Trump: 'Time for Republicans & Democrats to Get Together' on Health Care Plan

a reply to: roaland

You're missing the point. When you go to a hospital (any hospital), if you can't pay the debt and it gets discharged it doesn't just magically vanish. They make that money up elsewhere. Either as a deduction on their taxes, which means taxpayers pay, or by charging more on their services, which means sick people pay.

It's just not feasible to pay as you go, like what HSA's are supposed to accomplish because of the costs of health care. Let me give you an example, my mom has an expensive illness. She never earned a lot of money in life, and now she's on disability. She takes a bunch of different medications funded through Medicaid. A single one of these medicines retails for $15,000 for a 2 week dose. How is any HSA ever supposed to pay for that? That's $400,000 for a year of treatment. Would anyone be able to put aside $400,000 for a single medication? What if they had to cover that medication for 20 years? That's $8 million dollars. If you could put aside 20% of your savings every paycheck, just covering this single medication would mean you need an income of $2 million/year, and that's just for one medication.

It just doesn't work.

a reply to: veracity

Or... they'll repeal it but delay the effects of the repeal. Then they'll wait for or manufacture some disaster or scandal, using that disaster/scandal as an excuse for why some part of the repeal took place. They could even delay the repeal of specific parts until after specific elections, then blame Dems for it when the repeal actually takes place.

An example would be the "pre-existing conditions" issue. They could give insurance companies until Jun of 2019 to do something about it, knowing they won't cover pre-existing conditions unless forced to. If they won in the 2018 elections, they'd just deflect public attention to some other non-scandal while the repeal slowly went into effect. But if they lost Congress in the 2018 elections, the repeal would happen while Democrats controlled Congress. All Repubs would have to do is delay any measure to undo the repeal until the repeal went into effect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And everyone working American who has a job is paying double now because of it! Failure!

Listing a downside to policy isn't the definition of "failure" in my book. Looks like a rather liberal use of the word to me.

Depends on if you are the one paying double or not. Jacking up everyone else's cost to ensure others is not necessarily a win or a success.

We could end homelessness if government forced everyone to give up a spare bedroom. I think most homeowner's/renters would consider that policy a failure despite helping homelessness.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

unfortunately, its not about the American people, its about image and money

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And everyone working American who has a job is paying double now because of it! Failure!

Listing a downside to policy isn't the definition of "failure" in my book. Looks like a rather liberal use of the word to me.

Depends on if you are the one paying double or not. Jacking up everyone else's cost to ensure others is not necessarily a win or a success.

Who is everyone else? I'm certainly not paying double for my health insurance than I was before. It went up some but only by like 10 dollars from last year.

a reply to: veracity

Unfortunately, it's always been about image and money (and power, favors, grudges, perks, etc).

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I should hope Trump expects democrats to work with him on this new Trumpcare inasmuch as republicans worked with Obama on Obamacare.

President Obama told the Democrats to not touch the new Republican Repeal/Replace with a 10 foot pole. I hope they do exactly what he advises. Their assistance is not wanted, or needed.

a reply to: carewemust

Good, we are in agreement. Enjoy your little big horn.

a reply to: Aazadan

your missing the point. Forcing premiums up over 300%, in some cases more, (conservative estimate) since the ACA was enacted is not the answer.

Forcing me to pay for something i can't afford is not the answer.
Forcing me to pay for something i can't afford to use after paying for it is not the answer.
Having the Government steal 2.5% of my yearly income because i can't afford to pay the monthly premiums is not the answer.
The ACA is broken and does nothing but steal money out of my pocket in my case.

a reply to: carewemust

Have at it then. What do you think the Republicans can do that will make insurance more readily available to those who don't have it, while ensuring those that do have it now don't lose it, while also lowering premiums?

a reply to: roaland

did you know that the prices are up way to high bc the republican governors did not expand medicaid? If they did was Obama intended them to do, then the ACA would be successful in the red states just as in the blue states




Also, you are forced to have car insurance, isn't your health more important than your car? Why complain about being forced to take care of yourself?

a reply to: roaland

Premiums didn't go up 300% for people who had proper insurance though. Large premium rises only happened for the people who weren't actually getting proper coverage. Part of the ACA mandates a certain level of care with regards to procedures being covered. Lots of people's coverage only covered doctor visits, if anything at all. There were a bunch of health insurance programs out there with low prices that were effectively scams that left people with nothing if they got seriously ill. Those are the people who saw large increases because they were going from having nothing to having what they thought they were paying for all along.

If you can't afford it, there's subsidies in most states. If you don't qualify for a subsidy it's because you either refuse to take it, or because your state government is screwing you over in order to cause as much pain as possible. In which case, it's not the fault of the feds, but rather your governor.

I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

a reply to: veracity

I'm forced to have car insurance only if i drive. I'm forced to pay an exorbitant price on a piss poor policy purely because I breath air and if i don't the government steps in and robs me of 2.5% of my income. I don't even know why i bother trying to argue this......

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

yeah, and the poor people can just die?

Is that what you are saying?

a reply to: roaland

sorry you are forced to take care of yourself, actually, its your duty to take care of yourself. If you don't, then others around you could suffer.

and the reason why prices are too high is bc of your republican governor that you probably voted in.

a reply to: NotToday

That kind of Social Darwinist philosophy is what gave birth to the Final Solution.

a reply to: Profusion

Trump wants a replacement for Obamacare. That's not happening without bipartisan support.

It's all a bunch of BS anyway. There have been attempts to draft a healthcare law for years, single payer, public option, etc, and it was constantly a morass of partisan bickering.

Considering that, what makes ANYONE think that if the ACA went away that suddenly there would be a newfound bipartisan effort to (successfully) create (and PASS) something actually beneficial to replace it? Yeah right.

Watching a bipartisan health care bill being put together and passed could be the greatest political show of our lifetimes. Get ready for about a thousand threads, heated debates, and a total bloodbath.

Exactly. Not only here on ATS but also in Congress. We've seen this show before.

There will likely be no bipartisan healthcare bill. The republicans, what with all three branches now, will never go for such a thing considering their past attempts. It's just their veiled excuse to destroy the ACA as they have wont all along.

Everyone is being played.

I think we can be sure of one thing...

Under Trump the insurance companies will prosper and the Taxpayers will pay for it. More trickle down economix BS, wait and see.