-
Republicans unveil ACA replacement plan
-
[url=https://apnews.com/622cecb774114e6e8a41a707740d8a5e]McConnell pivots on healthcare, open to bipartisan ACA stabilization legislation[/url]
A week after an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says hed consider a bipartisan effort to continue payments to insurers to avert a costly rattling of health insurance markets.
McConnell told reporters Saturday there is still a chance the Senate could revive the measure to repeal and replace Obamacare, but he acknowledged the window for that is rapidly closing.
The Kentucky senator noted Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is working on some kind of bipartisan approach that would involve subsidies for insurance companies.[/QUOTE]
-
To bad he didn’t pivot like 4 years ago.
-
How about 8 years ago?
-
-
-
[url=http://www.epi.org/publication/a-financial-transaction-tax-would-help-ensure-wall-street-works-for-main-street/]A well-designed financial transaction tax (FTT)a small levy placed on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other investmentswould be an efficient and progressive way to generate tax revenues.[/url]
But it’s a win/win … even if it doesn’t meet revenue projections.
[blockquote] Gross revenues from a well-designed FTT would likely range from $110 billion to $403 billion. And net revenues (including offsets from reduced income, payroll and capital gains taxes, and increased borrowing costs) would likely be substantially higher than some other recent estimates indicate. This is mainly because other estimates assumptions about the volume of financial transactions an FTT would crowd out are too high, and because an FTT is likely to redistribute rather than reduce overall incomes. Regardless of the level of revenues raised, an FTT would be a win-win for the U.S. economy. Higher revenues would result in more funds for social insurance programs and much-needed public investments. Lower revenues would be the result of the FTT crowding out financial transactions of little value to the U.S. economy. This would boost Americans incomes through lowering fees on financial services, such as the management of 401(k)s and other accounts.
[/blockquote]-
Quote from dergon
[url=http://www.epi.org/publication/a-financial-transaction-tax-would-help-ensure-wall-street-works-for-main-street/]A well-designed financial transaction tax (FTT)a small levy placed on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other investmentswould be an efficient and progressive way to generate tax revenues.[/url]
But it’s a win/win … even if it doesn’t meet revenue projections.
Ah, now I get it. A new tax just for new taxes sake.
The authors believe in magic. That money is coming from somewhere in the economy and if you expect to cas in at the 1/2 trillion level it is going to be the retirement savings of those who chose to plan ahead. But as the author says it’s for ‘social programs’, and that’s the end game apparently, that everyone lives on the government teat.
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.epi.org/publication/a-financial-transaction-tax-would-help-ensure-wall-street-works-for-main-street/]A well-designed financial transaction tax (FTT)a small levy placed on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other investmentswould be an efficient and progressive way to generate tax revenues.[/link]
But it’s a win/win … even if it doesn’t meet revenue projections.
[blockquote]Gross revenues from a well-designed FTT would likely range from $110 billion to $403 billion. And net revenues (including offsets from reduced income, payroll and capital gains taxes, and increased borrowing costs) would likely be substantially higher than some other recent estimates indicate. This is mainly because other estimates assumptions about the volume of financial transactions an FTT would crowd out are too high, and because an FTT is likely to redistribute rather than reduce overall incomes. Regardless of the level of revenues raised, an FTT would be a win-win for the U.S. economy. Higher revenues would result in more funds for social insurance programs and much-needed public investments. Lower revenues would be the result of the FTT crowding out financial transactions of little value to the U.S. economy. This would boost Americans incomes through lowering fees on financial services, such as the management of 401(k)s and other accounts. [/blockquote]
+1
People are too dismissive. Like this is only a fraction of the solution. I’m all for chipping away at problems. One step in the right direction.-
All those who voted for Trump can celebrate today as he fixes the Affordable Care Act by defunding it.
Now get the popcorn out as we watch the Trumpets lose their insurance because they can’t afford to purchase health insurance at all without government funding. As the states that will lose more insurance companies as Trump restores health care to what it used to be when you could keep your doctor, just with no insurance. As hospitals possibly close as patients return back to being uninsured.
Schadenfreunde if it didn’t risk people dying “Making America Great Again!”-
can’t wait till it hits them
Quote from Frumious
All those who voted for Trump can celebrate today as he fixes the Affordable Care Act by defunding it.
Now get the popcorn out as we watch the Trumpets lose their insurance because they can’t afford to purchase health insurance at all without government funding. As the states that will lose more insurance companies as Trump restores health care to what it used to be when you could keep your doctor, just with no insurance. As hospitals possibly close as patients return back to being uninsured.
Schadenfreunde if it didn’t risk people dying “Making America Great Again!”
-
Quote from Frumious
All those who voted for Trump can celebrate today as he fixes the Affordable Care Act by defunding it.
Now get the popcorn out as we watch the Trumpets lose their insurance because they can’t afford to purchase health insurance at all without government funding. As the states that will lose more insurance companies as Trump restores health care to what it used to be when you could keep your doctor, just with no insurance. As hospitals possibly close as patients return back to being uninsured.
Schadenfreunde if it didn’t risk people dying “Making America Great Again!”
In 2018 I think the GOP will be like the Cleveland Browns…..a blood bath and overhaul. Paul Ryan has one of the biggest targets on him from Randy Bryce.
-
TrumpCare dead after 1 day and after Mitch meets with him & puts 2018 election process back in focus–so they may have a bipartisan deal to provide GOP some 2018 hope–this is like repeal and delay so GOP won’t get hurt in 18 but Trump proclaimed yesterday ObamaCare is dead–clueless–he is disrupting the healthcare stability with his ignorance and never wanting to admit that
-
-
-
-
-
[i]Now they are up to 6.99% and all the state produces are looneytunes socialist politicians like Blumenthal. [/i]
Don’t forget his other senator Chris Murphy who can’t wait to get on TV because he may be looking at a presidential run. Who by the way also has issues that involved his personal finances. Oh wait a minute he clams it was an oversight. He also served in the CT legislature so he had his hands in the financial ruination of CT.
Fw you also forget to mention GE also left CT. -
[url=http://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/video/featured/VDKA4161252]Jimmy Kimmel encourages people to go to healthcare.gov to sign up for ‘Trumpcare'[/url] … gets lots of praise from Trump supporters.
🙂-
Wasn’t the ACA the worst thing ever in the world? “Job-killing?” Destroying the healthcare market? The list goes on as far as the Trump supporters were concerned, that Obama, born in Kenya destroyed healthcare? Now please sign up?
Are these people capable of keeping a lucid thought in their heads longer than 5 minutes? “Keep government hands off of my healthcare & Medicaid!”
-
Sad to hear that Uwe Reinhardt died last month. He was an authority on healthcare economics & reading his posts, blogs & articles gives one a lot of information on a complex subject that is too often subject to fake news and alternate facts.
[link=https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author/uwe-e-reinhardt/]https://economix.blogs.ny…uthor/uwe-e-reinhardt/[/link]
[link=https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/uwe-reinhardt-giant-mensch-knife-twister/]https://theincidentalecon…-mensch-knife-twister/[/link]
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/obituaries/uwe-reinhardt-a-listened-to-voice-on-health-care-policy-dies-at-80.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…policy-dies-at-80.html[/link]
And when critics complained that doctors were overpaid, he countered that their collective take-home pay amounted to only 10 percent of national health spending. Slicing it by 20 percent, [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/l05doctors.html]he wrote,[/link] would reduce total national health spending by only 2 percent, in return for a wholly demoralized medical profession to which we so often look to save our lives.
It strikes me as a poor strategy, he added.
With near unanimity, colleagues and admirers praised Professor Reinhardt for transforming raw data into moral imperatives.
-
-
-
seems like reasoned analysis that Dr salaries aren’t really what’s driving the crazy healthcare spending. In terms of the ACA repeal by the GOP, I’m pretty sure this bill that passed congress eliminates the individual mandate. Most likely we’re looking at more expensive healthcare, higher insurance costs, and cuts to spending on medicare/medicaid from my understanding.
-
I’m most interested to see if Paul Ryan will be bold enough to propose Medicare cuts to offset the lower tax revenues coming in and if the Repubs will be bold enough to consider it.
-
That’s the plan, something “Reagan didn’t do,” cut spending like all entitlements like Social Security & Medicare. And drown government.
-
Quote from hey
I’m most interested to see if Paul Ryan will be bold enough to propose Medicare cuts to offset the lower tax revenues coming in and if the Repubs will be bold enough to consider it.
I think Paul Ryan is not long for congress. LAst week it seemed the idea was floating that he’s be leaving. He might get well get beat by Randy Bryce also.
-
agree he took a dump and will want to cut and run–who knows what he has hidden
GOP are tools of modern day Robber Barons
Collins a hypocrite -deficit hypocrites as well as evangelical Christians have all been outedQuote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from hey
I’m most interested to see if Paul Ryan will be bold enough to propose Medicare cuts to offset the lower tax revenues coming in and if the Repubs will be bold enough to consider it.
I think Paul Ryan is not long for congress. LAst week it seemed the idea was floating that he’s be leaving. He might get well get beat by Randy Bryce also.
-
80% of new ACA come from FL/TX/NC and Georgia
-
Democrats ran on healthcare this pas election.
So much for the repeal and replace or Obamacare. Red States voters even supported Medicaid in their states.
-
The absence of a Republican plan other than “repeal” creates a vacuum that Democrats are filling with proposals such as Medicare-for-all.
Where are Republican ideas? Trump promised a better and cheaper deal than the ACA provided & is working to undermine the ACA as much as possible but has no idea about what id needed other than rally slogans.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/republicans-trump-health-care.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…trump-health-care.html[/link]
Judging by exit polls, the single most effective midterm issue for Democrats was health care in particular, the argument, made by Democratic candidates across the country, that Republicans were out to eliminate the Affordable Care Acts regulations governing pre-existing conditions.
So when a Texas judge ruled in December that the entirety of the health law was unconstitutional, he ensured that this issue, and this argument, would remain front and center heading into the 2020 election.
The empty mantra of repeal and replace which was all but buried by the midterms was never a stand-in for an actual shared vision for the governance of health care in the United States. At the moment, the party seems confused about what, exactly, American health care policy should look like.
That sort of thinking about both general principles and the specific policy components necessary to make them a reality is exactly what the Republican Party lacks, and what it desperately needs.
Which is why, for all these ideas, if you ask Republican politicians what they stand for when it comes to health policy, you are likely to hear slogans like patient centered and preserving the doctor-patient relationship and possibly something about how Democrats want to socialize Medicare as if the nations largest government health program is not already an essentially socialist enterprise.
More likely, given the state of the G.O.P. under Trump, who is no ones idea of a wonk, is that Republicans will simply decline to pursue the issue with any force, and the shabbiness of the partys current non-position will become even more glaring.
Yet by failing to make even a halfhearted case for an alternative, Republicans are helping to clear the path for their opponents. When the options presented are single-payer or I dont know, its not surprising that many Americans would gravitate toward the former.
In the meantime, the Texas case will ensure that the G.O.P.s waffling and uncertainty on policy basics, like legal requirements regarding pre-existing conditions, remain in the spotlight. The red state attorneys general who brought the case may have imagined it was a clever way to highlight Obamacares flaws, but instead it shone a spotlight on their own.
In the absence of any rational discussions for Republicans, looks like Medicare-for-all becomes the default alternative to the ACA.
-
Quote from Frumious
In the absence of any rational discussions for Republicans, looks like Medicare-for-all becomes the default alternative to the ACA.
Problem is that 60% of the country still receives coverage from employer based private insurance and are more/less happy with their coverage. Eliminating private insurance companies is a non-starter for many (kinda like the border wall/barrier is). While for profit insurance companies are certainly part of the exorbitant costs of HC in this country, other factors such as fee-for-service + defensive medicine also play a large role…Medicare for all just seems like a huge over-reach. You have to remember that while this may really appeal to the left, all of the right and a chunk of moderates (which would be a majority of the electorate) may not agree. Why not take smaller less extreme steps such as giving states the funds and autonomy to figure out how to cover all of their residents?
I guess if we gave the government absolute control over reimbursing healthcare services with medicare for all, they could eventually do away with fee-for-service (assuming they also outlaw cash-only practices). Giving the aging population, hard to see how we would keep up with increasing volume of providing services since there would be no financial incentive to do so (on a side note this could be nice, no need to knock out 100+ studies a day without a lunch break, no more 14 hour weekend calls etc). Americans that had formerly had private insurance would however have to get used to waiting in line with everyone else (I’m sure they would be thrilled since most of us are more concerned about society as a whole rather than about our families and ourselves). Also don’t see medicare for all/end of fee-for-service working unless our medical malpractice industry and cost of medical education also adopt a more socialized model (good luck with that).-
“Medicare-for-all” is a placeholder term.
For some of the candidates (Sanders) it means the abolition of private insurance to be replaced by a single payer.
For others (Booker, for instance) it is a mushier term. His support is more one of support for universal access to high quality care.
I think it is a mistake to think that when Democratic candidates say they support “medicare for all” that they are calling for single payer. It is certainly a mistake to think that when Democratic voters voice support for medicare for all that they favor the abolition of private insurance. -
Quote from jd4540
Quote from Frumious
In the absence of any rational discussions for Republicans, looks like Medicare-for-all becomes the default alternative to the ACA.
Problem is that 60% of the country still receives coverage from employer based private insurance and are more/less happy with their coverage. Eliminating private insurance companies is a non-starter for many (kinda like the border wall/barrier is). While for profit insurance companies are certainly part of the exorbitant costs of HC in this country, other factors such as fee-for-service + defensive medicine also play a large role…Medicare for all just seems like a huge over-reach. You have to remember that while this may really appeal to the left, all of the right and a chunk of moderates (which would be a majority of the electorate) may not agree. Why not take smaller less extreme steps such as giving states the funds and autonomy to figure out how to cover all of their residents?
I guess if we gave the government absolute control over reimbursing healthcare services with medicare for all, they could eventually do away with fee-for-service (assuming they also outlaw cash-only practices). Giving the aging population, hard to see how we would keep up with increasing volume of providing services since there would be no financial incentive to do so (on a side note this could be nice, no need to knock out 100+ studies a day without a lunch break, no more 14 hour weekend calls etc). Americans that had formerly had private insurance would however have to get used to waiting in line with everyone else (I’m sure they would be thrilled since most of us are more concerned about society as a whole rather than about our families and ourselves). Also don’t see medicare for all/end of fee-for-service working unless our medical malpractice industry and cost of medical education also adopt a more socialized model (good luck with that).
Another sane and practical post in a sea of madness. Thanks jd, refreshing to see that there are some left here that aren’t brainwashed lemmings.-
[b]Trump administration looks to return to courts for complete repeal of the ACA[/b]
The Trump administration on Monday said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal.
In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Justice Department said it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law.
In a letter Monday night, the administration said “it is not urging that any portion of the district court’s judgment be reversed.”
It’s a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement — protections for people with pre-existing conditions — could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand.
After the Justice Department took that position, federal District Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the entire law and the case is currently before a federal appeals court.
Trump and the administration repeatedly promised — particularly leading up to the midterm election — to protect people with less-than-perfect medical histories.
But this shift in the Justice Department’s stance doubles down on stripping away all the protections that were a hallmark of the landmark heath reform law.
Overturning the law would have far-reaching consequences — way beyond disrupting coverage for the millions of people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.
Sounds like bad politics.
Trump just had a huge domestic win. Why would he want to tank that by returning to the side of the healthcare debate that cost him the 2018 midterms? I don’t get it.
-
Revenge
-
Not revenge at all
This is about 2020
As Ann Coulter said
Trump really has done nothing
He hasnt kept his promises and the only legislative accomplishment was the a Tax cut that doesnt help his base
This is not revenge at all
Its trump trying to do something
No wall
No healthcare reform
-
Not revenge at all
This is about 2020
As Ann Coulter said
Trump really has done nothing
He hasnt kept his promises and the only legislative accomplishment was the a Tax cut that doesnt help his base
This is not revenge at all
Its trump trying to do something
No wall
No healthcare reform
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from jd4540
Quote from Frumious
In the absence of any rational discussions for Republicans, looks like Medicare-for-all becomes the default alternative to the ACA.
Problem is that 60% of the country still receives coverage from employer based private insurance and are more/less happy with their coverage. Eliminating private insurance companies is a non-starter for many (kinda like the border wall/barrier is). While for profit insurance companies are certainly part of the exorbitant costs of HC in this country, other factors such as fee-for-service + defensive medicine also play a large role…Medicare for all just seems like a huge over-reach. You have to remember that while this may really appeal to the left, all of the right and a chunk of moderates (which would be a majority of the electorate) may not agree. Why not take smaller less extreme steps such as giving states the funds and autonomy to figure out how to cover all of their residents?
I guess if we gave the government absolute control over reimbursing healthcare services with medicare for all, they could eventually do away with fee-for-service (assuming they also outlaw cash-only practices). Giving the aging population, hard to see how we would keep up with increasing volume of providing services since there would be no financial incentive to do so (on a side note this could be nice, no need to knock out 100+ studies a day without a lunch break, no more 14 hour weekend calls etc). Americans that had formerly had private insurance would however have to get used to waiting in line with everyone else (I’m sure they would be thrilled since most of us are more concerned about society as a whole rather than about our families and ourselves). Also don’t see medicare for all/end of fee-for-service working unless our medical malpractice industry and cost of medical education also adopt a more socialized model (good luck with that).
1st thing, “Medicare for all” is yet to be defined. “Some people say,” to quote the president, that it means the end of private insurance. But “Some people say” that it will not. There is no reason it can’t be like many countries with universal healthcare who have private insurance and a mix of public and private insurance. You could have Medicare as a choice with the yearly ACA choices or you could have private insurance companies provide a specified minimum coverage with private insurance providing extras. Rather similar to traditional Medicare now with ability to purchase supplemental insurance that covers costs outside of Medicare including drugs in Part D.
There is no magic in any of this other than defining and regulating a lot of things.
And what do you mean “absolute control?” That is an imaginary hobgoblin IMO. “There are many who say,” to quote the president again, that government already has “absolute control.” This is absolute? Seems like government is gelded to me if this is absolute.
All this absolute fear of “socialized medicine.” Seems like other countries would never give up their “socialized medicine” to have our “free” system. And they all seem capable of handling their populations.
The world did not spin off its axis with Social Security – SOCIALISM! nor with Medicare – SOCIALISM! nor with Bush’s expansion – SOCIALISM! nor with the ACA – SOCIALISM!
This is fear being spread and politics. You can blame the Left for all the ills but you need to look at the Right & then tell me what they have done to address any of the issues you raise other than blanket, “NO!” all the time. Seriously, what are the right’s answers to our problems other than more tax cuts?
Yes, cutting revenue will solve everything in America.-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from jd4540
Quote from Frumious
In the absence of any rational discussions for Republicans, looks like Medicare-for-all becomes the default alternative to the ACA.
Problem is that 60% of the country still receives coverage from employer based private insurance and are more/less happy with their coverage. Eliminating private insurance companies is a non-starter for many (kinda like the border wall/barrier is). While for profit insurance companies are certainly part of the exorbitant costs of HC in this country, other factors such as fee-for-service + defensive medicine also play a large role…Medicare for all just seems like a huge over-reach. You have to remember that while this may really appeal to the left, all of the right and a chunk of moderates (which would be a majority of the electorate) may not agree. Why not take smaller less extreme steps such as giving states the funds and autonomy to figure out how to cover all of their residents?
I guess if we gave the government absolute control over reimbursing healthcare services with medicare for all, they could eventually do away with fee-for-service (assuming they also outlaw cash-only practices). Giving the aging population, hard to see how we would keep up with increasing volume of providing services since there would be no financial incentive to do so (on a side note this could be nice, no need to knock out 100+ studies a day without a lunch break, no more 14 hour weekend calls etc). Americans that had formerly had private insurance would however have to get used to waiting in line with everyone else (I’m sure they would be thrilled since most of us are more concerned about society as a whole rather than about our families and ourselves). Also don’t see medicare for all/end of fee-for-service working unless our medical malpractice industry and cost of medical education also adopt a more socialized model (good luck with that).
1st thing, “Medicare for all” is yet to be defined. “Some people say,” to quote the president, that it means the end of private insurance. But “Some people say” that it will not. There is no reason it can’t be like many countries with universal healthcare who have private insurance and a mix of public and private insurance. You could have Medicare as a choice with the yearly ACA choices or you could have private insurance companies provide a specified minimum coverage with private insurance providing extras. Rather similar to traditional Medicare now with ability to purchase supplemental insurance that covers costs outside of Medicare including drugs in Part D.
There is no magic in any of this other than defining and regulating a lot of things.
And what do you mean “absolute control?” That is an imaginary hobgoblin IMO. “There are many who say,” to quote the president again, that government already has “absolute control.” This is absolute? Seems like government is gelded to me if this is absolute.
All this absolute fear of “socialized medicine.” Seems like other countries would never give up their “socialized medicine” to have our “free” system. And they all seem capable of handling their populations.
The world did not spin off its axis with Social Security – SOCIALISM! nor with Medicare – SOCIALISM! nor with Bush’s expansion – SOCIALISM! nor with the ACA – SOCIALISM!
This is fear being spread and politics. You can blame the Left for all the ills but you need to look at the Right & then tell me what they have done to address any of the issues you raise other than blanket, “NO!” all the time. Seriously, what are the right’s answers to our problems other than more tax cuts?
Yes, cutting revenue will solve everything in America.
My bad, I thought the medicare for all included abolishing private insurance (perhaps that’s only Harris’s plan). I can see a program where someone has the option of buying into medicare at a younger age while others could keep their private insurance.
Given Harris’s plan, there would be no private insurance, therefore the government/CMS would have absolute control over HC reimbursement.
I don’t have a problem with socialized programs. My parents are from a formerly communist/now socialist country. There are pro’s/cons.
Btw why can’t our medical education be socialized as well? My in-state med school cost me 175K 10 years ago. Cost to attend now is about 275K based on tuition hikes by the state.
-
[link=https://www.cbpp.org/blog/more-evidence-of-post-aca-slowdown-in-health-care-spending]https://www.cbpp.org/blog…n-health-care-spending[/link]
-
[size=”0″][link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/opinion/diabetes-insulin-generics-humalog.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…-generics-humalog.html[/link][/size]
-
-
Here JD, heard this on WNYC this weekend, On The Media programs about universal healthcare, Medicare For All, etc.
Was very good, IMO.
[link=https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bias-against-change-medicare-for-all]https://www.wnycstudios.o…hange-medicare-for-all[/link]
[link=https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/on-the-media-messaging-war-universal-healthcare-1]https://www.wnycstudios.o…universal-healthcare-1[/link]
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Sounds like bad politics.
Trump just had a huge domestic win. Why would he want to tank that by returning to the side of the healthcare debate that cost him the 2018 midterms? I don’t get it.
wrong fight to pick I think. Going into the campaign mode the dems I believe enjoy the favorable rating on the healthcare debate.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
wrong fight to pick I think. Going into the campaign mode the dems I believe enjoy the favorable rating on the healthcare debate.
It’s almost as if Trump was going out of his way to give the Dems a chance to pivot away from Russia.
Healthcare is a topic dems should want to talk about all day long … especially in the context of GOP repeal efforts.
-
-
You only the need the headline …
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-26/trump-s-miss-on-obamacare-ruling-gives-democrats-perfect-pivot?srnd=premium]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-26/trump-s-miss-on-obamacare-ruling-gives-democrats-perfect-pivot?srnd=premium[/link]
[b]Trump Health-Care Miss Gives Democrats a Perfect Pivot:[/b] His doubling down on damaging and unpopular policy gives his opponents an opening just when they need it.
-
[h1]Trump Pushes GOP Lawmakers on Health Care[/h1]
[link=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/trump-lunch-gop-1238158]Politico[/link]: Trumps decision to jump headlong into another divisive health care effort with Democrats in control of the House no less shows that he isnt shying away from conflicts, even those that could hurt vulnerable GOP lawmakers.
In fact, Republicans had no real plans to pass or even necessarily plan for sweeping health care legislation as of 24 hours ago. And most in the party have been eager to put the disastrous effort to repeal Obamacare behind them.
Said one Republican senator: I want nothing to do with this.
[link=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/03/27/new-trump-privately-tells-republicans-adam-schiff-is-a-pencil-neck-and-jay-powell-has-no-feel-for-economy-416072?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f0ed-dd93-ad7f-f8edad790000&nlid=630318]Playbook[/link]: Its sometimes difficult to discern what is a flash in the pan versus what is real with Trump and we wondered that with this health care push. None of the presidents advisers had any idea, but they said he is interested in health care because he sees it as an unfinished campaign promise.
-
Other than expanding Medicaid Obamacare helped no one. States that signed on will have to foot the bill. Trump has clearly said that he will not support any plan that denies coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. It amazes me that intelligent Physicians would support Medicare for all. That would essentially eliminate any private insurance options as the government can outspend any private insurance company. Complete government control of any industry is a slippery slope. It’s funny that the Democrats created this wonderful thing called Obamacare that they now want to throw on the trash heap. All Physicians know that patients are not denied Medical Care. They weren’t denied before Obamacare either.
-
You are saying that from an outpopractice perspective
Thats not how most radiologist work
A hospital-Insurer Coalition is what we have now
Its Fd is over since DRA1and 2
Government controlled Medicare for all would be better for most people
Physicians would probably have more control and if the fee for services component of Medicare remains intact
Most physians would probably do better
-
Outpatient practice perspective
-
Also
They werent denied inpatient or ER care before
Its just those taking care of them werent paid a dime
People who work in outpatient practices really dont give a sheet because they just werent seeing non payers anyway
You argument is self serving
-
You really think you as a physician would have
more control under a completely government
run system…please explain how that would be.-
In what industry is no choice better?
-
I personally know more thAn a handful of people who had preexisting conditions who could not get insurance before the ACA
There are millions of similar stories nationally.
There are similarly lots of people able to stay on their family plans
Millions of people who now no longer have to deal with garbage plans and lifetime caps
Its not just Medicaid
-
In a world run by insurance they would not cover anyone with a condition, only take money from healthy people, and then when you get sick they’d drop you like a hot potato.
-
I agree that not covering preexisting conditions was the best part of ACA.
Republicans and the POTUS have said that
this should not change. Outside of the expansion of Medicaid the ACA provided expensive policies with very high deductibles. For many patients, the high deductibles render their insurance useless so why buy at all. Do you support complete government control of healthcare with elimination of private insurance as Harris has suggested? I just don’t think private insurance companies can compete against a government healthcare industry that doesn’t have to produce profit or quality. Unless you let the government determine what quality is….-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
I agree that not covering preexisting conditions was the best part of ACA.
Republicans and the POTUS have said that
this should not change.
This is like voting for a pony.
We all know that once you decide to keep the preclusion on pre-existing coniditions you then also need a strong individual mandate or people will game the system and wait until they’re sick to sign up.
Outside of the expansion of Medicaid the ACA provided expensive policies with very high deductibles.
For many patients, the high deductibles render their insurance useless so why buy at all.
I think that part of what needs to be corrected in the ACA is to extend the subsidies to higher income levels and to cap maximum out-of-pocket on a sliding scale based on income.
But getting a lower premium for a plan that subsequently turns out to be junk doesn’t help either …. so I support the MEC provisions and prohibitions on caps etc.
Do you support complete government control of healthcare with elimination of private insurance as Harris has suggested?
No. But I do want to see more people covered, not fewer. I think the most practical way to get this done is by bolting on to our existing private system and expanding out public system.
Mandate medicaid expansion nationwide or pass federal legislation allowing anyone who be medicaid eleible but lives in a no-expansion state to enroll in Medicare.
Allow Medicare enrollment at age 50 or 55. It will stabilize the ACA private market place.
Allow the government to offer plans any time there are fewer than a handful of insurers participating in any market.
Strengthen in individual mandate.
I just don’t think private insurance companies can compete against a government healthcare industry that doesn’t have to produce profit or quality. Unless you let the government determine what quality is….
The profitability of insurance companies and their shareholders is very, very low on my list of concerns when tackling healthcare issues. -
That’s a huge part of the problem IMO. Profit motive of insurance. Also to lower cost you want quality of services. Bang for your buck.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I honestly think as a physician I would have more choices under a strictly Medicare system than I do today
What we have today is a hospital/insurance company cabal
Its not good….. too many middle men
-
[h1]Trump Asks Senators to Create Spectacular Health Plan[/h1]
President Trump said he asked a group of U.S. senators to create a health-care plan to replace Obamacare, as his administration seeks to have the law signed by his predecessor invalidated in court, [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-28/trump-says-he-asked-senators-to-create-spectacular-health-plan]Bloomberg[/link] reports. Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Rick Scott (R-FL) are developing the plan.
Said Trump: They are going to work together, come up with something thats really spectacular. Maybe well even get support in the House from Democrats.
He added: [b]But its going to be far better than Obamacare.[/b]
[b][img]http://www.quickmeme.com/img/e1/e1d4cf268d205ff30a492a50e5e3b7cdb4f08be8694075bffeb1b7be50b8fc62.jpg[/img][/b]
-
Excert from Trump tweet on ACA “deductibility ridiculously high”
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Excert from Trump tweet on ACA “deductibility ridiculously high”
Grammar aside …
Easy to fix . Just make sliding scale deductibles based on income.-
Everyone wants to sell the idea that healthcare is really cheap until they are talking about a real plan, then it is unaffordable.
And the masses eat it up agreeing with both sides’ arguments.
But then it does seem cheap when the employer pays the bulk of the cost and except for the copays, the rest of the costs are hidden.-
“Magical thinking” about healthcare. Trump apparently believes this all magical happens since he doesn’t understand the complexity of anything.
What’s also magical thinking is what happens to many MAGA supporters when the suddenly celebrate about the ACA being gone and suddenly realize so is their coverage. And the impact it will have on healthcare in general and the economy.
But thinking makes their heads hurt so they have to stop attempting.
Now were learning more about how this happened. The New York Times [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/us/politics/trump-aca.html]reports[/link] that during a heated argument inside the White House, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, a tea party zealot, and another adviser named Joe Grogan, prevailed upon Trump as follows:
[blockquote] Mr. Trump has declared that he has kept his promises, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Grogan argued, and as a candidate he campaigned on repealing the health law. His base of voters would love it. Besides, they argued, Democrats have been campaigning successfully on health care, and Republicans should try to claim the issue for themselves. This could force the matter.
Among those with concerns was Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, who shared that the new attorney general, William P. Barr, opposed such a move. Vice President Mike Pence was worried about the political ramifications of moving ahead without a strategy or a plan to handle the millions who could be left suddenly uninsured if the suit succeeded.
[b] [/b]
[/blockquote] [i]His base of voters would love it[/i]. This apparently overrode the fact that the new attorney general opposed the move, presumably because the lawsuit is utterly absurd on its legal merits, and the fact that the administration has no plan to deal with the millions who would suddenly lose health coverage. Note that Pence appeared worried about the [i]politics[/i] of this, not its enormous human toll, but never mind that for now.
Similarly, [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-chief-of-staff-mulvaney-pushes-health-care-fight-trump-wants-republicans-fear/2019/03/27/c52a07de-50bc-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?utm_term=.045e019082c0]The Post reports[/link] that Mulvaney and his allies told Trump that joining a lawsuit to overturn the ACA will help him fulfill a campaign promise and could help lead to his reelection. Translation: It will keep the base happy.
Whats telling is the argument that Mulvaney used to prevail against it. He told Trump not just that blowing up Obamacare would thrill his base, but also that Trump and Republicans could take the health-care issue back for themselves which, of course, would require having an actual plan.
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/judge-blocks-trumps-rule-expand-insurance-plans-dont-meet-aca-requirements]http://www.rollcall.com/n…-meet-aca-requirements[/link]
[h1]Judge blocks Trumps rule to expand insurance plans that dont meet ACA requirements[/h1]
The Trump administration suffered another blow to its health care agenda in federal court on Thursday when a district court judge said a rule to expand insurance plans that do not have to meet all of the requirements under the 2010 health care law is invalid.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates blocked a rule that was finalized last year that allows small businesses and self-employed people to band together to purchase insurance known as association health plans.
Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, called the final rule an end-run around the health care law.
Indeed, as the President directed, and the Secretary of Labor confirmed, the Final Rule was designed to expand access to AHPs in order to avoid the most stringent requirements of the ACA, he wrote, using the acronym for the 2010 health care law.[/QUOTE]
-
Your daily dose of Republican health care outright lies:
[h1]White House Claims to Be Working on Health Plan[/h1]
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway maintained on Fox News that Republicans are working on a plan for replacing the Affordable Care Act, days after President Trump surprised members on both sides of the aisle when he declared that the Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-maintain-that-they-are-working-on-a-plan-to-replace-obamacare/2019/03/31/aa83f844-53ce-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.2b20fd33ab38]Washington Post[/link] reports.
Said Conway: There is a plan. Weve been working on a plan for a long time. And we hope that Congress would come along.
Host Chris Wallace responded: Right, nine years, but youve never actually come up with a whole plan.
[link=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/31/mick-mulvaney-guarantees-no-one-lose-coverage-without-obamacare/3325222002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomwashington-topstories]USA Today[/link]: White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said that he could guarantee that Americans would not lose their health care insurance coverage if the Affordable Care Act ends up being struck down in its most recent court challenge.
-
The plan is that there is no plan.
-
[link=https://politicalwire.com/2019/03/31/why-trumps-new-health-care-push-will-backfire/]https://politicalwire.com…re-push-will-backfire/[/link]
[h1]Trumps New Health Care Push Will Backfire… and could cost him 2020[/h1]
[img]https://1lme911nv0cg3ned26127983-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Obamacare-popular.png[/img]The ultimate issue for Trump, simply, is that the people want to keep their health coverage. Once unpopular, the favorability of the Affordable Care Act has rebounded impressively since president Trump took office.
According to polls from the Kaiser Family Foundation, analyzed by [link=https://getpocket.com/a/read/2540269598]FiveThirtyEight[/link], Americans average net favorability of the health care law increased from -4 in 2016 to +12 in 2017, a 16 percentage point jump. And this March, their poll showed that Americans net favorability of the law was sitting at +10. Health care entitlements are simply more popular than they used to be.
_____
It is one thing to say that Trumps moves on health care are unpopular. And they still are, by the way; a [link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-3-24-2019]Fox News poll[/link] from March 24th found that only 37% of voters approve of the way he is handling health care, compared with 52% who disapprove. But its another thing entirely to say that Trumps and the GOPs position is costing them votes.
Projecting forward to 2020, its clear that a new GOP-led crusade against the ACA could make a significant dent in Trumps support among Midwestern voterswho, you may recall, were crucial to his upset victory in the Electoral College some two and a half years ago. Again according to my number-crunching of the 2018 CCES, about 55% of Midwesterners oppose full repeal, including 22% of Trump voters.
The analysis says that 16% of ACA-approving Midwestern Trump voters cast their ballots for House Democrats last year, vs a disaffection percentage of 3% among those who supported repealing the ACA. In 2020, this means that Trump could be facing losses of about 6% of his voters (math: 78% * 0.03 + 22% * 0.16). Of course, Midwestern voters are also more likely to ticket-split for Democrats down-ballot, so this share could be overstated. But if even half of the mid-term deserters opt for the Democratic candidate in 2020, Trump would face long odds of being re-elected.
[/QUOTE]
-
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from IR_CONSULT
I agree that not covering preexisting conditions was the best part of ACA.
Republicans and the POTUS have said that
this should not change.This is like voting for a pony.
We all know that once you decide to keep the preclusion on pre-existing coniditions you then also need a strong individual mandate or people will game the system and wait until they’re sick to sign up.
Outside of the expansion of Medicaid the ACA provided expensive policies with very high deductibles.
For many patients, the high deductibles render their insurance useless so why buy at all.
I think that part of what needs to be corrected in the ACA is to extend the subsidies to higher income levels and to cap maximum out-of-pocket on a sliding scale based on income.
But getting a lower premium for a plan that subsequently turns out to be junk doesn’t help either …. so I support the MEC provisions and prohibitions on caps etc.
Do you support complete government control of healthcare with elimination of private insurance as Harris has suggested?
No. But I do want to see more people covered, not fewer. I think the most practical way to get this done is by bolting on to our existing private system and expanding out public system.
Mandate medicaid expansion nationwide or pass federal legislation allowing anyone who be medicaid eleible but lives in a no-expansion state to enroll in Medicare.
Allow Medicare enrollment at age 50 or 55. It will stabilize the ACA private market place.
Allow the government to offer plans any time there are fewer than a handful of insurers participating in any market.
Strengthen in individual mandate.
I just don’t think private insurance companies can compete against a government healthcare industry that doesn’t have to produce profit or quality. Unless you let the government determine what quality is….
The profitability of insurance companies and their shareholders is very, very low on my list of concerns when tackling healthcare issues.
…….
It’s as if House Dems were reading my posts 🙂
[link=https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Health%20Care%20Bill%20Section%20by%20Section.pdf]https://energycommerce.ho…ion%20by%20Section.pdf[/link]House legislation to strengthen the ACA: [b] Protecting Pre-existing Conditions & Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019[/b]
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-27/health-care-bolstering-obamacare-is-smart-priority-for-democrats?srnd=opinion]https://www.bloomberg.com…democrats?srnd=opinion[/link]
…
would fund new efforts to boost Obamacare enrollment, increase the tax subsidies for insurance buyers on the federal and state exchanges, and expand the population eligible for those subsidies. It would create a national reinsurance program to help cover expensive insurance claims, and help states that still rely on the federal insurance marketplace to create exchanges of their own steps that ought to lower peoples insurance premiums.
The bill would also reverse the administrations decision to [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-23/new-short-term-health-plan-rules-are-an-attack-on-obamacare]allow[/link] short-term health insurance to last for as long as three years. Such policies, unlike those regulated by the ACA, fail to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions or provide Obamacares 10 essential benefits including hospitalization, prescription drugs and mental-health treatment. That makes the policies [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/short-term-health-plans-backed-by-trump-are-cheap-for-a-reason?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=64884443&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-817B5QvzVeCQttPiK3ptpgdNIJhGhDCVVPMf3pxfN1zYixM5hgLHj0rL0S0gx74zFLeN87DYB8IUarxkOfNXXqcQVKpA&_hsmi=64884443]cheaper[/link], but useless or unavailable for many people who need medical care.
The Democrats plan would also reverse administration waivers allowing states to sanction insurance that fails to cover pre-existing conditions.
With this measure, the Democratic leadership isnt proposing a revolutionary single-payer plan, but more of the incremental progress toward health-care security thats already been accomplished by the ACA which, by the way, is now a [link=https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable–Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear]broadly popular[/link] law. As the Trump administration pursues a radical legal attack on Obamacares achievements, the new bill shows that the Democrats can lead responsibly on this vital issue.
-
[b]Trump announces GOP healthcare plan is coming …
just AFTER the 2020 election![/b]
President Trump [link=https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112903454941474817]tweeted[/link] that Republicans are developing a really great health care plan that will be far less expensive and much more usable than Obamacare.
But he says a vote on the plan will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate and win back the House.
-
Trumps own words
Nobody knee health care could be so complicated
wow
-
Interesting article/opinion on American culture and our failings. Trump and Trumpets no longer believe in American Exceptionalism, once a fundamental in the Republican catechism. No longer. We are the “Can’t do anything right” country now. Except of course for our savior, Mr. “Only I” Donald Trump.
When did this culture start failing? IMHO, Ronald Reagan started the brush fire with his “jokes,” “I am from the government and I am here to help!” and, “Government IS THE problem!” Then Newt threw gasoline on the fire making it a conflagration followed by more gasoline by Trump and his supporters. Trump’s gasoline consists of race, anti-immigration, anti-intellectualism and the fanning of victimhood. Mr. “Only I” apparently can fix that. Seems history has heard that claim before.
Food for thought. If only thinking, “weren’t so hard!” And BTW, the author is a Capitalist, not some Communist/Socialist.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/why-united-states-cant-become-nordic-overnight]https://www.washingtonpos…ecome-nordic-overnight[/link]
Much of the world is laughing at the United States. Dictators smirk because the foremost liberal democracy has produced President Trump. Adversaries rejoice because he is dismantling alliances that kept them in check for 50 years. Europe giggles uneasily as tweetstorms put into question the judgment of the man in charge of their military safety.
To Norwegians, the laughable moment came when the president [link=https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway]wanted more Norwegian immigrants[/link]. Norway is one of the happiest and richest places in the world. Democrats, having realized that, want to turn the United States into a very big version of Norway. Let me explain why that cannot work.
Last month, [link=https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/norway-cruise-ship-evacuated/index.html]a cruise ship [/link]with more than 1,300 people on board, including many American tourists, lost power and almost ran aground the Norwegian coast in a storm. After an exceptional rescue by modern-day Vikings in helicopters, the ships owner arrived. He is Norways second-richest person and immediately got lambasted. Not for his malfunctioning ship but for mostly avoiding paying taxes to Norway by [link=https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/03/27/shipowner-scorned-for-avoiding-taxes/]moving to Switzerland. [/link]Despicably to Norwegians, the janitor of a school that became a makeshift heliport during the rescue [link=https://fagbladet.no/nyheter/vaktmester-ragnar-har-betalt-mer-skatt-enn-cruisereder-torstein-hagen-6.91.619660.2e6859ab6c]pays more Norwegian taxes[/link] taxes used to pay for the rescue than the tax-refugee ship owner.
The sin of the ship owner, in Norwegian eyes, is his lack of solidarity. Norwegians share an understanding that we are in it together: rich and poor, liberals and conservatives, men and women, indigenous and immigrants. You might be rich in Norway, but believing that it relieves you of responsibility to the community is a capital vice to us.
Norway is no less capitalist than the United States.
[link=https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16176.pdf]In the 1970s[/link], Americans had about the same trust in one another as Norwegians do now. The Cold War showed the need to stick together. Today the government is invisible to most Americans. In Norway we can see it: Our free universal health care and education are visible to all. Those monies, channeled through a state led by people we trust, bind the country together. In the United States, the trust in Congress is so low and the spectacle of the White House so surreal that the idea of government as a tool of common purpose seems quaint.
-
-
-
-
[link=https://twitter.com/i/status/1117924843746361345]https://twitter.com/i/status/1117924843746361345[/link]
Fox News crowd at Sanders town hall gives loud applause when Brett Baier asks them if they like “Medicare for All”
