America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 months ago by DrafterX. 96 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Trumps Plan "B": Let Obamacare Fail; Then Blame Dems
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 27,533
Pathetic.
dstieger Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
Wasn't that Plan A? I thought he floated that one out during the campaign
TMCTLT Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 18,620
rfenst wrote:
Pathetic.



Pathetic was hoisting on the American people in the first place....lots of blame to go around.
They knew before it was launched it would FAIL....but now it's Trumps fault for allowing it to happen

Don't forget what the lunatic broad from the West said.....

WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S IN IT

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html


This IS all on the democrats and the F'n SCOTUS PERIOD
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Pretty sure it was gonna crash all by itself... carriers were dropping out and there were no choices in many places... not to mention price Increases... maybe if they had been able to pass the nationwide 12 bucks an hour minimum wage and forced the peoples to buy Obamacare it mighta worked... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Pretty sure it was gonna crash all by itself... carriers were dropping out and there were no choices in many places... not to mention price Increases... maybe if they had been able to pass the nationwide 12 bucks an hour minimum wage and forced the peoples to buy Obamacare it mighta worked... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
Think
burnem2 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 434
rfenst wrote:
Pathetic.


You're absolutely right. The plan was pathetic and destined to fail. Doesn't matter what Trump say, he will be blamed. Obamacare should have never been passed in the first place. Dems are at fault regardless of who the blame lands on.
dstieger Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
I'm looking forward to that day (which may never come) when the discussion/debate becomes a question on just what it is should actually be done.

Is this about health care? Or is it about insurance? Do citizens of a civilized democracy have a RIGHT to health care? If so, how much (what quality, etc.) If so, what is the desired role of federal government? State governments? Is the problem that not enough people have quality care? Should wealthy receive less government 'help' for their care? Is it OK if someone who has more money pays for better care than poor people?

And what about costs? I've posted here a number of times, that my huge issue is very simply about lack of transparency in health care cost. If people can really know what care costs, they might be in a better position to make informed decisions about their own care....and, more importantly, begin to formulate answers to the questions above. But as long as big health, big pharma, big insurance all benefit from keeping cost a mystery, we are relegated to political bickering with zero chance at a palatable solution for anybody
teedubbya Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
DrafterX wrote:
Pretty sure it was gonna crash all by itself... carriers were dropping out and there were no choices in many places... not to mention price Increases... maybe if they had been able to pass the nationwide 12 bucks an hour minimum wage and forced the peoples to buy Obamacare it mighta worked... Mellow




The republicans say so. Others like the American Academy of Actuaries disagree. I'm no fan of Obamacare and never have been. It was a spaghetti mishmash crammed through as a Trojan horse in my mind. I didn't think it was possible to do worse. I was wrong.
SteveS Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,274
TMCTLT wrote:
Pathetic was hoisting on the American people in the first place....lots of blame to go around.
They knew before it was launched it would FAIL....but now it's Trumps fault for allowing it to happen


Absolute fact ... "if you like your plan (doctor), you can keep your plan (doctor)" which they knew full well was complete bullsh*t ... and that b*tch Nancy Pelosi standing up there and saying there was no time to read the bill ... "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" ... only reason she could say that with such a straight face is that she's had so much plastic surgery it's no longer possible for her to move it at all ... absolutely frozen ... 25 years after she's dead, you could dig her up and she'd still look just as she does today ...
burnem2 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 434
teedubbya wrote:
The republicans say so.


And the doctors who refuse to accept it because it sucks. Oh, and those who can no longer afford it because it sucks.
teedubbya Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
SteveS wrote:
Absolute fact ... "if you like your plan (doctor), you can keep your plan (doctor)" which they knew full well was complete bullsh*t ... and that b*tch Nancy Pelosi standing up there and saying there was no time to read the bill ... "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" ... only reason she could say that with such a straight face is that she's had so much plastic surgery it's no longer possible for her to move it at all ... absolutely frozen ... 25 years after she's dead, you could dig her up and she'd still look just as she does today ...



Pelosi showed her true colors when she refused to outright or even hint that she was appalled by the Dem that said Kelly Ann Conway looked like she had been on her knees in that office before. I don't know how anyone has any respect for her anyway, but any credibility she has should have been shot after that. Then again I'm beginning to look at the people that support whatever Trump does in much the same way I look at the people that support Pelosi.

We can do better. Much better.
teedubbya Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
burnem2 wrote:
And the doctors who refuse to accept it because it sucks. Oh, and those who can no longer afford it because it sucks.



Hmm. Wonder what the docs associations are saying. by the way refusing to accept it. What exactly is it? When I hear this I think medicaid which is true in many areas but am wondering what you think. Some people refer to Obamacare globally when it's not that simple (who knew?)

keep in mind I think obamacare is junk too. but that doesn't make this better. I think it's worse in many ways.
burnem2 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 434
teedubbya wrote:

We can do better. Much better.


Good God, let's hope so! The choice we were asked to make in November was just ridiculous. I kept thinking, "is this really the best we've got".
teedubbya Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
burnem2 wrote:
Good God, let's hope so! The choice we were asked to make in November was just ridiculous. I kept thinking, "is this really the best we've got".



On this we agree. And as much as I think Trump is a disaster, I'd be saying the same about Hillary.
jjanecka Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 2,230
When the band director started playing the russian era commie music at my voting station I knew what had to be done. I have no regrets that I voted for Trump. America needs him. Had the band director played normal or pro american music I would have voted Hillary.
teedubbya Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
I voted for GWB and worried the courts might pick Gore. I celebrated when they didn't. When Powel addressed the UN about Iraq it was an oh **** we got nothing moment rather than the adlai stevenson moment I was anticipating. Then I had to admit GWB made a massive mistake. Then the economy crashed etc.

I am just hopeful at some point Trump votors see him for what he is and rethink. I also think its too early at this point. I just hope folks don't dig in and accept the absurd. I also hope he is successful with some things and am not rooting for failure. Ie if he does great I hope I don't dig in just because I don't like him.
teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
What is currently on the table would be a disaster worse than Obammycare which is something I thought not possible. It is amazing to me the Republicans didn't have something ready to go. They have had years to do so. This is a mess.
burnem2 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 434
teedubbya wrote:

I am just hopeful at some point Trump votors see him for what he is and rethink. I also hope he is successful with some things and am not rooting for failure.


I definitely wasn't excited about voting for Trump, but wouldn't, under any circumstances, have supported a Clinton White House. I think my frustration, which I don't communicate well, tends to make people think I'm all about the Donald when I just wish people would give him a chance for our country's sake. I HATE partisan politics....however, that's the game being played currently on all sides.
teedubbya Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
burnem2 wrote:
I definitely wasn't excited about voting for Trump, but wouldn't, under any circumstances, have supported a Clinton White House. I think my frustration, which I don't communicate well, tends to make people think I'm all about the Donald when I just wish people would give him a chance for our country's sake. I HATE partisan politics....however, that's the game being played currently on all sides.



I got it and at the same time was tweaking what I wrote. I suspect we are more similar than different.
gummy jones Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,934
the massive medicaid expansion that came with the "affordable" care act left a lot of people with insurance but no healthcare
unfortunately, it did not result in increased personal accountability or better life choices
i feel physicians should be paid a premium to care for that difficult population but in reality, it reimburses substantially less
teedubbya Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
That I understand. If you have no medicaid providers then expanding medicaid doesn't do much.

As someone who started his career implementing managed care in a state medicaid program I know a little about that subject. I agree in theory providers should be paid higher for what you term "difficult" or high risk populations but that is also contrary to the original intent of medicaid.

If you go back to contemporary media and academic studies during the late 60s you will find providers did quite a bit of free care (and some bartering) and complained that it was becoming a burden. Medicaid was originally intended to off set losses, not completely cover cost or provide for profit. it is a perfect example of once you implement a government program it will become insidious and scope creep is inevitable. One of my graduate program projects was based on the premise that the whole program started as welfare for providers rather than the individuals.
gummy jones Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,934
as we move more and more towards everything being completely consumer driven (including "free" care), then there are large groups who do not accept tiered systems. i am fine with a certain baseline level of care being provided for "free" but when we state that it is only "fair" if everyone gets cadillac care and a pair of jordans then i have an issue. a medicaid patient expects to have their knee replacement (elective procedure) asap and would be indignant if they were told they would be put on a waiting list or were going to have a safe and effective but less innovative technology put in them. meanwhile, their out of pocket cost is nothing or close to it and their insurance may reimburse at 25%-30% what is charged vs a private insurance who may pay 80%-85% what is charged.
teedubbya Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
I get what you are saying and am not responding to it when I say the following.

When I say free care I mean back before medicaid and medicare and really the prevalence of insurance that pays for everything health care was more transaction on an individual level. Folks paid what they could and providers either accepted it or didn't. Hospitals were more complex than doctors in this regard but thats a long discussion. By free care I mean a provider providing services (unforced which is what complicates the hospital part) and accepting little or no payment because the patient doesn't have it. It was (and is) a cost of doing business and there were tax implications etc but no direct compensation.

Today the same definition of free care exists but with medicaid, medicare, all the insurance (employer and otherwise) it is much less so. Medicaid started paying what was previously largely free care or minimal payment care whichever. Now providers want and/or demand at least cost and preferably profit. I do not blame them. I'm just saying the original intent was to off set some of the loss not make them whole. Doctors who do not accept medicaid today are no different than the doctors that would not have provided free care in the past. And why should they on either account if they don't want to other than for greater good mamby pamby reasons.

The argument has shifted. even the republicans are now completely arguing from a different place then they were even a decade ago. The dems moved the goal posts a few times.



Unrelated or pseudo related thought - this is from about 20 years ago now so I am sure the numbers have changed.

When I worked for a health system (negotiating payment contracts etc) the only folks that ever paid charges were private pay patients not using insurance but with money or resources. They paid 100% of charges. Free care was for those with no resources and not on medicaid etc (IE our collections area got dust... to be NFP our hospitals needed a certain amount of this... our docs not so much). Medicare paid roughly 85% of charges and for the rest of this thought I will call them 1 since most of our other reimbursement was based off of medicare. So medicare paid 1. Indemnity insurance (usual and customary) paid 1.85, most managed care paid 1.4, the most aggressive managed care (the company I worked for previously) paid 1.2, and medicaid paid something like .65 or .7 (can't remember). Oh the hospital side medicaid was cost settled. Our charges were in no way shape or form based on our costs. As a matter of fact when I left the managed care company to negotiate on behalf of the health system I was shocked that they had no idea what their real costs were. We changed that.
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
I was disappointed when I heard the new plan... I'm hoping it gets red-lined for a while... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
Hey TW... I actually was listening to something about this on a podcast about medical history... apparently this goes much further back... Like Hippocrates setting pay scales to charge the wealthy way more than the poor...

Check out sawbones if you get a chance.
dstieger Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
victor809 wrote:
.. Like Hippocrates setting pay scales to charge the wealthy way more than the poor...




why...that socialist ****
SteveS Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,274
teedubbya wrote:
Pelosi showed her true colors when she refused to outright or even hint that she was appalled by the Dem that said Kelly Ann Conway looked like she had been on her knees in that office before. I don't know how anyone has any respect for her anyway, but any credibility she has should have been shot after that. Then again I'm beginning to look at the people that support whatever Trump does in much the same way I look at the people that support Pelosi.

We can do better. Much better.


We sure as hell can ... but, when you think about it, we came within a hairs breadth of actually doing worse ... as much as I'm appalled by Trump, I am SO glad it's not Hillary in the White House ...

When one looks around the political landscape these days and sees nitwits like Hillary, Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Elizabeth Warren, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie and even Al Franken .... good god, I sure DO agree with you ... we can and MUST start doing better ... and then you see where someone is hyping Oprah for President ...

At this rate, we're not headed for hell in a handbasket, we're headed straight down the toilet ...


teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 79,693
Amen
Mr. Jones Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,364
Kelly Ann Conway is starting up
A NEW KNEE PAD COMPANY...
BASED OFF TAIWAN ON A FAKE
CHIREE ISLAND....
the rent is free and the coral floor is sharp.
qmech Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-17-2016
Posts: 847
Affordable Care Act a pretext for government controlled universal health care? Some dare call it conspiracy!!!
Best
Q
frankj1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,742
Trump has said he supports the age 26 provision and the pre-existing condition provision. They are very expensive components of Romneycare (you righties don't really believe Obama hatched this plan, do you?)

MACS Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 59,911
I don't think health care is a "right".

I think it is a service. A service provided by people who obtained the proper training. A service that should be the responsibility of the person receiving the service.

Much like you pay someone to service your car. What's next? The government gonna start paying your vehicle maintenance fees, too?
Gene363 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 22,408
rfenst wrote:
Pathetic.


I cannot say you don't have a sense of humor. LOL

Obamacare is albatross the democrats deserve to wear forever.
Gene363 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 22,408
MACS wrote:
I don't think health care is a "right".

I think it is a service. A service provided by people who obtained the proper training. A service that should be the responsibility of the person receiving the service.

Much like you pay someone to service your car. What's next? The government gonna start paying your vehicle maintenance fees, too?


The government and especially the so called progressives, are enamored with the idea to taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving them to another, with no compensation for the laborer. If that wasn't bad enough, they also want the credit for providing the service.
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
I don't particularly like Obamacare... nor do I think health care is a right... or even something that should be remotely affordable.
However to claim that it's "taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving them to another, with no compensation for the laborer".. Is blatantly false. The laborer is the dr. And they are clearly getting paid.
Gene363 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 22,408
victor809 wrote:
I don't particularly like Obamacare... nor do I think health care is a right... or even something that should be remotely affordable.
However to claim that it's "taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving them to another, with no compensation for the laborer".. Is blatantly false. The laborer is the dr. And they are clearly getting paid.


Those that consider healthcare a right are entitling themselves to the fruits of another person's labor.
victor809 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
Yes. To the same extent that any government program does... Medicaid..medicare...social security... hell even the va does this... you could even say religious institutions.
But the labor in this case is medical care. The laborer is being compensated. With money from other laborers...
DrafterX Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
frankj1 wrote:
Trump has said he supports the age 26 provision and the pre-existing condition provision. They are very expensive components of Romneycare (you righties don't really believe Obama hatched this plan, do you?)





I never got my Romneyphone either..!! Mad
TMCTLT Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 18,620
victor809 wrote:
Yes. To the same extent that any government program does... Medicaid..medicare...social security... hell even the va does this... you could even say religious institutions.
But the labor in this case is medical care. The laborer is being compensated. With money from other laborers...



Why do you throw SS in there like many politicians do????? This is a program that folks PAY into from THEIR own hard labor....not some f*ckin freebie ( except for when our elected officials RAID it and give it away to those who DO NOT DESERVE IT because they've not paid in a red cent!!!!
Mr. Jones Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,364
The "ELEPHANT's CARE" new plan is a joke.

All it wants to do is CANCEL MILLIONS OF MEDICAID
RECIPIENT's by making certain ones inelligible,
Then force those newly dumped MEDICAID people to buy their new plan, which will cost more than
Obamacare does NOW.

Here's the problem,
To qualify for most MEDICAID PLANS you have to make LESS THAN $13,500 a year GROSS...
THE cheapest single decent Obama plan is $600 a month...how is a person making $13,500 Or less gonna afford $7,200 for one new ELEPHANT CARE
POLICY? what about the spouse and kids?

THE Elephant's NEW health care plan B.L.O.W.S.
frankj1 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,742
DrafterX wrote:
I never got my Romneyphone either..!! Mad

shoulda lived in MA when he was Guv
Romneycheese too!
dstieger Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,017
MACS wrote:
I don't think health care is a "right".

I think it is a service. A service provided by people who obtained the proper training. A service that should be the responsibility of the person receiving the service.

Much like you pay someone to service your car. What's next? The government gonna start paying your vehicle maintenance fees, too?



An argument might be made that while perhaps health care may not be a 'right', our society as a whole (everyone) will be better off if everyone receives 'basic' care -- even those who cannot afford that 'responsibility' to pay for it. I suspect that the cost of 'free' preventative and emergency care would be easily recouped in productivity and other contributions to civil society.

DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
No Romneycheese for X.... Sad
TMCTLT Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 18,620
dstieger wrote:
An argument might be made that while perhaps health care may not be a 'right', our society as a whole (everyone) will be better off if everyone receives 'basic' care -- even those who cannot afford that 'responsibility' to pay for it. I suspect that the cost of 'free' preventative and emergency care would be easily recouped in productivity and other contributions to civil society.





While that " sounds nice " it is a pipe dream....we are becoming less productive not more so, and far too many want something for nothing and then toss in all the illegal immigrants that have NO RIGHT to healthcare but receive it anyway. Brick wall
victor809 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 12,067
TCBY... you pay in to social security. But people who have earned very little or worked very little will get much more out of SS than they paid in. How is that not a transfer from those who labor to those who dont?
MACS Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 59,911
victor809 wrote:
TCBY... you pay in to social security. But people who have earned very little or worked very little will get much more out of SS than they paid in. How is that not a transfer from those who labor to those who dont?


Damn. I agree with Victor.

Personally, I think SS should be abolished. Those who are on it now get to keep it. Those who are not... sorry bout'cha. (I've paid into it, so I'd lose money too...) No more SS taxes. You keep it, you invest it (or don't), and you worry about how you're going to get by when you can't work.

For the majority of people, SS is a supplement anyway. It isn't enough to live on.
frankj1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,742
it was always intended to be a supplement
delta1 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,253
It's a protection that was born in the 1930's, and proved to be necessary when the greedy bankers and industrialists pushed the country into the Great Depression, leaving legions of poor unemployed old people dying in the streets. Private charities were expected to help feed, clothe and shelter the poor, but could not carry that burden, so we collectively decided to use our government as a safety net. This empathy for poor old homeless people can be traced to the Christian morality that was a cornerstone of the foundation of our nation.

Everybody wants the government to be small and to stop taxing them, until some calamity caused by the excesses of an unchecked/unregulated private capitalistic economy threatens society as a whole. Think of the Enron scandal where thousands of employees were left with worthless retirement plans. On a larger scale, many people lost a lot of their retirement savings during the savings and loan scandal/Wall Street-caused recession of the 80's, when "hedge fund" became a four letter word. It happened again during the Great Recession of 2007/2008, which wiped out millions of peoples' entire lifetime worth of investments. The biggest criminal threats to our society do not reside in the ghettoes...

Talk about a transfer of wealth: the average taxpayer's money was used to bail out the richest among us, who refused to use their own assets. It's a matter of perspective. Do you trust private industry to protect you, given their history of doing great harm? Or do you trust the government, which has repeatedly been required to repair the harm done by private industry? There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle...
DrafterX Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,811
I think that money that saved about a million jobs was paid back... Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>