Of course Liberal Democrats are going to oppose this ruling. They put this monster in effect, passed it in the middle of the night with no bi-partisan support and it has been contentious for 9 long years now. If Congress has been unwilling to fix it, then the courts should and that will get the ball rolling to once and for all do Healthcare right. Costs have spiraled out of control for some years now with populating the rolls with the unhealthy and having the healthy pay for it with much higher rates. The unhealthy should have been put into Pools for their conditions and the healthy have plans that have stable rates.
maybe this will finally give TrumpyBear a chance to pass that great plan that he talked about during the election, or the HEALTHCARE SPECIFFICCS plan that Yogi, with his insider knowledge, has been talking about. In all seriousness, I’d love to see ObamaCare repealed, but not unless there’s something better on the table.
Gee, I wonder if Andrew will censor your comments for calling our President names. Almost as bad as Planet. By the way, Democrats own this disaster all the way. You should be glad that the judge is taking action and will send it back to the Supreme Court. Maybe they will get it right next time.
but it’s only hypocrisy when the OTHER side does it, Cap! it is truly mind-boggling.
December 19, 2018 at 12:48 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
rob,
He’s clearly advocating for censorship, too. Getting quite snowflakey in his old age, isn’t he? Treasons greetings!
December 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
8
There is nothing hip about Treason, and trying to make it hip as you accuse people of it, basically calling for their death, is not ok.
You are more extreme than agent.
Also, he isn’t advocating for censorship, even if he was stating some comments should be taken off. Not all comments taken off are equal, and taking off conservative comments for being conservative, is not ok, and does happen.
December 19, 2018 at 1:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Patreon says hello, Twitter says hello.
Conservative firms have tried to make a system for taking payments on a site, and the leftist banks have refused to allow them to take payments and to set up a platform. A 20 to 30 year old doesn’t have enough money to create a system of taking payments nation wide, it would have to be a nation wide bank backing it.
When you have leftists banks refusing to set up such a system unless you are Patreon or someone who has hate speech banning right side banning folks, you have a problem.
And no amount of Ron shouting “I thought you were pro business” like a smart alec solves the problem nor makes it right.
Censorship is a left issue. The platforms are held by them.
The corporate issue is a left issue, not a right issue. You guys have got to wake up.
December 20, 2018 at 4:17 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Planet, Scromit or Vomit?
December 21, 2018 at 8:10 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Agent,
Try to stay on topic. I realize that is an extremely tough task for you…kind of like citing sources and not simply parroting El Rushbo.
December 21, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
One more thing quickly. Please define a proper noun for us and then tell us why you continue to misuse this grammatical rule.
December 22, 2018 at 8:36 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Platitude; grammar is important, but not central to the issues being discussed here. Please refrain from off-topic diversions.
December 17, 2018 at 8:27 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
With this ruling, the wheels of change are now turning for Congress to implement a series of bills enabling the private insurance industry to fix problems existing before ACA and created by ACA.
One potential stumbling block is Nancy, who won’t admit defeat of her flawed and designed-to-fail bill that she never read before she got The House to pass it. That hurdle is easy to overcome / bypass.
Shortly, I will be discussing the issue with people who can take action in this regard.
Considering the fact that the free market has had decades to fix the health care problem in this country and failed, I am not holding my breath.
There is no free market solution for pre-existing conditions or high risk individuals. Healthy people do not want them in their pool and they cannot afford the premiums in their own pool. In addition, government cannot subsidize high risk pools enough without a significant tax increase.
Ron, all good points. In addition we have more medical procedures and drugs that are available to our aging population that drives up cost. No matter how much we want it to be, the health care system is not efficient from a market perspective. It doesn’t cost less to keep people alive longer. In SFL, we see a high # of knee replacements, funded by Medicare, on older, obese, sedentary retirees that have no interest in using those knees for any type of exercise in the first place. But we have a for profit system that pays doctors to operate
December 18, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Thanks for adding those points. It boggles my mind that supposed insurance professionals cannot comprehend why there is no profitable way to cover high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions. In the P&C world, we call them non-standard and charge appropriately. To do that in HI would be cost prohibitive and force people either into bankruptcy, forgo treatment, or require significant government subsidies. And many of those people are Christians who preach against the government getting involved in business, especially insurance.
December 20, 2018 at 5:00 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Sorry, Ron, but the past is irrelevant when NEW BLOOD has NEW IDEAS and isn’t bound by past CEOs motives. For the record, current CEOs of health insurers DO NOT want to lower costs of HI, and that was due to their own self-interests; i.e. their compensation levels.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and no current HI CEO will stop progress demanded by consumers. Those consumers have been clamoring for solutions to the cost of HI, and creative minds who are independent of the HI CEOs have accepted the challenge and responded with creative and innovative solutions. I mentioned dozens of times before the outline for the solutions. Now that the TX judge nullified ACA, those solutions will again be discussed with those who are empowered to enact legislation to help the private industry to solve the problems existing BEFORE, and CREATED BY, ACA.
Anyone who wants to know what the solution entails should realize by now that the plan is not going to published in a single document or enacted as a Congressional bill. But pieces will soon begin to emerge.
December 21, 2018 at 9:19 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yogi,
Sometimes you naivete is just adorable.
December 21, 2018 at 9:46 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ron, nearly always, your short empty replies do not refute my points.
December 21, 2018 at 10:00 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Your point:
We need new HI CEO’s who will listen to consumers and put their interests above maximizing profits.
My refute:
Try selling that to shareholders and the board of directors. I HAVE YET TO SEE A PROFITABLE, FREE MARKET SOLUTION FOR HIGH RISK PEOPLE OR THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS!! This is criticakl and at the core of our health care issues in this country.
If I am missing something, please provide the detailed solution.
Your point:
The solution will not be in a single document or Congressional bill.
My refute:
Why not? You can lay at the plan in stages, assuming there is a plan, and roll it out as needed.
December 22, 2018 at 8:06 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Ron; no one plan will solve all the ills of the health care and health insurance industrial complex. You believe to the contrary because YOUR solution is a Socialist, government plan. I spoke many times of the private insurance industry resolving the prior problems and problems caused by ACA. That approach requires government support through NAIC model bills and federal & state statutes that encourage / support competition in both the health care and insurance industries.
The approach I wrote of here includes innovative solutions, but those require government to clear the barriers to their implementation.
December 22, 2018 at 8:11 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron; your defeatist position on high cast risks shows your inability to think creatively. Consider the fact that high cost auto risks are currently pooled effectively. Why do you insist on taking a non-starter position that high cost health risks must be profitable on an individual basis? Don’t you understand how teen drivers are subsidized WILLINGLY, albeit begrudgingly, by standard market risks?
December 22, 2018 at 8:11 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
‘high cost’, not ‘high cast’. Bear culpa.
December 22, 2018 at 8:43 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Ron; the free market has had time to fix the problem, but never had great incentive to do so. High risks were shunned or cancelled because they became/ were unprofitable. However, the PAST failures of the HI industry does not bind current and future CEOs from innovations to control costs – to improve affordability, thus availability. Their past incentives were high levels of revenue, which is not compatible with cost controls. One innovation I’ve read about on the web replaces the volume of revenue lost through cost controls via increased policy count; i.e. higher rates of participation by low cost risks. There are also proprietary methods for doing the same.
You cannot engage me in any discussion on the premise that the past guides, constricts, or binds future actions or events.
December 24, 2018 at 8:49 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
They only way I could have faith in anyone preaching a different solution is to analyze their plan. Just saying. “Trust us. We know what we’re doing”, may work for you, but I need details to be convinced.
It’s called critical thinking. You should try it sometime.
December 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
Oh so close! But, nope. It’s HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
Someone told me another item may be added, which requires more letters be added to the above. Stay tuned!
I really want to believe you, Yogi…The ACA is an absolute mess and needs to be replaced. However, why hasn’t the GOP released more info about HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS? If it’s that great of a plan, you’d think they and Mr. Trump (happy now, Agent???) would be all over it, selling its virtues to the American public. That would alleviate the concerns of the people who will lose their coverage when Obamacare is replaced.
rob, I won’t be happy until Andrew removes your prior post. He seems to be reluctant. Why is that?
December 18, 2018 at 12:36 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Agent–
Aren’t you the one calling everyone a snowflake?”TrumpyBear” is a stuffed animal advertised on Fox News. I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve insulted our Dear Leader.
December 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
7
Hey Rob, you are definitely in Planet territory now. Keep it up and you will catch him on the insults. MAGA, MASA, MAFFLA.
December 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Agent,
Here is the thing from fox about trumpy bear. It was not a dig. Please read up before attempting to attack someone for referencing a real stuffed animal.
How is it an insult, Agent? I’m just calling the man what he is. He cheats on his wife with porn stars and centerfold models. What a classy evangelical pick for prez! Not at all like our previous President who actually did something to try and help those who were previously denied health insurance. We all know the PPACA isn’t perfect by any stretch. What we need is Ron’s solution in order for real headway to be made.
December 20, 2018 at 5:09 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
RINO Republicans like McCain, and CJ of SCOTUS John Roberts are cowards who fear(ed) public opinion that would have resulted if they did the right thing to set America on a course to correct HI problems.
The fed govt cannot be in control of the solutions (plural), but they must be supportive of the solutions found by the private HI industry. Reason: the govt isn’t interested in doing the heavy lifting of finding ways to save costs; they simply fund those costs with tax increases and move onto their re-election campaign strategy. But PRIVATE insurance industry CEOs are accountable to stockholders to make a profit and capture market share.
The issue of prexers and adverse selection are not impossible to overcome. Creative minds have taken alternative approaches to resolving them, and what I’ve heard seems very feasible. Lines of insurance such as Auto Liability had difficult issues such as teen male drivers and multi-accident risks to resolve, and they devised No-Fault, assigned risk pools, and restricted vehicle use to mitigate costs and enable availability & affordability for high risks. Some such ideas are adaptable to HI, although they are not those exact ideas. So, stay tuned!
December 20, 2018 at 5:12 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
And, Rob, please STOP saying “people will lose their coverage” when ACA is replaced. Beside being a contradiction, people LOST THEIR COVERAGE due to ACA provisions requiring certain terms and coverage packages.
December 21, 2018 at 8:39 am
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Polar–
As Craig says, a true sign of character is being able to admit when you’re wrong. I stand corrected. In this case, I should have said “when the ACA is REPEALED”, meaning repealed without replacement. I don’t want to see ANYONE lose coverage (again).
rob culpa.
December 22, 2018 at 8:15 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@rob; I don’t believe you really want to believe me. If you did, you’d read articles on the web describing HI and HC industry revisions that would enable replacement of ACA. There’s plenty of such freestanding ideas on individual issues and full detail plans on the web.
December 18, 2018 at 4:45 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Ron, got news for you. The premiums under the Unaffordable Healthcare Act added to the huge deductibles and out of pocket are already bankrupting the citizens.
You know I oppose the PPACA and have since its inception.
Feel free to provide the free market solution for high risk people and those with pre-existing conditions without any government involvement.
I know you won’t because there is none.
December 20, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Ron, Medicare for All like the dingbat Ocasio Cortez wants? It will only cost $32.6 Trillion over 10 years. You can’t raise taxes that high to pay for it or we don’t have a country anymore.
December 20, 2018 at 5:18 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
@Ron; we “don’t know” you opposed ACA since the beginning because we don’t have the entire record of your posts, nor do we care to research past stories wherein you commented as such.
We DO know you oppose conservatives who are supportive of returning control over HI to the private industry (subject to statutory regulation under/ per McCarran-Ferguson, etc.). I am beginning to think you are simply a troll who claims to be an independent thinker. If you disagree, please state your simple, short opinion of freedom of selection by consumers of whatever health care insurance coverage they desire, or to go without HI if they so desire.
December 21, 2018 at 8:13 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I can vouch for Ron – he has been opposed since day 1. My memory can span back that far, I don’t need to research past posts. I simply retain the knowledge he has been steadfast against it. And, he has been presenting his own solution since that time as well. And, his is the right solution.
December 21, 2018 at 10:08 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Agent,
Remember, if we go to a Medicare for all type plan, neither people nor employers will be paying premiums or deductibles.
Did you know that, based on current laws, health care expenditures over the next 10 years are projected to total over $45 trillion? Sounds like we would save over $10 trillion.
My position is simple, there are a few industries, health, education, defense, and infrastructure, that are so critical to the health of our country, its citizens, and society as a whole, that they should not be for-profit entities.
I would have no problem with a free market solution if each person who needed care was required to provide proof of coverage or pre-pay prior to receiving care. No coverage or money, no treatment, period. That is how the P&C world works for most lines of business, and why the free market functions and is profitable. However, that is not how our health care system works. Currently, hospitals cannot turn people away or people file for bankruptcy. And who ends up footing the bill? Those who pay premiums and taxpayers.
December 22, 2018 at 8:52 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
HI is not so critical to our nation that it needs to be controlled by the government and free from private industry to make a profit. You are simply brainwashed by teachers and Liberal media (TV, News, Hollyweird) outlets to think like a Socialist. A similarly wrong argument could be made about auto insurance; i.e. “I need to drive to work to make a living and need a car and auto insurance.”.
HI functioned very well in the past. Health care COSTS spiraled out of control to upset the equilibrium in the HI and HC markets. Part of that is the barriers to entry to create competition to control costs. Other issues are incentives for CEOs to control costs, which conflict with their goal to increase revenue. A novel solution to the latter problem is currently being discussed privately, but not by politicians.
December 22, 2018 at 8:54 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
should read ‘part of that problem is due to…’. Bear culpa. Bear is now foraging for more caffeine.
December 24, 2018 at 8:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I said health, not health insurance. Do you honestly believe that the health of a country’s citizens is not critical? Or do you need to wk on your reading comprehension skills some more?
“HI functioned very well in the past.” Maybe for some, but not many. Recall that the number one cause of bankruptcies for decades has been health care expenses. Funny what happens when more people have coverage and get care.
Ben Shapiro also didn’t like this ruling, both politically and legally (and he is conservative). If the ACA is struck down, it should be done so for the right reasons and in the right way.
Ben Shapiro may not have the perspective of those who have been creating solutions behind the scenes, awaiting this day. IF a viable replacement plan is available, it can only proceed if ACA is completely nullified. So, this ruling is a risky, but necessary step toward better health care supply, better health insurance industry regulation, and thus, better health insurance coverage.
I agree on almost every account, except for one. Go look up Ben Shapiro. He’s specifically educated in the Attorney field. He’s not just a reporter like most reporters. There are reasons the ruling will not hold up. In the first point, removing the fine does not change the bill. It is complicated. You cannot nullify the whole bill the way they did, and this ruling almost certainly won’t hold up as this goes doen the line and will have ramifications when it makes republicans look like idiots taking this route.
I am all for the better insurance avenues. I am not all for doing it the wrong way procedurally, if we do that, the left will do it too in order to deconstruct out bills.
I can agree with you 90% on this. I just can’t agree with taking any method possible to get rid of the law, even when it is potentially messes up the court system, the basis for the ruling, and sets a bad precedent to be used later on.
The original ruling in the supreme court was bullocks as it was, though the left here won’t admit it. It’s not like I’m saying it shouldn’t have been struck down, the original reasoning to strike it down was the right way and should have worked. That is an example of the court system failing. We only encourage it to fail even more when we mimic the left, and make the political agenda more important than the law and system.
The ACA is here to stay. John Roberts is still Chief Justice. And, if necessary, he will find another way to justify this legislation. Stare Decisis! (Stare decisis is a doctrine, or an instruction, used in all court cases and with all legal issues. Stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. These past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle, or a rule, that is created by a higher court decision.) Prediction: The appellate court will likely uphold the ACA. If not, the Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal. There is no “right” to appeal to the S. Court. It only hears the cases that it wants to accept. (It’s a lot easier to get a hearing in a district court than the U.S. Supreme Court.) But, as Rudy Giuliani says, “I could be wrong.” Stay tuned, this should be interesting.
Nope, attorney, it is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS cannot consider it to be a tax because the TAX PENALTY HAS BEEN REMOVED. Please read the commerce clause of the US Constitution, and cite your law school degree for us to consider.
Ooooh, I KNOW, I KNOW!!!! Let me take this one – he’s in the Oval Office (well, sometimes when he’s not spending all morning watching television or playing golf or calling into Fox).
Ignorant comment and not a productive part of politics.
All people are more or less immoral, especially in politics.
Or, biblically:
Romans 3:23-24 23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ”
If you are a Christian saying this argument against Trump constantly, you’re basically the same as the Pharisees back in the day or the extreme biblical right, the only difference is for some reason people don’t keep you in check on the left. You’re not the new age person who has figured life out and would never have denied god, or never done racism or bad things, like most American democrats believe.
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10:2 is a valuable verse to learn and live by.
December 20, 2018 at 4:30 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Agent–
Personally, I prefer Matthew 22:39. You should look it up some time.
December 19, 2018 at 2:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Funny, how suddenly a judge becomes an activist when they shut down a leftist bill, but when they shut down one on the right you claim that Agent doesn’t respect judges and our legal system. Then when he comes back and says that you don’t when it is reversed you call him some type of authoritarian leader.
I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“…when they shut down one on the right you claim that Agent doesn’t respect judges and our legal system.” When have I ever made that claim?
I oppose any judicial decision that takes the place of what should be done by the legislative branch. Feel free to provide an example of something I have posted that disproves that point.
An activist judge is usually supportive of political positions that are contrary to the Will of The People. So, I’d say he isn’t an activist judge – in line with that definition. I’d simply say he is following the US Constitution, and is ‘activist’ in doing so after other judges were activists who contradicted the US Constitution. If you reply to the contrary, please state why a judge following the US Constitution is an ‘activist’ in the sense that you’ve used the term.
Trump REPEATEDLY advised that he had a GREAT health insurance plan which would provide coverage for EVERYONE, including those with pre-existing conditions at HUGE SAVINGS. Why can’t the guy take a couple of hours away from his golfing and share the details of his FANTASTIC plan so that the Republican led Congress can enact the legislation?
Details of the plan have put forward several times. This is the same lie you guys repeated back in 2009 when there were republican options on the ground, and you said there were no bills.
He already passed parts in chunks. Leave subsidies, remove regulations, that’s the plan. It’s not complex.
Here’s my take and I’m not being facetious. Trump never had a plan but since he thinks he’s smarter than most people, especially politicians, he just assumed there was a solution hiding somewhere that no one had found. His ego’s pretty big and I guess it’s expected given his financial success (maybe we elect Bill Gates next?). But in his world, real estate negotiations are often one sided with a winner & loser and the dollars gained measure the results. The world’s problems are not that simple, especially health care. Too bad we’re all losing on this one.
If president Obama did not have a plan, why is the PPACA referred to as Obamacare?
Since when did Obama engage in real estate negotiations?
Since when did Obama have financial success to the point it would be considered noteworthy?
“Andrew G. Simpson says: LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 0
But officer, why did I get a ticket? The driver in front of me was also driving in the wrong lane.”
Just because one person did something wrong does not make it acceptable for another person to do the same thing.
He created the thread. I replied to the thread. His thread is still there.
I was on topic. If a topic thread is off topic, the beginning of the thread should be taken off.
This is not a two wrongs don’t make a right scenario, also, there was nothing wrong with my post.
December 19, 2018 at 2:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
What is funny here is you are doing what leftists do. Andrew helps your goal, so now he is never wrong.
Except for when he is, and your comments start going (and Planet started complaining).
Same error every time in that respect.
Are you going to keep touting off phrases like Andrew is a God? It shows a lot about your personality.
Do you think he has gone too far in any area on IJ? If not, you might be the type of mentality you accuse Agent of being, and those on the right. I don’t follow crowds, I question facts, question truths, and seek what is right, no man is immune to question.
But you don’t believe that, with Andrew, evidently. There is a difference between Andrew being in a position to make decisions, and him making the wrong ones. He has been making the wrong ones, whether his position allows that or not.
December 19, 2018 at 2:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Awwww, did I hurt your fewings Rosenpoo?
I’m really tired of your bull. You are half a man when you make comments like above, and I should be cutting you in half (figuratively) each time you do it so you match the amount of man you put out.
Saying things to be a shining beacon is not the same as standing for truth. You have a huge ego.
December 19, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Did you really need 3 paragraphs to attack and call me names? After the 2nd one, the remaining insults really start to lose their luster. You can do better – and by better, I mean less.
December 18, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
Why not replace Affordable with Unaffordable and we might have the true name for this colossal mistake? People are still waiting for their $2,500 savings for a family of four. Unfortunately, it went the other way as Progressives continue to lie to the public.
Heck, most people I talk to are just happy they are seeing the double digit (and several years 20%+) rate increases they were seeing before the PPACA was signed into law. I’d still like to see Tramp’s healthcare for everybody plan. He said I’d be hoping to go into poverty in order to get it. Can’t wait to see how “great” and “beautiful” it is.
December 22, 2018 at 8:57 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Platitude: please focus on this key point in the future: THERE IS NO ONE PLAN TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS IN THE HI AND HC INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED THROUGH MANY METHODS & MEANS.
December 18, 2018 at 2:21 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
Replace the word “Trump” with the name of 44. Reads exactly the same . . .
I could put Obama’s name in the paragraph but he’s no longer the President so I have to depend on this one to make the necessary changes. Correct? We need Trump to be the “negotiator” we thought he could/should be. It’s not too late. I would agree that Obama missed the mark on the ACA with the mandate portion. Not because of the constitutionality of it but because the concept of forcing more policyholders into the health care system doesn’t drive down rates. Doesn’t work that way in the P & C industry and the health care system is no different. Sounds good in theory but that’s where the politicians tried to play “insurance executive” and we’re all paying for it.
You seem to forget that Obamacare was one vote from being killed: McCain’s. Which would have forced Republicans to come up with a new plan.
Now, however, a majority of people think the Affordable Care Act is cool. Even though premiums have almost doubled since the “Affordable” Care Act was enacted.
Two recent, respected studies found that the reason American health care is so much more expensive than elsewhere is largely because doctors and hospitals charge so much more than in any other country.
And the left screams about health insurance company profits, ignoring the real issue, as usual, because the media simply parrots the liberal talking points instead of confronting the truth.
And you expect Republicans to improve upon the system in this environment? Get real.
December 19, 2018 at 8:55 am
You don't say says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
“the reason American health care is so much more expensive than elsewhere is largely because doctors and hospitals charge so much more than in any other country.”
who would have thunk it? our health care is expensive because of how much people get charged. #rocketscience
December 19, 2018 at 11:18 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Craig, did you really write this or is someone else using your name? Your entire post is comical. You see I really thought that Dr’s and hospitals were pretty cheap but that insurance companies had a real big mark-up and that’s why we all paid so much. Too bad McCain’s Republican partners didn’t fill him in on the better plan that was available so he could have voted differently.
December 19, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
craig, our famous speaker said they had to pass it to see what was in it and said she would pole vault over the wall to get it done. Look what she and Progressive Democrats have wrought. Hey, they lost the House on the next mid term over this “signature” legislation.
December 18, 2018 at 3:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
SW, he did get rid of the tax penalizing people if they didn’t buy, didn’t he? That is a start. No wonder people weren’t signing up in record numbers from the failed website.
Agent – I agree it’s great that Trump repealed the tax penalty … but you can’t equate sign-up numbers through the website as a result of that change — the repeal of the tax penalty doesn’t take effect until 2019, so everyone WILL get hit with a penalty if they don’t have insurance in 2018!
The repeal of the tax penalty should have increased the open enrollment. Instead, further decline. People just don’t want this turkey of high premiums, high deductibles and providing benefits they don’t need or want. Should never have cancelled policies people had and liked to force them into this mandated disaster.
December 19, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I agree that people don’t want high premiums, high deductibles and coverage for items they are willing to take on as their own risk. I also agree the ACA has been a super-duper failure. That said….
The tax penalty was put in place to force people to sign-up.
If you didn’t sign up in 2018 and prior, you have to pay an out of pocket tax penalty.
If you don’t sign up in 2019 and beyond, there is no out-of-pocket tax penalty.
With no penalty in place, there’s no disincentive for people to not obtain coverage; hence, we would expect enrollment to drop when people can choose not to take coverage and not be hit financially.
December 19, 2018 at 7:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
” I also agree the ACA has been a super-duper failure. That said….
The tax penalty was put in place to force people to sign-up”
Put in purpose to, is different than stating actually did.
You keep repeating that mantra, stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down, however, when you mandate a level of insurance to be bought while mandating what insurance companies can exclude, you basically increase the cost across the board as we have seen.
If that penalty made things work, now the first year with it gone, why do I have the option to buy Kaiser the first time on the market, and it is $355 instead of $500 for my wife?
It’s a sarcastic comment, I realize what your reply will be, you will likely say “because your wife is young others are hurt blah blah” and you will never admit a mandate won’t work.
It won’t.
The best thing to have happen is young folks buy these “junk plans” that Obama and democrats say are bad to even exist. They do this when they don’t have much money. When they are older, they buy insurance as they can afford it. Subsidies provide for families, and disabled persons (already does) regulations are removed, and older people for the most part can afford the larger premiums with rare exceptions who then get subsidies.
Our old system was better, though people on the left like to claim it wasn’t by taking anecdotal one off scenarios to claim such and such would have died otherwise, yeah, and other people benefitted before and died with the new system. I don’t see much comment on that from the left. When you raise the cost so that a portion of the middle class both cannot afford the subsidy, get hit with the penalty, and then don’t have insurance and have a claim, then what happens?
This would simply have to be millions of people. I fit the bill. I was paying $10,500 a year on my end for health insurance. I didn’t get a subsidy. I could not afford it. I nearly had to drop it. My wife got pregnant. If she had complications during pregnancy (which she did on 2 of them, and got put on extreme bed rest) what do you think would have happened if she needed those expensive blood clot medicines? I’m fairly sure she wouldn’t get them, and would die.
The ACA forced a multitude of people out of the market who work hard and should be able to afford it, while claiming it expanded it, and gave it for free to people, and in fact motivated women to stay at home to get free insurance (what I ended up doing with my wife, though now due to tax cuts it is worth it for her to work).
You on the left refuse to listen to evidence showing how much this bill harmed people, encouraged people to get out of the work force, etc. Yes, my wife wasn’t in the unemployment rate because she wasn’t looking for work. This lowers the LPR. Ron numerous times claimed it is college students and old folks.
I have explained why this occurs too many times, and the LPR rate for families with children, and women with children, is dramatically lower, proving the LPR rate could in fact be higher if we get women to work.
At what point of your equation do you account for that and try to work on it for women in child bearing years?
It’s getting a little old how much you guys repeat the same mantras but do little to no actual math on your own, and repeat studies, and cliché lines, accuse the right of doing it, and then claim they are ignorant for stating fake news as you repeat the same old uneducated fake news mantras.
Your guy harmed me, and at least 20% of the population his entire presidency, and encouraged people to never get into even the $80-90k joint earnings if you have 3 children which is the average, and thereby, by extension, encouraged them not to go to college, because it is precisely where two college educated earners with an average family end up. When a wife leaves work for the first 5 years of a kid’s life, 3 times, possibly 10 years, that harms the economy. And when she has to do it in order to afford health insurance and pregnancy, as well as daycare, we have a problem. By then, it’s hard to graduate college, at 40 years old.
Watch me while I say the old income cut offs, did this INTENTIONALLY. It is why democrats chose the cut offs they did for IRAs, and 401k’s, when Bush W tried to change them and they said it was for the rich, it is why they got mad when Trump expanded the tax cuts especially to $80k-$200k earners and they got mad initially, and then claimed that the middle class doesn’t benefit with tricky averages that don’t include the most important numbers (so someone who pays nothing gets no benefits, drags down the average, it isn’t the point, that 90k earning family has $3k more, not small, and that is while the wife works now instead of staying home). Account for this in your math Ron.
I never see you address it, nor Rosenblatt. You guys would harm me about $80,000 in 8 years with Obama policies, while you claim you are for the middle class, and would keep my wife out of work. I’m sorry, your policies are not better. You’re not my friend, or the middle classes friend. You and Obama don’t speak for us. Trump does. Trump for freaking 2020, oorah.
December 20, 2018 at 8:26 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
I stopped reading when you put words in my mouth when you wrote that I was “…stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down”. Never said that. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.
December 20, 2018 at 6:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“I stopped reading when you put words in my mouth when you wrote that I was “…stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down”. Never said that. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.”
I spoke for you and Ron, and when you say that to disregard my argument it shows why you are ignorant. I’m not taking a straw man argument, I’m arguing for the middle class, in a real world way, which you and Ron refuse to do.
You incorrectly gauge the middle class and don’t account for what I did above. That is my speaking for what you do, and you do do it.
Your attempt to dislodge me was as usual to go for my character. I dislodged you by showing you don’t account for the middle class by the math.
You never win arguments with me for this reason, and it’s why when I leave the arguments lose substance, you have none.
You would harm me and my wife $80k, you already did. Trump has fixed the scenario, and you’re claiming he didn’t. It’s mind boggling. You’re ignoring all the right facts, and are focusing on nonsense pc style debates. I will have none of it. I go to the numbers, unlike you and Ron. Explain the cut offs, explain why Obama made them, explain why they aren’t harmful, in both the ACA and old tax rates. Go ahead, I’ll wait. It is better for the ACA to be gone than to exist as it does, for the reasons I said above.
December 21, 2018 at 8:05 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I stopped reading when you admitted you “spoke for you and Ron.” As previously posted: I never said the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down. Never said it. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.
December 19, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
I want to hear what all the Smarty Pants IJ commentators have as a solution to the outrageous health care costs in America.
Medicare for All? HA HA HA HA. (“you just pay for it”) Let me know when the AMA signs on to that deal. They LOVED Obamacare, because they knew it wouldn’t touch doctor’s rates. They could keep on gouging everyone under the “Affordable” (HA) Care Act.
I can’t tell you what all those letters mean, but I talk to people all the time who are insiders and you just have to trust me that all these things will happen before the end of the year. Well, before the next election. Well, the next Presidential Election. Well, after the next President is sworn in. Well, after the first mid-terms after the next President is sworn in…..
Two reasons for the delay; Roberts and McCain. Are you scared now that the ACA has been nullified…. until the 9th Circus Court gets it on appeal? Sooner or later, it will be completely and finally nullified, and the private HI will be enabled by Congressional support to produce solutions to prior problems and problems cause directly by ACA.
Your ONLY criticism at this point is that the solutions haven’t been published. Why do YOU deserve to know about what are partly proprietary plans held by private citizens? Do you think you are ENTITLED to confidential info?
Well you’ve finally fallen off the deep end and this is the most ridiculous statement you’ve every written – unless you’ve posted on other sites that we never landed on the moon, 9-11 was an inside job, and Elvis is still alive. Which I’m beginning to think you’re now capable of. So there are some “private citizens” waiting to roll-out a great plan but they won’t reveal it until the ACA is repealed. Why? Because it’s proprietary and means a huge profit for them? Because it’s just the right thing to do? Which is it? Certainly Trump hasn’t been told either because if he was told it’d be all over his Twitter feed.
I REPEAT: there is not a single ‘silver bullet’ plan to resolve HI and HC industrial complex problems. Many problems exist that must be addressed individually. More problems were caused by ACA.
More important, the government will NEVER be able to resolve the
problems with a piece of legislation. I will not continue to waste time replying to such naive requests for a ‘plan to fix the problems’.
December 22, 2018 at 9:06 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Proprietary ideas that are / were shared with government officials must remain secret per the confidentiality agreement signed by politicians to obtain the copies of the plans. Have you EVER worked on a sale or purchase of an insurance organization? If so, didn’t you sign a contract (agreement) to conceal and protect the confidential info? Those who never were involved in such activities do not understand the reasons for the agreements and penalties contained therein.
December 19, 2018 at 3:48 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Craig, most of the IJ commentators would probably identify you as the “smarty pants” on this site but I’m sure you don’t see it that way. Not everything is as black/white as you seem to portray it. Additionally, I’d be willing to bet that most all of us on this site, regardless of party affiliation, don’t think the ACA was/is the solution to the problem. You’re confusing the criticism of the current administration’s ineffectiveness in this area as an endorsement of the ACA. We have a President that stated he had a good plan we’d all love and find less expensive and we have a Congress that wants to eliminate the ACA without giving us details of what’s next. Until the “great plan” is presented I can’t blame people for putting up resistance. You know, there is a chance that the Rep’s could put up just as big a stinker as the Dems did with the ACA.
I didn’t ask for an explanation for the Trump bashing. I wanted your real thinking about how to confront doctors and hospitals. And as I predicted, I got Trump bashing instead.
None of our solution have any chance of being considered, but President Trump’s would be, if he had one. He said he has one that will cover everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. Where is it?
Trump doesn’t have the ‘single, silver bullet solution’. He relies on advisors to develop solutions. Further, it is the responsibility of CONGRESS to enact legislation to repeal ACA and ENABLE (not replace ACA) the private HC and HI industries to fix the multitude of problems in HC, HI, and those caused by ACA.
You’re a Trump basher who can’t stay on topic. We are discussing the repeal of ACA and plans to fix the two related industries’ problems to resolve affordability & availability issues going forward. Discuss Trump elsewhere as it is a violation of board rules…. that SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY IJ.
December 21, 2018 at 10:28 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Craig,
Please provide an explanation how debating our ideas for solutions actually matters. Do you think politicians are perusing IJ comment boards looking for ideas?
December 21, 2018 at 10:33 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yogi,
How is discussing the one person who is the most import individual in the legislative process off limits when debating law? That is like saying we cannot bring up the QB when talking about a team’s offense.
Yes, it is up to Congress, but the POTUS has to be engaged since he will ultimately sign or veto what they send to him.
President Trump has shown time and time again that he does not listen to his advisers unless they are parroting what he already has said.
December 20, 2018 at 10:03 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Craig, I’m not sure that I did much Trump bashing in my post unless you’re looking for it. Which you were. Just stating the facts and if you can find a way to dispute/spin/ignore these very simple, documented facts then there’s really no discussion to have on this. I wish I had a plan to lower the cost that doctors & hospitals charge but that’s not my expertise. I have to put my faith into the people that promise to investigate the problems and fix them. Trump likes to get things done quickly, he said he could do it, and I sincerely wish he could. I’d be a fool and hypocrite if I didn’t support his efforts to achieve this.
You don’t need a “plan”. You need the stones to tell the truth and confront the AMA, instead of allowing the media to push the silly Medicare for All fantasy.
You know who gets shafted in EVERY single payer country: the poor and the middle class. The blunt force way single payer countries lower cost is by denying certain treatments. The rich can always go outside the system because they can pay. But not the poor and middle class.
Mom’s dying? Sorry, that treatment option isn’t available anymore.
Until we confront the doctors and hospitals to lower their costs, the only option is denying treatment.
Make your choice.
December 20, 2018 at 4:29 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Craig, you are absolutely correct that “Medicare for all” would make things worse. The Gov’t cannot be the cash cow that funds a “for profit” industry because greed and self-interest will bury it. Doctors already abuse the current Medicare program. Let’s face it, it’s their meal ticket and while many doctors may complain about low reimbursement rates, many have found ways around it with requiring repeated visits and unnecessary treatments. Their greed is no different than any other industry. If it was bad for doctors, they’d be all over every media outlet telling their sob story. But for the most part they have been silent in our Nat’l health care debate. They may complain to their doctor buddies but it’s better than the alternative – No Gov’t funded Medicare and doctors would be taking goats and chickens for payments like the old days.
December 20, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Craig, remember when this fiasco first started and the prior POTUS had all those millions of policies cancelled that people liked forcing them to buy Obamacare under threat of tax penalty? Another fiasco was the website they spent a billion on that didn’t work. People didn’t exactly get to keep the plans they liked or the doctors they wanted either. Hmm, Progressives think they know what is best for the country and will force their ideas on the American people. How is that working out? Disaster of biblical proportions.
They were wrong to bow down to the conservative obstruction. They should have done something more like the plan you have described many times before. The dems didn’t have enough backbone to even fight for the option they and a majority of the public wanted. That’s what President Obama gets for trying to appease both parties. He never should have used the Republican-originated plan. He probably thought they’d be on board with their own idea. Yeah right, a D is presenting and representing it. No way can they let that happen!
@Platitude: what you refer to as ‘conservative obstruction’ is in reality The Will of The People. Polls taken over the years show how fed up the US public is with all the lies that have materialized over time about ACA, and they reject ACA wholeheartedly. But, continue to use lies like ‘conservative obstruction’ if it gives you a sense of moral superiority, integrity, and social justice warrior power.
December 20, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Planet, we will wait and see if Andrew takes your ugly post down. I am not hopeful that will happen.
You confuse the terms ‘censorship’ with ‘following rules established by private concerns on their private ‘property’ (website). The 1st Amendment doesn’t give you the right to speak as you wish on private webpages; i.e. it only applies to censorship by the govt.
The rules you refer to told us not to insult a fellow poster. Last time I checked, Tramp isn’t out here posting on IJ. And, I’m so old I remember all the insults you, Jack, Agent, and a handful of others typed about President Obama. What’s good for the goose…Or, is it conservative snowflake time?
You guys are still engaging Yogi, Agent, and bobbo as if they are serious actors, and not disingenuous windbags without a moral compass or actual positions of their own.
It’s not worth it guys. Their numbers are dwindling already, just let them fade away without giving them the attention they so desperately crave. If you don’t feed trolls, they die.
Did want to congratulate my fellow reasonable, educated posters on one of the largest wave elections in modern history and several more indictments in the Trump mob made since the last time I stopped by. We’ll get through this stronger than we were before!
Now, go and do your duty, trolls, and donate to the Trump Wall GoFundMe page that will *wink wink* totally fund the wall and not be completely mismanaged, misappropriated, and mishandled. LOL!
Of course Liberal Democrats are going to oppose this ruling. They put this monster in effect, passed it in the middle of the night with no bi-partisan support and it has been contentious for 9 long years now. If Congress has been unwilling to fix it, then the courts should and that will get the ball rolling to once and for all do Healthcare right. Costs have spiraled out of control for some years now with populating the rolls with the unhealthy and having the healthy pay for it with much higher rates. The unhealthy should have been put into Pools for their conditions and the healthy have plans that have stable rates.
maybe this will finally give TrumpyBear a chance to pass that great plan that he talked about during the election, or the HEALTHCARE SPECIFFICCS plan that Yogi, with his insider knowledge, has been talking about. In all seriousness, I’d love to see ObamaCare repealed, but not unless there’s something better on the table.
Gee, I wonder if Andrew will censor your comments for calling our President names. Almost as bad as Planet. By the way, Democrats own this disaster all the way. You should be glad that the judge is taking action and will send it back to the Supreme Court. Maybe they will get it right next time.
Says the guy who probably had 15 nicknames for President Obama. Your hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.
but it’s only hypocrisy when the OTHER side does it, Cap! it is truly mind-boggling.
rob,
He’s clearly advocating for censorship, too. Getting quite snowflakey in his old age, isn’t he? Treasons greetings!
There is nothing hip about Treason, and trying to make it hip as you accuse people of it, basically calling for their death, is not ok.
You are more extreme than agent.
Also, he isn’t advocating for censorship, even if he was stating some comments should be taken off. Not all comments taken off are equal, and taking off conservative comments for being conservative, is not ok, and does happen.
Patreon says hello, Twitter says hello.
Conservative firms have tried to make a system for taking payments on a site, and the leftist banks have refused to allow them to take payments and to set up a platform. A 20 to 30 year old doesn’t have enough money to create a system of taking payments nation wide, it would have to be a nation wide bank backing it.
When you have leftists banks refusing to set up such a system unless you are Patreon or someone who has hate speech banning right side banning folks, you have a problem.
And no amount of Ron shouting “I thought you were pro business” like a smart alec solves the problem nor makes it right.
Censorship is a left issue. The platforms are held by them.
The corporate issue is a left issue, not a right issue. You guys have got to wake up.
Planet, Scromit or Vomit?
Agent,
Try to stay on topic. I realize that is an extremely tough task for you…kind of like citing sources and not simply parroting El Rushbo.
Agent,
One more thing quickly. Please define a proper noun for us and then tell us why you continue to misuse this grammatical rule.
@Platitude; grammar is important, but not central to the issues being discussed here. Please refrain from off-topic diversions.
With this ruling, the wheels of change are now turning for Congress to implement a series of bills enabling the private insurance industry to fix problems existing before ACA and created by ACA.
One potential stumbling block is Nancy, who won’t admit defeat of her flawed and designed-to-fail bill that she never read before she got The House to pass it. That hurdle is easy to overcome / bypass.
Shortly, I will be discussing the issue with people who can take action in this regard.
Considering the fact that the free market has had decades to fix the health care problem in this country and failed, I am not holding my breath.
There is no free market solution for pre-existing conditions or high risk individuals. Healthy people do not want them in their pool and they cannot afford the premiums in their own pool. In addition, government cannot subsidize high risk pools enough without a significant tax increase.
Ron, all good points. In addition we have more medical procedures and drugs that are available to our aging population that drives up cost. No matter how much we want it to be, the health care system is not efficient from a market perspective. It doesn’t cost less to keep people alive longer. In SFL, we see a high # of knee replacements, funded by Medicare, on older, obese, sedentary retirees that have no interest in using those knees for any type of exercise in the first place. But we have a for profit system that pays doctors to operate
Thanks for adding those points. It boggles my mind that supposed insurance professionals cannot comprehend why there is no profitable way to cover high risk people or those with pre-existing conditions. In the P&C world, we call them non-standard and charge appropriately. To do that in HI would be cost prohibitive and force people either into bankruptcy, forgo treatment, or require significant government subsidies. And many of those people are Christians who preach against the government getting involved in business, especially insurance.
Sorry, Ron, but the past is irrelevant when NEW BLOOD has NEW IDEAS and isn’t bound by past CEOs motives. For the record, current CEOs of health insurers DO NOT want to lower costs of HI, and that was due to their own self-interests; i.e. their compensation levels.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and no current HI CEO will stop progress demanded by consumers. Those consumers have been clamoring for solutions to the cost of HI, and creative minds who are independent of the HI CEOs have accepted the challenge and responded with creative and innovative solutions. I mentioned dozens of times before the outline for the solutions. Now that the TX judge nullified ACA, those solutions will again be discussed with those who are empowered to enact legislation to help the private industry to solve the problems existing BEFORE, and CREATED BY, ACA.
Anyone who wants to know what the solution entails should realize by now that the plan is not going to published in a single document or enacted as a Congressional bill. But pieces will soon begin to emerge.
Yogi,
Sometimes you naivete is just adorable.
Ron, nearly always, your short empty replies do not refute my points.
Your point:
We need new HI CEO’s who will listen to consumers and put their interests above maximizing profits.
My refute:
Try selling that to shareholders and the board of directors. I HAVE YET TO SEE A PROFITABLE, FREE MARKET SOLUTION FOR HIGH RISK PEOPLE OR THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS!! This is criticakl and at the core of our health care issues in this country.
If I am missing something, please provide the detailed solution.
Your point:
The solution will not be in a single document or Congressional bill.
My refute:
Why not? You can lay at the plan in stages, assuming there is a plan, and roll it out as needed.
@Ron; no one plan will solve all the ills of the health care and health insurance industrial complex. You believe to the contrary because YOUR solution is a Socialist, government plan. I spoke many times of the private insurance industry resolving the prior problems and problems caused by ACA. That approach requires government support through NAIC model bills and federal & state statutes that encourage / support competition in both the health care and insurance industries.
The approach I wrote of here includes innovative solutions, but those require government to clear the barriers to their implementation.
@Ron; your defeatist position on high cast risks shows your inability to think creatively. Consider the fact that high cost auto risks are currently pooled effectively. Why do you insist on taking a non-starter position that high cost health risks must be profitable on an individual basis? Don’t you understand how teen drivers are subsidized WILLINGLY, albeit begrudgingly, by standard market risks?
‘high cost’, not ‘high cast’. Bear culpa.
@Ron; the free market has had time to fix the problem, but never had great incentive to do so. High risks were shunned or cancelled because they became/ were unprofitable. However, the PAST failures of the HI industry does not bind current and future CEOs from innovations to control costs – to improve affordability, thus availability. Their past incentives were high levels of revenue, which is not compatible with cost controls. One innovation I’ve read about on the web replaces the volume of revenue lost through cost controls via increased policy count; i.e. higher rates of participation by low cost risks. There are also proprietary methods for doing the same.
You cannot engage me in any discussion on the premise that the past guides, constricts, or binds future actions or events.
They only way I could have faith in anyone preaching a different solution is to analyze their plan. Just saying. “Trust us. We know what we’re doing”, may work for you, but I need details to be convinced.
It’s called critical thinking. You should try it sometime.
Oh so close! But, nope. It’s HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
Someone told me another item may be added, which requires more letters be added to the above. Stay tuned!
I really want to believe you, Yogi…The ACA is an absolute mess and needs to be replaced. However, why hasn’t the GOP released more info about HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS? If it’s that great of a plan, you’d think they and Mr. Trump (happy now, Agent???) would be all over it, selling its virtues to the American public. That would alleviate the concerns of the people who will lose their coverage when Obamacare is replaced.
rob, I won’t be happy until Andrew removes your prior post. He seems to be reluctant. Why is that?
Agent–
Aren’t you the one calling everyone a snowflake?”TrumpyBear” is a stuffed animal advertised on Fox News. I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve insulted our Dear Leader.
Hey Rob, you are definitely in Planet territory now. Keep it up and you will catch him on the insults. MAGA, MASA, MAFFLA.
Agent,
Here is the thing from fox about trumpy bear. It was not a dig. Please read up before attempting to attack someone for referencing a real stuffed animal.
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5794810959001/?#sp=show-clips
How is it an insult, Agent? I’m just calling the man what he is. He cheats on his wife with porn stars and centerfold models. What a classy evangelical pick for prez! Not at all like our previous President who actually did something to try and help those who were previously denied health insurance. We all know the PPACA isn’t perfect by any stretch. What we need is Ron’s solution in order for real headway to be made.
RINO Republicans like McCain, and CJ of SCOTUS John Roberts are cowards who fear(ed) public opinion that would have resulted if they did the right thing to set America on a course to correct HI problems.
The fed govt cannot be in control of the solutions (plural), but they must be supportive of the solutions found by the private HI industry. Reason: the govt isn’t interested in doing the heavy lifting of finding ways to save costs; they simply fund those costs with tax increases and move onto their re-election campaign strategy. But PRIVATE insurance industry CEOs are accountable to stockholders to make a profit and capture market share.
The issue of prexers and adverse selection are not impossible to overcome. Creative minds have taken alternative approaches to resolving them, and what I’ve heard seems very feasible. Lines of insurance such as Auto Liability had difficult issues such as teen male drivers and multi-accident risks to resolve, and they devised No-Fault, assigned risk pools, and restricted vehicle use to mitigate costs and enable availability & affordability for high risks. Some such ideas are adaptable to HI, although they are not those exact ideas. So, stay tuned!
And, Rob, please STOP saying “people will lose their coverage” when ACA is replaced. Beside being a contradiction, people LOST THEIR COVERAGE due to ACA provisions requiring certain terms and coverage packages.
Polar–
As Craig says, a true sign of character is being able to admit when you’re wrong. I stand corrected. In this case, I should have said “when the ACA is REPEALED”, meaning repealed without replacement. I don’t want to see ANYONE lose coverage (again).
rob culpa.
@rob; I don’t believe you really want to believe me. If you did, you’d read articles on the web describing HI and HC industry revisions that would enable replacement of ACA. There’s plenty of such freestanding ideas on individual issues and full detail plans on the web.
Ron, got news for you. The premiums under the Unaffordable Healthcare Act added to the huge deductibles and out of pocket are already bankrupting the citizens.
You know I oppose the PPACA and have since its inception.
Feel free to provide the free market solution for high risk people and those with pre-existing conditions without any government involvement.
I know you won’t because there is none.
Ron, Medicare for All like the dingbat Ocasio Cortez wants? It will only cost $32.6 Trillion over 10 years. You can’t raise taxes that high to pay for it or we don’t have a country anymore.
@Ron; we “don’t know” you opposed ACA since the beginning because we don’t have the entire record of your posts, nor do we care to research past stories wherein you commented as such.
We DO know you oppose conservatives who are supportive of returning control over HI to the private industry (subject to statutory regulation under/ per McCarran-Ferguson, etc.). I am beginning to think you are simply a troll who claims to be an independent thinker. If you disagree, please state your simple, short opinion of freedom of selection by consumers of whatever health care insurance coverage they desire, or to go without HI if they so desire.
I can vouch for Ron – he has been opposed since day 1. My memory can span back that far, I don’t need to research past posts. I simply retain the knowledge he has been steadfast against it. And, he has been presenting his own solution since that time as well. And, his is the right solution.
Agent,
Remember, if we go to a Medicare for all type plan, neither people nor employers will be paying premiums or deductibles.
Did you know that, based on current laws, health care expenditures over the next 10 years are projected to total over $45 trillion? Sounds like we would save over $10 trillion.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf
PolarBeaRepeal,
My position is simple, there are a few industries, health, education, defense, and infrastructure, that are so critical to the health of our country, its citizens, and society as a whole, that they should not be for-profit entities.
I would have no problem with a free market solution if each person who needed care was required to provide proof of coverage or pre-pay prior to receiving care. No coverage or money, no treatment, period. That is how the P&C world works for most lines of business, and why the free market functions and is profitable. However, that is not how our health care system works. Currently, hospitals cannot turn people away or people file for bankruptcy. And who ends up footing the bill? Those who pay premiums and taxpayers.
HI is not so critical to our nation that it needs to be controlled by the government and free from private industry to make a profit. You are simply brainwashed by teachers and Liberal media (TV, News, Hollyweird) outlets to think like a Socialist. A similarly wrong argument could be made about auto insurance; i.e. “I need to drive to work to make a living and need a car and auto insurance.”.
HI functioned very well in the past. Health care COSTS spiraled out of control to upset the equilibrium in the HI and HC markets. Part of that is the barriers to entry to create competition to control costs. Other issues are incentives for CEOs to control costs, which conflict with their goal to increase revenue. A novel solution to the latter problem is currently being discussed privately, but not by politicians.
should read ‘part of that problem is due to…’. Bear culpa. Bear is now foraging for more caffeine.
I said health, not health insurance. Do you honestly believe that the health of a country’s citizens is not critical? Or do you need to wk on your reading comprehension skills some more?
“HI functioned very well in the past.” Maybe for some, but not many. Recall that the number one cause of bankruptcies for decades has been health care expenses. Funny what happens when more people have coverage and get care.
https://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/
Why are you bringing up auto insurance? I didn’t.
Ben Shapiro also didn’t like this ruling, both politically and legally (and he is conservative). If the ACA is struck down, it should be done so for the right reasons and in the right way.
It shouldn’t be because you don’t like the bill.
Ben Shapiro may not have the perspective of those who have been creating solutions behind the scenes, awaiting this day. IF a viable replacement plan is available, it can only proceed if ACA is completely nullified. So, this ruling is a risky, but necessary step toward better health care supply, better health insurance industry regulation, and thus, better health insurance coverage.
I agree on almost every account, except for one. Go look up Ben Shapiro. He’s specifically educated in the Attorney field. He’s not just a reporter like most reporters. There are reasons the ruling will not hold up. In the first point, removing the fine does not change the bill. It is complicated. You cannot nullify the whole bill the way they did, and this ruling almost certainly won’t hold up as this goes doen the line and will have ramifications when it makes republicans look like idiots taking this route.
I am all for the better insurance avenues. I am not all for doing it the wrong way procedurally, if we do that, the left will do it too in order to deconstruct out bills.
I can agree with you 90% on this. I just can’t agree with taking any method possible to get rid of the law, even when it is potentially messes up the court system, the basis for the ruling, and sets a bad precedent to be used later on.
The original ruling in the supreme court was bullocks as it was, though the left here won’t admit it. It’s not like I’m saying it shouldn’t have been struck down, the original reasoning to strike it down was the right way and should have worked. That is an example of the court system failing. We only encourage it to fail even more when we mimic the left, and make the political agenda more important than the law and system.
The ACA is here to stay. John Roberts is still Chief Justice. And, if necessary, he will find another way to justify this legislation. Stare Decisis! (Stare decisis is a doctrine, or an instruction, used in all court cases and with all legal issues. Stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. These past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle, or a rule, that is created by a higher court decision.) Prediction: The appellate court will likely uphold the ACA. If not, the Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal. There is no “right” to appeal to the S. Court. It only hears the cases that it wants to accept. (It’s a lot easier to get a hearing in a district court than the U.S. Supreme Court.) But, as Rudy Giuliani says, “I could be wrong.” Stay tuned, this should be interesting.
Nope, attorney, it is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS cannot consider it to be a tax because the TAX PENALTY HAS BEEN REMOVED. Please read the commerce clause of the US Constitution, and cite your law school degree for us to consider.
Further, SD isn’t binding. Every accredited lawyer knows that.
Sounds like an activist judge.
Sounds like he was a smart judge that knew right from wrong to me. Never would have happened in NY.
hmmmm…who else is from New York that doesn’t seem to know right from wrong???
Ooooh, I KNOW, I KNOW!!!! Let me take this one – he’s in the Oval Office (well, sometimes when he’s not spending all morning watching television or playing golf or calling into Fox).
Ignorant comment and not a productive part of politics.
All people are more or less immoral, especially in politics.
Or, biblically:
Romans 3:23-24 23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ”
If you are a Christian saying this argument against Trump constantly, you’re basically the same as the Pharisees back in the day or the extreme biblical right, the only difference is for some reason people don’t keep you in check on the left. You’re not the new age person who has figured life out and would never have denied god, or never done racism or bad things, like most American democrats believe.
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10:2 is a valuable verse to learn and live by.
Agent–
Personally, I prefer Matthew 22:39. You should look it up some time.
Funny, how suddenly a judge becomes an activist when they shut down a leftist bill, but when they shut down one on the right you claim that Agent doesn’t respect judges and our legal system. Then when he comes back and says that you don’t when it is reversed you call him some type of authoritarian leader.
I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“…when they shut down one on the right you claim that Agent doesn’t respect judges and our legal system.” When have I ever made that claim?
I oppose any judicial decision that takes the place of what should be done by the legislative branch. Feel free to provide an example of something I have posted that disproves that point.
An activist judge is usually supportive of political positions that are contrary to the Will of The People. So, I’d say he isn’t an activist judge – in line with that definition. I’d simply say he is following the US Constitution, and is ‘activist’ in doing so after other judges were activists who contradicted the US Constitution. If you reply to the contrary, please state why a judge following the US Constitution is an ‘activist’ in the sense that you’ve used the term.
Trump REPEATEDLY advised that he had a GREAT health insurance plan which would provide coverage for EVERYONE, including those with pre-existing conditions at HUGE SAVINGS. Why can’t the guy take a couple of hours away from his golfing and share the details of his FANTASTIC plan so that the Republican led Congress can enact the legislation?
Who knew Healthcare could be so complex? :)
Details of the plan have put forward several times. This is the same lie you guys repeated back in 2009 when there were republican options on the ground, and you said there were no bills.
He already passed parts in chunks. Leave subsidies, remove regulations, that’s the plan. It’s not complex.
Yeah, throw out his own lines and sound hip and be snide. Great way to deal with healthcare.
Who knew Healthcare could be so complex? :)
Me. And tens of thousands of other people in the HI and HC industrial complex.
Here’s my take and I’m not being facetious. Trump never had a plan but since he thinks he’s smarter than most people, especially politicians, he just assumed there was a solution hiding somewhere that no one had found. His ego’s pretty big and I guess it’s expected given his financial success (maybe we elect Bill Gates next?). But in his world, real estate negotiations are often one sided with a winner & loser and the dollars gained measure the results. The world’s problems are not that simple, especially health care. Too bad we’re all losing on this one.
Replace the word “Trump” with “Obama”. Reads exactly the same . . .
If president Obama did not have a plan, why is the PPACA referred to as Obamacare?
Since when did Obama engage in real estate negotiations?
Since when did Obama have financial success to the point it would be considered noteworthy?
“Andrew G. Simpson says: LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 2
Thumb down 0
But officer, why did I get a ticket? The driver in front of me was also driving in the wrong lane.”
Just because one person did something wrong does not make it acceptable for another person to do the same thing.
Incorrect logic kid.
He created the thread. I replied to the thread. His thread is still there.
I was on topic. If a topic thread is off topic, the beginning of the thread should be taken off.
This is not a two wrongs don’t make a right scenario, also, there was nothing wrong with my post.
What is funny here is you are doing what leftists do. Andrew helps your goal, so now he is never wrong.
Except for when he is, and your comments start going (and Planet started complaining).
Same error every time in that respect.
Are you going to keep touting off phrases like Andrew is a God? It shows a lot about your personality.
Do you think he has gone too far in any area on IJ? If not, you might be the type of mentality you accuse Agent of being, and those on the right. I don’t follow crowds, I question facts, question truths, and seek what is right, no man is immune to question.
But you don’t believe that, with Andrew, evidently. There is a difference between Andrew being in a position to make decisions, and him making the wrong ones. He has been making the wrong ones, whether his position allows that or not.
Awwww, did I hurt your fewings Rosenpoo?
I’m really tired of your bull. You are half a man when you make comments like above, and I should be cutting you in half (figuratively) each time you do it so you match the amount of man you put out.
Saying things to be a shining beacon is not the same as standing for truth. You have a huge ego.
Did you really need 3 paragraphs to attack and call me names? After the 2nd one, the remaining insults really start to lose their luster. You can do better – and by better, I mean less.
Why not replace Affordable with Unaffordable and we might have the true name for this colossal mistake? People are still waiting for their $2,500 savings for a family of four. Unfortunately, it went the other way as Progressives continue to lie to the public.
Heck, most people I talk to are just happy they are seeing the double digit (and several years 20%+) rate increases they were seeing before the PPACA was signed into law. I’d still like to see Tramp’s healthcare for everybody plan. He said I’d be hoping to go into poverty in order to get it. Can’t wait to see how “great” and “beautiful” it is.
@Platitude: please focus on this key point in the future: THERE IS NO ONE PLAN TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS IN THE HI AND HC INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED THROUGH MANY METHODS & MEANS.
Replace the word “Trump” with the name of 44. Reads exactly the same . . .
I could put Obama’s name in the paragraph but he’s no longer the President so I have to depend on this one to make the necessary changes. Correct? We need Trump to be the “negotiator” we thought he could/should be. It’s not too late. I would agree that Obama missed the mark on the ACA with the mandate portion. Not because of the constitutionality of it but because the concept of forcing more policyholders into the health care system doesn’t drive down rates. Doesn’t work that way in the P & C industry and the health care system is no different. Sounds good in theory but that’s where the politicians tried to play “insurance executive” and we’re all paying for it.
You seem to forget that Obamacare was one vote from being killed: McCain’s. Which would have forced Republicans to come up with a new plan.
Now, however, a majority of people think the Affordable Care Act is cool. Even though premiums have almost doubled since the “Affordable” Care Act was enacted.
Two recent, respected studies found that the reason American health care is so much more expensive than elsewhere is largely because doctors and hospitals charge so much more than in any other country.
And the left screams about health insurance company profits, ignoring the real issue, as usual, because the media simply parrots the liberal talking points instead of confronting the truth.
And you expect Republicans to improve upon the system in this environment? Get real.
“the reason American health care is so much more expensive than elsewhere is largely because doctors and hospitals charge so much more than in any other country.”
who would have thunk it? our health care is expensive because of how much people get charged. #rocketscience
Craig, did you really write this or is someone else using your name? Your entire post is comical. You see I really thought that Dr’s and hospitals were pretty cheap but that insurance companies had a real big mark-up and that’s why we all paid so much. Too bad McCain’s Republican partners didn’t fill him in on the better plan that was available so he could have voted differently.
craig, our famous speaker said they had to pass it to see what was in it and said she would pole vault over the wall to get it done. Look what she and Progressive Democrats have wrought. Hey, they lost the House on the next mid term over this “signature” legislation.
SW, he did get rid of the tax penalizing people if they didn’t buy, didn’t he? That is a start. No wonder people weren’t signing up in record numbers from the failed website.
Agent – I agree it’s great that Trump repealed the tax penalty … but you can’t equate sign-up numbers through the website as a result of that change — the repeal of the tax penalty doesn’t take effect until 2019, so everyone WILL get hit with a penalty if they don’t have insurance in 2018!
The repeal of the tax penalty should have increased the open enrollment. Instead, further decline. People just don’t want this turkey of high premiums, high deductibles and providing benefits they don’t need or want. Should never have cancelled policies people had and liked to force them into this mandated disaster.
I agree that people don’t want high premiums, high deductibles and coverage for items they are willing to take on as their own risk. I also agree the ACA has been a super-duper failure. That said….
The tax penalty was put in place to force people to sign-up.
If you didn’t sign up in 2018 and prior, you have to pay an out of pocket tax penalty.
If you don’t sign up in 2019 and beyond, there is no out-of-pocket tax penalty.
With no penalty in place, there’s no disincentive for people to not obtain coverage; hence, we would expect enrollment to drop when people can choose not to take coverage and not be hit financially.
” I also agree the ACA has been a super-duper failure. That said….
The tax penalty was put in place to force people to sign-up”
Put in purpose to, is different than stating actually did.
You keep repeating that mantra, stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down, however, when you mandate a level of insurance to be bought while mandating what insurance companies can exclude, you basically increase the cost across the board as we have seen.
If that penalty made things work, now the first year with it gone, why do I have the option to buy Kaiser the first time on the market, and it is $355 instead of $500 for my wife?
It’s a sarcastic comment, I realize what your reply will be, you will likely say “because your wife is young others are hurt blah blah” and you will never admit a mandate won’t work.
It won’t.
The best thing to have happen is young folks buy these “junk plans” that Obama and democrats say are bad to even exist. They do this when they don’t have much money. When they are older, they buy insurance as they can afford it. Subsidies provide for families, and disabled persons (already does) regulations are removed, and older people for the most part can afford the larger premiums with rare exceptions who then get subsidies.
Our old system was better, though people on the left like to claim it wasn’t by taking anecdotal one off scenarios to claim such and such would have died otherwise, yeah, and other people benefitted before and died with the new system. I don’t see much comment on that from the left. When you raise the cost so that a portion of the middle class both cannot afford the subsidy, get hit with the penalty, and then don’t have insurance and have a claim, then what happens?
This would simply have to be millions of people. I fit the bill. I was paying $10,500 a year on my end for health insurance. I didn’t get a subsidy. I could not afford it. I nearly had to drop it. My wife got pregnant. If she had complications during pregnancy (which she did on 2 of them, and got put on extreme bed rest) what do you think would have happened if she needed those expensive blood clot medicines? I’m fairly sure she wouldn’t get them, and would die.
The ACA forced a multitude of people out of the market who work hard and should be able to afford it, while claiming it expanded it, and gave it for free to people, and in fact motivated women to stay at home to get free insurance (what I ended up doing with my wife, though now due to tax cuts it is worth it for her to work).
You on the left refuse to listen to evidence showing how much this bill harmed people, encouraged people to get out of the work force, etc. Yes, my wife wasn’t in the unemployment rate because she wasn’t looking for work. This lowers the LPR. Ron numerous times claimed it is college students and old folks.
I have explained why this occurs too many times, and the LPR rate for families with children, and women with children, is dramatically lower, proving the LPR rate could in fact be higher if we get women to work.
At what point of your equation do you account for that and try to work on it for women in child bearing years?
It’s getting a little old how much you guys repeat the same mantras but do little to no actual math on your own, and repeat studies, and cliché lines, accuse the right of doing it, and then claim they are ignorant for stating fake news as you repeat the same old uneducated fake news mantras.
Your guy harmed me, and at least 20% of the population his entire presidency, and encouraged people to never get into even the $80-90k joint earnings if you have 3 children which is the average, and thereby, by extension, encouraged them not to go to college, because it is precisely where two college educated earners with an average family end up. When a wife leaves work for the first 5 years of a kid’s life, 3 times, possibly 10 years, that harms the economy. And when she has to do it in order to afford health insurance and pregnancy, as well as daycare, we have a problem. By then, it’s hard to graduate college, at 40 years old.
Watch me while I say the old income cut offs, did this INTENTIONALLY. It is why democrats chose the cut offs they did for IRAs, and 401k’s, when Bush W tried to change them and they said it was for the rich, it is why they got mad when Trump expanded the tax cuts especially to $80k-$200k earners and they got mad initially, and then claimed that the middle class doesn’t benefit with tricky averages that don’t include the most important numbers (so someone who pays nothing gets no benefits, drags down the average, it isn’t the point, that 90k earning family has $3k more, not small, and that is while the wife works now instead of staying home). Account for this in your math Ron.
I never see you address it, nor Rosenblatt. You guys would harm me about $80,000 in 8 years with Obama policies, while you claim you are for the middle class, and would keep my wife out of work. I’m sorry, your policies are not better. You’re not my friend, or the middle classes friend. You and Obama don’t speak for us. Trump does. Trump for freaking 2020, oorah.
I stopped reading when you put words in my mouth when you wrote that I was “…stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down”. Never said that. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.
“I stopped reading when you put words in my mouth when you wrote that I was “…stating that the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down”. Never said that. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.”
I spoke for you and Ron, and when you say that to disregard my argument it shows why you are ignorant. I’m not taking a straw man argument, I’m arguing for the middle class, in a real world way, which you and Ron refuse to do.
You incorrectly gauge the middle class and don’t account for what I did above. That is my speaking for what you do, and you do do it.
Your attempt to dislodge me was as usual to go for my character. I dislodged you by showing you don’t account for the middle class by the math.
You never win arguments with me for this reason, and it’s why when I leave the arguments lose substance, you have none.
You would harm me and my wife $80k, you already did. Trump has fixed the scenario, and you’re claiming he didn’t. It’s mind boggling. You’re ignoring all the right facts, and are focusing on nonsense pc style debates. I will have none of it. I go to the numbers, unlike you and Ron. Explain the cut offs, explain why Obama made them, explain why they aren’t harmful, in both the ACA and old tax rates. Go ahead, I’ll wait. It is better for the ACA to be gone than to exist as it does, for the reasons I said above.
I stopped reading when you admitted you “spoke for you and Ron.” As previously posted: I never said the mandate is the only way to ensure costs come down. Never said it. Never implied it. Never argued it. Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.
I want to hear what all the Smarty Pants IJ commentators have as a solution to the outrageous health care costs in America.
Medicare for All? HA HA HA HA. (“you just pay for it”) Let me know when the AMA signs on to that deal. They LOVED Obamacare, because they knew it wouldn’t touch doctor’s rates. They could keep on gouging everyone under the “Affordable” (HA) Care Act.
HEEALTTH CAARE SPECIFICCSSZZSES
I can’t tell you what all those letters mean, but I talk to people all the time who are insiders and you just have to trust me that all these things will happen before the end of the year. Well, before the next election. Well, the next Presidential Election. Well, after the next President is sworn in. Well, after the first mid-terms after the next President is sworn in…..
Two reasons for the delay; Roberts and McCain. Are you scared now that the ACA has been nullified…. until the 9th Circus Court gets it on appeal? Sooner or later, it will be completely and finally nullified, and the private HI will be enabled by Congressional support to produce solutions to prior problems and problems cause directly by ACA.
Your ONLY criticism at this point is that the solutions haven’t been published. Why do YOU deserve to know about what are partly proprietary plans held by private citizens? Do you think you are ENTITLED to confidential info?
should have been “private HI industry will be enabled…”. Bear culpa.
Well you’ve finally fallen off the deep end and this is the most ridiculous statement you’ve every written – unless you’ve posted on other sites that we never landed on the moon, 9-11 was an inside job, and Elvis is still alive. Which I’m beginning to think you’re now capable of. So there are some “private citizens” waiting to roll-out a great plan but they won’t reveal it until the ACA is repealed. Why? Because it’s proprietary and means a huge profit for them? Because it’s just the right thing to do? Which is it? Certainly Trump hasn’t been told either because if he was told it’d be all over his Twitter feed.
I REPEAT: there is not a single ‘silver bullet’ plan to resolve HI and HC industrial complex problems. Many problems exist that must be addressed individually. More problems were caused by ACA.
More important, the government will NEVER be able to resolve the
problems with a piece of legislation. I will not continue to waste time replying to such naive requests for a ‘plan to fix the problems’.
Proprietary ideas that are / were shared with government officials must remain secret per the confidentiality agreement signed by politicians to obtain the copies of the plans. Have you EVER worked on a sale or purchase of an insurance organization? If so, didn’t you sign a contract (agreement) to conceal and protect the confidential info? Those who never were involved in such activities do not understand the reasons for the agreements and penalties contained therein.
Craig, most of the IJ commentators would probably identify you as the “smarty pants” on this site but I’m sure you don’t see it that way. Not everything is as black/white as you seem to portray it. Additionally, I’d be willing to bet that most all of us on this site, regardless of party affiliation, don’t think the ACA was/is the solution to the problem. You’re confusing the criticism of the current administration’s ineffectiveness in this area as an endorsement of the ACA. We have a President that stated he had a good plan we’d all love and find less expensive and we have a Congress that wants to eliminate the ACA without giving us details of what’s next. Until the “great plan” is presented I can’t blame people for putting up resistance. You know, there is a chance that the Rep’s could put up just as big a stinker as the Dems did with the ACA.
I didn’t ask for an explanation for the Trump bashing. I wanted your real thinking about how to confront doctors and hospitals. And as I predicted, I got Trump bashing instead.
None of our solution have any chance of being considered, but President Trump’s would be, if he had one. He said he has one that will cover everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. Where is it?
That is why his solution matters, not ours.
“Not my job.” Thanks for proving me right again.
Trump doesn’t have the ‘single, silver bullet solution’. He relies on advisors to develop solutions. Further, it is the responsibility of CONGRESS to enact legislation to repeal ACA and ENABLE (not replace ACA) the private HC and HI industries to fix the multitude of problems in HC, HI, and those caused by ACA.
You’re a Trump basher who can’t stay on topic. We are discussing the repeal of ACA and plans to fix the two related industries’ problems to resolve affordability & availability issues going forward. Discuss Trump elsewhere as it is a violation of board rules…. that SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY IJ.
Craig,
Please provide an explanation how debating our ideas for solutions actually matters. Do you think politicians are perusing IJ comment boards looking for ideas?
Yogi,
How is discussing the one person who is the most import individual in the legislative process off limits when debating law? That is like saying we cannot bring up the QB when talking about a team’s offense.
Yes, it is up to Congress, but the POTUS has to be engaged since he will ultimately sign or veto what they send to him.
President Trump has shown time and time again that he does not listen to his advisers unless they are parroting what he already has said.
Craig, I’m not sure that I did much Trump bashing in my post unless you’re looking for it. Which you were. Just stating the facts and if you can find a way to dispute/spin/ignore these very simple, documented facts then there’s really no discussion to have on this. I wish I had a plan to lower the cost that doctors & hospitals charge but that’s not my expertise. I have to put my faith into the people that promise to investigate the problems and fix them. Trump likes to get things done quickly, he said he could do it, and I sincerely wish he could. I’d be a fool and hypocrite if I didn’t support his efforts to achieve this.
You don’t need a “plan”. You need the stones to tell the truth and confront the AMA, instead of allowing the media to push the silly Medicare for All fantasy.
You know who gets shafted in EVERY single payer country: the poor and the middle class. The blunt force way single payer countries lower cost is by denying certain treatments. The rich can always go outside the system because they can pay. But not the poor and middle class.
Mom’s dying? Sorry, that treatment option isn’t available anymore.
Until we confront the doctors and hospitals to lower their costs, the only option is denying treatment.
Make your choice.
Craig, you are absolutely correct that “Medicare for all” would make things worse. The Gov’t cannot be the cash cow that funds a “for profit” industry because greed and self-interest will bury it. Doctors already abuse the current Medicare program. Let’s face it, it’s their meal ticket and while many doctors may complain about low reimbursement rates, many have found ways around it with requiring repeated visits and unnecessary treatments. Their greed is no different than any other industry. If it was bad for doctors, they’d be all over every media outlet telling their sob story. But for the most part they have been silent in our Nat’l health care debate. They may complain to their doctor buddies but it’s better than the alternative – No Gov’t funded Medicare and doctors would be taking goats and chickens for payments like the old days.
Craig, remember when this fiasco first started and the prior POTUS had all those millions of policies cancelled that people liked forcing them to buy Obamacare under threat of tax penalty? Another fiasco was the website they spent a billion on that didn’t work. People didn’t exactly get to keep the plans they liked or the doctors they wanted either. Hmm, Progressives think they know what is best for the country and will force their ideas on the American people. How is that working out? Disaster of biblical proportions.
President Obama and the Democrats were wrong. Does that excuse our current president and elected representatives from finding a better solution?
They were wrong to bow down to the conservative obstruction. They should have done something more like the plan you have described many times before. The dems didn’t have enough backbone to even fight for the option they and a majority of the public wanted. That’s what President Obama gets for trying to appease both parties. He never should have used the Republican-originated plan. He probably thought they’d be on board with their own idea. Yeah right, a D is presenting and representing it. No way can they let that happen!
Always a victim. His place in history . . .
@Platitude: what you refer to as ‘conservative obstruction’ is in reality The Will of The People. Polls taken over the years show how fed up the US public is with all the lies that have materialized over time about ACA, and they reject ACA wholeheartedly. But, continue to use lies like ‘conservative obstruction’ if it gives you a sense of moral superiority, integrity, and social justice warrior power.
Planet, we will wait and see if Andrew takes your ugly post down. I am not hopeful that will happen.
We know you support censorship, Agent. Not a surprise, my friend.
You confuse the terms ‘censorship’ with ‘following rules established by private concerns on their private ‘property’ (website). The 1st Amendment doesn’t give you the right to speak as you wish on private webpages; i.e. it only applies to censorship by the govt.
The rules you refer to told us not to insult a fellow poster. Last time I checked, Tramp isn’t out here posting on IJ. And, I’m so old I remember all the insults you, Jack, Agent, and a handful of others typed about President Obama. What’s good for the goose…Or, is it conservative snowflake time?
You guys are still engaging Yogi, Agent, and bobbo as if they are serious actors, and not disingenuous windbags without a moral compass or actual positions of their own.
It’s not worth it guys. Their numbers are dwindling already, just let them fade away without giving them the attention they so desperately crave. If you don’t feed trolls, they die.
Did want to congratulate my fellow reasonable, educated posters on one of the largest wave elections in modern history and several more indictments in the Trump mob made since the last time I stopped by. We’ll get through this stronger than we were before!
Now, go and do your duty, trolls, and donate to the Trump Wall GoFundMe page that will *wink wink* totally fund the wall and not be completely mismanaged, misappropriated, and mishandled. LOL!