The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adisa said:
I don't understand this ACA shenanigans.
How can someone, conservative or not, be against something that makes health care more affordable?
Click to expand...
Because....

This is an actual Republican talking point -
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say there is a right to health care. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to "promote the general welfare," not to provide it. The Bill of Rights lists a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon, not material goods or services that the government must provide.
Click to expand...

I demand the freedom to not be able to afford basic health insurance and to declare bankruptcy. Don't you dare cover the essntials for me...seriously, I don't want it.

Oh and the constitution also said this...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...


That didn't exactly stop slavery
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Anyone else feel this is a new threshold crossed this morning? It's the Fox & Friends presidency 100% now. To follow up such easily debunkable rubbish as he did with that tweet about Fake News would be hilarious if it weren't vaguely terrifying. Raging paranoia is up next, folks.
Click to expand...

It's beyond ridiculous, hes just re tweeting shit he saw on TV like a bloody parrot. Never mind unpresidential, it's not even adult behavior. For those of his supporters who is not completely lobotomized this must be embarrassing. Him spouting his regular shit is at least him formulating his own thoughts, this is actually even worse
 
Crossie said:
Click to expand...


Only Syria was named on the original order though? The countries effected were those designated as exemptions from the visa waiver programme.

The idea that its anything to do with Trump Hotels is humorous though
 
Smores said:
Only Syria was named on the original order though? The countries effected were those designated as exemptions from the visa waiver programme.

The idea that its anything to do with Trump Hotels is humorous though
Click to expand...
You mean the countries of the first travel ban? There were seven countries, among them Syria and Iraq. Iraq has been removed in the 2nd travel ban, the others remain.
 
RepubliCare is better because it has less pages...and here they are as props

C6VfxMqXEAEUPNj.jpg


I enjoyed this reply -

The missing pages are apparently the ones that provide affordable health care to millions of Americans.

:lol:
 
Crossie said:
You mean the countries of the first travel ban? There were seven countries, among them Syria and Iraq. Iraq has been removed in the 2nd travel ban, the others remain.
Click to expand...

They weren't individually picked by trump is my point. The tweet you posted implies they were, the original order referred to the previous Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which was countries selected by homeland security.
 
Could not believe what i was hearing when i saw that. Now it's time to demonise low income workers.How long till the Tories follow suite
 
Bobcat said:
It's beyond ridiculous, hes just re tweeting shit he saw on TV like a bloody parrot. Never mind unpresidential, it's not even adult behavior. For those of his supporters who is not completely lobotomized this must be embarrassing. Him spouting his regular shit is at least him formulating his own thoughts, this is actually even worse
Click to expand...

It's just like his supporters though.
 
Republicans are angry .Rand Paul as admitted that they are divided on how to repeal Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
Adisa said:
I don't understand this ACA shenanigans.
How can someone, conservative or not, be against something that makes health care more affordable?
Click to expand...
It's not nearly that simple, because it can negatively affect some depending on their circumstances. Republicans were betting on that happening, whether in reality or perception, as the ACA was picked apart on its way through Congress to fruition.

It was cold-hearted tactics by the GOP. But to say that many in the lower-to-middle classes shouldn't have qualms with the ACA (in the form it was ultimately passed) is disingenuous.
 
So, in this repeal bill...

- Young people will pay less
- Old people will pay more
- Money sent to states for Medicaid will be capped.
- People making around $700k will see a $33k average tax cut
- People in top 0.1% will see a $197k average tax cut
- Premiums for people 50s-60s will go up 15-20%
- People aged 50s-60s will see a smaller tax credit
- Dedictible and co-pay subsidies for middle income individuals will be cut
- Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes

Yeah, it's for "the patients"
 
Carolina Red said:
So, in this repeal bill...

- Young people will pay less
- Old people will pay more
- Money sent to states for Medicaid will be capped.
- People making around $700k will see a $33k average tax cut
- People in top 0.1% will see a $197k average tax cut
- Premiums for people 50s-60s will go up 15-20%
- People aged 50s-60s will see a smaller tax credit
- Dedictible and co-pay subsidies for middle income individuals will be cut
- Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes

Yeah, it's for "the patients"
Click to expand...

Trumped up trickle down economics in full flow
 
Carolina Red said:
So, in this repeal bill...

- Young people will pay less
- Old people will pay more
- Money sent to states for Medicaid will be capped.
- People making around $700k will see a $33k average tax cut
- People in top 0.1% will see a $197k average tax cut
- Premiums for people 50s-60s will go up 15-20%
- People aged 50s-60s will see a smaller tax credit
- Dedictible and co-pay subsidies for middle income individuals will be cut
- Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes

Yeah, it's for "the patients"
Click to expand...
Ideally, I would like to hope for the best, but sometimes you have to hit rock bottom to appreciate what you have. I hope that those who voted for this madness will pay the price. You wanted this? You got it.
 
Carolina Red said:
So, in this repeal bill...

- Young people will pay less
- Old people will pay more
- Money sent to states for Medicaid will be capped.
- People making around $700k will see a $33k average tax cut
- People in top 0.1% will see a $197k average tax cut
- Premiums for people 50s-60s will go up 15-20%
- People aged 50s-60s will see a smaller tax credit
- Dedictible and co-pay subsidies for middle income individuals will be cut
- Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes

Yeah, it's for "the patients"
Click to expand...

They are not rolling back medicaid expansion till 2020. (I doubt it will ever roll back, in 2020 even if Trump or another republican is elected, they will back off the plan).

Problem with the bill is that no one wants where the money for the cuts is going to come from.
 
Carolina Red said:
So, in this repeal bill...

- Young people will pay less
- Old people will pay more
- Money sent to states for Medicaid will be capped.
- People making around $700k will see a $33k average tax cut
- People in top 0.1% will see a $197k average tax cut
- Premiums for people 50s-60s will go up 15-20%
- People aged 50s-60s will see a smaller tax credit
- Dedictible and co-pay subsidies for middle income individuals will be cut
- Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes

Yeah, it's for "the patients"
Click to expand...

Yeah, score one for the young people! (tongue in cheek)

Every company can deduct executive pay from taxes, seems a bit unfair to say that just insurance companies can't.
 
senorgregster said:
I heard that last point earlier and I'm still trying to determine what it means. Anyone...

Insurance companies can deduct full executive salaries from taxes
Click to expand...
The companies can deduct how much they pay their chief executives from their corporate tax burden... which is absurd anyway, since they just pass the tax burden on to consumers through pricing.
 
MTF said:
Yeah, score one for the young people! (tongue in cheek)

Every company can deduct executive pay from taxes, seems a bit unfair to say that just insurance companies can't.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies were capped at a deduction of $500,000 for their executive pay by the ACA.
 
Carolina Red said:
Insurance companies were capped at a deduction of $500,000 for their executive pay by the ACA.
Click to expand...

I understood you were commenting on changes from existing, and also admit I had no idea because I can't even pretend to be knowledgeable on health care issues. But that single item - which is minor - I think is bad economics. It's treating executive pay as if it's an exogenous input of the "model", and not an output that results from industry competition, cost and therefore profit dynamics, as well as executive/management labor market dynamics.
 
MTF said:
I understood you were commenting on changes from existing, and also admit I had no idea because I can't even pretend to be knowledgeable on health care issues. But that single item - which is minor - I think is bad economics. It's treating executive pay as if it's an exogenous input of the "model", and not an output that results from industry competition, cost and therefore profit dynamics, as well as executive/management labor market dynamics.
Click to expand...


The chief executives of Britain’s leading 350 companies each took home a median pay package of £1.9m in 2014, a rise of 82% on 13 years ago, research commissioned by the UK arm of the CFA Institute, the global association of investment professionals, found.

But the rise was not mirrored in the fortunes of their employers, with return on invested capital – the report’s preferred measure of performance – up by less than 1%.


https://www.theguardian.com/busines...xecutive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study
Click to expand...

So this suggests there may be something wrong with the labour market at the top end.

FWIW I don't think adding pay regulation is the answer, I think trying to create free-market competition in health insurance isn't a very good idea for mainly moral and also practical reasons (by its nature only few companies can enter the insurance business).
 
berbatrick said:
So this suggests there may be something wrong with the labour market at the top end.

FWIW I don't think adding pay regulation is the answer, I think trying to create free-market competition in health insurance isn't a very good idea for mainly moral and also practical reasons (by its nature only few companies can enter the insurance business).
Click to expand...

Yes, and when you regulate it you can limit aspects of that competition (pricing ranges, minimum services, licensing, etc). But if you regulate it too much you're just making it into a utility, which must have it's return-on-investment determined by the same regulatory process (usually in the bidding phase). Because I both believe that in the capability of competition to incentivize innovation (which regulators must also be attuned to), and in regulatory capture whereby highly regulated businesses find strong incentives to influence/infiltrate their regulators, I don't like the route of making it a "utility".

Not that I have an actual plan just sitting in my desk, ready to submit. Or that I want any actual role in solving this mess. Competitive markets still practice regulatory capture, because people are c*nts and get together to all go influence regulators. Adam Smith said it:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Click to expand...
 
MTF said:
Yes, and when you regulate it you can limit aspects of that competition (pricing ranges, minimum services, licensing, etc). But if you regulate it too much you're just making it into a utility, which must have it's return-on-investment determined by the same regulatory process (usually in the bidding phase). Because I both believe that in the capability of competition to incentivize innovation (which regulators must also be attuned to), and in regulatory capture whereby highly regulated businesses find strong incentives to influence/infiltrate their regulators, I don't like the route of making it a "utility".

Not that I have an actual plan just sitting in my desk, ready to submit. Or that I want any actual role in solving this mess. Competitive markets still practice regulatory capture, because people are c*nts and get together to all go influence regulators. Adam Smith said it:
Click to expand...


A the new version is doing is looking at the money and not the root cause of raising costs. SWure you can address the business model but if you dont address the root costs and the reason why the numbers are getting worse, its just gets worse.

Chronic disease is the root of all the problems. Where in the entire plan do you see what they are doing to address it?

Horse before the cart.
 
sglowrider said:
A the new version is doing is looking at the money and not the root cause of raising costs. SWure you can address the business model but if you dont address the root costs and the reason why the numbers are getting worse, its just gets worse.

Chronic disease is the root of all the problems. Where in the entire plan do you see what they are doing to address it?

Horse before the cart.
Click to expand...
Why would they want preventative medicine when there is so much money to be made off of sick people?
 
Carolina Red said:
Why would they want preventative medicine when there is so much money to be made off of sick people?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The system is designed for drug pushing.
The root of the problem are chronic diseases specifically diabetes hypertension and obesity. They r all lifestyle driven diseases.
Attack or incentivise that problem the long term costs falls.
The new version ACA focuses on the business model rather than the approach to attacking the problem.
Rebuild or start from the root rather than looking at the smoke N mirrors of the symptoms.
Idiots.
 
sglowrider said:
Exactly. The system is designed for drug pushing.
The root of the problem are chronic diseases specifically diabetes hypertension and obesity. They r all lifestyle driven diseases.
Attack or incentivise that problem the long term costs falls.
The new version ACA focuses on the business model rather than the approach to attacking the problem.
Rebuild or start from the root rather than looking at the smoke N mirrors of the symptoms.
Idiots.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I've seen in studying a few non-profit driven healthcare systems is the prevalence of preventative care vs. the United States. What we get in that area pales in comparison.
 
Carolina Red said:
That's one thing I've seen in studying a few non-profit driven healthcare systems is the prevalence of preventative care vs. the United States. What we get in that area pales in comparison.
Click to expand...

Approximately 92% of older adults have at least one chronic disease, and 77% have at least two. Four chronic diseases—heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes—cause almost two-thirds of all deaths each year.
Despite people always telling you that prevention is better than cure, its a fallacy. The US government who really needs to take the on this:
  • Chronic diseases account for 75-80% of the money our nation spends on health care, yet only 1% of health dollars are spent on public efforts to improve overall health.
From my perspective, they need to go further and spend more on mental health -- thats one of the root causes of chronic diseases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.