Once again, WHERE is the tRump healthcare plan????....

T

Tacomaman

Verified User
All we heard tRump yap about was REPEAL and REPLACE Obamacare. Yet, there is STILL no tRump healthcare plan.
tRump has had FOUR years to present his plan. tRump had TWO years of undivided government to pass his plan. To date, we STILL have nothing from tRump, other than his obsession with Obama.

I do wonder how many trumpanzees have pre-existing conditions and how they and their families will suffer from their misplaced devotion to a glorified "con-man".
 
"Joe Biden’s campaign just pulled the most deliciously petty prank on Donald Trump.

"The former vice president pushed back hard on Trump’s lack of a COVID-19 plan during Thursday’s night final presidential debate, and now his campaign is capitalizing on that point with a hilarious new gag website.

"The campaign tweeted a link to trumpcovidplan.com Friday with the caption, “After eight months of this pandemic, we finally found President Trump’s plan to beat COVID-19.”" (source: https://www.thewrap.com/biden-campa...s-trumps-non-existent-covid-plan-gag-website/)

The referenced link:

https://trumpcovidplan.com/

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

For those unable to navigate the above link, screenshot:

3QPcPkQ.jpg
 
Tacomaman said:
Deflecting again. The SUBJECT of the post is WHERE is tRump's healthcare plan????????
Have you seen a tRump healthcare plan?
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate question. No, I haven't seen Trump's plan. I know the Democrat ones all SUCK with a capital SUCK, so it really doesn't matter if Trump even has a plan. And, it's still a relevant question: Why does government need to be involved in our health care AT ALL?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's a legitimate question. No, I haven't seen Trump's plan. I know the Democrat ones all SUCK with a capital SUCK, so it really doesn't matter if Trump even has a plan. And, it's still a relevant question: Why does government need to be involved in our health care AT ALL?
Click to expand...

So, your position is that if one side has a bad plan, the other side doesn't need ANY plan? Okay you go with that. Let's leave tens of millions of Americans with no health care in the middle of a pandemic. What could go wrong?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's a legitimate question. No, I haven't seen Trump's plan. I know the Democrat ones all SUCK with a capital SUCK, so it really doesn't matter if Trump even has a plan. And, it's still a relevant question: Why does government need to be involved in our health care AT ALL?
Click to expand...

I never said it wasnt a legit question. I said that it wasnt the subject of this discussion.
Now, if Obamacare sucks so badly, why does the protection for PEC's have so much support?
 
And yes it does matter that tRump has no plan. tRump promised to repeal and REPLACE Obamacare. Obviously, tRump lied.
 
Tacomaman said:
All we heard tRump yap about was REPEAL and REPLACE Obamacare. Yet, there is STILL no tRump healthcare plan.
tRump has had FOUR years to present his plan. tRump had TWO years of undivided government to pass his plan. To date, we STILL have nothing from tRump, other than his obsession with Obama.

I do wonder how many trumpanzees have pre-existing conditions and how they and their families will suffer from their misplaced devotion to a glorified "con-man".
Click to expand...

The Repugnant Party has been promising a new plan since the Gingrich days in 1994, and have not presented one since. Never will.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's a legitimate question. No, I haven't seen Trump's plan. I know the Democrat ones all SUCK with a capital SUCK, so it really doesn't matter if Trump even has a plan. And, it's still a relevant question: Why does government need to be involved in our health care AT ALL?
Click to expand...

Medicare Part D put forth by the Repugnant ones sucked until the Democrats worked with them to fix it. Your Repugnant ones refused to work with the Dems to fix the ACA, and have done everything they can to make it fail. Now they will more then likely get the Courts to do so even as the people approve of the plan. And you will set there with your head up your ass while more people die, and applaud the Repugnant ones for doing so.
 
Concart said:
So, your position is that if one side has a bad plan, the other side doesn't need ANY plan? Okay you go with that. Let's leave tens of millions of Americans with no health care in the middle of a pandemic. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

This is a complete logical fallacy. My position is:

There are many ways for paying for healthcare.
Government is one of those ways.

The question becomes What is the best way to pay for healthcare?
If the answer to that question is something other than government paying for it, then yes, the other side (politically and operating government) doesn't need a plan. If a government plan is in place and it is not the best way to pay for healthcare then that method should be marginalized or abolished because it is inefficient and costly compared to alternatives.

Your statement "Let's leave tens of millions of Americans with no health care in the middle of a pandemic. What could go wrong?" is just a complex question fallacy and not only irrelevant but inaccurate and, put bluntly, idiotic.
 
Old Trapper said:
Medicare Part D put forth by the Repugnant ones sucked until the Democrats worked with them to fix it. Your Repugnant ones refused to work with the Dems to fix the ACA, and have done everything they can to make it fail. Now they will more then likely get the Courts to do so even as the people approve of the plan. And you will set there with your head up your ass while more people die, and applaud the Repugnant ones for doing so.
Click to expand...

Got news for you... Medicare sucks. Part A, B, C, D and anything else about it sucks.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This is a complete logical fallacy. My position is:

There are many ways for paying for healthcare.
Government is one of those ways.

The question becomes What is the best way to pay for healthcare?
If the answer to that question is something other than government paying for it, then yes, the other side (politically and operating government) doesn't need a plan. If a government plan is in place and it is not the best way to pay for healthcare then that method should be marginalized or abolished because it is inefficient and costly compared to alternatives.

Your statement "Let's leave tens of millions of Americans with no health care in the middle of a pandemic. What could go wrong?" is just a complex question fallacy and not only irrelevant but inaccurate and, put bluntly, idiotic.
Click to expand...

Nope. Insurance companies are for profit organizations. For that reason, if left unregulated they will remove protections on pre-conditions, impose annual and lifetime benefit limits, and take any steps necessary to maximize profits. The idea that government has no role in regulating the insurance industry and medical providers is laughable. All you need to do is look at where we were before the ACA, and understand we will go right back there, or worse. That would remove existing healthcare coverage from tens of millions of Americans. This is not a fallacy, it is a fact.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Got news for you... Medicare sucks. Part A, B, C, D and anything else about it sucks.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is not shared by the majority of seniors. Part C is simply Part A and Part B. Part D has improved, but was not and still is not a part of the core medicare benefit.
 
Concart said:
Nope. Insurance companies are for profit organizations. For that reason, if left unregulated they will remove protections on pre-conditions, impose annual and lifetime benefit limits, and take any steps necessary to maximize profits. The idea that government has no role in regulating the insurance industry and medical providers is laughable. All you need to do is look at where we were before the ACA, and understand we will go right back there, or worse. That would remove existing healthcare coverage from tens of millions of Americans. This is not a fallacy, it is a fact.
Click to expand...

First, not all insurers are for profit. For example, Blue Cross, Blue Shield is non-profit so you are wrong there. Being regulated is different from the government actually running them. Some may impose such limits based on good actuarial practice.
I never stated that government doesn't have a roll in regulating an industry, I stated government doesn't have a roll running industry.

Where we were before the ACA? About where we are now only worse off for it. There are two groups covered by the ACA. Persons who buy individual policies for healthcare. This group is variously no better off or in most cases worse off because the ACA has a shitload or rules and regulations about what policies must include and not include and cover. Choice is limited. That hurts as many buyers as helps them. There are parts of Arizona where you have one policy option from one company, take it or leave it under Obamacare... Some choice there...
The other group are people now covered by expanded Medicaid / Medicare in states that chose to participate. That has generally seen taxes in those states rise as the cost of the program shifts from the federal government to the states--something designed into Obamacare deliberately.

If the ACA disappeared tomorrow there is no guarantee that expanded Medicaid / Medicare wouldn't continue anyway. Those buying policies on the Obamacare market would simply return to buying individual policies on the private market like they did before. It's very likely abolition of Obamacare would have little net effect on the market other than driving prices down.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
First, not all insurers are for profit. For example, Blue Cross, Blue Shield is non-profit so you are wrong there. Being regulated is different from the government actually running them. Some may impose such limits based on good actuarial practice.
I never stated that government doesn't have a roll in regulating an industry, I stated government doesn't have a roll running industry.

Where we were before the ACA? About where we are now only worse off for it. There are two groups covered by the ACA. Persons who buy individual policies for healthcare. This group is variously no better off or in most cases worse off because the ACA has a shitload or rules and regulations about what policies must include and not include and cover. Choice is limited. That hurts as many buyers as helps them. There are parts of Arizona where you have one policy option from one company, take it or leave it under Obamacare... Some choice there...
The other group are people now covered by expanded Medicaid / Medicare in states that chose to participate. That has generally seen taxes in those states rise as the cost of the program shifts from the federal government to the states--something designed into Obamacare deliberately.

If the ACA disappeared tomorrow there is no guarantee that expanded Medicaid / Medicare wouldn't continue anyway. Those buying policies on the Obamacare market would simply return to buying individual policies on the private market like they did before. It's very likely abolition of Obamacare would have little net effect on the market other than driving prices down.
Click to expand...
NO. Expanded Medicare is gone the second the Supreme Court strikes down the law. So are protections for pre existing conditions. BCBS plans are the most poorly run health plans in the country. Florida Blue is always at the top of the list for mlr rebates. Sorry but you are flat out wrong on this. The ACA is gone and there IS NO PLAN to replace it. That’s the point. ‘Maybe you’ll be covered’ isn’t a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top