Turns Out Trump And Every Republican Lied For Years About Obamacare Replacement Plan

[BRUTALITOPS]

That's all well and fine from a theoretical standpoint.

In the meantime our nations health care costs are at 18% of GDP. That's a more crippling cost to business that corporate taxes. On the Human side millions are still with out any health care coverage, some by choice, some that cannot afford it. That also drives up our healthcare costs everytime the indigent poor or young indestructible free riding mooches (like Grind) end up in the emergency room. Not to mention most people who are covered have lousy coverage that cost them large sums of money annually. That outrageous amount of money, considering our nations wealth, purchases us third world health care results too.

So I would respectfully ask you...if you believe that the ACA is a violation of your Constitutional rights (and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts disagrees with you there) then the burden is upon you to offer solutions to the problem that actually work.

Having read a large part of the PPACA there is much of it that is really good but there are two major flaws in the PPACA that are not adequately addresses so I would challenge you with these three questions.

#1. What would you do to manage the free rider problem? A major flaw in the ACA is that it does not punish free riding mooches (like Grind) enough for not carrying Health Care Insurance. Now if Grind opts to just up and die from his own choosing that would be one thing but in reality he'll show up in the emergency room when he gets sick or injured and stick us with the bill and you and I will pay the cost through the higher premiums we will end up paying. Same with the indigent poor...it ends up that we pay more for them when they end up in the emergency room with advanced stage illnesses cause they couldn't afford proper health care at early onset than if we subsidized that early care. So how would you resolve this problem?

#2. What would you do to manage costs? The PPACA does not really do much to control costs. Currently we pay extremely large sums of money for procedures, modalities and medicines with unproven results and redundant administrative costs, excessive diagnostic procedures and lab tests, etc. How would you manage those costs?

#3. Then after managing those problems what would you do to improve health outcomes in our country? It's simply criminal that a nation with the best medical technology and technical expertise only achieves third world health care outcomes. How would you address this problem? I don't think "Pay or Die" is going to be a legitimate solution. Do you?

Just sitting back and throwing rocks at other peoples efforts, cause you may not agree with their politics, isn't going to solve this problem. If you see my point?

#1 - I pay taxes, so I couldn't be a mooch even if I did use the emergency room.
#2 - I have never used the emergency room uninsured, so I am not a mooch.
#3 - This is how your logic works:

Me: "I DON'T WANT HANDOUTS for myself. I accept responsibility for my decisions, if I die, I die.
You: "nuh uh we insist by law that everyone pays for you
Me: "fuck off I don't want your charity"
You: "nope, we are going to make it a law that emergency rooms have to accept you
Me: "no, stop, I don't want this, I am happy with my own decisions"
You: "nope sorry this is mandatory"
Me: *Grind passes out and is unconscious, mott brings him to the emergency room*
You: "LOL moocher"

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Listen I know it's hard to believe that I am an enigma. But I really believe in my principles. I would die before being a prole taker. You sheep simply can't comprehend my reality.

 

[blackascoal]

Listen I know it's hard to believe that I am an enigma. But I really believe in my principles. I would die before being a prole taker. You sheep simply can't comprehend my reality.

I'll applaud your so-called 'principled' stance that isn't after you're dead.

 

[Althea]

In my opinion they shouldn't, from a business point of view, be forced by federal law to treat someone in need of medical help that doesn't have insurance or a way to pay for the service but from a medical point of view doctors take an oath to do no harm and so in a true emergency situation I think the right thing to do is to treat them and then either work with them for a payment plan or have a state wide system in place to help cover costs for those situations. Again though this comes down to the state itself. In you are living in Texas and have a medical emergency and need medical care then the responsibility for paying for that service falls on you, however, if the state of Texas has a medical system in place that helps cover the cost of emergency care for someone that doesnt have insurance or no real way of paying then i'm fine with that process existing since it was decided by that state to create it.

So an individual loses the right to get paid for services, solely because he/she chose to be a doctor?

 

[Althea]

No I think that the right thing to do is to treat them but that the treatment should not be forced on them by the federal government, and yes a state in my opinion should have the right to provide no public healthcare program. If the citizens of that state decide through statewide elections to create a healthcare system then i'm 100% behind that.

I'm not asking if you feel the individual state should supply the healthcare. Cawacko seems to think that you advocate for a state to deny any health insurers from doing business in that state.

 

[cawacko]

No I think that the right thing to do is to treat them but that the treatment should not be forced on them by the federal government, and yes a state in my opinion should have the right to provide no public healthcare program. If the citizens of that state decide through statewide elections to create a healthcare system then i'm 100% behind that.

Althea, I don't need it clarified. It's what she wrote earlier and what she wrote here. Read what she is saying without putting your own spin on it.

 

[cawacko]

I'm not asking if you feel the individual state should supply the healthcare. Cawacko seems to think that you advocate for a state to deny any health insurers from doing business in that state.

No, that's not at all what I stated she said. Comprehension Althea.

 

[blackascoal]

No, that's not at all what I stated she said. Comprehension Althea.

She's advocating states rights .. thus only the state should decide healthcare coverage for its citizens.

 

[Snikitz]

A picture is emerging of the chaos surrounding the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. It turns that there never was a Republican plan to replace the ACA and Trump his party lied to the country for years about having a health care plan of their own.

A picture is emerging of the chaos surrounding the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. It turns that there never was a Republican plan to replace the ACA and Trump his party lied to the country for years about having a health care plan of their own.

The Washington Post painted a picture of a party that is a rudderless ship on health care:

While leaving most of the detail work to lawmakers, top White House aides are divided on how dramatic an overhaul effort the party should pursue. And the biggest wild card remains the president himself, who has devoted only a modest amount of time to the grinding task of mastering health-care policy but has repeatedly suggested that his sweeping new plan is nearly complete.
….
Yet some lawmakers, state leaders and policy experts who have discussed the matter with either Trump or his top aides say the administration is largely delegating the development of an ACA substitute to Capitol Hill. The president, who attended part of a lengthy heath-care policy session his aides held at Mar-a-Lago a week ago, appears more interested in brokering specific questions, such as how to negotiate drug prices, than in steering the plan’s drafting.
….
The legislative branch, the House first and foremost, is providing the policy,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who noted that the White House lacks “a big policy shop” and that Price and some key principals just recently got in place.

Republicans have been telling the country for years that they have a better way to do health care than the ACA, but this boast was a lie. Republicans in Congress have nothing. They are a deeply divided party that is getting zero leadership and guidance from their president. When Trump claimed that his health care plan would be immediately revealed during the campaign, he lied. When Republican Speaker Of The House Paul Ryan claimed that he had a better more patient-centered way on health care, that too was a lie. When Trump promised last week that his health care plan would be released soon, it was another lie.

Republicans have never had anything, which makes it likely that they are going to replace the ACA with nothing. Don’t be fooled by Republican promises; the plan has always been to take health care away and replace it with nothing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02...an-lied-years-obamacare-replacement-plan.html

it took 8 years for Obama to completely fuck up the health care system.

It might take Trump a few months to fix it.

 

[Norah]

So an individual loses the right to get paid for services, solely because he/she chose to be a doctor?

I'm sorry but that's not what I said

 

[blackascoal]

it took 8 years for Obama to completely fuck up the health care system.

It might take Trump a few months to fix it.

Republicans have had almost 7 years to come up with their own plan.

Oh wait .. it's hard. :0)

 

[Norah]

I'm not asking if you feel the individual state should supply the healthcare. Cawacko seems to think that you advocate for a state to deny any health insurers from doing business in that state.

No I do not believe that a state should deny insurance providers in other states from doing business in that state. I'm not saying a state should be a sovereign nation or anything like that. I'm just saying that the federal government should not and can not force a state to provide healthcare and it also shouldn't force citizens to have healthcare or else face a fine.

 

[Norah]

She's advocating states rights .. thus only the state should decide healthcare coverage for its citizens.

Tax payer funded healthcare yes, if that state wants to provide such a thing, but otherwise you'd buy your insurance through private providers of your choice nationwide.

 

[Norah]

Republicans have had almost 7 years to come up with their own plan.

Oh wait .. it's hard. :0)

One of the main reasons some republicans oppose the Trump replacement plan is because of entitlements and tax credits. Followed by the other big reason some oppose it which is the replacing of it. This is the difference between a populist trying to replace a universal healthcare program instead of doing what a conservative would do which is just repeal it in my opinion. Right now many republicans and pro-Trump politicians are trying to figure out the best way to make money off of the program and subsidize those that play ball. In my opinion very little will change in the ACA because of this. I'd be shocked if it gets repealed or even replaced.

 

[blackascoal]

Tax payer funded healthcare yes, if that state wants to provide such a thing, but otherwise you'd buy your insurance through private providers of your choice nationwide.

Any idea how much stress, problems, debt, and death comes with that?

Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy.

 

[Micawber]

Mostly the things that have affected me, or more often me through my parents, and will affect me unless things change are all of the regulations, permits, requirements placed on farms and ranches. Most of my college tuition is paid for through raising livestock and selling them at auction. I raised three championships heifers while I was in middle school and high school which has paid for most of my education so far, and while Texas thankfully is kind to people like my parents and their businesses there are still plenty of federal regulations through the EPA and department of agriculture that makes farming and ranching a headache. There are other examples of regulations not related to livestock management but that's one example. Everybody is different though. What affects me daily may not even affect a minute of your life.

Are you against the ends or stated purposes of the laws that affect agriculture or just the means and "headache." Left to provincial devices, would localities address the ends or purposes of those unspecified rules? You shouldn't trust New York or London to self police banking that may affect you anymore than I should trust dairies to ensure my milk is wholesome. Localities may know more about things on the ground, but they also know how to prefer their self interests.

 

[CFM]

Do you live in the projects?

What the fuck does the projects have to do with this conversation?

You who claims to abhor racism.

Seems you automatically assumed "the projects" meant black people. That's the sign of a racist.

 

[CFM]

Any idea how much stress, problems, debt, and death comes with that?

Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy.

If someone goes bankrupt due to medical bills, it's the fault of bleeding hearts like you. You claim to care. Prove it by preventing those bankruptcies using your money to pay their bills. If you cared, when someone was in such a situation, you'd all get together and chip in to stop it. That you don't is proof that your claims are nothing more than empty words.

 

[CFM]

Any idea how much stress, problems, debt, and death comes with that?

Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy.

If someone goes bankrupt due to medical bills, it's the fault of bleeding hearts like you. You claim to care. Prove it by preventing those bankruptcies using your money to pay their bills. If you cared, when someone was in such a situation, you'd all get together and chip in to stop it. That you don't is proof that your claims are nothing more than empty words.