Republican healthcare plan: 24 million people could lose coverage, CBO reports

[Jim1cor13]

Thanks Scott. No doubt ACA has been imploding since it began. But the overall health care

system has been getting to that point even before ACA, due to costs which will take a long time

to become fair. Trump knows this, and knows it will be a challenge. He also knows about the pharma

lobbyists and others who have too many politicians in their pockets who also have profited handsomely

from ANY government involvement within health care. The "swamp" is full of them

 

One of the sections of the bill is said to wipe out the penalty, and then calls for insurance companies

to issue a penalty of 30% added to the customers premium if they went more than 63 days without insurance.

  So how does that wipe out the "penalty" tax, yet the person will still be penalized 30% per month for

1 year? On a 400$ premium, that is 120$ per month X 12. Double speak I think as always. Still a penalty, just not

being paid to the IRS it appears to me.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-13/trump-warns-it-could-take-several-years-for-health-costs-to-drop

President Donald Trump said it could take several years for health insurance prices to start to drop under an Obamacare replacement plan he is promoting, creating a rocky transition period that could pose a risk for members of Congress up for re-election next year and Trump’s own bid for a second term in 2020. 

In a meeting at the White House Monday with a group of small business owners, doctors and individuals who said their plans were canceled or that they saw a spike in health-insurance costs since Obamacare was enacted, Trump offered reassurances but warned that any relief won’t be immediate.

“More competition, less regulation will finally bring down the cost of care,” Trump told the group. “Unfortunately, it takes a while to get there because you have to let that marketplace kick in and it is going to take a little while to get there. Once it does, it is going to be a thing of beauty. I wish it didn’t take a year or two years. But that is what is going to happen.”

---

 

I hope he is right, costs must come down, or it will implode on its own. Maybe government should not be involved

at all. That does not mean people cannot get help, it just means government oppression will be a little less in

all our lives.

 

[bostonangler]

15 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV

"Not my problem" said the righteous poster.

 

B/A

[boomhand86]

Wow really 

[Shabibilicious]

Just now, boomhand86 said:

Wow really 

Been reported, just waiting for 5-0 to show up.

GO RV, then BV

[Jim1cor13]

38 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV

 

Today, most things are a 'false premise' unless of course that premise supports their opinions. "fake news" is everywhere,

has been for ages, but some do not believe that as long as what they see, hear or read supports their opinions or views.

 

As to your scenario yes, it is very real and happens daily. At some point, we all need help due to not being able to keep

up with constant rising costs, etc., not to mention sh!t that happens unexpected in life. But in this case, the outcome

was quite expected, but still mistakes happen and we all do stupid things.

 

To some that means someone must not have 'planned' every step of their life to perfection, so they have no compassion

or care about them. We all make mistakes, we all screw up at some point, but that does not mean government should be the

ultimate safety net but yet it HAS been the public safety net in many ways for a long time, and it has now become expected.

 

i do not think we should just swipe others away who need help because of "too bad for them" mentality. We live in a complicated

world now, mostly made that way for us by both politics and religion, but that is another story and one that will likely never change.

Thanks Shabs

 

[Jim1cor13]

Well, whoever posted that must be a joy to be around

 

Looks like the trolling just took on a whole new way of irritation.

[Jim1cor13]

Glad to see that mess was cleared up. Thank you TG

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, Jim1cor13 said:

 

Today, most things are a 'false premise' unless of course that premise supports their opinions. "fake news" is everywhere,

has been for ages, but some do not believe that as long as what they see, hear or read supports their opinions or views.

 

As to your scenario yes, it is very real and happens daily. At some point, we all need help due to not being able to keep

up with constant rising costs, etc., not to mention sh!t that happens unexpected in life. But in this case, the outcome

was quite expected, but still mistakes happen and we all do stupid things.

 

To some that means someone must not have 'planned' every step of their life to perfection, so they have no compassion

or care about them. We all make mistakes, we all screw up at some point, but that does not mean government should be the

ultimate safety net but yet it HAS been the public safety net in many ways for a long time, and it has now become expected.

 

i do not think we should just swipe others away who need help because of "too bad for them" mentality. We live in a complicated

world now, mostly made that way for us by both politics and religion, but that is another story and one that will likely never change.

Thanks Shabs

 

Thanks for the response, Jim.  It certainly is complicated mess we find ourselves in.  I don't think that "just rip it off" as in a band-aid mentality, is the right course of action.  But I also see how people have come to that point and respect their right to feel that way.  I just hate to see people good people hurt, when they aren't really the target.  As always, thank you for your respectful reply.

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

4 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV

I'm not sure why you think I would reply in a bad way to your post, but here goes. As a man that was not always a decent fellow I can tell you that I know something  of what you are speaking to. While the woman may not get the best medical help she would be taken care of through DHS. As for the child, it would receive the best care of all via the child protection services.  And if the mother were to fail to utilize the foregoing services then the child would come to the home of folks like B/A or myself. So what I am saying is that we already have a safety net in place for such instances. And when that net is not used it is usually the fault of the one that is tasked with the title of,"caregiver". But to further clarify I personally believe that is NOT the duty of the Government to see to such needs but the Church. And if your Church isn't doing all that it can for unwed mothers then they are NOT serving God and you need to find another Church.  

4 hours ago, bostonangler said:

"Not my problem" said the righteous poster.

 

B/A

It would appear that I've been the recipient of some vile attacks and so it seems that you think me some, "Holier Than Thou", personality. I find is sad because ever since I found out what you have done for your child in need I have given you a complete pass on your political views. Somehow I suspect that you have not been so polite here with me. But I wish to reach out to you in love and say that I forgive any transgression that may or may not have occurred.  I can only pray that you would understand from my reply to Shabbs that I personally would do all that I could for someone in need. I would even send you whatever amount of funds RIGHT NOW that you would need if you asked. But I simply don't think that the Government is the right choice for such assistance. 

3 hours ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Glad to see that mess was cleared up. Thank you TG

Yes, I too wish to thank you TG for whatever has happened. You know that I am Bipolar and I suspect that whatever was said would have given me a big problem. TG I wish to say that I love you so much and hope to have dinner with you some day. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by ladyGrace'sDaddy

[nstoolman1]

4 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV

What you are describing is what took place prior to ACA. A single mother and child could always head to the County hospital and get care. Cadillac Care? No. She would be cared for at no cost. She may have to wait a bit but there was care. 

[RV ME]

5 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Here goes.  I'm going to open this can of worms and you can take it or leave it.  This is not a false premise....it is merely a hypothetical situation.  Say a young woman gets pregnant, makes the right decision and decides to have her baby and shortly after, baby daddy takes a walk.  She works hard to pay the bills and care for her child, obviously taking advantage of all available financial aid.  How will she be affected?  Is she one of those that falls into the category of not planning for themselves, sorry about your luck, but don't you or your child get sick?  Worse case scenario for sure, but a very real possibility.

GO RV, then BV

Since we are talking hypotheticals, suppose this same woman had Obamacare and even though she had “insurance”, she still did not have the copay money required by the plan to pay the doctor.  The hypothetical woman and child are still in the same situation.

Therein lies the false premise.  Insurance does not equal healthcare.  But “insurance” did allow the all powerful federal government to become even more powerful and intrude into the private citizens lives like never before, and never designed.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

5 minutes ago, RV ME said:

Since we are talking hypotheticals, suppose this same woman had Obamacare and even though she had “insurance”, she still did not have the copay money required by the plan to pay the doctor.  The hypothetical woman and child are still in the same situation.

 

Therein lies the false premise.  Insurance does not equal healthcare.  But “insurance” did allow the all powerful federal government to become even more powerful and intrude into the private citizens lives like never before, and never designed.

 

 

Exactly why it should not be the guberments job