.2    5 years ago
I don't have a solution

Just about every other country on Earth does. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
8.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 years ago
We hear a lot about things like choice and privacy and I agree those are important concerns, but that is not justification for doing nothing. Total socialization of medicine may not be the best solution, but it should be clear to everyone by now that allowing medicine to be a totally free market system is a policy that will fail millions of people

Damn, we agree. Crazy...

Glad some conservatives are finally coming to grips with reality. The GOP has been saying for years they have some awesome plan, yet every time push comes to shove, their plan ends up being "let's go back to being the most costly system in the post-industrial world, and achieving some of the worst results in the post-industrial world." 

The GOP doesn't have a fucking clue as to what to do about healthcare. And I know you are not big on socialism, but all the data, all the evidence from across the globe points to socialized healthcare as being the best option. Every single modern nation on the planet has a mostly or fully socialized healthcare system, and they all get results that are equal or better than ours and for significantly less cost. 

I remember some years back watching a documentary, and they interviewed the Taiwanese health minister (or whatever it was) when they were looking to revamp their healthcare system. They had visited something like 15 countries (and the US) taking ideas and practices from all of them, and when asked what did you take from the US his response was "nothing, if anything the US is an example of what not to do." 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    5 years ago

Trump Health Care Plan

th?id=OIP.pNvG4rEeUgrrouGDI9UOjwAAAA&w=164&h=196&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

For More Serious Illnesses Or Injuries, Use This

th?id=OIP.Xfik0_Sud3_0epQwLl2CSAAAAA&w=222&h=215&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

or this

th?id=OIP.Ou-SPIzaVu1EEipGVzX9gQHaHa&w=220&h=217&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
9.1  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 years ago

And you know they'd start hiking the prices on staples, super glue and band-aids just to make a profit and kill off more Americans.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  lib50 @9.1    5 years ago

The Health Care Choices Proposal:
Policy Recommendations to Congress
Health Policy Consensus Group
Why Congress Must Act
Too many hard-working Americans and small businesses are finding it impossible to get health insurance that meets their needs and their budgets. Premiums and deductibles are sky high. Many who once could afford to buy coverage in the small group and individual markets no longer can.
Average premiums for individual health insurance rose 105% in the first four years after Obamacare took effect—from $232 to $476 a month on av- erage—and, not surprisingly, the number of people with individual policies continues to fall. Fewer people had individual policies in December 2017 than in December 2014—the first year in which Obamacare took full effect. And the number of small firms offering health benefits to their workers dropped by 24% between 2012 and 2016.
Obamacare is a key driver of these problems because it forces people to pay more for policies that restrict, rather than expand, their access to care. Networks are narrower, deductibles and copays can be prohibitively expensive, and access to doctors and hospitals is limited. Half of those buying coverage in the Obamacare exchanges have a “choice” of only one insurer. Still, govern- ment spending is soaring.
The Health Policy Consensus Group is comprised of state health policy experts, national think tank leaders, and members and leaders of grassroots organizations across the country. We are committed to market-based policy recommendations that give people access to the health plans and doctors they choose at a price they can afford so that they can get the
care they need. Our plan, the Health Care Choices Proposal, is a vital component in achieving that goal.
THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 2 Health Policy Consensus Group
Lower Costs and Better Choices
It’s time that Congress provided relief from Obamacare’s higher costs and reduced choices. Americans need insurance that will give them financial se- curity and peace of mind. We need a solution that will protect the sick without burdening the healthy and driving them out of the insurance market.
Work has begun in the states and in Washington to advance these goals. States are seeking federal waivers from Obamacare rules to the fullest ex- tent possible. The Trump administration is using its regulatory authority to give people more affordable choices, including allowing small businesses and individually-insured people the ability to join larger insurance pools to get better rates and more flexible benefits. It also is reviving short-term limited-duration policies, which will offer millions of Americans a bridge to retaining coverage and to purchase policies free of the expensive and bur- densome Obamacare requirements. Congress also has taken several import- ant steps by repealing the individual mandate’s tax penalty starting in 2019, ending the dreaded Independent Payment Advisory Board, and delaying some Obamacare taxes.
This step-by-step relief is important, but it is not enough. These actions do not repair the fundamental damage that Obamacare is doing to private health insurance markets. For that, Congress must act.
After efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare fell short last year, many in Congress seem resigned to accepting the status quo or even willing to bail out and prop up the program. But Obamacare is broken, can’t be fixed, and con- tinues to do great harm.
What’s needed is a fresh approach—one that gives Americans more choic- es of private, affordable coverage while making sure the most vulnerable are protected.
Our Policy Proposal Would:
1. Improve choices and lower costs, while protecting vulnerable Americans;
2. Give flexibility and resources to states to achieve those goals; and
3. Ensure people can opt into the private coverage of their choice.
This Approach Would:
• Empower consumers with more choices. Under Obamacare, con- sumers lost choices because the federal government set overly strict rules for insurance. Consumers bear the consequences: higher pre- miums, higher deductibles, and fewer choices of insurance plans and providers. Real reform would put patients first. Choice is essential for high-quality health care to flourish. Washington has shown it is inept in managing something as complex as local health insurance markets. Instead, we need state-based solutions. Our proposal would replace open-ended federal payments to insurance companies with grants to states, so they have resources as well as more flexibility to reinvigorate broken private individual and small group markets. This approach would empower patients, lower premiums, increase choices, and pro- tect the vulnerable.

THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 3 Health Policy Consensus Group
• Reduce costs by unwinding heavy federal mandates and allowing states to innovate. Obamacare’s mandates and pricing restrictions drive up costs and restrict choices, crushing the market. Insurance companies are fleeing the Obamacare exchanges, and many that remain in the heavily bureaucratic exchanges are charging exorbitant rates. Obamacare’s red tape has left states powerless to address these prob- lems. Our proposal will empower people to access health insurance that is more affordable and widely available. States will have the resources
to create innovative solutions and encourage more competition among insurers on choice and costs. Plans could offer discounts to people who are continuously covered, for example, and young people who are being driven away by Obamacare’s punitive rules and high premiums could get special discounts to encourage them to get covered.
• Refocus subsidies on those who need them most. Americans need to know they can find private insurance they can afford so they can protect their families and will have financial security, even if they get sick. Direct block grants to the states would enable states to better target assistance to those in need.
• Provide security and protect high-cost patients. Today, Obamacare’s subsidies provide coverage for the vulnerable but increase costs for ev- eryone else. In contrast, our policy proposal would help people who need assistance in getting coverage, as well as dedicate a portion of the grant to offset the costs of the most-expensive patients, reducing premiums for everyone else.
• Ensure that all Americans can choose a private health plan. Obamacare locked millions of people into government-run Medicaid pro- grams, which often provide lower quality care and severely limit access to physicians, particularly specialists. Our policy proposal would give them the option of using these support dollars to buy into private coverage.
• Protect life. Funding for these grants to the states would run through the existing Children’s Health Insurance Program. Life protections are written into the CHIP statute, permanently prohibiting federal taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions.
• Put federal spending on a real budget. With its open-ended subsidies to insurance companies, federal spending rises dollar-for-dollar with premium increases. Real reform will provide fixed grants to states and give them greater flexibility to reinvigorate private markets that have been broken by Obamacare. By putting spending on a budget, states— which are better equipped to innovate and meet the unique needs of their residents—would have new incentives to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 4 Health Policy Consensus Group
How Real Reform Works


The federal government would provide a fixed amount of funding to each state. Instead of sending tens of billions of dollars every year to insurance companies, Washington would issue grants to states. Initially, the grants would be based on the amount of ACA spending as of a fixed date. Over time, the grant would be based on a state’s number of low-in- come residents. States would use the money to help vulnerable citizens obtain coverage.
Each state would take responsibility for using federal money to make insurance more affordable. Obamacare imposed a one-size-fits- all scheme that has been disastrous for millions of families. Washington should learn from its failures. What works in Massachusetts may not work in Mississippi or Missouri or Montana. What works in big cities may not work in rural areas. States are best positioned to design pro- grams that respond to the differing needs of their citizens. Specifically, states would be enabled to be laboratories of innovative policy and:
• Reduce premiums by reinvigorating broken, private health insurance markets that tried and failed to fit into Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all structure. They also would have resources to help high-cost patients through risk pools, reinsurance, and other risk mitigation protections.
• Individuals and families would choose the coverage that best meets their needs. Obamacare put bureaucrats first and consumers last. Our consumer-centric approach will help health insurance markets heal from the damage Obamacare has done and give Americans more freedom and choices.
• Give low-income people more choices. Instead of being able to enroll only in public programs, recipients would be empowered to use their government assistance to buy a private health plan of their choice. This requirement for states to offer “premium assistance” also would apply in other federal programs, such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Individuals receiving subsidies also could have the ability to choose health sharing ministries, direct primary care, employer-sponsored care, and other options they prefer.
• Leverage sensible approaches to protect people with pre-existing conditions without making coverage so costly for the young and healthy. States would no longer be bound by Obamacare’s mandates such as essential health benefits, minimum loss ratio requirements, single risk pools, and 3:1 age rating requirements. Instead of having to comply with heavy mandates that dictate what insurance should look like, states could give citizens a broader choice of plans. And states will have resources to help people with more expensive conditions access coverage without driving up costs for everyone.

THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 5 Health Policy Consensus Group



States would have better incentives to protect the most vulnerable instead of chasing federal Medicaid expansion dollars to add new enrollees while neglecting those already on the program and in need. With the federal entitlement to premium subsidies and Medicaid ex- pansion repealed, states would be free to design their own assistance programs to make sure those who most need help receive it.
Remove restrictions on insurers’ ability to use innovative approaches to encourage wider coverage. For example, insurers would be able to offer discounts to people who are continuously covered and to provide
“Youth Outreach Discounts” to young adults so they are not forced to pay unfairly high premiums.
Spend grant money only on health care. The federal government won’t micromanage the states, but it will hold them accountable. States would be required to spend their federal grants on mak- ing health coverage more affordable and widely available—not for other purposes.
How Proposal’s Block Grants Would Work
We recommend replacing Obamacare spending with block grants to the states to help the low-in- come and sick access the care they need from the doctors and coverage they choose, in ways that will strengthen—not undermine—private markets to help millions of others shut out of the market af- ford coverage. The proposal would repeal the in- dividual entitlement to premium and cost-sharing reduction subsidies and Medicaid expansion. In- stead, states would receive block grants from the federal government, which they would use to stabi- lize their markets and provide assistance to those with low incomes and to the sick and needy. To assure that people have choices and that the vul- nerable are protected, states must make sure that:
• At least 50% of the block grant goes toward supporting people’s purchase of private health coverage
• At least 50% goes to provide coverage for low-in- come people (the two categories will overlap)
• A portion of the grant goes to offset the costs of high-risk patients to make sure they get the care they need and that they don’t drive up premiums for everyone else in the market
• Anyone eligible for financial assistance under the block grant, CHIP, or Medicaid can take the value of their premium assistance to pur- chase the private plan of their choice
• Life is protected. The grant would be dis- tributed through the Children’s Health Insurance Program which provides protec- tions against taxpayer money being used to fund abortions.
Obamacare requirements on essential health benefits, single risk pools, minimum loss ratio re- quirements, and the 3:1 age ratio would not apply in states receiving federal allotments. Nullifying these mandates along with new flexibility to the states would reduce premiums, allow fairer pre- mium variation and, in combination with risk mitigation, assure that the sick get the coverage they need without charging the healthy unfairly high premiums.
Funds to finance the block grants would be based upon spending, as of a fixed date, on ACA subsidies (both tax credits and CSR payments) and Medicaid expansion.

THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 6 Health Policy Consensus Group
Greater Access to HSAs: Consumer-centered health reform doesn’t stop with a new grant program for the vulnerable. It also enhances choice through such tools as Health Savings Accounts, which allow people to pay for medical care—tax free—and save for future heath care expenses. More than 22 million people use these accounts, but today few people can find an Obamacare plan that allows them to have an HSA.
Our policy proposal would take two key steps to improve HSAs so they can be more flexible, more widely available, and give consumers greater control over how their HSA dollars are spent, including seeing the doctor of their choice.
First, the proposal would roughly double HSA contribution limits. Today annual HSA contributions are limited to $3,450 for an individual and $6,850 for a family. These limits aren’t keeping pace with rising deductibles and cat- astrophic protections. The average deductible for family coverage under a Bronze plan is over $12,000. The average out-of-pocket maximum for such policies is nearly $14,000.
Second, the proposal would make more plans HSA-compatible. Today, in order to be HSA-compatible, a policy must have a deductible of at least $1,350 ($2,700 for families). The average Obamacare Silver plan had a deductible of $4,033 ($8,292 for families). In 2016, more than four of every five plans on the federal exchange had deductibles greater than the legal minimum for HSAs, but less than a fifth were HSA-eligible. This proposal would change the require- ment to qualify, so that any plan with an actuarial value less than a specified level (e.g., 70%, 80%) could be HSA-compatible.
Americans have heard many promises from Washington, but Wash- ington has shown it cannot deliver. It can’t fix the problems it has created. We need consumer-centered state and local solutions that put consumers first and restore personal freedom.
People of many political persuasions agree on the broad goals of reform in providing access to coverage, making care and coverage affordable, guarding the quality of care, and providing a choice of physicians, treatments, and in- surers while, importantly, protecting the most vulnerable.
Government that is closer to the people, released from Obamacare’s dom- inance, can offer innovative solutions to help Americans gain insurance pro- tection and greater security to take care of their families now and in the future.
A truly competitive market that is responsive to patients can provide more choices of more affordable health insurance and better access to care, while encouraging innovative solutions in medical care and care delivery. The fed- eral government is getting in the way of these advances. Much more needs to be done to modernize our entitlement programs to make them more efficient, transparent, and to make programs responsive to consumers instead of bu- reaucrats and special interests.
The proposal described above does not fix everything that is wrong with our health sector today, but it is the logical next step in helping our private health sector recover from Washington’s failed approach. Top-down, Wash- ington control clearly doesn’t work. States can be much more responsive and flexible in meeting the needs of their citizens. The goal is to empower consumers to have the choices and control they need to protect themselves and their families.

THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES PROPOSAL June 19, 2018 | 7 Health Policy Consensus Group
The Health Policy Consensus Group is offering recommendations for terms and conditions of block grants to the states in order to lower costs and in- crease choices in health care. We hope that our pol- icy guidance will be of assistance to legislators. Any legislation that may be developed based upon a block
grant approach to health reform will by necessity in- clude an allocation formula and may include addi- tional policy provisions. Our group, however, focused our recommendations on the terms and conditions of block grants, not these other issues.     https://www.healthcarereform2018.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Proposal-06-19-18.pdf

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.1    5 years ago

All those proposals and not one acted upon by the Republicans.  Nor have Republicans come up with anything on their own (harhar).  And that's the way it will continue.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 years ago

...Because the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act zeroed out the ACA's individual mandate penalty or tax for not having health coverage, a federal district judge ruled against the law in 2018. This week, the Trump administration told the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the ruling from District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed.

Marie Fishpaw of The Heritage Foundationthinks the announcement is a good reminder that ObamaCare has had a lot of trouble since the beginning.

"It's led to increased costs and reduced choices and hasn't really helped the sick access the care that they need," she says. "The reminder for all of us is that Congress needs to return to the issue and put down real solutions that help Americans and address their concerns."

Conservatives have been working on a plan to do just that. 

"We've come up with a proposal called the Health Care Choices Proposal that would result in lowering premiums by about 30 percent and increase enrollment in private coverage and innovative arrangements while protecting people who are vulnerable, like those with pre-existing conditions," says Fishpaw....https://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2019/03/28/conservatives-creating-plan-to-fulfill-hopes-for-healthcare

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
9.2.1  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2    5 years ago
Conservatives have been working on a plan to do just that

320

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.2.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Don Overton @9.2.1    5 years ago

And, it'll just keep getting worse with every comment in every seed  from that one.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.3  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2    5 years ago

Another utterly hilariously obtuse comment. 

Your link is from this month but the 'plan' that they pretend to be 'creating' is from June 2018. WTF kept they from passing that shit through the Congress when they had control of both Houses? 

The ONLY proposal the GOP put on the books would cause at minimum 24 million to loose coverage in the FIRST year and it gets worse from there...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
10  Thrawn 31    5 years ago

It has been, what, 10 years now? The GOP has produced absolutely shit as an alternative. Their "plan" for the last 10 years has been "stuff". But by all means fat ass, make healthcare the GOP's signature issue in 2020, you will be slaughtered. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
11  livefreeordie    5 years ago

Get rid of Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Get the Federal Government out of meddling in healthcare and instead follow the Constitution which leaves those issues to the states and the citizens to determine 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  livefreeordie @11    5 years ago

 I just have to ask, are you brain damaged? 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
11.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Thrawn 31 @11.1    5 years ago

Nope. I demand a government that actually follows the Constitution 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @11    5 years ago
Get the Federal Government out of meddling in healthcare and instead follow the Constitution which leaves those issues to the states and the citizens to determine 

So I presume that you support abolishing the VA and Tricare too. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
11.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @11.2    5 years ago

VA and Tricare are part of deferred compensation agreements between the Federal Government and those of us who serve.  We gave our lives in a contract that promises us this deferred compensation in exchange for the government making us surrender many of the liberties civilians have and having the authority to order us into life threatening situations or even certain death.

that especially holds true for those of us who are disabled Veterans

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.2  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @11.2.1    5 years ago

I thought you said that the Government shouldn't meddle in healthcare? 

BTFW, it may behoove you to note that Medicare is deferred compensation too. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
11.2.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @11.2.2    5 years ago

You seem clueless about what deferred compensation is.  Medicare is not a deferred compensation program.  It is a subsidized insurance purchase.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.4  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @11.2.3    5 years ago
You seem clueless about what deferred compensation is.

You seem clueless about what a subsidized insurance purchase is. 

I don't know about you but I have been paying into Medicare for almost 5 decades and have yet to receive a fucking dime in return. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.2    5 years ago
BTFW, it may behoove you to note that Medicare is deferred compensation too. 

No.  It isn't.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.4    5 years ago
It is a subsidized insurance purchase.

No.  It isn't.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.4    5 years ago
I don't know about you but I have been paying into Medicare for almost 5 decades

No.  You haven't.  You don't "pay into" Medicare or Social Security.

You have been paying a tax.  Just like you have been paying sales tax, fuel tax, property tax and possibly income tax.  That particular tax just happens to be earmarked for a specific social program.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.6    5 years ago
It is a subsidized insurance purchase.
No. It isn't.

I agree, that's what I told LFOD. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.7    5 years ago
You have been paying a tax. Just like you have been paying sales tax, fuel tax, property tax and possibly income tax. That particular tax just happens to be earmarked for a specific social program.

Bullshit. 

Sales,and income taxes go into a general fund for use by state and federal governments. The gas tax pays for our SOCIALIST road system and property taxes pay for our SOCIALIST schools. 

The Medicare taxes I pay qualify me for future compensation in the form of 'old age' medical insurance. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.5    5 years ago

Actually, yes, YES it is.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.9    5 years ago
Bullshit.

Or....on planet Earth... "reality".  

Sales,and income taxes go into a general fund for use by state and federal governments. The gas tax pays for our SOCIALIST road system and property taxes pay for our SOCIALIST schools. 

Getting straight to the unhinged angry shouting early, I see. 

Roads are not socialist.  Neither are schools.  People who paid attention in schools know this.

The Medicare taxes I pay qualify me for future compensation in the form of 'old age' medical insurance. 

No, they do not.  The US Government has made no contractual commitment to you regarding Medicare or Social Security at any time.  The programs exist under current statute, which the US Government can change at its whim.  Your taxes are used to pay the claims of current beneficiaries, and you merely assume the program will use future taxes to pay yours when you reach the age to qualify.

If this were in any way a "deferred compensation" program, it would meet every definition of a Ponzi Scheme and its architects would be headed to jail.  As a government program, however, it is perfectly legal to use your money to pay current claims.  

It is not deferred compensation of any kind.  You do not have a balance in some Medicare account upon which you can later draw.  People who have paid more Medicare tax over their careers do not get better benefits that people who have not. 

You are simply subsidizing a social welfare program for people who are currently old, hoping others will subsidize the program when you are old.  I'm not sure why that fact causes you such consternation.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.11    5 years ago
Roads are not socialist.  Neither are schools. 

They sure as fuck aren't CAPITALIST. People who paid attention in schools know that.

No, they do not.

Yes they do. 

The US Government has made no contractual commitment to you regarding Medicare or Social Security at any time.

I never said it did. 

The programs exist under current statute, which the US Government can change at its whim. Your taxes are used to pay the claims of current beneficiaries, and you merely assume the program will use future taxes to pay yours when you reach the age to qualify.

I don't 'merely' presume, I have every intention of fighting to insure that the government keeps it's promise. 

If this were in any way a "deferred compensation" program, it would meet every definition of a Ponzi Scheme and its architects would be headed to jail. As a government program, however, it is perfectly legal to use your money to pay current claims.

Medicare doesn't work off of profit. Another false equivalency. 

It is not deferred compensation of any kind.

Yes it is. 

You do not have a balance in some Medicare account upon which you can later draw. People who have paid more Medicare tax over their careers do not get better benefits that people who have not.

Irrelevant drivel. 

You are simply subsidizing a social welfare program for people who are currently old, hoping others will subsidize the program when you are old.

I may have been doing so when I started working at 14 in the 70's, I'm old now. 

I'm not sure why that fact causes you such consternation.

I'm not sure why you think that you have any understanding of what I may or may not expect. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.12    5 years ago
They sure as fuck aren't CAPITALIST. 

Of course they are.  They're built by private contractors.  

Medicare claims are paid by private contractors, too, BTW.

I never said it did

That would be a requirement for deferred compensation.  

I don't 'merely' presume, I have every intention of fighting to insure that the government keeps it's promise.

I'm sure swearing in all caps on the internet will prove quite useful in continuing Medicare. 

Medicare doesn't work off of profit. Another false equivalency. 

In order for you to use the term "false equivalency" correctly, two things must have been declared as equivalent.  They were not.  They were contrasted.   

Yes it is. 

Out of curiosity, are there other nonsensical things you intend to declare just by saying "yes it is"?  Do you believe the moon to be made of cheese?   Will you declare Elvis to still be alive?  Will you name the Green Bay Packers as the winner of the last Super Bowl?  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.13    5 years ago
Of course they are.  They're built by private contractors.   Medicare claims are paid by private contractors, too, BTW.

Which proves that they are CAPITALIST not at all. 

That would be a requirement for deferred compensation.

Really? Why? 

I'm sure swearing in all caps on the internet will prove quite useful in continuing Medicare.

When did using the political designations SOCIALIST and CAPITALIST start being labeled as 'swearing'? 

In order for you to use the term "false equivalency" correctly, two things must have been declared as equivalent. They were not. They were contrasted.

So 'meet the very definition of' isn't declaring them equivalent? 

Pffft. 

Out of curiosity, are there other nonsensical things you intend to declare just by saying "yes it is"? 

Out of curiosity, why do you think that your 'no it isn't' declarations are any less nonsensical? 

Do you believe the moon to be made of cheese? Will you declare Elvis to still be alive? Will you name the Green Bay Packers as the winner of the last Super Bowl?

More irrelevant drivel. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.14    5 years ago
Which proves that they are CAPITALIST not at all.

Roads built by companies created with private capital, or claims processed by companies started with private capital....

You do realize "capitalist" does not mean something is typed in all capital letters, right?

Really? Why? 

Compensation fulfills half of a contract between two parties (the other half being service rendered).  The agreement to defer compensation is part of that contract and the terms must be specified.

So 'meet the very definition of' isn't declaring them equivalent? 

Not when used with the phrase "if this were in any way", no. 

Pffft.

Least incorrect thing you've posted so far. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.15    5 years ago
Roads built by companies created with private capital, or claims processed by companies started with private capital....

Were talking about the ROADS, not the contractors the build them. Sheesh...

You do realize "capitalist" does not mean something is typed in all capital letters, right?

YES. 

Compensation fulfills half of a contract between two parties (the other half being service rendered). The agreement to defer compensation is part of that contract and the terms must be specified.

Compensation has no need for a contract. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
11.2.17  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Dulay @11.2.9    5 years ago
The gas tax pays for our SOCIALIST road system and property taxes pay for our SOCIALIST schools.

too damn funny.

breaking news: socialism is a national economic system

IE: taxes, schools and roads are not indicative of socialism.


capitalism = getting people to pay your bills by providing goods or services   AKA: work

socialism = getting people to pay your bills by use of the power of government AKA: theft


we may pay taxes and build roads.... yadda yadda...

but in this country the results of one's labor is not owned by "the people" and it never will be.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
11.2.18  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @11.2.4    5 years ago

I was forced to pay into it from the day it began but I refused to sign up when I turned 65. I consider it just another Marxist statist money grab

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
11.2.19  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @11.2.18    5 years ago

So, you paid for health insurance but you refuse to use it ... pretty crappy financial decision.  You just turned it into a money grab, rather than using what you paid for.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
11.2.20  Snuffy  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.13    5 years ago
Will you name the Green Bay Packers as the winner of the last Super Bowl?  

oh oh oh....   I got my shirt on and my flag flying...   I do declare that the Green Bay Packers have won the last 51 Super Bowls!!!!   

woo hoo !!!!!!!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
11.2.21  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @11.2.18    5 years ago

You refused to sign up for parts B & D which you can still do at a later date with a 10% penalty for each year you deferred without other insurance.

You cannot refuse Medicare Part A, it's "free" based on all the years you paid into it, but you can defer it if you still have employer provided insurance.

If you want to disenroll from Medicare Part A, you can fill out CMS form 1763 (Request for Termination of Premium Hospital and Medical Insurance) and mail to your local

Social Security Administration office. ... You can re-enroll at any time by calling Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 or visiting your local SSA office.

Caution, this info is from a blog.....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @11.2.16    5 years ago
Were talking about the ROADS, not the contractors the build them. Sheesh...

You're referring to an object as "socialist".  If that doesn't refer to the economics of the road, how does that work, exactly?

Are the grains of asphalt unionized?  Has the aggregate in the concrete formed some sort of collective?  Are the guardrails threatening a strike if their demands for shorter working hours and better pay are not met?  

Compensation has no need for a contract.

Riiiight.  People just show up for work and hope they'll get paid eventually.  They're not expecting anything, just whatever the employer thinks is fair.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @11.2.19    5 years ago
So, you paid for health insurance but you refuse to use it ...

No.  He paid a tax to fund medical care for other people.

pretty crappy financial decision.

I'll agree with that.  But many decisions made on prinicple are not financially sound.  The people who make such decisions value principle over money.

  You just turned it into a money grab, rather than using what you paid for.

Again, he didn't "pay for" anything.  It's a tax.  The majority of the people paying the tax are ineligible for benefits.

The amount of money most people pay in over their careers does not begin to cover what Medicare would cost if they had to actually "pay for" it.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11.2.24  Thrawn 31  replied to  livefreeordie @11.2.18    5 years ago
I was forced to pay into it from the day it began'

How so?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11.2.25  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.23    5 years ago
No.  He paid a tax to fund medical care for other people.

So have I, he is being a pussy. Shit, there is a 90% chance that eventually some of my taxes will pay to keep his dumb ass alive.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
11.2.26  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.23    5 years ago
Again, he didn't "pay for" anything.  It's a tax.  The majority of the people paying the tax are ineligible for benefits.

We're talking about Medicare, not Medicaid.  Sure, it's a tax - and he paid it.  He is eligible for Medicare if he's 65 or older.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.22    5 years ago
You're referring to an object as "socialist". 

I'm referring to it's acquisition and use as socialist. 

If that doesn't refer to the economics of the road, how does that work, exactly?

It does refer to the socialist economics that allowed the acquisition of the land, the finding of construction and the use of that road.

In FACT, all adjacent land owners pay property taxes on the land under the roads while gas taxes pays for their maintenance and repair. Again, a socialist form of economic funding. 

Are the grains of asphalt unionized?  Has the aggregate in the concrete formed some sort of collective?  Are the guardrails threatening a strike if their demands for shorter working hours and better pay are not met?  

Out of curiosity, do you think that obtuse and irrelevant questions show a good faith effort to discuss an issue? 

Riiiight. People just show up for work and hope they'll get paid eventually. They're not expecting anything, just whatever the employer thinks is fair.

Perhaps if you applied that same standard to Medicare, you'd have an easier time of understanding that it is deferred compensation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

"What Trump and his “party of health care” have failed to come even close to doing is proposing a credible alternative plan that would achieve anything close to the Affordable Care Act’s results."

So the voters have a choice.  It's either the no-plan Republicans or the damn-the-cost radical democrats

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
CB


70 visitors