ACA Revisited

[kallend 1,623]

Candidate Trump claimed that he’d protect Medicare and Social Security, and even promised that he’d provide “insurance for everybody.” 

The Trump administration has now backed a lawsuit to invalidate the ACA in its entirety, without anything to replace it.  Kaiser Foundation estimates that over 19 Million Americans will lose health insurance entirely if this suit prevails.  All protections for pre-existing conditions, for children up to the age of 26, for preventative care for the elderly, for rural hospitals, would be gone.  Women could once again be charged more for insurance than men. Yearly and lifetime caps on coverage would come back, as would the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole.”

Perhaps some of our Trumpist members can explain why this is a good thing.

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Perhaps some of our Trumpist members can explain why this is a good thing.

I'll tell you why.  Trump's reelection committee just got done with their first cycle of planning and figured out that the thing Trump can get hammered on the most is having done nothing about the ACA.  There's a perfect amount of time to put together some vaguely defined terms and catch phrases that he can ride through the election without having to actually produce results.  Any actual change that didn't first address the cost of healthcare would be just rearranging deck chairs anyway which suits his (and every politician's) needs just fine.

[phantomII 36]

So, do I understand that correctly....
The republicans have the best and greatest plan for a healthcaresystem but they will not reveal it unless Trump gets reelected and they win the majority in both house????

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, phantomII said:

So, do I understand that correctly....
The republicans have the best and greatest plan for a healthcaresystem but they will not reveal it unless Trump gets reelected and they win the majority in both house????

That's very astute of you.

Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to defeat the N. Vietnamese.

Just like that time, there will be plenty of stupid people who believe it.

[NewGuy2005 51]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

That's very astute of you.

Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to defeat the N. Vietnamese.

Just like that time, there will be plenty of stupid people who believe it.

There will always be plenty of stupid people to believe anything.  It's the "Anything" that keeps changing.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to defeat the N. Vietnamese.

Hi John,

We think alike.  The very moment I read phantom's post, it reminded me of 'Nixon's secret plan.' 

And we know how well that worked out.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,382]

25 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

We think alike.  The very moment I read phantom's post, it reminded me of 'Nixon's secret plan.' 

And we know how well that worked out.

Jerry Baumchen

Ah, the good old days...

[turtlespeed 212]

On 4/5/2019 at 6:43 AM, NewGuy2005 said:

There will always be plenty of stupid people to believe anything.  It's the "Anything" that keeps changing.

I remind you that this was put up on the sales floor as "You have to vote for it to see what is in it."

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I remind you that this was put up on the sales floor as "You have to vote for it to see what is in it."

Even though it went through vastly more bipartisan review, for far, far longer, than the Trumpcare effort ever did. 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Even though it went through vastly more bipartisan review, for far, far longer, than the Trumpcare effort ever did. 

What was the need to prolong it?  The precedent was already set.

I don't necessarily agree with the changes - I'm simply pointing out the misplaced indignation.

Edited April 19, 2019 by turtlespeed
pointing out the obvious

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What was the need to prolong it?  The precedent was already set.

I don't necessarily agree with the changes - I'm simply pointing out the misplaced indignation.

Well... no. The precedent was to have large amounts of bipartisan input and consultation. The Trumpcare plan had none.

[kallend 1,623]

9 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I remind you that this was put up on the sales floor as "You have to vote for it to see what is in it."

You need to read up on how a bill becomes law, as apparently you don't understand the process. 

There is a nice illustrated version well suited to middle schoolers. 

https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17