Democrats The Republicans' Target Is The ACA!

[Daryl Hunt]

In a Social/Capital System you have the best of both worlds.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You get the worst of both worlds. You get all the downsides of centralized control, with few of the supposed benefits. Likewise, you get all the avarice of the free market, but it's dominated by rent-seeking corporations who get in bed with government.

I guess we need to have all those socialist pay a visit to your neighborhood and remove all those Socialist services that they installed.

That would be great, but I don't expect such radical change. Simply not adding to the problem would be sufficient.

I would rather the rest of us get the services and we just rip yours out. Much simpler that way and more cost effective. No Internet, no electricity, no silly bitching on the internet that way.

Whatever. I'm not interested in your hare-brained strawmen. The topic is health care. I think it would be insane to socialize it in the US. Especially given how dysfunctional our politics are. Every election would be a partisan battle over health care. Each party would use state control over health care to strong arm society. No thanks.

Then we need to get rid of the dysfunction.

Sure. But until we do, more government is just throwing fuel on the fire.

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top. We started around here but the Party of the Rump is fighting not only the Democrats but the Republicans as well. And they are a nasty lot.

 

[dblack]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

 

[dblack]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

 

[Dagosa]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

It’s impossible to have the well trained Law enforcement everywhere in the US with the consistency it needs without federal grants and fbi spinsored training. Neither police, nor and rescue can exist on a professional level everywhere without federal assistance and accountability.

 

[dblack]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

It’s impossible to have the well trained Law enforcement everywhere in the US with the consistency it needs without federal grants and fbi spinsored training. Neither police, nor and rescue can exist on a professional level everywhere without federal assistance and accountability.

LOL -- where do you think the fed gets its money? Seriously, we don't to send our money to DC so everyone can skim from it. We can just keep it local, where we can keep an eye on it.

 

[Dagosa]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

It’s impossible to have the well trained Law enforcement everywhere in the US with the consistency it needs without federal grants and fbi spinsored training. Neither police, nor and rescue can exist on a professional level everywhere without federal assistance and accountability.

LOL -- where do you think the fed gets its money? Seriously, we don't to send our money to DC so everyone can skim from it. We can just keep it local, where we can keep an eye on it.

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

It’s impossible to have the well trained Law enforcement everywhere in the US with the consistency it needs without federal grants and fbi spinsored training. Neither police, nor and rescue can exist on a professional level everywhere without federal assistance and accountability.

LOL -- where do you think the fed gets its money? Seriously, we don't to send our money to DC so everyone can skim from it. We can just keep it local, where we can keep an eye on it.

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We need to start at the Local Level and work our way to the top.

That would be a much better approach that nationalizing it.

Well, Bud, that's the way it started and that's the way it needs to be fixed.

Agreed. The more localized government is the better.

It’s impossible to have the well trained Law enforcement everywhere in the US with the consistency it needs without federal grants and fbi spinsored training. Neither police, nor and rescue can exist on a professional level everywhere without federal assistance and accountability.

And the addition of the Civilian Action Workers for thing that don't require any need for force. Or the embedding of the Police into the neighborhoods. And a lot more. New Haven, NJ has done all that and has a 50% cut in violence and the deaths between cops and citizens is now zero. All through a program that was setup under Obama/Biden that has been swept under the rug. It still is there, just not being used except in those places that are already doing it. It costs the Feds almost zero since almost all costs are paid locally once it's setup and running. But Rump won't do it because it is a Obama leftover he can't get rid of. The Courts won't allow it. But the Courts can't force him to use it.

 

[Dagosa]

Afraid of the truth I see.

 

[dblack]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

[Dagosa]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

You asked where the Fed gets the money didn’t you ? The only excess for federal programs comes from donor states...

 

[Dagosa]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

 

[dblack]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

So you disagree with Daryl Hunt.

 

[Natural Citizen]

They want government control of health care just as bad as Democrats do. They just want their brand on it.

Yep.

 

[Dagosa]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

So you disagree with Daryl Hunt.

Maybe in your conservative black and white mind.

I completely disagree with healthcare starting locally. I want to be able to go anywhere in the country to states with better providers and get consistently good coverage. Medicare does that better then any private plan before Obamacare. People should not be tied to employment that provides good healthcare when they should have quality coverage regardless of employment. It’s a RIGHT, not a privilege. It says so in the constitution. Read it.....every dictionary includes healthcare under “welfare“ as does every state and federal agency. We decided that in the courts decades ago when we passed Medicare. It’s not debatable, never has been.

 

[badbob85037]

The ACA is a district of abortion, circumcision, vaccination, orthodontial tooth-straightening, prescription glasses, wisdom tooth extraction, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, and civil commitment for mental health adjudication.

Damn docs can roast in hell. Yeah, health care would be nice what a dream, but the Christian–In–Name–Only Democrat+RINO docs can't get over their bloodlust for the carnage of human flesh, and their ardent desire for malicious disfigurement, wholesale mayhem, and murder-for-hire, not to mention all their fraudulent billing, covetousness, and greediness for filthy luc

What democrats need to do is stand trail for plotting to over throw the US Government with forged evidence, forged documents, lies, FBI and CIA co-conspirators, Russian Agents

In regards to the Presidential race Democrats are allowing themselves to be distracted they are unduly focusing on the pandemic and the major issues that stem from it. Democrats should also have as a top priority stopping the elimination of the Affordable Care Act they should be acting like they are vital fire fighters responding to a five alarm fire over this issue because if President Trump wins re-election the Republican power brokers have in their cross hairs the Affordable Care Act they are going to either get rid of it through the court system or through the Congress in their eyes it is way too expensive for the Federal Budget it creates too much of a need to increase taxes to pay for it taxes of course they abhor, the fact that it assures good health care for hundreds of millions of Americans they don't give a damn over! If you read between the lines at the last debate President Trump is very hungry to repeal the ACA and for me if you focus on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal you get an idea of the priorities of the wealthy and the big business executives that pour incredible amounts of money into America's elections and often are in firm control of this country and the WSJ editorial pages have been targeting and leveling illegitimate criticisms against the ACA and false claims about Republican alternatives to this law.

Democrats have to really get on the ball about this issue, they should be shining a titanic size spotlight on the Republicans alarming efforts to repeal and replace the ACA in Congress, Democrats should be focusing on the Republican Senate effort, the Health Care Freedom Act of 2017 (HCFA) colloquially called the "Skinny Repeal" bill that was just one vote short of becoming law but for the late Senator John McCain's extraordinary virtuous no vote on the bill on the Senate floor and the House of Representative effort called the American (should have used the word Martian) Health Care Act (AHCA) which passed the House with President Trump in a White House celebration ceremony calling a "great" plan and as time went by and the merits of the bill were evaluated President Trump joined in the widespread American public's condemnation of it reportedly calling the bill "mean".



The Democrats need to talk about the Republicans record on healthcare they need to talk about what was in the Republican House's (AHCA) bill. It would have eliminated the ACA's expansion of Medicaid which allowed people whose income was 138% of the poverty rate to get health care thru the Medicaid program, in effect, throwing the working poor in the gutter. It would have eliminated the ACA's reduction of out-of-pocket limits for low and middle Americans so for these struggling Americans making under four hundred percent of the poverty rate if they faced significant health problems requiring extensive health care services the ACA's extremely valuable help in dealing with insurance co-pays would not be there for them! It would have changed how the Federal government pays its portion of the funding for state Medicaid programs it would have changed the funding from a "percentage" to a" per capita (enrollee)" method. The per capita method worked in a manner where a base year would have been chosen and the federal government would have determined how much money they were going to give a state for each enrollee for that year then for subsequent years they would just increase the base rate by the inflation rate; prudence knows that the average rise in health care costs for Americans over many years rises more than the health care cost portion of the consumer price index this Republican move was to shift this funding challenge to the states many whose finances are such they could not handle the problem. A large portion of seniors on Medicare are also in the Medicaid program as well as many disabled people, this Republican move would have likely resulted in a reduction of services to these important groups! The AHCA also would allow the states to allow health insurance companies in the individual insurance market to charge older Americans more for their health insurance plan there was no numerical ratio restrictions on the states, the ACA had a three to one ratio where older Americans could only be charged three times the premium charge going to younger Americans; this could readily lead to older Americans not able to afford health insurance in the individual market. The AHCA allowed states to do away with the essential benefit mandate of the Affordable Care Act which involves the mandates for health insurance plans to cover: Emergency Department Services, Hospitalization, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder services, prescription drugs, Rehabilitative services, laboratory services and chronic disease management services. The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of the AHCA and determined one year after this bill was enacted into law the uninsured rolls in America would increase by fourteen million people and nine years from passage the uninsured rolls would increase by twenty-three million people!



The Republican Senate effort, the Health Care Freedom Act of 2017 (In the July 27th 2017 Congressional Record SA 667 to SA267 for HR 1628) although it was not a direct dismantling of the ACA it was an extreme threat to the ACA and its great protections for American consumers. The way the Republican "Skinny Repeal" bill worked is it weakened the safeguards in the ACA which allowed a State to get a waiver from various ACA mandates. Specifically. it took away the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury's discretion to grant waivers if the State's met the ACA criteria for a waiver the respective Secretary had to grant the waiver, instead of six months to consider a waiver application the Republican bill gave a Secretary only forty-five days to do the evaluation and the waiver period was lengthened from five years to eight years and also a critical factor was that the Republican bill took away the power of the Secretary to cancel the waiver during an eight year period; so if the state plan in practice didn't meet the promises the Secretary would be stuck! The nickname of the bill was an accurate description of the practical impact of the legislation it would have been a repeal of the ACA, repeal thru subterfuge, with no guaranteed health insurance protections for the American people!



One thing that Democrats should do is not let President Trump get away with his claims about "pre-existing conditions". He says Americans in that status should not worry if the ACA is found unconstitutional you have my Executive Order on pre-existing conditions and that will take care of you. His Executive Order on this is just a policy commitment that people with that status should get good and affordable health insurance; his Executive Order even on its face references problems it claims the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protects these people, the language of the act allows a group insurance provider to not cover a pre-existing condition for a new enrollee for twelve months for a condition that the enrollee was treated for during the prior six months. Everyone should make no mistake if the ACA is repealed President Trump's Executive Order is completely worthless it won't compel one insurance company to provide a health insurance plan to even one person with a pre-existing condition. President Trump lacks knowledge about this whole issue before the ACA came into existence many Americans with serious pre-existing conditions did not have health insurance because the health insurance companies were going to charge them exorbitant yearly premiums for a plan because of their medical problems, some of these people were lucky enough to live in states which had a separate state run program for people with pre-existing conditions but even some of these states often had limited number of slots because the program had limited funds. Even if President Trump could through "Executive Order" order insurance companies operating in the individual health insurance market to offer health insurance to Americans with pre-existing conditions he does not have the authority to stop these insurance companies from underwriting the health insurance plans offered based on the applicants medical status and that is the crux of the problem, that is the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, on the overall health care problem for America "How does America provide health insurance plans to these Americans with serious health problems which require a lot of health care services and so obviously cost a lot of money?". If America loses the "ACA", America will be thrown into a health care crisis over this because tens of millions of Americans with a serious pre-existing condition won't be able to purchase health insurance that will cover them for their health problems!

I got an IDEA. Why don't u get a job and buy your own health care. Or are you expect me to pay for it. Typical useless democrat. ' Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do your country for'.

 

[badbob85037]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

So you disagree with Daryl Hunt.

Maybe in your conservative black and white mind.

I completely disagree with healthcare starting locally. I want to be able to go anywhere in the country to states with better providers and get consistently good coverage. Medicare does that better then any private plan before Obamacare. People should not be tied to employment that provides good healthcare when they should have quality coverage regardless of employment. It’s a RIGHT, not a privilege. It says so in the constitution. Read it.....every dictionary includes healthcare under “welfare“ as does every state and federal agency. We decided that in the courts decades ago when we passed Medicare. It’s not debatable, never has been.

Where in the Constitution does it say government will give you anything or do anything but leave you alone to run your life?

 

[justinacolmena]

What democrats need to do is stand trail for plotting to over throw the US Government with forged evidence, forged documents, lies, FBI and CIA co-conspirators, Russian Agents

Sure. Trial, not trail, you probably mean, but, well, the Democrats could probably just as well hit the road on that mountain of falsified and forged paperwork.

I got an IDEA. Why don't u get a job and buy your own health care. Or are you expect me to pay for it. Typical useless democrat. ' Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do your country for'.

1. There are people who need to be served. And when I say "served," I'm not talking about any kind of civil service of process. We're way past that point, because when I say "served," I am taking the Fifth Amendment to mean "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ..."
2. Stop committing me and others to unwanted healthcare and forcing unwanted medical services down our throat or under our skin. This is where the kind of "service" I am talking about is incurred.
3. "Just get a job." Somebody else has to own a business and have profitable use for my services in order for that to work. They are going to check my background, and find out that I have been legally adjudicated as fucking mental and shit for life in a court of law without recourse and without appeal.
4. The crooked doctors and corrupt cops who impose mental health law on us have yet to be punished for the crimes that they have committed and continue to commit against us. There is no doubt that they have been "served" in the sense of being made aware or informed of the nature and cause of our accusations against them in pursuance of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
5. There is a finding --- which ought to be self-evident --- that the vices of human trafficking and forcible prostitution prevail in all practices of mental health care. The type of "care" offered by predominantly young and female mental health therapists, as well as the manner in which such care is promoted and compelled, is evidence of the prevalence of vice.
6. It is not clear that there is any process short of execution without further warning to end such medical and legal malpractice in the area of mental health care.

 

[dblack]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

So you disagree with Daryl Hunt.

Maybe in your conservative black and white mind.

I completely disagree with healthcare starting locally. I want to be able to go anywhere in the country to states with better providers and get consistently good coverage. ...

And other people want different things. Some people don't want government interfering with their health care. Why is that so hard to accept? What's so wrong with live and let live?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Most from the donor states....so they can help many of the poorer red states.

Uh, ok.

The point was Daryl Hunt was right. The right way to do health care reform is start local. That way, everyone isn't committed to the same bad plan. We can see what works, and what doesn't, with putting all our eggs in one basket.

States don’t have the power and People in poorer red states don’t have the money to provide healthcare without federal assistance. Poorer red states suffer dramatically when federal funds don’t help.

So you disagree with Daryl Hunt.

Now you are telling him how he thinks? That's really poor thinking on your part to try that silly method. Try again. And use your word rather than try and make up words for someone else.