View Full Version : Obamacare repeal fails. Three republicans vote no.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40750071
Between the sanction bill and this, not a good day for the white house. :blink:
Some Republicans are just backstabbers. Guys like McCain should just leave. RINOs as it turns out.
They had years to prepare something to replace the ACA, them not being ready to do so, is solely their own fault.
Don't be mad at the three that voted no, be mad at all of them for not having a plan in place to be voted on when they got their first chance.
This should've been done and signed on Trumps first day.
They had years to prepare something to replace the ACA, them not being ready to do so, is solely their own fault.
Don't be mad at the three that voted no, be mad at all of them for not having a plan in place to be voted on when they got their first chance.
This should've been done and signed on Trumps first day.
Thank you. I didn't vote for Trump so we could have a slightly less crappy version of Obamacare.
Personally I wish the gov would get completely OUT of healthcare but there are $$$$$ to be made from stupid people who don't realize the solution is being able to shop around to providers out of state and find the plan YOU NEED at the best price.
But since that isn't going to happen, they need a plan that actually is more cost effective than the current boondoggle but at the same time don't turn your HMO into the DMV. Problem is you can't give everyone "free shit" and expect it to cost less. That is why Obamacare premiums were starting to spike up hard. Sure you're covered....if you can make the payments.
Problem is the guy whose job it is to kick ass and make people start working on real world solutions and then vote for it is one of the guys who is part of the freaking problem. At least Trump has killed the mandate in the meantime so I'm not paying for everyone else's healthcare while at the same time not being able to afford healthcare for myself.
That first Obama penalty was really offensive to me.
Moose-Knuckle
07-28-17, 03:58
It's all Trumps fault I tell you!
Well him and the CCCP . . .
Didn't these asshats pass a repeal during Obama knowing full well he would veto it. They can do it for show but can't do it for real?
I have a feeling that that scumbag voted NO just because Trump is president.
They just look like a bunch of monkeys trying to eff a football.
The Republicans, especially the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats. (Not that I will ever vote for a Democrat) People voted for Trump because they were sick of the PC, liberal/progressive direction of out country under Obama, and the Dems. Now we are seeing the Republicans fighting Trump on everything the American people wanted in a vote for Trump. We need to primary out the establishment Republicans. RINO's.
Averageman
07-28-17, 06:36
The Republicans, especially the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats. (Not that I will ever vote for a Democrat) People voted for Trump because they were sick of the PC, liberal/progressive direction of out country under Obama, and the Dems. Now we are seeing the Republicans fighting Trump on everything the American people wanted in a vote for Trump. We need to primary out the establishment Republicans. RINO's.
That is the perfect summary of our current situation.
The Swamp is deep and the people living and thriving in it do not want any change that might make them get rich(er) at a slower rate or possibly, actually have to serve the Voters who put them in to office.
From the article;
At least three Republicans - John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski - voted against the bill, which needed a simple majority to pass.
People need to remember the names of these two spoilers, the third no longer serves the people of Arizona and might no longer have the mental capacity to serve in office.
So, remind me again why he is still sitting in that chair?
Where are you guys seeing only 3?
There were 7... not to mention that 6 of the 7 were "repeal" votes back when Obama was in office.
The GOP vote on a clean repeal of Obamacare failed today, 45-55.
7 GOP no votes on straight repeal:
•Alexander (TN)
•Capito (WV)
•Collins (ME)
•Heller (NV)
•McCain (AZ)
•Murkowski (AK)
•Portman (OH)
Then there is tidbit.... as if we didn't know. Eric Cantor has come out and said he lied to the American People about his stance on Obamacare simply to get votes.
Link from Rachel Maddow... Rachel, now if only half the Dems would admit the whole ObamaCare deal was a lie we might get somewhere. We in VA knew Eric was a tool and got rid of him. Now you get rid of Schumer and his ilk.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cantor-comes-clean-admits-he-didnt-believe-his-own-aca-rhetoric
Didn't these asshats pass a repeal during Obama knowing full well he would veto it. They can do it for show but can't do it for real?
I have a feeling that that scumbag voted NO just because Trump is president.
They just look like a bunch of monkeys trying to eff a football.I believe they did about 40 some times.
But can't do it for real, amazing.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
The republican establishment does not want obamacare repealed and most of them want obamacare. I have been saying this for years.
They all vote NO during a time when they have political cover knowing it will be the law of the land and blame it on democrats. When it comes time to actually repeal it, these same votes are not there. Why? Because many of them want obmamacare.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-28-17, 11:18
Both parties are in tatters. The GOP is a bunch of idiots who can't see past their shoes and the Dems are nothing more than collection of Balkanized interest groups so self centered that they can't see that their coalition is at odds with itself.
So we end up with single payer. Due to most chuckle heads not hacking life and providing for themselves, we pretty much are there with Medicaid. Throw in Medicare and we all but have single payer already when you look at the number of people getting care. The AI docs better pan out because you can't run the current medical system on medicaid reimbursement rates. So, you'll go through single payer to full socialized- basically VA hospitals for all. Just look at the debacle we have here in CO with the new VA hospital in Aurora. No offense to people that work at VA hospitals, but you want to see angry voters, wait till the soccer moms get VA style care when it comes to baby deliveries. No more hotel looking suites and valet parking.
So neither party can or wants to lead.
sidewaysil80
07-28-17, 11:37
I don't see won't acknowledge the obvious...as others have said the PARTY had years to prepare a viable replacement. Everything they have provided since Trump took office is just as bad as O-care. Why replace it with something just as bad? Fully repeal or pass something better. This was neither, glad it didn't pass.
Can always count on McCain and Susan 'Rattle Head' Collins to upset the apple cart.
I'm convinced that the GOP as a whole only exists at this point to cast the illusion of a two party system.. Politicians are a step down from used car salesmen. You know they are lying when their mouths move.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-28-17, 11:54
I don't see won't acknowledge the obvious...as others have said the PARTY had years to prepare a viable replacement. Everything they have provided since Trump took office is just as bad as O-care. Why replace it with something just as bad? Fully repeal or pass something better. This was neither, glad it didn't pass.
At this point a full repeal is the only logical step. That won't happen though because it shows that half of the GOP are clueless and the other half are waiting for some Lobbyists to write the Bill for them.
They would be exposed as the fraudulent idiots they truly are.
Doing away with the ACA and opening up the system to National, not State wide competition would bring us back to or better than where we were before this boondoggle started.
I'm with POTUS Trump at this point. Let it totally fail and force them to fix it afterwards.
If the States want some form of ACA let them set up a system for themselves. I really don't think the Feds have a very good track record with this type of policy anyway.
Calling them Used Car Salesmen only gives Used Car Salesmen a bad name.
Due to most chuckle heads not hacking life and providing for themselves, we pretty much are there with Medicaid.
Overall, 17% of Americans were on Medicaid in 2015. Overall, of the non-elderly families on Medicaid, 63% of the families had at least one full time worker, only 23% had no one working. So it seems that most of the folks on Medicaid are trying to support their families.
The highest percentages on Medicaid by state were as follows, the first percentage is the percent of population on Medicaid, second percentage is number of families on Medicaid not working:
West Virginia 23% (RED) 34% not working; Maine 23% (BLUE) 21% not working; Vermont 21% (BLUE) 22% not working. Followed by these states with 20% of the population on Medicaid: Alabama (RED) 34% not working, Arkansas (RED) 29% not working, Florida (TOSS UP) 25% not working, New Hampshire (BLUE) 21% not working, Montana (RED) 20% not working, and Pennsylvania (BLUE) 29% not working.
Surprisingly, to me anyways, the four lowest states were Alaska 11% (RED) 19% not working; Utah 12% (RED) 16% not working; District of Columbia (BLUE) 33% not working, and Texas (RED) at 13%, 21% not working. Closely followed by these two states with 14% of the population on Medicaid: California (BLUE) 20% not working, and Colorado (BLUE) 15% not working.
I'm sure someone can make something of those trends, the colors are based on the last four presidential elections. What I see is a disconnect in the narrative that all folks on Medicaid are lazy slugs. Seems to me that maybe some of the legislators we are denigrating see that also and want to make sure they have some cover.
Throw in Medicare and we all but have single payer already when you look at the number of people getting care.
During a 44 year work career I've paid in roughly 2.25% of my total earned wages to Medicare. The deal was those funds were supposed to be set aside/used to fund the program. I don't know what, or how, you intend to pay for health insurance when you retire, but Medicare is the deal we are and were offered. Shit like not letting Medicare competitivelt price drugs drives up costs and makes pharmaceutical richer on the backs of taxpayers. Fix that and we will go a long way toward reeling in costs.
The AI docs better pan out because you can't run the current medical system on medicaid reimbursement rates.
Hospitals don't go broke treating Medicaid and Medicare patients. Look at how those rates are set, do you think that the doctors who help set those rates are going to set them so low they would go broke? No. The truth is they don't maximize profits taking Medicare or Medicaid patients.
Wait till the soccer moms get VA style care when it comes to baby deliveries. No more hotel looking suites and valet parking.
A good number of those birthing suites and private rooms were built to burn off money from excess money that non-profit hospitals generated from their out of whack billing systems. That and obscene wages for administrators.
So neither party can or wants to lead.
Don't get me wrong, I think both sides for the most part are bought and paid for. But it doesn't help that we have a population full of self-centered pr#$ks that only want to look out for themselves and f%^k everyone else. Evidence of that is everywhere you look, starting with the percentage of Americans who serve the Nation in one capacity or another. I do not think this 'eff you buddy, I'm getting mine' is what the founders envisioned.
Don't get me wrong, I think both sides for the most part are bought and paid for. But it doesn't help that we have a population full of self-centered pr#$ks that only want to look out for themselves and f%^k everyone else. Evidence of that is everywhere you look, starting with the percentage of Americans who serve the Nation in one capacity or another. I do not think this 'eff you buddy, I'm getting mine' is what the founders envisioned.
No, but it has a snowball effect that feeds on itself. If you are a "producer", meaning you actually go to friggin' work and pay taxes, pay your bills on time, and manage your finances respectably, it is a self-protection mechanism to say "Screw them" when you see a growing welfare-state of entitlements that YOU don't get but sure as hell are paying for. The "disabled" are a totally different class than they were 40 or 50 years ago. Obesity, fibro (don't get me started on that one), anxiety (BOO!!! Now pull up your bootstraps and deal with it), crap like that means SSI and Medicare. Don't have enough gumption to work anywhere other than Wal Mart and you're 50yo? No problemo, .gov will take from the rest of us and pay your Obamacare premiums. It's garbage like that which leads many people to say "Screw my fellow countryman".
I know you are a religiously oriented person 26th, but I'm NOT my brother's keeper. That ship sailed a L-O-N-G time ago. Too many in the wagon and a dwindling number of those pulling the damn thing! In my case it's not "Well what's in it for me?" but instead "I'm tired of footing the bill for YOU, go screw yourself I don't give a damn about you". Like I said, the Founders may not have envisioned that but they certainly didn't envision the rest of the story that drove people to that attitude.
The truth of this whole thing is it does not really matter if it is repealed or not. All this did was show the American people how their representatives will vote on the issue.
All of the power is in Trumps hand. If he wants it to go away he simply has to ignore it and do nothing. It is that simple.
Here is why:
The Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) is not a part of the ACA law. It is an afterthought that was funded via a Obama EO.
The CSR is the only thing that makes what limited insurance companies participate in the ACA.
If there are no insurance companies in the ACA then Obamacare simply dies.
Knowing that the CSR may not be funded for 2018 all Qualified Health Plans (QHP) submitting bids have a clause in their submissions that if the CSR goes away they can withdraw immediately from the ACA.
So how many people think that Trump is going to sign an EO that will throw away billions of dollars?
Averageman
07-28-17, 14:16
So why doesn't the guy just EO the CSR out of existence today?
Just defund the whole disaster and force their hand?
So why doesn't the guy just EO the CSR out of existence today?
Just defund the whole disaster and force their hand?
The last EO that Obama did funded it for the 2017 plan year. Can't revoke it because it is already spent and if they did revoke it they would destroy the insurance companies that are involved in it. It would be a disaster that he caused. Not very good to destroy a multi billion dollar section of the American economy. Something like that would destroy him and any chance of a REP getting elected for the next 20 years or so.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-28-17, 15:04
Don't get me wrong, I think both sides for the most part are bought and paid for. But it doesn't help that we have a population full of self-centered pr#$ks that only want to look out for themselves and f%^k everyone else. Evidence of that is everywhere you look, starting with the percentage of Americans who serve the Nation in one capacity or another. I do not think this 'eff you buddy, I'm getting mine' is what the founders envisioned.
My point was that the govt already has a large portion of control of medical dollars spent. And hospitals and providers would take a hit if they only went on lower rates from Medicaid. Of course not all the people on Medicaid are dead beats, but when you have that much of the population on those programs, obviously something is wrong. I get first hand accounts of the people on Medicaid and programs like WIC. What I really wish is that the money could be better spent on people that need care instead of people that could afford and plan for their own care.
The problem isn't that we don't spend enough. It's just we spend it really poorly.
You can't fix the problem from a command and control national authority. You have to get down at the local level and start getting people to make rational economic decisions with what they feel is their money. Otherwise you end up with the monster we have now and no hope in sight of fixing it.
I'm with you on your last two points.
Not necessarily saying you, but I get tired of hearing folks rag on about the lazy so and so's when the fact is that most are employed in jobs that don't pay them any benefits.
I get equally tired of hearing, 'well, they just need to get better jobs.' Duh, do folks think that they wouldn't if they could? (those that are working).
I hope none of us find ourselves in those straits.
But I'm NOT my brother's keeper. That ship sailed a L-O-N-G time ago.
With that in mind you voluntarily join a very short list of folks for whom I won't do the tissue typing if you need a kidney.
FYI: "brother's keeper" was a rhetorical reply from a murderer to God's question regarding the victim. It isn't a mandate of what you *should* do as a moral agent. The religious mandate takes care of "neighbors" but that means freely, proximate, and limited. It ceases to be neighborly or a virtue when coerced, broad, and endless.
That said, I'm considering dropping insurance. I can afford it. But all the procedures my family has endured the last few years didn't reach the cost of a single year of premiums... if I'm donating my money to help others, I want a tax deduction for my premiums.
thopkins22
07-28-17, 17:12
This is a leadership failure. We have a president giving positions to wannabe gangsters/dystopic frat boys, at least one child of a felon advising him/in his family, and it's ****ing Lord of the Flies in congress.
Both parties are in shambles. Good riddance to them both...but it's gonna be a bumpy ride will we figure it out.
Or are we still pretending that this shit show is acceptable or that it's a liberal conspiracy?
We're hitting new lows in terms of decorum and class every single day, and at this rate I'm getting nearer to pulling a reverse Michelle Obama.
ditto !
as I say it is us peons vs the elite in power and they are more together with each other than with us
when you look at those votes you kinda go hmmm quite a few from states you think are more conservative! showing who has the power of what you think is conservative yet is not
really this is oligarchy now more than ever as we see the Bushes and its family tree the Clintons the Kennedy and so on
I'm convinced that the GOP as a whole only exists at this point to cast the illusion of a two party system.. Politicians are a step down from used car salesmen. You know they are lying when their mouths move.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
FYI: "brother's keeper" was a rhetorical reply from a murderer to God's question regarding the victim. It isn't a mandate of what you *should* do as a moral agent. The religious mandate takes care of "neighbors" but that means freely, proximate, and limited.
Well, I guess that may be true if you discount this:
Matt 28:18-20 "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
And this:
Luke 10:25-37 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied, “How do you read it?”
The expert answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But the expert in the law wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite (member of the tribe of Levi, charged toassist Priests in the worship at the Temple) when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, (Samaritans accepted only the Mosaic books and rejected the Prophets there were despised by the Jews) as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
Jesus asked, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
It ceases to be neighborly or a virtue when coerced, broad, and endless.
It cease to be a virtue when help isn't freely given, with a happy heart.
2 Corinthians 9:7-8 (NLV): Each man should give as he has decided in his heart. He should not give, wishing he could keep it. Or he should not give if he feels he has to give. God loves a man who gives because he wants to give. God can give you all you need. He will give you more than enough. You will have everything you need for yourselves. And you will have enough left over to give when there is a need.
That said, I'm considering dropping insurance. I can afford it. But all the procedures my family has endured the last few years didn't reach the cost of a single year of premiums... if I'm donating my money to help others, I want a tax deduction for my premiums.
I felt the same way, then one day I fell off a roof. The first week bought back almost every penny I'd ever paid.
I've been lucky, I've always had good insurance, and our family has made use of that insurance to get regular check ups to nip things in the bud. If you don't choose to look at it from that perspective, then by all means, keep a high deductible catastrophic policy in play.
2013: Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy - Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half
As legislators and the executive branch renew their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, they might want to keep in mind a little-known financial consequence of the ACA: Since its adoption, far fewer Americans have taken the extreme step of filing for personal bankruptcy.
Filings have dropped about 50 percent, from 1,536,799 in 2010 to 770,846 in 2016 (see chart, below). Those years also represent the time frame when the ACA took effect. Although courts never ask people to declare why they’re filing, many bankruptcy and legal experts agree that medical bills had been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy before public healthcare coverage expanded under the ACA. Unlike other causes of debt, medical bills are often unexpected, involuntary, and large........
The many experts we interviewed also pointed to two other contributing factors: an improving economy and changes to bankruptcy laws in 2005 that made it more difficult and costly to file. However, they almost all agreed that expanded health coverage played a major role in the marked, recent decline........
Some of the most important financial protections of the ACA apply to all consumers, whether they get their coverage through ACA exchanges or the private insurance marketplace. These provisions include mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions and, on most covered benefits, an end to annual and lifetime coverage caps. Aspects of the law, including provisions for young people to be covered by a family policy until age 26, went into effect in 2010 and 2011, before the full rollout of the ACA in 2014.
“It’s absolutely remarkable,” says Jim Molleur, a Maine-based bankruptcy attorney with 20 years of experience. “We’re not getting people with big medical bills, chronically sick people who would hit those lifetime caps or be denied because of pre-existing conditions. They seemed to disappear almost overnight once ACA kicked in.”
https://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/
With that in mind you voluntarily join a very short list of folks for whom I won't do the tissue typing if you need a kidney.
I'm okay with that. really.
Being made comfortable in one's mediocre existence by virtue of someone else shoring them up (i.e. Obamacare subsidies and other entitlements) is what I was referring to with regards to bettering one's life.
Isn't there also something in the Bible about (in effect) pulling your own weight?
if I'm donating my money to help others, I want a tax deduction for my premiums.
Yeah, nobody ever wants to talk about closing that tax loophole.
I'm okay with that. really.
Being made comfortable in one's mediocre existence by virtue of someone else shoring them up (i.e. Obamacare subsidies and other entitlements) is what I was referring to with regards to bettering one's life.
Isn't there also something in the Bible about (in effect) pulling your own weight?
Well, I'm not, I'd help you out if I could. Really.
I get what you are saying by comfortable in one's mediocre existence by virtue of someone else shoring them up but my heart goes out to those who try to help themselves by working and can't get ahead. Maybe they made some mistakes back down the road, and those are holding them back. Nonetheless, if they are trying I think we should be more than willing to help with a hand up. Right now the problem seems to be how to most effectively do that.
Yep, the Bible expects everyone to do their part, but also considers that what you are able to do may not be what the next person is able to do.
Originally Posted by fledge
if I'm donating my money to help others, I want a tax deduction for my premiums.
Yeah, nobody ever wants to talk about closing that tax loophole.
Regarding health insurance premiums, I've always had mine taken out pre-tax, which effectively lowers my taxable income.
Regarding health insurance premiums, I've always had mine taken out pre-tax, which effectively lowers my taxable income.
And how, sir, is that done? Maybe a new topic but it would lighten the Obamacare burden.
They had years to prepare something to replace the ACA, them not being ready to do so, is solely their own fault.
Don't be mad at the three that voted no, be mad at all of them for not having a plan in place to be voted on when they got their first chance.
This should've been done and signed on Trumps first day.
Absolutely spot on. The moment they repeal and replace, the republicans own the complete POS healthcare that they passed. And everything they've come up with to date has been total crap. Let us not be so blind to say that anything is better than Obamacare.
Moose-Knuckle
07-29-17, 04:58
I'm convinced that the GOP as a whole only exists at this point to cast the illusion of a two party system.. Politicians are a step down from used car salesmen. You know they are lying when their mouths move.
That is the idea and it's been in play a long time.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
― Carroll Quigley
Well, I'm not, I'd help you out if I could. Really.
I get what you are saying by comfortable in one's mediocre existence by virtue of someone else shoring them up but my heart goes out to those who try to help themselves by working and can't get ahead. Maybe they made some mistakes back down the road, and those are holding them back. Nonetheless, if they are trying I think we should be more than willing to help with a hand up. Right now the problem seems to be how to most effectively do that.
Yep, the Bible expects everyone to do their part, but also considers that what you are able to do may not be what the next person is able to do.
For starters, one thing that has been in play for decades is the progressive income tax. If they don't make much they pay little if anything, and thanks to the EITC they probably get $$$ back! (never have figured out how that works, but I digress). What is it, like almost 50% of the American taxpayers have NO federal income tax burden? That is a staggering statistic if you think about it. So to me the current income tax system is a pretty nice "gift" to give a hand-up (which with EITC ends up being a hand-out).
There is a line of thinking pervasive in liberal circles that just because someone doesn't make much (or anything as in welfare/food stamps) that they are still entitled to the things that others BUY since they have bettered themselves. Obamaphones, internet for the projects, etc. Those are examples of making one comfortable in their mediocre existence. To me, if you're getting welfare/food stamps or EITC that is enough of a "gift" from everyone else. You are NOT entitled to the things that others BUY because they have productive jobs. Those additional handouts didn't exist when I was growing up. If you didn't have the scratch you didn't have X or Y, plain and simple.
To take my example of the "new" gen liberal mindset to an extreme, we now hear talk of a universal income! Yeah, that's brilliant. Pay someone XXX amount to do nothing but be alive. The figures I've seen bandied about are certainly not welfare-level ones; we're talking $40K on up to $80K in one article I read some months ago. You've got to be freaking kidding me! Why the hell would I get up every morning at oh-dark-thirty to go do my often aggravating job when I could sit on my ass and make somewhere in that range I listed above? Sure, it may never come to fruition but you see the direction that the left is looking. Nothing will be rolled back, only expanded! It's insane.
The establishment Republicans are really in a circular firing squad these days. Incompetent, arrogant, and purely self serving. They need to be Primary'd out.
Well, I guess that may be true if you discount this:
[snip]
I'm aware of all those verses. In their context they are consistent with what I said. Notice coercion is not part of the program. And Obamacare is like the Pharisees: coercion couched in generous terminology. Remember it was Judas who said the money should be given to the poor so that he could collect it for his own purse. Sounds strikingly modern.
As for lowering bankruptcies due to the ACA, I don't see why the ACA is the only solution.
This entire fiasco is EXACTLY why I voted Trump. The Deep State, self fulfilling, UNI PARTY in action. They don't work for you or anyone but themselves and their power.
This government is so big and out of control it has nearly enough votes to sustain itself and when it doesn't it pulls the crap that is going on today with the leaks and media BS.
The boot in the ass to me is that this was already done...
They repealed it full well knowing that Obama was going to veto that repeal, and now that the rubber hits the road, they suddenly can't seem to get it together. The repeal was nothing more than posturing because they expected Hillary or Cruz in the White House in 2017.
Let it fail, get to a point when there are no willing insurers in the exchanges, and then fix the problem. Honestly, national competition for insurers should be the first thing on the table and I have no clue as to why ANYONE is against it...
The boot in the ass to me is that this was already done...
They repealed it full well knowing that Obama was going to veto that repeal, and now that the rubber hits the road, they suddenly can't seem to get it together. The repeal was nothing more than posturing because they expected Hillary or Cruz in the White House in 2017.
Let it fail, get to a point when there are no willing insurers in the exchanges, and then fix the problem. Honestly, national competition for insurers should be the first thing on the table and I have no clue as to why ANYONE is against it...
I'd like to see it fully repealed if for no other reason than to stick it in Obama's eye. Have his "masterpiece" completely undone by repeal, not dying on the vine.
Maybe someone with knowledge of the insurance industry and the laws governing it can speak for why health insurance can't be sold across state lines????? Something tells me the old adage of "follow the money" is at play.
Absolutely spot on. The moment they repeal and replace, the republicans own the complete POS healthcare that they passed. And everything they've come up with to date has been total crap. Let us not be so blind to say that anything is better than Obamacare.
This is true.
Anything that does not protect the following three things will result in significant Republican losses:
- pre-existing conditions
- no lifetime caps
- under 26 stay on parent plan if needed
And how, sir, is that done? Maybe a new topic but it would lighten the Obamacare burden.
You have to work for the Government or a large enough company that offers health insurance.
Averageman
07-29-17, 14:44
This is true.
Anything that does not protect the following three things will result in significant Republican losses:
- pre-existing conditions
- no lifetime caps
- under 26 stay on parent plan if needed
Opening insurance up to be sold Nationally rather than inside State boundaries.
Encourage groups to purchase health insurance policies in large groups to reduce costs.
Make all Healthcare insurance and healthcare costs tax deductible allow this to be done by business as well as individuals.
Allow those under 24 with no healthcare to remain on their parents Insurance.
Encourage the States to build programs to pick up any slack.
That might reduce about 50% of the burden.
And how, sir, is that done? Maybe a new topic but it would lighten the Obamacare burden.
I thought it was a pretty standard thing that employers could do for their employees - non-taxed GHI and non-taxed retirement and supplemental retirement.
I took full advantage of it to maximize what I put back for retirement.
The only disadvantage I could see is that I pay full taxes on what comes out, but I figured that in the long run it would come down on my side.
I'm aware of all those verses. In their context they are consistent with what I said. Notice coercion is not part of the program. And Obamacare is like the Pharisees: coercion couched in generous terminology. Remember it was Judas who said the money should be given to the poor so that he could collect it for his own purse. Sounds strikingly modern.
As for lowering bankruptcies due to the ACA, I don't see why the ACA is the only solution.
First part of above, al I got is 'render unto Ceasar.'
The ACA is not the only cause of the reductions, however, many believe the ACA has played a significant role in the reductions. The second article states that, and offers this anecdotal quote:
“It’s absolutely remarkable,” says Jim Molleur, a Maine-based bankruptcy attorney with 20 years of experience. “We’re not getting people with big medical bills, chronically sick people who would hit those lifetime caps or be denied because of pre-existing conditions. They seemed to disappear almost overnight once ACA kicked in.”
I've trotted this story out before, so this is the short version: B-in-Law was a home builder, paid for his home as he built it. My sister got moved into a position where her insurance was much better than his, so he dropped his and was not covered for several months until her companies insurance enrollment period. During that time he had a heart attack. They lived in the boonies so the adventure included a helicopter ride. To avoid bankruptcy he mortgaged his home to pay enough that the folks he owed would accept payments. Several years later he died of cancer, my sister used his life insurance and most of his 401K to pay off the hospital.
For starters, one thing that has been in play for decades is the progressive income tax.
First of all, let me once again remark that I'm a flat tax, or, preferably, a universal sales tax guy.
However, if you look at it in terms of what I call 'opportunity taken' a progressive taxation system can be justified. Not sure what the percentages ought to be, but it is defensible.
All that being said, I think the sales tax is the best way to roll. We might be shocked for the first couple months at paying 25%, but theoretically that would be more than offset by cheaper gas, electric power, and reduced transportation costs.
26 Inf, the Caesar passage in context still doesn't favor your point.
"Opportunity taken" justification for progressive taxation is like the reasons justifying abortion. It's immoral, no matter the sophistry around the legal permissibility.
If someone gets free health care through corporate employment, everyone else should get a tax credit (or at least a deduction and unlimited HSA accounts) who don't have such employment. Or we should all be paying health care with after-tax money. This would get more people involved who are otherwise enjoying the cushion of benefits without the burden of overreach.
I'd like to see it fully repealed if for no other reason than to stick it in Obama's eye. Have his "masterpiece" completely undone by repeal, not dying on the vine.
Maybe someone with knowledge of the insurance industry and the laws governing it can speak for why health insurance can't be sold across state lines????? Something tells me the old adage of "follow the money" is at play.
All insurance is owned buy the states and falls under the rules and regulations of the states. Each state has very different rules when it comes to insurance. It is much like all of the other states laws. In a way you can sell across state lines. You just have to be certified to sell in all of the states that you are in. If not there the FED would take over the insurance game and run all insurance programs. They would set the rules and regulations that you would be faced with. That sounds like a great idea doesn't it..... :suicide2:
Here is an example. Lets look at two states, Texas and New Mexico. Both of these states have very different laws when it comes to one type of insurance, health insurance in the ACA. The State of Texas does not really give a crap about the ACA, they do not add anything on the requirements and filings that a company has to do to apply for the next year. You just submit it to the FED and CC them and they are good. NM on the other had is a totally different animal. A company has to submit everything through them first to get approved and they are required to add benefits and coverage that the FED does not require for the ACA. Overall they are a PITA.
It is much better the way it is. I do not want the FED telling my state how to conduct business because my state will get screwed because they, like usual, will have to carry the load for the Blue states that F@#K everything up. I also don't have to worry about which way the FED political climate is swinging because the rules are made at home.
It is much like saying that all of the states give up their gun laws and let the FED run it. Some place MAY be better off but most will get screwed. I for one do not want to chance it and give anything up so that those in F@#$ed-up places can get it a little better. Leveling the playing field is what socialism does. Freedom is making sure that you keep what you have.
Does that answer your question?
If someone gets free health care through corporate employment, everyone else should get a tax credit (or at least a deduction and unlimited HSA accounts) who don't have such employment. Or we should all be paying health care with after-tax money. This would get more people involved who are otherwise enjoying the cushion of benefits without the burden of overreach.
Gee, that sounds kind of SJW or FSA'ish.
Read this article on the how to's and the benfits of pre-tax vs. after-tax:
https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/pre-tax-vs.-after-tax-medical-premiums
That is absurd.
Your health insurance is part of your compensation for work. It is therefor income. Income you don't pay income tax on because of a special loophole.
Health insurance should, or should not be taxed, but it ought to be the same for everyone.
That is absurd.
Your health insurance is part of your compensation for work. It is therefor income. Income you don't pay income tax on because of a special loophole.
Health insurance should, or should not be taxed, but it ought to be the same for everyone.
Does this make sense:
1. Healthcare expenses, including health insurance premiums, are deductible on Schedule A of Form 1040, UNLESS YOU PAID THEM PRE-TAX (NON-TAX GHI is what it read on my pay summary).
2. If you elect to pay your premiums pre-tax, it may be that most years you won't be able to itemize any healthcare expenses because those premiums won't be added to your expenses to reach 10% of your AGI. That is the way it worked for us most years. Exceptions were years that we had surgeries or other major expenses.
The way I looked at it, is that essentially I was just reducing what the gov withheld for taxes, just as I could have altered the amount withheld by declaring differing marital status and dependents. Just another variation of me using my money throughout the year versus the government.
I'm not a tax guru, but that is the way it seemed to me.
All insurance is owned buy the states and falls under the rules and regulations of the states. Each state has very different rules when it comes to insurance. It is much like all of the other states laws. In a way you can sell across state lines. You just have to be certified to sell in all of the states that you are in. If not there the FED would take over the insurance game and run all insurance programs. They would set the rules and regulations that you would be faced with. That sounds like a great idea doesn't it..... :suicide2:
Here is an example. Lets look at two states, Texas and New Mexico. Both of these states have very different laws when it comes to one type of insurance, health insurance in the ACA. The State of Texas does not really give a crap about the ACA, they do not add anything on the requirements and filings that a company has to do to apply for the next year. You just submit it to the FED and CC them and they are good. NM on the other had is a totally different animal. A company has to submit everything through them first to get approved and they are required to add benefits and coverage that the FED does not require for the ACA. Overall they are a PITA.
It is much better the way it is. I do not want the FED telling my state how to conduct business because my state will get screwed because they, like usual, will have to carry the load for the Blue states that F@#K everything up. I also don't have to worry about which way the FED political climate is swinging because the rules are made at home.
It is much like saying that all of the states give up their gun laws and let the FED run it. Some place MAY be better off but most will get screwed. I for one do not want to chance it and give anything up so that those in F@#$ed-up places can get it a little better. Leveling the playing field is what socialism does. Freedom is making sure that you keep what you have.
Does that answer your question?
Did some Googling after I posed the question and it did allude to it involving state's rights issues, which you mention. It also alluded to the states being paid for the permission to sell insurance so it also involves $$$ to a large degree like I thought.
Did some Googling after I posed the question and it did allude to it involving state's rights issues, which you mention. It also alluded to the states being paid for the permission to sell insurance so it also involves $$$ to a large degree like I thought.
Companies do have to pay to maintain a license. But we are talking about a few hundred dollars. I would venture to guess that doesn't add up to enough to make any real difference.
Companies do have to pay to maintain a license. But we are talking about a few hundred dollars. I would venture to guess that doesn't add up to enough to make any real difference.
From this article: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx
(you'd have to read the whole thing but this part caught my eye)
EXCESSIVE STATE MANDATES INCREASE COSTS
Differing regulations and mandates among the states cause wide*variations in individual health insurance rates.* The federal*McCarran-Ferguson Act, which lets states set their own requirements for*coverage, has protected state markets from competition, and led to an*assortment of mandates— many of which the insured do not want or*need, say Devon Herrick, a senior fellow, and Ariel House, a junior*fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
For example:
About one-fourth of states require health insurance to cover*acupuncture and marriage counseling.
More than half of states require coverage for social workers and 60 percent mandate coverage for contraceptives.
Seven states require coverage for hairpieces and nine for*hearing aids.
In all, there are more than 1,900 state mandates across the United*States.* Some legislators contribute to this excess by giving in*to special interest demands that insurers cover their specific services*and providers.* The result is higher premiums for consumers --*pricing an estimated one-fourth of the uninsured out of the market, say*Herrick and House.**
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has proposed interstate competition at the**federal level with the Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 4460):
The bill would allow consumers to shop for individual*insurance on the Internet, over the telephone or through a local agent.
Residents of any state would be free to choose among policies from insurers in any state.
The policies would be regulated by the insurer's home state.
If consumers do not want expensive health plans that pay for*benefits they do not need -- such as acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces -- they could buy from insurers in*states that do not mandate such benefits.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-30-17, 17:03
So you have FED compliant programs that are the same nationwide and then the states can have plans that comply with what they want. Guess which ones people are going to pick? That the states won't allow FED programs just shows that they are anti-choice.
The big stick is if Trump will continue the insurance bail-out kicker money. If I were him, I would negotiate with the Dems and tell the senate GOP to go F themselves. Either the dems cut a deal, or the kicker money goes away. It would go a long ways to shattering the myth that Trump can't make deals. Enough GOP senators will break for it and McCain would end up having to vote for it or look like a total D-bag.
Averageman
08-02-17, 06:11
It would appear that the POTUS is contemplating taking away the money going to Insurance Companies and also the money paying for the healthcare for our Legislators and their Staff. It is all being put up as a bargaining chip to bring them back to the table to renegotiate Obama-Care/the ACA.
So take a minute and consider that they will not be effected by the same prices of their healthcare as we are and then understand we are illegally subsidizing the Insurance companies.
A bold and smart move.
It would appear that the POTUS is contemplating taking away the money going to Insurance Companies and also the money paying for the healthcare for our Legislators and their Staff. It is all being put up as a bargaining chip to bring them back to the table to renegotiate Obama-Care/the ACA.
So take a minute and consider that they will not be effected by the same prices of their healthcare as we are and then understand we are illegally subsidizing the Insurance companies.
A bold and smart move.
Trump does not have to "take away" money from the insurance companies. He just has to do nothing as the CSR is not apart of the ACA and was funded via an EO every year by Obama.
Interesting.....it appears some states can sue/complain/whatever about not funding the CSR's as Trump has threatened to do. But since the CSR's are not part of the Obamacare law and were funded by EO each time, can a court force Trump to sign an EO? Can a court force something to be made into law which currently isn't?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/02/dem-states-can-defend-obamacare-subsidies-court-rules.html
It would appear that the POTUS is contemplating taking away the money going to Insurance Companies and also the money paying for the healthcare for our Legislators and their Staff. It is all being put up as a bargaining chip to bring them back to the table to renegotiate Obama-Care/the ACA.
A bold and smart move.
Just heard about this on Fox. If all true, this is brilliant.
Interesting.....it appears some states can sue/complain/whatever about not funding the CSR's as Trump has threatened to do. But since the CSR's are not part of the Obamacare law and were funded by EO each time, can a court force Trump to sign an EO? Can a court force something to be made into law which currently isn't?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/02/dem-states-can-defend-obamacare-subsidies-court-rules.html
This is just the left playing their stupid games. All he has to do is nothing. A court can't force him to sign an EO, that is retarded that they even think that. They are just trying to work the media and give them something to blame Trump for, again.
All he has to say is that YOUR people should have put that in the LAW if you wanted it to continue.
Averageman
08-02-17, 13:43
Trump does not have to "take away" money from the insurance companies. He just has to do nothing as the CSR is not apart of the ACA and was funded via an EO every year by Obama.
But, I do believe he could EO an end to any more funding and at the same time cut out the sweetest healthcare deal ever that was given to our Legislators and their Staffs to bring them back in to take another look at the ACA.
That they are treated better than the people who put them in Office is criminal.
But, I do believe he could EO an end to any more funding and at the same time cut out the sweetest healthcare deal ever that was given to our Legislators and their Staffs to bring them back in to take another look at the ACA.
That they are treated better than the people who put them in Office is criminal.
He could EO to remove Congresses healthcare. That is a separate issue.
The EO to fund the CSR was an after thought that the Left had when they realized that they passed the ACA but it would cost the carriers too much and none would enter the program. The thing that most people don't understand is that the ACA plans are still not affordable for the people that it was intended to help. The plans are also not profitable for the carriers at all. The only way that the Left could get it to work in the real world was to through billions of dollars at it. As we have seen even with this extra money most carriers were leaving because of the huge losses they are taking. Much of this is the cost lost ratio that has to be filed after the plan year ends. The the GOV takes money from teh carriers that made money and gives it to those that lost money.......... sounds a lot like socialism. Most defiantly the left are involved.
This is just the left playing their stupid games. All he has to do is nothing. A court can't force him to sign an EO, that is retarded that they even think that. They are just trying to work the media and give them something to blame Trump for, again.
All he has to say is that YOUR people should have put that in the LAW if you wanted it to continue.
Kind of what I was thinking.
This is just the left playing their stupid games. All he has to do is nothing. A court can't force him to sign an EO, that is retarded that they even think that. They are just trying to work the media and give them something to blame Trump for, again.
All he has to say is that YOUR people should have put that in the LAW if you wanted it to continue.
A judge could rule that he has to fund it, but until said judge commands an army or federal law enforcement agency that could overcome the USSS at the WH, he/she can't enforce it. :D
Averageman
08-02-17, 15:54
I believe the payments to the insurance companies part of this has already been deemed unconstitutional.
A judge could rule that he has to fund it, but until said judge commands an army or federal law enforcement agency that could overcome the USSS at the WH, he/she can't enforce it. :D
I would love to see that. Have a judge rule on it and Trump simply saying "Make Me!". :jester:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.