The sabotage of obamacare begins.

[Industrialsize]

High deductibles have been a RW talking point regarding the ACA. Think they are going down in the GOP bill. That is just a lie they are telling you.

Hate Your Obamacare Deductible? The GOP Bill Would Make It Even Bigger.

That’s because the Republican bill would permit health insurance companies to go back to selling plans that cover a smaller share of a typical person’s medical expenses. The Affordable Care Act mandates that policies cover at least 60 percent of medical costs.

The GOP’s proposed replacement tosses out that rule, meaning health insurance may go back to selling skimpy plans that expose consumers to higher out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles. Monthly premiums may be lower, but that’s a reflection of their plans’ meagerness compared to Affordable Care Act plans.

The CBO projects that monthly premiums under the GOP proposal will eventually be 10 percent lower than under the Affordable Care Act ― after an initial spike in prices ― but attributes that mainly to the policies being less generous and to the fact that older, sicker people won’t be able to afford them and will drop out of the insurance pool altogether.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ger-deductible_us_58c82ef2e4b09cd957672faa?v7

 

[Klingsor]

If only we could do away with that one dirty word that keeps popping up: insurance.

 

[Dicklicker1]

Good thing I've posted on another website that lead to John Olivers rant that was spot on and on the money which I did not participated on this blog-sphere!

Lets start here:

Take time to read in the bathroom:
http://www.heritage.org/health-care...ing-patient-centered-market-based-health-care

What the Republicans been doing to kill the A.C.A.:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/the-quieter-assault-against-obamacare

The Republican's plan:
politi.co/2lAoJwO...

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/repu...

Your congressman cares about you!
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...

Before clicking on this Youtube link, make sure you read the Heritage information on heathcare first so we are up to date....

 

[deleted15807]

Gutting ObamaCare is just the first step Paul Ryan's plans to ultimately gut Medicare.

Paul Ryan is determined to kill Medicare. This time he might succeed.

How The GOP Social Security/Medicare Doomsday Machine Works
​

 

[b.c.]

Congrats Trumpsters for falling on your sword once again.

The GOP’s Obamacare replacement is a disaster for some of its most loyal voters

Dammit, it's a great plan! Just move to Leslie, KY.

I was just looking at the chart from the above link where it showed places where Trump got the FEWEST votes yet stood to benefit from Trumpcare, including my city, New Orleans.

That's strange. I though Julie said "we LOST." Just being facetious of course. A loss of 24 million insured is a loss for us ALL.

Silver lining being, Trump's constituency fucked THEMSELVES for falling (ONCE AGAIN) for Republican-style hate mongering BULLSHIT. Will they EVER learn??????????

 

[deleted15807]

That's strange. I though Julie said "we LOST."

That gang wouldn't know winning vs. losing if you showed them their bank balance vs. the 1% year over year. Numbers? Charts? That's for libtards and the elites.

 

[deleted15807]

The damn CBO had to go spill the beans and let the true intentions of the bill get out..........

...widespread dissatisfaction among House and Senate lawmakers — conservatives and moderates alike — showed no signs of dissipating, increasing the chances that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) will have difficulty passing the bill if it goes to the House floor in the next two weeks, not to mention whether it can collect a majority in the Senate.

White House tries to salvage GOP health-care proposal as criticism mounts​

 

[b.c.]

Take time to read in the bathroom:
http://www.heritage.org/health-care...ing-patient-centered-market-based-health-care

Thanks for the links. As for the one from Heritage, I'd read it in the bathroom only if I can bring a hard copy, so I can have something to wipe my ass with.

The Heritage Foundation, as we know, has not only been a major influence on conservative ideology and policy making, but they've LITERALLY WRITTEN policy for Republicans ever since REAGAN.

And in other news, "DEATH PANELS" anyone?

The really bad in the Trumpcare CBO report? Social Security will save $3 billion because dead people

 

[Dport]

They were against the affordable care act because it was 'socialism'. But now they're in power and it's not because of socialism it's just that Obama was an idiot and didn't do it right. Only they can do it right. Lame.

 

[deleted15807]

Thanks for the links. As for the one from Heritage, I'd read it in the bathroom only if I can bring a hard copy, so I can have something to wipe my ass with.

The Heritage Foundation, as we know, has not only been a major influence on conservative ideology and policy making, but they've LITERALLY WRITTEN policy for Republicans ever since REAGAN.

And in other news, "DEATH PANELS" anyone?

The really bad in the Trumpcare CBO report? Social Security will save $3 billion because dead people

What happened to the "sanctity of life"? I'm confused.

 

[ozwestcoastboy]

 

[Industrialsize]

Page 33, footnote F of the GOP bill:
Social Security outlays would fall by $3 billion

Now why, you ask, would social security disbursements fall because of the GOP health bill? It doesn't touch social security.

Woops:
Approximately 17,000 people could die in 2018 who otherwise would have lived if a House Republican health proposal endorsed by the Trump administration becomes law. By 2026, the number of people killed by Trumpcare could grow to approximately 29,000 in that year alone.

The fact that people are without insurance and preventative care has consequences.

The republican plan, die sooner.

 

[deleted15807]

Page 33, footnote F of the GOP bill:
Social Security outlays would fall by $3 billion

Now why, you ask, would social security disbursements fall because of the GOP health bill? It doesn't touch social security.

Woops:
Approximately 17,000 people could die in 2018 who otherwise would have lived if a House Republican health proposal endorsed by the Trump administration becomes law. By 2026, the number of people killed by Trumpcare could grow to approximately 29,000 in that year alone.

The fact that people are without insurance and preventative care has consequences.

The republican plan, die sooner.

Conservatives only care about "pre-born life" a.k.a. fetuses. After that it's God's will.

 

[Bardox]

The ACA was never suppose to be a success. It was always meant to fail. The idea was to get as many people on some sort of cheap, practically useless, policy as soon as possible so that when the inevitable occurred, conservatives and skiddish dems would be faced with one of two choices. Institute a proper single payer national healthcare service (medicare for all blah blah blah) or be the congressman that took away "healthcare". It was always suppose to develop problems that would bring the whole thing crashing down. The "sabotage" was built in. The great flaw in the plan was depending on the shame of politicians to get it to fruition... If a politician must choose between doing something hard that would better the nation and possibly result in potentially losing a big dollar donor OR re-enforcing the status quo to ensure the campaigns war chest remains stocked... the politician will chase the money every time regardless of what letter is beside their name.

 

[Industrialsize]

The ACA was never suppose to be a success. It was always meant to fail. The idea was to get as many people on some sort of cheap, practically useless, policy as soon as possible so that when the inevitable occurred, conservatives and skiddish dems would be faced with one of two choices. Institute a proper single payer national healthcare service (medicare for all blah blah blah) or be the congressman that took away "healthcare". It was always suppose to develop problems that would bring the whole thing crashing down. The "sabotage" was built in. The great flaw in the plan was depending on the shame of politicians to get it to fruition... If a politician must choose between doing something hard that would better the nation and possibly result in potentially losing a big dollar donor OR re-enforcing the status quo to ensure the campaigns war chest remains stocked... the politician will chase the money every time regardless of what letter is beside their name.

Do you really believe that the ACA was "designed to fail". In order to believe that, you must assume a HUGE conspiracy including President Obama and every member of congress. It took 14 months of public hearings before the law was passed. And yet they somehow designed it to fail in 2017(it's not). Because they wanted to make a Republican president look bad. Even though his election was 8 years away and no one knew whether there would be a democratic or republican president in office in 2017.

But you go ahead and parrot Mr Trump's conspiracy theory that the Democrats designed the ACA to fail in 2017.

 

[185248]

It's also the sabotage of education.

 

[phonehome]

The ACA was only "designed to fail" in the following sense.

First they way "overlearned" the lesson of the "failure" of "hillarycare"

The CW be it true or not was that that failure was because "it was written by the WH". So with the ACA they went way way out of their way to let Congress write the bill the result of that was "max Baucus's "gang of 6" or how ever many it was pissing away month after month trying to find that all vaunted "common ground" while the likes of Chuck Grassley continually moving the goal posts and in the end not supporting the bill anyway which some, many would say was the intent all along.

Starting with what the Hertigage foundation said they wanted instead of Hillary care in the 90's with this naive idea that surely Republicans could not 'all the sudden" be against what they were so all fired for in the 90's and never considering going to somekind of "single payer/Medicare for all" by just lowering the age a a year or 2 or 5 years per year so that at some date in the future 65 would turn into 0 or have the "public option" be for those who chose it they could buy into Medicare "early"

It allowed for to much "flexibilty"

Medicaid could have been simply "expanded" all on it's own and done in a separate bill and even done VIA "reconciliation" just move up the income limits and either make the re-imbursement rates the same lower % or 90's across the board but by doing it that way and not having it be part of the ACA govenors would have had no choice about "expanding Medicaid" they would ahve had to either keep having medicaid all of the newly expanded Medicaid or opt out all together which BTW every Govenor to this day can choose to do, all in the naive idea that surely no Govenor who cares anything about he people in his state would turn down all this almost "free money" Had they done this that there would have been no provision for "expanded medicaid" in the ACA and no ability to sue over that provision all the while not having to risk loosing regular Medicaid. BTW it is pretty ironic how now Republicans try to discredit the CBO coverage estimates when the majority if not all the reason they were off was because they assumed that all 50 Govenors would in fact expand Medicaid.

Because they gave in to the Bart Stupaks of the world and added flexibilty when it came to the "contraception mandate" we ended up with "Hobby Lobby" or the "little sisters of the poor" had they held firm and said "church" meant just exactly that and there was no such thing at least as far as this goes and "religiously affiliated organization" If you are a hospital "catholic" or otherwise, a charity be it "catholic charities" or the United Way or who ever, if you are a university be it Harvard, Yale or Northwestern VS Georgetown or Notre Dame then you follow all the same laws/rules/regulations/policies as any one else without exception and if you say you can not "in good conscience" do that well then just get out of that business, Because no one is "holding a gun to your head" making you do any of those things"

Because they gave the states the flexibility of setting up their own exchanges and gave them way to long before they could just opt out that directly lead to healthcare.gov not being robust enough to handle all those customers in the first month or two, customers who otherwise would have been using their own state exchanges. Had thee been no state exchanges from the start then there would be no state exchanges for states to subsequently do away with and healthcare..gov could have been designed from the start to handle the number of customers it ended up with.

This GD flexibility, all put in to attract the votes of Republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway no matter what are the seeds that lead to everything that is now called a "failure"

 

[Bardox]

Do you really believe that the ACA was "designed to fail". In order to believe that, you must assume a HUGE conspiracy including President Obama and every member of congress. It took 14 months of public hearings before the law was passed. And yet they somehow designed it to fail in 2017(it's not). Because they wanted to make a Republican president look bad. Even though his election was 8 years away and no one knew whether there would be a democratic or republican president in office in 2017.

But you go ahead and parrot Mr Trump's conspiracy theory that the Democrats designed the ACA to fail in 2017.

The idea that the ACA was only a stepping stone to single payer is not something that has it's origin point starting from Donald Trump in the last couple days. This was a long standing critique going back to the original debate of the ACA. Generally it carried a negative tone with a side of dread when spoken of by the right, but the left would tend to give it a joking but favorable tone. Kind of reminded me of when a parent tries to convince an infant that the green slime in the baby food jar is actually tasty. If the Senate hadn't pulled the public option out the bill, it might have worked. All the current problems the ACA is having retaining the private insurance companies in the markets would still be there, but the public option would be there as well. Nice and shinning and stable. Opening up into a full single payer model pushing the mega corps to cover only elective medical issues would just be the natural progression of things.

But with no public option in the mix, there is nothing to point to showing that Single Payer would be the better way forward for this country. You could debunk the various myths about the American Healthcare system being the best in the world, but that would require going deeper than talking points. In the current half assed version of political discord, talking points is about as deep as it gets any more.

 

[Industrialsize]

The idea that the ACA was only a stepping stone to single payer is not something that has it's origin point starting from Donald Trump in the last couple days. This was a long standing critique going back to the original debate of the ACA. Generally it carried a negative tone with a side of dread when spoken of by the right, but the left would tend to give it a joking but favorable tone. Kind of reminded me of when a parent tries to convince an infant that the green slime in the baby food jar is actually tasty. If the Senate hadn't pulled the public option out the bill, it might have worked. All the current problems the ACA is having retaining the private insurance companies in the markets would still be there, but the public option would be there as well. Nice and shinning and stable. Opening up into a full single payer model pushing the mega corps to cover only elective medical issues would just be the natural progression of things.

But with no public option in the mix, there is nothing to point to showing that Single Payer would be the better way forward for this country. You could debunk the various myths about the American Healthcare system being the best in the world, but that would require going deeper than talking points. In the current half assed version of political discord, talking points is about as deep as it gets any more.

So now are you "walking back" your comment that the ACA was "designed to fail?"

 

[Bardox]

So now are you "walking back" your comment that the ACA was "designed to fail?"

No, standing by that. It was meant to be the bridge to single payer. The resistance against single payer has always had the same draw back. The average American voter doesn't understand socialism much less socialized medicine, thus it's easy to demonize it with talk of death panels and other such idiocy. But, create a system with a bunch of crap insurance policies that cover a few million people, willing or not, and now you are not talking in hypotheticals, you are talking about taking something away from people.

Single payer was the end goal from the outset. I believe that would be the better system for this country. If the public option had not been removed from the ACA, we would be arguing over how best to transition a medicare-for-all system right now. That's the way it was suppose to go, but because of two dems in the Senate (Joe Lieberman and I can't remember the other) the public option was removed and this is where we are now. Single payer is not completely out of reach, but there are going to be several more hoops spread out of another 5 or 10 years before there is a chance.

Healthcare.gov was not and is not the end game. Still miles to go...