Pretty disgusting that out of all the conservatives writing about this out there IJ would go with one closely affiliated with The National Review to publish here. Of course even the “intellectuals” there basically say you can’t trust numbers and magical voodoo will kick in and save us, just like with the Laffer Curve.
Summary translation: UW: Bwaaaaa! I can’t censor all things I object to! Bwaaaaa! Bwaaaa!
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO READ THESE ARTICLES. Go read a Libitteral website if you want conformity to your socialist ideals. IJ is a fairly open-minded website, with a variety of commenters, intended to stimulate, not stifle, intellectual discussions.
All I’ve read lately is empty criticism and insults.
IJ isn’t open-minded. They provide centrist, and increasingly far right-wing opinions. Where is the rebuttal piece by a writer for The Jacobin or Mother Jones? There isn’t one, and never will be.
There are not a variety of commenters here since you started threatening to track people down, and getting the site to censor opinions. Whoops, I guess that works both ways, primarily with you doing it. Better lie about having a degree in journalism and spread a bunch of nonsense, Yogi.
I literally just did that and specifically listed 3 outlets.
September 27, 2017 at 8:26 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
I see IJ, Mother Jones, National Review, and no mention by YOU that the disclaimer at the end of the article says the author’s opinion is his own. Yet, you associate the author with the organizations to use the stigma it creates in the minds of liberals to discredit him. Sad. Sad that you cannot allow one person’s opinion to stand alone without associating it with something you deem to be worthless or worse.
If you wrote an article for a news organization that occasionally publishes things written by convicted criminals, does that make you a criminal or deserving of treatment as a potential criminal? Think before replying. Or, just downvote, switch to another online account, and repeat.
Graham et al are reacting to the tragedy imposed on US citizens by ACA. This won’t abate until ACA is repealed… ACA is in a Death Spiral which will only WORSEN.
NAMD is critical of a plan to impose more risk upon state Medicaid programs because they erroneously believe government involvement at the Federal level is the best approach; i.e. Centralized Gulag Govt Health Care Decisions Made by Bureaucrats. As do other government bureaus, NAMD believes freedom of choice by The People is inferior to governments deciding on how people should live their lives, and how they should be treated for maladies. Their opinion is what matters to them, not the opinions of professional doctors, insurance executives, or The People.
ACA will soon be dead, due to the Death Spiral INTENTIONALLY caused by incremental provisions causing adverse selection that were written into the Bill behind closed doors. And it won’t bounce back like a cat.
“The groups said the bill would undermine protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, result in dramatic cuts to Medicaid and “drastically” weaken the individual insurance markets. The letter was signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents major insurers.
Are you aware there are countries that mandate food and housing, and yet ration and have lesser housing rates than ours?
You are speaking idealistically and that is the problem.
The goal is access, opportunity, and making sure the cost doesn’t explode. When we do too much of “free” anything, it does end up at a tipping point eventually, as has been seen numerous times. At that tipping point there is no turning back, and then everyone gets harmed. Are you aware when this happened in Russia for example, (and it was not that long ago, you just probably haven’t looked into it. I’m talking the modern era Planet, not the 40’s.) the average life expectancy dropped to the 60’s in Russia? How do you think Greece will fare under their collapse? The issue with their collapse was certainly not under taxing.
We have seen what happens when a country goes to far and removes incentive to get into the middle to upper class.
Your comparison isn’t exactly accurate. Mandated food and housing might have failed in some countries but nationalized healthcare has arguably succeeded in the majority, if not nearly all, other industrialized nations that don’t have other problems (like unrelated economic collapse).
“Your comparison isn’t exactly accurate. Mandated food and housing might have failed in some countries but nationalized healthcare has arguably succeeded in the majority, if not nearly all, other industrialized nations that don’t have other problems (like unrelated economic collapse).”
Your comment here is what is inaccurate. Nationalized healthcare has not succeeded any degree long term, and it’s on you to prove it has. If you have talked to upper income earners, it is simply a fact that the equation here is suffering from this very same issue. I have talked with upper earners in Europe. Nearly half their income is taken away and they don’t want to get into certain fields because it doesn’t benefit them over relying on the government. There is a huge class issue occurring, as well as unsustainability. This is what lead to the collapse of Greece, and watch, these nations will collapse that have attempted the nationalized healthcare. Some of these countries also don’t have any military spending, the only way they finance it. Some, do not solely have national healthcare. They have it as a baseline and you pay outside of that. One of those, does better than almost any of the others in the nationalized healthcare system.
Your comment isn’t an analysis to any degree.
Also, as I have said numerous times: We have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, I have taken the numbers, and it is very clear our healthcare outcomes are in the lead compared to nationalized nations.
Our life expectancy manages to be 78.8 years, despite this.
Let’s compare and go to this list. Let’s look up the top performers here in nationalized care and the bottom and compare what happened. Japan has nationalized healthcare. Their obesity rate is 3.5%. 81.8 years is their average. If the poor were dying in droves, and our obesity rate is ten times theirs, we would see it. Especially considering that Russia did see a spike when they had a similar issue with alcohol consumption as well as eating habits. Most countries see that as obesity rates go up, there is a huge decrease in life expectancy, but we have done rather well. Singapore’s was 8.6% in 2013, one of the world’s lowest. See a pattern yet? While Hong Kong manages to have a semi bad obesity rate, their eating habits are still better than ours. Getting fat on rice is a lot different than fat on processed food. I would bet we eat worse than literally any nation bar none. Some nations manage to be somewhat fat and healthy, because processed foods aren’t common there. It’s all very complicated, but it is clear that the healthcare systems for a country like Singapore, which has little to no obesity, would have substantially different costs than the U.S. with literally 4 times the obesity rate.
What gets worse is how much these countries then try to combat obesity and how many very edgy laws get passed with that goal. The whole nation starts to have issues of stability trying to then combat obesity, the government gets too involved, the healthcare programs don’t succeed on their own. The soda tax in Seattle would be the beginning. Don’t think that they wouldn’t tax the heck out of and otherwise make it impossible for ding dongs to exist or other foods. What is ironic, is the reason ding dongs exist to begin with, or processed foods, is that these foods are made with subsidized corn or other subsidized aspects from the government. Before the government did this, the poor ate healthier than the rich. After they did this, the poor started eating terribly, there is every evidence we don’t want the government involved in eating decisions or healthcare. There is something to be stated for freedoms when it comes to eating, when you’re living to 78.8 instead of 81, it’s not a huge difference and I’ll go with the way of life we have in the U.S with options. People do get care here. They also get a bill, but we have a great system. The aca is the only thing making people’s lives harder in recent times to any substantial degree, and nationalized healthcare would indeed be worse. Controls would need to be implemented to offset our costs.
@Counterpoint: the problem with your empty assertion is that your definition of ‘success’ of Socialized Health Care isn’t the same as that of PATIENTS who have waited and waited and waited for poor or mediocre, socialized medical care, or have died while waiting.
I’ve visited both Canada and the UK and saw their HC systems faults, firsthand. I know a healthcare worker in Canada, so I got my facts directly, rather than through a liberally biased source.
Counterpoint, you may have realized it but you are engaging with an economic illiterate. The life expectancy in The Soviet Union actually cratered after the fall of the Soviet system. 12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities. It only recently reached 1988 levels again. This only happened after the explosion in commodity prices, which are what Russia relies on economically. More importantly which the idiots won’t grasp, it’s that in 10 years life expectancy increased by about 1 year, then socialized health care was implemented there in 2006 and life expectancy has increased about 5 years.
You are right about socialed medicine. Despite lies and ignorance by many it’s simply not true that they are failures everywhere. There aren’t widespread cases where people don’t become doctors, engineers, etc, because they make more relying on the government. Anyone that says that doesn’t understand marginal taxes, reality, the social safety net, data, etc, but you probably know that. Of course, it’s ‘people I know’ not data.
It’s not about what is best for them, it’s about not wanting to help the poor needy ‘welfare queens, driving around in Cadillacs’ and not working because it’s better to get almost $200/month than work which is largely based on racism and stupidity. Their entire health care position is best summed up as, “I’d rather pay more for worse coverage as long as “They” don’t get something I’m not getting, even if it’s worse.”
I am aware about what you said, and I am not economically illiterate.
The USSR’s collapse did indeed create a scenario in which the government could no longer help. I compare this to Greece, what happens when a socialized medicine country cannot pay. The life expectancy drops.
The issue is you don’t know how to connect the dots of what I say.
You said:
“12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities”
Perhaps you need to learn the meaning of the word “direct” as this would be an indirect event what you just said. Also, alcoholism was not caused by loss of healthcare opportunities, it is on you to prove this. If that were the case, we met the parameters of both of these during the 2008 recession, and, moving out of it, as well as the 70’s and 80’s recessions. Why did alcoholism not decrease our average life expectancy?
You will note I compared a few countries as well that have absurdly lower health issues and yet are close to our own. Note that the very highest life expectancies were not in nationalized healthcare countries.
You missed the point of my post. It was not a one track mind type of post, like your one track reply. You tried to find the weakest link and focused on that, due to your lack of understanding.
Ironic. Get off this page if you’re going to call people functionally illiterate, that they shouldn’t be in insurance, you try to force them to say they are against science and against people, and want Muslims to die.
You’re not a debater. You’re a tyrannical dominator, and I basically annihilate those, as I have you, with sound figures.
September 26, 2017 at 3:14 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Perhaps you need to learn the meaning of the word “direct” as this would be an indirect event what you just said.”
“12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities”
ht tps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and
Loss of economic opportunities -> increased alcoholism AND loss of health care opportunities -> more deaths
I could explain what an indirect cause and effect would be in economic terms, and then you could cite BS, so I won’t bother.
Your “source data” line is tired and generally not true. Research fanatics isn’t source material, and you AREN’T COMPETENT TO ANALYZE DATA. Nobody citing Research Fanatics can be taken seriously. You have stated that the ‘vast majority of people will be over the average income level in the US.’
“(…) and I am not economically illiterate.” Yes, you are. You don’t grasp the basic math or statistics behind economics, and off the top of my head I know you have rejected Monopsony, law of averages, 97-100% of climate science, almost all published work on minimum wage, the work debunking Say’s Law, basic markets, and support nonsense like the Laffe Curve. And, when you write about anything beyond your copied and pasted links you are comically, moronically wrong. You freaked out when I pointed out your BS data on Reagan showed exactly opposite what you claimed. That didn’t even take analysis.
I actually have an economics degree, genius, I’m not some stupid 14 year-old awed over your ability to restate the same stupid, long screeds over and over, or one of your rube friends that doesn’t know what a market is. GO AWAY, NUT.
September 28, 2017 at 2:40 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hey, Kim Jong UW;
You’re not the only person who studied economics.
But you’re the only person in this thread who insults people as if you were an understudy to Don Rickles, and are glad to now have your time in the spotlight.
Get off your high horse; people reading and posting here have much more practical, real world experience than you have, and they understand market dynamics from working in insurance in different market situations over a much longer time period than you have, if you ever have.
September 25, 2017 at 4:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
Ergo why I put this in my post:
“How do you think Greece will fare under their collapse? The issue with their collapse was certainly not under taxing.”
You’re not as well thought out as you think you are.
I’ve dealt with your type enough to know the typical rebuttals.
Social justice programs forget and individual’s actions, tend to give too much, are wasteful, and absurd. Do you really believe 40% of the GDP is needed to get people out of poverty? I don’t, and in fact, as I can prove, you can now make a very good living making bad choices.
It has been this way since I was a kid. My uncle used this very thing in CA. Not my blood uncle, a sleaze ball who married my aunt and then they got divorced. This is a real problem.
I know your reply will be “but most people want to work and aren’t like your uncle” open the system up to make a living off of it, and people will use it. If your intent really were just to lift people out of poverty, there would be way more restrictions and requirements than simply income considerations.
It is simply a fact what I have said numerous times here: You come out ahead with two non college educated earners in a family of 3. This isn’t debatable, and it is both immoral and a structural failure issue. This is what caused systems like Greece to collapse, not under taxation.
You took a conclusion and did not interpret the data, and you clearly diverted and tried a topic switch because you couldn’t debate with what I actually said. Did I say they had a spending issue? I said their collapse was certainly not an issue of too little taxes.
I then mentioned US SPENDING. Not Greece, but you took the Greece spending argument, one I didn’t make. And you call ME illiterate? Our spending to GDP including federal state and local is 40%. It is not sustainable. Our issue is one of over spending.
However, I will take your absurd comment about Greece. How about a chart, clown?
What do you notice? Even after the collapse they have huge spending amounts in certain years for one, and for two, they are consistently spending 45% of what the GDP is on the poor. So what happens when the GDP collapses? What happens at an economic issue? I will ask the same question again now: How do you think Greece will fair if they don’t pare back spending? How do you think they will fare if they jack up taxes? Once you get too far it’s nearly impossible to back track.
Also, if Paul Krugman is correct, what does this mean about the EURO union? What does this mean about Brexit? What did you say about Brexit, I can’t remember (I’m being sarcastic, I know your position on it, so you cannot possibly agree with Paul Krugman without being a hypocrite on Brexit and the fact that the ERUO union is indeed bad for many countries in it.).
You’re not arguing data here, you’re basically taking an argument I didn’t make for one, and you’re using your God’s argument against mine.
In the first point, while Paul says Greece is not as bad with debt as others who didn’t collapse: It’s not a solid argument. We have clearly seen not all countries with debt collapse. However, as said above, when they do, nothing can be done. They are at debt to the max as it is, because of continued levels of high spending.
In the second point:
If you don’t think 45% of spending as a percent of GDP is high, because other people do it, you’re an idiot. It’s sheer stupidity I would ever have to explain why it wouldn’t work long term. Eventually people will not want to work.
The fact is if you have 3 kids here with $40k of income with two earners working at MC Donalds, you out earn a $80k couple. I’ve shown this math numerous times, this is what breaks the system, it is a matter of when, not if.
They have to kill this to be able to afford the huge corporate and wealthy tax cuts they want. They don’t care about eliminating preexisting conditions, losing coverage, etc. They know it’s a disaster which is why they’ve tried to delay implementation until after reelection. The block grants will be an absolute disaster.
Some idiots aren’t aware that taxes in Greece are avoided at historic rates and the IMF/austerity/the Euro have far more to do with Greece’s problems than providing a social safety net.
I already knew this would be your response. It fell apart because they weren’t taxed enough eh? Social safety nets are the issue, when they grow out of control, and eventually people don’t want to work. It’s that simple I can prove we are at that point now in the U.S.
Block grants would encourage market based solutions. They would not be a disaster.
That’s not what I wrote. I pretty clearly wrote that and your addressed that, terribly. You don’t know or understand economics. You can’t prove anything in economics because your don’t have the skillset or knowledge to do so. You can cite BS sources that aren’t econonomists ands ignore all economic studies on the topic, misinterpret data and then meltdown, lie, insult and make personal threats when it’s debunked.
I won’t get into your long, uninformed, unhinged rants. Provide proof of mental health assistance or go away.
“Some idiots aren’t aware that taxes in Greece are avoided at historic rates ”
Just because you also blamed austerity, does not mean you didn’t blame tax reductions. Also, austerity was forced because there weren’t enough funds. To in a nutshell, it is definitely that you said Greece failed due to not taxing enough.
“I pretty clearly wrote that and your addressed that, terribly”
I addressed it very well.
“You can’t prove anything in economics because your don’t have the skillset or knowledge to do so”
That’s you, it’s why you make the argument of climate change based on what nearly 100% of scientists say, not numbers as I have.
“You can cite BS sources that aren’t econonomists ands ignore all economic studies on the topic, misinterpret data and then meltdown, lie, insult and make personal threats when it’s debunked. ”
I source people and reference their data. You are again arguing from positions of authority, after you just now said that I don’t have the skillset or knowledge. Irony.
“I won’t get into your long, uninformed, unhinged rants. Provide proof of mental health assistance or go away.”
That’s you in terms of rants, and I don’t need to provide proof of mental health assistance. This is the final warning you will receive, you will not use that insult again. If you don’t stop, I will report you to the police. Andrew, I’m making this clear again. If it is found you took no action, this has gone on for years, and you have seen me give him chances while he plows ahead full force and has never apologized to me while I have him. I have tried to agree with him on occasion too, he has never done this.
You’re in insurance, you know this will partly be on you if I file police charges. He just again harassed me about mental health assistance.
Stop him, or I will. I have numerous times in my life triggered a government regulation against people who I initially gave chances. I know how to do it, and UW has met the parameters if I so choose. A firm my wife worked for had the gaul to take me on, and they lost funding. I am not simply bluffing. UW, if you do not stop you will finally see what it means to be humbled. What you are doing is harassment.
September 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Jack Straw says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Mr. Ponnuru displays his lack of understanding ass to our Normal Legislative process. Unlike most other Bills ( especially ones with huge impact), Normally bills are vetted in Committee with Hearings. Despite the propaganda, the ACA had many hearings. This one has none- with no opportunity for the Bi-Partisan Office of Management & Budget to weigh in on the costs or effects, which will be many , including millions going without care. Never before has our Democracy faced such despicable short-cutting simply to live up to a promise to repeal the ACA and be able to say “we fulfilled our promise”. Isn’t doing no harm more important, especially when every single legitimate Medical Association is against this bill including 70% of the population? Lets not forget that only in the United States do people go Bankrupt over Medical Bills, over 2.5 million such filings- and the losses to tho providers themselves because of it. Finally- what happened to the GOP promise to allow Medicare and others to negotiate obscene drug prices not charged anywhere else in the world? I See that Mr. Ponnuru is a visiting Fellow. I hop his visit is a short one.
I agree! The Preamble to the Constitution of The U.S., states that one of the purposes & responsibilities of government is to “provide for the general welfare of the people. I can’t think of anything more pertinent to the “general welfare of the people” than the health of the people. We can engage in arbitrary & pre-emptive warfare that so far has a bill of a trillion dollars or more with a secret or no accounting methodology,—but God forbid that a human being would have his illness attended to without prior proof that he personally can pay for it. If he can’t,—-tough! Shades of Ayn Ryan!!
People can walk into an ER and have their illnesses treated.
YOUR interpretation of the US Constitution only has meaning to you. It is the interpretation of the Courts, who are presided over by representatives of The People, which matters in regard to ‘general welfare’. Up until 2010, NO ONE interpreted ‘general welfare’ to include FREE health insurance / health care. NO ONE. And the SCOTUS decision in 2014 was a surprise to ALL Constitutional lawyers and scholars.
So, please state your legal credentials and the time you studied the Constitutions and Amendments thereto.
Clearly you think it’s Republican Congressmen because you keep posting that you want to let Obamacare die in its death spiral. You seem to be ignoring the fact that letting that happen will actually cause US citizens to pay even higher premiums than they do now.
While the Democrats are to blame for the PPACA and it’s failings, the political reality is that anyone who is harmed by the failing of the PPACA will blame the Republicans for not doing something to fix it. They have been saying for 7+ years that the law is a colossal failure and that they have a solution that will provide improved coverage with significantly reduced premiums.
Most of the people will continue to ask them why they could not get this done while controlling all 3 branches of the government. In this case you cannot even bring up the normal 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.
The failure to fix our broken health care system will fall on the Republicans, justifiably so or not.
September 28, 2017 at 2:43 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Some Republicans went back on their campaign pledges to flush out ACA, ASAP.
It’s only a matter of time before the mavericks and rogue Republicans are flushed out in primaries. Then, ACA is gone for good, unless the Death Spiral ends it sooner.
September 25, 2017 at 3:06 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
“and making sure the cost doesn’t explode”
Already has. Definition of Affordable has changed. Who don’t know that govt being involved would only increase cost?
How much cost does the 1 800 cubicle heads add? How about that Web Site? So they can squeeze main st agents commissions down by 10%?
The licensed / regulate / insured / bonded / trained / professional agents with their finger on the pulse of the local markets?
Take away Joe Consumers watch dog at the state level.
My, how the govt that’s of the people for the people turn on on the people.
” Normally bills are vetted in Committee with Hearings.”. Obama changed that.
In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.
Overall they debated it for a year. Conservatives don’t care. They were told a fake talking point, repeated it for 6 years and immediately abandoned it once they were told to, so they could do the same thing. Yogi did this more than anybody. All they care about are not paying taxes, being against poor people and being against liberals as a group.
So, 49 Republican Senators are opposed to ACA and you claim (all is implied) Republicans don’t care about their campaign platforms. Hyperbole and trolling rolled into one post.
So during all that discussion, they didn’t figure out that people couldn’t keep their plan or their doctors?
Or did they just ignore that fact and decide to just lie about it?
38 days for a life time of health insurance don’t seem like they did their due diligence to me.
Ive been screwed hard by this. Lost my coverage for 6 months because their web site screwed something up. Then 6 month appeal is an expedited basis? When I finally wont my expedited appeal after 6 months, they cancelled my Dental Insurance by mistake.
No one will ever convince me that this was through all the way through.
The final bill is what matters, not the YEAR of changes that DIDN’T include any of the terms that INTENTIONALLY caused the DEATH SPIRAL THAT THE DEMS think would lead to calls for a Single Delayer, er, Single Slayer, er, Single Payer HC System.
THE DOORS TO THE US SENATE MEETING ROOM WERE LOCKED BY HARRY REID, with newly installed locks per his demand, so that Republicans could not hear or see the LAST CHANGES made to the ACA.
If you Libitterals want to continue to push more LIES, you will be called out on them, as I just did.
“……….One of those criticisms concerns the bill’s treatment of people with chronic health conditions. It allows states to apply for waivers from the Obamacare regulation that requires insurers to charge the same premiums for the sick and the healthy. Before granting them, the federal government has to certify that those with chronic conditions will still find coverage affordable………..”
You are assuming the politicians have a heart and care about the poor and the sick
A few years back some Governors refused to accept FREE medicaid extension money. They prefer to have the sick and the poor dead on the streets, than to accept the Uncle Sam’s medicaid extension’s free money. This is call a Reverse Juda’s When Judas Iscariot accepted 30 Gold to betray Jesus. The Governors refused to accept the Gold to take care of the sick and the poor
A few years back some Governors refused to accept FREE medicaid extension money. They prefer to have the sick and the poor dead on the streets, than to accept the Uncle Sam’s medicaid extension’s free money. This is call a Reverse Juda’s When Judas Iscariot accepted 30 Gold to betray Jesus. The Governors refused to accept the Gold to take care of the sick and the poor
One problem with your logic Ivan is it is not “FREE” money. Although some fools in Washington keep printing it like it is the money to pay for all programs of the government is the peoples money. Just remember that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch everything in this life comes at a cost be that cold dollars or time and opportunity. That includes clean air, water and everything else.
We have far to many people in this country that feel that if it is a government program it is free but that statement could not be further from the truth.
Some states have shown they are irresponsible with Federal funds and don’t apply in fair manner. Look at Texas and Florida and their “deregulation” of many laws which allowed criminal development in flood plains and low lying areas. The analogy being sought is ultimately we will need social medicine as our privatized health insurance continues to fail for lack of regulation and continual criminal ripoff of MediCare and MediCaid. Yes socialized medicine has it’s problems, but private medicine isn’t a well oiled machine either. Several years ago I was 90% blind in one eye from a cataract and it took over 9 months to finally see an eye surgeon and finally over a year, close to 16 months, to get it fixed.
Americans won again today when the Senate decided not to vote on this piece of garbage legislation. Here’s hoping that the reasonable GOP senators can hang on in health and wellness until the election.
With the GOP’s favorability ratings in the tank, let’s hope more reasonable representation gets voted in to protect the rights of minorities, sick, and poor people everywhere.
It’s an El Rushbo talking point that our pot-bellied, funny-haired dictator wants to let happen to kill the law the African American with a Muslimy sounding name put in place.
Honestly Polar, your reply is just as uninformative.
The death spiral is not when the “ACA will be wiped off the US Code books” – I say this because some legal action has to be taken to wipe it off the books … if nothing ever changes, Obamacare will still be the law of the land as it does not have an automatic end or expiration date.
Inquirer – the death spiral references a time in the future when the marketplace collapses and **ALL INSURERS EXIT THE MARKET**.
To a lesser extent, Death Spiral could also be taken as a time when premiums, deductibles and co-pays are too expensive for people to afford, although in that case, Obamacare is still on the US code books and there are insurers willing to write policies…just not at a reasonable rate for you and I.
Maybe we should get some of his senior officials to use their private server emails to charter a military plane over there to check it out first hand. They can bring their wives and take in some R&R on tax payer dime while they are at it. I heard the cuisine and riverboat cruises over there are amazing!
Pretty disgusting that out of all the conservatives writing about this out there IJ would go with one closely affiliated with The National Review to publish here. Of course even the “intellectuals” there basically say you can’t trust numbers and magical voodoo will kick in and save us, just like with the Laffer Curve.
Summary translation: UW: Bwaaaaa! I can’t censor all things I object to! Bwaaaaa! Bwaaaa!
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO READ THESE ARTICLES. Go read a Libitteral website if you want conformity to your socialist ideals. IJ is a fairly open-minded website, with a variety of commenters, intended to stimulate, not stifle, intellectual discussions.
All I’ve read lately is empty criticism and insults.
All I’ve read FROM YOU. accidentally hit ‘post comment’ button before completing sentence. Fat digits on my paws. Bear culpaw.
IJ isn’t open-minded. They provide centrist, and increasingly far right-wing opinions. Where is the rebuttal piece by a writer for The Jacobin or Mother Jones? There isn’t one, and never will be.
There are not a variety of commenters here since you started threatening to track people down, and getting the site to censor opinions. Whoops, I guess that works both ways, primarily with you doing it. Better lie about having a degree in journalism and spread a bunch of nonsense, Yogi.
More inane BS and terrible, 4th grade puns.
IJ isn’t off-balanced.
Disagree? State examples to prove your assertion.
I literally just did that and specifically listed 3 outlets.
I see IJ, Mother Jones, National Review, and no mention by YOU that the disclaimer at the end of the article says the author’s opinion is his own. Yet, you associate the author with the organizations to use the stigma it creates in the minds of liberals to discredit him. Sad. Sad that you cannot allow one person’s opinion to stand alone without associating it with something you deem to be worthless or worse.
If you wrote an article for a news organization that occasionally publishes things written by convicted criminals, does that make you a criminal or deserving of treatment as a potential criminal? Think before replying. Or, just downvote, switch to another online account, and repeat.
Please see my blog post in WorkersCompInsider for a different take on this issue: http://workerscompinsider.com/2017/09/this-cat-is-dead-let-it-stay-that-way/
I read it. Here are my answers to your questions:
Graham et al are reacting to the tragedy imposed on US citizens by ACA. This won’t abate until ACA is repealed… ACA is in a Death Spiral which will only WORSEN.
NAMD is critical of a plan to impose more risk upon state Medicaid programs because they erroneously believe government involvement at the Federal level is the best approach; i.e. Centralized Gulag Govt Health Care Decisions Made by Bureaucrats. As do other government bureaus, NAMD believes freedom of choice by The People is inferior to governments deciding on how people should live their lives, and how they should be treated for maladies. Their opinion is what matters to them, not the opinions of professional doctors, insurance executives, or The People.
ACA will soon be dead, due to the Death Spiral INTENTIONALLY caused by incremental provisions causing adverse selection that were written into the Bill behind closed doors. And it won’t bounce back like a cat.
From another IJ article regarding this bill:
“The groups said the bill would undermine protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, result in dramatic cuts to Medicaid and “drastically” weaken the individual insurance markets. The letter was signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents major insurers.
Kill the bill.
Are you aware there are countries that mandate food and housing, and yet ration and have lesser housing rates than ours?
You are speaking idealistically and that is the problem.
The goal is access, opportunity, and making sure the cost doesn’t explode. When we do too much of “free” anything, it does end up at a tipping point eventually, as has been seen numerous times. At that tipping point there is no turning back, and then everyone gets harmed. Are you aware when this happened in Russia for example, (and it was not that long ago, you just probably haven’t looked into it. I’m talking the modern era Planet, not the 40’s.) the average life expectancy dropped to the 60’s in Russia? How do you think Greece will fare under their collapse? The issue with their collapse was certainly not under taxing.
We have seen what happens when a country goes to far and removes incentive to get into the middle to upper class.
Your comparison isn’t exactly accurate. Mandated food and housing might have failed in some countries but nationalized healthcare has arguably succeeded in the majority, if not nearly all, other industrialized nations that don’t have other problems (like unrelated economic collapse).
“Your comparison isn’t exactly accurate. Mandated food and housing might have failed in some countries but nationalized healthcare has arguably succeeded in the majority, if not nearly all, other industrialized nations that don’t have other problems (like unrelated economic collapse).”
Your comment here is what is inaccurate. Nationalized healthcare has not succeeded any degree long term, and it’s on you to prove it has. If you have talked to upper income earners, it is simply a fact that the equation here is suffering from this very same issue. I have talked with upper earners in Europe. Nearly half their income is taken away and they don’t want to get into certain fields because it doesn’t benefit them over relying on the government. There is a huge class issue occurring, as well as unsustainability. This is what lead to the collapse of Greece, and watch, these nations will collapse that have attempted the nationalized healthcare. Some of these countries also don’t have any military spending, the only way they finance it. Some, do not solely have national healthcare. They have it as a baseline and you pay outside of that. One of those, does better than almost any of the others in the nationalized healthcare system.
Your comment isn’t an analysis to any degree.
Also, as I have said numerous times: We have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, I have taken the numbers, and it is very clear our healthcare outcomes are in the lead compared to nationalized nations.
Our life expectancy manages to be 78.8 years, despite this.
http://researchmaniacs.com/Country/LifeExpectancyUniversalHealthcare.html
Let’s compare and go to this list. Let’s look up the top performers here in nationalized care and the bottom and compare what happened. Japan has nationalized healthcare. Their obesity rate is 3.5%. 81.8 years is their average. If the poor were dying in droves, and our obesity rate is ten times theirs, we would see it. Especially considering that Russia did see a spike when they had a similar issue with alcohol consumption as well as eating habits. Most countries see that as obesity rates go up, there is a huge decrease in life expectancy, but we have done rather well. Singapore’s was 8.6% in 2013, one of the world’s lowest. See a pattern yet? While Hong Kong manages to have a semi bad obesity rate, their eating habits are still better than ours. Getting fat on rice is a lot different than fat on processed food. I would bet we eat worse than literally any nation bar none. Some nations manage to be somewhat fat and healthy, because processed foods aren’t common there. It’s all very complicated, but it is clear that the healthcare systems for a country like Singapore, which has little to no obesity, would have substantially different costs than the U.S. with literally 4 times the obesity rate.
What gets worse is how much these countries then try to combat obesity and how many very edgy laws get passed with that goal. The whole nation starts to have issues of stability trying to then combat obesity, the government gets too involved, the healthcare programs don’t succeed on their own. The soda tax in Seattle would be the beginning. Don’t think that they wouldn’t tax the heck out of and otherwise make it impossible for ding dongs to exist or other foods. What is ironic, is the reason ding dongs exist to begin with, or processed foods, is that these foods are made with subsidized corn or other subsidized aspects from the government. Before the government did this, the poor ate healthier than the rich. After they did this, the poor started eating terribly, there is every evidence we don’t want the government involved in eating decisions or healthcare. There is something to be stated for freedoms when it comes to eating, when you’re living to 78.8 instead of 81, it’s not a huge difference and I’ll go with the way of life we have in the U.S with options. People do get care here. They also get a bill, but we have a great system. The aca is the only thing making people’s lives harder in recent times to any substantial degree, and nationalized healthcare would indeed be worse. Controls would need to be implemented to offset our costs.
@Counterpoint: the problem with your empty assertion is that your definition of ‘success’ of Socialized Health Care isn’t the same as that of PATIENTS who have waited and waited and waited for poor or mediocre, socialized medical care, or have died while waiting.
I’ve visited both Canada and the UK and saw their HC systems faults, firsthand. I know a healthcare worker in Canada, so I got my facts directly, rather than through a liberally biased source.
Counterpoint, you may have realized it but you are engaging with an economic illiterate. The life expectancy in The Soviet Union actually cratered after the fall of the Soviet system. 12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities. It only recently reached 1988 levels again. This only happened after the explosion in commodity prices, which are what Russia relies on economically. More importantly which the idiots won’t grasp, it’s that in 10 years life expectancy increased by about 1 year, then socialized health care was implemented there in 2006 and life expectancy has increased about 5 years.
You are right about socialed medicine. Despite lies and ignorance by many it’s simply not true that they are failures everywhere. There aren’t widespread cases where people don’t become doctors, engineers, etc, because they make more relying on the government. Anyone that says that doesn’t understand marginal taxes, reality, the social safety net, data, etc, but you probably know that. Of course, it’s ‘people I know’ not data.
It’s not about what is best for them, it’s about not wanting to help the poor needy ‘welfare queens, driving around in Cadillacs’ and not working because it’s better to get almost $200/month than work which is largely based on racism and stupidity. Their entire health care position is best summed up as, “I’d rather pay more for worse coverage as long as “They” don’t get something I’m not getting, even if it’s worse.”
I am aware about what you said, and I am not economically illiterate.
The USSR’s collapse did indeed create a scenario in which the government could no longer help. I compare this to Greece, what happens when a socialized medicine country cannot pay. The life expectancy drops.
The issue is you don’t know how to connect the dots of what I say.
You said:
“12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities”
Perhaps you need to learn the meaning of the word “direct” as this would be an indirect event what you just said. Also, alcoholism was not caused by loss of healthcare opportunities, it is on you to prove this. If that were the case, we met the parameters of both of these during the 2008 recession, and, moving out of it, as well as the 70’s and 80’s recessions. Why did alcoholism not decrease our average life expectancy?
You will note I compared a few countries as well that have absurdly lower health issues and yet are close to our own. Note that the very highest life expectancies were not in nationalized healthcare countries.
You missed the point of my post. It was not a one track mind type of post, like your one track reply. You tried to find the weakest link and focused on that, due to your lack of understanding.
Ironic. Get off this page if you’re going to call people functionally illiterate, that they shouldn’t be in insurance, you try to force them to say they are against science and against people, and want Muslims to die.
You’re not a debater. You’re a tyrannical dominator, and I basically annihilate those, as I have you, with sound figures.
“Perhaps you need to learn the meaning of the word “direct” as this would be an indirect event what you just said.”
“12% of this initially was directly due to alcoholism, which would clearly be a direct result of the loss of health care and economic opportunities”
ht tps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and
Loss of economic opportunities -> increased alcoholism AND loss of health care opportunities -> more deaths
I could explain what an indirect cause and effect would be in economic terms, and then you could cite BS, so I won’t bother.
Your “source data” line is tired and generally not true. Research fanatics isn’t source material, and you AREN’T COMPETENT TO ANALYZE DATA. Nobody citing Research Fanatics can be taken seriously. You have stated that the ‘vast majority of people will be over the average income level in the US.’
“(…) and I am not economically illiterate.” Yes, you are. You don’t grasp the basic math or statistics behind economics, and off the top of my head I know you have rejected Monopsony, law of averages, 97-100% of climate science, almost all published work on minimum wage, the work debunking Say’s Law, basic markets, and support nonsense like the Laffe Curve. And, when you write about anything beyond your copied and pasted links you are comically, moronically wrong. You freaked out when I pointed out your BS data on Reagan showed exactly opposite what you claimed. That didn’t even take analysis.
I actually have an economics degree, genius, I’m not some stupid 14 year-old awed over your ability to restate the same stupid, long screeds over and over, or one of your rube friends that doesn’t know what a market is. GO AWAY, NUT.
Hey, Kim Jong UW;
You’re not the only person who studied economics.
But you’re the only person in this thread who insults people as if you were an understudy to Don Rickles, and are glad to now have your time in the spotlight.
Get off your high horse; people reading and posting here have much more practical, real world experience than you have, and they understand market dynamics from working in insurance in different market situations over a much longer time period than you have, if you ever have.
Ergo why I put this in my post:
“How do you think Greece will fare under their collapse? The issue with their collapse was certainly not under taxing.”
You’re not as well thought out as you think you are.
I’ve dealt with your type enough to know the typical rebuttals.
Social justice programs forget and individual’s actions, tend to give too much, are wasteful, and absurd. Do you really believe 40% of the GDP is needed to get people out of poverty? I don’t, and in fact, as I can prove, you can now make a very good living making bad choices.
It has been this way since I was a kid. My uncle used this very thing in CA. Not my blood uncle, a sleaze ball who married my aunt and then they got divorced. This is a real problem.
I know your reply will be “but most people want to work and aren’t like your uncle” open the system up to make a living off of it, and people will use it. If your intent really were just to lift people out of poverty, there would be way more restrictions and requirements than simply income considerations.
It is simply a fact what I have said numerous times here: You come out ahead with two non college educated earners in a family of 3. This isn’t debatable, and it is both immoral and a structural failure issue. This is what caused systems like Greece to collapse, not under taxation.
You took a conclusion and did not interpret the data, and you clearly diverted and tried a topic switch because you couldn’t debate with what I actually said. Did I say they had a spending issue? I said their collapse was certainly not an issue of too little taxes.
I then mentioned US SPENDING. Not Greece, but you took the Greece spending argument, one I didn’t make. And you call ME illiterate? Our spending to GDP including federal state and local is 40%. It is not sustainable. Our issue is one of over spending.
However, I will take your absurd comment about Greece. How about a chart, clown?
https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-spending-to-gdp
What do you notice? Even after the collapse they have huge spending amounts in certain years for one, and for two, they are consistently spending 45% of what the GDP is on the poor. So what happens when the GDP collapses? What happens at an economic issue? I will ask the same question again now: How do you think Greece will fair if they don’t pare back spending? How do you think they will fare if they jack up taxes? Once you get too far it’s nearly impossible to back track.
Also, if Paul Krugman is correct, what does this mean about the EURO union? What does this mean about Brexit? What did you say about Brexit, I can’t remember (I’m being sarcastic, I know your position on it, so you cannot possibly agree with Paul Krugman without being a hypocrite on Brexit and the fact that the ERUO union is indeed bad for many countries in it.).
You’re not arguing data here, you’re basically taking an argument I didn’t make for one, and you’re using your God’s argument against mine.
In the first point, while Paul says Greece is not as bad with debt as others who didn’t collapse: It’s not a solid argument. We have clearly seen not all countries with debt collapse. However, as said above, when they do, nothing can be done. They are at debt to the max as it is, because of continued levels of high spending.
In the second point:
If you don’t think 45% of spending as a percent of GDP is high, because other people do it, you’re an idiot. It’s sheer stupidity I would ever have to explain why it wouldn’t work long term. Eventually people will not want to work.
The fact is if you have 3 kids here with $40k of income with two earners working at MC Donalds, you out earn a $80k couple. I’ve shown this math numerous times, this is what breaks the system, it is a matter of when, not if.
They have to kill this to be able to afford the huge corporate and wealthy tax cuts they want. They don’t care about eliminating preexisting conditions, losing coverage, etc. They know it’s a disaster which is why they’ve tried to delay implementation until after reelection. The block grants will be an absolute disaster.
Some idiots aren’t aware that taxes in Greece are avoided at historic rates and the IMF/austerity/the Euro have far more to do with Greece’s problems than providing a social safety net.
I already knew this would be your response. It fell apart because they weren’t taxed enough eh? Social safety nets are the issue, when they grow out of control, and eventually people don’t want to work. It’s that simple I can prove we are at that point now in the U.S.
Block grants would encourage market based solutions. They would not be a disaster.
That’s not what I wrote. I pretty clearly wrote that and your addressed that, terribly. You don’t know or understand economics. You can’t prove anything in economics because your don’t have the skillset or knowledge to do so. You can cite BS sources that aren’t econonomists ands ignore all economic studies on the topic, misinterpret data and then meltdown, lie, insult and make personal threats when it’s debunked.
I won’t get into your long, uninformed, unhinged rants. Provide proof of mental health assistance or go away.
“That’s not what I wrote”
Yes you did.
“Some idiots aren’t aware that taxes in Greece are avoided at historic rates ”
Just because you also blamed austerity, does not mean you didn’t blame tax reductions. Also, austerity was forced because there weren’t enough funds. To in a nutshell, it is definitely that you said Greece failed due to not taxing enough.
“I pretty clearly wrote that and your addressed that, terribly”
I addressed it very well.
“You can’t prove anything in economics because your don’t have the skillset or knowledge to do so”
That’s you, it’s why you make the argument of climate change based on what nearly 100% of scientists say, not numbers as I have.
“You can cite BS sources that aren’t econonomists ands ignore all economic studies on the topic, misinterpret data and then meltdown, lie, insult and make personal threats when it’s debunked. ”
I source people and reference their data. You are again arguing from positions of authority, after you just now said that I don’t have the skillset or knowledge. Irony.
“I won’t get into your long, uninformed, unhinged rants. Provide proof of mental health assistance or go away.”
That’s you in terms of rants, and I don’t need to provide proof of mental health assistance. This is the final warning you will receive, you will not use that insult again. If you don’t stop, I will report you to the police. Andrew, I’m making this clear again. If it is found you took no action, this has gone on for years, and you have seen me give him chances while he plows ahead full force and has never apologized to me while I have him. I have tried to agree with him on occasion too, he has never done this.
You’re in insurance, you know this will partly be on you if I file police charges. He just again harassed me about mental health assistance.
Stop him, or I will. I have numerous times in my life triggered a government regulation against people who I initially gave chances. I know how to do it, and UW has met the parameters if I so choose. A firm my wife worked for had the gaul to take me on, and they lost funding. I am not simply bluffing. UW, if you do not stop you will finally see what it means to be humbled. What you are doing is harassment.
Mr. Ponnuru displays his lack of understanding ass to our Normal Legislative process. Unlike most other Bills ( especially ones with huge impact), Normally bills are vetted in Committee with Hearings. Despite the propaganda, the ACA had many hearings. This one has none- with no opportunity for the Bi-Partisan Office of Management & Budget to weigh in on the costs or effects, which will be many , including millions going without care. Never before has our Democracy faced such despicable short-cutting simply to live up to a promise to repeal the ACA and be able to say “we fulfilled our promise”. Isn’t doing no harm more important, especially when every single legitimate Medical Association is against this bill including 70% of the population? Lets not forget that only in the United States do people go Bankrupt over Medical Bills, over 2.5 million such filings- and the losses to tho providers themselves because of it. Finally- what happened to the GOP promise to allow Medicare and others to negotiate obscene drug prices not charged anywhere else in the world? I See that Mr. Ponnuru is a visiting Fellow. I hop his visit is a short one.
I agree! The Preamble to the Constitution of The U.S., states that one of the purposes & responsibilities of government is to “provide for the general welfare of the people. I can’t think of anything more pertinent to the “general welfare of the people” than the health of the people. We can engage in arbitrary & pre-emptive warfare that so far has a bill of a trillion dollars or more with a secret or no accounting methodology,—but God forbid that a human being would have his illness attended to without prior proof that he personally can pay for it. If he can’t,—-tough! Shades of Ayn Ryan!!
People can walk into an ER and have their illnesses treated.
YOUR interpretation of the US Constitution only has meaning to you. It is the interpretation of the Courts, who are presided over by representatives of The People, which matters in regard to ‘general welfare’. Up until 2010, NO ONE interpreted ‘general welfare’ to include FREE health insurance / health care. NO ONE. And the SCOTUS decision in 2014 was a surprise to ALL Constitutional lawyers and scholars.
So, please state your legal credentials and the time you studied the Constitutions and Amendments thereto.
I’ll repeat.
There is this awesome German word that is perfect for the predicament Republicans find themselves in: schadenfreude
What predicament matters more: Republican Congressmen or US citizens faced with escalating insurance premiums under ACA rules?
Clearly you think it’s Republican Congressmen because you keep posting that you want to let Obamacare die in its death spiral. You seem to be ignoring the fact that letting that happen will actually cause US citizens to pay even higher premiums than they do now.
I’m not ‘hoping for the inevitable’, it is inevitable!
ACA will die and Dems are going to be blamed for it in 2018. That makes Libitterals very nervous.
While the Democrats are to blame for the PPACA and it’s failings, the political reality is that anyone who is harmed by the failing of the PPACA will blame the Republicans for not doing something to fix it. They have been saying for 7+ years that the law is a colossal failure and that they have a solution that will provide improved coverage with significantly reduced premiums.
Most of the people will continue to ask them why they could not get this done while controlling all 3 branches of the government. In this case you cannot even bring up the normal 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.
The failure to fix our broken health care system will fall on the Republicans, justifiably so or not.
Some Republicans went back on their campaign pledges to flush out ACA, ASAP.
It’s only a matter of time before the mavericks and rogue Republicans are flushed out in primaries. Then, ACA is gone for good, unless the Death Spiral ends it sooner.
“and making sure the cost doesn’t explode”
Already has. Definition of Affordable has changed. Who don’t know that govt being involved would only increase cost?
How much cost does the 1 800 cubicle heads add? How about that Web Site? So they can squeeze main st agents commissions down by 10%?
The licensed / regulate / insured / bonded / trained / professional agents with their finger on the pulse of the local markets?
Take away Joe Consumers watch dog at the state level.
My, how the govt that’s of the people for the people turn on on the people.
” Normally bills are vetted in Committee with Hearings.”. Obama changed that.
You’re spreading fake news, FFA.
In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.
http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/
I watched that Senate Finance Committee markup for two weeks online. People in my office still think I’m weird.
Overall they debated it for a year. Conservatives don’t care. They were told a fake talking point, repeated it for 6 years and immediately abandoned it once they were told to, so they could do the same thing. Yogi did this more than anybody. All they care about are not paying taxes, being against poor people and being against liberals as a group.
So, 49 Republican Senators are opposed to ACA and you claim (all is implied) Republicans don’t care about their campaign platforms. Hyperbole and trolling rolled into one post.
So during all that discussion, they didn’t figure out that people couldn’t keep their plan or their doctors?
Or did they just ignore that fact and decide to just lie about it?
38 days for a life time of health insurance don’t seem like they did their due diligence to me.
Ive been screwed hard by this. Lost my coverage for 6 months because their web site screwed something up. Then 6 month appeal is an expedited basis? When I finally wont my expedited appeal after 6 months, they cancelled my Dental Insurance by mistake.
No one will ever convince me that this was through all the way through.
The final bill is what matters, not the YEAR of changes that DIDN’T include any of the terms that INTENTIONALLY caused the DEATH SPIRAL THAT THE DEMS think would lead to calls for a Single Delayer, er, Single Slayer, er, Single Payer HC System.
THE DOORS TO THE US SENATE MEETING ROOM WERE LOCKED BY HARRY REID, with newly installed locks per his demand, so that Republicans could not hear or see the LAST CHANGES made to the ACA.
If you Libitterals want to continue to push more LIES, you will be called out on them, as I just did.
Newly installed locks, with the keys given to Reid.
“……….One of those criticisms concerns the bill’s treatment of people with chronic health conditions. It allows states to apply for waivers from the Obamacare regulation that requires insurers to charge the same premiums for the sick and the healthy. Before granting them, the federal government has to certify that those with chronic conditions will still find coverage affordable………..”
You are assuming the politicians have a heart and care about the poor and the sick
A few years back some Governors refused to accept FREE medicaid extension money. They prefer to have the sick and the poor dead on the streets, than to accept the Uncle Sam’s medicaid extension’s free money. This is call a Reverse Juda’s When Judas Iscariot accepted 30 Gold to betray Jesus. The Governors refused to accept the Gold to take care of the sick and the poor
Ivan del Jesus,
A few years back some Governors refused to accept FREE medicaid extension money. They prefer to have the sick and the poor dead on the streets, than to accept the Uncle Sam’s medicaid extension’s free money. This is call a Reverse Juda’s When Judas Iscariot accepted 30 Gold to betray Jesus. The Governors refused to accept the Gold to take care of the sick and the poor
One problem with your logic Ivan is it is not “FREE” money. Although some fools in Washington keep printing it like it is the money to pay for all programs of the government is the peoples money. Just remember that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch everything in this life comes at a cost be that cold dollars or time and opportunity. That includes clean air, water and everything else.
We have far to many people in this country that feel that if it is a government program it is free but that statement could not be further from the truth.
Some states have shown they are irresponsible with Federal funds and don’t apply in fair manner. Look at Texas and Florida and their “deregulation” of many laws which allowed criminal development in flood plains and low lying areas. The analogy being sought is ultimately we will need social medicine as our privatized health insurance continues to fail for lack of regulation and continual criminal ripoff of MediCare and MediCaid. Yes socialized medicine has it’s problems, but private medicine isn’t a well oiled machine either. Several years ago I was 90% blind in one eye from a cataract and it took over 9 months to finally see an eye surgeon and finally over a year, close to 16 months, to get it fixed.
PP-ff-ttt. Cannot vote on a bill this is not presented for a vote.
“On day one I’m going to repeal it. And on day two, I’m going to replace it with something great, that I can tell you.”
– Liar in Chief
And he also said: “believe me.” That should be the biggest giveaway that you should never believe him. Like ever.
Americans won again today when the Senate decided not to vote on this piece of garbage legislation. Here’s hoping that the reasonable GOP senators can hang on in health and wellness until the election.
With the GOP’s favorability ratings in the tank, let’s hope more reasonable representation gets voted in to protect the rights of minorities, sick, and poor people everywhere.
Can someone please explain what this death spiral everyone keeps talking about?
It’s an El Rushbo talking point that our pot-bellied, funny-haired dictator wants to let happen to kill the law the African American with a Muslimy sounding name put in place.
Honestly Polar, your reply is just as uninformative.
The death spiral is not when the “ACA will be wiped off the US Code books” – I say this because some legal action has to be taken to wipe it off the books … if nothing ever changes, Obamacare will still be the law of the land as it does not have an automatic end or expiration date.
Inquirer – the death spiral references a time in the future when the marketplace collapses and **ALL INSURERS EXIT THE MARKET**.
To a lesser extent, Death Spiral could also be taken as a time when premiums, deductibles and co-pays are too expensive for people to afford, although in that case, Obamacare is still on the US code books and there are insurers willing to write policies…just not at a reasonable rate for you and I.
Maybe we should get some of his senior officials to use their private server emails to charter a military plane over there to check it out first hand. They can bring their wives and take in some R&R on tax payer dime while they are at it. I heard the cuisine and riverboat cruises over there are amazing!
Wow. This is the only one IJ didn’t delete? No offense Planet, but at least my reply actually answered the question