Initial attempts to sign up for ObamaCare go about as well as expected

[rmt]

:lol rmt, you're conned fool, benighted by ideology and bullshit

No, bou, it's an educated guess backed up by this year's data. Everyone's rushing to sign up and do their procedures before Obamacare gets repealed.

[boutons_deux]

Judge Rules Aetna Lied About Reason for Leaving Obamacare Exchanges

This is a really critical story (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html) on a number of levels.

The debate over Obamacare has been shaped to a great extent over the last year by Aetna's decision to withdraw from exchanges in a number of states because, it claimed, it was losing money.

But in a ruling today which blocked a proposed merger between Aetna and Humana (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3403755/Aetna-Ruling.pdf), federal Judge John D. Bates held that Aetna's claim was bogus.

Rather than being a business decision based on the inability to make a profit in those states, Bates

ruled that Aetna had withdrawn from Obamacare exchanges at least in part as a strategy to threaten its way out of the anti-trust case.

From Michael Hiltzik's piece in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html) ...

Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. In fact, he noted,

Aetna pulled out of some states and counties that were actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense — and then misled the public about its motivations.

Bates’ analysis relies in part on a “smoking gun” letter to the Justice Department in which Chief Executive Mark Bertolini explicitly ties Aetna’s participation in Obamacare to the DOJ’s actions on the merger, which we reported in August.

But it goes much further.Among the locations where Aetna withdrew were 17 counties in three states where the Department of Justice asserted that the merger would produce unlawfully low levels of competition.

By pulling out, Aetna could say that it wasn’t competing in those counties anyway, rendering the government’s point moot: “The evidence provides persuasive support for the conclusion that Aetna withdrew from the on-exchange markets in the 17 complaint counties to improve its litigation position,” Bates wrote. “The Court does not credit the minimal efforts of Aetna executives to claim otherwise.”

Indeed, he wrote,

Aetna’s decision to pull out of the exchange business in Florida was “so far outside of normal business practice” that it perplexed the company’s top executive in Florida, who was not in the decision loop.

The Court also found that Aetna had gone to lengths to conceal its decision-making which in themselves bordered on wrongdoing.

There's quite a lot here - not least the adverse impact this had on Obamacare in the political realm.

But it also points to much deeper issues about monopoly practices, the political impact of corporate gigantism and a company like AETNA making individual policy holders into what amounts to political and legal cannon fodder in a battle to get a merger okayed by the federal government.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/judge-rules-aetna-lied-about-reason-for-leaving-obamacare-exchanges?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

The Corporatocracy is totally corrupt, a vampire squid sucking wealth out of citizens.

[Winehole23]

More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) say the federal government should be responsible for health care coverage, compared with just 32% of Republicans and Republican leaners…. The belief that the government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage has increased across many groups over the past year, but the rise has been particularly striking among lower- and middle-income Republicans.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/02/single-payer-march.html

[Winehole23]

So, if you squint hard and envision the Democrat Party as it used to be, instead of the party dominated by smug squilllionare-servicing professionals it is today, you can see that not only is the Democrat base for single payer, but Republicans are there for the taking as well

[Winehole23]

In a surprise move made in response to President Donald Trump’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, two California lawmakers Friday introduced legislation to replace private medical insurance with a government health care system covering all 38 million Californians — including its undocumented residents.

“We’ve reached this pivotal moment and I thought to myself: ‘Look, now more than ever is the time to talk about universal health care,'” one of Senate Bill 562’s authors, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said in an interview Friday.


The Healthy California Act, co-authored by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, was submitted just before the deadline for new legislation. It doesn’t yet offer many specifics other than the lawmakers’ intent: to create a so-called single-payer system that would pay for coverage for everyone.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/california-lawmakers-to-introduce-medicare-for-all-health-plan-on-friday/

[rmt]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/california-lawmakers-to-introduce-medicare-for-all-health-plan-on-friday/

Good luck with single payor - along with becoming a sanctuary state - all the illegals will be flocking to California. I suspect that there will also be a mass exodus of taxpayers leaving CA.

[boutons_deux]

I suspect that there will also be a mass exodus of taxpayers leaving CA.

Hasn't happened so far, neither fleeing CA, nor fleeing USA after ACA raised taxes on the wealthy. They already know how to avoid/evade taxes, like Mnuchin's $100M he "forgot about".

[rmt]

Hasn't happened so far, neither fleeing CA, nor fleeing USA after ACA raised taxes on the wealthy. They already know how to avoid/evade taxes, like Mnuchin's $100M he "forgot about".

So who do you expect will be paying for all those illegals and all those who flock there expecting free health care? CA can't print $ like the Feds. The very rich and Hollywood types would probably stay, but IMO the ordinary taxpayer will balk.

[Winehole23]

Initial attempts to repeal Obamacare not going as well as expected:



Among the increasingly concerned Republicans are those who represent the 24 congressional districts that Hillary Clinton won in the presidential election — roughly the numerical edge Republicans hold over Democrats in the House — and another dozen in districts that President Barack Obama took in 2012 but President Trump won in November. If 25 conservative hard-liners oppose any robust replacement plan, and 30 swing-district House members demand a more generous plan, passage of a compromise bill will be in jeopardy.


What these silly Republicans are forgetting is that ObamaCare is a Heritage Foundation plan in the first place. It’s already as bad as it is politically feasible to be! But I have a solution: Make some minor changes, rebrand ObamaCare as FreedomCare, and declare victory. That way conservatives get themselves out of a jam, liberals get to #SaveTheACA, and both factions get to deep six #MedicareForAll and kick the left, which is their only goal in life, at this point, anyhow, except the lucrative job later on K Street.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/02/200pm-water-cooler-2232017.html

[rmt]

Another (biased) poll (Pew) used with (CNN) headline "Support for Obamacare at all-time high" but 37% more Dems/leaning Dems than Rep/leaning Reps.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/pew-survey-obamacare-support-record-high/

http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/22/in-trump-era-what-partisans-want-from-their-congressional-leaders/2/#methodology

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/02/23144839/2-23-17_Health_care_topline_for_release.pdf

[boutons_deux]

So who do you expect will be paying for all those illegals and all those who flock there expecting free health care? CA can't print $ like the Feds. The very rich and Hollywood types would probably stay, but IMO the ordinary taxpayer will balk.

free health care is not why they come. They come to make money, economic refugees, and/or to save their lives, political refugees.

You've been so sucked, lied to by the racist Repugs.

[rmt]

free health care is not why they come. They come to make money, economic refugees, and/or to save their lives, political refugees.

You've been so sucked, lied to by the racist Repugs.

I'm referring to them going to CA should single payer pass there.

[boutons_deux]

I'm referring to them going to CA should single payer pass there.

s/p will benefit CA white people more than illegals

[Winehole23]

death spiral: uninsured rate remains flat

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/uninsured-rate-remains-basically-flat-despite-republicans-attempts-to-chip-away-at-health-law/

[boutons_deux]

death spiral: uninsured rate remains flat

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/uninsured-rate-remains-basically-flat-despite-republicans-attempts-to-chip-away-at-health-law/

hmm, "people who lost insurance 2017" says between 2M and 4M

[Winehole23]

the inevitable death of Obamacare has been breathlessly hyped for a decade. might take another decade or two to bleed out at this rate.

[RandomGuy]

Deductible doesn't mean subsidized you stupid fuck.

Tax breaks for health plans does mean subsidized.

[RandomGuy]

the inevitable death of Obamacare has been breathlessly hyped for a decade. might take another decade or two to bleed out at this rate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumpcare-will-hurt-people-next-year-201655059.html

It is slow moving, but it is being gutted and sabotaged in any way possible. GOP gets full credit for that.

Never mind who it hurts, as long as it isn't the rich donor class.

[rmt]

death spiral: uninsured rate remains flat

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/uninsured-rate-remains-basically-flat-despite-republicans-attempts-to-chip-away-at-health-law/


Articles from your link:


It doesn't reflect congressional repeal of the health law's unpopular requirement that individuals carry health insurance, since that doesn't take effect until next year.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-clings-health-coverage-gains-political-drama-55343269


The tax penalty for people who decline to obtain insurance will disappear entirely next year. That change alone is likely to cause several million fewer Americans to have insurance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/upshot/despite-attacks-on-obamacare-the-uninsured-rate-held-steady-last-year.html

[RandomGuy]

Articles from your link:


It doesn't reflect congressional repeal of the health law's unpopular requirement that individuals carry health insurance, since that doesn't take effect until next year.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-clings-health-coverage-gains-political-drama-55343269


The tax penalty for people who decline to obtain insurance will disappear entirely next year. That change alone is likely to cause several million fewer Americans to have insurance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/upshot/despite-attacks-on-obamacare-the-uninsured-rate-held-steady-last-year.html

That will do it. Funny how when Republicans get their wish, regular people get kicked in the shorts. Tax cuts for the super-rich, etc.

pfft.

[rmt]

That will do it. Funny how when Republicans get their wish, regular people get kicked in the shorts. Tax cuts for the super-rich, etc.

pfft.

Funny how liberals are all about choice but when people (especially the young who are paying too much to subsidize the old and sick) DECLINE to carry insurance, they're getting kicked in the shorts.

My point in posting was - read the articles you (not you RG) link to - invariably, if the article is halfway honest, there's something in it that bursts the rah-rah ACA headline. Fortunately, for you liberals, the most insidious part of Obamacare (Medicaid expansion) is alive and well but unfortunately for the states which expanded, the (state's) bill came due last year and is increasing.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how liberals are all about choice but when people (especially the young who are paying too much to subsidize the old and sick) DECLINE to carry insurance, they're getting kicked in the shorts.

My point in posting was - read the articles you (not you RG) link to - invariably, if the article is halfway honest, there's something in it that bursts the rah-rah ACA headline. Fortunately, for you liberals, the most insidious part of Obamacare (Medicaid expansion) is alive and well but unfortunately for the states which expanded, the (state's) bill came due last year and is increasing.

People who decline to get insurance force the rest of us to bear the costs of their healthcare in one way or another.

Making this mandatory just brings the fact of the cost shifting that already goes on out in public.

I have zero problem with an individual mandate.

[Winehole23]

CBO projects the costs of Trumpcare:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53826-healthinsurancecoverage.pdf

[Winehole23]

Virginia not betting on the death spiral:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/30/virginia-medicaid-expansion-578513

[boutons_deux]

Trump administration won’t defend ACA in case brought by GOP states

The Trump administration said Thursday night that it will not defend the Affordable Care Act against the latest legal challenge to its constitutionality — a dramatic break from the executive branch’s tradition of arguing to uphold existing statutes and a land mine for health insurance changes the ACA brought about.

In a brief filed in a Texas federal court and an accompanying letter (https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download) to the House and Senate leaders of both parties, the Justice Department agrees in large part with the 20 Republican-led states that brought the suit.

They contend that the ACA provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance soon will no longer be constitutional and that, as a result, consumer insurance protections under the law will not be valid, either.

it puts the law on far more wobbly legal footing in the case, which is being heard by a GOP-appointed judge who has in other recent cases ruled against more minor aspects.

the administration’s striking position raises the possibility that major parts of the law could be struck down

— a year after the Republican Congress failed at attempts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/republicans-knock-holes-in-affordable-care-act-but-dont-deliver-a-knockout-punch/2017/12/22/29352684-e735-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html)to repeal core provisions.

“would be breathtaking in its effect,’ said Timothy Jost, a retired Washington and Lee law professor who follows such litigation closely.

“Of all of the actions the Trump administration has taken to undermine individual insurance markets, this may be the most destabilizing. . . . [If] I’m an insurer, I don’t know what I am supposed to do or not.”

raises new questions about whether insurers still will be required to charge the same prices to all customers, healthy or sick.

the administration’s legal argument contradicts promises by Trump that he would not tamper with the ACA’s protections for people with preexisting medical conditions.

. “If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court,

it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books,” he wrote.

“That’s not a rule of law I recognize. That’s a rule by whim. And it scares me.”

the Texas lawsuit contends, “the country is left with an individual mandate to buy health insurance that lacks any constitutional basis. . . . Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall.”

Texas and the accompanying states have asked for a preliminary injunction that could suspend the entire law while the case plays out in court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-wont-defend-aca-in-cases-brought-by-gop-states/2018/06/07/92f56e86-6a9c-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.001df4d6b15f#nws =mcnewsletter

So those pesky, "losers" with medical conditions (rightwing assholes are Strong, don't have medical conditions) will have to pay poverty-inducing more and rely on taxpayer assistance, if they can even find it.

iow, Repugs are redistributing the costs of BigInsurance to taxpayers.

10Ks of the Repugs' victims will suffer and/or die. Repug willful manslaughter.

[Winehole23]

the precedent is Obama's refusal to defend DOMA.

most of the the people who hated that will love this.

[Winehole23]

it's notable that some DOJ lawyers resigned rather than sign the brief.

[Winehole23]

when the shoe's on the other foot conservatives will cry again about the executive branch picking and choosing which laws to defend.

[boutons_deux]

the precedent is Obama's refusal to defend DOMA.

most of the the people who hated that will love this.

False equivalence, yawn

[boutons_deux]

Trump tells 130 million people with pre-existing conditions to pound sand (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/8/1770375/-Trump-tells-130-million-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-to-pound-sand)

the administration is actually arguing that it's unconstitutional to stop insurance companies from denying or dropping coverage for people with pre-existing conditions like cancer, asthma, or diabetes.

About half of nonelderly Americans have one or more pre-existing health conditions, according to a recent brief by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

means private insurance wouldn't have to guarantee coverage to those 130 million people any more.

what this is doing is heaping even more uncertainty (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/7/17440120/obamacare-penalty-lawsuit-trump-brief) into an already shaky individual insurance market.

Insurers are right now setting premiums for next year, and in some cases what this is doing is heaping even more uncertainty (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/7/17440120/obamacare-penalty-lawsuit-trump-brief) into an already shaky individual insurance market. Insurers are right now setting premiums for next year, and in some cases hiking them as much as 30 percent.

This attack from the Trump administration only adds to that. And will probably mean further rate hikes.

"Any time there’s uncertainty about the future,

insurers are going to build extra cushion into their premiums to make sure they get revenues while they can,"

This attack from the Trump administration only adds to that.

And will probably mean further rate hikes.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/8/1770375/-Trump-tells-130-million-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-to-pound-sand

[boutons_deux]

When Jeff Sessions argued Eric Holder should have resigned rather than do what Sessions just did (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/8/1770393/-When-Jeff-Sessions-argued-Eric-Holder-should-have-resigned-rather-than-do-what-Sessions-just-did)

here's what he said (https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-doj-wont-defend-health-law-cf0966e19816/)about it at the time, when he was in the Senate.

At a March 2011 confirmation hearing for the Solicitor General, he said that [AG Eric] Holder should have stood up to Obama and resigned, rather that stopping his DOMA defense.

"[T]he Attorney General should have told the President,

'I know you may have changed your mind, Mr. President, but this is a statutory law passed by the Congress of the United States, it's been upheld Constitutionally and it has to be defended. We cannot fail to defend that statute. And then what happens? I think what happens is the President says, 'okay, I wish we could….'

And I think he would have backed off. If not, then you have to resign."


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfLhE8oXcAIf_9T.jpg


https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1005113166462902275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2 018%2F6%2F8%2F1770393%2F-When-Jeff-Sessions-argued-Eric-Holder-should-have-resigned-rather-than-do-what-Sessions-just-did (https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1005113166462902275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2 018%2F6%2F8%2F1770393%2F-When-Jeff-Sessions-argued-Eric-Holder-should-have-resigned-rather-than-do-what-Sessions-just-did)




https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1770393

[Winehole23]

Trump'll blame it on Obama. It will probably work.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans panic over Trump's admission that the GOP doesn't care about your pre-existing condition (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/11/1750881/-Republicans-panic-over-Trump-s-admission-that-the-GOP-doesn-t-care-about-your-pre-existing-condition)

The Trump administration, in endorsing what is pretty much a bogus legal challenge (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/6/8/1770346/-In-unprecedented-dangerous-filing-Trump-argues-key-Obamacare-provisions-are-unconstitutional) by Texas and other conservative states to the Affordable Care Act, has exposed a truth Republicans have been desperately trying to conceal.

For years,

Republicans have insisted they want to keep the popular parts of Obamacare and especially the protections for people with pre-existing conditions,

all while trying to sneak in changes that would effectively end those protections.

Now that Trump has ripped the subterfuge away just months before an already perilous midterm election, Republicans are panicking (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-fears-trumps-war-on-pre-existing-condition-protections-will-backfire-bigly).

"This is definitely the most popular aspect of the Obamacare legislation, and it clearly creates an opening for Democrats going into the final months of the election year," GOP strategist Ken Spain, a former communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, told TPM.

Poll after poll has found that protecting people with pre-existing conditions is the most emotionally potent health care argument for voters.

A survey conducted by the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates for Protect Our Care this past January and shared with TPM on Friday found that the issue was one of the most effective in the healthcare debate:

63 percent of voters had "very major concerns" and another 20 percent had "somewhat major concerns"

with the GOP’s efforts to repeal pre-existing condition protections.

Among independents, that number rose to 73 percent with "very major concerns."

In other (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/healthcare-a-top-issue-for-voters-in-2018-midterms-poll) polling (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voters-say-health-care-is-their-top-issue-in-the-2018-election-thats-a-good-sign-for-democrats_us_5ac642e2e4b09d0a119103c4),

voters routinely identify healthcare as the biggest issue they care about.

Fully 27 percent of non-elderly adult Americans have a pre-existing condition—

"conditions that would likely leave them uninsurable if they applied for individual market coverage under pre-ACA underwriting practices that existed in nearly all states"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1750881

[boutons_deux]

Rate Filings Make Clear that ACA Sabotage Is Driving Up Premiums

Last year, as part of the recently passed tax law (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/text), Congress repealed the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate penalty,

despite estimates (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53300-individualmandate.pdf) from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that this would increase average individual market premiums by 10 percent.

The individual mandate fined people who chose to remain uninsured in order to encourage younger and healthier people to purchase health coverage.

This resulted in a healthier insurance pool, lowering premiums for everyone.

In recent weeks, state have begun to hit their deadlines for insurers to file their proposed individual market premium rates.

The emerging trend from these rate filings is clear:

Congress’ repeal of the mandate penalty is significantly driving up premiums.
In many states thus far, insurer rate filings have explicitly pointed to Congress’ actions as a major driver of premium increases.

The direct link between Congress’ repeal of the individual mandate penalty and

these individual market rate hikes is not a matter of conjecture:

Insurers and state officials are stating it plainly.

The rate filings from these states make clear that sabotage from the Trump administration and Congress is undermining the market and raising costs for consumers.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2018/06/13/451988/rate-filings-make-clear-aca-sabotage-driving-premiums/

[boutons_deux]

No, having insurance at your job won't save you and your pre-existingcondition from Trump (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/14/1771956/-No-having-insurance-at-your-job-won-t-save-you-and-your-pre-existing-condition-from-Trump)

The states and Trump are arguing that some parts of the law linked to the insurance-coverage mandate should be tossed—the provisions that make access to health insurance universal.

If those provisions are struck down, then employers would again have the ability to lock people out of health care.

They could require lengthy waiting periods for new hires to get insurance (now limited to 90 days)

or could opt to not cover a new employee's cancer, for example, for up to a year.

Small companies with a large number of older or sicker employees could face much higher insurance costs when purchasing coverage, costs they'd have to pass on to employees.

About 13 million people work for and get their coverage from small employers.

Republicans keep insisting (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/6/13/1771636/-McConnell-Everybody-in-the-Senate-wants-to-protect-pre-existing-coverage-Democrats-Oh-really) that they really don't want to go back to the bad old days, :lol

but everything they've done to fight the law for eight long years argues otherwise.

It's taken eight years, but they finally seem to have clued in on the fact that they're the ones who are going to be blamed for it.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/14/1771956/-No-having-insurance-at-your-job-won-t-save-you-and-your-pre-existing-condition-from-Trump

=============

McConnell: 'Everybody' in the Senate wants to protect pre-existing coverage.

Democrats: Oh, really? (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/13/1771636/-McConnell-Everybody-in-the-Senate-wants-to-protect-pre-existing-coverage-Democrats-Oh-really)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/13/1771636/-McConnell-Everybody-in-the-Senate-wants-to-protect-pre-existing-coverage-Democrats-Oh-really

[boutons_deux]

Republican in tight reelection voted against Obamacare — but now swears he cares about it :lol

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-12.06.10-PM.png

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is running neck-and-neck (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-ca48-1.html) with his Democratic opponent Harley Rouda, according to the New York Times.

Perhaps that’s why

he is being forced to eat crow on his vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
“Politicians argue a lot about health care, but for me it’s personal,” Rohrabacher said.

“So for her and all families we must protect America’s health care system,” he continued. “

Rohrabacher voted to get rid of the law (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-how-gop-delegation-voted-healthcare-20170504-htmlstory.html) that would do exactly that.

In fact, he did it several times (https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/400343).

Furthermore, the issue of pre-existing conditions isn’t one that either party fights over.

Both parties want to see health insurance companies cover those with health problems.

His website still has a press release (https://rohrabacher.house.gov/obamacare-socialism) saying Obamacare equals socialism :lol

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/republican-tight-reelection-voted-obamacare-now-swears-cares/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/republican-tight-reelection-voted-obamacare-now-swears-cares/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

[Winehole23]

cancer clinic in Texas to close due to Medicare cuts:


The Rio Bravo, one of the last independent cancer clinics in Texas, occupies a drab brown metal building on a side street, next to Tino’s Electric in this border city of about 36,000 residents.


It draws patients from Val Verde, Kinney, Maverick, Terrell and Uvalde counties, an expanse of almost 10,000 square miles. A few also come from Ciudad Acuña, Mexico.


Most patients are seniors and dependent on Medicare, said clinic administrator Diego Taylor, 42, Susan Taylor’s son.




But the clinic has been in the red for about 18 months because of a series of Medicare cuts for cancer drugs, he said.


“We’ve been taking a big hit,” he said. “All across the country, the smaller independent clinics are closing down, merging with larger clinics or being acquired by hospitals because they can’t afford to buy the drugs.”
https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Border-cancer-clinic-faces-closure-13399898.php

[boutons_deux]

cancer clinic in Texas to close due to Medicare cuts:

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Border-cancer-clinic-faces-closure-13399898.php

Suffering, dead Hispanics. Repugs gotta pay for the oligarchy's tax cut.

[Winehole23]

The problem can't be fixed without controlling costs.

1088847871439454210

[boutons_deux]

The problem can't be fixed without controlling costs.



yawn. Controlling costs means reducing BigHealthCare's and its investors' profits.

Simply ain't gonna happen.

BigHealthCare sets its prices, like BigFinance, the MIC, etc, because it can, and there's no way to stop them.

[rmt]

yawn. Controlling costs means reducing BigHealthCare's and its investors' profits.

Simply ain't gonna happen.

BigHealthCare sets its prices, like BigFinance, the MIC, etc, because it can, and there's no way to stop them.

Obamacare mandates that policies all cover "essential" benefits such as maternity regardless whether you are male, child or non-bearing age. How can costs be controlled when all the males are paying for coverage that they can NEVER use? Runaway costs are not to be blamed only on Big X, Y, Z. A very central core of Obamacare SUCKS.

[Winehole23]

it's true that Obamacare sucks, but rolling it back doesn't help either.

what is Trump doing to improve access to/affordability of healthcare in the USA?

feel free to add any ideas of your own.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare mandates that policies all cover "essential" benefits such as maternity regardless whether you are male, child or non-bearing age. How can costs be controlled when all the males are paying for coverage that they can NEVER use? Runaway costs are not to be blamed only on Big X, Y, Z. A very central core of Obamacare SUCKS.

goddamn, you're fucking stupid

[Pavlov]

Obamacare mandates that policies all cover "essential" benefits such as maternity regardless whether you are male, child or non-bearing age. How can costs be controlled when all the males are paying for coverage that they can NEVER use? Runaway costs are not to be blamed only on Big X, Y, Z. A very central core of Obamacare SUCKS.Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?

Republicans have a poor understanding of the concept of insurance.

[Spurtacular]

Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?

Republicans have a poor understanding of the concept of insurance.

Obamacare is the master plan. Amirite?

[Pavlov]

Obamacare is the master plan. Amirite?Master plan of what?

It's actually HeritageFoundationcare or Nixoncare if you have any sense of history. It's a stopping point on the inevitable way to generally socialized medicine.

[Spurtacular]

Master plan of what?

It's actually HeritageFoundationcare or Nixoncare if you have any sense of history. It's a stopping point on the inevitable way to generally socialized medicine.

:lol Sociopath truth

[Winehole23]

Obamacare is the master plan. Amirite?Much as you want your interlocutors to be deluded cultists they aren't. Posters like ElNono, ChumpDumper and myself were saying the exact same thing ten years ago that we're saying now -- that Obamacare is flawed, a halfway measure, that it is a sop to insurance companies, and that it won't work because it does not control costs.

All checkable, you don't have to take my word for it.

[Pavlov]

:lol Sociopath truthJust the way I see it happening. You know, like every other country in the world.

Master plan of what?

[Winehole23]

:lol Sociopath truthActually, he's right.

Obamacare is modeled on RomneyCare which was modeled on the Heritage Foundation white paper on insurance mandates.

Back then it was sold as "individual responsibility" for healthcare.

[boutons_deux]

Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?

Republicans have a poor understanding of the concept of insurance.

men shouldn't pay for insurance for breast,ovarian, uterine cancer

and women shouldn't pay for insurance for testicular, prostate cancer.

These fucking so-called conservatives are fucking ignorant assholes blocking American progress.

[Spurtacular]

Just the way I see it happening. You know, like every other country in the world.

Master plan of what?

So, you admit there's a globalist master plan.

[Spurtacular]

Actually, he's right.

Obamacare is modeled on RomneyCare which was modeled on the Heritage Foundation white paper on insurance mandates.

Back then it was sold as "individual responsibility" for healthcare.

:lol Chump's fluffer

[Pavlov]

So, you admit there's a globalist master plan.No. I admit a national health care plan like every other country came up with on their own is where the US is headed on its own.

Master plan of what?

[Winehole23]

:lol Chump's flufferHas nothing to do with ChumpyD or brisk genital massages, that's the actual history/chain of influence.

Heritage white paper => RomneyCare => ACA.

It's checkable, don't take my word for it.

[Pavlov]

Has nothing to do with ChumpyD, that's the actual history/chain of influence.

It's checkable, don't take my word for it.He'll never venture out of his derp bubble, but here's Nixon's health care plan from 45 years ago:

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2015/11/the-nixon-comprehensive-health-insurance-plan/

Looks kinda familiar, eh? Dude could've been an OK president had he not been, you know, a supervillain.

[Spurtacular]

He'll never venture out of his derp bubble, but here's Nixon's health care plan from 45 years ago:

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2015/11/the-nixon-comprehensive-health-insurance-plan/

Looks kinda familiar, eh? Dude could've been an OK president had he not been, you know, a supervillain.

You're talking about compulsive health insurance provided by employers. Sure, Nixon got the ball rolling towards further govt. overtures; but saying it is akin to Obamacare is a flat out lie.

[Pavlov]

You're talking about compulsive health insurance provided by employers. Sure, Nixon got the ball rolling towards further govt. overtures; but saying it is akin to Obamacare is a flat out lie.What do you think Obamacare is other than that plus individual mandates for the self-employed?

[boutons_deux]

What do you think Obamacare is other than that plus individual mandates for the self-employed?

how about

Medicaid expansion (crippled by Repug SCOTUS)

killed junk High Deductible/catastrophe crap plans (reinstalled by Trash)

mandated coverages

guaranteed sick people could get insurance

got about 20M insured

[Winehole23]

got about 20M insuredminus 7M since 2016.

[rmt]

Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?

Republicans have a poor understanding of the concept of insurance.

People who belong to a teacher's union (lots of older female teachers, women of child bearing age and retirees) should pay more than Google (lots of young males who don't go to the doctor).

One should be charged premiums based on RISK like other insurances. If I am an old woman with no tickets, I should pay less auto insurance than a young, male with lots of tickets. If I live in a high-risk flood area, I should pay more flood insurance than the someone who lives on a mountain. If I am old, I should pay more premium on life insurance than someone who is young. Ditto for long-term care insurance.

[Pavlov]

People who belong to a teacher's union (lots of older female teachers, women of child bearing age and retirees) should pay more than Google (lots of young males who don't go to the doctor).

One should be charged premiums based on RISK like other insurances. If I am an old woman with no tickets, I should pay less auto insurance than a young, male with lots of tickets. If I live in a high-risk flood area, I should pay more flood insurance than the someone who lives on a mountain. If I am old, I should pay more premium on life insurance than someone who is young. Ditto for long-term care insurance.That wasn't my question.

Only women should contribute to insurance that covers maternity costs?

Actually only fertile women?

[Winehole23]

Seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works to limit premiums that way.

[ElNono]

People who belong to a teacher's union (lots of older female teachers, women of child bearing age and retirees) should pay more than Google (lots of young males who don't go to the doctor).

One should be charged premiums based on RISK like other insurances. If I am an old woman with no tickets, I should pay less auto insurance than a young, male with lots of tickets. If I live in a high-risk flood area, I should pay more flood insurance than the someone who lives on a mountain. If I am old, I should pay more premium on life insurance than someone who is young. Ditto for long-term care insurance.

If car repair services decide to charge whatever they want and medical services already do, then your premium is going to increase on top of the risk factor. That's what cost is. Similarly with builders charging to repair flood damaged housing. Life insurance is a completely different business, because there isn't a post-incident service provided.

The point being, risk is just one factor for pricing, service cost is another. If costs for services soar (and they do in healthcare), then premium costs will raise no matter what risk bracket you're on, which is something we consistently see in the medical insurance industry. They not only increase annually far outpacing inflation, they are comparatively much more expensive than in other nations for the same services.

[rmt]

If car repair services decide to charge whatever they want and medical services already do, then your premium is going to increase on top of the risk factor. That's what cost is. Similarly with builders charging to repair flood damaged housing. Life insurance is a completely different business, because there isn't a post-incident service provided.

The point being, risk is just one factor for pricing, service cost is another. If costs for services soar (and they do in healthcare), then premium costs will raise no matter what risk bracket you're on, which is something we consistently see in the medical insurance industry. They not only increase annually far outpacing inflation, they are comparatively much more expensive than in other nations for the same services.

We have gone over many times why the US is different from other countries. The way our education, legal and medical systems are set up - the way other countries just copy drugs/devices, etc developed here. The whole point of competition (like laser surgery - the method I favor coupled with catastrophic insurance) is to bring down costs - see the oil change we did today - headed toward Tire Kingdom for one and right next door is a 10 minute express oil change/tire rotation for $21.99. Car repair services are not exactly a good example - especially in Miami where local/area mechanics compete fiercely price-wise. You should have seen how empty the Tire Kingdom was (especially for a Saturday morning) compared to next door express oil change. All you said above does not change that Obamacare itself is responsible for making healthcare even more expensive - imagine being charged for coverage one can never use. It is a flawed system which basically re-distributes the cost from those who have (whatever that cutoff is - $40+k?) to those who don't. And income exemption (8.05%) does not count the cost of covering a non-working spouse/children - it's based on one person (like who is covering oneself and not one's spouse and kids? - that's not the cost of health insurance to a family unit)

[ElNono]

We have gone over many times why the US is different from other countries. The way our education, legal and medical systems are set up - the way other countries just copy drugs/devices, etc developed here. The whole point of competition (like laser surgery - the method I favor coupled with catastrophic insurance) is to bring down costs - see the oil change we did today - headed toward Tire Kingdom for one and right next door is a 10 minute express oil change/tire rotation for $21.99. Car repair services are not exactly a good example - especially in Miami where local/area mechanics compete fiercely price-wise. You should have seen how empty the Tire Kingdom was (especially for a Saturday morning) compared to next door express oil change. All you said above does not change that Obamacare itself is responsible for making healthcare even more expensive - imagine being charged for coverage one can never use. It is a flawed system which basically re-distributes the cost from those who have (whatever that cutoff is - $40+k?) to those who don't. And income exemption (8.05%) does not count the cost of covering a non-working spouse/children - it's based on one person (like who is covering oneself and not one's spouse and kids? - that's not the cost of health insurance to a family unit)

Anything that provides services is a good example for purposes of identifying insurance service cost. As you note, the difference is that the car-repair business is largely a free market with competition.

Competition makes sense on a free market. The healthcare market is not a free market. The bulk of the expenses on healthcare in this country comes from government spending in healthcare, be it medicare/medicaid, or subsidies to hospitals for uninsured people.

From the fact that the healthcare insurance market won't even touch the elderly (the bulk of the high risk population that requires healthcare the most), we can determine that's not a integral solution to national healthcare, so we continue to try to peg a square into a hole.

If we revisit how we got here, and why we have government intervention, it was because:

1) Insurers wouldn't touch high risk customers (elderly, pre-existing conditions), instead dumping them to the government.

2) Hospitals practiced patient dumping when the patients could not afford treatment, including emergency treatment.

3) A profitable free market service company prices to bear, which means, prices to the average value of what people can afford for the service that maximizes profit (regardless of how much it costs to provide the service, just as long as the profit is larger than the cost).

4) Insurance is largely tied to employment due to reasons 1 and 3. People that can't work, even temporarily, due to a health condition, also are punished under this system.

All 4 items provide barriers to access to healthcare. That's a compelling State interest. No government wants sick people on the streets and not receiving medical care.

On top of the problem of access, the insurance system also brought price opaqueness to that market. Because the cost of services were shifted from patients to insurance companies, they became powerful tools to negotiate pricing, but disconnected patients from cost. Originally the idea was that such an arrangement would bring costs down, since a large insurance group could work on better rates for it's members. In reality what ended up happening instead is service providers inflated their prices (anybody that had to pay uninsured rates can relate) and the "discount" value ended up being their bear price. This is easily verifiable by looking at price increases year over year in the US vs other countries during the same period for the same services (especially uninsured rates).

Pre-Obamacare, the access problem came to a head, to the tune of about 15% of eligible US population not having any sort of health insurance. It was extra perverse because due to the duality of pricing mentioned above, uninsured people were largely punished. At the time, half of the bankruptcies in the US were related to healthcare one way or another.

ACA put a solid dent on lack of access, reducing the uninsured population to 9% (still not great, IMO, but better). But, overall, it was shit because it didn't address cost. It's undeniable that by adding more people to risk pools, pricing was going to go up. Some of that was going to be addressed through both the individual mandate and subsidies.

But the only other variable you could tune was service cost, which has been inflated for a long time. A US resident pays about twice as much (link (https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-on-average-other-wealthy-countries-spend-half-as-much-per-person-on-healthcare-than-the-u-s)) for healthcare services as any comparable developed country, largely with same or lower outcomes. We're not talking specialized services that are only available to the US, we're talking from the most mundane condition to the most expensive.

This is why, even though the ACA is indeed shit, rolling it back doesn't solve anything. We would basically be back to the lack of access problem, and the cost overrun would still be intact.

A comprehensive healthcare reform that works will require touching some of the following topics:

- True cost/pricing overview

- Pricing transparency

- Whether the current mixed healthy-insured vs sick-govt-subsidized has failed us or not, and whether we need to approach this dynamic in a different way (ie: government can subsidize lower cost treatments, but require catastrophic insurance for what's not covered, just one example of a million combinations)

- If we proceed with an Insurance system (whatever it might look like), whether it makes sense to continue to largely tie it to employment, and the reduction of access that entails.

This is just off the top of my head. It's a complex market and there won't be silver bullet solutions. There's powerful players in this which won't be sitting on the sidelines either. There will be winners and losers, but it would be nice if patients are largely winners for once.

[Winehole23]

Boom.

In b4 dismissive hand waving.

[pgardn]

Why is everyone forgetting this could all be easily solved with the red team plan?

biggest, bestest...

No plan.

[boutons_deux]

Utah Voters Approved Medicaid Expansion At The Ballot Box.

The GOP Is Trying To Undo It.

The Republican majority in the Utah Legislature is moving fast to defy the will of Utahns who approved the proposition.

Utah voters approved a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid coverage to an estimated 150,000 low-income adults.

The Utah Senate approved a bill (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/01/30/republican-utah-senators/) Wednesday that would toss out

a grassroots-driven (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-medicaid-expansion_us_5ad4eca6e4b016a07e9f6138), voter-backed ballot initiative to offer Medicaid benefits to any Utahn earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level

The legislation (https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/SB0096.html) instead would

expand Medicaid to fewer people,

enable Utah to receive less federal money for the program and

impose limitations on benefits,

including work requirements (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-medicaid-punishing-the-poor_us_5a57d85ae4b04df054f75661).

The Utah GOP clearly is prioritizing overturning the voters,

considering the

Legislature has been

in session since just Monday and

the bill made it out its Senate committee Tuesday and

to the floor Wednesday.

The fact that 53 percent of voters (https://electionresults.utah.gov/elections/ballotprops) spoke in favor of a full Medicaid expansion (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/medicaid-wins-big-election-night_us_5bdc97eae4b09d43e31ed33e) at the ballot box

10 Republican senators representing districts where a majority voted in favor of the expansion are supporting the bill to modify it,

including the legislation’s main sponsor, Sen. Allen Christensen.

A plurality of Utahns opposes changing the voter-backed policy,

The GOP bill sends a message to voters, King said:

“We don’t really care what the people of the state of Utah want to do

or say they want us to do at the Legislature.

We’re going to do what we want to do."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-voters-approved-medicaid-expansion-at-the-ballot-box-the-gop-is-trying-to-undo-it_us_5c535403e4b01d3c1f11a46d?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__020119&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__020119+CID_4cf609ff 9cec1f907a4e0b5eedd15b90&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__020119

aka, Repug democracy

[Winehole23]

it never really occurred to me that this sort of horse trading happens on the Supreme Court, but of course it does:

1091381190404292608

[Winehole23]

1110344892834824192

[Winehole23]

libertarian lawyer at Reason, not amused:


The Justice Department's change in position is astounding. It was remarkable enough that DOJ failed to question the states' standing (https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/15/how-do-the-states-have-standing-to-chall) to challenge an unenforced and unenforceable mandate, and even more remarkable that the Department failed to defend a readily defensible federal law. It is more remarkable still that the DOJ is abandoning its position -- and the position on severability advanced by the Obama Administration -- in favor of a highly strained and implausible approach to severability (https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/14/strange-bedfellow-join-on-severability-i) with little grounding or precedent.https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/25/justice-department-revises-its-position

[boutons_deux]

ACA going down, Ms will suffer and die.

Racist Repugs have nothing to replace ACA, their hated knitter's career victory.

[Winehole23]

1326177474993139712

[Winehole23]

1326192888104034307

[boutons_deux]

ACB mentioned "severable" a couple weeks ago.

I guess that's how they will rule, saving ACA, but they could also rule, like Roberts mortally did with Medicaid expansion as state option, to hurt ACA as much as they can w/o killing it.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmekadHUYAouBO4?format=jpg&name=medium

[Will Hunting]

Seems pretty clear that Roberts and beer keg are going rule the mandate unconstitutional but they’re not going to gut the rest of the law.

[baseline bum]

Seems pretty clear that Roberts and beer keg are going rule the mandate unconstitutional but they’re not going to gut the rest of the law.

Roberts wanted to last time until Ginsburg traded the Medicaid expansion for it. Now he gets both eliminated.

[Will Hunting]

Roberts wanted to last time until Ginsburg traded the Medicaid expansion for it. Now he gets both eliminated.
Definitely not how it sounded during oral argument today.

[Will Hunting]

That theory about trading also doesn’t make sense. Roberts had the votes to gut the entire act in 2010 if he wanted to, and Ginsburg dissented his majority opinion on the Medicaid expansion.

[boutons_deux]

Roberts wanted to last time until Ginsburg traded the Medicaid expansion for it. Now he gets both eliminated.

Roberts is removing his "states option" of Medicaid expansion?

[Will Hunting]

Kavanaugh was surprisingly even more demonstrative than Roberts in voicing his displeasure with the idea that SCOTUS was being asked to gut a 900 page law because Republicans intentionally made one of its provisions unconstitutional with an amendment. Gorsuch is a wild card on severability, Barett’s questioning was just as stupid and incoherent as Thomas was, while Alito’s questioning was more dishonest and made in bad faith than it was stupid.

[ElNono]

Kavanaugh was surprisingly even more demonstrative than Roberts in voicing his displeasure with the idea that SCOTUS was being asked to gut a 900 page law because Republicans intentionally made one of its provisions unconstitutional with an amendment. Gorsuch is a wild card on severability, Barett’s questioning was just as stupid and incoherent as Thomas was, while Alito’s questioning was more dishonest and made in bad faith than it was stupid.

The claim is weak because Congress had full capacity to gut the entire law, but they decided to gut just the mandate. That's clear evidence to the court that gutting the law was not what Congress intended.

[Will Hunting]

The claim is weak because Congress had full capacity to gut the entire law, but they decided to gut just the mandate. That's clear evidence to the court that gutting the law was not what Congress intended.
Especially given that not only did Congress have full capacity but it had voted against gutting the law as part of the same session. Gutting the mandate came after it tried to gut the entire law and failed. The fact this case even needed to reach SCOTUS because of a ridiculously corrupt 5th circuit is a joke.

[Winehole23]

Hey, are we going to get to see the affordable, wonderful Republican health care plan?

Is it still two weeks away? :lol

[baseline bum]

Hey, are we going to get to see the affordable, wonderful Republican health care plan?

Is it still two weeks away? :lol

If there is anyone I expect to see a Republican healthcare plan out of, it's fucking Biden. So maybe 3 weeks out.

[Winehole23]

If there is anyone I expect to see a Republican healthcare plan out of, it's fucking Biden. So maybe 3 weeks out.Damn, dude.

Welcome back to the bummer universe. It's like we never left.

[baseline bum]

Damn, dude.

Welcome back to the bummer universe. It's like we never left.

I have no illusions whatsoever about Biden. He'll be a terrible president, likely one of the worst, just way less shitty than Trump.

1341447751586889729

[Winehole23]

I have no illusions whatsoever about Biden. He'll be a terrible president, likely one of the worst, just way less shitty than Trump.

1341447751586889729Very similar to my intuition about Biden.

My basic fear is that Biden will be so bad he will be succeeded by a slicker, smarter fascist than Trump.

The time to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats might be much sooner than I thought.

[Winehole23]

(relax, y'all, that's an allusion to HL Mencken.)

[Winehole23]

jk/not kidding

[baseline bum]

Very similar to my intuition about Biden.

My basic fear is that Biden will be so bad he will be succeeded by a slicker, smarter fascist than Trump.

The time to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats might be much sooner than I thought.

I don't think you should underestimate Trump's skill with engineering his media coverage, his celebrity, and his ability to con people. And how smart was Hitler? Trump is the fascist that's going to keep engineering stochastic terrorism from the right these next four years, Trump is the real threat to win in 2024 and choke the last gasps of democracy out of this nation. Trump is the clear and present danger. You underestimate how slick a fascist Trump is; he learned from one of the best in Roy Cohn.

[Winehole23]

I don't think you should underestimate Trump's skill with engineering his media coverage, his celebrity, and his ability to con people. And how smart was Hitler? Trump is the fascist that's going to keep engineering stochastic terrorism from the right these next four years, Trump is the real threat to win in 2024 and choke the last gasps of democracy out of this nation. Trump is the clear and present avorite in 2024.danger. You underestimate how slick a fascist Trump is; he learned from one of the best in Roy Cohn.I have my doubts Trump's egotism and malice will keep him alive much longer. He looks terrible.

You could be right, though. If he survives, he's the odds on favorite in 2024.

[baseline bum]

I have my doubts Trump's egotism and malice will keep him alive much longer. He looks terrible.

You could be right, though. If he survives, he's the odds on favorite in 2024.

I'd be absolutely floored if Trump is alive and not the GOP nominee in 2024.

[boutons_deux]

Since Trash became their candidate, the other Repugs have been terrified of Trash's cult mob, now 74M voters, have sat silently in complicity with Trash's lawlessness, while staffing Trash's Exec with the oligarchy's kakistocracy.

The oligarchy is more powerful, wealtheir by $Ts, with many 100Ks diseased and dead Americans and a collapsing environment.

If Trash talks about 2024, he will freeze out all competition

Best for the world is if Trash is incapacitated.

However, pretenders will pander to Trash's 74M with traditional Republicanism of Euro-white (Christian) male supremacy and all that derives from it.

Oligarchy owns SCOTUS.

The next time Repugs control Congress and WH, all three branches, will be formal end of the Myth of American democracy, which will degrade further, into a one-party authoritarianism.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

There's nothing citizens can do to stop the oligarchy.