The Trump Adminstration & Obama Care
Options
Comments
-
I wish I knew how to do Photoshop with videos. I'd do that nWo Hogan Leg Drop Heel Turn all over again.
Someone needs to get on that, and have 45's face leg drop either Pence or Rudy and 45 (as Hogan) stand with Obeezie (Hall) and Hillary (Nash). -
the main thing republicans hate about obamacare is the name.
it's the affordable care act, they're the idiots that named it Obama care -
the main thing republicans hate about obamacare is the name.
Aren't they the ones that named it that? I don't think I've ever heard Obama refer to the ACA as Obamacare.. -
he never openly called it Obamacare but said he took the it and embraced the name. It was smart to do it.
"I'll gladly take the name. I care very much." -
I just watched the Akon Ghetto video and realized that all those white neeghas likely voted for Trump
-
I think he's gonna keep pre existing conditions and being able to carry your child for longer periods of time. Now the birth control ? is gonna be out of there
That would be terrible. -
2 biggest problems I have with it are the price of it and the penalty for not having insurance.
If you don't want insurance, you shouldn't be forced to get it. I heard the counter-argument to that about getting sick and not having insurance and I don't agree with it. Maybe you'll get sick and pay for your own ? - or deal with it however you choose to. -
Wife has loved that provision.
Saved us a lot of cash, especially while we were in college. -
Wife has loved that provision.
Saved us a lot of cash, especially while we were in college.
I don't understand how it makes sense to be pro-life and against accessible birth control at the same time. -
2 biggest problems I have with it are the price of it and the penalty for not having insurance.
If you don't want insurance, you shouldn't be forced to get it. I heard the counter-argument to that about getting sick and not having insurance and I don't agree with it. Maybe you'll get sick and pay for your own ? - or deal with it however you choose to.
Do you have car insurance?
The total costs of ongoing care and serious health conditions dwarfs the associated costs of people getting into a car accidents ...
Yet having insurance for the latter is mandatory and people rarely complain about it.
The federal government cannot provide insurance to ANYONE unless they subsidize the cost among EVERYONE.
IMO, the issue with your bolded thinking is that millions of people believe that (not necessarily you) ...
Until they are put into a disasterous situation where they or their families absolutely NEED health insurance ... but they don't have it.
Either those people's lives take a very sad turn, society is left with an exorbitant bill ... or BOTH.
Crisis Heath situations are far less likely and far less costly when everyone engages in preventive care.
People engage in preventive care when they have health insurance making it convenient and cost effective to do so.
Affordable Health insurance that is mutually cost effective for ALL parties involved, requires buy-in and cooperation from ALL parties involved - from the Health Industry, Insurance Companies, Pharma, and the every day consumer.
Right now we don't have that.
I don't think the problem is that you and others don't want to pay insurance premiums
I think the problem is that it is too expensive and has some flawed areas of implementation.
With buy-in, mutual cooperation, and legislation - I believe that can be changed.
At least that's my 2 cents on it, anyway. -
Exactly
Republicans called it "Obamacare" to patronize, disrespect,spite and offend him.
But instead Obama flipped it and embraced the term -
He needs to do away w/ it all together....
Even illegal aliens getting a piece of tha pie and I think mentally ill surgeries are included in this foolishness smh.... -
He needs to do away w/ it all together....
Even illegal aliens getting a piece of tha pie and I think mentally ill surgeries are included in this foolishness smh....
The mentally ill don't need medical care? -
2 biggest problems I have with it are the price of it and the penalty for not having insurance.
If you don't want insurance, you shouldn't be forced to get it. I heard the counter-argument to that about getting sick and not having insurance and I don't agree with it. Maybe you'll get sick and pay for your own ? - or deal with it however you choose to.
Do you have car insurance?
The total costs of ongoing care and serious health conditions dwarfs the associated costs of people getting into a car accidents ...
Yet having insurance for the latter is mandatory and people rarely complain about it.
The federal government cannot provide insurance to ANYONE unless they subsidize the cost among EVERYONE.
IMO, the issue with your bolded thinking is that millions of people believe that (not necessarily you) ...
Until they are put into a disasterous situation where they or their families absolutely NEED health insurance ... but they don't have it.
Either those people's lives take a very sad turn, society is left with an exorbitant bill ... or BOTH.
Crisis Heath situations are far less likely and far less costly when everyone engages in preventive care.
People engage in preventive care when they have health insurance making it convenient and cost effective to do so.
Affordable Health insurance that is mutually cost effective for ALL parties involved, requires buy-in and cooperation from ALL parties involved - from the Health Industry, Insurance Companies, Pharma, and the every day consumer.
Right now we don't have that.
I don't think the problem is that you and others don't want to pay insurance premiums
I think the problem is that it is too expensive and has some flawed areas of implementation.
With buy-in, mutual cooperation, and legislation - I believe that can be changed.
At least that's my 2 cents on it, anyway.
I can follow that concept but the car insurance analogy only goes but so far. A person's health doesn't directly correspond to injuring someone else like car-insurance does. That said, if a person can't afford their bill, because they chose not to have insurance, they're the only one who suffers.
So if no one else is affected, why can't people decide the fate of their own lives ? I think that system is putting the needs of paying everybody's health costs above an individual's right to choose how they want to take care of (or not care of) themselves. -
2 biggest problems I have with it are the price of it and the penalty for not having insurance.
If you don't want insurance, you shouldn't be forced to get it. I heard the counter-argument to that about getting sick and not having insurance and I don't agree with it. Maybe you'll get sick and pay for your own ? - or deal with it however you choose to.
Do you have car insurance?
The total costs of ongoing care and serious health conditions dwarfs the associated costs of people getting into a car accidents ...
Yet having insurance for the latter is mandatory and people rarely complain about it.
The federal government cannot provide insurance to ANYONE unless they subsidize the cost among EVERYONE.
IMO, the issue with your bolded thinking is that millions of people believe that (not necessarily you) ...
Until they are put into a disasterous situation where they or their families absolutely NEED health insurance ... but they don't have it.
Either those people's lives take a very sad turn, society is left with an exorbitant bill ... or BOTH.
Crisis Heath situations are far less likely and far less costly when everyone engages in preventive care.
People engage in preventive care when they have health insurance making it convenient and cost effective to do so.
Affordable Health insurance that is mutually cost effective for ALL parties involved, requires buy-in and cooperation from ALL parties involved - from the Health Industry, Insurance Companies, Pharma, and the every day consumer.
Right now we don't have that.
I don't think the problem is that you and others don't want to pay insurance premiums
I think the problem is that it is too expensive and has some flawed areas of implementation.
With buy-in, mutual cooperation, and legislation - I believe that can be changed.
At least that's my 2 cents on it, anyway.
I can follow that concept but the car insurance analogy only goes but so far. A person's health doesn't directly correspond to injuring someone else like car-insurance does. That said, if a person can't afford their bill, because they chose not to have insurance, they're the only one who suffers.
So if no one else is affected, why can't people decide the fate of their own lives ? I think that system is putting the needs of paying everybody's health costs above an individual's right to choose how they want to take care of (or not care of) themselves.
This is fair.
However, in general, the person at fault and their representative car insurance company absorbs nearly the total costs generated - in the event of a car accident.
So one could say that my car insurance is more to cover my own indescretions than that of someone else.
Similar to health insurance.
Additionally, would you consider my pre-existing conditions or hereditary issues classified as "my fault", or would this phenomena be more akin to being "blindsided on the freeway"?
Also, I would push back the notion that "no one else suffers"
One example is ER Visits, of which, ~ 65 % of are non-emergencies.
They are estimated to generate $65 billion to $130 billion in annual losses because of the uninsured.
By federal law, anyone who presents themselves at an Emergency Room cannot be turned away.
And the ER is a drastically more expensive way to recieve primary care or treat crises situations once primary care has been neglected.
Millions of uninsured Americans wind up seeking treatment in over stressed, under funded, under-staffed ERs, where, by law, the uninsured must get treated.
That's ambulances, EMTs, Nurses, Doctors, Facilities, overhead, MRIs, tablets, monitors, computers, medicine etc. for millions of people of whom funds have not been allocated.
The cost doesn't dissapear.
Entire communities are destabilized.
Health care systems, hospitals, private practices are all impacted by the cost of providing a significant amount of care that doesn't get compensated due to un-insurance.
You can imagine other systemic impacts among various other Horizontal industries and publically funded entities such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Think about psychological and mental illness...
It's connection to crime.
How that feeds the prison industrial complex.
How health costs inhibit financial prosperity among people, families, even entire communities ...
How that cycle is perpetuated.
We all bear the cost.
We also have to consider the poor, millions of Americans that simply cannot afford to "pay for health crises out of pocket", when the situation arises.
The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. Many more people suffer serious health problems.
We have already seen that the ER is a very expensive solution.
When we consider that the TOTAL cost of ad hoc, unsubsized health care vists is far greater than a reasonable monthly premium one might pay; it appears to be more of an annoyance / slight inconvenience to the average "healthy person".
I am willing to endure an annoyance to drastically alter or save the lives of millions, while helping sustain an effective national health care system.
Especially when it also helps me out to do so.
-
Nope....
Don't know if you know what I'm referring to, but not that mental illness. They on they own w/ that stuff...... -
He's not gonna have to do anything.
It'll collapse on it's own.
With some premiums going up over 20% for the new enrollment period, and major companies like Aetna and Humana pulling out of the exchanges.......it's only a matter of time before the Affordable Care Act comes to an end.
Granted, it could work if more states offered Medicaid expansion.......but that's not likely to happen considering their reasons for not offering it are starting to seem more legitimate.
Meaning, just like Aetna and Humana are pulling out of the exchanges (and Anthem might to) because they've experienced hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.............. the states who offer Medicaid expansion would probably incur similar losses because there still aren't enough healthy people paying for insurance (unsubsidized) to support the program. -
In order for Obamacare to be successful, it depends primarily on top earners to support the Lions share of higher premiums for previous uninsured residents.
Which is really redistribution of wealth under the guise of "Obamacare."
Trump is correct in keeping certain provisions of the act. This will prevent an administration whiplash, that could make the stock market go haywire.
I suspect in the near future, he will heed to the chatter of small business owners who are getting hammered by Obamacare. They got full time workers doing part time hours to avoid paying the benefits.
-
He's not gonna have to do anything.
It'll collapse on it's own.
With some premiums going up over 20% for the new enrollment period, and major companies like Aetna and Humana pulling out of the exchanges.......it's only a matter of time before the Affordable Care Act comes to an end.
Granted, it could work if more states offered Medicaid expansion.......but that's not likely to happen considering their reasons for not offering it are starting to seem more legitimate.
Meaning, just like Aetna and Humana are pulling out of the exchanges (and Anthem might to) because they've experienced hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.............. the states who offer Medicaid expansion would probably incur similar losses because ...
there still aren't ENOUGH healthy PEOPLE PAYING for insurance (unsubsidized) to support the program.
The bolded is the problem.
Everything that precedes it are the symptoms.
IMO, the alternative is far more expensive personally and financially for individuals and the nation as a whole. -
He's not gonna have to do anything.
It'll collapse on it's own.
With some premiums going up over 20% for the new enrollment period, and major companies like Aetna and Humana pulling out of the exchanges.......it's only a matter of time before the Affordable Care Act comes to an end.
Granted, it could work if more states offered Medicaid expansion.......but that's not likely to happen considering their reasons for not offering it are starting to seem more legitimate.
Meaning, just like Aetna and Humana are pulling out of the exchanges (and Anthem might to) because they've experienced hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.............. the states who offer Medicaid expansion would probably incur similar losses because ...
there still aren't ENOUGH healthy PEOPLE PAYING for insurance (unsubsidized) to support the program.
The bolded is the problem.
Everything that precedes it are the symptoms.
IMO, the alternative is far more expensive personally and financially for individuals and the nation as a whole.
The bigger problem is the fact that most healthy people aren't paying for it because they can't afford it........not because they're just being defiant or anything.
If people are literally living paycheck-to-paycheck, there isn't any disposable income left over to cover the cost of the monthly premiums.
Most people would rather pay the penalty because it's cheaper.
Which is kinda foul because that cuts into any type of tax refund they'd be getting after they file. -
It is too expensive.
That is why it needs to be amended. The current structure isn't sustainable.
What we often don't consider, however, is that living paycheck to paycheck with ZERO health insurance ...
Is exponentially MORE expensive for individuals and society, than budgeting a reasonable monthly cost towards health insurance.
There are several levers that can be pulled to drive the cost down.
But let's be honest, there are ... commodities that many low to middle income families already enjoy regularly, that one might consider "less important" than monthly HEALTH insurance premiums - assuming they are reasonable per a family's given health situation and economic strata.
I don't think we will ever solve the greater problem, if we only look at what is in front of us in the short term.
-
Undefeatable wrote: »I think there are certain areas where Trump has decent instincts, and that progressives might be able to push him to act on them against the wishes of Republican leaders. But there is also a real danger that Trump will simply do what Republican leaders want.
Anyway, healthcare is one of those areas where his instincts may be good. From what he has consistently said, he doesn't simply want to repeal Obamacare and just have a lot more people fend for themselves as before.
But if he is going to keep coverage of people with preexisting conditions, it's hard to see how he doesn't end up with something that looks like Obamacare. For requiring that healthcare providers cover people with preexisting conditions will require that healthy people without work-based coverage get insurance (and thus subsidize the sick), and this will require both the insurance mandate (i.e. that everybody must have insurance; otherwise some healthy people will simply take their chances) and the provision of subsidies (since not everybody earn enough to afford insurance without help). That is why Republicans have had such a difficult time coming up with an alternative plan.
This column basically says what I was saying here, just in more detail:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/donald-trump-is-beginning-to-face-a-rude-awakening-over-obamacare/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1
