BREAKING: Trump’s First Legislative Effort Fails as G.O.P. Pulls Bill to Repeal Obamacare

Using your figures, 29 substantive amendments were passed by congress that came from republicans.
I see, what were those?

It is such a point of contention, it has been written about in the press.

Over 3000 pages of law and you want me to be grateful for 29 amendments of substance? And that term is not defined. The entire law was written by Democrats so what was there for them to amend?

Since you posted that stuff and posted a link, let's use your own link.

 

Look, you see cases filed by the guilty protesting the execution method though the man is entirely guilty as charged.

YES, I am collecting totally. I suppose in your eyes that means I must laud the law since the law provides for me. But my care is not due to the ACA. Medicare was set up to pay anyway. Medi-cal as California calls it was the law. I got nothing new from the ACA.

Look, as most are wary of exposing personal details knowing how democrats are, I came forth honestly to try to explain my call.

You know who else collects fully? Alice does. I won't give her name but she was a client who has to weigh more than 450 pounds. I ran into her when Bush was president so it must have been after 2000. I had to know her finances since she wanted me to find a mobile home for her and finance it for her. I learned way more than I wanted to know about this woman. She told me she has ADD. I did not realize one can get on the full government dole at a young age by having ADD. Her weight was a major problem. How she managed to lift herself off a chair is a miracle in my eyes.

Turns out she was on the full government dole and wanted me to use her benefits to qualify her. Still it was not enough though the purchase price was a mere $42,000. So it took her working brother being in the deal to make it work. His wages at his job saved her. I asked her how long she had been on the full dole since at the time she was maybe 40 years old. She got the full ride as she turned into a legal adult. She had been on the dole for many years.

This is what you are paying for. She could have changed her life by shedding those 3 women she had inside her. She was gross to see.

She got that without the ACA.

My benefits began prior to the ACA as well. I found the changes harmed my doctor. Made me worried he would dump all patients using the Feds for help.

Multiply that by the millions who got onto the ACA plan simply by getting a doctor to do the papers so he got paid. There are millions collecting that are really a lot younger than my 78 years age.

OK, see me as a hypocrite but bear in mind, me and millions are inside your wallet plucking out your dollars so we don't need a job to fend for ourselves. If you enjoy me plucking your dollars, I have no problem saying thanks a lot.

 

You don't get the program. i am not on the ACA. And Trump won't harm me. My program has been in effect prior to Obama being president. My doctor got crapped on by the ACA. He got hammered. I am fortunate he did not boot me off his patient list.

 

I guess you can afford to be taxed in total at least 60 percent of your income.

 

This is just Blue Shield of California's office locations, any idea what all that costs?



How about the Iowa office?

 

It was in effect because medicaid was not cut. Trump wants drastic cuts to medicaid. This effects you personally. You will probably be on the chopping block.....unless the democrats save you.

 

Same here, so bad he actually built a private surgical center, much like a hospital, no ER, and doesn't excepts Medicare or ACA patients.

 

As I said before, you might try reading instead of relying on what you remember seeing on CSPAN eight years ago. I'm glad to see you are finally doing some reading. I'm glad to see you admit that your recollections of what you saw on CSPAN were incorrect. That's real progress.

 

Your map shows the "local presence" BSC in California. That seems to be voluntary...
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/health-insurance-companies/anthem-bcbs-new-hampshire.

Your map does not help me understand your comments about a "Corporate Presence" requirement.

I've Googled - insurance companies "Corporate presence" requirement- but didn't find anything helpful.

 

Perhaps he did this because he can make more money by owning his own hospital. As a surgeon, he gets paid for the surgeries he performs. As a hospital owner, he makes money on all the surgeries he and his staff of surgeons perform.

This has nothing to do with ACA. Back in the 80's I knew an anesthesiologist who opened a bunch of health care clinics. He went from being very well off to being very rich.

This has nothing to do with just medicine. There are people who made pizzas and opened up their own stores.

All these people are called entrepreneurs.

 

Notice how there is Blue Cross "of California" and Blue Cross "of North Carolina". They have to have at least one corporate office in each state they sell insurance in or they don't sell insurance there. The states they sell in is voluntary to that extent. That adds a HUGE amount of overhead to to cost of health insurance. Right now I buy my auto insurance from a company in Maryland that has no offices in California.

 

No I know him quite well, he did it because of the ACA.

 

This is from the New York Times so you probably won't read it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/...health-insurance-across-state-lines.html?_r=0

 

The healthcare battle isn't over, the issue will be tackled again. If Republicans can put together something simpler, they probably could replace the monumental boondoggle of Obamacare.

About half the population has employer provided healthcare, 10% is covered by privately purchased plans, the rest are under expanded Medicaid and there are 15-20 million without coverage (probably those "undocumented immigrants").

My prescription; get a job.

 

Of course they say that because it will cut their insurance empire in half at least. Insurance is cheaper is some places due to there being more companies willing to jump into the market in any given state. Insurance it typically higher in states with a larger poor populations who tend to drink and smoke more as well have fewer companies willing to put that corporate presence in for higher instances of usage.

 

What are you referring to when you write "they say that"?

 

It's clear none of you know how insurance works. Insurance is a risk pool. If you do "across state lines" sales, you will have healthy people in states like Vermont, subsidizing obese people in Georgia. You're shifting the burden around and stealing wealth because the cost of doing so won't decrease insurance premiums.

Single payer or bust.

 

With some remaining doubts, I have to agree with you. IF implemented intelligently and fairly, single-payer could work very well.

The key (KEY) to making it work is to make very certain that everyone who is part of the system PAYS TO BE IN THE SYSTEM! No subsidies! No welfare! No bullshit!

Single-payer could be a resounding success because it would be the largest single customer bloc for medical insurance in the country -- by far! Because of its sheer "tonnage", it would command the best prices, the lowest co-pays, and the minimum deductions. Why? Because the insurance companies would have to COMPETE for our business!

Anybody who would refuse to be a PAYING part of the single-payer system can go get their own private medical care (the rich would do this), or, get on the Medicaid/Emergency Room free ride for those who won't/don't pay for their own medical care. No, it wouldn't be "deluxe" healthcare, but, it would be free to anybody who won't be part of the single-payer system. This would be the welfare component....

Main point -- you cannot (CANNOT) mix any of the welfare crap into a single-payer system or the moochers, bums, slackers, and parasites will kill it -- guaranteed, dead on arrival!

 

I 100% agree. No free rides for it, at all.

 

Healthcare insurance is a misnomer, this isn't insurance.

 

Why we haven't failed, we simply have confirmed one way that will not work!

Mo Brooks' one-sentence repeal (linked here and below):

Politicians may or may not wish to repeal ObamaCare; those that do also wish to replace it, i.e., promulgate some other "government program," i.e., opportunity for graft, influence-peddling, regulatory imposition, etc. Mo Brooks, on the contrary, seems to entertain the deeply heterodox idea of simply getting rid of the Leviathan.

I think Brooks's chances of success are approximately zero. But then some very smart people (I know they are smart because they told me so themselves) told me that Donald Trump could never, ever be president. The whole idea was ridiculous, beneath consideration, and a distraction from the serious business of maintaining the status quo, which no one says he likes but which an awful lot of people are doing very well out of, thank you very much.

It's still early, and PDT is virtually surrounded on all sides by enemies and yet, its his enemies that are screaming exhaustion and are clearly over-matched. The Left and the Press (but I repeat myself) say if he doesn't get his Obamacare Bill done in the first 100 days it's over. But, Donald Trump is unlike any president in our history, so conventional wisdom is out the window. He's managed quite a bit already so let's give it time. Aside from this, the big story is the coming storm over Neil Gorsuch, the evisceration of the Obama EPA energy regulations, sanctuary city sedition and the disintegration of the Democrat Party which is being completely embargoed by the propagandists.

Good Times!

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/369057.php

 

Ideally there would be free, ulimited first rate healthcare for everyone, the question is how to pay for this.Two inexorable trends pull in opposite directions; a falling birth-rate means fewer tax paying contributors, increasing longevity and advances in medicine mean a growing pool of consumers requiring more expensive treatments.

Seven years ago the CBO optimistically estimated there were enough healthy and productive millennials whose $3,000 annual contributions would adequately fund the needs of non-productive seniors requiring expensive chronic care, tinkering with subsidies and penalties they thought they could make this work.

The millenials didn't sign up, subsidies were improved but insurers dropped out and prices rose as coverage was reduced. Ten thousand baby boomers are retiring every day and joining the senior non-productive pool requiring costly chronic treatment. Now the millenials need to pitch in with about $5,000 a year for coverage they don't need but is requiring to provide for this growing pool of sickly elderly people.

How many healthy productive contributors overpaying for their unused healthcare does it take to provide for each retiree in need of chronic treatment? What happens as these elderly people live on beyond 80, 90 or even 100 years? Do they get free and unlimited access to innovative and expensive life-extending medical advances too?

At what point is the tax burden to sustain the lives of the elderly too high? Should there be no limit to the quality and duration of healthcare, or is there a limit to the number of healthy and productive people who can be held enslaved in poverty to extract every penny of their income to keep others alive? This is an exaggeration, but we face a Japanese scenario with millions of ancient people kept alive with first rate medical care and a shrinking labor pool contributing to cover these costs.

After defense spending, what should be eliminated to cover these growing costs?

 

-

You've got your facts essentially right, but I think you're ignoring one thing -- Boomers are not the only "problem"! At least Boomers paid into Medicare all the decades of their working lives -- we were forced to BY LAW. We've earned our retirement entitlements, which is a lot more than anyone can say about legion hordes of Millennial slacker bastards who've never worked, given up looking for work to go home and get on Mommy and Daddy's insurance (until they're 27 f**king years old!), or are living on fraudulent "disability" and other welfare scams.

Plus, focus on the good news! Yes, Boomers are retiring, but we're also dying like flies! Read the obits! Does anybody seriously think that, as a generation, we're all going to live into being 80-something or 90-something?! And the really good news is that most Boomers will probably be dead by the year 2032, which is the year that Social Security is projected to have a shortfall in money for the first time! You may find this very interesting: https://www.sott.net/article/305946-Portents-Young-Baby-boomers-death-rate-on-the-rise

Suggestion: put as much thought into getting Millennial slackers, moochers, leeches, and parasites off of their dead asses and into the work force as many of you do into screwing Boomers who have already EARNED their retirements, and you'll be much closer to better, more lasting solutions....

 

You can either make healthcare cheap or profitable. Your doctor is evidence that you can't have both.