Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
52 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Trump open to compromise on Obamacare? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Thoughtful_Conservatives_Posting [+] [View All]
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/donald-trump-obamacar...

There was discussion going on about keeping people with pre-existing conditions on coverage.

Quote:
Trump told the paper he was reconsidering his stance after Thursday's meeting with President Barack Obama, who urged him to protect parts of the law. Trump said he would like to keep the provision forbidding discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and to allow young Americans to remain on their parents' healthcare plans.
"Either Obamacare will be amended, or repealed and replaced," he said, acknowledging that it was Obama, who met with Trump in the Oval Office for 90 minutes, who encouraged him to reconsider. "I told him I will look at his suggestions, and out of respect, I will do that."
That position is not entirely new -- he did say as much at least once during the primaries. But the statement, three days after Americans elected him president, is a fresh sign that he may be willing to distance himself from some of his campaign positioning, such as calling for the immediate repeal and replace of Obamacare.


I sure hope that they find a way to keep people with pre-existing conditions on coverage.

I wonder if Republicans will be fighting him hard on it and if his support will turn on him if he starts going back on his promises to them.

Also people are freaking out that they will lose coverage:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/news/economy/obamacare-losin...

I'm trying to keep an open mind that things will not go as bad as I feared with a Trump presidency.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
You have to think that the political pressure on pre-existing conditions will be enormous. I'm still skeptical given his seeming faith in insurance companies (repasting this from the other thread) as exhibited in a debate:

He was asked in a debate about pre-existing conditions. This is part of his response:

Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?

TRUMP: I think they're wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.

My feeling is that his solution could be:

They offer plans for pre-existing conditions, which will end up having exorbitant premiums. But Trump will make sure that they are tax deductible. Of course, if you're just barely making ends meet, you won't be able to afford the sky high premiums to begin with and even if you can somehow scrape together the money, the deductions will never be enough to cover a fraction of it given that it will probably be higher than whatever you were paying in taxes to begin with.

Which will be a disaster.

I guess we'll have to see.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Duh.

I still don't trust the bastard.

More than him I don't trust congress.

I HOPE he is pandering to congress at the moment and the people can convince repubs in congress to do the right thing.

Edit: even if they do the right thing, the big consequence of Obamacare is irreversible, and will come to bite us in the ass in decades to come.

We now have a Supreme Court decision that laws can force people to conduct business with companies simply because they commit the crime of being alive.


We may have a new Supreme Court coming in that can straighten some of this damage out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to be really clear, here is his "Contract with the American Voter"

https://cbsmiami.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/trump-100-day-p...

Quote:
It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty and accountability, and bringing change to Washington.


Great! Here are his list of promises, with the purpose to restore HONESTY to Washington.

Second page under "I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Quote:
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act

Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings
Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across
state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds.


I don't know what the record is for breaking a campaign promise, but this has got to be close.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm looking forward to the day when Trump changes his mind on one of the big promises he made to the dumbasses conservatives. This already seems like a major betrayal to me... "I'm going to abolish Obamacare!" now becomes, "Well, maybe not abolish it, maybe I'll just modify it a little bit".

In any case, as I already pointed out, Trump isn't going to be able to get a damn thing he wants done due to gridlock in the Senate. The Republicans won't send him any of the bills he wants and even if house passes a bill it isn't getting through the Senate without some massive pork to bribe one or two Senators into supporting it. The filibuster rules aren't going to get changed either, so he still needs 60% of the vote for most things.

None of the Republicans are afraid of Trump. They know he only got 47% of the vote, and he only got it because there wasn't any other option. Right around 50% of Republican voters hate him. The man has no juice. A year from now Trump will just be sitting in the oval office tweeting about how everyone is mistreating him. By that time, everyone but his high school drop out supporters won't give a shit about him anymore, assuming he hasn't been impeached before then for raping an intern or stealing a few billion dollars.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

If you guys think Trump is going to keep *ANY* of his campaign promises, you are just as crazy as the man himself!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?


We need a law to get fire insurance after a fire?

Or does that make sense to you?

People make choices. Your example makes no sense.

Now, if you wanted to discuss sensible changes in law, such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, and such, in order to make insurance affordable then yeah, we can talk.

Health Insurance should have options more like auto insurance. You pay out of pocket for minor things such as oil changes and check ups. Not a straight example, but the basic point stands.


Koldfoot - the pre-existing condition also covers situations where you change jobs and will change insurance. Under the old model, the new insurance company could deny you coverage.

Pretty shitty thing to deal with - stay trapped in a job or don't have tour XYZ covered....

This is a clear winner across all political realms - it will not be taken away.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I said elsewhere here, unless trump has a large risk pool then premiums will be too high for anyone but the top 20%.

My friends had a daughter with a preexisting condition back in 2005? 6? and premiums were $12,000 per year. They paid as long as they could and then went without health insurance until the ACA was passed. They've had insurance since then but when the ACA is removed, they'll lose their insurance again because even tho their daughter has moved out and is college both have developed pre-existing conditions as well now that they are over 50. Their daughter will lose her ACA insurance as well. Without medication, she'll slowly turn from a productive college student with a normal life into this bizarre non talking thing that can't look at you and doesn't talk.

So saying, "okay, I'm not removing your protection from pre-existing conditions but I'm also not requiring anyone to get health insurance" means the premiums would simply become too high for most people to pay.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


You're an evil bastard for saying this. That's basically leaving sick people with no options until, eventually, the emergency room.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?


We need a law to get fire insurance after a fire?

Or does that make sense to you?

People make choices. Your example makes no sense.

Now, if you wanted to discuss sensible changes in law, such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, and such, in order to make insurance affordable then yeah, we can talk.

Health Insurance should have options more like auto insurance. You pay out of pocket for minor things such as oil changes and check ups. Not a straight example, but the basic point stands.


Koldfoot - the pre-existing condition also covers situations where you change jobs and will change insurance. Under the old model, the new insurance company could deny you coverage.

Pretty shitty thing to deal with - stay trapped in a job or don't have tour XYZ covered....

This is a clear winner across all political realms - it will not be taken away.


And you are assuming that insurance will be tied to a job.

That is part of the problem.

In decades past, when the economy was good, insurance was a popular benefit. People began to think of insurance as a benefit.

That way of thinking ought to change. If people sought their own insurance premiums would go down. Coverage options would change. A healthy man would not need abortion coverage mandated by law, for example. He could choose options suitable to him and pay only for those, while an elderly lady could do the same. Right now, with your mindset, insurance options are 1 boilerplate option or possibly 2 or 3 boilerplate options if you have a gooood job.

Free markets work. Insurance does not need to be tied to a job.


You can't get affordable prices without a reasonably mixed large risk pool. That's why employee based insurance works and private insurance doesn't work. That's why millions of citizens weren't insured by 2008.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Baird
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
mrspank wrote:

You're an evil bastard for saying this. That's basically leaving sick people with no options until, eventually, the emergency room.


It's the people currently suffering mental problems. It's the people currently suffering things like autism. It's the people currently suffering Crohns & genetic diseases. There's all sorts of medical conditions that aren't self-induced. All of those people (including family & good friends) where insured at the whimsy of insurance companies before ACA.

And never mind us that'll get seriously sick.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Baird
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Koldfoot wrote:
Insurance does not need to be tied to a job.


I'm fine with this as long as there's sufficient safeguards, fallbacks & security in place.

I strongly suspect that as soon as most big businesses can, they'll cut the amount they pay towards employees premiums without transferring the savings to employees through HSAs or cash. I mean, duh.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?


We need a law to get fire insurance after a fire?

Or does that make sense to you?

People make choices.


People make the choice to get cancer? Have genetic conditions? Get in accidents that cripple them for life?

13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?


We need a law to get fire insurance after a fire?

Or does that make sense to you?

People make choices.


People make the choice to get cancer? Have genetic conditions? Get in accidents that cripple them for life?


The republican health care plan: Don't get sick. Or if you do, die.
15 
 Thumb up
5.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
mrspank wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


You're an evil bastard for saying this. That's basically leaving sick people with no options until, eventually, the emergency room.


Fuck off.

It makes no more sense than letting a person buy fire insurance after the fire.

You can't force people to be responsible. You are a fool to try.

Furthermore, without gov't involved in healthcare prices would go down. Medicare is not going anywhere, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. People without insurance will still have options, to include paying out of pocket.


You're equating objects to people. It makes perfect sense to insure everyone in this country no matter what their needs.

Your analogy also fails because the person with preexisting conditions will be a giant burden on the tax system because we STILL have to pay for them once they go to the emergency room.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dispaminite wrote:
Donald wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
jeff brown wrote:
So are you conservatives hoping that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to get coverage? I'm trying to understand what everyone is saying.


That is a good first step.


Why?


We need a law to get fire insurance after a fire?

Or does that make sense to you?

People make choices.


People make the choice to get cancer? Have genetic conditions? Get in accidents that cripple them for life?


The republican health care plan: Don't get sick. Or if you do, die.


It's more than that even. Eventually they go to the emergency room. Maybe once, maybe twice, maybe even more. Those visits are very expensive and STILL have to be paid for by the taxpayer.

If everyone had insurance from birth to death we'd save a shit ton of money in the long run. People with asthma (a preexisting condition that insurance companies could deny in Koldfoot's world) would simply go to a clinic, be diagnosed and get an inhaler with a copay. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than having that person wheeze and wheeze until an emergency room visit.

You must see this as a scenario in your fucked system, Koldie.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Koldfoot proceeds to waste his time:

Auto insurance.

Ever been in a fender bender and was shocked at the estimate to straighten the bumper and get the ring out of a quarter panel?

It's outfuckingrageous. Thousands of dollars.

I can get a new engine and have it INSTALLED for $1500. I've had a transmission rebuilt for less than the cost of repairing a dinged door panel.

Why?

Because the other guy's insurance pays for it. I don't give a fuck what it costs. I'm not paying for it. Prices for bodywork have gradually gone through the roof to the point a common guy can't afford to pay out of pocket.

The same principle applies to health insurance.

Let's take a look at another realm of healthcare. Veterinarians.

I can take my sick dog to the new vet in town, WHO IS A PERFECTLY GOOD VET, and negotiate a price. Or, if I can afford it, I can take my dog to the established vet with a good reputation and pay through the nose, although his prices are still in line with market rates and are still reasonable.

Vets operate in a free market. Vet care is generally very good in most locations, AND very affordable.

Doctors in Mexico operate in a more free market. Many Americans cross the border for dental care and such which is not covered by their insurance. They get very good care. And it's affordable.

If you go into a doctors office today in America without insurance you can negotiate a price. The doc may or may not play ball. A new, but perfectly good doc, is probably more likely to.

This notion that healthcare is inaccessible without gov't handouts is wrong, socialist, ignorant and dare I say.... much more evil than I am for pointing it out.


You constantly ignore the most expensive part of your scenario. Sick people, without insurance, end up in the emergency room. Many times more than just once. I know. My wife is a nurse at HCMC who's job revolves around reducing the number of return emergency room visits for cardiac patients.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Shelburne
Vermont
flag msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:

Free markets work.

No, they don't. Not even in theory and even less so in practice.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess I called it.
Yeah, I am just some giant idiot though.
I wonder what he will actually do in the end. Or SUGGEST to congress to do since they are the ones that write law.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
A reasonable compromise might be to allow those with preexisting conditions to join/pay into Medicare. That takes them out of the private markets and allows those markets to operate as they were originally intended. It also takes the onus off of hospitals for providing emergency care to those with chronic conditions.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For those supporting the public medicine angle, we always need to keep in mind that there is a reasonable balance in there.

Spending tiny amounts of money for basic care and generic pills can save even larger amounts of money.

But, we can't save people who cost a million dollars a year, every year for the rest of their lives.

And we probably can't save people who cost $100,000 a year, every year for the rest of their lives.

And that is a very hard choice that has to be made by someone. From past behavior, the insurance companies put very callous people over that area and then incent them to be even more callous. They cut too easily and too unreasonably.

Some of koldfoot's ideas are crazily unreasonable but at least he's talking frankly.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The problem with decoupling insurance from jobs is that insurees lose the leverage that leads to lower group rates. Replacements could be found, but employers meet all the requirements for bargaining leverage (size, expertise, etc.) and have always been a natural fit.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Single Payer.
8 
 Thumb up
0.12
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.