Here it comes: the onslaught of outrage from people who don’t believe in freedom of choice, people who used to be Liberals (people who believe in freedom), people who are now Progressives (meaning people who don’t believe in freedom).
It is quite amazing how much Trump has accomplished in so many arenas while the media spends all their time trying to pretend he is a RACIST! Truly.
(A fun test: ask Trump Haters to list what Trump would say he accomplished; it is like asking a Russian to name 15 major league baseball players.) Can you say, “6 more years”?
This is a short term victory (pun unintended, but left to stand) for the Trump Administration. The long term need is to take control of The House in 2020, and to repeal the ACA in entirety. Thereafter, screams (i.e. lies) by the Left will continue regarding ‘loss of coverage’ and ‘those with pre-existing conditions’ will be uninsured. The truth is that prexers and 26 yo risks will be allowed on their parents policy as part of the transition to a more competitive market that will be regulated fairly after issuance rather than inefficiently pre-binding.
Yogi wrote, “The long term need is to take control of The House in 2020, and to repeal the ACA in entirety.”
I’m so old, I remember when they had that chance and didn’t do it. But, hey, I’m sure Tramp will run on that again and sucker you all like the grifter he is. Maybe he’ll invite you to Epstein’s next airplane party, like the good Bible loving Christian he is.
McVain (sic) was an obstructionist, Anti-Trumper, RINO who reneged on his campaign pledge to US citizens to repeal ACA due to his pride and a ‘quest for revenge’. He’s no longer able to interfere.
Got anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to this discussion?
Got anything to add to support retaining ACA in light of the advanced stages of the Death Spiral intended to lead to a Single Slayer, er, Single Delayer, er, Single Payer health insurance system?
I’m so old I remember when people like you would get mad that their parents would say it was Christian to vote republican, and you would basically say to leave the bible out of it, and would call their parents Christian zealots.
“You guys are suckers! All democrats blocked the bill, but 3 of your republicans did too! Start with the republicans if you want the bill to go!”
That would be me listening to someone who is trying to sucker me.
If my goal is to get rid of the bill, the best way is to get 10 more republicans, when currently they only broke 3 out of what was it, 50? So I would likely only lose 1 and the bill would go voting republicans. If I voted in 10 more democrats, the bill wouldn’t have a chance of going.
This move is tangentially related to increasing competition through de-regulation of HI so it may be issued across state lines, and by many more providers. Only a handful of short term cover issuers exist, according to the article, so the increased competition is unlikely to have a significant effect on most state markets.
I think this is probably a good idea. We need to take responsibility for our healthcare, and insurance is only part of that. We are being ripped off by this all inclusive, high deductible plans.
Can anyone please advise this GOP member what solutions are being presented on behalf of this current administration or Senate? Repeal of ACA and then………
As if the Donkey Club has any useful ideas. Medicare for All? Sure, good luck taking away private insurance from 200 million Americans at a cost of $40 trillion over 10 years when most Americans like their private insurance. Now THAT’S a winner.
How about this: the next time Obama comes up with a health care plan, he passes it with a bi-partisan vote. Or at least a few Republicans. (Because you know, history shows us that ideas loved by only one side don’t last.) Or pass the law without lying about it if you want it to last. (Obama may have flunked Congressional history, but we can’t tell for sure since he won’t release his college transcripts.)
Some of the funniest video on TV: watching Biden and Harris explain that their health plans will “allow you to keep your doctor.” HA HA HA! Fool me once, shame on you . . .
Do you really think anyone is going to cite some or all of the dozens of proposals? I gave several times the mnemonic of common fetures of such proposals; i.e. HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS. Why should anyone post what is commonly available on the web, other than the proprietary proposals?
Don’t ask me – CalDude was the one who inquired about that information! If you don’t want to post a reply to him with the details he asked for, that’s your prerogative. I was simply pointing out Craig’s response solely about Democrats did not provide the answers he was seeking.
July 22, 2019 at 10:14 am
PoMuelLiar Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
YOU interjected yourself into the discussion. So, I will respond to your trolling questions accordingly. If you cannot directly respond to my replies, stay out of the discussion. You’ve proven yourself, again, to be a troll.
July 23, 2019 at 2:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
We have been over this several times, there were several solutions. I went over them by name, itemized what they contained, and every time you guys would then say “the amount of people with insurance would go down” and I would then say “yes! Because some people don’t WANT to buy insurance” and then you guys would say “that makes the rates go up” and I would say “false, the CBO predicted the republican plan would lower rates by 9%, why won’t you allow people to not buy insurance???” and you would then go back to “if more people buy insurance, the cost will go down” I would say “no, it won’t, and didn’t, this plan is superior to the Obama plan”.
I don’t have time for you guys to again say the republicans had no options.
There is no way I’m cycling through this gain, and you WERE involved with the conversations, so there is NO WAY you don’t know the plans.
And I should note that was 9% lower than default, Obama’s plan was supposed to raise them also some 8% from the baseline, meaning a 17% delta.
Then you guys say insurance rates are rising slower! Then I pointed to a Kaiser study I believe it was proving slower premium rises likely had to do with among many things, low inflation, and other factors that have nothing to do with the ACA.
We can rinse and repeat this all day, but you can’t keep saying there are no plans, it is dishonest.
Ron went so far as to then telling me ok, there are plans, but it is the republicans faults for not selling them and no one knows about them.
I then said they cannot force the media to cover their plans honestly.
Good God we really are going to repeat this aren’t we?
July 23, 2019 at 2:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And you guys wonder why the people on the right no longer want to give their studies, I have to re look them up each time. It’s a huge amount of time.
Just to have you “selectively forget” them. Outrageous.
July 23, 2019 at 2:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Experts confirming the ACA did not slow down premium growth, it was expected:
“Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.4
Those figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies.”
July 23, 2019 at 2:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
To the ACA’s credit, this premium increase seems to be from mostly expansions I have to add though.
So for example the family cost is due to expected increases in those on family, and the generalized premiums for non groups going up were due to increased coverage.
However, there are those who just prefer to have lower insurance when they are in their 20’s, and can’t get ACA credits, and save thousands of dollars doing this. They can make that choice, and it is arguably good for them.
The law over regulated the market, fixed none of the issues with medical costs, and regulated insurance, not costs behind them.
You guys keep arguing like we need a health insurance bill regulating the health insurance industry, as if that will change the healthcare industry. These are not the same. We didn’t need 2,000 pages of health insurance regulation.
The republicans have agreed to the subsidies, and the provisions to assist people, children on the plan, etc.
That is all the bill needs to be. Stop defending the ACA by comparison. I’m tired of it.
We don’t need to argue over what is obviously a bad solution.
July 23, 2019 at 3:14 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“We have been over this several times…” CalDude asked the question and I’m not sure you ever went over it with him. My reply to Craig was to simply let him know his reply did not answer CalDude’s question.
July 23, 2019 at 6:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And yet your reply seems to suggest that you will agree with Caldude’s premise that there are no other plans, and he was not asking for a legitmate answer, he was making a hyperbolic statement that there were…none
Don’t try to play me like a flute Rosenblatt,
This statement:
“CalDude asked what the current administration or the Senate solutions were — your response was all about Democrats. That’s not what he was asking.”
Is inaccurate. He was not simply asking what the solutions were, he was implying there were none. Like Tyrion Lannister, “Are you questioning my honor?” No, not at all, I’m denying it’s existence. I had to add some humor, because this is similar. Caldude’s comment was not questioning the plan, he was denying it’s existence.
Let me guess: It’s Craig’s fault that Caldude doesn’t know of the other plans? It’s all his fault for not clarifying?
You could have said to Caldude, knock it off, there are tons of plans, stop implying there aren’t.
But instead, you reply to Craig, stating how he is not giving caldude the information who is ever so innocently asking for it right?
Caldude is wrong, and Craig’s reply is about on point, first to state the left doesn’t have solutions, and then to state we do have solutions on the right.
July 24, 2019 at 9:09 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob, before you reply to someone do you ever stop and think to yourself “this person choose their words carefully before posting and so I will respond to what they actually said and not what I think they were implying.”? I think your discussions here would go smoother if you don’t always presume that what someone said or asked is not what they actually meant to say or ask.
All I’m saying is try taking posts at face value and respond to what the person actually wrote sometime.
July 22, 2019 at 9:19 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
The previous administration passed a conservative plan created by the Heritage Foundation and tested by Romney in his state. But, because a Democratic President pushed it, Republicans are against it. Hilarious!
Rejected because it isn’t viable, not because it was proposed by Dems or RINOs. The Heritage Foundation Plan is no longer sufficiently viable due to current conditions. READ IT before you claim indirectly that it has value due to its source.
States handle insurance better than federal. Having a mandate was not the only similarity. The ACA had plenty of other provisions which make it not the same law, and it was not supported for real reasons. Not the least of which: Federal laws apply to all states, and that in itself is a difference republicans may not be ok with on it’s own.
Republicans are against it for reasons they constantly list, and yet you would rather believe they are just tribal.
It has nothing to do with it being a democrat president, though the left is showing signs of being against all things Trump, because, well, it’s Trump.
The right absorbed the credits, subsidies, and the preexisting conditions into their plan. What have you absorbed from the right? This is relevant because it shows whether you support a plan for reasons, or for party allegiance.
As liberal news outlets censored them, replacement plans are unknown to you (implied by a rhetorical question). I previously mentioned common characteristics of proposals I skimmed or read in detail via the mnemonic HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
Most ACA replacement proposals are available on the WEB for you to READ … unlike the hidden-from-Republicans, and approved-by-Dems-before-they-read-it, ACA. In other words, BIASED LIBERAL media is concealing viable, free-market health insurance plan proposals just as Dems in the US House concealed the ACA before it was brought up for a vote. If you disagree, provide a link to ANY proposal (that you claim don’t exist) that was reported by Fake News media.
Once Congress fully repeals ACA, or it is affirmed as Un-Constitutional by the SCOTUS, most of those plans will see the light of day. Some may not because of proprietary details.
Short list of critical proposals by the current Administration:
Increased competition via increased policy offerings.
Decreased regulations interfering with competition and price controls.
Tax relief for various purchases or actions by health care customers.
Cross-state sales to reduce HI company expenses, decrease costs, increase competition and innovation.
Accelerated approval of cutting edge, life-altering drugs and medical procedures.
I may have missed some proposals in my haste to post. If so, Bear Culpa.
The death spiral ensured by practical details of ACA was intended to increase calls for Single-Payer health care.
The transition back to pre-ACA prexer / High Risk Pools will require some regulatory actions that are NOT possible with Dems in control of Congress; i.e. rescinding the Dems revision of McCarran-Ferguson (aka PL-15) to allow for removal of those pools to enact ACA provisions.
Here it comes: the onslaught of outrage from people who don’t believe in freedom of choice, people who used to be Liberals (people who believe in freedom), people who are now Progressives (meaning people who don’t believe in freedom).
It is quite amazing how much Trump has accomplished in so many arenas while the media spends all their time trying to pretend he is a RACIST! Truly.
(A fun test: ask Trump Haters to list what Trump would say he accomplished; it is like asking a Russian to name 15 major league baseball players.) Can you say, “6 more years”?
This is a short term victory (pun unintended, but left to stand) for the Trump Administration. The long term need is to take control of The House in 2020, and to repeal the ACA in entirety. Thereafter, screams (i.e. lies) by the Left will continue regarding ‘loss of coverage’ and ‘those with pre-existing conditions’ will be uninsured. The truth is that prexers and 26 yo risks will be allowed on their parents policy as part of the transition to a more competitive market that will be regulated fairly after issuance rather than inefficiently pre-binding.
Yogi wrote, “The long term need is to take control of The House in 2020, and to repeal the ACA in entirety.”
I’m so old, I remember when they had that chance and didn’t do it. But, hey, I’m sure Tramp will run on that again and sucker you all like the grifter he is. Maybe he’ll invite you to Epstein’s next airplane party, like the good Bible loving Christian he is.
McVain (sic) was an obstructionist, Anti-Trumper, RINO who reneged on his campaign pledge to US citizens to repeal ACA due to his pride and a ‘quest for revenge’. He’s no longer able to interfere.
Got anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to this discussion?
Got anything to add to support retaining ACA in light of the advanced stages of the Death Spiral intended to lead to a Single Slayer, er, Single Delayer, er, Single Payer health insurance system?
When 3 guys go against the repeal, Trump didn’t sucker anyone, and every democrat blocked it.
The only way that bill is going is if democrats go.
I’m so old I remember when people like you would get mad that their parents would say it was Christian to vote republican, and you would basically say to leave the bible out of it, and would call their parents Christian zealots.
“You guys are suckers! All democrats blocked the bill, but 3 of your republicans did too! Start with the republicans if you want the bill to go!”
That would be me listening to someone who is trying to sucker me.
If my goal is to get rid of the bill, the best way is to get 10 more republicans, when currently they only broke 3 out of what was it, 50? So I would likely only lose 1 and the bill would go voting republicans. If I voted in 10 more democrats, the bill wouldn’t have a chance of going.
This move is tangentially related to increasing competition through de-regulation of HI so it may be issued across state lines, and by many more providers. Only a handful of short term cover issuers exist, according to the article, so the increased competition is unlikely to have a significant effect on most state markets.
I think this is probably a good idea. We need to take responsibility for our healthcare, and insurance is only part of that. We are being ripped off by this all inclusive, high deductible plans.
Repeal and then……….anyone? Bueller?
Can anyone please advise this GOP member what solutions are being presented on behalf of this current administration or Senate? Repeal of ACA and then………
As if the Donkey Club has any useful ideas. Medicare for All? Sure, good luck taking away private insurance from 200 million Americans at a cost of $40 trillion over 10 years when most Americans like their private insurance. Now THAT’S a winner.
How about this: the next time Obama comes up with a health care plan, he passes it with a bi-partisan vote. Or at least a few Republicans. (Because you know, history shows us that ideas loved by only one side don’t last.) Or pass the law without lying about it if you want it to last. (Obama may have flunked Congressional history, but we can’t tell for sure since he won’t release his college transcripts.)
Some of the funniest video on TV: watching Biden and Harris explain that their health plans will “allow you to keep your doctor.” HA HA HA! Fool me once, shame on you . . .
CalDude asked what the current administration or the Senate solutions were — your response was all about Democrats. That’s not what he was asking.
Do you really think anyone is going to cite some or all of the dozens of proposals? I gave several times the mnemonic of common fetures of such proposals; i.e. HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS. Why should anyone post what is commonly available on the web, other than the proprietary proposals?
Don’t ask me – CalDude was the one who inquired about that information! If you don’t want to post a reply to him with the details he asked for, that’s your prerogative. I was simply pointing out Craig’s response solely about Democrats did not provide the answers he was seeking.
YOU interjected yourself into the discussion. So, I will respond to your trolling questions accordingly. If you cannot directly respond to my replies, stay out of the discussion. You’ve proven yourself, again, to be a troll.
We have been over this several times, there were several solutions. I went over them by name, itemized what they contained, and every time you guys would then say “the amount of people with insurance would go down” and I would then say “yes! Because some people don’t WANT to buy insurance” and then you guys would say “that makes the rates go up” and I would say “false, the CBO predicted the republican plan would lower rates by 9%, why won’t you allow people to not buy insurance???” and you would then go back to “if more people buy insurance, the cost will go down” I would say “no, it won’t, and didn’t, this plan is superior to the Obama plan”.
I don’t have time for you guys to again say the republicans had no options.
There is no way I’m cycling through this gain, and you WERE involved with the conversations, so there is NO WAY you don’t know the plans.
And I should note that was 9% lower than default, Obama’s plan was supposed to raise them also some 8% from the baseline, meaning a 17% delta.
Then you guys say insurance rates are rising slower! Then I pointed to a Kaiser study I believe it was proving slower premium rises likely had to do with among many things, low inflation, and other factors that have nothing to do with the ACA.
We can rinse and repeat this all day, but you can’t keep saying there are no plans, it is dishonest.
Ron went so far as to then telling me ok, there are plans, but it is the republicans faults for not selling them and no one knows about them.
I then said they cannot force the media to cover their plans honestly.
Good God we really are going to repeat this aren’t we?
And you guys wonder why the people on the right no longer want to give their studies, I have to re look them up each time. It’s a huge amount of time.
Just to have you “selectively forget” them. Outrageous.
Experts confirming the ACA did not slow down premium growth, it was expected:
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/11-30-premiums.pdf
CBO affect on premiums by 2016
“Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.4
Those figures indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies.”
To the ACA’s credit, this premium increase seems to be from mostly expansions I have to add though.
So for example the family cost is due to expected increases in those on family, and the generalized premiums for non groups going up were due to increased coverage.
However, there are those who just prefer to have lower insurance when they are in their 20’s, and can’t get ACA credits, and save thousands of dollars doing this. They can make that choice, and it is arguably good for them.
The law over regulated the market, fixed none of the issues with medical costs, and regulated insurance, not costs behind them.
You guys keep arguing like we need a health insurance bill regulating the health insurance industry, as if that will change the healthcare industry. These are not the same. We didn’t need 2,000 pages of health insurance regulation.
The republicans have agreed to the subsidies, and the provisions to assist people, children on the plan, etc.
That is all the bill needs to be. Stop defending the ACA by comparison. I’m tired of it.
We don’t need to argue over what is obviously a bad solution.
“We have been over this several times…” CalDude asked the question and I’m not sure you ever went over it with him. My reply to Craig was to simply let him know his reply did not answer CalDude’s question.
And yet your reply seems to suggest that you will agree with Caldude’s premise that there are no other plans, and he was not asking for a legitmate answer, he was making a hyperbolic statement that there were…none
Don’t try to play me like a flute Rosenblatt,
This statement:
“CalDude asked what the current administration or the Senate solutions were — your response was all about Democrats. That’s not what he was asking.”
Is inaccurate. He was not simply asking what the solutions were, he was implying there were none. Like Tyrion Lannister, “Are you questioning my honor?” No, not at all, I’m denying it’s existence. I had to add some humor, because this is similar. Caldude’s comment was not questioning the plan, he was denying it’s existence.
Let me guess: It’s Craig’s fault that Caldude doesn’t know of the other plans? It’s all his fault for not clarifying?
You could have said to Caldude, knock it off, there are tons of plans, stop implying there aren’t.
But instead, you reply to Craig, stating how he is not giving caldude the information who is ever so innocently asking for it right?
Caldude is wrong, and Craig’s reply is about on point, first to state the left doesn’t have solutions, and then to state we do have solutions on the right.
Bob, before you reply to someone do you ever stop and think to yourself “this person choose their words carefully before posting and so I will respond to what they actually said and not what I think they were implying.”? I think your discussions here would go smoother if you don’t always presume that what someone said or asked is not what they actually meant to say or ask.
All I’m saying is try taking posts at face value and respond to what the person actually wrote sometime.
The previous administration passed a conservative plan created by the Heritage Foundation and tested by Romney in his state. But, because a Democratic President pushed it, Republicans are against it. Hilarious!
Rejected because it isn’t viable, not because it was proposed by Dems or RINOs. The Heritage Foundation Plan is no longer sufficiently viable due to current conditions. READ IT before you claim indirectly that it has value due to its source.
States handle insurance better than federal. Having a mandate was not the only similarity. The ACA had plenty of other provisions which make it not the same law, and it was not supported for real reasons. Not the least of which: Federal laws apply to all states, and that in itself is a difference republicans may not be ok with on it’s own.
Republicans are against it for reasons they constantly list, and yet you would rather believe they are just tribal.
It has nothing to do with it being a democrat president, though the left is showing signs of being against all things Trump, because, well, it’s Trump.
The right absorbed the credits, subsidies, and the preexisting conditions into their plan. What have you absorbed from the right? This is relevant because it shows whether you support a plan for reasons, or for party allegiance.
As liberal news outlets censored them, replacement plans are unknown to you (implied by a rhetorical question). I previously mentioned common characteristics of proposals I skimmed or read in detail via the mnemonic HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
Most ACA replacement proposals are available on the WEB for you to READ … unlike the hidden-from-Republicans, and approved-by-Dems-before-they-read-it, ACA. In other words, BIASED LIBERAL media is concealing viable, free-market health insurance plan proposals just as Dems in the US House concealed the ACA before it was brought up for a vote. If you disagree, provide a link to ANY proposal (that you claim don’t exist) that was reported by Fake News media.
Once Congress fully repeals ACA, or it is affirmed as Un-Constitutional by the SCOTUS, most of those plans will see the light of day. Some may not because of proprietary details.
Short list of critical proposals by the current Administration:
Increased competition via increased policy offerings.
Decreased regulations interfering with competition and price controls.
Tax relief for various purchases or actions by health care customers.
Cross-state sales to reduce HI company expenses, decrease costs, increase competition and innovation.
Accelerated approval of cutting edge, life-altering drugs and medical procedures.
I may have missed some proposals in my haste to post. If so, Bear Culpa.
The pre x risk pools are starting to take shape in the form of OBama Care.
The death spiral ensured by practical details of ACA was intended to increase calls for Single-Payer health care.
The transition back to pre-ACA prexer / High Risk Pools will require some regulatory actions that are NOT possible with Dems in control of Congress; i.e. rescinding the Dems revision of McCarran-Ferguson (aka PL-15) to allow for removal of those pools to enact ACA provisions.