OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

Let me ask it again as I'm not familiar with the amounts of money in each tax.

 

Was this just the tax to pay for ACA or does it go above and beyond that?

I know what you're asking. I don't agree with the way you're trying to frame it. It was "just" a tax to pay for health care for millions and now we're giving millionaires a $50k/year tax cut instead. We're cutting a tax specifically for health insurance CEOs. That is the policy preferences of Republicans.

[caulfield12]

The Great Premium Debate Continues

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-great...bate-continues/

 

 

Average Annual Percent Growth in Health Care Expenditures per Capita by State of Residence

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/a...22:%22asc%22%7D

For US as a whole and Illinois as a state, 4.9% increase per year from 1991-2014

 

 

8 Charts That Explain the Explosive Growth of U.S. Health Care Costs

http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/10/...alth-care-costs

Edited June 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

I know what you're asking. I don't agree with the way you're trying to frame it. It was "just" a tax to pay for health care for millions and now we're giving millionaires a $50k/year tax cut instead. We're cutting a tax specifically for health insurance CEOs. That is the policy preferences of Republicans.

 

There is no other way to phrase it. Either they are only repealing the special tax to fund the ACA or they are cutting taxes beyond it. That's it. I don't see how it's a difficult question to unless you are intentionally trying to bias the answer.

 

The part dealing only with Healthcare CEO's is obviously not tied to the ACA tax. So the answer would be yes they are cutting taxes other than just the ACA special tax.

[ptatc]

The Great Premium Debate Continues

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-great...bate-continues/

 

 

Average Annual Percent Growth in Health Care Expenditures per Capita by State of Residence

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/a...22:%22asc%22%7D

For US as a whole and Illinois as a state, 4.9% increase per year from 1991-2014

 

 

8 Charts That Explain the Explosive Growth of U.S. Health Care Costs

http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/10/...alth-care-costs

Wow. according to chart 2 in that last group of charts, out of pocket spending as increase almost nothing relative to healthcare costs. Up until 2010 anyway. It would be interesting to see what it is now.

[StrangeSox]

There is no other way to phrase it. Either they are only repealing the special tax to fund the ACA or they are cutting taxes beyond it. That's it. I don't see how it's a difficult question to unless you are intentionally trying to bias the answer.

 

The part dealing only with Healthcare CEO's is obviously not tied to the ACA tax. So the answer would be yes they are cutting taxes other than just the ACA special tax.

 

There are various taxes within the ACA, not a specific "ACA tax."

 

They are cutting taxes for the wealthy and paying for it by taking health care from the poor and middle class. There are widespread effects beyond that, as well.

[ptatc]

There are various taxes within the ACA, not a specific "ACA tax."

 

They are cutting taxes for the wealthy and paying for it by taking health care from the poor and middle class. There are widespread effects beyond that, as well.

just within the ACA itself? It is by no means as simple as the way you are stating it. They raised taxes for the wealthy to pay for healthcare for the poor and middle class for ACA and it didn't work very well.

[StrangeSox]

just within the ACA itself? It is by no means as simple as the way you are stating it. They raised taxes for the wealthy to pay for healthcare for the poor and middle class for ACA and it didn't work very well.

 

It worked fairly well. Tens of millions of more people have actual access to health care thanks to the ACA, and all of us have very valuable patient protections. The rate of premium increases slowed down overall, though they are still a problem in the individual markets because insuring sick people is expensive.

 

They're now cutting those taxes and throwing the poor and middle class (and others, such as people with pre-existing conditions or anyone 55-65) to the wolves to give millionaires tens of thousands of dollars a year. They're blowing up the individual markets in many states, and they're bankrupting rural medical facilities. Calling this anything other than a tax cut for the upper class is the biased framing.

 

It really is that simple. These are the policy preferences of the GOP. They don't really hide them. They value the wealthy having even more money over anything else. This is primarily a tax cut bill, and it will allow them to cut upper class taxes even more in the near future.

Edited June 23, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

It really is that simple. These are the policy preferences of the GOP. They don't really hide them. They value the wealthy having even more money over anything else. This is primarily a tax cut bill, and it will allow them to cut upper class taxes even more in the near future.

Personally, I feel the Republicans believe that poor people have not earned treatment more than anything else. That is their policy. The tax cuts are a side point. They say it explicitly. They believe how well you do in life has nothing to do with anything other than how hard you work, and if you are on minimum wage it's your own fault. If you make the mistake of getting sick while on minimum wage, both of those were decisions you made incorrectly. If you are rich and white and inherited money, you made the right call by accepting that inheritance and you deserve treatment for whatever you come down with.

[StrangeSox]

Listen to this WV reverend explain how reinstating lifetime and annual caps will likely kill her daughter.

 

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/...972190213292032

 

This is the policy the GOP wants. This cap alone will likely result in the early death or the bankruptcy of two of my friends' children who were born with chronic, life-threatening diseases (e: and one of my friends who had a chronic genetic illness manifest itself around the same time they discovered his son's problem). Sen. Warren is absolutely correct when she says these wealthy tax cuts are paid for with blood money.

Edited June 23, 2017 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

Personally, I feel the Republicans believe that poor people have not earned treatment more than anything else. That is their policy. The tax cuts are a side point. They say it explicitly. They believe how well you do in life has nothing to do with anything other than how hard you work, and if you are on minimum wage it's your own fault. If you make the mistake of getting sick while on minimum wage, both of those were decisions you made incorrectly. If you are rich and white and inherited money, you made the right call by accepting that inheritance and you deserve treatment for whatever you come down with.

I think it's more that they don't think that people shouldn't have to pay for for other people's healthcare. The whole take from the rich and give to the poor philosophy. The distribution of wealth philosophy is the fundamental difference.

[StrangeSox]

Right, they are fine with the poor and middle class dying so that the wealthy can hoard even more wealth.

 

Because that's what's actually at stake here. The pre-ACA estimates found anywhere from 10-45,000 people died in the country every year due to lack of health insurance, or about 1 death for every 600-1500 people uninsured. We're throwing 20+ million back off of insurance. This bill will kill thousands of people a year so that the rich get a tax cut.

Edited June 23, 2017 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

I think it's more that they don't think that people shouldn't have to pay for for other people's healthcare. The whole take from the rich and give to the poor philosophy. The distribution of wealth philosophy is the fundamental difference.

 

What other first world democracies take this same stance with their citizens???

 

That neither the government nor the rich should subsidize the middle class and poor, at least until Social Security and Medicare kick in...does that about summarize it?

 

That helping them when a person is not working will make families reliant on others, and that the only true path to dignity lies through meaningful work.

 

 

Republican health care plan: a win-win for the wealthiest

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...p;jumival=19387

Edited June 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

What other first world democracies take this same stance with their citizens???

 

That neither the government nor the rich should subsidize the middle class and poor, at least until Social Security and Medicare kick in...does that about summarize it?

 

That helping them when a person is not working will make families reliant on others, and that the only true path to dignity lies through meaningful work.

 

 

Republican health care plan: a win-win for the wealthiest

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...p;jumival=19387

I'm not saying it's right. i'm just saying that the way they look at it.

 

As far as other first world democracies are concerned, the USA has many unique variables that others don't. First off the population. Trying to fund healthcare for the large number of people compared to any other first world country is the primary problem. another is the tax structure. The USA pays less taxes than other countries, in general. You really can't compare the USA to any other country, just like states, countries are unique and what works well in one won't necessarily work in another.

I would be in favor of a VAT tax such as the EU uses to fund any of these type of things. I just have a problem in principle of forcing the people who have more to give more just because they have more. Believe me as a college professor in Illinois. I'm not in the group that would have to pay more.

[Jerksticks]

But don't you get what the ACA really was? A big flaming pile of s***. It's that simple.

 

The real issue is that what we eat and drink is poisoning us. Everything we use is made out of oil byproducts. Everybody's chicken comes from some Tyson factory. Isn't it 1 in 2 men will develop cancer now, or 1 in 3? The problem is cancer. That's it. f***ing cancer. We're all being poisoned and I have no idea how to stop my poisonong or my son's poisoning. Flint was just the beginning. America is one big Flint. And I don't know what to do to protect my loves ones. Move to a tent by some stream in northern Canada? f*** if I know.

 

 

[Balta1701]

But don't you get what the ACA really was? A big flaming pile of s***. It's that simple.

 

The real issue is that what we eat and drink is poisoning us. Everything we use is made out of oil byproducts. Everybody's chicken comes from some Tyson factory. Isn't it 1 in 2 men will develop cancer now, or 1 in 3? The problem is cancer. That's it. f***ing cancer. We're all being poisoned and I have no idea how to stop my poisonong or my son's poisoning. Flint was just the beginning. America is one big Flint. And I don't know what to do to protect my loves ones. Move to a tent by some stream in northern Canada? f*** if I know.

If you believe that poor people getting access to health care is a flaming pile of S*** then the ACA is exactly that.

 

That has been the Republican Party Policy since 2008+.

 

Yes, ~38% of people in this country will in fact get cancer. Yes, there are things we could do about that - like strengthening EPA regulations. However, cancer death rates continue going down, because we are expanding access to health care.

 

We are about to kick tens of millions of poor people off Medicaid. More than were added by the ACA. If you think that people dying of cancer is a big pile of S***, then tell us a better way to do this. Otherwise, congratulations, a whole lot of people are going to die of cancer who we would have otherwise saved. But they aren't the important ones. It is that simple.

[caulfield12]

I'm not saying it's right. i'm just saying that the way they look at it.

 

As far as other first world democracies are concerned, the USA has many unique variables that others don't. First off the population. Trying to fund healthcare for the large number of people compared to any other first world country is the primary problem. another is the tax structure. The USA pays less taxes than other countries, in general. You really can't compare the USA to any other country, just like states, countries are unique and what works well in one won't necessarily work in another.

I would be in favor of a VAT tax such as the EU uses to fund any of these type of things. I just have a problem in principle of forcing the people who have more to give more just because they have more. Believe me as a college professor in Illinois. I'm not in the group that would have to pay more.

 

What's VERY likely to happen is each state will come up with its own plan and just start worrying about their own benefits, essentially back to the Articles of Confederation model.

 

For example, California, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Colorado and maybe NM on the West Coast, NY, Massachusetts, Virginia and much of the Northeast will have better plans due to healthier populations with higher disposable income and more resources to work with (not to mention education and green energy environmental policies) ....leaving the entire middle of the country behind. Rust Belt states, those with big pension deficits (or foolish tax policies like Kansas), Texas (because of the illegal immigrant situation) and Florida/Arizona will be complicated due to retirees and immigration as well will be left out in the cold and start bleeding the best of those states to the coastal areas already listed.

 

Survival of the fittest. One of the most ironic points of all is that many Trump voters in poor/rural states will be wiped out by drug addiction, cancer, obesity/heart attacks and a lack of proper nutrition. This will happen over the next 15-25 years, maybe faster at the present rate.

 

If that doesn't get em, it will be lack of educational opportunities, robotics, AI, quantum computers, algorithms, virtual reality, genetics, etc.

Edited June 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

If you believe that poor people getting access to health care is a flaming pile of S*** then the ACA is exactly that.

 

That has been the Republican Party Policy since 2008+.

 

Yes, ~38% of people in this country will in fact get cancer. Yes, there are things we could do about that - like strengthening EPA regulations. However, cancer death rates continue going down, because we are expanding access to health care.

 

We are about to kick tens of millions of poor people off Medicaid. More than were added by the ACA. If you think that people dying of cancer is a big pile of S***, then tell us a better way to do this. Otherwise, congratulations, a whole lot of people are going to die of cancer who we would have otherwise saved. But they aren't the important ones. It is that simple.

 

http://crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/sant...ack-people-i-sa

 

The infamous "blah" people. African-Americans, the majority of Hispanics, Native Americans, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ, you're basically not wanted.

 

The only demographic group to be grudgingly accepted is Asian-Americans because of higher education and higher per capita incomes.

 

Look at the composition of the Trump cabinet. The AHCA signing in the Rose Garden. The 14 member health care working group in the Senate. It's The Handmaid's Tale all over again, just seemingly innocuous. And nobody in the administration seems at all concerned about all those voices being excluded. It might as well be Plymouth Rock or Jamestown in 1620 and 1608.

Edited June 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

If you believe that poor people getting access to health care is a flaming pile of S*** then the ACA is exactly that.

 

That has been the Republican Party Policy since 2008+.

 

Yes, ~38% of people in this country will in fact get cancer. Yes, there are things we could do about that - like strengthening EPA regulations. However, cancer death rates continue going down, because we are expanding access to health care.

 

We are about to kick tens of millions of poor people off Medicaid. More than were added by the ACA. If you think that people dying of cancer is a big pile of S***, then tell us a better way to do this. Otherwise, congratulations, a whole lot of people are going to die of cancer who we would have otherwise saved. But they aren't the important ones. It is that simple.

Think bigger picture man! Get away from those talking-point statistics for a minute. Just try. Just try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Maybe even google "why the ACA hurts poor people". I've never done it but I bet you'll find some interesting points.

 

The poor are poorer because of the ACA, and it's going to get way worse if something isn't done. It basically said, you will forever be poor. Is that really better than some bulls*** health insurance that a majority of doctors (The good ones) don't even want to accept?

 

"Hey Joe Poor, you can come be an apprentice and make a couple bucks more an hour, but you'll lose most of your health subsidies, so you'll actually make less money. Or you can stick with your under 30 hours a week because your boss only has 1000 part-timers now job. You pick. Meanwhile, vote Democrat and demand a $15 minimum wage so your small-business owner boss has to lay off more people, probably you, to compensate for his increased material and labor costs. And make sure you thank me for that $6 loaf of bread in 2020. But hey go see your Medicaid doctor for free for 5 minutes." -Obama

[caulfield12]

Think bigger picture man! Get away from those talking-point statistics for a minute. Just try. Just try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Maybe even google "why the ACA hurts poor people". I've never done it but I bet you'll find some interesting points.

 

The poor are poorer because of the ACA, and it's going to get way worse if something isn't done. It basically said, you will forever be poor. Is that really better than some bulls*** health insurance that a majority of doctors (The good ones) don't even want to accept?

 

"Hey Joe Poor, you can come be an apprentice and make a couple bucks more an hour, but you'll lose most of your health subsidies, so you'll actually make less money. Or you can stick with your under 30 hours a week because your boss only has 1000 part-timers now job. You pick. Meanwhile, vote Democrat and demand a $15 minimum wage so your small-business owner boss has to lay off more people, probably you, to compensate for his increased material and labor costs. And make sure you thank me for that $6 loaf of bread in 2020. But hey go see your Medicaid doctor for free for 5 minutes." -Obama

 

There's scant economic evidence that minimum wage increases have led to anything but positive effects over time.

 

Part time work at places like Wal-Mart has nothing to do with Dems (you didn't name a specific company in your example above). It's all about increased profitability and weakened labor unions. Pure capitalism reaps what it sews. Let me ask you this, has Wal-Mart been a net positive in Making America Great over the last 30-40 years? What happened to all the grocery stores, Five and Dimes/Ben Franklins, heck K Mart/Target/Sears/JC Penney, etc that a lot of Americans grew up with? Replaced by profits and increased economy of scale. Sooner rather than later, Amazon and Alibaba will complete the wipeout and there's nothing at all Trump can do to stop these gathering forces of globalization. Get with the program or be run over by progress. The shopping mall will cease to exist.

 

Another final thing to consider is the conspicuous consumption of wants (rather than needs) starting in the 1980's along with the extension of easy credit/credit cards. Also not to be blamed on Dems.

 

And Dems have put a lot more money into apprenticeship/training and vocational programs than Republicans over the years.

 

Trump has a press conference/photo op about a $200 million apprenticeship program in order to distract from Russia and then it just disappears into the mists of time, never to be heard from again.

 

 

 

I'll go one further. I can get anything delivered to me in a matter of minutes here in China. Everything is done by mobile phone/swipe payments, and cash is hardly used. The cost to deliver all these things?....the drivers make 14 cents per delivery. If they don't deliver on time, the first offense they pay a $150 fine, the second they lose their jobs. How many American are willing to work for $14 per hour, compared to $0.14 cents to work hard?

 

http://relevantscience.blogspot.com/2017/0...na-thrives.html

Edited June 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

There's scant economic evidence that minimum wage increases have led to anything but positive effects over time.

 

Part time work at places like Wal-Mart has nothing to do with Dems (you didn't name a specific company in your example above). It's all about increased profitability and weakened labor unions. Pure capitalism reaps what it sews. Let me ask you this, has Wal-Mart been a net positive in Making America Great over the last 30-40 years? What happened to all the grocery stores, Five and Dimes/Ben Franklins, heck K Mart/Target/Sears/JC Penney, etc that a lot of Americans grew up with? Replaced by profits and increased economy of scale. Sooner rather than later, Amazon and Alibaba will complete the wipeout and there's nothing at all Trump can do to stop these gathering forces of globalization. Get with the program or be run over by progress. The shopping mall will cease to exist.

 

Another final thing to consider is the conspicuous consumption of wants (rather than needs) starting in the 1980's along with the extension of easy credit/credit cards. Also not to be blamed on Dems.

 

And Dems have put a lot more money into apprenticeship/training and vocational programs than Republicans over the years.

 

Trump has a press conference/photo op about a $200 million apprenticeship program in order to distract from Russia and then it just disappears into the mists of time, never to be heard from again.

 

 

 

I'll go one further. I can get anything delivered to me in a matter of minutes here in China. Everything is done by mobile phone/swipe payments, and cash is hardly used. The cost to deliver all these things?....the drivers make 14 cents per delivery. If they don't deliver on time, the first offense they pay a $150 fine, the second they lose their jobs. How many American are willing to work for $14 per hour, compared to $0.14 cents to work hard?

 

http://relevantscience.blogspot.com/2017/0...na-thrives.html

 

I just don't know what to respond to here.

 

Statistics on minimum wage increases over history do not really apply to doubling...doubling...yes doubling the minimum wage.

 

I'm very anti Walmart but it's the reality now. The ACA helps Walmart man! If you can't see how the ACA crushes the smaller business I don't know what to tell you! The big boys can absorb the cost but the small shops have to get clever just to survive. And the way they are doing it everywhere is by having mostly part-timers.

 

And if you double the minimum wage a few things happen. The price of goods has to increase substantially and the workforce has to shrink. There's really no other common sense way to look at it.

 

I'm not anti-ACA over some partisan bs reasons. It's over economic reasons and it pisses me off because it's f***ing over the poor. And the struggling middle class! It can only shrink the economy not help it.

 

Just admit it sucks. It's ok. You can still worship Obama even if you admit it sucks. Everyone just needs to admit it sucks and get to work fixing it, scrapping it, whatever.

 

People need money to survive, not fake healthcare. It did some nice things but I think overall it is a net negative because the poor have no chance to climb up now, and our country is now going to have to become single payer with waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy too big of a population for that to work efficiently, or at all.

 

[greg775]

But don't you get what the ACA really was? A big flaming pile of s***. It's that simple.

 

The real issue is that what we eat and drink is poisoning us. Everything we use is made out of oil byproducts. Everybody's chicken comes from some Tyson factory. Isn't it 1 in 2 men will develop cancer now, or 1 in 3? The problem is cancer. That's it. f***ing cancer. We're all being poisoned and I have no idea how to stop my poisonong or my son's poisoning. Flint was just the beginning. America is one big Flint. And I don't know what to do to protect my loves ones. Move to a tent by some stream in northern Canada? f*** if I know.

This is an excellent post. I agree with you. We're all getting cancer from the byproducts and we're also f***ed because of cell phones. You can't tell me holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years isn't AUTOMATIC brain cancer. Yes we're being poisoned every single day.

[Quin]

This is an excellent post. I agree with you. We're all getting cancer from the byproducts and we're also f***ed because of cell phones. You can't tell me holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years isn't AUTOMATIC brain cancer. Yes we're being poisoned every single day.

 

As of right now, all research finds that it doesn't.

 

Unless you've got a nuclear powered phone.

[RockRaines]

Think bigger picture man! Get away from those talking-point statistics for a minute. Just try. Just try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Maybe even google "why the ACA hurts poor people". I've never done it but I bet you'll find some interesting points.

 

The poor are poorer because of the ACA, and it's going to get way worse if something isn't done. It basically said, you will forever be poor. Is that really better than some bulls*** health insurance that a majority of doctors (The good ones) don't even want to accept?

Not really.

 

But its true the ACA could be so much better. And the correct thing to do for the people that voted these people into office would be to take on the rising costs and improve ACA to serve the people better. Instead we are going to make life harder on poor people, middle class people and people who are already sick. In return we are giving retroactive tax breaks to the rich and people who dont really need them. Thats what this bill is doing.

 

Also most medical associations are against this bill, so not sure what doctors you are referring to.

[RockRaines]

Should insurance/HC companies be allowed to be as profitable as they are? Should they be able to conduct themselves in such a way to make them a Fortune 100 company? Should pharma companies be able to charge whatever they want to increase profits on everyday medication?

 

There are so many issues/other avenues to bring down costs for people outside of scrapping the ACA, but we cannot even think about doing that since our politicians are bought and paid for. And Washington is doing a great job having the people fight over a bill that was originally designed to help them, and now only serve as a distraction from the real issues that would help. It's sad.

[knightni]

Doctors charge high prices because that's what insurance companies will pay.

 

They also charge them because the average doctor has nearly 1 million in student loans by the time that they get their phd.

 

Pharmaceutical companies charge high because they have to pay for numerous scientist jobs and research studies. Many European and Asian countries charge less for their drugs because they just accept the US testing results and don't pay the same overhead.

 

Pretty much, it comes down to foreign FDAs and medical schools as the reason why everything costs so much.