Trumpcare is born

RetiredUSN said:

Yes....... the killed the ACA penalty for one thing. :2razz:

Then they stopped billions of dollars going to a system that was using money unconstitutionally.

Next time, pass a law that can stand on it's own.

Click to expand...

yes, the GOP is all about killing stuff & being destructive; they are not very good at being constructive .................. glad you realize that ............

cuban smokes said:

yes, the GOP is all about killing stuff & being destructive; they are not very good at being constructive .................. glad you realize that ............

Click to expand...

I will say again, write a constitutional law next time and you will have a argument.

Your BS exaggerations are not fact. The ACA hurt as many as it helped.

Anagram said:

I didn't say that the insured wouldn't be reduced by choice. I'm just saying what would happen. Less people would choose to buy health insurance. Those people are likely to be relatively healthy. That will cause premiums to rise as the insurance base becomes smaller and more sickly. This is compounded by the fact that the tax bill does nothing to remove most of the ACA's provisions. Insurers still can't discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. They still can't offer less comprehensive plans than the ACA requires. Because they aren't removing the real meat of the ACA, getting rid of the mandate is just going to cause the price of insurance to increase even faster for everyone who wants it.

if they wanted to get rid of the mandate, and they should, they should have gotten rid of or changed most of the other ACA requirements.

Click to expand...

Greenbeard is the ACA guy around here. Perhaps he might read this and weigh in.

Are there provisions in the ACA that prohibit plans that are less inclusive from being issued?

It seems that if there is such a provision, then passing a law that enables less inclusive, more targeted plans would be a good thing.

As a 64 year old man who had a vasectomy years ago, paying for birth control, OBGYN visits pre and post natal care seems to be less than cost effective.

code1211 said:

As a 64 year old man who had a vasectomy years ago, paying for birth control, OBGYN visits pre and post natal care seems to be less than cost effective.

Click to expand...

And women pay for your prostrate and testicular exams. It all balances out.

Rogue Valley said:

And women pay for your prostrate and testicular exams. It all balances out.

Click to expand...

The point is that she is welcome to pay for hers and I'll pay for mine.

I may want to drive a brand new Cadillac and she may choose to drive a 10 year old Dodge mini van. The reverse may also be true. Reverse may not work in the mini van...

Should we both pay the same to purchase our chosen mode of transport?

CriticalThought said:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ly-repealed-obamacare-with-tax-bill/23313338/

You own it now Trumpies!

Click to expand...

Lets See, When ACA provided the "No Prior Conditions Exclusion" and Brought in 20million people.... under the program..... the COST ratio Skyrocketed due to those with prior condition NEEDED more care than the system could afford.


The Forcing of the buy or penalty was a bandaid to SLOW the bleeding, BUT because people found that it was cheaper to just pay the fine than the Insurance. The bandAid was effectively useless.... The 20million people got their care at the COST of the Health Insurance Program. Its bankrupt now and cannot sustain the Cost vs Income(premium)..... By removing the mandate.... the people that never wanted it wont get stuck with either paying for something they never needed or took the chance anyways.... THEY Never drained healthcare system to begin with.... they supplemented it for the short term up to this point.


losing 13million is NOT people losing and becoming sick.... its those that were tired of supplementing something that they didnt agree with in the first place.....

Rogue Valley said:

And women pay for your prostrate and testicular exams. It all balances out.

Click to expand...

TDI (Temporary Disability Insurance) - Its Sexes..... They rate based on the Ratio of Male and Female for the Premium....is that fair?


Well again... when using the INSURANCE Model, Risk evaluation.... Women get pregnant.... claim TDI over men... so if you have an ALL women Work force vs ALL Men work force. SHOULD the All men Work force PAY the same premium as the All women work force if the men DO NOT get pregnant? THIS IS NOT a sexes question... This is a RISK Retention, Evaluation to keep a program success.


Same with Health care...... UNLESS you regulate WHAT a doctor charges ACROSS the Board that is the only way you regulate what premium EVERYONE ways.... If not.... you SHOULD pay based on your risk.... if you are a high risk...and you cant afford it... LIFE IS not FAIR........ My mom has Diabetes...watches what she eats... complains about it all the time... she is skinny and worked hard, exercises all the time...Is it her fault? No genetics did it to her... But what about my Fat over weight sister that never took care of her self..... She has diabetes too.... but she is Adopted So its NOT Hereditary.... it was lack of taking care of her self..... Should YOU the consumer have to supplement my SISTER.... because she CHOSE not to take care of herself. Vs MY MOM that has done all she can but it was inevitable?


THAT right there is why we have "insurance" NOT to supplement others for BAD choices...

Exactice said:

Lets See, When ACA provided the "No Prior Conditions Exclusion" and Brought in 20million people.... under the program..... the COST ratio Skyrocketed due to those with prior condition NEEDED more care than the system could afford.


The Forcing of the buy or penalty was a bandaid to SLOW the bleeding, BUT because people found that it was cheaper to just pay the fine than the Insurance. The bandAid was effectively useless.... The 20million people got their care at the COST of the Health Insurance Program. Its bankrupt now and cannot sustain the Cost vs Income(premium)..... By removing the mandate.... the people that never wanted it wont get stuck with either paying for something they never needed or took the chance anyways.... THEY Never drained healthcare system to begin with.... they supplemented it for the short term up to this point.


losing 13million is NOT people losing and becoming sick.... its those that were tired of supplementing something that they didnt agree with in the first place.....

Click to expand...

The reason the GOP could garner over $300 billion for their tax cut by repealing the mandate is that a good share of those 13 million would have received subsidies to help pay for their insurance. Now that they choose not to enroll, if and when they get sick we will still pay for their emergency care through our tax dollars because they cannot be denied treatment by law. So aside from an ideological yeehaw on repealing a tax for failing to buy a service that gives you access to something we are mandated by law to provide, there is not much of a win here. And yet your side has been unable to come up with anything better that won't leave millions worse off.

Captain Adverse said:

I never supported the ACA, not in the form it eventually took.

I was one of those people who never had healthcare, and never thought it was a problem until I received my notice that if I didn't have a plan covered by the ACA I would be forced to pay $2500.00 when I submitted my income tax each year.

I got around it by finally enrolling in the VA heath coverage I was entitled to at the end of my military service. Something I never bother with for 20 years...until the ACA.

The few times I got sick (twice, and both times due to food poisoning) I simply went to an emergency room and paid the bill. My only healthcare (although I do qualify for a different program due to my job should I choose) is still the VA, which I used for annual physicals which show I am in perfect health in my sixth decade of life.

So forgive me if I am not all that thrilled with the ACA, and would have been one of those "however many" millions who would have had to pay for other people's health care every year via the tax.

Click to expand...

You sound like one of those people who smokes and tell everyone you never got cancer, so there’s nothing wrong with smoking. You played Russian Roulette with yourself and you happened to win. This is not a basis for good public health policy.

CriticalThought said:

The reason the GOP could garner over $300 billion for their tax cut by repealing the mandate is that a good share of those 13 million would have received subsidies to help pay for their insurance. Now that they choose not to enroll, if and when they get sick we will still pay for their emergency care through our tax dollars because they cannot be denied treatment by law. So aside from an ideological yeehaw on repealing a tax for failing to buy a service that gives you access to something we are mandated by law to provide, there is not much of a win here. And yet your side has been unable to come up with anything better that won't leave millions worse off.

Click to expand...

This is your opinion?, This is my opinion. the reason for removal of the mandate was to initiate the dismantling of the ACA. there really is NO good reason to Remove the mandate as it was a base cost that was a foundation to keeping the ACA somewhat alive. By removing it it decreases the foundation of ACA So again it was NOT a benefit to the "tax" plan per say but an immediate, effect to collapsing ACA and forcing lawmakers to the table to negotiate it.

The silly part is you stated that by taking them off if they get sick they still get care.... yes....the mandate does NOT provide Insurance.... it just forces a penalty. If that exact same person got sick and went to the ER they still would get the services, by the tax payer... during the mandate they paid a penalty to subsidies. Now there is not penalty to subsidize, but they still get the same service.


As for mandate by law..... Morally, Health Care is a right. Realistically Health Care is Luxury. if Health Care was truly a right..... anyone and EVERYONE would in fact get the exact same Level of care, WHICH we know is NOT true and likely will NEVER be true.

So to expect EVERYONE rich and POOR to evenly pay their share is NOT a realistic possibility. We need to Setup a legitimate Risk pool and a legitimate tier system and address the actual cost.


Secondly we need to be cold selfish bastards and say, WE cannot save everyone and everyone will not and cannot live to 100. THIS is Reality....


Finally our society's health sucks to begin with...... and its not the governments nor MY responsibility to pay for your inability to put down the large coke and supersized fries.... You wanna stuff your face silly.... your reap what you sow....



Anyways... your

Exactice said:

This is your opinion?, This is my opinion. the reason for removal of the mandate was to initiate the dismantling of the ACA. there really is NO good reason to Remove the mandate as it was a base cost that was a foundation to keeping the ACA somewhat alive. By removing it it decreases the foundation of ACA So again it was NOT a benefit to the "tax" plan per say but an immediate, effect to collapsing ACA and forcing lawmakers to the table to negotiate it.

The silly part is you stated that by taking them off if they get sick they still get care.... yes....the mandate does NOT provide Insurance.... it just forces a penalty. If that exact same person got sick and went to the ER they still would get the services, by the tax payer... during the mandate they paid a penalty to subsidies. Now there is not penalty to subsidize, but they still get the same service.


As for mandate by law..... Morally, Health Care is a right. Realistically Health Care is Luxury. if Health Care was truly a right..... anyone and EVERYONE would in fact get the exact same Level of care, WHICH we know is NOT true and likely will NEVER be true.

So to expect EVERYONE rich and POOR to evenly pay their share is NOT a realistic possibility. We need to Setup a legitimate Risk pool and a legitimate tier system and address the actual cost.


Secondly we need to be cold selfish bastards and say, WE cannot save everyone and everyone will not and cannot live to 100. THIS is Reality....


Finally our society's health sucks to begin with...... and its not the governments nor MY responsibility to pay for your inability to put down the large coke and supersized fries.... You wanna stuff your face silly.... your reap what you sow....



Anyways... your

Click to expand...

The GOP removed the mandate along partisan lines and so now they can fix the healthcare system they sabotaged along party lines. Afterall, they hypocritically whined that the Dems built ACA along partisan lines. If the GOP can do it with one fewer Senate seat than they had, then all the power to them.

As for the ideological, "I don't wanna pay for those who don't take care of themselves", you are lying to yourself if you think ACA has anything to do with it. You will pay for it one way or another. Higher premiums, higher taxes, higher healthcare prices, etc. you will pay for it. ACA at least tried to control the costs by seeing to it that people were seen earlier or even got preventive care. Now people will just wait until it is an emergency and the hospital has to treat them. Your ideology makes you naive.

ataraxia said:

You sound like one of those people who smokes and tell everyone you never got cancer, so there’s nothing wrong with smoking. You played Russian Roulette with yourself and you happened to win. This is not a basis for good public health policy.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

I don't smoke, and never have.

I don't drink alcohol, and never have.

I don't eat candy or drink soda, stopped doing that 35 years ago.

I eat right, maintain oral hygiene, and exercise regularly but not to excess.

I also avoid prescription drugs unless absolutely necessary, always asking any physician who suggests a "prescription" if it is absolutely necessary.

Nine times out of ten they admit it isn't and so I don't accept the prescription. The tenth time would be something like antibiotics for those incidents of food poisoning or shots required to travel abroad.

THAT is the basis of "good health policy." Stop eating like pigs and lying around like sloths...and stop poisoning your body with smoking, drinking, drugs.

If you choose instead to "enjoy/endure" such things, then pay the price for your own excesses and keep your hands out of my pockets.

Captain Adverse said:

Wrong.

I don't smoke, and never have.

I don't drink alcohol, and never have.

I don't eat candy or drink soda, stopped doing that 35 years ago.

I eat right, maintain oral hygiene, and exercise regularly but not to excess.

I also avoid prescription drugs unless absolutely necessary, always asking any physician who suggests a "prescription" if it is absolutely necessary.

Nine times out of ten they admit it isn't and so I don't accept the prescription. The tenth time would be something like antibiotics for those incidents of food poisoning or shots required to travel abroad.

THAT is the basis of "good health policy." Stop eating like pigs and lying around like sloths...and stop poisoning your body with smoking, drinking, drugs.

If you choose instead to "enjoy/endure" such things, then pay the price for your own excesses and keep your hands out of my pockets.

Click to expand...

So if people eat right and exercise they will never get leukemia, multiple sclerosis, brain cancer, go blind from glaucoma, or get badly hurt in a car accident. Great. Thanks for the tip.

CriticalThought said:

The GOP removed the mandate along partisan lines and so now they can fix the healthcare system they sabotaged along party lines. Afterall, they hypocritically whined that the Dems built ACA along partisan lines. If the GOP can do it with one fewer Senate seat than they had, then all the power to them.

As for the ideological, "I don't wanna pay for those who don't take care of themselves", you are lying to yourself if you think ACA has anything to do with it. You will pay for it one way or another. Higher premiums, higher taxes, higher healthcare prices, etc. you will pay for it. ACA at least tried to control the costs by seeing to it that people were seen earlier or even got preventive care. Now people will just wait until it is an emergency and the hospital has to treat them. Your ideology makes you naive.

Click to expand...

??? LOL yes, my ideology is just that my opinion, I would not want to be responsible for those that are not responsible for themselves BY CHOICE .

Secondly, ACA did what? IN what way..... The basics of ACA that I understand, and please educate me.

1) Removal of Prior Condition Exclusion
2) Tier Systems and minimum Healthcare requirement tier
3) If no Health Care purchase, Penalty on tax filing


The Removal of Prior conditions, undermined the WHOLE System. Again Risk based Insurance system NOT universal. You cannot just add something into a program that doesnt fit. The Prior Condition clause was to maintain continuity of the program THIS IS HOW A risk base system works...... This is how premiums were ALWAYS valued and collected. Once you changed this, YOU CHANGED THE WAY premiums HAVE TO BE valued and collected. YOU CANNOT substantiate the premiums vs cost. So this was an utter fail. SURE Morally this looks great but at what expense the collapse of a system that could NOT financially support it.


Tier system, if there was a tier, whats the points? You allow people to choose what coverage and what deductible, BUT it still all comes out when they need to receive medical care... sure you limit what.... but like you stated... they choose no insurance or the lowest plan. walk into the ER anyways... and are mandated to receive coverage.... PRETTY STUPID RIGHT? Sure you wont receive the same medical Care as a platinum tier.... but you will still receive the life saving care at the expense of the taxpayer.... WHAT IS THE POINT?


The Penalty was a way to subsidies the premium THIS IS GONE....as it was a bandaid.



Anyways, when you say people seen earlier or preventive care..... no people are reactive NOT pro active. We have a Program in my state that is PROACTIVE. I was under the impression it was Assistance/Foodstamps... BUT I was wrong. IT is for women and children... where you for an interview with both mother and child. discuss nutrition and food options and you receive vouchers for approved food. That you/child should be consuming for better health and health maintenance. THIS is preventive care.

ACA was not preventive care it was a moral care at the expensive of the whole system. IT is collapsing. in 2012 when became a 1099 my premium was $249 annually, Currently after 6 years its $541. I am in the same health condition, NO health issues...just your normal cough and cold once in a while. $2988 to $6492. $3504, increase this is not say it was not slowly increase each year... but my health has not changed. I have paid into the system yet I have seen a 217% increase in premium?


Naive? No... realistic? Yes.... can I see the writing on the wall? Yes.... can I accept reality that Health Care is not a right...... can I accept that health care is partial preventable by the consumer, YES.... Its like "JackAss" They make a movie to make money.... and do stupid dangerous things..... for what benefit.... to make money without regards to health and safety. Why because they have a doctor to fall back on. Thats a crutch.... Not reality...

People want governement health care mandates as a crutch.... so they dont have to live responsibly.