Courts hammer Trump for sabotaging Obamacare, in rulings that could cost the Treasury billions

[Checkerboard Strangler]

i always found it funny how some people claim the ACA was so horrible while ignoring the fact people (in government) were letting the air out of the tires, draining it of gas, removing the spark plugs and blacking out the windshield and then claiming see its not working as they walk away whistling.

is it perfect? of course not, did it fix everything? of course not but it was a start and eventhough it has had success it could have even more. you keep building on it and fix the parts that dont work, you dont sabotage it with nothing to replace it thats just dumb and hateful and selfish while MORE Americans suffer.

Goddamn when you pick up that bat and swing, you're like Mickey ****in' Mantle.
I'd buy you a beer if we were at a bar.
Well said.
Cheers, mate.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now.. under a medicare for all program. You are going to have millions of people who are going to be using medicare.. but HAVE NOT. just spent 35 years paying into it. That 18 year old kid is now going to be using medicare.. and yet he has only paid into it for one year.

True, but what will they no longer be paying?
Monthly health care premiums to the insurance companies.

If you're going to argue that, don't pretend that we're all still going to be writing monthly checks to Blue Cross AND paying the Medicare for All taxes both at the same time.

 

[jaeger19]

You have offered nothing to support your lean as a Conservative and posting opinion pieces doesn't help your cause. ?

You sir are too funny.

I think states should keep the money they earn.. while you think states that make more should send more to the federal government to subsidize welfare states.
I think that the Constitution should be respected and that there are limits on the power of the executive branch. You think that the executive branch should be able to violate the constitution by declaring non existent national emergencies.
I think that government should be fiscally responsible. Which means when times are good.. it should reign in spending and increase taxes to historic levels in order to move to a balanced budget. You think the government as long as dominated by republicans.. should spend like a drunken sailor on leave.. while lowering taxes (cutting its revenue generation). And worse.. you aren;t smart enough to understand the economics of the federal budget, federal deficits or tax policy.

Yep.. conservatives don't call other conservatives names. You sir are demonstrably NOT a conservative.. you are a right wing liberal. Face it.. you want big government as long as its telling people what to do in their bed, who they can marry, what medical decisions they can make and what they can ingest in their bodies.
You love spending as long as its on tax credits for business, spending on the military, spending on prisons, etc.
you love the government violating the constitution by setting up a separate prison system outside the constitution to send prisoners and holding them indefinitely.

You are a right wing liberal.

 

[AGENT J]

Goddamn when you pick up that bat and swing, you're like Mickey ****in' Mantle.
I'd buy you a beer if we were at a bar.
Well said.
Cheers, mate.

:cheers:
Thanks its just more of the same politics nonsense i cant stand. . . hey look at that the other guy came up with that so lets say its horrible no matter what and do things to negatively impact it so we can look like we were right and the hell with the american people . . .its so sad

 

[jaeger19]

True, but what will they no longer be paying?
Monthly health care premiums to the insurance companies.

Ummm.. explain that. because 1. Most single payer countries cover less than insurance covers here.. so that people STILL have to purchase monthly healthcare premiums.. or their employer does.
Even people on medicare.B.. have a monthly premium.. and often have a monthly premium for a private insurance company to supplement their medicare part B or D.

Sir.. you are the one that should realize that we will STILL be writing monthly checks to blue cross AND paying for medicare for all. just like what happens in most other single payer countries. Unless those folks want to go without say.. prescription drug coverage.

I am just giving you the facts.

 

[Conservative]

You sir are too funny.

I think states should keep the money they earn.. while you think states that make more should send more to the federal government to subsidize welfare states.
I think that the Constitution should be respected and that there are limits on the power of the executive branch. You think that the executive branch should be able to violate the constitution by declaring non existent national emergencies.
I think that government should be fiscally responsible. Which means when times are good.. it should reign in spending and increase taxes to historic levels in order to move to a balanced budget. You think the government as long as dominated by republicans.. should spend like a drunken sailor on leave.. while lowering taxes (cutting its revenue generation). And worse.. you aren;t smart enough to understand the economics of the federal budget, federal deficits or tax policy.

Yep.. conservatives don't call other conservatives names. You sir are demonstrably NOT a conservative.. you are a right wing liberal. Face it.. you want big government as long as its telling people what to do in their bed, who they can marry, what medical decisions they can make and what they can ingest in their bodies.
You love spending as long as its on tax credits for business, spending on the military, spending on prisons, etc.
you love the government violating the constitution by setting up a separate prison system outside the constitution to send prisoners and holding them indefinitely.

You are a right wing liberal.

I think you are a legend in your own mind making things up as you go along. None of what you posted is accurate but rather your fantasy and shows your total hatred for Trump

Where in the hell did I say more money should go to the federal gov't from the states? On the contrary states are generating record cash because of the tax cuts as most of their revenue comes from sales and property taxes

Calling me names and a liberal shows exactly how out of touch you are with reality and how poorly informed you are on even the Constitution. You claim it is a made up national emergency but haven't defined why open borders, billions and billions of illegal immigration costs, MS 13 doesn't constitute an emergency.

It does appear you just want to argue and that makes you a waste of time.

 

[Nickyjo]

I assume that for liberals like me, the ACA was sort of a foot in the door on the way to opening up some form of national health care. And it worked, as the GOP sought to repeal and replace, not just repeal, and Trump promised to create something far better. Obama changed the conversation, and soon the GOP will stop calling it Obamacare.

Two questions for the group: 1- is there anything pending by republicans with respect to the ACA or health care, or have they given up since McCain's deciding vote? 2- why the hostility to the ACA from conservatives? They seem ok with Medicare, the VA, Medicaid, government employees getting insurance, etc. Why oppose something that is more "free market" than existing plans they don't object to? I assume some of it comes from their being wedded to the notion that the government can't do anything right except wage war and put people in jail, and that regular folks are straining to read prospectuses on retirement or private medical plans rather than accept SS and Medicare, but that's me being overly cynical. I also heard that they worry that once a benefit is given, it is nearly impossible politically to take it away, and am sympathetic to that argument. But what gives? The rest of the developed world, as Bernie tirelessly reminds us, has dealt with the issue, tho no doubt one has to wait 40 years for a knee replacement in Denmark.

 

[Idiometer]

You pay zero for prescriptions? Adding me to my wife's insurance costs less than the 3.4K anyway.

Again I am not saying Medicare in bad as many seem to read in my comments,just my deal is better currently.

Where did I say this included prescriptions? Of course it doesn't. Part D plans are not offered by the same corporations offering supplement plans. That would be too easy! And all Part D plans are alike in that they are a convoluted miasma of whatever red tape works for the insurer. Fortunately, I don't have any super-expensive drugs I have to take.

 

[Idiometer]

Sure:



it also doesn't cover outpatient physical therapy or outpatient speech or occupational therapy. Health care in Canada - Canada.ca

That's just one example. If you wish more.. you can go on the health care forum where you can find multiple posts from me detailing what other countries provide in there public insurance.

France for examples.. will pay for your abdominal surgery.. but not the anesthetic for it. Which is why they have to purchase private insurance..



Based on what exactly?. I would bet that you didn;t even know that Canadian government insurance doesn;t pay for prescription meds outside the hospital, outpatient therapies, home health or durable medical goods outside the hospital.

.Our Medicaid.. pays for that. our private insurance pays for that.. in fact it was part of our essential health benefits. Our medicare pays for that. So for example going to a Canadian government insurance would be a decrease for americans that currently have health insurance.

Yeah, I get that Canadians don't get free meds, but they pay a boatload LESS for drugs than we do. If we could get our prescriptions filled at their cost, I
wouldn't need Part D.

 

[Idiometer]

Yeah..you are not getting it.

Right now.. when you get medicare when you retire.. you have paid into the system your WHOLE WORKING LIFE. So.. you have paid for years and years and years without taking out. Which is WHY.. 1. What you have taken out of your pay NOW is so little.
and 2. Why you pay so little for a medicare part B and Part D and why Part A has no cost to you when you retire.

the medicare system works largely because you have thirty years of people who have paid in their whole WORKING LIVES.. without taking out. and even then.. its in some fiscal problems.. as its spending more than its taking in.

Now.. under a medicare for all program. You are going to have millions of people who are going to be using medicare.. but HAVE NOT. just spent 35 years paying into it. That 18 year old kid is now going to be using medicare.. and yet he has only paid into it for one year.

It completely upends the fiscal reality here. Do you know understand?

So.. something has to give.. either you are going to have to drastically reduce benefits. Or dramatically.. and I mean dramatically have to increase what people are taking out of their paychecks.

That's not entirely accurate. Millions of Medicare recipients never worked or paid into it.

Can I Get Medicare if I've Never Worked? | Pocket Sense

"You can qualify after age 65 to receive free Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance, based on the eligibility of your spouse, whether living or deceased, even if you are divorced from the person."

"You also might qualify for Medicare based on your spouse’s federal employment and payment of Medicaid taxes, or if you are the dependent parent of a deceased child who was fully insured under Medicare."

I get your point, but the system is already covering people who never paid into it.

I still think it would end up as a net gain, fiscally, and a major gain socially, sonce every American would have access to good care.

Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan cost: would actually save money - Business Insider

 

[Idiometer]

no deflection and no personal insults as they are against the forum rules and i have no infractions for it.
so your observation is flawed.

I'm not talking about infractions, I'm talking about civility.

Comments 28, 58, 59, 71, 124, and 128 all included insults.

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah, I get that Canadians don't get free meds, but they pay a boatload LESS for drugs than we do. If we could get our prescriptions filled at their cost, I
wouldn't need Part D.

Yes you would need part D. In fact there a number of Canadians that have to go without their medications.. in fact including people that have decided to go without life saving cancer medication because the cost was too great out of pocket.

 

[jaeger19]

That's not entirely accurate. Millions of Medicare recipients never worked or paid into it.

Can I Get Medicare if I've Never Worked? | Pocket Sense

"You can qualify after age 65 to receive free Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance, based on the eligibility of your spouse, whether living or deceased, even if you are divorced from the person."

"You also might qualify for Medicare based on your spouse’s federal employment and payment of Medicaid taxes, or if you are the dependent parent of a deceased child who was fully insured under Medicare."

I get your point, but the system is already covering people who never paid into it.

I still think it would end up as a net gain, fiscally, and a major gain socially, sonce every American would have access to good care.

Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan cost: would actually save money - Business Insider

Come now..now you are just being obtuse.

In 2014, nearly 75 percent of mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were working or actively looking for work. And among those with jobs, 77 percent worked full-time

In part.. the reason that medicare has remained somewhat viable is because now we have more women paying into it.. which is paying for your medicare..
Yes.. its possible to get medicare without working.. but its much rarer than it used to be.. and again.. you still generally have had to wait until your age is eligible and your spouse had to pay into it their whole working life.

And yet medicare is still in trouble.

And now you think that you can add millions of people that can begin taking out.. without having paid in for decades.

now.. I bring up a very valid point.. and don;t you find it concerning that none of the politicians pushing medicare for all.. even mention this.?

In fact. they often don;t even explain what they mean by "medicare for all"... my suspicion is that they really just mean Medicare A for all.. which leaves everyone else without outpatient doctor coverage, prescription medication therapies and so on. And the reason is because just Medicare A most closely resembles what other single payers look like. In fact. even then.. Medicare part A is better than most single payer insurances.. since it has few restrictions on what doctors you can see. and little review for surgeries and specialists.
Both democrats and republicans need to be honest about the healthcare debate and none of them thus far seem willing to be honest.

For example:

Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan cost: would actually save money - Business Insider

BS... because there really is no way to estimate the cost unless the plan is actually known. What exactly constitutes medicare for all.? Part A.. Part B and D.. what? and it assumes that "it can negotiate lower prices"... well.. Medicare is already prevented from negotiating lower prices from pharma and when it comes to providers.. medicare is among the lowest of payers.. so low that providers have to take a good hard look at whether to accept medicare or not. There is one of the large rubs of trying to get that savings that everyone claims will come about . A large cost in our healthcare system is paying providers.. nurses, doctors, right down to janitorial services. Now.. its easy to claim that one of the largest employers in a community can take a massive wage cut without repercussions to the economy.. but the amount of decrease to necessary is equivalent to 6-10 percent of GDP.

To put that into perspective.. in the great recession the GDP decrease was 4.2%..

And yes.. there is some savings to be gained by getting 30 million americans healthcare coverage. but its interesting they say "30 million"... you realize that's roughly.. 9% of americans. Just 9%. Obamacare got us that close. So there really is no need to go to medicare for all.. jus to get 10% of americans healthcare insurance.
Especially when you consider that the single payer plan to do that.. would most likely reduce the coverage that the 90% already have. Especially you.

 

[Oborosen]

You are correct, what a tangled piece of crap the ACA "web" was. IMO never should have been created, at least not using private insurers.

I would have preferred a modification of Medicare and Medicaid since we are all already taxed for that.

So as of now, most every other doctor that I personally know. Will not even touch Medicaid and Medicare is coming close behind that deviation.

I had one patient in 2013, who's mother was paying his insurance and the premiums shot up nearly 400% in the span of thirteen months. It was insane how poorly implemented the ACA was.

 

[holbritter]

It's tough to compare because the copays and shared insurance payments paid by employees varies widely between plans and employers and even classes of employees in some cases, but Medicare plus a decent supplement will be directly comparable for most if not the vast majority of people. I've not talked to anyone that finds Medicare with a supplement a big step down from their pre-Medicare coverage, and I'm getting to the age where i know people well who have done the switch. I also take care of healthcare for my mother in law, pay all her bills, and have found her coverage excellent so far, very comparable to my own.

And that's the rub.

 

[holbritter]

Yes but let's forget about Trump's lies about pre existing conditions and him saying everyone who wants HI will get it and will be able to afford it. Both are blatant lies of the worse kind..

Why are those lies worse? I guess it depends on who's lies hurt an individual more, doesn't it?

 

[holbritter]

Trump drove premiums up 37% in 2018 (despite most actuarial and financial analyses suggesting they would've been flat in the absence of his deliberate sabotage attempts). Looks like insurers slightly overshot in projecting the magnitude of the Trump premium spike. Maybe it should've only been an unnecessary ~35% jump or so!

I guess it depends on the plan you have. Mine jumped up when ACA took effect. I haven't seen a jump like that since.

 

[uptower]

Not sure anyone working for a large corporation or the government (state,city,federal) would trade their insurance for medicare.

Maybe they shouldn't have to. Maybe anyone wanting to opt for the government plan can do so for free and those with private plans tied to their jobs can keep them if they want?

That's kinda how it works in other places with socialized medicine. The ACA after all was just a modified Republican plan to give the insurers a cut of everyone's policy. How about those that don't want to pay insurers don't need a policy at all? They can just go to hospital for free? Those with policies can go to 'better' hospitals at a premium. Everyone wins.

 

[Greenbeard]

I guess it depends on the plan you have. Mine jumped up when ACA took effect. I haven't seen a jump like that since.

Odd, given that the average individual market premium in New York fell by 50% when the ACA was implemented ("Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%").

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Why are those lies worse? I guess it depends on who's lies hurt an individual more, doesn't it?

It was worse because that was a BIG part of his, and other Republicans campaign promises.. Repeal, and REPLACE... REPLACE ACA with something better, something that was going to have coverage for everyone... But it turned out the GOP NEVER had any intention of replacing it. They had 8 years to come up with something, anything, but they had nothing..

It was all a calculated, blatant lie.

 

[ludin]

I'm not talking about infractions, I'm talking about civility.

Comments 28, 58, 59, 71, 124, and 128 all included insults.

again you are wrong why? because personal insults are against the rules of this forum.
if you insult someone then you get infractions for it. i have received 0 infractions so there
are not personal insults as you claimed.

i can't explain it any more simply than that.

Sorry there are no personal insults in those posts.

 

[wellwisher]

The ACA was the heritage foundation version of first world healthcare. However, the Trumpist party wasn't even confident enough in its position to let it fail on its own. It was sabotaged at every step. It's time for single payer, IMO.

The only reason the ACA was Constitutional was it was called a tax. It was a huge middle class tax increase that averaged $400/mo per single person and $1200/mo for a family. To give an idea of how bad this tax was, the average household income was about $68,0000/year and the average federal tax was about $10,000. Under Obama Care an additional $14,000 in medical taxes was added for a family. The result was more food stamps and a dying middle class. A family on a budget cannot afford such forces expenses.

Under Obamacare, the rich got richer, while the middle class got screwed with a huge new tax, disguised as insurance. Trump by getting rid of the mandate, got rid of the tax and the constitutionality, giving the individual and family the option to lower their taxes, through the free market choices. This is power to the people, instead of power to big government intimidation.

ObamaCare forced all types of coverage, that the average person did not need, that caused the costs to sky rocket. The new approach is more buffet style, where you can opt out of mandatory coverage to lower your insurance taxes. The elderly couple does not need abortion coverage. Those who need this can buy it but will have to pay more. This is called free market.

Those who got freebies, will complain, but they lost nothing that was originally theirs. They act like ingrates when the gift is gone. This is unlike the middle class who got screwed even as the national debt rose to historic levels. ACA was a huge tax, given as business welfare, so campaign donations would rise.

In my opinion, we use too much health care due to too many hypochondriacs. The affect is similar cell phones. Cell phones cost a lot and service is not cheap. So to make economic sense, these are overused, to where people can't think on their own without consulting the phone. A weakness of mind and body appears, that then becomes a dependency addiction. This defect is fine if you are a marketeer but it makes the cost go up for all.

 

[Conservative]

The only reason the ACA was Constitutional was it was called a tax. It was a huge middle class tax increase that averaged $400/mo per single person and $1200/mo for a family. To give an idea of how bad this tax was, the average household income was about $68,0000/year and the average federal tax was about $10,000. Under Obama Care an additional $14,000 in medical taxes was added for a family. The result was more food stamps and a dying middle class. A family on a budget cannot afford such forces expenses.

Under Obamacare, the rich got richer, while the middle class got screwed with a huge new tax, disguised as insurance. Trump by getting rid of the mandate, got rid of the tax and the constitutionality, giving the individual and family the option to lower their taxes, through the free market choices. This is power to the people, instead of power to big government intimidation.

ObamaCare forced all types of coverage, that the average person did not need, that caused the costs to sky rocket. The new approach is more buffet style, where you can opt out of mandatory coverage to lower your insurance taxes. The elderly couple does not need abortion coverage. Those who need this can buy it but will have to pay more. This is called free market.

Those who got freebies, will complain, but they lost nothing that was originally theirs. They act like ingrates when the gift is gone. This is unlike the middle class who got screwed even as the national debt rose to historic levels. ACA was a huge tax, given as business welfare, so campaign donations would rise.

In my opinion, we use too much health care due to too many hypochondriacs. The affect is similar cell phones. Cell phones cost a lot and service is not cheap. So to make economic sense, these are overused, to where people can't think on their own without consulting the phone. A weakness of mind and body appears, that then becomes a dependency addiction. This defect is fine if you are a marketeer but it makes the cost go up for all.

Great post but as with all other issues that refute ACA it will be ignored by the radicals who simply have no interest in even hearing anything negative about ACA and always wanting someone else to pay for their personal responsibility issues. Always thought that healthcare was an individual responsibility first then a state and local responsibility second, NEVER a federal responsibility except to bureaucrats who want the revenue to continue to buy votes

 

[Idiometer]

Yes you would need part D. In fact there a number of Canadians that have to go without their medications.. in fact including people that have decided to go without life saving cancer medication because the cost was too great out of pocket.

Due to one of my conditions, I had to have some intravenous medicine for several months, a drug called Entyvio that costs upwards of $6,000 per dose. It did not fall into the "prescription" category but instead was considered, by Medicare and Blue Shield, as a necessary medical PROCESS. It cost me nothing. (It also didn't help me even a little, but that's another story.) My point is that most lifesaving cancer medication is chemo, which would fall into this same category. I'm guessing it's not that way where you are?

 

[JasperL]

And that's the rub.

What do you mean by "rub" in that context?