DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Repeal and Replace IV

Debt at the federal government level differs from say, our households in one key aspect: fiat currency control. I can't print more money to pay my debts, the government can. If the US wanted to be out of debt then we print an extra $20 trillion and pay our debtors. I'm sure people can see why that's a bad idea.

Even at the individual level, not all debt is bad and some debt can be good to leverage. I had to take out student loans to go to college, and I leveraged that into a successful software engineer career. I'm more than happy to pay a little interest when the dividends of the education have paid off exceptionally well for me. Same for my house, leveraging the mortgage to let me live here and also build a tiny bit of equity. The same applies for a business, taking on debt to grow your business is critical because timing can be everything. Who cares if you took out a $1m line of credit if you generate $10m in revenue that year?

The biggest risk is being over-leveraged, and since the US Government has 33% of the WORLDS wealth, the US Govt is far from over-leveraged. $20 trillion of debt is 3% (low estimate) of all worldwide derivatives. If anything the US Government should leverage the low interest rates and improve our infrastructure, because that will be a rewarding investment for the country.

improve our infrastructure?

why when we can throw money at defense spending so we can kill people better? isn't that more important?

He could be VA I didn't think of that. But I am 10,000 percent sure he is not getting medicaid.

Trump says he'll negotiate with Democrats on health care plan

David Jackson, USA TODAY Published 1:24 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2017

WASHINGTON – Stung by another health care defeat this week, President Trump said Wednesday he will begin talking with Democrats on legislation that can replace the law signed by predecessor Barack Obama.

"I'm also going to meet with Democrats and I will see if I can get a healthcare plan that's even better," Trump told reporters at the White House, the day after Senate Republicans' last-ditch proposal to unwind the Affordable Care Act collapsed on Capitol Hill.

The president said he hopes for a health care vote in January, February or March.

In the meantime, the president said he plans to sign an executive order – likely next week – that would enable people to buy health insurance across state lines, though there is some question as to whether a president has the authority to effect such a change.

Trump also said Wednesday that Republicans "have the votes" on health care, but don't have the ability to get it done before a key deadline on Friday.

Since the election, Republicans have been struggling to round up enough party support for a plan to repeal and replace Obama's health care law. They are now racing against the clock; after Sept. 30, the chamber's rules change and lawmakers won't be able to pass a new bill with just 50 votes. This is critical, since past health care efforts to overhaul health care have failed even with 52 Republicans.

“We will have the votes for healthcare but not for the reconciliation deadline of Friday, after which we need 60," Trump tweeted.

Trump also cited support from an unnamed senator that triggered a mystery on Wednesday. "With one Yes vote in hospital & very positive signs from Alaska and two others (McCain is out), we have the HCare Vote, but not for Friday!" Trump said over Twitter.

Later, Trump once again insisted that one of his supporters in the Senate "can't vote because he's in the hospital."

Republican Sen. Thad Cochran said he was at home in Mississippi convalescing, but confirmed he was not in the hospital via Twitter: "Thanks for the well-wishes. I'm not hospitalized, but am recuperating at home in Mississippi and look forward to returning to work soon."

White House officials speaking under condition of anonymity said they believe Trump was referring to Cochran with his references to a hospitalized senator.

What's more, Trump's prospects for negotiations with the Democrats remain unclear.

Throughout the health care debate, Democrats have said they will not support any plan that makes it harder for people to buy health insurance, effectively cutting them off from coverage. They said all of Trump's plans would do just that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...plan/708790001/

Called it.

Here comes Bernie Care! lol

Boy this thread sure got quiet... crickets. lol

With all these exciting Threads going on, people need to take a breath from time to time!

This place is so hot I wonder if Purp would consider selling!

Yet no comment about Trump working on healthcare with the Democrats.

Seems like the Democrats are giving him his biggest wins when he walks away from the GOP and towards the Dems. Well, if you listen to how much Trump dogs Mitch and the boys, it kind of makes sense.

My limited understanding of folks that voted for Trump is that the most recent article is a perfect example of why he got said vote.

He doesn't give a hoot who he works for, leans on, yells at in order to get something done... as long as it gets done.

I say... argue all you want about the quality of his healthcare bill, his demeanor as Pres, etc. (we all know there's plenty to criticize), but to take his working with Dems when the Repubs aren't getting it done as anything other than a positive is simply showing your own bias.

No it really doesn't. It just shows that the GOP has trouble delivering for him. It shows that no matter how much the right screams "repeal and Replace", Trump just wants to find something better than we have now. Even though he did ask the GOP to put a "mean bill" on his desk and he would sign it.

I think it's great when he's working with the Democrats. It means that there will be a compromise instead of a one sided bill crammed down the throats of Americans.

Like 44 did, is that what you mean?

You might want to take a better look at that one arch. It was McConnel and the GOP who came out right after he was elected and stated their number one goal was to make him a one term president. Let's not try to move the goal post now.

ACA ring a bell?

Crammed down our throats ring a bell?

"Have to pass it before we know what's in it" ring a bell?

Trouble is the Democrats only want to put a shine on the turd that is Obamacare.

Was the Passage of Obamacare Just as Secretive as GOP Efforts to Repeal It?

While both bills could be faulted for periods of closed-door negotiations, experts agree that the secrecy behind the GOP bill to repeal Obamacare is in a league of its own.

http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/

You de realize that McConnel and the GOP said that over a year before the ACA was passed. right?

Is this the response you give to people who approve of Trump trying to work across the aisle? Maybe I should think harder next time before I give him credit for something. lmao

So I was curious who the most powerful lobbiests in the USA are. You know, the people who really run Washington. Full disclosure, I wanted that info so we could have a convo about the NRA, but the NRA isnt on this list. I suppose the NRA is powerful not for the amount of dollars they spend, but from the sheer amount of voters they influence.

Anyhow, here is a list of the lobbyiests who spend the most money in washington. Notice how many medical/pharma groups are in the top 10. This is why the politicians will NEVER change the status quo EVER. Politicans want paid and companies want paid. Screw the American people. (says them)

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

SAD.

Wowzers! Good post!

You can predict the course of the swamp from that list.

A few things here: Gigantic companies will always be number 1 as they will lobby both sides. The NRA only lobbies one side and spends a fair amount of money on Republicans. However, most of the money they spend are on campaign ads that are not coordinated with any PAC or elected official. They spent $54 million last year on these types of ads. That's where they exercise most of their clout.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

Thats pretty interesting, thanks. It seemed pretty weird they werent on the first list.

What seems weird is that The National Association of Broadcasters spent $16,438,000

Cigna won't cover OxyContin prescriptions for 2018, as health insurer targets opioid abuse

-Big insurer Cigna said it will not cover the opioid OxyContin for customers who are insured through a job, starting in 2018.
-Cigna last year said it wanted to cut opioid use by 25 percent among its customers by 2019.
-More than half of the over 33,000 opioid-related deaths in 2015 were linked to prescription medications.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/cigna-wont-cover-oxycontin-prescriptions-for-2018.html

Ive been prescribed opiods plenty of time. Never found them addictive, but I think they must have prescribed a low dose.


600 mg Tylenol worked fine for my ills.

Even over the counter Tylenol worked better than Vicodin.

BUT when I was in the ER for kidney stones they gave me iv diluadid and it made me high as a kite.

For like 5 minutes.


After 30 minutes I asked them for more (I thought I was slick) And they gave it to me and it did nothing for me.

I guess opiods are a thing where you need more and moe and more.

Anyways my non made point was prescription strength tylenol is just as effective as low dose opiods.

So I dont care if they dont cover them.

BUT lets make no mistake about it...it is financially in ins companies favor to NOT cover meds. My fellow sick people know what I'm saying. These decisions should be in the hands of Drs. Not ins companies.

yep you're right it should be in the hands of Drs.

Such a hot topic and now that it requires 60 votes to pass ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING but crickets... So the GOP has failed to repeal Obamacare, guess those promises by the GOP and Trump were lies. But I can't get over how well the sheeple are taking it. It's all Kumbaya in the land of conservatives! The president is passing out kudos and they all want theirs... no time for legislation to fix America's problems.

I wonder what they are doing with their time?

Passing out paper towels to hurricane victims?

Top GOP senator threatens subpoenas over ObamaCare exemption for Congress

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson is threatening to subpoena a federal agency for information on an Obama-era policy that allows members of Congress and their staff to get around a key ObamaCare requirement.

The policy lets Capitol Hill officials buy health care with a government subsidy on a small-business exchange. Republicans like Johnson have long described this as an ObamaCare exemption, but have struggled to extract details about how it came to be.

Johnson, R-Wis., escalated his push for answers in a letter Wednesday to Office of Personnel Management Acting Director Kathleen McGettigan.

“The American people have a right to know how and why OPM exempted Members of Congress from the full impact of ObamaCare,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson said he had received an “insufficient” response to an August letter, warning: “If OPM does not produce the entirety of the information and materials requested in my August 16 letter by October 18, 2017, the Committee may be forced to consider the use of compulsory process.”

"Compulsory process" is congressional code for subpoenas. Johnson also is seeking transcribed interviews with five officials.

Johnson specifically wants to know about the process used to avoid a provision calling on congressional lawmakers and their staff to buy ObamaCare plans.

Under the Obama administration, OPM made a special decision to categorize Congress as a small business, allowing lawmakers and their aides to buy on the Small Business Health Options Plan (SHOP) exchange. This way, they could keep getting government payments as an employer contribution.

Absent that, they would have been directed onto the individual exchange, without help from an employer contribution.

This could have created a hardship for many low-paid staffers.

But the rule, which took effect in October 2013, has drawn criticism from Republicans.

“The SHOP exchange is intended for employers with less than 50 employees, yet Congress employs more than 16,000 people,” Johnson wrote in his August letter.

President Trump has even threatened to target the special rule, giving Congress an ultimatum back in July.

“If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn’t it hurt the insurance companies & why should Congress not be paying what public pays?” Trump tweeted back in July. Days prior, he warned he would “end” the “BAILOUTS” for members of Congress if they did not pass a health bill.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., who personally declines the “subsidy,” backed the president’s threat at the time.

“I think the president would be absolutely within his rights to cancel the Obama rule that conferred this subsidy on Congress,” DeSantis said in July

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/...r-congress.html

From what I understand this exemption was to help the lower income staffers hired by lawmakers in DC. But that's about all I know. Time to get a list of who in DC is getting AHC exchange subsidies I guess.

But yeah, it doesn't surprise me republicans want to cut off their own lower income staffers from getting subsidies to help them get affordable insurance, nothing new from the right here.

This also applies to members of Congress, not just their staff.

So since when is anyone forced to sign up for the ACA if they have other health insurance?

Huh?

Doesn't this say they were allowed to buy healthcare elsewhere? You know, as much as you hate Obamacare it seems like you would just be happy for them.

Under the Obama administration, OPM made a special decision to categorize Congress as a small business, allowing lawmakers and their aides to buy on the Small Business Health Options Plan (SHOP) exchange. This way, they could keep getting government payments as an employer contribution.

Absent that, they would have been directed onto the individual exchange, without help from an employer contribution.

But aren't there enough members in Congress for them to qualify as a small business? I'm not sure I quite understand your logic here.

You dislike the ACA. You want it to be overturned. You want people to have the chance to make decisions about their own healthcare. And now you're making an issue that when congress has enough members to make that possible, it's suddenly a bad thing?

“The SHOP exchange is intended for employers with less than 50 employees, yet Congress employs more than 16,000 people,”

Not sure why they just don't publish a list or the numbers of lawmakers vs staffers who are on the SHOP exchange so we can get a feel of how many are using it.

Before the ACA, wasn't congress on a medicare type insurance with 100% coverage? Wasn't it the best insurance in the land? I think it was.

So, my ins is getting cancelled again. This is like 3 or 4 years in a row.

Yay for new plans and jacked up prices!

NOT

Sorry to hear that. Medical is a real pain these days.
Let us know what you find. Good luck.

Contrary to popular belief, Congressional members do not receive free health care. Instead, they choose a gold-level Obamacare policy and receive federal subsidies that cover 72 percent of the cost of the premiums.

In short, members of Congress and staff "pay approximately 28 percent of their annual healthcare premiums through pre-tax payroll deductions." They also have access to "free or low-cost care" through the Office of the Attending Physician as well as "free medical outpatient care at military facilities" in the D.C. area.

Trump says open to temporary healthcare reform deal with Democrats

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-open-temporary-healthcare-reform-deal-221649556.html

so much for all that talk about letting the ACA fail, that he isn't gonna own it. lmfao

So you would rather President Trump to say screw the American people so I won't look wrong?

Not gonna happen, America First!