The Rubes Paid For A Repeal/Replacement, Huckster Trump Is Giving Them A Forgery

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump last October: "My first day in office, I'm going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law, and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability. You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be so easy."

Thanks for posting that Trump said Congress was supposed to put a bill on his desk. Talk to Ryan and the RINOS

 

[g5000]

ObamaCare lives. That's the bottom line, rubes.

ObamaCare lives.

 

[g5000]

The apprentice President will take credit for this, even though he had nothing to do with it. And he will keep calling it a repeal and replacement.

And the rubes will bleev it. They will bleev what they are told to bleev, and they will parrot what they are told to parrot.

Some of the media is calling this a repeal, and that plays right into Trump's hands. They need to call it what it actually is.

ObamaCare lives.

 

[bendog]

cuts more from Medicaid than the House bill. LOL Opoid abuse too.

Medicaid block grants have been on Paul Ryan's agenda for a very long time. His fingerprints are all over this.

Yeah, and what's beyond ironic that if Obama had just proposed expanding Medicaid back in 08, the gop would have gone along. Overall, in the big picture of Medicaid, the costs are not from caring for well people who don't have insurance. The gop didn't gripe about Schips when they were passing it. It's the chronically ill/injured and old people in nursing homes that really cost. So, it's a tax cut for the 1% paid for by the most vulnerable.

btw, I'm not adverse to changing Medicaid. I am against capping services for people with cerebral palsy though. JFC

 

[g5000]

cuts more from Medicaid than the House bill. LOL Opoid abuse too.

Medicaid block grants have been on Paul Ryan's agenda for a very long time. His fingerprints are all over this.

Yeah, and what's beyond ironic that if Obama had just proposed expanding Medicaid back in 08, the gop would have gone along. Overall, in the big picture of Medicaid, the costs are not from caring for well people who don't have insurance. The gop didn't gripe about Schips when they were passing it. It's the chronically ill/injured and old people in nursing homes that really cost. So, it's a tax cut for the 1% paid for by the most vulnerable.

btw, I'm not adverse to changing Medicaid. I am against capping services for people with cerebral palsy though. JFC

Ryan's argument is that the states know better how to distribute Medicaid services than the federal government does. And I totally agree with that.

However, the benchmarks used for the block grants ensures that the grants will not keep up with need or inflation over time, and Medicaid will drastically degrade.

Then we will see Congress annually haggling over a "Medicaid fix". Another ******* political football used for corrupt assholes to trade in exchange for favors for special interests.

 

[Anathema]

I, for one, paid for REPEAL without replacement and this is definitely NOT what I signed up for.

Just **** in the House, and Senator who votes for it will never get a vote from me for any office they ever run for.

 

[dblack]

Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill are repeals or replacements of ObamaCare.

They are hack jobs. They remove the taxes which pay for ObamaCare, so it will run up even huger deficits. They water down the health insurance requirements at the state level. States can waive them.

Why would you need to waive the ObamaCare minimum coverage requirements if ObamaCare is repealed? Such questions never occur to the rubes who think this is a repeal and replacement.

Yet again, the rubes have not caught on they are being massively hoaxed.

It's very unlikely they ever will.

 

[bendog]

cuts more from Medicaid than the House bill. LOL Opoid abuse too.

Medicaid block grants have been on Paul Ryan's agenda for a very long time. His fingerprints are all over this.

Yeah, and what's beyond ironic that if Obama had just proposed expanding Medicaid back in 08, the gop would have gone along. Overall, in the big picture of Medicaid, the costs are not from caring for well people who don't have insurance. The gop didn't gripe about Schips when they were passing it. It's the chronically ill/injured and old people in nursing homes that really cost. So, it's a tax cut for the 1% paid for by the most vulnerable.

btw, I'm not adverse to changing Medicaid. I am against capping services for people with cerebral palsy though. JFC

Ryan's argument is that the states know better how to distribute Medicaid services than the federal government does. And I totally agree with that.

However, the benchmarks used for the block grants ensures that the grants will not keep up with need or inflation over time, and Medicaid will drastically degrade.

Then we will see Congress annually haggling over a "Medicaid fix". Another ******* political football used for corrupt assholes to trade in exchange for favors for special interests.

At first glance, I think it's a tax cut for the 1%. They've bitched about beign taxed to pay for their employees hc for 8 years.

Then, it's shave off Medicaid to get some money to buck up subisdies, which was the big gripe about Obamacare ... too high deductables. I doubt there's enough money there to really accomplish what they needed to accomplish.

And as you say, kick the Medicaid can down the road. I have mixed feelings about giving it to the states to administer. Do we want people with Lou Gehrig's Disease to have talking computers?

 

[g5000]

I, for one, paid for REPEAL without replacement and this is definitely NOT what I signed up for.

Just **** in the House, and Senator who votes for it will never get a vote from me for any office they ever run for.

Trump gloated over the House bill and called it a repeal and replacement of ObamaCare.

He lied. ObamaCare lives.

Trump: ‘Make No Mistake, This is Repeal and Replace of Obamacare’

 

[g5000]

Then a few days ago, the schizo called the House bill mean!

Trump, in Zigzag, Calls House Republicans’ Health Bill ‘Mean’

 

[The Derp]

When will people learn that you cannot guarantee universal coverage in a for-profit private insurance system??? Insurance companies only profit when they deny care. So if an insurance company cannot deny care anymore, then that kills their profit margins. So we are faced with a very stark choice; corporate profits or patient needs?

 

[g5000]

When will people learn that you cannot guarantee universal coverage in a for-profit private insurance system??? Insurance companies only profit when they deny care. So if an insurance company cannot deny care anymore, then that kills their profit margins. So we are faced with a very stark choice; corporate profits or patient needs?

The more government has become involved in the health care market, the more expensive health care has become.

Meanwhile, despite cars getting more and more expensive, and thus auto repair getting more expensive, the cost of auto insurance has decreased.

You should be buying your health insurance the same way you buy your auto insurance.

We need LESS government in health insurance, not more!

 

[The Derp]

The more government has become involved in the health care market, the more expensive health care has become.

Is that really the case, though?

For example, here's the HHS budget for Medicare. The administrative costs amount to 1% of the entire program's budget.

And here's the budget for Aetna. The administrative costs amount to 17% of their entire budget.

So clearly, in this instance at least, the high costs aren't caused by the government, but rather the private insurance companies.

Another good example is Medicare Part-D. The 2003 legislation prohibited Medicare from using its leverage as the largest payer in the market to bargain for cheaper drug prices. That was done for the specific purpose of protecting drug company profits. If Medicare were allowed to bargain for cheaper drugs, it certainly would result in cheaper drug costs.

 

[The Derp]

Meanwhile, despite cars getting more and more expensive, and thus auto repair getting more expensive, the cost of auto insurance has decreased.

You can't compare auto insurance to health insurance. For one, auto insurance isn't a necessity. You can live without a car (and millions do). But health care is a necessity, as everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. Also, auto insurance is national whereas health insurance is state-by-state because every state regulates health insurance differently, yet auto insurance doesn't have that obstacle. I think we just want to stick to health insurance in this debate.

You should be buying your health insurance the same way you buy your auto insurance.

We shouldn't be buying health insurance at all. We should have a single entity that administers reimbursement, and that entity should not have a profit motive which results in less spent on health care and more into the pockets of insurance companies.

We need LESS government in health insurance, not more!

We don't need for-profit health insurance at all. Since the function of an insurance company is purely administrative, there exists no benefit to patients for having how health care is paid privatized and for-profit. All insurance companies do is restrict access to health care. They play no part in how health care is delivered to you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Meanwhile, despite cars getting more and more expensive, and thus auto repair getting more expensive, the cost of auto insurance has decreased.

You can't compare auto insurance to health insurance. For one, auto insurance isn't a necessity. You can live without a car (and millions do). But health care is a necessity, as everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. Also, auto insurance is national whereas health insurance is state-by-state because every state regulates health insurance differently, yet auto insurance doesn't have that obstacle. I think we just want to stick to health insurance in this debate.

You should be buying your health insurance the same way you buy your auto insurance.

We shouldn't be buying health insurance at all. We should have a single entity that administers reimbursement, and that entity should not have a profit motive which results in less spent on health care and more into the pockets of insurance companies.

We need LESS government in health insurance, not more!

We don't need for-profit health insurance at all. Since the function of an insurance company is purely administrative, there exists no benefit to patients for having how health care is paid privatized and for-profit. All insurance companies do is restrict access to health care. They play no part in how health care is delivered to you.

And there ya have it folks...

 

[g5000]

Also, auto insurance is national whereas health insurance is state-by-state because every state regulates health insurance differently, yet auto insurance doesn't have that obstacle.

Precisely my point!

You should be able to pick up the phone and call any health insurance company in the country. You can't do that right now. In fact, the government has done everything it can to make you a hostage to your employer and the government. Right now, you are forced into a single take-it-or-leave it proposition from your employer.

If you could call any insurance company in the country, you would have maximum bargaining leverage! And you would be the decider for what fits your needs. Not your employer, and not the government. The Left has done everything they can to prevent this from happening.

Here's the thing: The government is the biggest player in the insurance market, and it gets to write the rules for its competitors!

How's that been working for you?

We need LESS government in health insurance, not more!

We don't need for-profit health insurance at all. Since the function of an insurance company is purely administrative, there exists no benefit to patients for having how health care is paid privatized and for-profit. All insurance companies do is restrict access to health care. They play no part in how health care is delivered to you.

You are clearly unaware that insurance companies don't make the bulk of their profits from the difference between premium income and medical outlays. They actually have very, very thin margins. The way insurance companies make money is by investing those marginal profits.

 

[g5000]

These dipshits have willingly turned their very HEALTH over to the central government.

Jesus Christ!

 

[g5000]

The more you concentrate power in the federal government, the easier you make it for someone to capture that power.

It is completely insane to give your very health over to a central government, and then act all shocked and surprised when a special interest grabs control over your survival.

The Left never ******* learns! "Gee, we gave more power to the federal government and a special interest captured it. We clearly need to give MOAR power to the federal government."

This is retardation squared.

CUBED!

 

[The Derp]

Precisely my point!You should be able to pick up the phone and call any health insurance company in the country. You can't do that right now. In fact, the government has done everything it can to make you a hostage to your employer or the government.

No, the individual states have done that because, thanks to the 10th Amendment, each state regulates health insurance differently. There are states right now where you can buy plans from out of state...GA is one of those states. It doesn't work here. So if you are advocating on behalf of tearing down state-based regulations for health insurance, how exactly does that scenario not end up in a situation where we have Too Big To Fail insurers? Since we already know that you cannot provide universal coverage and maintain profit margins for insurers, wouldn't a breakdown of state barriers to health insurance result in the same shitty thing that happened with the Wall Street banks? Or the cable companies? Or the cell phone companies? Or the credit cards? All breaking down state barriers does is result in a "race to the bottom", which does not benefit patients. The natural direction of the market is to consolidate, so what will end up happening is that you will end up with mega-corporations that will eventually have to be bailed out because for-profit health insurance is not a good business model in the realm of universal coverage.

Here's the thing: The government is the biggest player in the insurance market, and it gets to write the rules for its competitors!

No, it doesn't! The opposite is actually the case. It was the drug companies that wrote the legislation in 2003 that prevents Medicare from using its leverage as the largest payer. Medicare isn't even allowed to "play in the market" like private insurers can, to the detriment of patients.

You are clearly unaware that insurance companies don't make the bulk of their profits from the difference between premium income and medical outlays. They actually have very, very thin margins. The way insurance companies make money is by investing those marginal profits.

So if they're not profitable, if they're not doing anything to improve or enhance how your provider delivers health care to you, if they can keep as much as 20% of your premium for themselves, why are they necessary?