Trumpcare round 2 about to start - GoFuckYourself.com

kane · 04-20-2017, 12:03 PM

Apparently, as early as tomorrow or this weekend the Trump administration will be releasing the text of their new health care bill meant to repeal and replace Obamacare. Supposedly, it makes concessions to make both moderate and strict conservatives happy. I'm not sure how they are going to do that, but it should be interesting to see.

I have a feeling if it moves far enough to the right to satisfy the Freedom Caucus in the House it will DOA in the Senate.

directfiesta · 04-20-2017, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Apparently, as early as tomorrow or this weekend the Trump administration will be releasing the text of their new health care bill meant to repeal and replace Obamacare. Supposedly, it makes concessions to make both moderate and strict conservatives happy. I'm not sure how they are going to do that, but it should be interesting to see.

I have a feeling if it moves far enough to the right to satisfy the Freedom Caucus in the House it will DOA in the Senate.

Easy : going to lie to both of them ....

Another WIN ... so tired of all that winning !

Barry-xlovecam · 04-20-2017, 12:51 PM

It's probably DOA in the Senate

Quote:

Pre-Existing Conditions

The amendment, reported earlier by Huffington Post, would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions in states that get a waiver. To obtain the waiver, states would have to provide sick people priced out of commercial insurance access to a so-called high-risk pool run by the federal government, or establish their own, and satisfy other conditions.

MacArthur?s proposal would also allow states to opt out of Obamacare?s requirement that insurance policies cover "essential" benefits such as maternity care. Those provisions would create cheaper insurance products by allowing companies to effectively exclude high-cost people and expensive care.

But the language may not be embraced by all of MacArthur?s fellow House Republican centrists. The underlying bill also is well short of the 50 votes needed to pass in the Senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...obamacare-vote

Quote:

[T]rump demanded a vote on the measure, but Ryan pulled it from the House floor hours before a scheduled vote on March 24 for lack of support from his fellow Republicans. The speaker admitted he was disappointed but insisted Republicans would try again.

Under White House prodding two weeks later, Republicans added a provision to the bill that would give health insurers $15 billion over nine years to subsidize the care of high-cost patients.

Trump chump change ...

kane · 04-20-2017, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

It's probably DOA in the Senate

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...obamacare-vote

Trump chump change ...

I understand wanting to change some of the "essential" benefits of each policy. As a single guy, it is dumb for me to have to pay for insurance that covers pregnancy and birth control and gynecological exams. Just like it is dumb for a single woman to have to pay for insurance that covers dick problem and things that only happen to guys. Some married people or people with families need all that, but they should just offer versions for guys and girls that don't need all of that.

Sly · 04-20-2017, 01:06 PM

ObamaCare now costs me $450 a month and covers nothing that was covered last year, running me another $750 a month.

I welcome new ideas.

kane · 04-20-2017, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

ObamaCare now costs me $450 a month and covers nothing that was covered last year, running me another $750 a month.

I welcome new ideas.

I am one of the people Obamacare actually works well for, but that is likely because I have asthma and have had it since I was a little kid so it was impossible for me to get health insurance before Obamacare. That said, I understand it is flawed and needs to be fixed. I am all for fixing it and making it better. However, if this version of Trumpcare looks anything like that last version, it isn't a fix at all.

I don't want to see them do things simply so they can say they did them and end up not fixing the problems or even making them worse.

thommy · 04-20-2017, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I understand wanting to change some of the "essential" benefits of each policy. As a single guy, it is dumb for me to have to pay for insurance that covers pregnancy and birth control and gynecological exams. Just like it is dumb for a single woman to have to pay for insurance that covers dick problem and things that only happen to guys. Some married people or people with families need all that, but they should just offer versions for guys and girls that don't need all of that.

what about the people with no cars?
should their tax money not be used to build streets?
what about the rich people who give their children in private schools?
should their money not be used to build schools?
and last not least - what about the people who do not like wars?
should their money not be used to finance the military household?

this is called SOCIETY - but as US never had this you will probably not understand the advantages of "all for one and one for all"

Barry-xlovecam · 04-20-2017, 01:32 PM

If you are a woman of child bearing age your premiums might go up 50%[or a lot more-- IDK]? Pregnancy is very "high-risk" and rather likely. Men are responsible for that "certain disease" also -- it takes two to tango

Insurance not paying for family planning, or in worst cases -- abortion is rather stupid also -- from a purely economic standpoint.

You could use the same argument for property taxes -- if you have no children in school you should not have to pay for the school district. In reality, the quality of the schools that you pay for in your property taxes influences the value of your home and the community that it is in.

No one wants to take the heat to deal with the real problems with healthcare for the 60%? of the people that are not entitled to receive Medicaid and Medicare now. That will boomerang on the government -- really it is right now.

kane · 04-20-2017, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thommy

what about the people with no cars?
should their tax money not be used to build streets?
what about the rich people who give their children in private schools?
should their money not be used to build schools?
and last not least - what about the people who do not like wars?
should their money not be used to finance the military household?

this is called SOCIETY - but as US never had this you will probably not understand the advantages of "all for one and one for all"

In a perfect world, we would have a single-payer system and everyone would have coverage. I believe eventually we will end up there. In the US we often take the long way around to doing the right thing.

That said, me paying for insurance services that I will never use isn't really helping society as a whole have cheaper, better insurance. It is just making shareholders and insurance executives richer.

Roads, schools, and the military are all things that we all benefit from directly or indirectly whether we actively use them or not. As the system is set up right now, me paying more for insurance so that my policy covers stuff I will never use isn't helping others pay less. The number one thing the government could do to lower health care costs for everyone is cap how much pharma companies can charge for their drugs and put some kind of price restrictions on the cost of health care. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, so it doesn't really matter who pays for what coverage, it will eventually fail in its current form.

mineistaken · 04-20-2017, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

ObamaCare now costs me $450 a month and covers nothing that was covered last year, running me another $750 a month.

I welcome new ideas.

How dare you go against libby narrative. Automatic NO to anything Trump does!

04-20-2017, 12:03 PM	#1
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	Trumpcare round 2 about to start Apparently, as early as tomorrow or this weekend the Trump administration will be releasing the text of their new health care bill meant to repeal and replace Obamacare. Supposedly, it makes concessions to make both moderate and strict conservatives happy. I'm not sure how they are going to do that, but it should be interesting to see. I have a feeling if it moves far enough to the right to satisfy the Freedom Caucus in the House it will DOA in the Senate.

04-20-2017, 01:06 PM	#5
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,291	ObamaCare now costs me $450 a month and covers nothing that was covered last year, running me another $750 a month. I welcome new ideas. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available. Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale

04-20-2017, 01:32 PM	#8
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	If you are a woman of child bearing age your premiums might go up 50%[or a lot more-- IDK]? Pregnancy is very "high-risk" and rather likely. Men are responsible for that "certain disease" also -- it takes two to tango Insurance not paying for family planning, or in worst cases -- abortion is rather stupid also -- from a purely economic standpoint. You could use the same argument for property taxes -- if you have no children in school you should not have to pay for the school district. In reality, the quality of the schools that you pay for in your property taxes influences the value of your home and the community that it is in. No one wants to take the heat to deal with the real problems with healthcare for the 60%? of the people that are not entitled to receive Medicaid and Medicare now. That will boomerang on the government -- really it is right now.