Trump on Obamacare

[Dukes]

This pretty much sums it up.

[IMG][/IMG]

[barryr]

Yep, pretty good summation. But the blind believe it will work and do so smoothly as well. But it is the others that don't agree that are stupid.

[orinjkrush]

pretty funny. thanks.

don't know which is worse having 2 million disease vectors running around untreated or

having 2 million more people on the public dole. yikes.

[Spider]

How did that birther thing work out for trump ? And no new doctors ? What they closed up medical school ?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Dukes

This pretty much sums it up.

[IMG][/IMG]

Let me get this straight. We're taking advice from a guy who has declared bankruptcy three times, been divorced twice, spends 15 weeks having people kiss his ass before firing all but one of them, and who still believes our rightfully elected president isn't American.

Think about it...

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by orinjkrush

pretty funny. thanks.

don't know which is worse having 2 million disease vectors running around untreated or

having 2 million more people on the public dole. yikes.

A lot of the people I know that "can't afford" health insurance, still won't qualify for the expanded medicaid and won't qualify for any or only partially vouchered health care on the public exchanges. Meaning, it will be cheaper for them to pay the Obamacare Tax and remain uninsured, rather than pay the $2,000-5,000 a year to pay their portion of the subsidized public exchange insurance (and that assumes that the premiums COME DOWN as a result of Obamacare, which the the bill assumes. The bill, and CBO calculations, assume that Obamacare will create an immediate reduction in premiums of about 25%.

They will continue doing what they do now, which is go to the emergency room when a kid has a cold, or a parent has a kidney stone, and then setting up a 20 year payment plan with the hospital to pay it off.

Oh, by the way, they will keep their two new cars, Xbox360, DirecTV and Cable internet, not to mention their Iphones for everyone in the family.

This will give insurance to "some" people that can't afford it, most specifically those that fall under the expanded medicaid guidelines, which will be 133% of the federal poverty level. So, that means an individual making about $15.5k and family of four making $32,000 will now qualify for Medicaid and have their insurance paid for by tax payers.

However, once you cross over that threshold, and say have a person making $24,000, he will have to pay something like $2,000 after taxes (I'm pretty sure it won't be tax deductible) for a high deductible health insurance plan. The annual deductible will be something like $2,000.

So, that single person making 24k a year will have the choice of paying about $2k for a high deductible insurance plan from a public exchange (assuming premiums miraculously decrease, or the government comes up with money for bigger subsidies than expected) or paying a $600 tax (individual mandate).

So, when making the decision between internet, Xbox, Cell phone, etc., do you think that single person will choose to pay that $50 a month Obamacare Tax to NOT have insurance, or the $150+ a month for health care?

Easy, they will pay the tax and remain uninsured and spend that extra $100 a month on something else. All along, knowing that if they get cancer, break their back or have some other catastrophic injury/illness, then they can simply purchase insurance at that time knowing that the insurance company will have to take them on and have to cover their now pre-existing illness.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Let me get this straight. We're taking advice from a guy who has declared bankruptcy three times, been divorced twice, spends 15 weeks having people kiss his ass before firing all but one of them, and who still believes our rightfully elected president isn't American.

Think about it...

Who gives a **** what Trump thinks?

Oh yeah - wingnuts.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Let me get this straight. We're taking advice from a guy who has declared bankruptcy three times, been divorced twice, spends 15 weeks having people kiss his ass before firing all but one of them, and who still believes our rightfully elected president isn't American.

Think about it...

Plus the combover, don't forget the combover.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by tnedator

A lot of the people I know that "can't afford" health insurance, still won't qualify for the expanded medicaid and won't qualify for any or only partially vouchered health care on the public exchanges. Meaning, it will be cheaper for them to pay the Obamacare Tax and remain uninsured, rather than pay the $2,000-5,000 a year to pay their portion of the subsidized public exchange insurance (and that assumes that the premiums COME DOWN as a result of Obamacare, which the the bill assumes. The bill, and CBO calculations, assume that Obamacare will create an immediate reduction in premiums of about 25%.

They will continue doing what they do now, which is go to the emergency room when a kid has a cold, or a parent has a kidney stone, and then setting up a 20 year payment plan with the hospital to pay it off.

Oh, by the way, they will keep their two new cars, Xbox360, DirecTV and Cable internet, not to mention their Iphones for everyone in the family.

This will give insurance to "some" people that can't afford it, most specifically those that fall under the expanded medicaid guidelines, which will be 133% of the federal poverty level. So, that means an individual making about $15.5k and family of four making $32,000 will now qualify for Medicaid and have their insurance paid for by tax payers.

However, once you cross over that threshold, and say have a person making $24,000, he will have to pay something like $2,000 after taxes (I'm pretty sure it won't be tax deductible) for a high deductible health insurance plan. The annual deductible will be something like $2,000.

So, that single person making 24k a year will have the choice of paying about $2k for a high deductible insurance plan from a public exchange (assuming premiums miraculously decrease, or the government comes up with money for bigger subsidies than expected) or paying a $600 tax (individual mandate).

So, when making the decision between internet, Xbox, Cell phone, etc., do you think that single person will choose to pay that $50 a month Obamacare Tax to NOT have insurance, or the $150+ a month for health care?

Easy, they will pay the tax and remain uninsured and spend that extra $100 a month on something else. All along, knowing that if they get cancer, break their back or have some other catastrophic injury/illness, then they can simply purchase insurance at that time knowing that the insurance company will have to take them on and have to cover their now pre-existing illness.

A very excellent argument for what I say all the time: treating health care as an "insurable" service is insane.

Insurance is for things that are statistically only likely to happen to a very small minority, or at least at a very low overall frequency. Health cannot be "insured" -- everyone gets sick and hurt -- everyone needs medical care.

This is why civilized countries don't **** around with "insurance" idiocy like we do.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by tnedator

A lot of the people I know that "can't afford" health insurance, still won't qualify for the expanded medicaid and won't qualify for any or only partially vouchered health care on the public exchanges. Meaning, it will be cheaper for them to pay the Obamacare Tax and remain uninsured, rather than pay the $2,000-5,000 a year to pay their portion of the subsidized public exchange insurance (and that assumes that the premiums COME DOWN as a result of Obamacare, which the the bill assumes. The bill, and CBO calculations, assume that Obamacare will create an immediate reduction in premiums of about 25%.

They will continue doing what they do now, which is go to the emergency room when a kid has a cold, or a parent has a kidney stone, and then setting up a 20 year payment plan with the hospital to pay it off.

Oh, by the way, they will keep their two new cars, Xbox360, DirecTV and Cable internet, not to mention their Iphones for everyone in the family.

This will give insurance to "some" people that can't afford it, most specifically those that fall under the expanded medicaid guidelines, which will be 133% of the federal poverty level. So, that means an individual making about $15.5k and family of four making $32,000 will now qualify for Medicaid and have their insurance paid for by tax payers.

However, once you cross over that threshold, and say have a person making $24,000, he will have to pay something like $2,000 after taxes (I'm pretty sure it won't be tax deductible) for a high deductible health insurance plan. The annual deductible will be something like $2,000.

So, that single person making 24k a year will have the choice of paying about $2k for a high deductible insurance plan from a public exchange (assuming premiums miraculously decrease, or the government comes up with money for bigger subsidies than expected) or paying a $600 tax (individual mandate).

So, when making the decision between internet, Xbox, Cell phone, etc., do you think that single person will choose to pay that $50 a month Obamacare Tax to NOT have insurance, or the $150+ a month for health care?

Easy, they will pay the tax and remain uninsured and spend that extra $100 a month on something else. All along, knowing that if they get cancer, break their back or have some other catastrophic injury/illness, then they can simply purchase insurance at that time knowing that the insurance company will have to take them on and have to cover their now pre-existing illness.

Yeah the preexisting condition stuff is going to drive a death spiral. The only way around that is if the tax is worse than buying the insurance (won't happen because it's ugly politics)

"Insurance" that allows you to insure something that already happened isn't really insurance. It's financing.

But lucky us, at the end of the day when many of the insurance exchanges start to fail, we'll have a certain group of politicos saying "See we gave Private Insurance a chance and it didn't work!"

Oh, and the Trump thing has the look of one of those things that gets busted on Snopes. Maybe he said it, but I'm skeptical.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yeah the preexisting condition stuff is going to drive a death spiral. The only way around that is if the tax is worse than buying the insurance (won't happen because it's ugly politics)

"Insurance" that allows you to insure something that already happened isn't really insurance. It's financing.

But lucky us, at the end of the day when many of the insurance exchanges start to fail, we'll have a certain group of politicos saying "See we gave Private Insurance a chance and it didn't work!"

Oh, and the Trump thing has the look of one of those things that gets busted on Snopes. Maybe he said it, but I'm skeptical.

News flash for you. We're already past that point. We already gave private insurance a chance and it didn't work. Now we're on the slow road to cleaning up their mess.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

A very excellent argument for what I say all the time: treating health care as an "insurable" service is insane.

Insurance is for things that are statistically only likely to happen to a very small minority, or at least at a very low overall frequency. Health cannot be "insured" -- everyone gets sick and hurt -- everyone needs medical care.

This is why civilized countries don't **** around with "insurance" idiocy like we do.

Many younger people might average seeing a doctor once a decade or so. They should be able to buy insurance that recognizes this reality.

In reality health care insurance should be structured just like life insurance... if you buy in early, you're guaranteed lower rates for the rest of your life, so long as you pay the bills.

Then your insurance company is stuck with you and can't terminate your coverage, so they have no incentive to try to get rid of you or your claims. Unfortunately our employer-based insurance strategy made more rational insurance models like this impossible.

Also, many of the "advanced" countries you keep talking about still use an insurance model, there's just usually a public floor underneath somewhere.

[Rohirrim]

Why does Trump use the word "we." None of it applies to him. I'm sure he has a personal doctor on his staff and a medical account that makes him interest as long as he stays healthy - tax deductible, no doubt.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Many younger people might average seeing a doctor once a decade or so. They should be able to buy insurance that recognizes this reality.

In reality health care insurance should be structured just like life insurance... if you buy in early, you're guaranteed lower rates for the rest of your life, so long as you pay the bills.

Then your insurance company is stuck with you and can't terminate your coverage, so they have no incentive to try to get rid of you or your claims. Unfortunately our employer-based insurance strategy made more rational insurance models like this impossible.

Also, many of the "advanced" countries you keep talking about still use an insurance model, there's just usually a public floor underneath somewhere.

Where did you get that "fact"?

[Paladin]

Frankly, I think of the "mandate" as a "Free Rider" Rider. (Mittens invented that term.) Less than one % of Americans will be charged the penalty, but no one, absolutely NO ONE will pay the charge. Why, you ask? Because the law contains 2 provisions that prohibit collection of any such penalty. Further, there is a subsidy available for people who meet certain means tests standards. The Insurance Exchanges will be the place to get those quotes from PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Also, the Exchanges will be availble to small businesses to get insurance for their employees as well as tax credits for doing so.

Butif you had no insurance, what if the Hospital says you have to pay all prospective reasonable and foreseeable costs for services before you get services? Even in the ER? You can argue that the Hospital may get local property tax, but the Hospital would get no federal funds. Further, Free Riders would pay the FULL costs. And they may not get the same level of services. (Remember a few years ago when LA, California. hopsitals would shuttle pregnant undocumented latinas all around town?) Imagine yourself after Lorena Bobbit snipped you and you had no insurance. What's it gonna be? Pay or play?

Trump is laughable becasue he a clown in a bad haircut. Many conservatives are against the AHCA because it has Obama's name on it. All the money in the world can be spent on this election, but it will never change three things: Obama has been a very successful president, the AHCA will not be changed, and Mittens is still the GOP candidate.

(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Many younger people might average seeing a doctor once a decade or so. They should be able to buy insurance that recognizes this reality.

In reality health care insurance should be structured just like life insurance... if you buy in early, you're guaranteed lower rates for the rest of your life, so long as you pay the bills.

Then your insurance company is stuck with you and can't terminate your coverage, so they have no incentive to try to get rid of you or your claims. Unfortunately our employer-based insurance strategy made more rational insurance models like this impossible.

Also, many of the "advanced" countries you keep talking about still use an insurance model, there's just usually a public floor underneath somewhere.

Seems to me that more younger people get hurt in auto accidents and by drug use. And the numbers, IIRC, are increasing.

Your "argument" is not based on fact.

(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

[orinjkrush]

Originally Posted by tnedator

A lot of the people I know that "can't afford" health insurance, still won't qualify for the expanded medicaid and won't qualify for any or only partially vouchered health care on the public exchanges. Meaning, it will be cheaper for them to pay the Obamacare Tax and remain uninsured, rather than pay the $2,000-5,000 a year to pay their portion of the subsidized public exchange insurance (and that assumes that the premiums COME DOWN as a result of Obamacare, which the the bill assumes. The bill, and CBO calculations, assume that Obamacare will create an immediate reduction in premiums of about 25%.

They will continue doing what they do now, which is go to the emergency room when a kid has a cold, or a parent has a kidney stone, and then setting up a 20 year payment plan with the hospital to pay it off.

Oh, by the way, they will keep their two new cars, Xbox360, DirecTV and Cable internet, not to mention their Iphones for everyone in the family.

This will give insurance to "some" people that can't afford it, most specifically those that fall under the expanded medicaid guidelines, which will be 133% of the federal poverty level. So, that means an individual making about $15.5k and family of four making $32,000 will now qualify for Medicaid and have their insurance paid for by tax payers.

However, once you cross over that threshold, and say have a person making $24,000, he will have to pay something like $2,000 after taxes (I'm pretty sure it won't be tax deductible) for a high deductible health insurance plan. The annual deductible will be something like $2,000.

So, that single person making 24k a year will have the choice of paying about $2k for a high deductible insurance plan from a public exchange (assuming premiums miraculously decrease, or the government comes up with money for bigger subsidies than expected) or paying a $600 tax (individual mandate).

So, when making the decision between internet, Xbox, Cell phone, etc., do you think that single person will choose to pay that $50 a month Obamacare Tax to NOT have insurance, or the $150+ a month for health care?

Easy, they will pay the tax and remain uninsured and spend that extra $100 a month on something else. All along, knowing that if they get cancer, break their back or have some other catastrophic injury/illness, then they can simply purchase insurance at that time knowing that the insurance company will have to take them on and have to cover their now pre-existing illness.

interesting points. i don't personally know too many people who don't have or can't buy health insurance. except what i read on the internets.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Seems to me that more younger people get hurt in auto accidents and by drug use. And the numbers, IIRC, are increasing.

Your "argument" is not based on fact.

(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

It's based on anecdote, which according to Beavis is strictly verboten, at least if you're talking about whether oil spills actually do damage. By the way, Beavis, I still can't canoe or fish te Kalamazoo River, and that's two years later.

http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble...spill-keystone

[Spider]

Between beavis and tned ..got enough bullshiat to fertilize 400 acres .....fire up the pto spreader I doubt these 2 are done ....

[Spider]

Originally Posted by houghtam

It's based on anecdote, which according to Beavis is strictly verboten, at least if you're talking about whether oil spills actually do damage. By the way, Beavis, I still can't canoe or fish te Kalamazoo River, and that's two years later.

http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble...spill-keystone

I tried to several people about tar sands ....the stuff is nasty ...the pipe line is a bad idea ...Oil spills are bad enough , but that stuff is several times worse

[mhgaffney]

Me has it right. Who gives a **** what Mr Trump thinks?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by ghwk

Where did you get that "fact"?

Virtually every guy I know under 50. I think 2003, maybe 2004 was the last time I saw a doctor. And I'm nowhere near alone.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Virtually every guy I know under 50. I think 2003, maybe 2004 was the last time I saw a doctor. And I'm nowhere near alone.

Ok so the quote was just speculation and anecdotal. Cool I've got it now.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Spider

Between beavis and tned ..got enough bullshiat to fertilize 400 acres .....fire up the pto spreader I doubt these 2 are done ....

Spidey's still upset he can't tell the difference between a coal plant and an oil refinery. Bear that in mind next time he pontificates on energy policy.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Seems to me that more younger people get hurt in auto accidents and by drug use. And the numbers, IIRC, are increasing.

Your "argument" is not based on fact.

(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

You traded an anecdote for a stereotype generalization. Not much improvement. We can look at stats if you want.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1114.pdf

Looks like 18-44 year-olds were 4 times more likely than 65-74 year-olds to not see a health care provider in a year. 50% more likely than 45-64 year olds.

Then men in general are half as likely as women to see a doctor any given year.

It's irrational to set up a market where the young pay anywhere near what older people should pay for coverage. Especially considering our youngest adult generation is generally the poorest.

When you take an honest look at it, this kind of subsidization is one of the most regressive tax schemes you could ever imagine.