ACA/Obamacare Repeal/Replace Drama

[GMDino]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/24/trump_says_he_never_promised_to_repeal_obamacare_quickly_a_list_of_times.html?utm_content=inf_10_2641_2&wpsrc=socialedge&tse_id=INF_c92f92c0115511e7af245d7f4020bc76

Quote:Trump Says He Never Promised to Quickly Repeal Obamacare. Here’s a Bunch of Times He Promised Exactly That.



President Trump stands during a news conference in the East Room at the White House on Feb. 16.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Republican leaders in the House pulled their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare from the floor on Friday afternoon once it became clear that it did not have the votes needed to pass. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Donald Trump suggested that this was simply all part of his plan. “You've all heard my speeches,” he said. “I never said ‘repeal it and replace it within 64 days.’ I have a long time. But I want to have a great health care bill and plan—and we will and it will happen.”


Hmm. That doesn’t sound quite right.


Here is a small sampling of all the times Donald Trump promised that repealing and replacing Obamacare would be a quick and relatively painless lift, one that he would get to right away.

Jan. 24, 2015, in a speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit:

Quote:“Somebody has to repeal and replace Obamacare. And they have to do it fast and not just talk about it.”

Feb. 9, 2016, on Twitter:

Quote:[/url] Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
We will immediately repeal and replace ObamaCare - and nobody can do that like me. We will save $'s and have much better healthcare!
5:15 PM - 9 Feb 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   11,80411,804 Retweets
   
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=697182075045179392] 18,73018,730 likes
  

Feb. 22, 2016, at a campaign rally:

Quote:“Obamacare is going to be repealed and replaced. … You’re going to end up with great health care for a fraction of the price and that’s gonna take place immediately after we go in. Okay? Immediately. Fast. Quick.”

March 3, 2016, on his campaign website (on a page that has since been deleted):

Quote:“On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.”

Oct. 27, via the Detroit News:

Quote:“Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing Obamacare. What a mess,” Trump told an enthusiastic crowd of thousands at the SeaGate Convention Center in downtown Toledo, his second of three Thursday rallies in Ohio.

Nov. 1, via Politico:

Quote:“When we win on Nov. 8 and elect a Republican Congress, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare. We have to do it,” Trump said Tuesday afternoon in an address on the Affordable Care Act in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Quote:“I will ask Congress to convene a special session so we can repeal and replace,” he continued. “And it will be such an honor for me, for you and for everybody in this country because Obamacare has to be replaced. And we will do it, and we will do it very, very quickly. It is a catastrophe.”

Nov. 7, via Roll Call:

Quote:“Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare,” Trump told a crowd in Grand Rapids, Michigan, during his final campaign rally on Monday evening. “It has just been announced that the residents of Michigan are going to experience a massive, double-digit premium hike, like you wouldn’t believe. It’s not going to matter that much, honestly, because we’re going to terminate it. You’re not going to have to worry about it, OK? Don’t worry.”

Jan. 10, via the New York Times:

Quote:President-elect Donald J. Trump demanded on Tuesday that Congress immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act and pass another health law quickly. His remarks put Republicans in the nearly impossible position of having only weeks to replace a health law that took nearly two years to pass.

Quote:“We have to get to business,” Mr. Trump told The New York Times in a telephone interview. “Obamacare has been a catastrophic event.” Mr. Trump appeared to be unclear both about the timing of already scheduled votes in Congress and about the difficulty of his demand — a repeal vote “probably some time next week” and a replacement “very quickly or simultaneously, very shortly thereafter.”

Jan. 11, via Politico:

Quote:The president-elect, addressing reporters at a news conference in New York, said his administration will submit a plan to repeal and replace the law, known as Obamacare, “almost simultaneously, shortly thereafter” his pick for secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, is confirmed.

Quote:“It will be repeal and replace,” Trump said. “It will be essentially simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably the same day. Could be the same hour.”

I guess in the president's defense, he's right: He never said 64 days.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2017, 11:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/24/trump_says_he_never_promised_to_repeal_obamacare_quickly_a_list_of_times.html?utm_content=inf_10_2641_2&wpsrc=socialedge&tse_id=INF_c92f92c0115511e7af245d7f4020bc76

You don't understand how it works with Trump supporters.

It does not matter if he tells total and complete lies.  They just love that he "speaks from the heart".  That is all that matters to them.

[Dill]

(03-25-2017, 12:44 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Truly miserable shitbag asshole of a president is horrible for our country. Lets movevon to better and bigger ideas like blowing billions of dollars on a wall while our vital infrastructure crumbles. And come up with some lame ass idea to make Mexico pay for that really increases costs of living for average Americans.

Orange numb nuts *****. I sure could use a time machine.

The worst is still to come, but there is a silver lining on this shitbag.

Over the last two decades, people have complained about Democrats, urged on by wildly irresponsible news sources, and so turned to Republicans to take their country back. They did it in 2000, 2004 and now 2016, each time, predictably, with increasingly disastrous results.

Trump will be more difficult to explain away, especially with Republican control of the house and senate.  His "base," those who were never able to see or understand the numerous red flags he raised throughout during the campaign, will remain loyal and continue to support his battle against the "Obama deep state" which is unfairly preventing him from winning.

It was a win for American people making under $250,000 that the AHCA flopped, but had it passed, the end of Trump and Republican control of Congress might sooner end.

When the critical mass needed for regime change is finally reached, it will be a long time before undecideds again have such trouble choosing between competence and outsiders ready to "shake up Washington"; and millions of people who previously didn't vote because "both parties are the same" will now know the difference. If they can't always recognize competence, we can count on them to vote against incompetence.

This disaster may not only benefit the Democrats, as Republicans may also begin to vote more responsibly.

[GMDino]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ahca-republicans-trump-ryan-blame-game

Quote:Republicans Point Fingers As Health Care Bill Goes Down In Flames

SHARE
TWEET
PIN-IT
166 Comments
Bookmark

Jim Loscalzo

This week, GOP leaders dubbed President Donald Trump "the Closer" and insisted he could win over dissenting Republicans and ensure the passage of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But the Closer didn't close.

A half an hour before the bill was set to go to the floor on Friday, it was pulled, in a mercy-killing ensured by revolts in both the moderate and conservative wings of the party.

Now, in the wake of an embarrassing defeat, the White House and Republicans are pointing fingers at one another and scrambling to avoid blame.

For President Trump, the culprit was immediately "the Democrats," despite the fact that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, and GOP lawmakers made clear from the outset that they planned to use a process that did not require Democratic votes. Those who played key roles in the effort also blamed the Freedom Caucus, the hardline conservative group with a proven record in derailing legislation. The hardliners, meanwhile, argued GOP leadership should have made the process more open to their concerns. The moderates who also resisted the bill were accused by some of chickening out.

Yet lawmakers walked very carefully in describing the role that President Trump—who has shown little interest in health policy—played in the bill's demise.

"The private sector and the political realities are very different. They're just so different," Trump ally Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) admitted, talking to reporters Friday morning about the President's failed hard sell. "This is the cold light of day coming forward to say: politics is not the private sector."

Following Friday's debacle, the Freedom Caucus had the biggest target on its back, given its its history of picking fights with its own party.

"This is not the first time that I've seen an issue of pretty significant magnitude get bogged down because of some fringe opposition," said Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), one of many Republican leaders to criticize the hardline caucus.

"The Freedom Caucus wins. They get Obamacare forever," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) who chairs the subcommittee on Health under Energy and Commerce, grumbled when coming out of the conference meeting where members were told the bill was being pulled.
Collins, on Friday morning, called the group "three dozen members who don't compromise."

"They are still acting as though we're an opposition party. We've been the opposition party for eight years, and the governing party for two months," he said.

Yet members of the Freedom Caucus showed little remorse for their role in how things ended.

"It is a good day for America that we’ve had a very vigorous public policy debate," Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), a caucus member opposed to the bill, told reporters after it was pulled. "Sometimes those policy debates result in passage of legislation that’s good. Sometimes those policy debates result in the killing of bad legislation. In my judgment this was the killing of bad legislation, in which case it would be considering a good day for America.”

Fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) turned the finger back at House Speaker Paul Ryan and the rest of the leadership team, arguing that their approach to the bill "was not correct."

"They said it was an open process, but when members had amendments that they wanted to see in the bill, they were told the amendments would be destructive to the process. That's not how legislative bodies should work," he said.

But lawmakers are not yet demanding Ryan lose his speakership, and many spent Friday defending him for trying his best.

“The speaker is a human being. He’s not Superman," Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) told reporters. "There’s enough diversity in our conference and enough intensity on this issue that we didn’t quite get there.”

The bill was not brought down, it should be noted, by the Freedom Caucus alone. Moderates were uncomfortable throughout the process, some more vocally then others, and another late-in-the game concession to conservatives Thursday night pushed some to come out against the bill in the hours leading up to the vote.

"A bunch of the problems we are experiencing now are in my opinion are things that would have worked themselves out through a regular hearing process," Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), who opposed the bill because of how it affected his Medicaid expansion state, told reporters Friday morning.

Supporters of the bill, meanwhile, pointed out that many of the GOP opponents voted for 2015 legislation that was vetoed by President Obama that was even more aggressive than the bill pulled Friday.

Very few were willing to criticize Trump himself, and the commander in chief decided to place the blame the Democrats.

“We were very close; it was a very, very tight margin,” Trump said. “We had no Democrat support. We had no votes from the Democrats. They weren't going to give us a single vote, so it's a very difficult thing to do.”

In a press conference before it was announced that the bill was pulled, White House Press Secretary Secretary Sean Spicer preemptively absolved Trump of any blame, arguing that "the president and the team here have left everything on the field" and that "at the end of the day, you can't force somebody to do something."

"This isn't a dictatorship," Spicer said. “You can’t force someone to vote a certain way.”

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 02:52 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The price discrimination works in the opposite direction you claimed and HSAs have zero affect on costs, so your "major transformation" amounts to less than spitting in the ocean.

I didn't say HSAs would reduce costs, I said it would reduce what you pay.  This is basic risk management - you build up a "rainy day" fund, and that allows you to take higher deductibles (and lower premiums) because you have a cushion.  Put another way, I'm talking about the concept of being overinsured.

Insurance companies make most of their money on the float from your "unsused" premiums.  Over, say, 20 years without significant claims (say when you're younger) you could have set aside tens of thousands of dollars in your own HSA that would be generating thousands in returns each year.

I don't think you understood what I was saying about price discrimination.  Look at a bill sometime for hospitalization and tests - you'll see a price for thousands of dollars (what you would pay without insurance), but your insurance company might pay only 10% of that.  Without insurance, you're hooked for $20k.  With insurance, you might pay $500.

Many corporations save money by self-insuring.  What I'm saying is HSA, combined with eliminating that artificial pricing above, would give you an opportunity to save money by self-insuring for non-catastrophic losses.  We can't really afford to do this in the existing system, because we aren't putting $2500 at risk we're risking $20k (which dramatically changes the economics).

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-25-2017, 07:52 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I didn't say HSAs would reduce costs, I said it would reduce what you pay.  This is basic risk management - you build up a "rainy day" fund, and that allows you to take higher deductibles (and lower premiums) because you have a cushion.  Put another way, I'm talking about the concept of being overinsured.

Insurance companies make most of their money on the float from your "unsused" premiums.  Over, say, 20 years without significant claims (say when you're younger) you could have set aside tens of thousands of dollars in your own HSA that would be generating thousands in returns each year.

I don't think you understood what I was saying about price discrimination.  Look at a bill sometime for hospitalization and tests - you'll see a price for thousands of dollars (what you would pay without insurance), but your insurance company might pay only 10% of that.  Without insurance, you're hooked for $20k.  With insurance, you might pay $500.

Many corporations save money by self-insuring.  What I'm saying is HSA, combined with eliminating that artificial pricing above, would give you an opportunity to save money by self-insuring for non-catastrophic losses.  We can't really afford to do this in the existing system, because we aren't putting $2500 at risk we're risking $20k (which dramatically changes the economics).

(03-24-2017, 08:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd love to see a health savings accounts for individuals again.  A 401k-type option, IMO, might  have the single biggest impact to reduce costs

And LOL at the rest.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 08:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And LOL at the rest.

Reading comprehension tripped you up again?  "Costs", as in what the consumer pays, specifically deadweight costs.  If I use my milk more efficiently, and don't waste any, would you disagree that my cost for milk goes down even while the price of milk remains the same?

Laugh all you want - you're not fooling anyone into thinking you understand what's being discussed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-25-2017, 08:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Reading comprehension tripped you up again?  "Costs", as in what the consumer pays, specifically deadweight costs.  If I use my milk more efficiently, and don't waste any, would you disagree that my cost for milk goes down even while the price of milk remains the same?

Laugh all you want - you're not fooling anyone into thinking you understand what's being discussed.

LOL

(03-25-2017, 07:52 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Look at a bill sometime for hospitalization and tests - you'll see a price for thousands of dollars (what you would pay without insurance), but your insurance company might pay only 10% of that.  Without insurance, you're hooked for $20k.  With insurance, you might pay $500.

An expert such as yourself should know the providers require the patient sign an agreement that they are responsible for any charges the insurance doesn't pay before they are even seen for an office visit. If the bill is $20K and the insurance only pays 10%, the patient is on the hook for $18,000.

That is a fact.

Your insults won't change it.

[GMDino]

Watch @JudgeJeanine on @FoxNews tonight at 9:00 P.M.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

Judge Jeanine's first words on her show tonight: "Paul Ryan needs to step down" https://t.co/ffhhqioIBH

— Yashar (@yashar) March 26, 2017

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 09:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If the bill is $20K and the insurance only pays 10%, the patient is on the hook for $18,000.

No, that's not how it works.  You're responsible for any charges not covered, but the insurance company has already negotiated pricing for COVERED procedures that are very different from what is on your bill. I assume you've never had an actual insurance claim, or never bothered to look at your bill?

At least take 4 seconds to google and get educated.  Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-25-2017, 11:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Watch @JudgeJeanine on @FoxNews tonight at 9:00 P.M.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

Judge Jeanine's first words on her show tonight: "Paul Ryan needs to step down" https://t.co/ffhhqioIBH

— Yashar (@yashar) March 26, 2017

If I want my ears to bleed I will tune in to that vile lady. Thanks for the opinion though prez shitbag.

He is convinced the American health care system will explode. So where is he? A Trump branded golf course.

 Trump is hacking up giant snot filled loogies and spitting in the face of the American people. But morons will continue to show up to his weekly rallies because judge jeanine, hannity, alex jones, and the rest of those ass clowns told them to.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-25-2017, 11:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, that's not how it works.  You're responsible for any charges not covered, but the insurance company has already negotiated pricing for COVERED procedures that are very different from what is on your bill. I assume you've never had an actual insurance claim, or never bothered to look at your bill?

At least take 4 seconds to google and get educated.  Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

No shit, Sherlock. If the insurance company only reimburses the provider 10% (the "COVERED" part) of what the provider charged, who do you think pays for what isn't "COVERED"? The patient. Your bill shows the insurance company's payment (what they negotiated to pay) and the patient is responsible for the remaining balance. So if the provider charges $20K, but the insurance company negotiated a $2K reimbursement, the patient is responsible for the balance or $18K.

You just confirmed what I wrote, but you don't even realize it. You're f'n hilarious. Thanks for setting me straight. LMFAO

[JustWinBaby]

(03-26-2017, 01:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No shit, Sherlock. If the insurance company only reimburses the provider 10% (the "COVERED" part) of what the provider charged, who do you think pays for what isn't "COVERED"?  The patient. Your bill shows the insurance company's payment (what they negotiated to pay) and the patient is responsible for the remaining balance. So if the provider charges $20K, but the insurance company negotiated a $2K reimbursement, the patient is responsible for the balance or $18K.

You just confirmed what I wrote, but you don't even realize it. You're f'n hilarious. Thanks for setting me straight. LMFAO

You're very, extremely, dense.  Anyone in this thread with the ability to use Google knows you are entirely clueless.  Anyone who has ever looked at an insurance bill knows you're wrong. What you just said, and have been saying, is so extremely ignorant that you should be banned.

You have no idea how insurance works, so please stop posting.  Just stop.  You'd be embarrassed if someone helped you to know better.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-26-2017, 02:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're very, extremely, dense.  Anyone in this thread with the ability to use Google knows you are entirely clueless.  Anyone who has ever looked at an insurance bill knows you're wrong. What you just said, and have been saying, is so extremely ignorant that you should be banned.

You have no idea how insurance works, so please stop posting.  Just stop.  You'd be embarrassed if someone helped you to know better.

The insurance company doesn't send you a bill. The insurance company sends you an explanation of benefits which says, "This is not a bill." It details what payments the insurance company made on your behalf IAW your policy. It also details what wasn't covered. Would you like to know why it says, "This is not a bill"? Because the provider is the one who rendered services, not the insurance company. Therefore, the provider sends you a bill charging you for the services they, not the insurance company, provided.

The bill the provider sends you details the charges, the insurance payment (which you can compare to the EOB sent from the insurance company), and the balance. The patient is responsible for the balance. Why? Because the patient must sign a statement of financial responsibility stating they are ultimately responsible for any charges the insurance company doesn't cover. If the patient refuses to sign the statement of financial responsibility then they aren't seen except in the case of an ER visit IAW EMTALA.

If the provider's charges are $20K, but a self pay patient is only responsible for $500 that equals a 97.5% discount. That's insurance fraud with any provider who participates with Medicare (which is virtually everybody) due to various anti inducement and kickback laws.

Your insults don't change any of that, either. But, they do make me laugh.

[GMDino]

Governing is hard when you have to DO things and take responsibility for them.

Paul Ryan's most revealing line: "We were a 10-year opposition party… being against things was easy to do." pic.twitter.com/Kn2AG0814T

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 24, 2017

[fredtoast]

(03-26-2017, 10:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The insurance company doesn't send you a bill. The insurance company sends you an explanation of benefits which says, "This is not a bill."  It details what payments the insurance company made on your behalf IAW your policy. It also details what wasn't covered.  Would you like to know why it says, "This is not a bill"?  Because the provider is the one who rendered services, not the insurance company. Therefore, the provider sends you a bill charging you for the services they, not the insurance company, provided.

The bill the provider sends you details the charges, the insurance payment (which you can compare to the EOB sent from the insurance company), and the balance. The patient is responsible for the balance. Why?  Because the patient must sign a statement of financial responsibility stating they are ultimately responsible for any charges the insurance company doesn't cover. If the patient refuses to sign the statement of financial responsibility then they aren't seen except in the case of an ER visit IAW EMTALA.

If the provider's charges are $20K, but a self pay patient is only responsible for $500 that equals a 97.5% discount. That's insurance fraud with any provider who participates with Medicare (which is virtually everybody) due to various anti inducement and kickback laws.

Your insults don't change any of that, either. But, they do make me laugh.

Rep.

A savings fund is a great idea to use for health care as long as you know for sure that you will not need any health care until you have a lot of money saved.  But what happens if you get sick or injured before you get any money saved up?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-26-2017, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Rep.

A savings fund is a great idea to use for health care as long as you know for sure that you will not need any health care until you have a lot of money saved.  But what happens if you get sick or injured before you get any money saved up?

Like everything else, HSAs have their advantages and disadvantages. Like the $3400 annual limit for JustWinBaby's individual policy. That won't even pay for one month of care for a person with Alzheimer's.

Also, a payment of $500 for $20K worth of services wouldn't even cover the cost of the services being rendered.

Lastly, what JustWinBaby suggests is illegal. Medicare and other private insurances monitor stuff like that and it would trigger a Medicare investigation. Each individual case could result in an 11K fine, treble damages for violating the anti kickback and inducement laws, the provider could be barred from participating with Medicare, and it would permanently affect their credentials.

[BmorePat87]

Wait, so an awful bill combined with zero experience in legislating and a complete lack of understanding of how district level politics work led to a complete failure?

I'm shocked.

[NATI BENGALS]

So the grand brilliant idea coming from the idiots who obstructed and called themselves the party of no for the last 8 years is now to let our health care system collapse. And then they will do something about it. All those years of bitching and moaning and wanting power. And that is the solution we get.


Genius way to make America great again. Let the god damn health industry implode.

Bunch of incompetent shitheads. I really don't know how anyone can defend these actions.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2017, 04:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So the grand brilliant idea coming from the idiots who obstructed and called themselves the party of no for the last 8 years is now to let our health care system collapse. And then they will do something about it. All those years of bitching and moaning and wanting power. And that is the solution we get.


Genius way to make America great again. Let the god damn health industry implode.

Bunch of incompetent shitheads. I really don't know how anyone can defend these actions.

The health care industry won't implode.  The GOP will do its best to defund parts of the ACA and then when people see they aren't getting the support that the ACA provides they'll try to blame the program and not their own actions.

Meanwhile the insurance companies will continue to rake in the profits and the citizens will continue to get screwed.