Trump to gut ACA via executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the proponents of ACA cannot get through their thick skulls is that it is structurally flawed and the only way to keep it going is to throw money into it. As some have argued the structural flaws were intentional because it would hasten the day when single payer health care would become inevitable and that was the ulterior goal. It was a plan that went awry because Hillary did not win the election and Trump, who is committed to repealing ACA through legislation or regulation or executive orders won the presidency.

I did not vote for Trump and dislike him but on this he is spot on - even if some of the Republican alternatives that did not get pass were not the answer either.

ACA needs to be destroyed before the Democrats and Republicans will come together to develop an alternative. As Pelosi and Schumer have made abundantly clear: they will not cooperate in any legislation that involves the repeal of ACA.

The ultimate solution will end up including components that both parties now view as anathema but which are needed before a viable, structurally sound alternative can be developed.

You are really stupid. Even if you destroy the ACA, republicans and democrats will never ever come together. I bet you believe in communism, Norman Rockwell, Ayn Rand, and all kinds of fairy tales like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. So the market collapses, the poor don't have insurance so go back to using the ER as a clinic and the rest of us have super inflated premiums to pick up the slack.

While the hope was that having insurance would stop people from using the ER as a clinic, those expectations were not met. It's going to take something more than insurance coverage to make it happen.

I guess you have missed the proliferation of day clinics with the ACA and its use by, well, everyone. The ER's have been in much better shape (not anywhere close to perfect) because of the clinics and the ACA.

I guess you've missed all the articles.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/tom-price/hhs-chief-tom-price-correct-er-use-obamacare/
"HHS chief Tom Price mostly correct that ER use is up since Obamacare"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/04/emergency-room-visits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/
"Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare"

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/02/18/obamacare-has-barely-made-a-dent-in-er-visits
"Obamacare Has Barely Made a Dent in ER Visits"

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/19/498526110/emergency-room-use-stays-high-in-oregon-medicaid-study
"Emergency Room Use Stays High In Oregon Medicaid Study"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-emergency-room-visits-keep-climbing-1430712061
"U.S. Emergency-Room Visits Keep Climbing"

https://californiahealthline.org/news/medi-cal-patients-flocking-to-ers-more-than-before-aca/
"Medi-Cal Patients Flocking To ERs More Than Before ACA"

And oh so many more.

[Anonymous]

I think it's idiotic to think Congress will make things better if Trump makes things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's idiotic to think Congress will make things better if Trump makes things worse.

Well, given the piece of garbage that Congress came up with passing ACA, they cannot do any worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's idiotic to think Congress will make things better if Trump makes things worse.

Well, given the piece of garbage that Congress came up with passing ACA, they cannot do any worse.

This is even stupider. Of course they could do worse. I hope they would not, but they could:
* tax health care benefits
* make it illegal for employers to pay for your health care
* make it illegal for health insurance to pay for birth control
etc etc etc

I am guessing you just typed this because you are an extremely sloppy thinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the proponents of ACA cannot get through their thick skulls is that it is structurally flawed and the only way to keep it going is to throw money into it. As some have argued the structural flaws were intentional because it would hasten the day when single payer health care would become inevitable and that was the ulterior goal. It was a plan that went awry because Hillary did not win the election and Trump, who is committed to repealing ACA through legislation or regulation or executive orders won the presidency.

I did not vote for Trump and dislike him but on this he is spot on - even if some of the Republican alternatives that did not get pass were not the answer either.

ACA needs to be destroyed before the Democrats and Republicans will come together to develop an alternative. As Pelosi and Schumer have made abundantly clear: they will not cooperate in any legislation that involves the repeal of ACA.

The ultimate solution will end up including components that both parties now view as anathema but which are needed before a viable, structurally sound alternative can be developed.

What you don't understand is that since Rs won't and can't come up with a better alternative, people - 70% of Americans - want to shore up ACA .

First, a plan put forward by either party to the exclusion of the other will more than likely fail because it will be ideological. It has to be something that both parties buy into which is why there will be components that both parties will want to resist.

As far as most Americans wanting to "shore up ACA", sure they do because once you give people a "benefit" it is very difficult to take it away from them - and that applies irrespective of which party they support. "Shoring up ACA" will be an unending process because it is structurally flawed. People like Pelosi and Schumer who say that the repeal of ACA is not on the table will only be willing to negotiate when they realize that ACA is going to implode and they - as well as Republicans - will face the wrath of voters if they don't do something.

I agree.. and McCain said something similar. So, what the Rs tried to do wasn't popular with some of the R voters, and Trump's EO will also not be popular with many. The point of this thread is Trump's EO. Like I said, it will make ACA worse, and that's worse than than ACA as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

What an insightful response that demonstrates your suoerior knowledge about it. Tyoical lib retort - a meaningless insult.

LOL, do you assume that everyone who knows you're clueless is a liberal?

No, but I assume that everyone who responds to a well-articulated explanation about price sensitivity with a six-word put-down IS a liberal.

Take an Econ course and learn why government-subsidized goods and services go UP in price.

Well, your assumptions are wrong. And, I have graduate-level courses in both econ, insurance, and health care. I'm sorry not to fit your very narrow world-view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

Is that a threat? You mean if I don't continue to suffer as a result of Obamacare - the most routine things are now completely unaffordable - in order for the poors to get free stuff, they will take to the streets and set my business on fire? That's called extortion.

News flash: The poors, as you so demeaningly refer to them, are not entitled to other people providing every penny of their medical care when they can't afford it themselves.

And it's hardly 32 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catastrophic policies are now OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

Yes they are, - and that's what insurance really should be for. You don't insure your car for oil changes or new tires, but for the major expenses. But Obama couldn't allow us to buy that catastrophic insurance because he needed more of us in the pool so that lower income would get every little sneeze and cough paid for.

I would much prefer to buy catastrophic care - or what the PP above you called "hospitalization" and what my oarents called "major medical." The problem is the minor things - a quick visit to the doctor for a throat swab - now runs into several hundred dollars, so people need to have coverage for that. IF every minor thing was NOT covered by insurance - for everyone - costs would come down.

In other words, our problem is not that we have too little insurance (as a nation). The problem is we have too MUCH. But if you have some people getting everything covered by insurance at no cost to them (the poor people), there is no price sensitivity for them - and the costs zoom. But then you have the LM people who do have to pay all the zoomed-up costs, and that's where we find ourselves now.

You're clearly clueless about health insurance.

What an insightful response that demonstrates your suoerior knowledge about it. Tyoical lib retort - a meaningless insult.

LOL, do you assume that everyone who knows you're clueless is a liberal?

No, but I assume that everyone who responds to a well-articulated explanation about price sensitivity with a six-word put-down IS a liberal.

Take an Econ course and learn why government-subsidized goods and services go UP in price.

Well, your assumptions are wrong. And, I have graduate-level courses in both econ, insurance, and health care. I'm sorry not to fit your very narrow world-view.

It's very simple, really. When things are free to the end user (because some entity is paying for it), the end user doesn't care about price. Do you think the poor person getting free care in the ER cares that I had to cancel my vacation because MY bill was $3000? Believe me, they don't care who pays for their health care or what sacrifices had to be made on their behalf as long as they get every penny covered. This entitlement attitude that liberals are driving has got to stop.

If car insurance policies covered oil changes, the price of oil changes would quadruple. People with insurance (paid for by someone else) won't care. The people who can't afford the insurance WILL care, as they get stuck with an unaffordable oil change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone whose employee premium, deductibles and copays have skyrocketed for their employer provided medical coverage, raise your hands.

Everyone who is paying more for medical insurance and getting less, raise your hands.

Tomorrow, when the sun comes up after the moon goes away are you going to believe that the sun made that happen?

Fact is, health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles have been increasing while coverage has been decreasing for many, many years; it's not new since the ACA.

Wait. Are you the PPP who said she had employer-sponsored health insurance? If so, you're not one to talk.

Pre-Ocrap, we didn't see annual increases of 50% and more - even doubling - while deductibles increasing....meaning....wait for it....we are paying much more now AND for much less coverage! Before, I had a reasonable co-pay for specialists, but now it's all out-of-pocket until I reach some godforsaken deductible. I used to pay $40 for labwork, and now it's $250 (the negotiated rate). I never paid $300 for a prescription before, but I do now!

And you know why? Because Obama worked it so the insurance companies would have to cover everybody for everything. There's no way an insurance company can come out ahead doing that without enough healthy people to offset the sick (which we don't have because an onerous penalty would have been ruled unconstitutional), and yet Obama, in his socialist dream state, went ahead with this anyway. So since the insurers couldn't get more money from the low-income, they turned to the middle-income for zooming premiums, Plus, they could make up the costs by also denying coverage until you reach an ever-increasing deductible.

I mean, really....is paying $24,000 a year (for a couple) on top of potentially another $13, 000 is costs counted as "insured"? When they couple is in their 50s and earning less than $80,000 combined?

I agree with the PP who said we need to have short-term gain in order to force Comgress to act, and a good place to start is with the illegal CSRs. They were only allowed to continue because if we stopped popping up this House of Cards, it wold all come crashing down. Let it. Let the poor people go to the ER, just like before Obamacare - and just like they keep doing even with the free insurance.

No, I'm not that PP. Have you ever had cancer or a chronic illness? Are you one of those people who think that you'll always be healthy? Two of my kids get Remicade infusions every 6 weeks. They cost $5-15 thousand or more every time, for each son. If you get cancer or a chronic illness, you'll be begging to pay only $24,000 a year. Honestly, the fact that people like you in this country will tell my kids, that through no fault of their own that they should just be bankrupt their whole lives because they had the misfortune to get a chronic illness (and, no, we have no family history), is indicative of the what a shortsighted and selfish country we live in. Hang a fucking American flag on that.

Y
By paying for your kids, someone else can no longer afford to pay for theirs. Why are yours more important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

So THESE are the people I'm paying for? Violent thugs who will take to the streets if we don't "go without" so we they can get everything for free? Now that I know that, I'm even less inclined to skip doctor appointments and recommended treatments I need so they can keep what they need....free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

So THESE are the people I'm paying for? Violent thugs who will take to the streets if we don't "go without" so we they can get everything for free? Now that I know that, I'm even less inclined to skip doctor appointments and recommended treatments I need so they can keep what they need....free.

Ya, the violent thugs in wheelchairs or too young or infirmed to be mobile. That is who you are afraid of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

ACA made it unaffordable for middle class. But it has pushed us to be more healthy as visits to a doctor are so expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-ACA people.

Would you prefer the 32 million poors and their families take to the streets in a violent way?

Because that is what is likely to happen.

So THESE are the people I'm paying for? Violent thugs who will take to the streets if we don't "go without" so we they can get everything for free? Now that I know that, I'm even less inclined to skip doctor appointments and recommended treatments I need so they can keep what they need....free.

Ya, the violent thugs in wheelchairs or too young or infirmed to be mobile. That is who you are afraid of?

The PP said 32 million people would be taking to the streets if we didn't continue to sacrifice so they can get their free stuff. I heard nothing about wheelchairs.