Trumpcare is born

“The individual mandate is being repealed. When the individual mandate is being repealed, that means Obamacare is being repealed,” Trump told reporters before a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. “So the individual mandate is being repealed. So in this bill, not only do we have massive tax cuts and tax reform, we have essentially repealed Obamacare, and we’ll come up with something that will be much better, whether it’s block grants or whether it’s taking what we have and doing something terrific. But Obamacare has been repealed in this bill.”

Click to expand...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ly-repealed-obamacare-with-tax-bill/23313338/

You own it now Trumpies!

I don't think that's good messaging at all and I really dislike that aspect of the bill. Repeal or replace the ACA fine, depending on how it's done I could easily support that, but reducing the insured by 13 million relatively healthy people and doing nothing else to reduce the ACA's regulations will cause premiums to rise, maybe drastically.

There should never have been a tax penalty for not buying a private good or service.

This doesnt repeal or replace the ACA...it takes the gun away from peoples heads. But it is ****ing comical beyond words watching the OP over the last year in his desperation to dump responsibility for the piece of **** legislation known as the ACA or 'Obamacare' off on republicans. This abomination has been wrecking families for years and the ****wits that stuck America with it have never lifted a finger to try to fix it.

VanceMack said:

This doesnt repeal or replace the ACA...it takes the gun away from peoples heads. But it is ****ing comical beyond words watching the OP over the last year in his desperation to dump responsibility for the piece of **** legislation known as the ACA or 'Obamacare' off on republicans. This abomination has been wrecking families for years and the ****wits that stuck America with it have never lifted a finger to try to fix it.

Click to expand...

True, and the Republicans just obliged them. After this change, all future wrecking will be the Republicans fault.

Anagram said:

I don't think that's good messaging at all and I really dislike that aspect of the bill. Repeal or replace the ACA fine, depending on how it's done I could easily support that, but reducing the insured by 13 million relatively healthy people and doing nothing else to reduce the ACA's regulations will cause premiums to rise, maybe drastically.

Click to expand...

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.

Anagram said:

I don't think that's good messaging at all and I really dislike that aspect of the bill. Repeal or replace the ACA fine, depending on how it's done I could easily support that, but reducing the insured by 13 million relatively healthy people and doing nothing else to reduce the ACA's regulations will cause premiums to rise, maybe drastically.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will no doubt allow those that do not foresee any benefit from buying a one size fits all medical care insurance package from having to do so (or paying the fine called a "tax penalty"). The real question is why those healthy folks must pay the same rate as those that that are far less healthy due to PPACA restrictions on using actuarial risk factors to set appropriate premium rates. I also agree that goofy aspect of PPACA is what needs legislative attention. Imagine the outrage if a government decreed that auto liability insurance could no longer base premium rates on known actuarial risk factors such as prior claims history or driving record infractions - only age and tobacco use can be considered.

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...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled with the ACA either. In fact, I'm strongly against it. But getting rid of just the mandate while leaving every other provision of the ACA active is going to cause premiums to rise.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes, it will no doubt allow those that do not foresee any benefit from buying a one size fits all medical care insurance package from doing so. The real question is why those healthy folks must pay the same rate as those that that are far less healthy due to PPACA restrictions on using actuarial risk factors to set appropriate premium rates. I also agree that goofy aspect of PPACA is what needs legislative attention. Imagine the outrage if a government decreed that auto liability insurance could no longer base premium rates on known actuarial risk factors such as prior claims history or driving record infractions - only age and tobacco use can be considered.

Click to expand...

This is basically what I think.

in effect Trump took the ACA away from hard working families that require health care insurance & replaced it with corporate tax insurance for corporations

corporations are now 'insured' their tax bills will be dropping by double digits.

Seems pretty straight forward to me = the GOP cares more about corporations & Wall Street than John Q Main Street ..........

Anagram said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled with the ACA either. In fact, I'm strongly against it. But getting rid of just the mandate while leaving every other provision of the ACA active is going to cause premiums to rise.

Click to expand...

Yep, just as allowing hardship exemptions and removing the ability to base premium rates on actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) did. The bottom line is that PPACA intentionally made getting medical care insurance more expensive for the non-poor and the healthy in order to subsidize others. PPACA as a UHC lite experiment is a massive failure.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep, just as allowing hardship exemptions and removing the ability to base premium rates on actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) did. The bottom line is that PPACA intentionally made getting medical care insurance more expensive for the non-poor and the healthy in order to subsidize others. PPACA as UHC lite experiment is a massive failure.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you're telling me this like I'm disagreeing with you. I've agreed with basically everything you've said.

I only think that removing only the mandate while leaving the other policies in place is a poor half measure.

Anagram said:

I don't know why you're telling me this like I'm disagreeing with you. I've agreed with basically everything you've said.

I only think that removing only the mandate while leaving the other policies in place is a poor half measure.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you in the least thus I gave your post a "like" and started my reply with "Yep".

The problem is that 60 votes in the Senate are required for any whole measures thus the use of half measures is all that can be done (at present). Even among the republicants there is a strong resistance to turning down "free" federal subsidy funds to the states which are a key (good?) part of PPACA. Once a new federal entitlement (income redistribution) program is put into place then those funds are essentially legal bribes to the states to keep it in some form. It appears that (too many) rebublicants wish to to keep the added "free" federal funding but to allow the states to disburse it as they see fit.

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...

I'm glad you have such good health. Of course if you had ever been hit by a bus or suffered a stroke, you might be singing another tune.
We all pay for each other's health care in one way or another. People are not turned away at emergency rooms, and the cost of care to the uninsured is passed on to other patients, or the government. Uninsured women who become pregnant skip prenatal care which sometimes results in serious complications for themselves, their children and the taxpayers who get to pay for the consequences. Adults without insurance often skip blood tests for diabetes and other potentially expensive and disabling conditions. So, I find it hard to lend credibility to the position that in THIS country it's perfectly acceptable to not have health coverage and just take your chances. I do find the role of health insurance companies in American healthcare troubling. There are many civilized countries that might model a path for us on this important matter.

bearpoker said:

True, and the Republicans just obliged them. After this change, all future wrecking will be the Republicans fault.

Click to expand...

You leftist types sure are desperate to get out from under that piece of ****. So heres a question. SINCE the ACA was such a Godsend...why on earth would people drop their coverage just because they are no longer forced under the threat of tax penalty to carry insurance?

JMR said:

I'm glad you have such good health. Of course if you had ever been hit by a bus or suffered a stroke, you might be singing another tune.
We all pay for each other's health care in one way or another. People are not turned away at emergency rooms, and the cost of care to the uninsured is passed on to other patients, or the government. Uninsured women who become pregnant skip prenatal care which sometimes results in serious complications for themselves, their children and the taxpayers who get to pay for the consequences. Adults without insurance often skip blood tests for diabetes and other potentially expensive and disabling conditions. So, I find it hard to lend credibility to the position that in THIS country it's perfectly acceptable to not have health coverage and just take your chances. I do find the role of health insurance companies in American healthcare troubling. There are many civilized countries that might model a path for us on this important matter.

Click to expand...

Blah blah "we are the world" and all that...

Hmmm...there are hundred of millions, or more likely billions of people around the world with no health insurance and no health care.

Are you contributing directly in some way to alleviate their suffering?

But simply because you happen to live in the U.S.A. you think it is reasonable to reach into someone else's pocket to help pay for anything you think you deserve...education, welfare, health insurance?

Fine, then like education and welfare, make it a "government handout" paid for by everyone's taxes and regulated so as to be a cost effective as possible, and not at the whims of the AMA, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance.

ttwtt78640 said:

I do not disagree with you in the least thus I gave your post a "like" and started my reply with "Yep".

Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that afterword. I think I read some tone in that wasn't there and I apologize.

The problem is that 60 votes in the Senate are required for any whole measures thus the use of half measures is all that can be done (at present). Even among the republicants there is a strong resistance to turning down "free" federal subsidy funds to the states which are a key (good?) part of PPACA. Once a new federal entitlement (income redistribution) program is put into place then those funds are essentially legal bribes to the states to keep it in some form. It appears that (too many) rebublicants wish to to keep the added "free" federal funding but to allow the states to disburse it as they see fit.

Click to expand...

The problem is that in this case it's going to to cause serious negative effects to a lot of people. It's a measure which never should have existed in the first place so I get the appeal of removing it, but I don't like the damage it will cause being taken out by itself, and I think this will seriously harm future efforts to remove or change the rest of the ACA provisions. This is especially true if Trump continues to take ownership of all of healthcare as he appears to be doing. People will blame him and Republicans for their costs going up, and they won't altogether be wrong, because this actually will drive them up.

If this somehow leads to better policy in the future then I'll happily withdraw all my criticism. But if this is the last piece of healthcare related legislation that gets passed for awhile, then I think we might be in a worse place than we are now. And I don't like being in a situation dependent on a future Congressional action.

CriticalThought said:

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

You own it now Trumpies!

Click to expand...

Are they really so ignorant that they don't realize that this WILL raise premiums significantly, that this WILL cause millions more to be uninsured (and so will kill many), and that they now OWN it? They can no longer blame Obama!

Hopefully, once the people start seeing how bad this is going to get thanks to Republican stupidity, they'll be more receptive to single-payer like every other first-world democracy on the planet.

Captain Adverse said:

Blah blah "we are the world" and all that...

Hmmm...there are hundred of millions, or more likely billions of people around the world with no health insurance and no health care.

Are you contributing directly in some way to alleviate their suffering?

But simply because you happen to live in the U.S.A. you think it is reasonable to reach into someone else's pocket to help pay for anything you think you deserve...education, welfare, health insurance?

Fine, then like education and welfare, make it a "government handout" paid for by everyone's taxes and regulated so as to be a cost effective as possible, and not at the whims of the AMA, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance.

Click to expand...

Simply because I live in the USA, the greatest nation on earth as many believe, I think it is reasonable that citizens be able to access the health care they may require. I agree it would be better administered by the government rather than Big Insurance. I find it very disheartening that fellow citizens consider their pocket being picked when it comes to such basic needs.

To answer your other question, yes I do contribute to several organizations that try to alleviate the suffering of other human beings. Luckily those expenses will continue to be deductible under the latest tax increase plan. (Not at all off topic, as Trump has proclaimed his tax increase plan the end of Obamacare.)

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep, just as allowing hardship exemptions and removing the ability to base premium rates on actuarial risk factors (aka pre-existing conditions) did. The bottom line is that PPACA intentionally made getting medical care insurance more expensive for the non-poor and the healthy in order to subsidize others. PPACA as a UHC lite experiment is a massive failure.

Click to expand...

Well it is essentially an extremely poor implementation of a UHC system similar to Switzerland, but they forgot the most important parts: the price controls, coverage regulations, and proper subsidies.

CriticalThought said:

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

You own it now Trumpies!

Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an insult or something? It's bad to be against the government forcing you into commerce with a private business? Wow....what a really skewed ideology you have.

Captain Adverse said:

Blah blah "we are the world" and all that...

Hmmm...there are hundred of millions, or more likely billions of people around the world with no health insurance and no health care.

Are you contributing directly in some way to alleviate their suffering?

But simply because you happen to live in the U.S.A. you think it is reasonable to reach into someone else's pocket to help pay for anything you think you deserve...education, welfare, health insurance?

Fine, then like education and welfare, make it a "government handout" paid for by everyone's taxes and regulated so as to be a cost effective as possible, and not at the whims of the AMA, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you remember the old motor oil commercial (can't remember if it's Quaker State or Pennzoil) where the slogan was, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later". The point was, if you don't pay now to make sure your motor's running with clean oil, you'll be paying a heck of a lot more later to replace your engine.

So it goes with health care - not just with each individual's health care, but also with all those people that YOU don't know, that YOU resent "reaching into your pocket to help pay" for their health care, welfare, and education. What you're not getting is that all those aren't robbery from you, but the taxes you pay for the benefit of other people also benefits YOU in very real ways. It really does cost a nation's people a heck of a lot MORE to tell the people "you're on your own, pay for your own crap" than it does to tell them, "high taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy".

I am exhibit A. Two years ago both my knees were, well, I was told that they were worse than those normally found on an 85 year-old man. I had to have the disabled placard. I had to ride around in that little scooter to go shopping at Lowe's. I had to use a can to even walk short distances...and that would have been for the rest of my life, which - at today's life expectancy rates - would have been about another thirty years of being a burden on the state and on the taxpayers, for I was physically unable to work, unable to maintain a proper livelihood.

Last year I was able to get both my knees replaced at taxpayers' expense - you know, the very same thing that YOU just referred to as "reaching into your pocket" as if you were being robbed by the government just because I couldn't afford to pay for my own health care. But here's where you need to change your paradigm, because in the long run, those taxpayer-funded surgeries SAVED the government - and taxpayers like yourself - money. Why? Because not only am I no longer a burden on the state and on the taxpayers, but right now I'm maintaining a job making $4K/month, and by doing so I'm not only paying taxes that I would not otherwise have paid, but the money I'm making is being spent in other businesses that pay taxes of their own. In the long run, sir, the taxpayers are profiting by having paid for those surgeries, instead of me costing the taxpayers beaucoup bucks over the next three decades.

Change your paradigm, CA. The above story is why I keep saying that high taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. If you aren't willing to pay those high taxes, then you aren't willing to do what is necessary to preserve our nation's status as a first-world democracy. YES, we must always strive to be more responsible with tax revenue, to be as efficient as possible with tax revenue...but high taxes are the lifeblood of any first-world democracy. The fact that you don't like it doesn't negate that requirement even one whit.

Carjosse said:

Well it is essentially an extremely poor implementation of a UHC system similar to Switzerland, but they forgot the most important parts: the price controls, coverage regulations, and proper subsidies.

Click to expand...

Those that say they favor a Medicare "for all" scare me the most. Medicare was intended to be funded by a payroll tax (long before eligibility upon age 65 or disability) and one price for all premiums for those that "qualify" but already requires an infusion of general tax revenue for the relatively few that it now covers - but it does have price controls and many things are not covered at all (dental, vision and nursing home care). I have yet to see the proposed new funding scheme for a Medicare "for all" but it clearly would have to change drastically to work "for all".

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 remind me very much of my brother - he never got sick, never had to go to the doctor, much less the hospital...he was a jock, healthy as a horse, and so he never paid for having health insurance. He was very, very conservative - in fact, I'd say his outlook on life was as libertarian as your own - he didn't mind helping others if it was left up to him, but he despised the fact that his taxes were going to help other people who he felt were undeserving. He wasn't rich by any means - lower middle class at best - he never once accepted charity of any type - if he couldn't get it on his own, he wouldn't take it from anyone else. Sound familiar?

Then one day all of a sudden he started having severe food allergies - we never found out how it happened, but there it was. Then a couple years after that, he developed diabetes type 2. A few years after that, he had his right leg amputated just below the knee. Several years after that - in 2014 - he had a stroke. The local hospital flew him to the state capital where he died a few days later. Because he'd never had health insurance - and he absolutely refused to consider Obamacare - the state taxpayers wound up paying the $50K+ that his care and helicopter ride had cost...and the only way the taxpayers could even partially recoup their losses was by selling our childhood home for what they could get out of it - about $30K (property's really cheap in the Delta). The rest was paid by the fine taxpayers of Mississippi. Of course, if he'd signed up for Obamacare, he almost certainly would have been under the supervision of a doctor, and almost certainly have lived quite a few years longer...and since Obamacare is NOT "government-run health care" but is mostly PRIVATE health care run under government regulation, his health care would have cost the state taxpayers far less...which was how the Heritage Foundation saw it when they first came up with the idea - it was a conservative plan - everyone pays, since everyone is gonna need expensive health care sooner or later. But since it was called "Obamacare", and it was the Dems who made it happen, all of a sudden it became the most socialist thing ever, sure to destroy America if it wasn't stopped.

The point, CA, is it is all but certain that at some point you WILL need major medical health care...and if the VA won't cover it, unless you have health insurance or are independently wealthy, you won't be able to afford it. This is why before Obamacare, half of all bankruptcies in America were due in whole or in part to health care expenses. But there's two huge problems if everyone does as you seem to advocate, if they choose to not buy health insurance till they need it: (1) the need for major health care can be quite sudden (Murphy's Law doesn't care about your age) and if you're not insured, you're screwed, and (2) if younger, healthier people who think they're immortal and bulletproof don't purchase insurance, then the health insurance for everyone else skyrockets thanks to the laws of supply and demand and the free market.

Again, CA, the chances that you will never need major medical care are vanishingly small. Unless you're retired military like I am, get health insurance. Don't make the mistake my brother did - his hubris and political obstinacy cost him his life and cost me my brother and our childhood home.

ttwtt78640 said:

Those that say they favor a Medicare "for all" scare me the most. Medicare was intended to be funded by a payroll tax (long before eligibility upon age 65 or disability) and one price for all premiums for those that "qualify" but already requires an infusion of general tax revenue for the relatively few that it now covers - but it does have price controls and many things are not covered at all (dental, vision and nursing home care). I have yet to see the proposed new funding scheme for a Medicare "for all" but it clearly would have to change drastically to work "for all".

Click to expand...

Well, one big change that would need to be made would be to ensure that Medicare can negotiate for lower prices for medication...since Bush 43 and the GOP, in all their wisdom, disallowed Medicare from being able to do so as part of Medicare Part D. The VA can negotiate, and every private company out there can negotiate...but not Medicare, thanks to the GOP. But I guess that's part of the modern definition of "conservatism".