- Jul 16, 2011
- 21,086
- 10,778
- 1,245
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump’s former health secretary: Americans will pay more because GOP weakened Obamacare
- Thread starter Synthaholic
- Start date
by removing the individual mandate, trump has assured that obamacare will collapse of its own weight. When young healthy people are not forced to contribute, the program will swiftly run out of money. good riddance.
Not quite. The individual mandate was the most obvious means of funneling money to the insurance industry, but Congress didn't stop there. A whole host of tax incentives and subsidies are still in effect, still pushing people into buying more insurance than they need. Still propping up the failed business model of 'group' insurance.
deanrd
Gold Member
- May 8, 2017
- 29,411
- 3,633
- 290
- Banned
- #25
That's 10% minimum average EVERY year.You Trump rubes believed Agent Orange when he told you he would give you better healthcare and cheaper. When are you going to wake up and admit he’s a con man?
Trump’s former health secretary: Americans will pay more because GOP weakened Obamacare
President Trump's former top health official on Tuesday said the Republican tax law would raise the cost of health insurance for some Americans because it repealed a core provision of the Affordable Care Act.
Tom Price, Trump's first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said people buying insurance on government-run marketplaces will face higher prices because the tax law repealed the ACA's individual mandate. The mandate had forced most Americans to have health coverage or face a financial penalty.
“There are many, and I’m one of them, who believes that that actually will harm the pool in the exchange market, because you’ll likely have individuals who are younger and healthier not participating in that market, and consequently that drives up the cost for other folks within that market,” Price said at the World Health Care Conference in Washington.
Price's comments are in line with predictions from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which in November projected 13 million fewer Americans would have health insurance by 2027 as a result of the elimination of the individual mandate. The CBO also said average premiums in the exchanges would increase by about 10 percent in most years over the next decade, compared with a scenario in which the mandate had been left in place.
The states where this makes the most impact are Trump Voter states. Already in Appalachia, infant mortality is up and life expectancy is way down. Red States are typically more poor because they don't believe in education. So taking away the government subsidies means they will have to rely on emergency room care.
Also without the government subsidies and fewer people on healthcare means many rural hospitals will close. In many poor Trump communities, the hospital is the biggest employer.
So Trump voters are going to get fuked in every way possible.
Racism has consequences. The only reason many of those racist Trump voters hated Obamacare was because it had the word "Obama" in it. It was a vote against Obama, not healthcare. Now, they cut off nose to spite face and are going to have to live with putting their children and other family members in jeopardy just because they hate black people and by proxy, Obama. Tough.
- Thread starter
- #26
Your eyes broken? Can’t read the gas signs? Or is it the math?
cute meme Synth,
How about some FACTS to back your meme up....
- Thread starter
- #27
The taxes were there when ObamaGas was under $2.00, dumbass. Now it’s over $3.00 for TrumpGas.dunno where you're living, but here, gas prices are up just about 15%, and half of the price of gas is TAXES. If you want cheap gas, take off the taxes.
- Thread starter
- #29
The core problem with ACA isn't the bill itself - which is disaster in its own right - but the fact that its most irrational "feature" is actually quite popular with voters: namely the requirement that insurance companies cover people who are already sick.
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,227
- 790
- 140
" Throwing Fits "
* Survive Will It *
Thus , the affordable care act was recently funded by congress for those affording to purchase subsidized insurance from federal exchanges administered by privatized insurance providers .
* Bass Ackwards *
The growth in costs to health care for government as a portion of the national debt is a fiscal concern .
In essence , government sought to negotiate and purchase health insurance for any individual earning between 0% and 400% of the poverty line , and progressively set monthly reimbursements to those individuals depending upon their earning percentage .
The affordable care act did get government out of the medical insurance business , by shifting government administration for medicaid claims to the private health care industry for management of patient records , premium collection , cost schedules and payments for treatment .
Prior to the affordable care act , government interfaced with private health care providers , set cost schedules to pay for billed procedures , and paid for the balance through collected taxes or increased national debt to creditors .
After the affordable care act , private insurers collect premiums and actuaries calculate methods to offsets losses through private investment including liquidity in the money supply .
As government cannot be supposed to subsidize or socialize insurance premiums for individuals with gross earnings beyond 400% of the poverty line , government does not have any say and cannot leverage any penalty upon those individuals for not holding personal insurance .
Removing the individual mandate was a political cop out for the republicans who wanted a tax increase on the poor , since the affordable care act does not completely compensate those qualifying for socialized insurance , and removing the individual mandate only exacerbates the original problem that medicaid payments by government are a compelling concern because its costs adds to the national debt .
Thus , those individuals opting out of paying the premiums and bilking the government when they are admitted for medical treatment are costing taxpayers by not contributing their part for the overall costs of citizen health care to government .
The affordable care act changes the means by which the statistic of cost to government for citizen health care are calculated ; and , whether the affordable care act has been or is expected to be less costly to government and more efficient and effective for private citizens and health care providers has yet to be presented to the public for evaluation .
The primary issue is the whimsical manner by which private health care providers bill and by which private insurers make payment decisions for valid costs of treatments .
These health care issues can be wildly indeterminate : paying cash for a procedure is a different cost to paying for the same procedure with HSA that is different than paying for the same procedure through the insurance provider ; procedures have different costs depending upon the service provider ; whether a pharmacy is a friendly affiliate of ones health care network determines cost of medications .
* Survive Will It *
The program is designed so that the government will compensate individuals with earnings between 0% and 400% of the poverty line so that their out of pocket maximum does not exceed some progressive percentage of their gross income .by removing the individual mandate, trump has assured that obamacare will collapse of its own weight. When young healthy people are not forced to contribute, the program will swiftly run out of money. good riddance.
Thus , the affordable care act was recently funded by congress for those affording to purchase subsidized insurance from federal exchanges administered by privatized insurance providers .
* Bass Ackwards *
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text ...; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.We don't want government in the medical insurance business. When are you liars going to realize this? The government has no business there. But I do thank Trump for one thing; Getting rid of the unholy tax if you couldn't afford insurance placed up us by butt boi barry.
The growth in costs to health care for government as a portion of the national debt is a fiscal concern .
In essence , government sought to negotiate and purchase health insurance for any individual earning between 0% and 400% of the poverty line , and progressively set monthly reimbursements to those individuals depending upon their earning percentage .
The affordable care act did get government out of the medical insurance business , by shifting government administration for medicaid claims to the private health care industry for management of patient records , premium collection , cost schedules and payments for treatment .
Prior to the affordable care act , government interfaced with private health care providers , set cost schedules to pay for billed procedures , and paid for the balance through collected taxes or increased national debt to creditors .
After the affordable care act , private insurers collect premiums and actuaries calculate methods to offsets losses through private investment including liquidity in the money supply .
As government cannot be supposed to subsidize or socialize insurance premiums for individuals with gross earnings beyond 400% of the poverty line , government does not have any say and cannot leverage any penalty upon those individuals for not holding personal insurance .
Removing the individual mandate was a political cop out for the republicans who wanted a tax increase on the poor , since the affordable care act does not completely compensate those qualifying for socialized insurance , and removing the individual mandate only exacerbates the original problem that medicaid payments by government are a compelling concern because its costs adds to the national debt .
Thus , those individuals opting out of paying the premiums and bilking the government when they are admitted for medical treatment are costing taxpayers by not contributing their part for the overall costs of citizen health care to government .
The affordable care act changes the means by which the statistic of cost to government for citizen health care are calculated ; and , whether the affordable care act has been or is expected to be less costly to government and more efficient and effective for private citizens and health care providers has yet to be presented to the public for evaluation .
The primary issue is the whimsical manner by which private health care providers bill and by which private insurers make payment decisions for valid costs of treatments .
These health care issues can be wildly indeterminate : paying cash for a procedure is a different cost to paying for the same procedure with HSA that is different than paying for the same procedure through the insurance provider ; procedures have different costs depending upon the service provider ; whether a pharmacy is a friendly affiliate of ones health care network determines cost of medications .
Last edited:
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
No doubt.All of the GOP hanky panky since 2010 on ACA will inevitably result in single payer being rammed down our throats.
deanrd
Gold Member
- May 8, 2017
- 29,411
- 3,633
- 290
- Banned
- #33
Because let them die works so well as a cost saver. I'm sure most Trump voters would agree. Because they are able to explain that to their sensible families.The core problem with ACA isn't the bill itself - which is disaster in its own right - but the fact that its most irrational "feature" is actually quite popular with voters: namely the requirement that insurance companies cover people who are already sick.
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,227
- 790
- 140
" Way Off Base "
* Reaching Out *
Before the ACA , the statistic of government expense for citizen health care was measured as the total of direct payments from government to private health care providers for medical services rendered to the uninsured , that is similar with a single-payer system .
After the ACA , the statistic of government expense for citizen health care is measured as the total of direct payments from government to private insurance agencies to administer patient records and to administer compensation of costs for patient treatment , that is similar with a multi-payer system .
The ACA represents government negotiating health insurance policy preferences on behalf of citizens , as private entities would negotiate insurance policy preferences on behalf of themselves or their employees , again , as occurs in multi-payer systems .
The ACA includes a tax on individuals whose annual earnings are between 100% and 400% of the poverty line , where the tax is money not compensated to those individuals and the tax varies by factors ; see references , below .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_tax_credit
* Reaching Out *
The ACA changed the statistic of government expense for citizen health care from one similar with a single-payer system to one similar with a multi-payer system .No doubt.All of the GOP hanky panky since 2010 on ACA will inevitably result in single payer being rammed down our throats.
Before the ACA , the statistic of government expense for citizen health care was measured as the total of direct payments from government to private health care providers for medical services rendered to the uninsured , that is similar with a single-payer system .
After the ACA , the statistic of government expense for citizen health care is measured as the total of direct payments from government to private insurance agencies to administer patient records and to administer compensation of costs for patient treatment , that is similar with a multi-payer system .
The ACA represents government negotiating health insurance policy preferences on behalf of citizens , as private entities would negotiate insurance policy preferences on behalf of themselves or their employees , again , as occurs in multi-payer systems .
The ACA includes a tax on individuals whose annual earnings are between 100% and 400% of the poverty line , where the tax is money not compensated to those individuals and the tax varies by factors ; see references , below .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare
Single-payer healthcare is a healthcare system financed by taxes that covers the costs of essential healthcare for all residents, with costs covered by a single public system (hence 'single-payer').[1][2] Alternatively, a multi-payer healthcare system is one in which private, qualified individuals or their employers pay for health insurance with various limits on healthcare coverage via multiple private or public sources.[3][4]
Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). "Single-payer" describes the mechanism by which healthcare is paid for by a single public authority, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work, which may be public, private, or a mix of both.[5][6]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
To help households between 100–400% of the Federal Poverty Line afford these compulsory policies, the law provides insurance premium subsidies. Other individual market changes include health marketplaces and risk adjustment programs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_tax_credit
The premium tax credit (PTC) is a refundable tax credit in the United States. It is payable by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to eligible households that have obtained healthcare insurance by a healthcare exchange (marketplace) in the tax year. It can be paid in advance directly to a healthcare insurance company to offset the cost of monthly health insurance premiums.
The tax credit is part of a host of Affordable Care Act tax provisions, introduced by the IRS in 2014,[1][2] and is meant to extend health insurance coverage to 18 million lower and middle-income Americans.[3]
There are three factors that determine if a household is eligible to receive the PTC:
Household income
Household size
State of residence
Individuals planning to use the filing status Married Filing Separately (MFS) are not eligible for the PTC.[7]
There are four factors that determine the amount of the PTC:
Household income
Size of household
Age of individuals making up the household
State county of residence
Households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level are eligible to receive federal subsidies for policies purchased via an exchange.[70][71] Subsidies are provided as an advanceable, refundable tax credits.[72][73] Additionally, small businesses are eligible for a tax credit provided that they enroll in the SHOP Marketplace.[74] Under the law, workers whose employers offer affordable coverage will not be eligible for subsidies via the exchanges. To be eligible the cost of employer-based health insurance must exceed 9.5% of the worker's household income.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
Obamacare wasn't even health care. It was government-mandated insurance that provided very little in actual medical care.
Obamacare wasn't even health care. It was government-mandated insurance that provided very little in actual medical care.
And I suppose you don't have ins now and are letting tax payers pick up you bills.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
The core problem with ACA isn't the bill itself - which is disaster in its own right - but the fact that its most irrational "feature" is actually quite popular with voters: namely the requirement that insurance companies cover people who are already sick.
You won't need to worry about that in the future:
The Justice Department wrote in a filing Friday that it would not defend ObamaCare's protections for people with pre-existing conditions, siding in large part with a challenge to the law brought by a coalition of Republican-led states.
The states, and the Justice Department, argue that Congress's repeal of the tax penalty associated with ObamaCare's individual mandate makes the law's protections for people with pre-existing conditions unconstitutional.
House Dems demand answers from HHS on DOJ's ObamaCare decision
The core problem with ACA isn't the bill itself - which is disaster in its own right - but the fact that its most irrational "feature" is actually quite popular with voters: namely the requirement that insurance companies cover people who are already sick.
You won't need to worry about that in the future:
The Justice Department wrote in a filing Friday that it would not defend ObamaCare's protections for people with pre-existing conditions, siding in large part with a challenge to the law brought by a coalition of Republican-led states.
The states, and the Justice Department, argue that Congress's repeal of the tax penalty associated with ObamaCare's individual mandate makes the law's protections for people with pre-existing conditions unconstitutional.
House Dems demand answers from HHS on DOJ's ObamaCare decision
I'll believe it when the ink dries on the Court decision striking it down. I don't have high hopes. Congress is loathe to give up power once they've grabbed it.
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,227
- 790
- 140
" Equal Endowment Challenging Positive Liberties "
A technical element within the ACA that may be unconstitutional is whether the government is capable of fining individuals for not having health insurance when their net earnings are greater than 400% of the poverty line .
It is certainly clear that those between 100% and 400% are being taxed under the ACA because only a portion of total costs to purchase private health care insurance is being remitted back to those taxpayers .
For those with earnings between 100-400% who optioned to purchase a plan compliant with the ACA , did the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums make individual health affordable and effective for the group , as would be expected for just compensation from property being taken by government in the form of a forced financial transaction ?
Consider if the ACA were to compensate individuals with earnings above 400% of the poverty line ; would remitting all but some portion of health care costs be consistent with a constitutional requirement for receiving just compensation ?
How does the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums paid by individuals in the 100-400% translate into a congruent proportion of respective health care costs to government ?
How does the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums paid by individuals over 400% translate into a congruent proportion of respective health care costs to government ?
When government chose to subsidize health insurance premiums for the earnings range of 100-400% , was that group chosen as those most representative of costs to government health care ?
If those above 400% also represent a significant portion of those most representative of costs to government health care , why were proportional incentives as tax credits not extended to those with earnings greater than 400% of the poverty line ?
* CBO Assessing Affordability Groups "I'll believe it when the ink dries on the Court decision striking it down. I don't have high hopes. Congress is loathe to give up power once they've grabbed it.
A technical element within the ACA that may be unconstitutional is whether the government is capable of fining individuals for not having health insurance when their net earnings are greater than 400% of the poverty line .
It is certainly clear that those between 100% and 400% are being taxed under the ACA because only a portion of total costs to purchase private health care insurance is being remitted back to those taxpayers .
For those with earnings between 100-400% who optioned to purchase a plan compliant with the ACA , did the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums make individual health affordable and effective for the group , as would be expected for just compensation from property being taken by government in the form of a forced financial transaction ?
Consider if the ACA were to compensate individuals with earnings above 400% of the poverty line ; would remitting all but some portion of health care costs be consistent with a constitutional requirement for receiving just compensation ?
How does the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums paid by individuals in the 100-400% translate into a congruent proportion of respective health care costs to government ?
How does the portion of uncompensated costs for monthly premiums paid by individuals over 400% translate into a congruent proportion of respective health care costs to government ?
When government chose to subsidize health insurance premiums for the earnings range of 100-400% , was that group chosen as those most representative of costs to government health care ?
If those above 400% also represent a significant portion of those most representative of costs to government health care , why were proportional incentives as tax credits not extended to those with earnings greater than 400% of the poverty line ?
" Equal Endowment Challenging Positive Liberties "
"Positive Liberties" is an oxymoron. The power to force someone else to act against their will is not a 'liberty'. It's a power that is held only by government and should only be used in the protection of actual liberty.
Monk-Eye
Gold Member
- Feb 3, 2018
- 3,227
- 790
- 140
" Attempting To Clarify Confusion "
* Seems Okay From Here *
A positive wright is any law phrased prescribing an authoritative or assertive action of government .
A negative liberty is analogous with a freedom to act independent of authoritative or assertive actions of government or to act independent of authoritative or assertive actions of other private individuals .
A negative wright can provide negative liberties only from the authoritative or assertive actions of government .
A positive wright may provide negative liberties to individuals for freedom to act independent from the authoritative or assertive actions of other private individuals .
Alternatively , a positive wright may provide positive liberties that endow private individuals with greater capabilities than have had they been allowed to act independently of government or of other private individuals .
* Tax Structures *
A direct tax is known as a per capitation tax , or an excise tax , that is based upon the value of private property , and in theory direct taxes are to be used as near as possible for the direct benefit of the individual taxed .
An indirect tax is known as a commerce tax that is based upon the volume of currency exchanged during sales transactions , and in theory indirect taxes may be used indirectly for the administration of commerce infrastructure .
* Back To The Issue *
It does not make sense to me that positive liberties is an oxymoron , even though it may be conjectured that the endowments providing an individual with more resources that they had originally are wholly illegitimate .
Local property taxes are direct taxes often applied to local schools and many do not even have children enrolled and those enrolled are being given positive liberties .
Gasoline taxes are indirect taxes fabled for use indirectly through the administration of commerce infrastructure for highways , bridges and roads .
Income taxes are indirect taxes based upon an exchange of labor for wages .
* Seems Okay From Here *
A negative wright is any law phrased proscribing an authoritative or assertive action of government ." Equal Endowment Challenging Positive Liberties "
"Positive Liberties" is an oxymoron. The power to force someone else to act against their will is not a 'liberty'. It's a power that is held only by government and should only be used in the protection of actual liberty.
A positive wright is any law phrased prescribing an authoritative or assertive action of government .
A negative liberty is analogous with a freedom to act independent of authoritative or assertive actions of government or to act independent of authoritative or assertive actions of other private individuals .
A negative wright can provide negative liberties only from the authoritative or assertive actions of government .
A positive wright may provide negative liberties to individuals for freedom to act independent from the authoritative or assertive actions of other private individuals .
Alternatively , a positive wright may provide positive liberties that endow private individuals with greater capabilities than have had they been allowed to act independently of government or of other private individuals .
* Tax Structures *
A direct tax is known as a per capitation tax , or an excise tax , that is based upon the value of private property , and in theory direct taxes are to be used as near as possible for the direct benefit of the individual taxed .
An indirect tax is known as a commerce tax that is based upon the volume of currency exchanged during sales transactions , and in theory indirect taxes may be used indirectly for the administration of commerce infrastructure .
* Back To The Issue *
It does not make sense to me that positive liberties is an oxymoron , even though it may be conjectured that the endowments providing an individual with more resources that they had originally are wholly illegitimate .
Local property taxes are direct taxes often applied to local schools and many do not even have children enrolled and those enrolled are being given positive liberties .
Gasoline taxes are indirect taxes fabled for use indirectly through the administration of commerce infrastructure for highways , bridges and roads .
Income taxes are indirect taxes based upon an exchange of labor for wages .
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 123
- Replies
- 57
- Views
- 430
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 180
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 792
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 123
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 247
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 214
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 147
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 52
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8018
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 467
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-