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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

There are probably many threads but the basic concept of Single Payer is where healthcare is a public service. Single Payer refers to a single source of funding; most likely public funding via taxes. The end of premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Practically free universal healthcare. You need healthcare, you get it. In a system like that health insurance becomes obsolete.

The other way to go is a public option where everyone qualifies for government subsidized insurance option. Health insurance companies have argued that they would not be able to compete with a public option and so they see it as a slippery slope to Single Payer.

If Trump wants to repeal ACA it should be to go in one of these directions. My vote is single payer and an end to oppressive insurance companies.

edit on 15-4-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SBMcG

Who is going to pay for the increase in military spending in Trump's proposed budget? Everything else gets a cut.



I would assume military expansion will be funded by cuts elsewhere.

You're talking about two very different things.

Single-payer health insurance would require a DOUBLING of our current tax revenues. 60% of the earners essentially pay no tax (about 2%). The top 20% pay almost 90%.

What do you think will happen if you double taxes on the top 20%?

They will leave, retire, quit, and do whatever they can to avoid footing the bill when 60% aren't paying anything.

As for Trump's increased military spending, that's completely revenue neutral and would be a drop in the bucket compared to what a single-payer system would cost.

Again, that was a very disingenuous comparison and you've still never answered the question about who should pay.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroadyeah choice have been disappearing because the plans i were on would keep getting labeled caddilac plans and employers would drop them in favor of worse quality plans with higher deductibles with fsa accounts were we pay into an accout up front if we don't use that account you lose what money you had in it at end of year . so they holding your money and if you don't use it they steal it.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Trump seems to be all over the place when it comes to the ACA. First it was repeal. Then it was repeal and replace. Then it was if the GOP didn't pass the AHCA Trump was moving on to tax reform. Now it's if the Democrats don't agree to repeal he's going to screw over the poor. Who knows where his seemingly ADHD raddled brain is going to lead him next on this complicated (seriously, who knew healthcare could be so complicated?) topic.


It appears that, since practically nothing he has tried regarding ACA has worked, he is frantically trying to get anything to work/stick, no matter what. Simply jumping from one thing to another in increasing desperation just to be able say he got rid of/repealed it, no matter the cost of doing so—because anything would be a "win" for him, and that's all with which he is concerned.

It's irrational.
edit on 15-4-2017 by SirHardHarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Yep and his most retarded supporters would consider any such thing a win also.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
So Trump wants to play with people's lives just to give himself a win.

That says a lot.

You know...you $hit heads always play the same game. So I'm calling you out. A bunch of people who don't work, or don't work hard enough may lose their insurance because we who do work, and work hard are sick and tired of paying for their problems. Guess what...I am not responsible for anyone but my family and others that I choose to be responsible for. So yes...they should lose their insurance if they aren't able to pay for it. The same way you may lose a car that you can't afford.

You and your problems are not mine. I handle mine and fix them...you do the same and if you don't or can't...you go without. I'm not your Mommy or Daddy...my money and proceeds from my hard work are mine to use as I wish. And my family comes first....long before yours.

So # the f up, get a job or go without. Your choice. That is what freedom is about. Freedom to work hard and succeed, or work less and fail.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Should people pay a co-pay when they call the police? Why should my hard earned money have to pay for someone else's police emergency? Those are the kinds of arguments we might hear if police protection was only afforded to those who had police insurance.

Healthcare should be a public service. We all need it. I don't mind a portion of my taxes paying for it for the benefit of everyone.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Should people pay a co-pay when they call the police? Why should my hard earned money have to pay for someone else's police emergency? Those are the kinds of arguments we might hear if police protection was only afforded to those who had police insurance.

Healthcare should be a public service. We all need it. I don't mind a portion of my taxes paying for it for the benefit of everyone.


Those are two very different things. First responders are paid for mostly by property taxes raised in the districts they serve. Some departments and agencies get Federal money in the form of block grants, but very few.

If you want to propose your state establish a single-payer socialized healthcare system, I have no problem with that. That is perfectly fine and proper per the 10th Amendment.

But there is no constitutional provision that would allow the Federal government to establish a healthcare system. That's why Obamacare was passed as a tax, something Congress can do. Further, there is no individual right to healthcare granted by the Constitution. Quite the opposite -- the framers intentionally designed that document to be a limit of the growth of government.

Again, unless you amend the Constitution, the best way to provide universal government-run healthcare is at the state level. The Federal government could provide block grants and basic oversight, but the states could compete among themselves for the best system if they so desired.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Whatever it takes. Healthcare should be a public service.

Or we can have this same argument over socialized law enforcement and fire department service. I don't need these. I never call the police, I never call the fire department -- thats for "losers" who don't know how to take care of themselves-- why should my tax dollars pay for other losers problems? But we don't have this discussion instead we proudly pay for these people who save lives.

It can be done and it should be. Enough of the failed health insurance system. Its only existence is to bleed people of their money.

edit on 15-4-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: SBMcG

Whatever it takes. Healthcare should be a public service.

Or we can have this same argument over socialized law enforcement and fire department service. I don't need these. I never call the police, I never call the fire department -- thats for "losers" who don't know how to take care of themselves-- why should my tax dollars pay for other losers problems? But we don't have this discussion instead we proudly pay for these people who save lives.

It can be done and it should be. Enough of the failed health insurance system. Its only existence is to bleed people of their money.


I understand what you're saying, but we have a nation of laws governed by a Constitution. We simply aren't set up to be a socialist country because the United States was created and formed to be a republic with a preponderance of the power over people's day-to-day lives being given to the individual states.

We can discuss healthcare from a "should be" philosophical perspective, or we can look at what we realistically have to work with. As it stands, there are 2 major problems that will forever forestall any form of national socialized single-payer healthcare system: the Federal government isn't empowered by the Constitution to do so (that's why Obamacare had to be passed as a tax) and about 60% of earners don't pay any tax while the top 20% pay almost 90%.

So who would pay for this national healthcare system?

I have looked at this every which way for years and am convinced the ONLY workable solution is to empower the states to offer whatever healthcare system (or none at all) that their citizens want.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
A lot of people are in favor of such an amendment. State-based isn't enough. Too fragmented. Health Insurance has corrupted itself. No solution that keeps them in power can be trusted. The health insurance system needs to have its back broken. Single Payer is how we do it.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
A lot of people are in favor of such an amendment. State-based isn't enough. Too fragmented. Health Insurance has corrupted itself. No solution that keeps them in power can be trusted. The health insurance system needs to have its back broken. Single Payer is how we do it.


An Off the Wall question.

Would that put a lot of people in the insurance business out of work?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I imagine it would. But would it or would they put focus on other forms of insurance? It's not like insurance as a whole would disappear.
edit on 15-4-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
A lot of people are in favor of such an amendment. State-based isn't enough. Too fragmented. Health Insurance has corrupted itself. No solution that keeps them in power can be trusted. The health insurance system needs to have its back broken. Single Payer is how we do it.


Why can't the USA have both private health insurance, and public health insurance? I use my Veterans Administration (public) health insurance for some things, and my Blue Cross (private) health insurance for other things. The flexibility is great to have!

Everyone in the country should have the option to have both, if they want to. Taking away choices doesn't go over well with Americans. Just look at ObamaCare. Less than 5% of Americans have ObamaCare health insurance, but it's been a hot-button issue since 2010, because the overall program is un-American.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It could... It could have a public option. That would be a solid improvement on the ACA.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: carewemust

It could... It could have a public option. That would be a solid improvement on the ACA.


Rather than reinventing a wheel..the USA should simply open Medicare to anyone who wants to enroll, and can afford to do so.

It wouldn't be as comprehensive as a true Universal Healthcare system though. Medicare has really high out-of-pocket potential, along with $0 coverage for prescriptions.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Let's be honest. Insurance companies are destroying healthcare and people's lives. The best solution sees an end to their reign. Single Payer.


That in no way addresses basic issue of monopolistic practices and collusion that plagues the provider industry - it is a sure way to hasten national bankruptcy though.

Applying long existing law (100+ years) would take the entire industry back to 3% GDP from its current 20+% GDP - that's close to 90% reduction.

Now if that were done - what's problem? and why in heavens would we layer on beauracracy costs that'll exceed today's insurance skim.

Apply the damn law! Is what people should be screaming.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
So Trump wants to play with people's lives just to give himself a win.

That says a lot.

You mean exactly what the Dems and Obama did when they created this Frankenstein and lied out their asses to the public about every part of it? OK..fine.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

We all should pay for a healthy nation just like a safe one, with roads, military and police.

ETA I don't believe in a net neutral budget. I have been living within a budget since 1969. The only way to get more is to add more.


edit on 16-4-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The clarion call needs to be Repeal and Replace or Recall and Replace...vote accordingly.

The failure of the ACA was evident upon first glance, it required young healthy people to pay for a product that they would not use, yet 18-26 year olds could remain on their parents policy if they lived at home.

Now with people living at home until 27, there will be a dramatic reduction in demand for housing be it rental units or homes. That in turn reduces work for the construction sector, forcing more of them onto expanded Medicaid which further reduces the revenue for the policies on the exchange.

No new housing projects means retailers of construction materials start laying off salesmen (Lowes, Home Depot, etc). Their would be premiums into the exchanges are gone due to qualifying for expanded Medicaid as well.

And the final nail in the coffin was that all employers with 50 or more employees had to provide a policy....who exactly was left to go onto the exchanges? People that didn't understand that they were otherwise covered?

But the ultimate failure was that if you needed your premiums partially subsidized, then there was no way on Earth you could afford a $5000+ deductible before receiving any treatment.

But as others have pointed out, there should be zero discussion as the entire thing falls outside the enumerated powers of the Federal government and the amendment process to add it was not done. So when it comes to continuing to commit an act of tyranny against the American People, I say vote accordingly....I don't mind enacting the death penalty for those committing treason...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join