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

originally posted by: odinsway

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

President Donald Trump is contemplating a new strategy to get repeal of the Affordable Care Act through Congress: threatening to torpedo insurance for millions of Americans unless Democrats agree to negotiate with him.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal that appeared on Wednesday, Trump made a warning. If Democrats won’t talk repeal, the president said, Republicans might decide to cut off some subsidies now flowing to health insurers offering coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges.

“I don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump said, sounding a bit like a mobster describing a protection racket. “What I think should happen — and will happen — is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.”

Source

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.

Now whether or not Trump actually makes good on his threat remains to be seen. While he may have taken action after his line in the sand was crossed in Syria his track record when it comes to domestic issues is nowhere near as sterling. That said the potential threat alone could be enough to scare off insurance companies.

I think it has become clear at this point that Trump is no champion of the working class. They may have been one of the key groups that got him voted in to office; but since then it seems like he has done everything in his power to hurt them. The AHCA was a giant middle finger to the poor. The proposed changes to education primarily benefit the rich. Hell, many of the program and agencies he wants to gut/cut are primarily used by the lower class.

If Trump and the GOP keep up this anti-working class stance they have seemingly adopted they're going to be hurting when 2018/20 comes around.

And? My tax payer money shouldn't go to subsidizing anyone. Sorry you are sick..Not my problem.

Yeah its quite amazing how idiot liberals assume that people whom object to this scam don't work for a living. I would assume that the people whom having something to gain will generally for something where as a person whom has something to loose will generally object.

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: carewemust

Our medical system pre-Obamacare was the best in the world.

You think being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition was best in the world?

No, that was Health Insurance doing what they are designed to do-- find ways to take money while denying coverage. That's their whole game. Now their game is to bleed the working class to gain support for a repeal of Obamacare. These health insurance companies are the problem and they need to be eradicated.

Pre-obamacare and post-obamacare... people paying for health insurance are constantly denied coverage due to any number of bullsh#t reasons. I can't even count the number of times pre and post Obama that my high priced amazing insurance did not cover something for some bullsh#t reason.

These health insurers are money grubbing middlemen who need to be broken and destroyed.

I am totally happy to pay taxes toward universal healthcare. Totally happy to have my tax dollars go to helping other people in need. Because I was taught as a kid the value of helping and generosity. I think there was once even a dude who was hung on a cross who spent some time helping lepers even though it wasn't his problem. I tend to think we're all in this together. But insurance companies are just here to f#ck us all and bleed us all.

I wish Republicans had the balls to stand up to them. It would take a real hostile fight to rid ourselves of them. Trump should make that his fight.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: carewemust

Our medical system pre-Obamacare was the best in the world.

You think being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition was best in the world?

No, that was Health Insurance doing what they are designed to do-- find ways to take money while denying coverage. That's their whole game. Now their game is to bleed the working class to gain support for a repeal of Obamacare. These health insurance companies are the problem and they need to be eradicated.

Pre-obamacare and post-obamacare... people paying for health insurance are constantly denied coverage due to any number of bullsh#t reasons. I can't even count the number of times pre and post Obama that my high priced amazing insurance did not cover something for some bullsh#t reason.

These health insurers are money grubbing middlemen who need to be broken and destroyed.

Our healthcare system was the best in the world before Obamacare, and to be fair, still is despite of it. You are talking about insurance. Big difference.

Again, I cannot agree with something that I know to be unconstitutional. Even Obama and the leftists knew Obamacare would not survive the SCOTUS if they passed it as universal single-payer. That's why Obama spent months lying to the American people about it NOT being a tax. In the end, Obamacare was passed as a tax and that's why the SCOTUS upheld it.

Now it is collapsing. You can't blame private corporations for the failure of liberal policies. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not subsidize those who have no money. You also can't blame the Republicans, not one of whom voted for it.

As far as people with existing conditions, there are state programs to address that. There is no right to healthcare coverage granted by the Constitution, nor is any mandate given the Federal government to provide healthcare. If enough people don't like those facts, then they can call a Constitutional Convention of the states and change the Constitution.

The problem with that is, who pays?

You've very generously offered to pay more in taxes if there was a universal plan of some kind. Quite admirable. Personally, I feel that I have paid about 10 times my fair share already in my lifetime, but that's another subject for another thread. The reality is, the top 20% of taxpayers already pay almost 90% of income tax while the bottom 60% pay almost nothing. To fund a single-payer system like Canada's our tax liability would be about 35% of GDP.

Right now it's 18%.

We can talk about moral responsibility and our "fellow man" and what "should be" all we want, but when the rubber hits the road, you are talking about a choice of either massively raising taxes on the bottom 60% or watch the top 20% simply retire, leave, and go away.

a reply to: SBMcG

While I respect what you're saying, I'm reminded how the right lacks big bold inspiring ideas. Even their vote for Trump was more of a negative angry vote. They lack inspiration and greatness. This has constantly been their problem. If it's about building a bigger army or dropping the largest bombs they see no problem breaking rules and spending money to get us there. If it's tax breaks for the top 1%, the almighty job creators are worth all that we can give. But when it comes to the betterment of society... There's always a reason it can't we done.

Universal Healthcare is the goal. It just is. It's going to happen on one of these president's watch -- and whoever's watch that is will hold that victory forever. Trump's a big enough narcissist, and just the wrecking ball needed to destroy the current system held hostage by Insurance companies and claim that victory. All I'm saying is, it would be a wise move for him to take that bold inspiring fight on.... and he'd find a ton of allies if he chose to go for it.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I think "betterment of society" is the catching point.

At the end of it all, "conservative" defines a set of values. And, to be honest, there is some overlap.

While I would rather it refer to economic policy, instead we seem to divy up parties based on social policy. But they are related, as more liberal social policies must have more liberal fiscal policies to fund it.

So when you use terms like "betterment of society" the first question that springs to mind is, "What is wrong with society today?". If im a fiscal conservative i may also ask, "Why can't we instead simply allow men to better themselves, and let society simply represent the individual".

I'd guess that social conservatism is the flavor of the day, as its a practice of identity politics. If we simply discussed it as a matter of fiscal policy (i.e., "the pie is this big, so we can't spend anymore....what matters most) it may go smoother, but that doesn't feed the identity politics machine.

Similar with concepts like "progressive" (which, to me, is another way to say "heading over a cliff"0.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I couldn't disagree more. The reason there has never and will never be universal coverage on the national level is because the Constitution would have to be changed and amended to allow for it.

If that weren't true, Obama and the Democrat Congress would have done it in 2009 when they could have passed pretty much anything they wanted.

You can talk about "Big Ideas" and that's fine as an intellectual exercise, but I still haven't had even one proponent of socialized medicine tell me how we would pay for such a thing. Based upon other nations with universal care we would need to just about DOUBLE our tax revenue to make it work. We pay about 17% of our GDP in taxes right now. A socialized care nation like Canada pays about 38%.

Are the bottom 60% of earners FINALLY going to pay something? How much more do you think the top 20% of taxpayers who already pay almost 90% of the income tax would be willing to pay?

As a small business owner who is already over-taxed I can only speak for myself, but I sure as hell would not pay more than I pay now. I would quit and retire. There are millions of me out there.

You see the problem with that...?

a reply to: SBMcG

Id be willing to bet that you could trim down enough fat off Uncle Sams enormous ass to pay for universal health care. One idea would be to consolidate departments and eliminate redundancy. Another would be remove the IRS entirely, and enact a transactional tax not in need of a bloated department to administer.

There is no shortage of ways to not spend money. Being able to afford things isn't always about increasing revenue. Decreasing expense does the exact same thing.

Here's a new revenue idea: if you're industry wants the privilege of lobbying the People's Representatives, they need to pay a licensing fee so that their access can be controlled and monitored. The licensing fees collected would fund social programs like universal healthcare.

May not make much money as the ticks drop off.....but it would still solve at least one problem.

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I couldn't disagree more. The reason there has never and will never be universal coverage on the national level is because the Constitution would have to be changed and amended to allow for it.

And we never got to the moon until someone inspired the nation to reach for it. Bernie Sanders has been pushing for Universal Healthcare and his following leading up to the election was huge. He still has a huge following. He says it would take a political revolution -- there is no reason the United States can't have Universal Healthcare if it wants it.

Let the How become the problem to solve. Trump should completely pull Sanders in and both push like crazy for Universal Healthcare. That's something not even Clinton believed could happen, but something Sanders' supporters believe in. If Trump can talk about a wall and every other crazy thing... he sure as hell can talk about Universal Healthcare. That's all. Just tweet the hell out of it, pull Sanders in, watch the revolution build, and see what comes of it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SBMcG

Id be willing to bet that you could trim down enough fat off Uncle Sams enormous ass to pay for universal health care. One idea would be to consolidate departments and eliminate redundancy. Another would be remove the IRS entirely, and enact a transactional tax not in need of a bloated department to administer.

There is no shortage of ways to not spend money. Being able to afford things isn't always about increasing revenue. Decreasing expense does the exact same thing.

We would have to amend the Constitution first before there could be any form of socialized system in this country, otherwise it would be constantly challenged in court and wind up a bigger mess than Obamacare. That's why even the most liberal government we've ever had didn't even try to "go there" in 2009, and what they did pass was essentially a tax.

But if we're just talking about how we could pay for such a thing, we must first recognize what it would cost.

As of 2014, per capita spending on healthcare in the US was about $9,500 [source: World Bank]. That's well over $3 trillion per year. Our current Federal budget is $3.9 trillion. In 2015 the government took in about $3.3 trillion in revenue leaving a $600 billion deficit.

Do you see where the trouble begins here...?

Of course, there would be about a trillion in savings from Medicare. There would have to be means testing for one to qualify for subsidized healthcare, and certainly the fee structure to employers would have to make business sense, but still, there's no way that socialized healthcare wouldn't cost at least 50% more than we currently pay in taxes.

You can't streamline government enough to make up for that.

What about a national VAT tax that went 100% to fund healthcare. For argument's sake, let's say that a single-payer system cost $1.5 trillion per year -- less than half of what we spend now. That tax would cost every man woman and child in America $4550 per year.

Again, there were some very good reasons why the most liberal government in US history didn't even consider a single-payer system in 2009.

a reply to: SBMcG

This conversation with you reminds me of this...

In this scene, you're Dan Akroyd and I'm Bill Murray...


This is how greatness happens. Universal Healthcare can be had. It needs republicans getting in the game. If Trump pushed for it, republicans would have to get in, and democrats would be compelled to join. And if Trump pulled it off, he would have done something no president before him had ever been able to do. But if need be, I'm fine with a liberal president pulling off that win-- liberals are probably better suited for those wins... inspiring people and all.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

At the height of the Apollo space program and moon landings the program never represented more than 4.4% of the Federal budget.

NASA Budget

Universal healthcare would increase the Federal budget by at least 50% and probably much more.

Again, how do you pay for it?

Let's forget for a minute that even (Harvard lawyer) Obama knew universal healthcare was unconstitutional and therefore didn't pursue it. What does Bernie Sanders bring to the table that Obama did not -- a magic wand that can change the Constitution with a flick of the wrist?

You could have President Trump, Bernie, Al Gore, Bill Clinton's wife -- hell, even Jimmy Carter all pushing for single-payer and it still wouldn't change the facts that it's unconstitutional and there's no way to pay for it.

Again, I'm all ears if anyone can tell me how the above problems can be fixed in a real world manner...

a reply to: spiritualzombie

it was a liberal president -- the most liberal president in US history who had the most liberal Congress ever at his command, who knew that not only was universal healthcare unconstitutional, but that it would bankrupt the country.

Congratulations, BTW... You've got me defending Obama now

a reply to: SBMcG

I don't think you or I should solve the question of where we get the money. I think Trump pressure his people to come up with those answers. He should inspire the nation, pull in Sanders, and the Sanders political revolution to help-- get the best of the best in a room together with no choice but to figure it out.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SBMcG

Id be willing to bet that you could trim down enough fat off Uncle Sams enormous ass to pay for universal health care. One idea would be to consolidate departments and eliminate redundancy. Another would be remove the IRS entirely, and enact a transactional tax not in need of a bloated department to administer.

There is no shortage of ways to not spend money. Being able to afford things isn't always about increasing revenue. Decreasing expense does the exact same thing.

Why not use existing law to trim fat off butt of corporate medical industry first.

No need for any new taxes or legislation.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: SBMcG

I don't think you or I should solve the question of where we get the money. I think Trump pressure his people to come up with those answers. He should inspire the nation, pull in Sanders, and the Sanders political revolution to help-- get the best of the best in a room together with no choice but to figure it out.

For the reasons I detailed above, socialized medicine in America will never happen.

It's unconstitutional and there's no way to even come close to paying for it.

Obama knew that and he was the most liberal president we ever had.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SBMcG


[post]DELETED

edit on 17-4-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife is involved Pizzagate. Ask Carlos Wiener.

edit on 17-4-2017 by SBMcG because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2017 by SBMcG because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SBMcG

Id be willing to bet that you could trim down enough fat off Uncle Sams enormous ass to pay for universal health care. One idea would be to consolidate departments and eliminate redundancy. Another would be remove the IRS entirely, and enact a transactional tax not in need of a bloated department to administer.

There is no shortage of ways to not spend money. Being able to afford things isn't always about increasing revenue. Decreasing expense does the exact same thing.

Why not use existing law to trim fat off butt of corporate medical industry first.

No need for any new taxes or legislation.

So are we confiscating wealth now? Many folks out there who have worked hard all their lives and made good decisions along the way have invested some of the fruits of their labor in these evil medical corporations (like me).

How do you "trim fat off butt" of something without stealing what belongs to others?

And for the record, there is no "existing law" that would allow such a thing...

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: spiritualzombie

it was a liberal president -- the most liberal president in US history who had the most liberal Congress ever at his command, who knew that not only was universal healthcare unconstitutional, but that it would bankrupt the country.

Congratulations, BTW... You've got me defending Obama now

There was so much partisan B.S. getting in the way of Obama's healthcare, that I don't buy for a second that the reason we don't have Universal Healthcare is because it wasn't possible. The biggest hurdle is greed. Right now we have a healthcare system built on health insurance greed with Republicans completely in the pocket. That's the problem. They can't even talk about it until that issue is resolved. Maybe what you're really telling me is that Republicans will never be strong enough or brave enough to break free from those chains.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: spiritualzombie

it was a liberal president -- the most liberal president in US history who had the most liberal Congress ever at his command, who knew that not only was universal healthcare unconstitutional, but that it would bankrupt the country.

Congratulations, BTW... You've got me defending Obama now

There was so much partisan B.S. getting in the way of Obama's healthcare, that I don't buy for a second that the reason we don't have Universal Healthcare is because it wasn't possible. The biggest hurdle is greed. Right now we have a healthcare system built on health insurance greed with Republicans completely in the pocket. That's the problem. They can't even talk about it until that issue is resolved. Maybe what you're really telling me is that Republicans will never be strong enough or brave enough to break free from those chains.

You are completely wrong. There was ZERO "partisan B.S." because the Republicans had no power.

Obama and the liberals didn't pass universal healthcare because it's unconstitutional and there's no way to pay for it.

it will never happen.