Tiberius Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Conservatives like Trump and his minions don't know or want to know the details on anything at all. They just want to "win" and stop liberals from doing anything. Ignorance is their strength. I'm not sorry that is us vs them, though. Its just the truth Trump could care less what's in any health care bill. If Congress pass a "Force Feed the President Excrement Act" but called it a health care bill he would sign it and tweet how great it was before being fed his warm meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 He keeps calling Trump a conservative bwahahaha. Maroon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 He keeps calling Trump a conservative bwahahaha. Maroon Conservative voters elected him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Tiberius. View it anyway? Best feature on TBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Best feature on TBD. Hands over ears, I can't hear you! Too ignorant to debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Admittedly I don't know all the details about the bill, which is why you don't see me debating it. The idea of coming to decisive conclusions without knowing the facts, and then citing a partisan online marketing firm masking as journalism to argue that the guy on TV knows more than the guy who wrote the bill is something I leave to those not smart enough to discern for themselves. This bill is being fast-tracked and nobody seems to know what's in it. Or (I suspect), many are using this ambiguity to maintain plausible deniability so they can just get the thing passed. One key part of the plan is this condition where individual states could obtain waivers which would effectively allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Every account I've read, from multiple sources, makes this same point, that protection from this would not be guaranteed. Are you aware of something that contradicts that? Edited September 21, 2017 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 That's right, no debate, no hearings no nothing but pass it as quickly as possible and what happens, happens. Republicans are just counting on massive $$$$ to blitz Dems in elections. Bad policy for USA can be overcome with massive donations from Koch brothers and other super wealthy Conservatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This bill is being fast-tracked and nobody seems to know what's in it. Or (I suspect), many are using this ambiguity to maintain plausible deniability so they can just get the thing passed. One key part of the plan is this condition where individual states could obtain waivers which would effectively allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Every account I've read, from multiple sources, makes this same point, that protection from this would not be guaranteed. Are you aware of something that contradicts that? Perhaps you could pull the language from the bill which specifically cites this. I mean, when Obamacare was passed, every account I read, from multiple sources, said that if I liked my doctor, I could keep my doctor. When Obamacare was passed, every account I read, from multiple sources, said families would save an average of $2500 per year. When Obamacare was passed, every account I read, from multiple sources, said the law provide about 400,000 jobs...immediately. But then, y'know, the law was passed, and every account I read, from multiple sources, turned out to be dead wrong. So, show me where in the bill it specifically says it would allow states to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, and how the federal government would handle those instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This bill is being fast-tracked and nobody seems to know what's in it. Or (I suspect), many are using this ambiguity to maintain plausible deniability so they can just get the thing passed. One key part of the plan is this condition where individual states could obtain waivers which would effectively allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Every account I've read, from multiple sources, makes this same point, that protection from this would not be guaranteed. Are you aware of something that contradicts that? where was this concern with the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This bill won't pass http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This bill won't pass http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 He doesn't care. As long as its a bill he can sign he does not care what is in it. They should just pass a blank piece of paper bill and hand it to him to sign. Conservatives love this guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 This bill won't pass http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 why do promises now? If I like my promise can I keep my promise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Sen. Chuck Grassley says about the new bill: “You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered. But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/09/20/chuck-grassley-regardless-substance-republicans-must-support-health-bill/685674001/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 He has a point, at this stage of the game that's what Republicans campaigned on for god knows how many years. It was the battle cry for all Conservatives, it was the noose that was tied around all those moderate Democrats who lost their jobs over Obamacare. From a purely politically craven point of view, they really have no other choice, specially if you live in a purple or red state. On the other hand, it is very difficult to know what is inside the bill. To be honest with you it doesn't sound nearly as bad as Democrats or Kimmell make it out to sound. Protections for those with Pre Ex would still be preserved and most likely in most states without any changes. There may be a few states that have a different sort of protection for Pre Ex but it would remain in one form or another. The subsidies or assistance to get health insurance would still be there. To my understanding Medicaid money would go down for most states but that money that was allotted for Medicaid wouldn't outright disappear, it would be available through another vehicle for financial assistance. Each state would have more flexibility to design plans and programs that they believe would best fit their state. If you like ACA protections, those blue/purple states would have the option to preserve that. Some states would get less overall funding and some would get more. From the way I hear it the ones who expanded Medicaid would end up being the overall financial losers and receive less than they used to receive and the ones that rejected it such as Texas would be the bigger financial winners. Bottom line, financial assistance for lower income, protections for Pre Ex would still be available. Oh and in regards to Kimmell. I don't find him to be sincere, I believe he's just another very politically engaged individual who has a platform to push an agenda that he supports (Liberalism) and he simply chimed in to push that forward. I support a bipartisan solution, because when you have something as all-encompassing as healthcare I believe that in order for it to be sustainable there has to be more broad buy in than passing it on a purely partisan basis. But make no mistake, this isn't nearly as terrifying as the left makes it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Oh and in regards to Kimmell. I don't find him to be sincere, I believe he's just another very politically engaged individual who has a platform to push an agenda that he supports (Liberalism) and he simply chimed in to push that forward. I support a bipartisan solution, because when you have something as all-encompassing as healthcare I believe that in order for it to be sustainable there has to be more broad buy in than passing it on a purely partisan basis. But make no mistake, this isn't nearly as terrifying as the left makes it out to be. Oh Kimmell is 100% sincere. He's 90% misguided on the issue due to the emotional attachment, but he's certainly sincere in his misguided effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Oh Kimmell is 100% sincere. He's 90% misguided on the issue due to the emotional attachment, but he's certainly sincere in his misguided effort. Ok, you can disregard Kimmell completely. It's not about Jimmy Kimmell--he just got some people riled up about it. The merits of the bill have zero to do with the sincerity/insincerity of a late night tv host. The issue remains, whether people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance and whether they will be protected from price gouging. The best I've heard so far in defense of the bill is along the lines of "well, kind of, probably...in some states anyway..." That's still a problem. And Cassidy is being dishonest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Oh Kimmell is 100% sincere. He's 90% misguided on the issue due to the emotional attachment, but he's certainly sincere in his misguided effort. Not really. Everything he said could happen. Healthcare is a tough issue that I wish wasn't political. People have greatly benefited from the ACA while other's have greatly suffered because of the ACA. The system before it was even worse. I'm sick of worrying about what the GOP might pass. All you can do is prepare for the worst and look out and support those closest to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Ok, you can disregard Kimmell completely. It's not about Jimmy Kimmell--he just got some people riled up about it. The merits of the bill have zero to do with the sincerity/insincerity of a late night tv host. The issue remains, whether people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance and whether they will be protected from price gouging. The best I've heard so far in defense of the bill is along the lines of "well, kind of, probably...in some states anyway..." That's still a problem. And Cassidy is being dishonest about it. Kimmel is a problem because he perpetuates the myth that pre-existing conditions are the sticking point, which you also fall for. Pre existing conditions are a necessary evil to make insurance affordable, otherwise nobody would buy insurance until they got the condition. At that point, it's not insurance. The bigger item is portability, similar to what exists in employer plans and Medicare. Once you have insurance, you can transport the plan along with your pre existing condition. But G-d forbid that people take time to educate themselves on the matter, when they can get teary eyed on the screen. Kimmel doesn't even realize that his grandstanding would be worse for future cases like his sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2017 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 All you can do is prepare for the worst and look out and support those closest to you. This should replace e pluribus unum on our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 What the legislation does is turn the federal funding that was used for the Medicaid expansion and Federal subsidy distribution and divert that money to the States. Net overall dollars towards healthcare is the same. The only area where there is some ambiguity is beyond 2026. But anyone who thinks we are going backwards in overall coverage by 2026 isn't paying attention to where we are as a society and how the majority of populace believes coverage should be. The Pre Ex will still be there, that's in the bill. The only thing that is uncertain is how that coverage for Pre Ex would look like. At worst you could get it but it may be more expensive to get it than in another state. In regards to Medicaid expansion, the states that accepted it have a threshold of $16,000 a year or below to qualify, the states that didn't expand Medicaid's threshold qualify at $12,000 a year. So the Medicaid expansion is for those in between $12,000 to $16,000. So even if that is slashed in your state, (which state's have the option to maintain that threshold, just that they would receive less federal funding to do it), there still would be a lot of dollars to use what was for Medicaid for another form of assistance. Just so you guys know, there are places in the U.S where people with incomes of $12,000-$16,000 a year are able to get these $0 Deductible plans with $0 copays with Max out of pockets of less than $1000 HMO plans. The point that I"m making is even if you lose your Medicaid, you would most likely still be able to get lots of assistance to help pay for a health plan. The reason why it's difficult to talk details is because each state would be able to design their own sort of healthcare system. Bottom line, Pre Ex would be covered and assistance would still be provided to lower income folks. And overall money available would remain essentially unchanged. Everything he said could happen. Could? How? If Pre Ex is still mandatory and funding is still at similar levels than it was before but is now being diverted to the states, how could this happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts