It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Threatens Coverage Of Millions If Democrats Won’t Negotiate On ACA Repeal

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

Nice try rookie. I see what you did there. I talked about uninsured going to hospital ERs for treatment and YOU twist it as if those people are all illegals. Shame on you for being intellectually dishonest. Everyone else see what he's doing?


This ISN'T an 'illegal alien' problem. This problem has been growing for decades. There are countless 'red-blooded Americans' without health insurance and straining our hospitals. For the intellectually weak it's always easier to find a simple, binary answer to complex problems. And yea, blame it on some minority when you don't have the smarts to figure-out and fix the REAL problem.




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

You're completely misconstruing my whole point.

I am 110% against government run Heathcare as it is totally unecessary, wasteful and unconstutional.

I am calling for enforcement of existing law pertaining to monopolistic practices, price fixing, collusion as covered in 100+ year old laws such as USC15 Chapter 1 and existing consumer law.

Our politicians, prosecutors and judges are not applying these laws due payola.

Up to 90% cost reduction can be had if people are educated about this aspect and demand action.

This done, makes insurance and government coverage of poor a moot argument as most could afford routine care sans insurance and taxpayer load would be doable for poor.

Everyone missing the boat unless this dealt with first.

The corporations involved in healthcare whether it be insurance, providers or pharmaceutical are practicing business much like the robber barons of late 1800's

Anyone calling for "single payer" is committing folly as it would be government paying the same criminals who've ruined healthcare except under that premise, bankrupting nation is risk.

Paying a third party (insurance) perpetuates financial rape by masking enormity of weath transfer, rape is rape I don't care if put in nicer terms such as group rape gets a discount.

All I'm promulgating is upholding current law in an effort to return healthcare to an open, fair free market with price transparency and competitive practices we demand of all other businesses in this country.

That entails getting politicians to do their job, not invent legislation or dream up programs perpetuating the basic problem.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
To folks still not getting the "cost" side of healthcare problem.

In every store or restaurant you go to today imagine,

At entry you are asked to prove you've paid "entry fee"

Price/menu label says "It depends" for everything.

At register you must present bankcard/creditcard limits and daily limits for consideration for todays pricing.

You must sign for receipt and agree to pay any and all further fees determined for todays service at a future date.

You get defective product or food, you will be billed for original as well as replacement cost plus warranty service charge.

At home tonight you are informed the charges made today will only be reimbursed at 50% as store/restaurant is no longer in network.


Now nodody I know would put up with a system like that.

Yet most people I know do put up with a system like that.


There are laws for this that are not being used!


What really happened, unbeknownst to me my bank and store/restaurant had an agreement to wildly inflate "paper" costs. My bank gets 2.5% of gross receipt as "service charge" and bases yearly rates from gross "paper" charges.

My retailer cares not one wit what "paper" charges are because they've inflated by at least 10X. When bank reimbursed at 50% of "paper" charge it made money hand over fist anyway.

The bank in this case paid 50%, but set it's deductible and annual account charges on 100% "paper" costs.

In accounting the bank also uses "paper" costs to make profits seem reasonable if challenged.

In the end, retailer made out like bandit, bank was out no money and was able to skim inflated fees.

The loser was me, the consumer.

Crazy is, people in general and on this thread are asking for more of this instead of an end to this type criminality.




edit on 18-4-2017 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for 3 answers from "socialized medicine" proponents...

1.) I know today with absolute certainty the same thing "constitutional attorney" Obama knew back in 2009, and what dozens of lawyers in the House knew that same year -- a Federally-administered universal health plan is completely unconstitutional.

As recently as yesterday, even far left demigod Dianne Feinstein told an angry crowd of her constituents that she's "not there yet" on a single-payer system. You can translate that however you want.

If single-payer were constitutional, why didn't Obama and Congress pass it 2009 when they were able to pass Obamacare (a tax) without one Republican vote?

2.) Where in the Constitution is the "right" granted to the individual that entitles them to Federal government-subsidized healthcare?

3.) Who pays for it? No expert out there will tell you that such a thing could be done for less than half of about what the Federal government now collects in taxes. According to the World Bank, America spends about $9,500 per capita on healthcare. You can do the math...

I will admit to being a little bit grouchy about taxes this time of the year, and I'm hit a lot harder than most folks because of my chosen profession (land development) where everything I touch is taxed, but I'm telling you -- and I mean this for President Trump and the Republicans as well, if my taxes are raised in any significant way to pay for another Obamacare-like stab at national healthcare, I'm done.

I'm way too young to retire and still feel the fire in my gut to do what I do, but I will quit and live off passive income (capital gains) rather than contribute to the further dismantling of our free market economy.

That probably won't matter to anyone other than me (and the contractors who work for me at times), of course. I'm a little fish. But it will make me feel better.

And there are millions more small business owners like me out there...



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

weather you consider it constitutional or not, the gov't has been subsidizing people's healthcare for decades!!
how about you answer my question..
where in the constitution does it give the gov't the right to decide who should and who shouldn't get that subsidized healthcare out of the mass of people who need that subsidized healthcare? where in the constitution does it indicate that children should be held more worthy of those subsidies as their parents? isn't there something in the constitution about equal protection in the laws???

by going to a single payer, government system, you eliminate one giant, money hungry middle man out of the picture. namely the health insurance industry with it's insanely high salaried ceos and upper management team! weather or not that would reduce the cost enough to make it affordable I don't know. this seems to be a more legitamate argument than your "it's unconstitutional" bit, since what they have been doing the past few decades seems to unconstitutional as all heck to me!

as far as why obama, or any other president hasn't brought a single payer system into being, I can't help if it's because of what the effect it would have on those insurance companies, and as a result, all of those who have investments in them.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Gold darn why can't you people quit arguing insurance this insurance that, taxed this, taxes that, unconstutional this, constitutional that.

This is exactly what you have been programmed to do by the system as it exists.

Get the laws upheld right now today this minute and see what happens.

Quit bickering and positional opposition and get real results.

Cost is problem, cost is problem, cost is problem shall I repeat, cost is problem.

Law already in place to deal with problem.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

I'm sick of one-dimensional thinkers. Public and Private systems can, and SHOULD, exist together in our nation.

Universal, Government-run, Single-Payer, Socialized HealthCare will not work as the soul method for providing everyone Medical Care. Not in this country.

But it would be a GREAT system for U.S. citizens who have expensive, on-going medical needs.

Healthier people would then be able to purchase private health insurance that contains the benefits that they choose to have, and pay for.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

I know exactly what I did. I conflated an issue you are probably in support of, to show you a moment of truth.

The BILLIONS of dollars the illegals cost the healthcare system surely does not help the situation. But I guess that doesn't matter to you or any of the other ACA supporters that continue to support the mega corporations that benefit from this bill. It is always a picking and a choosing of facts to support your own narrative. Are you a Bernie Bro?

Keep kissing the boots of your enemies, as long as it makes you feel virtuous right? Feeling good is much more important than reality.

SooOoOoOoOoOoO virtuous! Such a wonderful caring person!



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

if the health care system was truly working as a free market as so many are proclaiming it is, would the costs be as high as they are though? or would a true free market have had a natural mechanism built in it that would have put pressure to hold those costs down? those laws that you keep talking about, when were they written, were they written with the idea that they were addressing a free market?
in a free market, when the cost of the supply ventures too high, the demand drops like a rock, and the suppliers have to reduce their prices, redesign the way they do business to reduce their costs if needed. we have a gov't that has been interceding in this process, bringing in more and more people into those programs that "help them" thus eliminating that natural mechanism that is present in the free market. so instead of seeing the prices go down and the providers (health insurance companies included) adapt and reduce their costs, they end up celebrating by giving their top managers and ceo's these nice bonuses and salary increases.
at least obamacare, I believe had a rule in it that they would have to devout a certain percentage of their revenues to the actual healthcare!



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SBMcG

weather you consider it constitutional or not, the gov't has been subsidizing people's healthcare for decades!!
how about you answer my question..
where in the constitution does it give the gov't the right to decide who should and who shouldn't get that subsidized healthcare out of the mass of people who need that subsidized healthcare? where in the constitution does it indicate that children should be held more worthy of those subsidies as their parents? isn't there something in the constitution about equal protection in the laws???

by going to a single payer, government system, you eliminate one giant, money hungry middle man out of the picture. namely the health insurance industry with it's insanely high salaried ceos and upper management team! weather or not that would reduce the cost enough to make it affordable I don't know. this seems to be a more legitamate argument than your "it's unconstitutional" bit, since what they have been doing the past few decades seems to unconstitutional as all heck to me!

as far as why obama, or any other president hasn't brought a single payer system into being, I can't help if it's because of what the effect it would have on those insurance companies, and as a result, all of those who have investments in them.


The Constitution doesn't say who "shouldn't" get free health care just as it doesn't say who "shouldn't" go to the moon or who "shouldn't" get all the free stuff they want. There are specific rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution that have been clearly defined over and over again by case law and legal precedent.

The "right" to free healthcare is not one of them.

Here are some other "rights" not granted in the Constitution:

The "right" to drive a car.

The "right" to free food.

The "right" to free housing, clothing, personal items, and cell phones.

The "right" to a job and an income.

The "right" to take something that is not your property.

And so on...

Let me be clear -- I am not arguing the merits of a single-payer system. I am pointing out the legal, economic, and political reality that will FOREVER prohibit the establishment of one. If you don't like that reality, you have options: change the Constitution and elect politicians who will enact such a program.

Let's forget about changing the Constitution right now -- that's simply not going to happen. But let's look at this from a political angle only. In 2009, Obama had Absolute Power to enact ANY form of healthcare system he felt was legally viable. He had both Houses of Congress and much of the federal judiciary.

But he didn't even once make an effort to go in the direction of single-payer. Why? Because he know it was unconstitutional and could never stand. Congress has absolute power to raise whatever taxes they want under the Constitution. So that's how Obamacare was passed (and later upheld by the SCOTUS) -- as a tax.

I don't know what you want me to say. This is not my opinion, these are the historical and legal realities. Medicare is a shared proportional tax. Medicaid is administered at the state level as are all the other welfare programs leftists love so much. That's why they all pass legal muster.

Again, I have no problem with the states individually doing anything they want. The 10th Amendment grants them that authority. But I doubt it would ever be "free" -- there would be means-testing up the wazzoo.

The bitterest lesson among all the bitter lessons learned with the Obamacare disaster is that you can't force people to pay for the healthcare of those who either can't or won't provide it for themselves. That, and the fact that Obama wouldn't even go there, should tell you everything you need to know about the prospects of this nation ever having a single-payer system.

ZERO...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG




The Constitution doesn't say who "shouldn't" get free health care just as it doesn't say who "shouldn't" go to the moon or who "shouldn't" get all the free stuff they want. There are specific rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution that have been clearly defined over and over again by case law and legal precedent. The "right" to free healthcare is not one of them. Here are some other "rights" not granted in the Constitution: The "right" to drive a car. The "right" to free food. The "right" to free housing, clothing, personal items, and cell phones. The "right" to a job and an income. The "right" to take something that is not your property. And so on...


All true but in another document which is every bit as important , it says
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Deceleration of independence, I say the deceleration of independence is every bit as important as the constitution, or else we should lower the Stars and Stripes and raise the Union Jack ..and god save the queen we should sing...but what the heck this have to do with health care??...well the life and pursuit of happiness part, if one cannot pursue the happiness part because , your medical insurance is waay outta whack and you are left to die at the hospital steps, doesn't that defeat part of the Deceleration of Independence?? ..or should we raise the Union Jack so we can get universal health care like Britain or Canada...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

He's not letting it die a natural death. He's purposefully killing it. Letting it die a natural death would be leaving it alone. How is enacting executive orders that absolve states from enforcing the mandate equivalent to an unmolested ACA?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

The Declaration of Independence is an historical document with no legal authority.

The Constitution is the foundation of our legal system.

Who's to say what "happiness" should be funded by the government? WHO PAYS?

I'm sure it would make a lot of people happy to get free healthcare. A lot of people around the world get exactly that, and it mostly SUCKS!

Half my family lives in the UK -- my father was from Ireland, I am a dual citizen. I am over there at least once a year. I have a cousin in Canada, I see her once or twice a year. I have another cousin in Australia. I have had to use the public healthcare system (Ireland 2011 -- motorcycle accident) myself. It's awful compared to what I get here in the USA.

And do you know one thing all my non-US citizen family has in common...? They buy private or supplemental insurance because the socialized system is awful! Lousy care, long wait times, bad service...

No one can tell me that any of these socialized systems are better than what we have here in America because I've seen and experienced many of them.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: SBMcG

He's not letting it die a natural death. He's purposefully killing it. Letting it die a natural death would be leaving it alone. How is enacting executive orders that absolve states from enforcing the mandate equivalent to an unmolested ACA?


Are you claiming that if Obamacare were simply left alone it would right itself?

You know better than that. It was collapsing long before Trump's EO. He might have accelerated the process fractionally, but that was mostly to waive some of the more onerous aspects of the law.

The problem with Obamacare was always going to be this: given the demographics of our society, there were never going to be enough people who didn't need to use the system to cover the cost of those who did. that's why there are so many collapsing exchanges and carriers pulling out of the system.

That process began long before Trump's EO...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

we'll just have to accept we disagree on this...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

I know better than that?

Onerous aspects of the law? The mandate was the entire lynchpin. If you don't understand that the system doesn't work unless everybody pays in to it then I doubt any amount of concise and reasoned education is going to hammer those fundamental truths into your head.

There were equally as many areas that Obamacare was actually growing as shrinking, so to discount any of the positive growth areas as non-elements in your equation is a blatant misrepresentation. If you were merely shilling hyperbole by considering any number of sundry issues as 'failure', then people are going to call you out on those misrepresentations. You should have know better than that.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just a redistribution of money from the haves to the have nots.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I prefer to think of it more as a returning of the money from the haves (who have used the wealth and power to propagate their own wealth directly at the expense of the proletariat) back to those who actually work for a living.

I assume you are one of the have-not's that bow down to your oligarch gods?

It doesn't matter, we will eat the rich, and if you want to be on the menu you are free to join them.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Hey -- it's not my fault Obamacare failed in such spectacular fashion. The Republicans and President Trump had nothing to do with the creation of this mess.

It was flawed from it's inception.

The far left Chicago Post did a postmortem on Obamacare long before Trump was president.


Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies. It wasn't flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage. Obamacare couldn't lure them in, couldn't persuade them to buy on the chance they'd get sick.


Back in 2009 when I was reading through the first policy draft of the (then) ACA, the first thing that I noticed was that the authors had completely ignored the demographics of this country. There were simply not going to be enough young healthy people going forward who were not going to use the system to make up for those who were.


Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs. Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family's taxable household income. That's far less than many Americans would pay for coverage. Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.


Again, this is just dumb. Of course healthy young people are going to pay a $700 yearly penalty rather than 5 or 6 times that for something they'll never use.


Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky. The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors' office. But Obamacare's rules hamstring insurers. They can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can't charge older customers more than three times as much as the young. Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn't figure out how to offset. Result: Young and healthy consumers pay far more in premiums than their claims (probably) would justify in order to subsidize the unexpectedly large influx of older, sicker customers who require expensive care. Too many unlucky people, too few lucky people: That will collapse any insurance scheme.


As the Baby Boomers continue to age, and senior Gen-X'ers like me who have just entered our 50's increasingly require more and more healthcare, how do you think the "risk pool" component of Obamacare described above is going to play out?

There are another half dozen reasons cited in this Chicago Post article from September 2016 as to why Obamacare failed if you're interested...

Why Obamacare Failed

Again, the demise of Obamacare had nothing to do with anything Trump or the Republicans did. This mess is 100% on the most liberal president and Congress we've ever had.

And everyone knows it...
edit on 19-4-2017 by SBMcG because: Obama has no legacy other than failure.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just a redistribution of money from the haves to the have nots.


That is all it is. It is the theft of the wealth created by others.

Remember when failed kleptocrat Obama said of small business owners (like me) that "you didn't build that"?

My immediate thought was, well who the hell did then? Because I didn't see YOU there. I wasn't surrounded by a bunch of leftist hippies beating on bongos and helping me build my business. As I recall, it was pretty much just me.

That's why I have zero respect for leftists.

They're all goddamn thieves...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join