Trump to gut ACA via executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This isn't "his" plan. This is the best he could do working with he a-hole Rs. He should have shut them out (a la GOP process) to get it right.

NO, this was HIS plan. O B A M A C A R E.

As of yesterday it’s Trumpcare, good luck.

No, it's not. It will always be Obamacare.

Nope, he broke the china in the store, he owns it now.

The china was crumbling before Trump was even elected. (If it wasn't, he might not have won.)

Do republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ever??? What does it take? Such a sleazy bunch.

Do you possess any self-awareness whatsoever?

Obama picked a bad, fundamentally flawed health care plan. The only way it can possibly continue to hobble along is if Trump decides to prop it up. And Obama is in no way to blame?

I'll play. Sure, Obama has some blame. Now who else is to blame?


Or is it just Obama....according to you?

If I'm an architect who designs and builds a fundamentally flawed house, I can be mad that the home owner didn't spend more money on repairs or that the repairmen could have done a better job, but I'm the one who is primarily to blame.

So, in other words, for you, all blame goes to Obama.

I'm not surprised.

If you have any spare time today, maybe you can use it to work on your reading comprehension.

Or maybe you could work on yours since my question was direct....and you didn't answer it.

Here is a refresher:

Question:

Now who else is to blame?[i]

Your Answer:
I can be mad that the home owner didn't spend more money on repairs or that the repairmen could have done a better job, but I'm the one who is primarily to blame

Now, since I initially conceded that Obama had some blame, it would stand to reason that your answer would include people OTHER than Obama, who would share blame. Your response doesn't cast blame on anyone other than Obama (though you try to shade this using the word "primarily"), even while you state that one could be 'mad' at others.

See how that works?

Don't worry about it. You tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like he is defying the law. And he will unilaterally own the fallout, although it seems certain to face legal challenges.

For a party that just went on about DACA needing to be handled by the law, this must surely be an affront to you.

He doesn't care. He's turning healthcare into Trump University. It will be one big scam that leaves people with a meaningless piece of paper-- in this case, instead of a crap degree, it will be meaningless insurance not worth the paper it's written on. This is how he does things. He's built hotels but I credit his father for that success. He hardly cares about building any quality products. This man isn't and will never be a great businessman or inventor. He's no Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Madam CJ Walker or Madame Curie... most would compare him to PT Barnum but at least Barnum knew how to put on a better show. I know two-year-olds with more empathy than this man; he could care less if anyone has good healthcare.

It is sad. People are going to buy "insurance" and when they get sick they will realize they aren't covered for anything.

You just described how a lot of people feel about Obamacare.

Obamacare has problems but was a start in the right direction. I'd rather help someone pay for their insurance than pay for one more night at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster because Camp David isn't good enough for Our Dear Leader. I'd take subsidizing the poor over subsidizing those two tacky properties and their tacky owner any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of people who voted for Trump and against their own financial interest (e.g., the working poor) won't care. They may or may not understand health insurance on a mirco or macro level--but that's not the point. They think that Trump is shaking things up, and for them, that is all that matters. This is not about rational economic thinking or any sense of distributive economic justice for these voters.

Insurance companies ought to pull out of red states until this is fixed.

Maybe insurance companies should pull out of the urban areas, where lots of poor Democrats are located. Interesting how you protect the rights to Democrats to get free shit paid for by working-class people, but are only to happy to see working-class people get the shaft.

You better hope Trump doesn't challenge you to an IQ test.

When liberals have no intelligent response, they resort to an insult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like he is defying the law. And he will unilaterally own the fallout, although it seems certain to face legal challenges.

For a party that just went on about DACA needing to be handled by the law, this must surely be an affront to you.

He doesn't care. He's turning healthcare into Trump University. It will be one big scam that leaves people with a meaningless piece of paper-- in this case, instead of a crap degree, it will be meaningless insurance not worth the paper it's written on. This is how he does things. He's built hotels but I credit his father for that success. He hardly cares about building any quality products. This man isn't and will never be a great businessman or inventor. He's no Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Madam CJ Walker or Madame Curie... most would compare him to PT Barnum but at least Barnum knew how to put on a better show. I know two-year-olds with more empathy than this man; he could care less if anyone has good healthcare.

It is sad. People are going to buy "insurance" and when they get sick they will realize they aren't covered for anything.

You just described how a lot of people feel about Obamacare.

Obamacare has problems but was a start in the right direction. I'd rather help someone pay for their insurance than pay for one more night at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster because Camp David isn't good enough for Our Dear Leader. I'd take subsidizing the poor over subsidizing those two tacky properties and their tacky owner any day.

It's not about YOU subsidizing the poor. It's about the fact that millions of middle-income self-emoloyed people, who were happy with their insurance , now are stuck with expensive plans that don't cover anything, thanks to Ocare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, in the liberals' arrogance and oft-quoted remarks about Democrat demographics, they were SURE they would win the next election, so when the monstrosity failed - as they knew it would - they figured Hillary (the heir apparent) would race in with a rescue. That would be single-payer, which the country, in arms over the failed Ocare, would then be willing to accept. It's classic Alinsky.

This is the crux of it! The assumption was that the next president would be a Democrat who would rescue Medicare. It obviously did not work out that way.

The other assumption was that once ACA was in effect for a few years, it would be difficult to rollback because it is always difficult to take away a benefit - that assumption was correct. It is why the Republicans who passed numerous bills to repeal ACA through the years confident that Obama would veto the bills - so it was just a pointless exercise to appeal to the base. Now that they can actually repeal ACA without fear of a veto they don't want to do so, not because they think ACA was well structured - it was not - but because they are afraid of the consequences in terms of the impact on those who are enjoying the benefit in their states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, in the liberals' arrogance and oft-quoted remarks about Democrat demographics, they were SURE they would win the next election, so when the monstrosity failed - as they knew it would - they figured Hillary (the heir apparent) would race in with a rescue. That would be single-payer, which the country, in arms over the failed Ocare, would then be willing to accept. It's classic Alinsky.

This is the crux of it! The assumption was that the next president would be a Democrat who would rescue Medicare. It obviously did not work out that way.

The other assumption was that once ACA was in effect for a few years, it would be difficult to rollback because it is always difficult to take away a benefit - that assumption was correct. It is why the Republicans who passed numerous bills to repeal ACA through the years confident that Obama would veto the bills - so it was just a pointless exercise to appeal to the base. Now that they can actually repeal ACA without fear of a veto they don't want to do so, not because they think ACA was well structured - it was not - but because they are afraid of the consequences in terms of the impact on those who are enjoying the benefit in their states.

Then why aren't they working with Dems to make it better[i]? To fix the issues? To make it a stronger benefit for the American people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This isn't "his" plan. This is the best he could do working with he a-hole Rs. He should have shut them out (a la GOP process) to get it right.

NO, this was HIS plan. O B A M A C A R E.

As of yesterday it’s Trumpcare, good luck.

No, it's not. It will always be Obamacare.

Nope, he broke the china in the store, he owns it now.

The china was crumbling before Trump was even elected. (If it wasn't, he might not have won.)

Do republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ever??? What does it take? Such a sleazy bunch.

Do you possess any self-awareness whatsoever?

Obama picked a bad, fundamentally flawed health care plan. The only way it can possibly continue to hobble along is if Trump decides to prop it up. And Obama is in no way to blame?

And Republicans, with a majority in the House and Senate tried 6 times under a Republican president to vote for something better. How did that work out? If there is something better out there, why aren't Republicans legislating it, rather than just destroying what is in place? If there is a better plan, they can put it in place now. But all they can seem to do is undermine the plan in place. Mainstream RS said repeal with a delay to have an orderly replace. Trump,said repeal immediate-- F--k replace. Where is the replace from the party in charge of Congree and the with the presidency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, in the liberals' arrogance and oft-quoted remarks about Democrat demographics, they were SURE they would win the next election, so when the monstrosity failed - as they knew it would - they figured Hillary (the heir apparent) would race in with a rescue. That would be single-payer, which the country, in arms over the failed Ocare, would then be willing to accept. It's classic Alinsky.

This is the crux of it! The assumption was that the next president would be a Democrat who would rescue Medicare. It obviously did not work out that way.

The other assumption was that once ACA was in effect for a few years, it would be difficult to rollback because it is always difficult to take away a benefit - that assumption was correct. It is why the Republicans who passed numerous bills to repeal ACA through the years confident that Obama would veto the bills - so it was just a pointless exercise to appeal to the base. Now that they can actually repeal ACA without fear of a veto they don't want to do so, not because they think ACA was well structured - it was not - but because they are afraid of the consequences in terms of the impact on those who are enjoying the benefit in their states.

Then why aren't they working with Dems to make it better[i]? To fix the issues? To make it a stronger benefit for the American people?

DP. There's no way to fix it. The flaws run to its very foundation. And Obama knew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like he is defying the law. And he will unilaterally own the fallout, although it seems certain to face legal challenges.

For a party that just went on about DACA needing to be handled by the law, this must surely be an affront to you.

He doesn't care. He's turning healthcare into Trump University. It will be one big scam that leaves people with a meaningless piece of paper-- in this case, instead of a crap degree, it will be meaningless insurance not worth the paper it's written on. This is how he does things. He's built hotels but I credit his father for that success. He hardly cares about building any quality products. This man isn't and will never be a great businessman or inventor. He's no Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Madam CJ Walker or Madame Curie... most would compare him to PT Barnum but at least Barnum knew how to put on a better show. I know two-year-olds with more empathy than this man; he could care less if anyone has good healthcare.

It is sad. People are going to buy "insurance" and when they get sick they will realize they aren't covered for anything.

You just described how a lot of people feel about Obamacare.

Obamacare has problems but was a start in the right direction. I'd rather help someone pay for their insurance than pay for one more night at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster because Camp David isn't good enough for Our Dear Leader. I'd take subsidizing the poor over subsidizing those two tacky properties and their tacky owner any day.

ACA was Obama's key legislative victory in his 8 years in office. It's what he chose to put all his weight and momentum behind after rising to the presidency. It's basically his legacy.

And even his supporters now admit that it's merely a "start in the right direction."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurers in 14 states assumed CSRs would continue, so they're screwed—expect insurers to exit. This includes:

Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas and Vermont.

Off the top of my head, Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas are Red/Purple states.

I wonder how they will deal with an immediate collapse in their markets and how their voters feel today?

Maryland and New Jersey can likely do something to bridge the gap, though voters in Garrett, Alleghany and Washington County will definitely feel the pinch.

Except the cost-sharing subsidies go to the much poorer people, and the struggling working class (say a couple of HS grads earning $30k each) will continue to get insurance premium subsidies. And THEY are the core of the "idiots in flyover country" that you elitists demean, and who largely voted for Trump. And THAT is exactly what these "barely-getting-by" had been complaining about - that poor people got all the government goodies while they were left holding the bag.

OTOH, the poor people - urban cities in the liberal states, like CA, IL, an NY - are primarily the Hillary voters who wanted to keep the goodies flowing. That would be fine and dandy if money were unlimited, but it's not, and so now they will feel the pain that Obamacare caused the middle class (who get NO subsidies at all), while leaving the working class - the Trump voters - unaffected for the most part. It's a good start in forcing the Congress to act - and that includes addressing the high cost of medical care itself.

Not true. The poorest in our society will continue to get Medicare. It's the lower middle class/working poor who are going to get stiffed by the removal of the subsidies for health insurance and go without needed medical care. Trump seems to enjoy breaking things, but has no talent for building anything.

Well, it all depends on what you consider lower-middle/working poor, which in DCUMland is highly skewed. The lower-middle and working class are NOT getting the premium subsidies removed. The working poor (those making $20,000 a year) WILL lose the cost-sharing subsidies, so instead of paying $5 to see the doctor, they'll have to pay $20. Will it hurt? Sure. Will it keep them from going to the doctor? Possibly. But that's what has been happening with the TRUE middle class (the $50K earner) for years now under Obamacare - only in addition to not having their insurance cover anything, they're paying a fortune in premiums for the privilege. Where was the outcry for the middle class who have had to go without needed medical care?

For example, my neighbor was bragging to me that under Ocare, her mother (an immigrant from 40 years ago who never learned English and never had a job) gets her eye treatments for FREE, thanks to Ocare. (My neighbor could well have helped her mother pay for them, but better someone else pay, right?). She did not realize that I have the same eye condition, and require the same eye treatments. They are a fortune! I cannot afford to go according to the recommended schedule, and am stretching them out. WHY should I have to pay $800/month in premiums and not be able to afford the treatments I need, after 30 years of paying federal income tax, and yet the neighbor's poor mother gets the treatments for free?

Maybe before we hand out all the free medical care to poor people, we should look to their successful adult children to help pay their medical costs. Why toss it over to a middle-class person to provide medical care for your parents when you are able to do it yourself?

You realize the working poor are on Medicaid, right? ACA is different. This does not touch the $20,000 a year person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like he is defying the law. And he will unilaterally own the fallout, although it seems certain to face legal challenges.

For a party that just went on about DACA needing to be handled by the law, this must surely be an affront to you.

He doesn't care. He's turning healthcare into Trump University. It will be one big scam that leaves people with a meaningless piece of paper-- in this case, instead of a crap degree, it will be meaningless insurance not worth the paper it's written on. This is how he does things. He's built hotels but I credit his father for that success. He hardly cares about building any quality products. This man isn't and will never be a great businessman or inventor. He's no Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Madam CJ Walker or Madame Curie... most would compare him to PT Barnum but at least Barnum knew how to put on a better show. I know two-year-olds with more empathy than this man; he could care less if anyone has good healthcare.

It is sad. People are going to buy "insurance" and when they get sick they will realize they aren't covered for anything.

You just described how a lot of people feel about Obamacare.

Obamacare has problems but was a start in the right direction. I'd rather help someone pay for their insurance than pay for one more night at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster because Camp David isn't good enough for Our Dear Leader. I'd take subsidizing the poor over subsidizing those two tacky properties and their tacky owner any day.

ACA was Obama's key legislative victory in his 8 years in office. It's what he chose to put all his weight and momentum behind after rising to the presidency. It's basically his legacy.

And even his supporters now admit that it's merely a "start in the right direction."

Judging by your emoji, you are simply amusing yourself with this comment...and not trying to make any particular point, amiright?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of people who voted for Trump and against their own financial interest (e.g., the working poor) won't care. They may or may not understand health insurance on a mirco or macro level--but that's not the point. They think that Trump is shaking things up, and for them, that is all that matters. This is not about rational economic thinking or any sense of distributive economic justice for these voters.

Insurance companies ought to pull out of red states until this is fixed.

Maybe insurance companies should pull out of the urban areas, where lots of poor Democrats are located. Interesting how you protect the rights to Democrats to get free shit paid for by working-class people, but are only to happy to see working-class people get the shaft.

Democrats make it so obvious that they dislike the working class. And then they can't understand why the working class won't vote for them.

And yet Dems are on here saying this sucks because it hits the working class hardest. Whereas the poor and working poor are on Medicaid, and not affected. Seems like Dems are the ones on here who care the Trump just f--kid over the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, in the liberals' arrogance and oft-quoted remarks about Democrat demographics, they were SURE they would win the next election, so when the monstrosity failed - as they knew it would - they figured Hillary (the heir apparent) would race in with a rescue. That would be single-payer, which the country, in arms over the failed Ocare, would then be willing to accept. It's classic Alinsky.

This is the crux of it! The assumption was that the next president would be a Democrat who would rescue Medicare. It obviously did not work out that way.

The other assumption was that once ACA was in effect for a few years, it would be difficult to rollback because it is always difficult to take away a benefit - that assumption was correct. It is why the Republicans who passed numerous bills to repeal ACA through the years confident that Obama would veto the bills - so it was just a pointless exercise to appeal to the base. Now that they can actually repeal ACA without fear of a veto they don't want to do so, not because they think ACA was well structured - it was not - but because they are afraid of the consequences in terms of the impact on those who are enjoying the benefit in their states.

Yes, that's also the crux. Once you devise a system in which people get free stuff, it is next to impossible to roll it back. People start to feel entitled to it, and either forget or don't care that others are sacrificing to provide it for them. They feel it is now "theirs" - and hands off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like he is defying the law. And he will unilaterally own the fallout, although it seems certain to face legal challenges.

For a party that just went on about DACA needing to be handled by the law, this must surely be an affront to you.

He doesn't care. He's turning healthcare into Trump University. It will be one big scam that leaves people with a meaningless piece of paper-- in this case, instead of a crap degree, it will be meaningless insurance not worth the paper it's written on. This is how he does things. He's built hotels but I credit his father for that success. He hardly cares about building any quality products. This man isn't and will never be a great businessman or inventor. He's no Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Madam CJ Walker or Madame Curie... most would compare him to PT Barnum but at least Barnum knew how to put on a better show. I know two-year-olds with more empathy than this man; he could care less if anyone has good healthcare.

It is sad. People are going to buy "insurance" and when they get sick they will realize they aren't covered for anything.

You just described how a lot of people feel about Obamacare.

Obamacare has problems but was a start in the right direction. I'd rather help someone pay for their insurance than pay for one more night at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster because Camp David isn't good enough for Our Dear Leader. I'd take subsidizing the poor over subsidizing those two tacky properties and their tacky owner any day.

ACA was Obama's key legislative victory in his 8 years in office. It's what he chose to put all his weight and momentum behind after rising to the presidency. It's basically his legacy.

And even his supporters now admit that it's merely a "start in the right direction."

Judging by your emoji, you are simply amusing yourself with this comment...and not trying to make any particular point, amiright?

I will spell it out for you: Obama failed. He did a bad job and squandered an unprecedented opportunity. As a result, millions of Americans suffer and will continue to suffer.

Is my point clearer now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, in the liberals' arrogance and oft-quoted remarks about Democrat demographics, they were SURE they would win the next election, so when the monstrosity failed - as they knew it would - they figured Hillary (the heir apparent) would race in with a rescue. That would be single-payer, which the country, in arms over the failed Ocare, would then be willing to accept. It's classic Alinsky.

This is the crux of it! The assumption was that the next president would be a Democrat who would rescue Medicare. It obviously did not work out that way.

The other assumption was that once ACA was in effect for a few years, it would be difficult to rollback because it is always difficult to take away a benefit - that assumption was correct. It is why the Republicans who passed numerous bills to repeal ACA through the years confident that Obama would veto the bills - so it was just a pointless exercise to appeal to the base. Now that they can actually repeal ACA without fear of a veto they don't want to do so, not because they think ACA was well structured - it was not - but because they are afraid of the consequences in terms of the impact on those who are enjoying the benefit in their states.

Then why aren't they working with Dems to make it better[i]? To fix the issues? To make it a stronger benefit for the American people?

DP. There's no way to fix it. The flaws run to its very foundation. And Obama knew it.

Okay, assuming you are right. Where is repeal and replace. This destroys the ACA. Where is the great replacement plan?