Obamacare repeal bill will head to vote in Senate next week, GOP leader says
-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says a vote on the latest effort to repeal and replace major parts of Obamacare will be voted by the end of next week. -Earlier, McConnell met with co-sponsor Lindsay Graham, and after Graham met separately with Alaska's two senators, whose support would be crucial for the bill. -Republicans have struggled to get 50 out of their 52 senators to vote for the repeal bills to ensure passage.
Are they purposely going out of there way to take L's?
This bill was slapped together, and stands a severely low chance of passing. They are going out of their way to not get reelected, but watch conservatives vote for them in 2018 anyway.
Hmm...how long did it take them to craft this new bill they're pushing?
Something tells me it's a lot less than 8 years.
This one will be a scam/sham, just like the last one, and just like O's before.
The GOP's big mistake isn't in the content, it's in the marketing. If they were smart they could make the claim it's for the "Greater Good" and they'll get away with anything. They may even see an unexpected groundswell of support from liberals as they tend to be suckers for anything that helps the "Greater Good". Get them to parrot that and you can get away with anything: outright lies as to what that system will provide, oppression, acts of violence, murder, etc. You just have to convince people to accept the stated outcome without them utilizing any semblance of critical thinking to arrive at the same conclusion for themselves.
There Is No Right To Healthcare Max Borders by Max Borders
Healthcare is important. People get sick and injured. As compassionate human beings, we should do what we can, within reason, to see that people are treated—especially when they don’t have the means to get treatment themselves. We can build and support charity hospitals. We can volunteer for free clinics. We can take sensible policy measures that will reduce the costs of and increase access to medical goods and services.
But we cannot pretend that healthcare is a right.
This sort of verbiage is just that—verbiage, until it requires enforcement. And if you have been tempted to think of basic needs as being rights, remember this: Rights confer duties upon others. And that has tremendous implications for any healthcare system.
Think about a right of free speech. That right confers a duty onto others not to interfere with or mute your expression, as long as you’re not harming or threatening anyone. But when it comes to certain other purported rights involving things that must be produced by others, like education or healthcare, that means others have a duty to produce that good or service. And once we slide from the apparently benevolent talk of people having rights to the reality that other people will then have enforced duties to produce those rights, we also slide from individual compassion to State compulsion. In other words, any such right necessarily conflicts with others’ rights not to be treated as means to some end.
In the process of outsourcing our sense of compassion to a central producer of healthcare goods and services, we cede our healthcare choices—and charitable instincts—to a central authority. How else is the government going to ensure that healthcare is produced, by right, for everyone?
This central authority, with its attendant healthcare bureaucracy, is not very good at figuring out who needs what and how much they need of it. Socialized, or “single payer,” healthcare systems that are meant to allocate healthcare goods and services have very different incentives than systems in which people exchange goods and services freely.
In the Soviet Union, planners had no price system to help them determine how many shoes were needed in Minsk or boots were needed in Moscow. Supply and demand were guesswork and “targets”—with all the attendant problems of political allocation, buck passing, and bread lines. The Soviet economy, marked by shortages and gluts, could not effectively be planned. The same can be said about the modern single payer healthcare system.
Consider our neighbors in Canada. In the Fraser Institute’s annual report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada,” the Canadian think tank says the median wait time in 2013 hit 18.2 weeks, three days longer than in 2012. The average wait time for orthopedic surgery, in particular, reached 39.6 weeks for treatment, while patients waited an average 17.4 weeks for an appointment with a neurosurgeon. During this time, people were suffering. Some even died. And yet all of this is happening in a country where healthcare is considered a right that confers duties on taxpayers. Can the suffering that flows from rationing be considered compassionate? If treating healthcare as a right has these sorts of perverse consequences, shouldn’t that lead us to question all such rights talk?
Put another way: Let’s grant for a moment that healthcare is a right, or, at least, let’s assume everyone wants healthcare to be something that our fellow citizens have access to. If we all agreed to that, what if we determined that a free market in medical care allowed more people to gain greater access to healthcare goods and services in a timely manner? Would a “right” to healthcare then confer duties upon policymakers to introduce measures like the following that would make the healthcare market freer?
Let people choose less expensive health insurance policies and policy options that fit their circumstances and budgets—across state lines and free of some or all of the state mandates that price low-income people out of the marketplace. Encourage policies that restore a functioning price system to healthcare so that people can make wiser purchasing decisions, all of which will help rein in spiraling costs. Allow individuals, not just employers, to get a tax deduction when they buy health insurance, which would make insurance more personal and portable. Dismantle any and all healthcare schemes (like Medicare) that provide subsidies for the rich and tax the poor and middle class in the process. Remove barriers to competition such as professional licensing, certificates of need, and other regulations that hike costs and limit access. Encourage people to use financial healthcare products like health savings accounts, which give people incentives to be wise healthcare consumers, to save resources for future healthcare needs, and to invest in preventative measures? Combined, the measures listed above would revolutionize the healthcare system in terms of price, quality, innovation, and access by the least advantaged.
Talk of “rights” is just a rhetorical game progressives play to get the policies they want (usually a single payer system). But talk of “rights” does nothing for the goal of actually figuring out how to get people reasonable access to the healthcare they need. To do that, we have to deal directly with the problems of affordability (as in the United States) or with the perverse consequences of rationing (as in Canada). The disastrous rollout of Obamacare just might stimulate a serious, widespread discussion of these options for the first time.
Yes, healthcare is something we’ll all need at one time or another. But it is not a right. If we really care about people getting healthcare, let’s focus on how to reform the system for good—so that free people can generate abundance in healthcare. If we can do it for mobile devices, we can do it for medicine.
Yes, completely agree but Obama let the cat of the bag and now the Country has had a taste and wants government healthcare. You can't get that cat back into the bag.
And who is it that is stopping you from buying your own Healthcare plan?
If they dont sell ins in your county, you cant buy a plan can you? If there is no Obamacare, then ins companies wont sell ins to pre existing conditions people, will they? If they charge more than you can afford, then how you obtain ins? If Drs and Hospitals dont accept your ins then how will you obtain care?
Back in the day you could get insurance for yourself and you had many insurers competing for your business.
So all the Republicans have to do is say buy your own insurance and pass a law that insurers can not charge more for preexisting conditions. Or they could have pools for preexisting conditions that the insurers would split up among themselves.
That would be a simple plan for the Republicans to come up with now wouldn't it?
Eve, we are supposed to die in 40's world. I have heart disease and COPD, try to buy health insurance with that! Health Care premiums for me are nuts even under the ACA.
And forget about life insurance, can't get that period.
That wont work. Insurance companies own the republicans not named Rand Paul, and they wont approve.
And you cant force them to sell ins in any given location.
And pools dont work, there was that before and it was a fail. Ga didnt even have pools when it was a thing.
But as I listen to your concerns, I can see how a few simple changes and laws could fix your whole problem. That would be a simple fix for Republicans but for some reason everyone now wants healthcare like it is welfare. That makes it very complicated.
Eve, we are supposed to die in 40's world. I have heart disease and COPD, try to buy health insurance with that! Health Care premiums for me are nuts even under the ACA.
And forget about life insurance, can't get that period.
Yes. Its because the swamp is not drained. If you are a pet of big business then you will not pass laws that force them to be ethical and have an impact on the bottom line.
I am not expecting the Repubs to solve this all at once, because the entire system is corrupt from the top to the bottom. From Big Pharma and Ins Companies, all the way down to the Hospitals and Drs. The whole thing need a revamp. But that will never happen until the swamp is drained and there are politicians with balls to tackle it. It wont be the GOP. They are getting voted out.
If you don't have a compassionate bone in your body, you don't consider it a right.
If the rest of the entire globe is wrong and only the Republican party is correct, it's not a right.
Otherwise, it's a right.
If only we were like those Socialized Medicine Nations who's entire Military budget goes into making white surrender flags while a compassionate America pays enough to defend ourselves and them.
Perhaps if we only defended ourselves and cut them off we would have all the money we need for free healthcare.
My wife has a service related disability, she get's 100% coverage via the VA. I served too but my health issues are not service related, the VA offers discounted services to me but we have to carry insurance to cover the majority of cost.
We had to go with insurance thru her work that covers us both because that was less than me buying insurance as self employed for myself...
When she turns 62, or is rated 100% disabled by the VA (currently 80%) then both of us will be covered 100%. The VA has been great for us. Wait times are in line with my regular doctor wait times, if she doesn't want to go there they will pay for trips to the local hospital and doctors. We both think the care there is top notch and personable.
That I hear depends on where you live and how good your VA is.
There are some areas with horror stories over VA but I know Trump has been working on fixing that.
Ours has been good for years. But even they have some people that can't be satisfied, like the drug addicted vets that come in for a new months refills two weeks early. But one thing I do like about the 24 hour urgent care is that it is never full of people acting like fools. Disturbances are rare there. Rooms are usually solo when hospitalized too.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday praised the latest attempt from Senate Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, yet chided his party for a delayed and tedious process that has plagued his administration in its early months.
Trump commended the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (GCHJ) legislation, saying it offered the best chance to repeal the "disastrous" law known as Obamacare.
"I think there is tremendous support for it," Trump said at the United Nations. "I actually think it is much better than the previous shot, which was very sadly let down. Again, you've been hearing about repeal and replace for seven years. They have a chance."
The statement followed tweets from the president Wednesday morning calling the new plan "GREAT!" Trump also blasted Sen. Rand Paul for his opposition to the bill.
Later Wednesday, Trump complained about the process by which Republicans have attempted to repeal and replace the law. He noted that the GOP promised to repeal the law for seven years — yet for the first eight months of the Trump administration have been unable to do so.
"I thought that when I won I would go to the Oval Office, sit down at my desk, and there would be a healthcare bill on my desk — to be honest," Trump said. "It hasn't worked out that way, and I think a lot of Republicans are embarrassed by it."
On Wednesday evening, Trump lauded the pending bill again on Twitter: "I would not sign Graham-Cassidy if it did not include coverage of pre-existing conditions. It does! A great Bill. Repeal & Replace."
Experts say the latest Republican legislation would increase state flexibility for healthcare — but at the expense of billions of dollars in funding, weaker protections for people with preexisting conditions, and a significantly larger number of uninsured Americans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that he is planning to bring the bill to the floor next week.
Yes, Ryan had told Trump they had Repeal and Replace all ready to go. They should do it on his first day. Trump said great then, lets get it done first. Then the Republicans couldn't pass it and it drags on.
If Trump had known this, he would have gone with tax cuts and tax reform first like he originally wanted to.
He trusted the swamp one time and got slapped. Never again.
I don't know where everybody gets their numbers but if Trump can get our economy humming again like he wants, those numbers will be Fake News as everyone is working and making good money and businesses grow and money from overseas comes pouring back in.
there's a bridge in brooklyn that i'm selling at a decent price. all i need is your social.
Give him his tax cuts and tax reform and we will grow our way to prosperity and wealth. Give him Repatriation of the Trillions held overseas and he will repair that bridge in Brooklyn, making it a shining symbol to the world!
there's a bridge in brooklyn that i'm selling at a decent price. all i need is your social.
Give him his tax cuts and tax reform and we will grow our way to prosperity and wealth. Give him Repatriation of the Trillions held overseas and he will repair that bridge in Brooklyn, making it a shining symbol to the world!
Give him a sprinkle of fairy dust and he can fly off to never never land with the rest of the lost boys...
I have to yell BULLCRAP on that one. For those of us who had money taken from our paychecks by the government for medicare year after year after year. We have the right to be covered by medicare if we become disabled, or at retirement, and it should not be costing us a fortune. Hell it should not be costing us anything but a small deductible and co-pay.
If you're against people living, it's not a right.
If you think people dying in the streets is just fine, it's not a right.
If you don't have a compassionate bone in your body, you don't consider it a right.
If the rest of the entire globe is wrong and only the Republican party is correct, it's not a right.
Otherwise, it's a right.
And if you bankrupt a Nation in the name of compassion, if you lower the ability of the Nation to defend itself, and if you provide healthcare to the illegal aliens who invade your borders, you have thrown everyone under the bus and all suffer what you describe. Turns out not to be compassionate at all. Just stupid, emotional foolishness.
If you're against people living, it's not a right.
If you think people dying in the streets is just fine, it's not a right.
If you don't have a compassionate bone in your body, you don't consider it a right.
If the rest of the entire globe is wrong and only the Republican party is correct, it's not a right.
Otherwise, it's a right.
Can I call you guys a Waaaaaambulance? They'll probably take you to the hospital but there isn't a cure for hurt feelings or mean people. I don't care that you think the gov't has the cure, I promise you there isn't one.
It's not a Right.
And you guys are foolish if you think that any gov't run healthcare system put in place is going to look anything like that fantasy in your heads.
Am I the only one that realizes we are talking about insurance, not healthcare. Everyone ALREADY GETS healthcare. If you walk into a ER, they treat you. That is HealthCare, you guys are talking about insurance.
Funny how they use terms to make things sound more drastic, no?
Its just all doom and gloom. "People are going to die in the streets" "you are taking their healthcare"
Well people technically people will die no matter what, its what we do. No insurance plan is going to change that.
No one is taking away HEALTHCARE. There are laws that people have to be treated no matter what. That is not going to change, UNLESS the government steps and denies care when they grant them the authority to oversee it
Does anyone really want their 75 year old grandma going to the hospital and needing heart surgery, and having some official with no medical knowledge looking at a balance sheet determining if she gets treatment?
It's always funny watching guys like you who cry about the government not leave said government job.
This.... makes no sense.
Ohhhhhh, I get it...classic Swish. Make a baseless claim off of literally nothing that was stated using a faulty premise. Let me see if I can do it too...
It's always funny to watch guys like you cry about how racist cops and law enforcement are but hasn't applied to be a cop so he can change things even though he's more than capable of it.
I don't think they want Insurance or Healthcare. Seems many are looking for Welfare.
It's what a gov't administered healthcare system will run more like... food stamps, section 8, etc. It won't look like true insurance like auto or home.
But it already has been more about subsidizing medical bills than it is insuring against a catastrophe anyway
No one is taking away HEALTHCARE. There are laws that people have to be treated no matter what.
Yes they will if this goes thru.
Besides this is what Obamacare was working well to reduce. Uninsured folks and the homeless just showing up at any ole hospital Emergency Room for just a checkup or for a common colds, flus and such. And that's what the mandate was for. For those who didn't have insurance would be required to pay a tax in their Tax returns to help reduce the burden on Hospital emergency rooms across the country.
In the interest of adding something constructive, I'd like too ask some of the older Dawgs a question who are in support of a gov't administered system.. universal/single payer/what have you.
Back in the late 90's we tried the whole HMO system, where it was supposed to decrease the costs of medical care. I was only a teenager back then so I was only plugged in to a degree, but I do recall that HMO's were hated by the masses because healthcare was approved or denied by administrative type bean counters.. not healthcare professionals.
Given that if we were to implement single payer or what have that there is guaranteed to be a massive bureaucracy in order to run it. Why do you guys believe that we wouldn't have the same issues?
you made the claim it will, explain exactly how it will. Ill wait...because you cant, you have no idea because you are just spitting out a line given by the party.
INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTHCARE - Obamacare (if you agree with it or not, is insurance, not heathcare)
No one is taking away HEALTHCARE. There are laws that people have to be treated no matter what.
Yes they will if this goes thru.
Besides this is what Obamacare was working well to reduce. Uninsured folks and the homeless just showing up at any ole hospital Emergency Room for just a checkup or for a common colds, flus and such. And that's what the mandate was for. For those who didn't have insurance would be required to pay a tax in their Tax returns to help reduce the burden on Hospital emergency rooms across the country.
No it won't. And the mandate had little to do with reimbursing hospitals for ER expenses. It was meant as a "motivator" for people to enter the "market places" because the system's sustainability depended on the monetary contributions of healthy people not likely to use the insurance.
No one is taking away HEALTHCARE. There are laws that people have to be treated no matter what.
Yes they will if this goes thru.
Besides this is what Obamacare was working well to reduce. Uninsured folks and the homeless just showing up at any ole hospital Emergency Room for just a checkup or for a common colds, flus and such. And that's what the mandate was for. For those who didn't have insurance would be required to pay a tax in their Tax returns to help reduce the burden on Hospital emergency rooms across the country.
No it won't. And the mandate had little to do with reimbursing hospitals for ER expenses. It was meant as a "motivator" for people to enter the "market places" because the system's sustainability depended on the monetary contributions of healthy people not likely to use the insurance.
The mandate had a lot to do with helping reduce the burden on ER's. And yes you are right to also motivate people to get insurance instead of using the ER's as a doctor's visit. So yes it had a lot to do with hospital ER expenses that Obamacare was helping to reduce.
It's always funny watching guys like you who cry about the government not leave said government job.
This.... makes no sense.
Ohhhhhh, I get it...classic Swish. Make a baseless claim off of literally nothing that was stated using a faulty premise. Let me see if I can do it too...
It's always funny to watch guys like you cry about how racist cops and law enforcement are but hasn't applied to be a cop so he can change things even though he's more than capable of it.
you did all that and didn't refute anything i said.
also, nice try attempting to change the subject. i could care less about your hurt feelings over my comments on your specific profession, but in this thread, ya know, the one about healthcare, i find it out how you cry about government but have no problem working for said government.
it makes perfect sense if you aren't a snowflake.
you work for a government agency? check. your salary comes from taxpayers? check.
guess what that makes you? someone who works for the government.
there's absolutely zero wrong with that, btw. i just found it funny that you whine about the same place you willingly show up to work for everyday.
they are so dysfunctional that you can't help but draw a check on the 1st and 15th from them. apparently government isn't all that bad when it comes to paying your bills, huh? apparently it ain't that bad seeing as you haven't left to go do something else.
but i blame that on lack of education and perspective. i'd love it if they actually raised the standards to be a cop, but unfortunately that means guys like you would be out of a job.
if you wanted to take shots, then you came to the right poster.
anyways, yes, i support single payer, or a national healthcare system. i understand you don't like raising the quality of life for citizens and instead enjoy shooting them instead, but the majority of americans want the #1 country in the world to start acting like it.
You know Swish it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest complainers on governmental issues like Healthcare, Social Security, and Welfare. are always the ones sucking up the most entitlements.
the biggest states that whines about the federal government and entitlements the most, happens to be the biggest beneficiary of said government: Red states.
here are the states that take the most federal money:
not really. he just posted something inaccurate and i corrected him.
i know you conservatives don't like dealing with facts all that much, but it's ok bro. that's what the liberals are here for. to give you actual facts.
Oh Devil, you have awakened the crying Welfare Queens from their slumber as they post 5 cries in a row.
The biggest complainer here is in your mirror. And it never ceases to amaze me just how much the biggest complainers suck up the govt entitlements while continually complaining about what others say or do.
The GOP will be kind of bitter when they are sitting on the curb because they got voted out. They arent bright enough to know this affects everyone, and if they fail they are done.
Reminds me of Texas. They want the federal government out of their life. Many of them keep trying to vote for succession. Until a hurricane comes along and, well.
I don't know where everybody gets their numbers but if Trump can get our economy humming again like he wants, those numbers will be Fake News as everyone is working and making good money and businesses grow and money from overseas comes pouring back in.
Stocks could rally 10% into year's end thanks to the Trump effect, says longtime bull Jeremy Siegel, The finance professor who correctly called the Dow Jones industrial average's surge to 20,000 said he expects stocks to jump even higher in the last 101 days of the year.
The Wharton School's Jeremy Siegel believes it'll have a lot to do with President Donald Trump's intention to get business-friendly reforms passed on Capitol Hill.
You claim to own a tank. You claim to have paid your gardener 50k a year. You claim to have a huge portfolio. Yet nobody has seem your tax returns.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence, doesn't have to go around trying to make himself look rich and important while trying to minimize others. The biggest bad azzes I've ever met in my life were quiet, confident people.
Consider our neighbors in Canada. In the Fraser Institute’s annual report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada,” the Canadian think tank says the median wait time in 2013 hit 18.2 weeks, three days longer than in 2012. The average wait time for orthopedic surgery, in particular, reached 39.6 weeks for treatment, while patients waited an average 17.4 weeks for an appointment with a neurosurgeon. During this time, people were suffering. [u]Some even died. And yet all of this is happening in a country where healthcare is considered a right that confers duties on taxpayers. Can the suffering that flows from rationing be considered compassionate? If treating healthcare as a right has these sorts of perverse consequences, shouldn’t that lead us to question all such rights talk?
[/u]
Highlighted bit is falsehood. Anyone requiring urgent care receives it right away. Sure, you may wait to get your cataracts gone or your wonky knee replaced, but if your life is in danger, you are treated there and then with no questions asked.
You claim to own a tank. You claim to have paid your gardener 50k a year. You claim to have a huge portfolio. Yet nobody has seem your tax returns.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence, doesn't have to go around trying to make himself look rich and important while trying to minimize others. The biggest bad azzes I've ever met in my life were quiet, confident people.
You sir are not one of them.
Thank god I'm not the only one to see this. It's like CoachB all over again.
You claim to own a tank. You claim to have paid your gardener 50k a year. You claim to have a huge portfolio. Yet nobody has seem your tax returns.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence, doesn't have to go around trying to make himself look rich and important while trying to minimize others. The biggest bad azzes I've ever met in my life were quiet, confident people.
You sir are not one of them.
You are just like Pit.
You lie that I claim to own a tank when it was someone else who claimed I owned a tank originally, jokingly.
You lie that I pay a gardener 50k per yer when I haven't had the gardener in 2 years when I sold and moved and I paid him 15k when I did have him.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence doesn't have to go around tearing others down because he can't seem to lift himself up. The biggest dumb azzes I've ever met in my life...
People don't want to listen to people who actually use the system. They want to expound on the worst case scenario and make it seem like the norm. They have an agenda or have been brainwashed that such systems don't work.
Of course you'll leave it there. You agreed that you owned a tank. You even stated the model of the tank. And in case grammar escapes you, "have paid" is not the present tense. You have often bragged about your wealth and portfolio.
I don't feel the need to try to boast. It's not becoming. It's narcissistic. You are the poster boy of a Trumpian and those that read this board on a regular basis know this. I was just letting you know because it seems you have no grasp of the situation.
DUH...And when you repeal it 20mil+ will lose their healthcare.
Once again you are incorrect.
1. They will not be offered insurance through obamacare 2. only 9 million people signed up for obamacare, where do the other 11 million come from ? They choose not to have it 3. Just because you don't have insurance, doesn't mean you don't get healthcare.....good grief - what did these people do when they didn't have obamacare
Aparently you dont know that Obamacare is a term for the ACA which was the umbrella for many laws and policies. The exchanges were only a small part of it, which was mainly used by the poor. But there were many other parts of it that affect basically everyone.
You claim to own a tank. You claim to have paid your gardener 50k a year. You claim to have a huge portfolio. Yet nobody has seem your tax returns.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence, doesn't have to go around trying to make himself look rich and important while trying to minimize others. The biggest bad azzes I've ever met in my life were quiet, confident people.
You sir are not one of them.
You are just like Pit.
You lie that I claim to own a tank when it was someone else who claimed I owned a tank originally, jokingly.
You lie that I pay a gardener 50k per yer when I haven't had the gardener in 2 years when I sold and moved and I paid him 15k when I did have him.
You see, a person who doesn't have issues with self confidence doesn't have to go around tearing others down because he can't seem to lift himself up. The biggest dumb azzes I've ever met in my life...
I will just leave it there.
Kidding? Didn’t seem like it
#1 U.S. Auto Company [Re: Ballpeen]
40YEARSWAITING Legend
Registered: 12/20/14 Posts: 13262 Picked up 100 shares of Samsung yesterday, doing well.
To which rockyhill responded and you responded back
Re: Tesla becomes #1 U.S. Auto Company [Re: rockyhilldawg]
40YEARSWAITING Legend
Registered: 12/20/14 Posts: 13265 Originally Posted By: rockyhilldawg quote above by 40:
"Picked up 100 shares of Samsung yesterday,"
Wait a second, looks like Samsung common stock is selling at $1,500/share today.
Where'd you get that kinda ching?
Did I ever tell you how smart you are and how much I like you?
Guess I should have explained I sold one of my hundred shares of Berkshire Hathaway to buy it.
You let me know when your like turns to love though.
PR and Guam are US territories which almost functions as actual states.
but i digress.
jc:
i understand why people don't want single payer. i don't agree, but i get it.
however, while the ACA isn't great, and can be fixed. it was always SUPPOSED to be fixed, tweaked, whatever. the system prior to the ACA was such a train wreck, it allowed the ACA to come to fruition.
all the time spent by the GOP trying to outright repeal it could've been used to actually update and tweak the ACA. for the last 7 years, we could've had a better version of the original ACA, but instead the GOP tried to repeal it outright with ZERO backup plan.
now they are in office, and this marks how many times they are attempting to repeal this? they are already what? 0-2 or 0-3 since gaining full control of the government?
at what point are they gonna stop wasting the american people's time and either tweak the ACA, or come up with something that's ACTUALLY better?
y'all can say whatever you want about the Dems and liberal ideology, but at least we can unite long enough to get some major legislation done. y'all conservatives put the GOP in charge after 8 years of whining...yet nothing. completely crap the bed.
PR and Guam are US territories which almost functions as actual states.
So they are not states, gotcha. Now if trump said that you would be tweeting what an idiot he is. See again parsing words. When O misspoke, I knew what he meant, and didn't think it was a big deal. As you don't, because you understood what he meant. Yet you refuse to give that to anything Trump says.
ACA was put in place to fail. It was put in place to fail so they could push single payer. Also, why were student loans in a Insurance bill? Seems like they were trying to sneak things in - a lot people and loan servicers lost their jobs, and ever since then the student loan crisis has been just well, IMO its gonna be worse than the mortgage bubble. but that's a different topic.
I agree, the R party has screwed the pooch, they had 7 years to come with something and are now scrambling. You see I hold the party accountable, instead of just following chuckies or nancys orders. The current RINOs will not get my vote. they will get replaced with real republicans.
There has been some very good things done this year, you just choose to ignore it, or they don't report on it. The only thing they report is ACA. Which again, I agree its been a cluster - doesn't mean it still doesn't need to get corrected.
i actually haven't complained over Trump's minor slip ups.
it's about as stupid as O's comments on 57 states, or how people made fun of the way Bush talked and said the word "nuclear".
i make a big deal over his policies and lack of character, as that is what actually matters.
the ACA wasn't put in place to fail, but it was setup to fail right after the midterms by the GOP. just because a legislation ended up not working out doesn't mean it was put there deliberately to fail. but yes, it did help change the american mindset on healthcare.
and that's a good thing. because while American values is something that should never change, the american mindset on policies needs a software update.
i don't choose to ignore anything. i've given praise when praise is due.
there just hasn't been that much done to praise the government over since the GOP took complete control.
You know Swish it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest complainers on governmental issues like Healthcare, Social Security, and Welfare. are always the ones sucking up the most entitlements.
Maybe the Canadian stock market is crappy, I dont know.
But in the USA, if you invest your entire adult working career, you can save up a very large sum. 150K is nothing in the long run. Especially if you are in your 60's.
A lot of people dont take advantage of that. Maybe you are one of those people and dont understand how it works.
Exactly my point. If you're dropping 150K on a single stock buy, what do you actually have?
According to 40, he's got 100 shares of Berkshire Hathaway so he's a multi-millionaire.
But hey, if that's the case, I gladly eat crow and apologize for my accusation. Instead of being a jerk and a liar, he's simply a jerk.
My bad.
According to that post of yours I am waiting for Rocky's like to turn to love too.
Start investing but don't throw it all in now. Wait for a downturn and then start adding gradually, over time. It's called Dollar Cost Averaging. You will build a nice nest egg by the time you are old like me.
Like I said the other day, there sure are a lot of rich guys on dawgtalkers.net Browns board... Multi Million Dollar Business Owners, Stock Market Gurus, etc...
Blows my mind how much they talk about their wealth too. Slow day at the old trailer park where the gardener is technically a maintenance man.
The president has a 43 percent approval rating, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday, which is 3 points higher than it was last month.
That makes 3 percent more people who laugh at your foolishness.
CanadaDog already told us it is a 22 week wait to see a doctor in Canada unless you go to the clinics where you pay for it yourself! Then you get in right away! Socialism makes you wait but Capitalism is quick.
i understand you don't like raising the quality of life for citizens and instead enjoy shooting them instead, but the majority of americans want the #1 country in the world to start acting like it.
7 years ago i had a pinched nerve in my back. I couldn't even stand up straight. Under government controlled healthcare I'd be waiting 6-12 months to get the surgery I needed. How is that improving quality of life?
Single payer is government rationing of healthcare. Seeing the way our government runs, it baffles me that people think this is a good idea.
Consider our neighbors in Canada. In the Fraser Institute’s annual report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada,” the Canadian think tank says the median wait time in 2013 hit 18.2 weeks, three days longer than in 2012. The average wait time for orthopedic surgery, in particular, reached 39.6 weeks for treatment, while patients waited an average 17.4 weeks for an appointment with a neurosurgeon. During this time, people were suffering. [u]Some even died. And yet all of this is happening in a country where healthcare is considered a right that confers duties on taxpayers. Can the suffering that flows from rationing be considered compassionate? If treating healthcare as a right has these sorts of perverse consequences, shouldn’t that lead us to question all such rights talk?
[/u]
Highlighted bit is falsehood. Anyone requiring urgent care receives it right away. Sure, you may wait to get your cataracts gone or your wonky knee replaced, but if your life is in danger, you are treated there and then with no questions asked.
What if it's something that you don't know is life threatening? My friends daughter had a brain tumor. Started off as a headache. Didn't know it was cancer until she had an mri. But a headache is not life threatening, so she would've had to wait months to be seen. By that time, who knows how far the cancer would have spread.
you would be waiting that long here in the states?
you got a link for that?
a link for what? I'm talking hypothetically under a single payer system. Do you really think there won't be wait times? Average wait time in Canada is 6 months. If I have to wait at least 6 months for the procedure, in the mean time I can't even get out of bed, how does that improve quality of life?
there are always wait times, even in our past and current system.
how come guys like you always fall back on the worst and don't even bother to acknowledge the positives?
it's like talking yourself into thinking nothing but the negatives when it comes to marriage, yet won't acknowledge the positives. or any other similar situation.
imma have to wait for procedure times too eventually, so please don't act or assume you're the only person who has to worry about that, or is talking about that. it's an issue with us liberals too, but nothing in life comes without risk, and wait times can be a fixable problem. it's not permanent.
You still haven't answered my question. I want to know where the improved quality of life is.
I'm not assuming I'm the only one that would have to wait. I'm simply using my own experience as an example. Lots of people will have to wait. Which is why I am questioning your claim of improved quality of life.
"Because the overall economic costs are lower, the average person would save more money on premiums than they lose in higher taxes. In addition to the lower costs, because the insurance is delivered as a public entitlement, people would not lose coverage when they lose their job or when their income takes a dive. This means that the insurance actually functions the way it is supposed to: as seamless economic security against ill health."
It doesn't seem that you've done much research on single payer. I recommend you look at multiple sources with pros and cons, then formulate your opinion.
CanadaDog already told us it is a 22 week wait to see a doctor in Canada unless you go to the clinics where you pay for it yourself! Then you get in right away! Socialism makes you wait but Capitalism is quick.
That is what you want for us?
Baloney!
Twist it 40... Canada said if your life is in danger (which cover most serious issues) your are treated immediately. The long wait is for elective surgeries like getting the fat on your butt lipoed so you can fit into one of those electric grocery store scooters again...
Am I the only one that realizes we are talking about insurance, not healthcare. Everyone ALREADY GETS healthcare. If you walk into a ER, they treat you. That is HealthCare, you guys are talking about insurance.
Funny how they use terms to make things sound more drastic, no?
Try walking into a ER and tell them you need your chemo meds. Watch how quick they don't treat you.
I don't think they want Insurance or Healthcare. Seems many are looking for Welfare.
It's what a gov't administered healthcare system will run more like... food stamps, section 8, etc. It won't look like true insurance like auto or home.
But it already has been more about subsidizing medical bills than it is insuring against a catastrophe anyway
Clearly you have no idea what government Health insurance is like do you?
For years, all I heard from the Right is how horrible Medicare is! It was going to go broke, the wait times are crazy long, not everyone takes that insurance.,
Well, Government Run Medicare is just about the best insurance I've had in the last 15 years. In the past I've had Blue Cross and Aetna and a few other name brands. This is better.
Add to it a good supplimental plan (I chose the best plan from Medical Mutual) and BINGO..You are covered very well.
I go to my doctor, get service quickly, and thus far, since February I've had several minor procedures and a big one and not a freakin dime (out side of my premiums) have come out of my pocket. By the way, I do all my business with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation... One of the best health care providers in the world.
Prior to turning 65, I thought, this is scary.. Then I get there and frankly, It blows anyone who says that "GOVERNMENT RUN HEATH INSURANCE" is awful right out of the water. It's a lie, a flat out lie to say that Government Run Health Insurance is anything but spectacular.
You couldn't have been further from being correct.
Am I the only one that realizes we are talking about insurance, not healthcare. Everyone ALREADY GETS healthcare. If you walk into a ER, they treat you. That is HealthCare, you guys are talking about insurance.
Funny how they use terms to make things sound more drastic, no?
Try walking into a ER and tell them you need your chemo meds. Watch how quick they don't treat you.
Funny, cause with insurance you still have to pay for those meds, so if you are not paying your share, regardless of insurance or not, whats the difference?
And depending on the severity of the cancer, you may or may not be working. If you are not working due to a sever cancer, then you would be on disability/medi-care and receiving that to pay for it. if you are working, you should be receiving health insurance. You see, the issue isn't about the ones that are truly sick, they already have options - my problem with ACA is that it takes away my OPTION of not wanting that insurance and forcing me to purchase a product.
The ACA was never about insurance or "healthcare" as some put it. Its about redistribution of wealth, and control over people.
Am I the only one that realizes we are talking about insurance, not healthcare. Everyone ALREADY GETS healthcare. If you walk into a ER, they treat you. That is HealthCare, you guys are talking about insurance.
Funny how they use terms to make things sound more drastic, no?
Try walking into a ER and tell them you need your chemo meds. Watch how quick they don't treat you.
Funny, cause with insurance you still have to pay for those meds, so if you are not paying your share, regardless of insurance or not, whats the difference?
And depending on the severity of the cancer, you may or may not be working. If you are not working due to a sever cancer, then you would be on disability/medi-care and receiving that to pay for it. if you are working, you should be receiving health insurance. You see, the issue isn't about the ones that are truly sick, they already have options - my problem with ACA is that it takes away my OPTION of not wanting that insurance and forcing me to purchase a product.
The ACA was never about insurance or "healthcare" as some put it. Its about redistribution of wealth, and control over people.
Funny, cause with insurance you still have to pay for those meds, so if you are not paying your share, regardless of insurance or not, whats the difference?
With our old insurance I didn't pay a dime for my meds after we hit our $750 out of pocket limit (which we hit in Jan, or Feb the last few years) Thanks to my wife's local government job selling out and privitising we lost our health insurance. or should I say I lost mine. She still has cobra, but do to the laws I was not allowed to continue with our insurance since I was eligible for medicare. Been fighting with them for almost 2 months and I still can't even get a COST for my drugs out of them, $500, 1,000, 3,000 for a 28 day supply nobody there can even give me an answer.
Medicare also has an out of pocket limit that will cost me 9 to 10,000 per year out of pocket. That's on top of the monthly premium, so don't tell me we have options. Our only option is to bend over and take it up the backside before we die.
Says the irresponsible parent that wants to be able to opt out of buying Healthcare Insurance for his family and self without paying a tax. A tax that goes towards helping those responsible folks who do want it.
What are you so jealous about dude? If you invest all your life, 150K isnt that much.
Who would be jealous of BS? Nobody that has that kind of money goes around bragging about it. 40 is just full of it and is trying to look important. Nobody takes him seriously.
Before Obamacare people went to the ER to get treated if they had no health insurance, driving cost factors up and abusing the purpose of the ER, which is for acute/immediate need only. The ER won't treat chronic illnesses for you, so "Go to the ER" is not the answer.
To me the biggest problem is the insurance side. Health Insurance Companies don't want to pay full price for services, so Hospitals jack up fake prices. This is how a $20 neck brace or $1 IV drip bag ends up billing at $100-$200. Then the health insurance company says "we only pay $50 for that neck brace" and the hospital says "heck ya" because they still make money. And we "feel" like we get a deal because we saw the original figure on the EOB. But if you have no insurance, the hospital charges you that crazy full price amount!! These numbers are all hidden by the hospitals chargemaster:
To me the chargemaster is the real bullcrap here because it means if I have no insurance I'm not paying real prices for health services, I'm paying fake jacked up prices because I'm not in the "insurance" game.
This is an informative (if sometimes depressing) watch from frontline 10 years ago about our "pre obamacare" system: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/sickaroundtheworld/ What's interesting is how different each socialized system is...
I'm not the biggest ACA fan, but our existing system is broken ACA or not, and we will NOT improve our healthcare if we repeal ACA because the underlying broken aspects of our healthcare system will still be in place.
As usual you talk out of your... You have no clue of my wealth.
I will always discuss investing with anyone who might be interested, especially the young. They have a real opportunity to make big money in their lifetimes with only a little effort.
Says the irresponsible parent that wants to be able to opt out of buying Healthcare Insurance for his family and self without paying a tax. A tax that goes towards helping those responsible folks who do want it.
So I am irresponsible parent that works and pays for my sons health insurance premiums? As opposed to the responsible parent that has 5 kids with no job? What a dumb, ignorant, and vile statement that was.
You sir, shall need help. BTW, I didn't see any links or anything that back up your statement that it was BS or an explanation as to why it was. but go ahead keyboard warrior, fight on!
I'm not the biggest ACA fan, but our existing system is broken ACA or not, and we will NOT improve our healthcare if we repeal ACA because the underlying broken aspects of our healthcare system will still be in place.
I agree the system is broken, do you think they are going to change the prices if they know EVERYONE is required to have insurance. Instead of making it more lucrative for them, we should be looking at ways to curb cost.
Do you see that GIANT WORD "OPTION"......good lord.
I choose to pay for my insurance. Doesn't mean I still should not have the OPTION to not purchase if I did not want too. The issue I have with the ACA is the government can force you purchase insurance, and then fine you for not doing so, what is stopping them from lets say ...forcing you to go to church, or forcing you pay a tax for sanctuary cities to provide for illegals, or etc etc. It is a slippery slope.
Would you like a thesaurus and map the next time someone post something so you can understand a little bit better?
And again, you still have not even mustered a an actual response.
And then there's that pesky auto insurance they make you buy.
Very good point Pitt, however that can be explained.
You see, me, you, or anyone else driving an automobile presents a physical and harmful risk to someone else. Thus the reason that can be mandated. If someone does not buy insurance, it is not causing physical harm to anyone else but yourself. That's the difference.
Because of the expansion in medicaid. Many people below the poverty level now qualify for medicaid. I'm not sure where your outrage is over auto insurance.
Do you see that GIANT WORD "OPTION"......good lord.
I choose to pay for my insurance. Doesn't mean I still should not have the OPTION to not purchase if I did not want too.
So you are a parent that wants to be able to have ability to opt out of buying Healthcare Insurance for his family and self, as you say if you don't want it and not pay the penalty tax. And if you chose to opt out and not pay the penalty tax that would be irresponsible IMO.
Quote:
The issue I have with the ACA is the government can force you purchase insurance
No they can't. They can charge you a penalty tax each year if you don't get the minimum HCI. But they can't force you to purchase anything.
What AHC state exchange is your plan in? I have great contacts at United Health Care. I can help you if you have questions.
I am not outraged over auto insurance, I think either you misread or I didn't type clearly(which can happen on a message board).
I am saying that because of the risk factor of causing bodily harm to others, that mandating auto insurance is allowed. Notice how you are only mandated to have liability on a vehicle by the government?
Not buying health insurance causes no physical harm to anyone - thus should not be mandated.
So you are a parent that wants to be able to have ability to opt out of buying Healthcare Insurance for his family and self, as you say if you don't want it and not pay the penalty tax. And if you chose to opt out and not pay the penalty tax that would be irresponsible IMO.
We are talking about health insurance as a whole, yet you want to use one particular case to make your point, doesn't work that way. Nice try tho, keep up the faux outrage.
You see in this country we have rights, and the right to be irresponsible is everyones right. Who is to say what is and what isn't responsible, godly Spiral I take it. All hail ...whats the last part of that again?
Quote:
No they can't. They can charge you a penalty tax each year if you don't get the minimum HCI. But they can't force you to purchase anything.
By fining you for not purchasing something is forcing you buy it yes. So if they passed a law that said you either have to pay a fine or purchase Trump rally tickets, you would be ok with that?
I have private insurance that I and my company pay for. Not that its your business.
Can anyone explain why 9 million are on ACA yet 20 million will loose insurance?
12 million signed up in 2016 13 mil signed up in 2017 alone. Not sure how many in 2015 but you see the numbers grow year by year.
so there are a lot of people that would choose not to have it and the left uses those people to claim they are "losing" when in fact they are choosing.
Can anyone explain why 9 million are on ACA yet 20 million will loose insurance?
12 million signed up in 2016 13 mil signed up in 2017 alone. Not sure how many in 2015 but you see the numbers grow year by year.
so there are a lot of people that would choose not to have it and the left uses those people to claim they are "losing" when in fact they are choosing.
Whatever, millions of Americans will lose health care coverage, and many will die if you guys get what you want. People like you will dance with joy in the streets over the calamity of others.
Oh yeah what state AHC exchange did you say you were on again?
-----------------------------------------------
No answer? You're probably not on a AHC plan. No surprise. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can complain so much about things that have very little effect on their lives, and could care less how it could adversely effect the lives of millions of other American's.
As long as they don't take your advice seriously they should be fine.
You need to understand that in life, Financial success is judged on how much wealth you have created and not on how many Goats you own.
Oh if needed, I would take advice from some people on this board. But not some braggart who is trying to impress people on a message board. Those type of people are usually FOS.
Not buying health insurance causes no physical harm to anyone - thus should not be mandated.
Actually they're very similar. When an uninsured driver gets into a traffic accident, the insured drivers insurance company picks up most of the cost. Those costs are directly passed on to insured drivers. So while you are correct about physical harm, the financial part is the same for both.
I mean if you get into an auto accident, you better have healthcare, right?
Yes, they would be choosing to be uninsured and pass their healthcare costs onto those who are insured. Just like uninsured drivers would do if their insurance wasn't mandated.
Not buying health insurance causes no physical harm to anyone - thus should not be mandated.
Actually they're very similar. When an uninsured driver gets into a traffic accident, the insured drivers insurance company picks up most of the cost. Those costs are directly passed on to insured drivers. So while you are correct about physical harm, the financial part is the same for both.
I mean if you get into an auto accident, you better have healthcare, right?
Not if you have auto insurance There's an option for that
Well they tend to pick and choose as to when it suits their desires.
Just like the confederate statues. The right always rails for states rights and the rights of local government. They're doing it right now when it comes to healthcare. But those confederate statues are being removed by local elected officials.
They're being removed by politicians that were elected by their voters. Yet somehow suddenly that's a bad thing. So this entire, "state and local governments rights" thing is a a pick and choose when you support it and when you don't.
Well they tend to pick and choose as to when it suits their desires.
Just like the confederate statues. The right always rails for states rights and the rights of local government. They're doing it right now when it comes to healthcare. But those confederate statues are being removed by local elected officials.
They're being removed by politicians that were elected by their voters. Yet somehow suddenly that's a bad thing. So this entire, "state and local governments rights" thing is a a pick and choose when you support it and when you don't.
That's another point, however do you know that is what the MAJORITY of those voters in those cities and states want - was there a vote to remove them or was it a small few protesting and they simply are removing them to placate the louder side? You assume because an official removed it that's what the voters wanted. Well they were not an issue at the election time, so maybe that official wouldn't be in power if that was their intent. That's a thought you cannot quantify or prove - either way actually - unless there is a vote and it is tallied.
And talking about picking and choosing - its ok for the left to pick and choose but when the right does it its hypocritical IE, the left wants government control, but is for the right choose abortion. See, theres an issue both sides are hypocritical on
And talking about picking and choosing - its ok for the left to pick and choose but when the right does it its hypocritical IE, the left wants government control, but is for the right choose abortion. See, theres an issue both sides are hypocritical on
On a personal level I'm against abortion. In case you missed it, that's for the SCOTUS to decide. And right now the deck is stacked in favor of overturning abortion.
That's why you can't put people in tight little boxes. There are moderate Republicans and right wing Republicans. The same goes for Democrats. When we try to say they are all the same is when we lose sight of reality.
Yet there are parts of the right who claim to be superior. You know, party of family values, the religious right, the moral majority. When people make such claims and label themselves this way, it sets them up for people to expect more from them than others.
Then when they suddenly compare themselves on equal footing with people they claim to be better than, it kind of takes the wind out of their sails.
Yet there are parts of the right who claim to be superior. You know, party of family values, the religious right, the moral majority. When people make such claims and label themselves this way, it sets them up for people to expect more from them than others.
Then when they suddenly compare themselves on equal footing with people they claim to be better than, it kind of takes the wind out of their sails.
I agree, however like my point was to just show that both sides do it. So to try and label one side of doing it and not the other, is where my post was coming from.
I really don't want to get into abortion issue, as that's an entirely separate thread that will need about 50 different pages to reach no decisive conclusion.
Just heard that Sen McCain denounced the new, newer, newest Trumpcare bill. Dashing the hopes of the republicans who just want a victory at any cost.
Here's the latest:
McCain to oppose Graham-Cassidy, likely sinking Obamacare repeal 'I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal,' he says. By SEUNG MIN KIM, BURGESS EVERETT and JENNIFER HABERKORN 09/22/2017 01:57 PM EDT Updated 09/22/2017 02:34 PM EDT
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced Friday that he would oppose the latest Obamacare repeal measure, dealing a major blow to the legislation’s prospects of getting 50 votes on the Senate floor next week.
“I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried," McCain said in a statement.
The legislation, drafted by GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — McCain’s closest friend in the Senate — is the Senate GOP’s last best chance at passing a bill dismantling the Affordable Care Act before a Sept. 30 deadline. But conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has already announced his opposition to the Graham-Cassidy bill — shredding the plan to reporters, in op-eds and through Twitter. And moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is already viewed as a hard "no" on the measure, said at an event in her home state Friday that she is "leaning against" Graham-Cassidy , according to the Portland Press-Herald.
Senate Republicans, who hold a 52-seat majority in the chamber, can only lose two votes and still pass the repeal measure. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has also remained a key holdout on Graham-Cassidy, which is uniformly opposed by Senate Democrats.
Aides to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he intends to hold a vote on Graham-Cassidy next week in the Senate. His office did not immediately respond to questions about whether he will hold the vote next week despite McCain’s opposition.
The Senate Finance Committee, for now, has not changed plans to hold a hearing on the Graham-Cassidy bill on Monday.
In a lengthy statement Friday, McCain reiterated concerns about the process in which the legislation was drafted that he laid out in July when he voted against another Obamacare repeal plan.
McCain said he could not support the bill "without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.”
“I take no pleasure in announcing my opposition. Far from it,” he continued. “The bill’s authors are my dear friends, and I think the world of them. I know they are acting consistently with their beliefs and sense of what is best for the country. So am I.”
Senate Republicans failed on their last Obamacare repeal attempt in July when McCain, Murkowski and Collins teamed up to tank the so-called "skinny repeal" plan.
But unlike then, it’s not clear whether McConnell could even open debate on the bill this time. More than a half-dozen senators were not committal or non-responsive to inquiries Friday about how they would vote for the motion to proceed to the House-passed repeal bill.
However, even though Paul opposes the Graham-Cassidy proposal, he is undecided on the procedural vote, an aide said. Paul wants to vote again on fully repealing Obamacare with no replacement. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is also undecided on both the procedural vote and the Graham-Cassidy product.
Republicans had been scrambling to make good on their seven-year campaign pledge to repeal Obamacare by Sept. 30, when their fast-track legislative authority to pass a bill with only a simple majority votes will expire. After the end of the month, repeal legislation would need 60 votes.
The GOP wants to use the procedure, called reconciliation, next year to pass tax reform. But the Obamacare failure could spur some in the party to try to revisit repeal.
In the latest repeal effort, Republicans have tried desperately to win over Murkowski in particular.
The Graham-Cassidy bill allowed Alaska and a handful of other states with low population density to potentially opt out of the law’s significant cuts to Medicaid until 2026. It’s unclear whether that provision would have been enough to address Murkowski’s concern that Alaskans would have less access to health care under the bill.
McCain seems to only vote NO because Trumps name is attached. He never disagreed with the bill, just the "process" - which is code for "you said bad things about me, ill show you"
Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on the issue - that is no way to govern. He should be doing voting what his constituents put him in office for - not ticky tack things like that. I would think you would even agree on that statement - as it should apply to both parties.
I see it a little differently. This is the exact same process that got us into the Obamacare mess (this time around, it's probably even more rushed and haphazard). Why would we repeat it?
I see it a little differently. This is the exact same process that got us into the Obamacare mess (this time around, it's probably even more rushed and haphazard). Why would we repeat it?
Im not talking about this particular instance, im speaking in general. ANYONE republican or democrat, that votes on a bill or issue based only on the fact he doesn't like the person supporting it, needs removed.
I see it a little differently. This is the exact same process that got us into the Obamacare mess (this time around, it's probably even more rushed and haphazard). Why would we repeat it?
Im not talking about this particular instance, im speaking in general. ANYONE republican or democrat, that votes on a bill or issue based only on the fact he doesn't like the person supporting it, needs removed.
I agree with you that someone who does that, shouldn't. I just don't see that in McCains actions. These healthcare repeal-replace bills have been hastily assembled, not fully understood and scored, and attempted to be pushed through with a simple majority (which will go away soon). People (correctly) fumed when Pelosi said we had to vote for ACA in order to read it. I don't see enough of a difference between that disaster and this one.
I see it a little differently. This is the exact same process that got us into the Obamacare mess (this time around, it's probably even more rushed and haphazard). Why would we repeat it?
Im not talking about this particular instance, im speaking in general. ANYONE republican or democrat, that votes on a bill or issue based only on the fact he doesn't like the person supporting it, needs removed.
I agree with you that someone who does that, shouldn't. I just don't see that in McCains actions. These healthcare repeal-replace bills have been hastily assembled, not fully understood and scored, and attempted to be pushed through with a simple majority (which will go away soon). People (correctly) fumed when Pelosi said we had to vote for ACA in order to read it. I don't see enough of a difference between that disaster and this one.
ahhh you took the bait, so every left politician should be ousted if you agree, as they have opposed every single thing trump has done, even when it was the same thing Obama did in the past.....good to know !!
However going on the Pelosi statement, they had to pass it to know what in it, then why are they using these scores as any type of merit ? The scores mean nothing along with the studies. They said ACA was a gift from god with the CBO etc, and look at it - so if you had to pass it to know whats in it for ACA how can they say this is bad when its not passed - im confused.
but I also agree with you on your last post. But why stop there? Those on the right are equally guilty of being obstructionists. It wasn't that long ago that we weren't even getting a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee.
It feels like Trump is having more success with certain senators on the left than he is with anyone on the right.
Go ahead and feel like you pulled a fast one on me ("you took the bait"), but I am a conservative that can't stand the major players in either of our 2 main parties. I see stupidity throughout the ranks of both parties.
Graham-Cassidy would also allow states to get federal waivers for insurers to charge older Americans more so as to lower the cost for younger policyholders. The ACA limits the expense for older policyholders at three times the amount younger ones pay.
According to the AARP analysis, for a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year, premiums and out-of-pocket costs could increase by as much as $16,174 a year. If that 60-year-old lives in a state that allows insurers to charge older individuals dramatically higher premiums, he or she would face an additional $4,124 increase in premiums.
For example, in Maine, under the ACA, a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year would pay an average of $1,608 a year in health insurance premiums in 2020. Under Graham-Cassidy, that same 60-year-old could see that premium increase by as much as $10,404. A 60-year-old in Alaska could see his or her premium increase by $26,986 in 2020.
“The Graham-Cassidy bill is a last-ditch effort to ram a bad bill, developed behind closed doors, through Congress,” said David Certner, AARP legislative policy director for government affairs. “Like earlier bills, it would increase health care costs by including an age tax, reducing coverage and undermining protections for people living with conditions like cancer or diabetes.”
Graham-Cassidy would also allow states to get federal waivers for insurers to charge older Americans more so as to lower the cost for younger policyholders. The ACA limits the expense for older policyholders at three times the amount younger ones pay.
According to the AARP analysis, for a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year, premiums and out-of-pocket costs could increase by as much as $16,174 a year. If that 60-year-old lives in a state that allows insurers to charge older individuals dramatically higher premiums, he or she would face an additional $4,124 increase in premiums.
For example, in Maine, under the ACA, a 60-year-old earning $25,000 a year would pay an average of $1,608 a year in health insurance premiums in 2020. Under Graham-Cassidy, that same 60-year-old could see that premium increase by as much as $10,404. A 60-year-old in Alaska could see his or her premium increase by $26,986 in 2020.
“The Graham-Cassidy bill is a last-ditch effort to ram a bad bill, developed behind closed doors, through Congress,” said David Certner, AARP legislative policy director for government affairs. “Like earlier bills, it would increase health care costs by including an age tax, reducing coverage and undermining protections for people living with conditions like cancer or diabetes.”
This is how they want to fleece the dying and steal your accumulated wealth before you can pass it on. Forcing you to go into debt for medical needs at or near the end of life. SMH
It's like nursing homes taking your house, cash and assets when you go there to die.
Americans are just nuts to let this crap keep happening and the GOP is the major culprit in allowing it to be legal.
GM, i hope you understand these are some of the reasons i can't support these trash ass bills.
say what you want about the ACA and single payer, but at least those sorts of policies are going deliberately out of their way to screw people like you over.
politicians constantly use older people as a talking point and/or bargaining chip, yet when it's time to put words to actions, they constantly come up with policies that only screw you guys over.
AARP AMA Am College of Physicians Am Academy of Pediatrics Am Hospital Assn Am Cancer Society Americans with Diabetes Assn. Am Heart Assn Am Lung Assn Arthritis Assn Cystic Fibrosis ALS Nat'l MS Society March of Dimes
all think this bill is a turd sandwich that noone wants to bite on.
It seems that the only fans of this bill were folks who want to get rid of Obamacare, but are OK with keeping the ACA.
GM, i hope you understand these are some of the reasons i can't support these trash ass bills.
say what you want about the ACA and single payer, but at least those sorts of policies are going deliberately out of their way to screw people like you over.
politicians constantly use older people as a talking point and/or bargaining chip, yet when it's time to put words to actions, they constantly come up with policies that only screw you guys over.
Ya but us old farts is about to riot up in both they hizzy's in Washington.
I am starting up a new group that can be 50,000,000 strong.
The government runs medicare, medicaid and the VA. Think about that for a minute or five. The thought of the government running anything more regarding healthcare should make everyone afraid...very afraid.
As a matter of fact, the government hold on healthcare should be reduced...not expanded.
Yeah. We should supply the drug companies with over 300 billion a year in R&D, pay the highest drug prices in the world, pay the highest procedure cost in the world while ranking lower than many nations with socialized medicine and be perfectly happy about it. We should be happy with the GOP making huge cuts in medicaid that will cost tens of millions of people their healthcare.
Yeah. We should supply the drug companies with over 300 billion a year in R&D, pay the highest drug prices in the world, pay the highest procedure cost in the world while ranking lower than many nations with socialized medicine and be perfectly happy about it. We should be happy with the GOP making huge cuts in medicaid that will cost tens of millions of people their healthcare.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Your comments above do not change this:
The government runs medicare, medicaid and the VA. Think about that for a minute or five. The thought of the government running anything more regarding healthcare should make everyone afraid...very afraid.
As a matter of fact, the government hold on healthcare should be reduced...not expanded.
We're being fleeced and you want nothing done about it.
Where did I say that?
All I've stated is that putting the government in charge of MORE aspects of our healthcare is a terrible idea. Step next is logically then to REDUCE their hold on healthcare.
So you're against our government taking competitive bids from pharma to lower our prescription costs? How about our government capping what will be paid for medical procedures?
You see, that's exactly how nations with a single payer system have lowered their costs.
And let me ask you, what would be so wrong with having medicare as a base insurance for everyone with you having the option to buy gap insurance to cover everything else? See, what you would have is a minimum coverage with your ability to purchase private insurance to add what you want?
That's not total government healthcare. It's a minimum government program with you having the option to buy better coverage on top of that. See, that's what people aren't getting. Sure, you may not like the government coverage. So you can add to it as you wish.
So you're against our government taking competitive bids from pharma to lower our prescription costs? How about our government capping what will be paid for medical procedures?
You see, that's exactly how nations with a single payer system have lowered their costs.
And let me ask you, what would be so wrong with having medicare as a base insurance for everyone with you having the option to buy gap insurance to cover everything else? See, what you would have is a minimum coverage with your ability to purchase private insurance to add what you want?
That's not total government healthcare. It's a minimum government program with you having the option to buy better coverage on top of that. See, that's what people aren't getting. Sure, you may not like the government coverage. So you can add to it as you wish.
The government has proven time and time again that they cannot effectively manage healthcare...at any level of involvement.
Our federal government should foster competition in our healthcare system/process/availability/insurance companies/care providers and support the states efforts to allow/provide/generate access to care for it's citizens..and that's it...nothing else.
So you guys watched it, what thoughts do you have now?
Please enlighten the rest of us.
It was refreshing to see Bernie and Lindsey be friendly with one another.
it's also nice that those two and the senator from minnesota were all in agreement that big pharma and big insurance need to be checked. they are both out of control, and no matter what we do with healthcare, nothing will change unless they reel those two entities in.
which is why i was fine with lindsey going a different direction. obviously conservative still believe in a market based system, and the liberals believed in a more government ran program, but i was happy that there was a consensus on what the problems were and who is responsible.
that debate definitely earned lindsey some respect. his co-sponsor Cassidy, however, is everything thats wrong with congress. he came off as cold and out of touch. it's funny because him and graham are pushing the same bill, yet when they spoke, it sounded like they were talking about two different bills. he came off as a used care salesmen, highlighted by the fact that the guy with his daughter who asked a question looked like he wanted to punch Cassidy in the face when he spoke. he also pushed the tired and false argument of innovation being the reason why cost are so high for big pharma.
this debate definitely pushed me into the single payer camp. Sanders and Klobuchar did an excellent job, and lindsey definitely at least made sense on stage with his bill.
Bernie was the only one who spoke out against the corrupt industry.
So I give him props for that.
I didn't really understand why they needed a debate about this bill seeing as how it's not going to pass. I would rather they have a townhall type meeting about different strategies for dealing with healthcare.
I think the GOP doesn't want to deal with healthcare so they would rather "punt" it to the states. They don't want to lose their corporate donors, and they don't want to deal with voters when their solution fails....so punt it to the states.
I have always thought that healthcare belongs in the States. The Feds do not deal with the locals like a State Government can. Being that each State has its individual needs and one size does not fit all, who better to spend the money where it is needed?
I also think debate is good because it adds to future knowledge and discussion.
Bernie was the only one who spoke out against the corrupt industry.
So I give him props for that.
I didn't really understand why they needed a debate about this bill seeing as how it's not going to pass. I would rather they have a townhall type meeting about different strategies for dealing with healthcare.
I think the GOP doesn't want to deal with healthcare so they would rather "punt" it to the states. They don't want to lose their corporate donors, and they don't want to deal with voters when their solution fails....so punt it to the states.
Many posters here aren't fans anymore so I doubt they even remember what a punt is.
And who better to spend the funds where it wasn't allotted to while cutting heath care benefits and pricing out their citizens that have pre-existing conditions. Yep a win for republican's at the cost of citizens health. Sounding a bit like NK now.
it's also nice that those two and the senator from minnesota were all in agreement that big pharma and big insurance need to be checked. they are both out of control, and no matter what we do with healthcare, nothing will change unless they reel those two entities in.
This stuck out to me in your reply, Swish. And I agree, pharma is out of control. And I wholeheartedly agree no matter what we do with healthcare nothing will change. I do disagree with the "unless" part. Pharma is entrenched with BOTH sides of the aisle. They have money for this, and money for that. I do not see either side getting that changed. Too much money flowing in and out.
Not really. The citizens wont stand for it this time. So Dems will ultimately get their way.
I truly don't know why people are against states right on this. And I am not being a wise guy, I truly do not. Maybe someone can explain it to me better.
But lets take New York and Kansas. The needs of Kansas is waaaaayyyyy different than the needs of New York, and vice versa. I don't think single payer would work, some do. Why not "punt" it to the states, and let them decide? If CA or NY wants single payer, the state can then implement and provide it with state funds and programs from the states budget. If Kansas does not want single payer, the state of Kansas can then provide alternatives that their people ask for.
I didn't really understand why they needed a debate about this bill seeing as how it's not going to pass.
Actually this is a good thing that they are talking in a civil manner.
Health insurance/Obamacare/ACA/Graham-Cassidy or whatever you wanna call it will never work and I mean NEVER.. NEVER,Unless both sides work together to get to the solution.
For 6 years now, all we've heard from the GOP is Repeal.. Then it's Repeal and Replace (which happened after the GOP figured out they'd tick too many people off if there wasn't a replacement to go along with it)
If the GOP pushes this one (or one like it) through it will come back to haunt them.
Look at he Dems.. They Rammed the ACA in. And like I said, since then, it's been one fight after another.. nothing getting done.
If the GOP does the same thing now, it will result in the same situation again.
The only way to get a workable system in place is for both sides to quit the bickering and get to work finding a reasonable solution.. That is what we pay them for.
So I'm pleased that they are talking.. Don't know what the end result will be, but it's a start maybe.
The answer isn't on one side of the isle. Until they get this right in their heads, it's going to be one miss after another.,
Wasn't it the GOP that said it was wrong (McConnell I think) for the Dems to push through the ACA?
Doesn't make it right for the GOP to do it now. Next time Dems get the majority, they'll unravel the whatever the GOP puts in... and the story goes and goes.
It's a mistake to not to it in a Bipartisan manner.
It's almost impossible for people to understand how the end result of a bill that kicks tens of millions off of healthcare can be considered a healthcare bill.
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
They can't fix it because they don't want to spend a dime on working people and the poor! They only want to make the rich richer and protect insurance companies and big pharma!
Every other major modern country in the world has some form of single payer social medicine, cheap or free education, and higher wages... They also have thriving businesses and stock markets. But social medicine, low cost education, and higher wages are not possible in the richest country in the world because we don't have the money!
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
They can't fix it because they don't want to spend a dime on working people and the poor! They only want to make the rich richer and protect insurance companies and big pharma!
Every other major modern country in the world has some form of single payer social medicine, cheap or free education, and higher wages... They also have thriving businesses and stock markets. But social medicine, low cost education, and higher wages are not possible in the richest country in the world because we don't have the money!
What a joke.
We are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, we are not the richest country in the world.
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
They can't fix it because they don't want to spend a dime on working people and the poor! They only want to make the rich richer and protect insurance companies and big pharma!
Every other major modern country in the world has some form of single payer social medicine, cheap or free education, and higher wages... They also have thriving businesses and stock markets. But social medicine, low cost education, and higher wages are not possible in the richest country in the world because we don't have the money!
What a joke.
We are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, we are not the richest country in the world.
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
They can't fix it because they don't want to spend a dime on working people and the poor! They only want to make the rich richer and protect insurance companies and big pharma!
Every other major modern country in the world has some form of single payer social medicine, cheap or free education, and higher wages... They also have thriving businesses and stock markets. But social medicine, low cost education, and higher wages are not possible in the richest country in the world because we don't have the money!
What a joke.
We are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, we are not the richest country in the world.
Debt is relative and yes we are.
How come people are so quick to point out how much debt we are in when it comes to taking care of our citizens, yet don't say a word about said debt when congress increases defense spending?
All of a sudden we got plenty of cash to throw around.
I think the increase in defense can fixed by not buying 400.00 hammers and cutting subsidies elsewhere, IMO. But I think we would be agree that would need to be an entirely different thread as I can see a lot posters having an opinion on the subject.
Medicaid. You should know it's what you all want to take away. It's what we pay into each paycheck for working all of our lives so when we get to Senator McCain's age and retire we'll have affordable healthcare. But no, you all don't want that do ya?
honestly, they need to just fix the ACA and move on to other things, because this is just doing nothing but enforcing the idea that they can't do anything right.
They can't fix it because they don't want to spend a dime on working people and the poor! They only want to make the rich richer and protect insurance companies and big pharma!
Every other major modern country in the world has some form of single payer social medicine, cheap or free education, and higher wages... They also have thriving businesses and stock markets. But social medicine, low cost education, and higher wages are not possible in the richest country in the world because we don't have the money!
What a joke.
We are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, we are not the richest country in the world.
Debt is relative and yes we are.
How come people are so quick to point out how much debt we are in when it comes to taking care of our citizens, yet don't say a word about said debt when congress increases defense spending?
All of a sudden we got plenty of cash to throw around.
There's always enough money to spend when the republican's are in the WH. Put a dem in there and the republicans are so tight when they fart garage doors open for miles.
President Trump has just announced he will work with Democrats to try to get a Bipartisan Healthcare Bill passed in January or February. In the meantime he will be signing executive orders to allow people to get coverage.
Medicaid. You should know it's what you all want to take away. It's what we pay into each paycheck for working all of our lives so when we get to Senator McCain's age and retire we'll have affordable healthcare. But no, you all don't want that do ya?
Don't arbitrarily link me in with those that want to take Medicaid away. I try to stick with what my favorite comedic genius says, "only a fool chooses a side before hearing the argument" - Chris Rock
Medicaid. You should know it's what you all want to take away. It's what we pay into each paycheck for working all of our lives so when we get to Senator McCain's age and retire we'll have affordable healthcare. But no, you all don't want that do ya?
pssst medicaid is only for very low income folks. Medicare is what most people get who are retired or on disability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Top GOP senator threatens subpoenas over ObamaCare exemption for Congress
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.
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.
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.
So you would rather President Trump to say screw the American people
Why not? It's what he actually ran on in 2015 and 2016.
"Obamacare? That's gone on Day One. Day One, folks, believe me."
Got the second biggest cheers at his rallies, just behind The Wall and just before "get'em outta here." Now he does a total 180 on a central plank in his platform, and all his trucker hat-wearing rally goers are OK with that?
He really was right: From your posts, you'd support him if he shot someone. Heck, from the tone of your posts, you might even provide him an alibi and a garage to hide out in!
Dang, son. You sure keep this place interesting, I'll give you that.
The day Trump got elected the Republicans told him they got this. First thing they will do is kill the boondoggle of ObamaCare and replace it with something that actually works.
First big mistake of his nascent presidency. Second big mistake: being lazy, and expecting someone else to handle it. Everyone could see his detachment from the day-to-day on health care reform. Tepid demeanor. A handful of tweets. One or two visits to The Hill. Quite the opposite of 44, who for over two years worked his natural azz off with hundreds of meetings, scores of visits to the hill, and multiple rallies in the public to get the job done.
That's a bit extreme. Obama drove through a bill that was poorly thought out and probably even worse in its implementation. It's slowly falling apart under its own weight. But hey, he got to check that box so... who cares, right?
What Trump did/is doing is just an even worse version ("crap... I said I would do this, so let's just throw this junk out there so we can check the box and move on to something else").
Trump just signed executive orders to help those left without insurance by ObamaCare to now get insurance.
Rand Paul says this is historic as 28 million Americans who were left without will now be able to get insurance.
The President and Senator Paul say Insurance Companies will now be fighting to get as many new customers as they can as competition will be across State Lines.
President Trump says people should call the companies and negotiate, yes negotiate, the best plan at the best price you can get!
That's the problem. Obamacare certainly has a lot of issues. Replacing it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The problem is that the GOP seems to feel "replacing it with anything" is somehow an answer. They don't seem to understand that if they replace it, they actually need to come up with a legitimate plan that's better, not worse.
That's the problem. Obamacare certainly has a lot of issues. Replacing it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The problem is that the GOP seems to feel "replacing it with anything" is somehow an answer. They don't seem to understand that if they replace it, they actually need to come up with a legitimate plan that's better, not worse.
Conservatives don't like better. Better is bad. Worse is best right 40?
I guess then I am not understanding what "Employers can form groups across state lines" means then. I assumed it meant employers with offices in multiple states can use the same insurance policies. I don't know why random businesses would want to band together to buy insurance that sounds weird.
Regardless, it wont help me because I can't buy group insurance.
I guess then I am not understanding what "Employers can form groups across state lines" means then. I assumed it meant employers with offices in multiple states can use the same insurance policies. I don't know why random businesses would want to band together to buy insurance that sounds weird.
Regardless, it wont help me because I can't buy group insurance.
It'll hurt you since the healthier people in your pool are about to flock for cheaper healthcare.
Trump's a loser who can't get anything done. Can't even get rid of the individual mandate, what a joke.
I guess then I am not understanding what "Employers can form groups across state lines" means then. I assumed it meant employers with offices in multiple states can use the same insurance policies. I don't know why random businesses would want to band together to buy insurance that sounds weird.
Regardless, it wont help me because I can't buy group insurance.
They can do that now....I work in Pittsburgh, my employer is based in TN, my insurance is based through TN and I have the same policy as the employees there.
That's basically what most states offer when they adopted a state ran AHC exchanges.
Georgia opted out of having a state run AHC exchange, along with some other blue states that were opposed to the AHC act. The original plan was to have every state start AHC exchange, but some blue states balked so that part of the AHC bill was revised. Blame it on your state and local gov't leaders for that issue.
Georgia uses the federally-run health insurance exchange instead.
Ga has always been that way even before the ACA. They dont care. Thats one reason I dont want healthcare tossed back to the states. My state sucks in that arena.
I guess then I am not understanding what "Employers can form groups across state lines" means then. I assumed it meant employers with offices in multiple states can use the same insurance policies.
No, employers can already do that, they just use the HQ as their home office. My company has offices in 7 or 8 states and we all have the same insurance.
What it means is a small business that only has offices in GA could buy insurance from an insurance company in TN if they could get a better deal.. which right now, they can't. That insurance company has to be licensed to sell in GA for you to buy it.
Quote:
I don't know why random businesses would want to band together to buy insurance that sounds weird.
Better deal, volume discounts.. It's not like Company A has to know or ever interact with Company B, they just share an insurance carrier.. the employees likely would never even know.
Quote:
Regardless, it wont help me because I can't buy group insurance.
I am self employed and my company has no employees (We have contractors). The state of Ga doesnt allow "Group of one" insurance. So I have to buy individual insurance.
I dont know if my company could band together with other companies. Though I draw a "salary" for tax purposes, I'm not really an employee (I dont think). I am an owner.
I am self employed and my company has no employees (We have contractors). The state of Ga doesnt allow "Group of one" insurance. So I have to buy individual insurance.
I dont know if my company could band together with other companies. Though I draw a "salary" for tax purposes, I'm not really an employee (I dont think). I am an owner.
Have you ever checked into the NASE (National Association for the Self-Employed)? They basically do the same thing, they pool self-employed people and use that buying power to buy insurance nationally. I've known several folks who have done it, some loved it and some didn't.. so I'm not officially endorsing it, just letting you know it's an option that's out there if you haven't already checked into it.
I have never actually heard of that, so I will look into it. I'm getting kicked off my ins at the end of the year, so this could be convienent.
Thanks for your help!
NASE used to be a great program. I was licensed and sold thier health insurance in Ohio for several years on the side. You really should check into it EVE. It was designed for folks just like you.
Too bad you don't have any representation in Washington these days as the Democrats won't work or deal.
Too bad the Republican Establishment won't work or deal.
Too bad the President has got to fix this mess himself.
He tweeted today the Democrats better come see him and get back to work for the American People or he will fix this alone, as best as he can. He as always is ready to negotiate.
President Trump just held an impromptu Press Conference on the lawn and the first question asked was about his dropping of the CSR's yesterday with his executive order. The CSR's are payments made by the government to the Insurance companies.
He said he is not here to help the insurance companies to make more money like they have done under ObamaCare, and if you look at the list of people who the insurance industry gives donations to, it isn't me! Just look at their stock prices over the last 6 years and you will see they have gotten rich enough!
He said time is running out and Americans deserve good healthcare. He said the Democrat leaders should come to him, as a matter of fact, I am willing to go to them if they want, to negotiate healthcare for the American people.
The reporter asked, But what if the Democrats want to save ObamaCare? To which he replied they have already lost a big chunk of that as millions of people are going to sign up for the new plans offered from what I signed yesterday.
"As far as single payer, it works in Canada," Trump replied. "It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you're talking about here." Trump didn't explain what might have changed in the last 15 years that would prevent the United States from adopting Canadian-style health care.
Nearly 70 percent of those benefiting from the so-called cost-sharing subsidies live in states Trump won last November, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. The number underscores the political risk for Trump and his party, which could end up owning the blame for increased costs and chaos in the insurance marketplace.
The subsidies are paid to insurers by the federal government to help lower consumers' deductibles and co-pays. People who benefit will continue receiving the discounts because insurers are obligated by law to provide them. But to make up for the lost federal funding, health insurers will have to raise premiums substantially, potentially putting coverage out of reach for many consumers.
i admittedly have a conundrum. I don't like seeing anybody potentially suffering.....but i also don't feel bad for people who voted for their own demise.
it's like..i want to feel bad, but the people voted for this, so how can i really feel bad?
the GOP made no secrets about wanting to cut the ACA funding and give the tax breaks back.
so far they got 1/2 now. this is gonna force congress to come up with a bill similar to the trash ones they tried to pass last time, but those might actually pass in order for them to claim a win.
the GOP made no secrets about wanting to cut the ACA funding and give the tax breaks back.
so far they got 1/2 now. this is gonna force congress to come up with a bill similar to the trash ones they tried to pass last time, but those might actually pass in order for them to claim a win.
Trump supporters didn't want single payer.
well, congrats. you got this now.
No, Trump ran his campaign on some fantastic panacea of ins that covered everybody and was gonna be so cheap and beautiful. And other illusions.
I’d venture to guess this isn’t over yet ... if u want to make final conclusions now .. thats your choice .. i prefer to wait til its all said and done ...
Something has to be done ... Obama care is broken beyond repair ...
It would have been easier for him to do nothing and watch it implode ...
He did what a real leader would do ... put himself directly in the crosshairs by doing this ...
I’d venture to guess this isn’t over yet ... if u want to make final conclusions now .. thats your choice .. i prefer to wait til its all said and done ...
like you proclamation that Trump won with the nfl kneeling policy before it was even debated?
Quote:
Something has to be done ... Obama care is broken beyond repair ...
It would have been easier for him to do nothing and watch it implode ...
He did what a real leader would do ... put himself directly in the crosshairs by doing this ...
Thats his job ... i applaud him for this ...
yes, something had to be done, that DOESN'T mean you just do something just for the sake of doing something.
that's not his job to screw over people just to say "see i tried"
President Trump said today that Drug Prices in America are out of control as we pay 3 or 4 times as much for the same drugs as other countries. We are basically subsidizing other countries.
This must end.
"The Drug companies are getting away with Murder."
President Trump said today that Drug Prices in America are out of control as we pay 3 or 4 times as much for the same drugs as other countries. We are basically subsidizing other countries.
This must end.
"The Drug companies are getting away with Murder."
Bernie has been saying that for years, that crazy socialist...
President Trump said today that Drug Prices in America are out of control as we pay 3 or 4 times as much for the same drugs as other countries. We are basically subsidizing other countries.
This must end.
"The Drug companies are getting away with Murder."
Bernie has been saying that for years, that crazy socialist...
