Obamacare Gets Vote of Approval

[RandomGuy]

Looks like voters got fed up with Republican attempts to sabotage Obamacare


Voters in Maine on Tuesday approved a ballot initiative to expand the state’s Medicaid program under Obamacare, sending a clear signal of support for the federal healthcare law to lawmakers in the state and Washington D.C.

The approval of the ballot question in Maine comes after Republicans in Washington failed several times over the last few months to pass legislation that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Maine has recently figured prominently in the nation’s debate on how to reform healthcare. U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, helped block her party’s efforts to repeal Obamacare this year, which angered President Donald Trump.

Maine, which becomes the first U.S. state to approve Medicaid expansion by ballot initiative, is one of 19 states that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

About 60% of voters in Maine approved the ballot initiative, according to the Bangor Daily News newspaper.

Tuesday’s ballot asked Maine voters to approve or reject a plan to provide healthcare coverage under Medicaid for adults under the age of 65 with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, which in 2017 is about $16,000 for a single person and about $22,000 for a family of two.

The state’s Republican governor, Paul LePage, staunchly opposes expansion of federal health care insurance, vetoing legislation to do so on several occasions.

“I’ve said it before, “free” is very expensive to somebody,” LePage said in a radio address last week.

About 70,000 residents in Maine would be eligible for the state’s Medicaid program when and if state officials certify the results of the election. Lawmakers could vote to repeal or alter the referendum, much like they have recently for several citizen-initiated referendums, the Bangor Daily News reported.

“It is now the responsibility and the duty of the governor and the legislature to fully and faithfully implement this law,” the state’s Speaker of the House, Sara Gideon, said in a statement.

The Legislature’s Office of Fiscal and Program Review in Maine estimated that expansion of Medicaid would cost the state about $55 million and bring in about $525 million of federal money to the state each year, according to the Bangor Daily News

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-gets-vote-approval-maine-092442593.html

[boutons_deux]

Gov LePrick already said he submit Medicaid expansion to the ME Congress to for validation and perhaps blocking, overriding voters.

Maine governor says he will not expand Medicaid despite vote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-maine-medicaid/maine-governor-says-he-will-not-expand-medicaid-despite-vote-idUSKBN1D82MN?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reute rs+Health+News%29

[rmt]

Good luck finding an extra 6.8% of your total income to pay for this expansion.

[Pavlov]

The tax cut will totally take care of that.

[boutons_deux]

Good luck finding an extra 6.8% of your total income to pay for this expansion.

but you have no plans to "pay for" $Ts in tax cuts for the oligarchy.

[rmt]

but you have no plans to "pay for" $Ts in tax cuts for the oligarchy.

What does Maine having to find 6.8% more income have to do with tax cuts? States can't just print money/add to debt like the Feds do.

[boutons_deux]

What does Maine having to find 6.8% more income have to do with tax cuts? States can't just print money/add to debt like the Feds do.

Repugs cut FEDERAL $Ts in taxes for the oligarchy, but they can't find $Ts to fund health care for the poor?

Stop cutting taxes for the oligarchy, and pay for ripoff health care costs for the poor.

[rmt]

Repugs cut FEDERAL $Ts in taxes for the oligarchy, but they can't find $Ts to fund health care for the poor?

Stop cutting taxes for the oligarchy, and pay for ripoff health care costs for the poor.

bou, MAINE voters approved Medicaid expansion - they will have to come up with their portion of it ($55 million and you know how accurate estimates are - especially concerning something that is free to recipients) - not by printing money or adding to the deficit as the Feds do - but from state income taxes, licenses or fees. Health care ALREADY consumes 32% of Maine's state budget - this will only increase the percentage - what's gonna give? Pensions - no, interest - no, education - probably not. Or RAISE TAXES - do Mainers (is that what they are called?) think that Medicaid money will come from the other pieces of the pie - nope, probably out of THEIR pockets.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018MEbs_19bs2n#usgs302

[boutons_deux]

bou, MAINE voters approved Medicaid expansion - they will have to come up with their portion of it ($55 million and you know how accurate estimates are - especially concerning something that is free to recipients) - not by printing money or adding to the deficit as the Feds do - but from state income taxes, licenses or fees. Health care ALREADY consumes 32% of Maine's state budget - this will only increase the percentage - what's gonna give? Pensions - no, interest - no, education - probably not. Or RAISE TAXES - do Mainers (is that what they are called?) think that Medicaid money will come from the other pieces of the pie - nope, probably out of THEIR pockets.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018MEbs_19bs2n#usgs302

ME's and EVERYBODY's problem is that for-profit health care is $1T+ / year too expensive.

One of the fundamental insanity's, there are many, of America is that ME and others are cutting services, letting infrastructure rot, going bankrupt, in order to pay the vampire squid of the health industry.

The solution to for-profit health care extorting $3T+ / year? no solution is possible. The oligarchy, health care division, is unbeatable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

bou, MAINE voters approved Medicaid expansion - they will have to come up with their portion of it ($55 million and you know how accurate estimates are - especially concerning something that is free to recipients) - not by printing money or adding to the deficit as the Feds do - but from state income taxes, licenses or fees. Health care ALREADY consumes 32% of Maine's state budget - this will only increase the percentage - what's gonna give? Pensions - no, interest - no, education - probably not. Or RAISE TAXES - do Mainers (is that what they are called?) think that Medicaid money will come from the other pieces of the pie - nope, probably out of THEIR pockets.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018MEbs_19bs2n#usgs302

Hey fake Jaimaican, where are all the complaints of budget crisis in all the states that have had medicaid expansion going on a decade? I mean regurgitating the same doomcasting from 2009 is fun and all but it remains bullshit.


The study examined data compiled by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) from 2010-2015 in all 50 states (the District of Columbia was not included) and looked at changes in federal and state spending on Medicaid, along with spending in other budget areas, such as education and transportation.

Medicaid expansion was associated with a statistically significant increase in both total spending and federal spending on Medicaid after expansion took effect in 2014, the study found. The federal investment under the ACA has enabled more than 11 million people to gain Medicaid coverage, which across the country, and in expansion states in particular, has led to the lowest uninsured rate on record.

Importantly, the study found expansion was not associated with a statistically significant increase in state spending on Medicaid. This isn’t surprising because expansion is an extremely good deal for states: the federal government paid the entire cost of expansion from 2014-2016, and will pay no less than 90 percent of the cost going forward.

The authors note that their study looked only at spending within state Medicaid programs, and did not examine expansion’s broader benefits for state budgets. Other research has found that expansion has produced savings in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and elsewhere. That’s because as more low-income people have gained Medicaid coverage, demand for state-funded health programs that serve the same population, such as behavioral health programs and payments to hospitals to cover uncompensated care, has dropped, providing net savings. Moreover, some expansion states project expansion will continue to produce net savings through the end of the decade, even as states pick up a greater share of expansion costs.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/more-evidence-that-medicaid-expansion-hasnt-hurt-state-budgets

Now try and find a new argument that has not been empirically disproven, dimwit.

[rmt]

Hey fake Jaimaican, where are all the complaints of budget crisis in all the states that have had medicaid expansion going on a decade? I mean regurgitating the same doomcasting from 2009 is fun and all but it remains bullshit.



https://www.cbpp.org/blog/more-evidence-that-medicaid-expansion-hasnt-hurt-state-budgets

Now try and find a new argument that has not been empirically disproven, dimwit.


It hasn't hurt states' budgets YET because the Feds paid 100% through the end of 2016 - it's only this year that the states will start to spend their own money:


Now these states are coming to realize that they grabbed the short end of the ObamaCare stick — as costs are vastly outpacing expectations.

A new report from the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability finds that enrollment in Medicaid expansion states is far higher than projected.

It found that the 24 states that made enrollment projections before expanding their programs expected 5.5 million newly eligible people to sign up with Medicaid. The latest data available show that more than 11.5 million did so.

"Some states have signed up more than four times as many," the report notes.

In California, for example, UC Berkeley projected that 910,000 more Californians would enroll in Medicaid as a result of the expansion. Turns out that about 3 million did so.

Not only are enrollment figures higher than expected, a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that per-enrollee costs for newly eligible people were 49% higher than expected.

And in March, the Congressional Budget Office increased its 10-year cost projection for ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion by $136 billion.

Up until now, these overruns didn't matter to the states, since the federal government was picking up the bill.

But starting January, states have to pony up 5% of the cost for all those newly eligible Medicaid enrollees. (The state share gradually increases to 10%.)

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/states-discover-the-high-cost-of-obamacares-free-medicaid-expansion/

For instance, in Oregon:
Oregon lawmakers are considering a plan to cut Medicaid expansion funds to fill a $1.8 billion hole in its state budget.
https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/or-may-cut-aca-medicaid-expansion-funds-to-favor-state-budget

Instead, they passed a $550 million health care tax bill which OR voters are gonna vote on in January - whether to keep or not. That above $55 million Maine estimate, I suspect, will be way under estimated.

[boutons_deux]

rmt wants poor people to suffer with untreated diseases, and die because health care is too expensive.

USA spends over $1T / year on MIC corporate welfare and maintaining planetary hegemony, fighting unwinnable wars, but 10Ks Americans die every year because health care is too expensive and BigFood sells them pathogenic garbage.

[RandomGuy]

It hasn't hurt states' budgets YET because the Feds paid 100% through the end of 2016 - it's only this year that the states will start to spend their own money:


Now these states are coming to realize that they grabbed the short end of the ObamaCare stick — as costs are vastly outpacing expectations.

A new report from the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability finds that enrollment in Medicaid expansion states is far higher than projected.

It found that the 24 states that made enrollment projections before expanding their programs expected 5.5 million newly eligible people to sign up with Medicaid. The latest data available show that more than 11.5 million did so.

"Some states have signed up more than four times as many," the report notes.

In California, for example, UC Berkeley projected that 910,000 more Californians would enroll in Medicaid as a result of the expansion. Turns out that about 3 million did so.

Not only are enrollment figures higher than expected, a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that per-enrollee costs for newly eligible people were 49% higher than expected.

And in March, the Congressional Budget Office increased its 10-year cost projection for ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion by $136 billion.

Up until now, these overruns didn't matter to the states, since the federal government was picking up the bill.

But starting January, states have to pony up 5% of the cost for all those newly eligible Medicaid enrollees. (The state share gradually increases to 10%.)

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/states-discover-the-high-cost-of-obamacares-free-medicaid-expansion/

For instance, in Oregon:
Oregon lawmakers are considering a plan to cut Medicaid expansion funds to fill a $1.8 billion hole in its state budget.
https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/or-may-cut-aca-medicaid-expansion-funds-to-favor-state-budget

Instead, they passed a $550 million health care tax bill which OR voters are gonna vote on in January - whether to keep or not. That above $55 million Maine estimate, I suspect, will be way under estimated.

"enrollment in Medicaid expansion states is far higher than projected"

So the need for health insurance and accompanying health care is larger than anyone thought. Not really a surprise to me.

What did jump out at me though:

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

[baseline bum]

rmt with her typical we can't afford to help poor people but then the cunt is silent on Trump going $1.5 trillion into debt to give moar tax cuts to the rich.

[rmt]

rmt wants poor people to suffer with untreated diseases, and die because health care is too expensive.

USA spends over $1T / year on MIC corporate welfare and maintaining planetary hegemony, fighting unwinnable wars, but 10Ks Americans die every year because health care is too expensive and BigFood sells them pathogenic garbage.

bou - I have no objections to paying for Medicaid for the disabled, poor elderly or children who can not fend for themselves. But, imo, able-bodied people who receive Medicaid should at least have work requirements. No one here says anything about the expansion taking away from the truly needy:

Second, repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually eliminate a major source of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As I have previously written, the Medicaid expansion gives states a greater incentive to cover able-bodied adults under expansion than individuals with disabilities previously eligible for Medicaid. And states have done just that: Illinois cut medication funding for special needs-children on the same day it voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich cut eligibility for 34,000 individuals with disabilities, even while expanding the Medicaid program to the able-bodied.

Third, CCD did not speak out against Obamacare’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities prior to the bill’s passage. In a 14-page, single-spaced letter dated January 8, 2010, this coalition of disability groups said not one word about the fact that the proposed legislation gave state Medicaid programs a greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities.

In fact, CCD not only did not object to the way Obamacare discriminates against individuals with disabilities, it wanted to expand that discrimination. The coalition called on Congress to expand Medicaid further up the income scale than the legislation signed into law. Had Congress done so, even more able-bodied adults would have qualified for a higher Medicaid match rate than individuals with disabilities—further entrenching Obamacare’s perverse incentives.

Let’s Be Clear: People’s Lives Are At Stake
Given this history, it’s more than a bit rich for CCD to be calling on Americans to “stand up for people with disabilities,” as it said nothing about an issue of critical importance to those individuals seven years ago. On the one hand, it might be unsurprising that individuals working for disability rights groups—with generally leftist political leanings—did not point out a key flaw in a bill that sought to accomplish the liberal dream of universal health insurance coverage for Americans.

But on the other hand, at least hundreds of individuals with disabilities have died awaiting access to Medicaid services since Obamacare’s enactment. These are just some of the more than half a million individuals with disabilities still on waiting lists for home-based personal care, even as millions of able-bodied adults obtain coverage under Medicaid expansion.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/special-interests-wont-tell-expanding-medicaid-makes-disabled-americans-suffer/

[RandomGuy]

bou - I have no objections to paying for Medicaid for the disabled, poor elderly or children who can not fend for themselves. But, imo, able-bodied people who receive Medicaid should at least have work requirements. No one here says anything about the expansion taking away from the truly needy:

Second, repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually eliminate a major source of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As I have previously written, the Medicaid expansion gives states a greater incentive to cover able-bodied adults under expansion than individuals with disabilities previously eligible for Medicaid. And states have done just that: Illinois cut medication funding for special needs-children on the same day it voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich cut eligibility for 34,000 individuals with disabilities, even while expanding the Medicaid program to the able-bodied.

Third, CCD did not speak out against Obamacare’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities prior to the bill’s passage. In a 14-page, single-spaced letter dated January 8, 2010, this coalition of disability groups said not one word about the fact that the proposed legislation gave state Medicaid programs a greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities.

In fact, CCD not only did not object to the way Obamacare discriminates against individuals with disabilities, it wanted to expand that discrimination. The coalition called on Congress to expand Medicaid further up the income scale than the legislation signed into law. Had Congress done so, even more able-bodied adults would have qualified for a higher Medicaid match rate than individuals with disabilities—further entrenching Obamacare’s perverse incentives.

Let’s Be Clear: People’s Lives Are At Stake
Given this history, it’s more than a bit rich for CCD to be calling on Americans to “stand up for people with disabilities,” as it said nothing about an issue of critical importance to those individuals seven years ago. On the one hand, it might be unsurprising that individuals working for disability rights groups—with generally leftist political leanings—did not point out a key flaw in a bill that sought to accomplish the liberal dream of universal health insurance coverage for Americans.

But on the other hand, at least hundreds of individuals with disabilities have died awaiting access to Medicaid services since Obamacare’s enactment. These are just some of the more than half a million individuals with disabilities still on waiting lists for home-based personal care, even as millions of able-bodied adults obtain coverage under Medicaid expansion.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/special-interests-wont-tell-expanding-medicaid-makes-disabled-americans-suffer/

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

[spurraider21]

My old man just enrolled in medishare :lol... Will give updates tbh

[boutons_deux]

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

Do they even give the tiniest HUMANITARIAN shit about poor people, and poor pregnant women, getting health care? fuck no.

They aren't called "Conservative Foundation for BigHealthCare Accountability" so don't GAF about Americans being fleeced for $1T+ per year, every year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It hasn't hurt states' budgets YET because the Feds paid 100% through the end of 2016 - it's only this year that the states will start to spend their own money:


Now these states are coming to realize that they grabbed the short end of the ObamaCare stick — as costs are vastly outpacing expectations.

A new report from the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability finds that enrollment in Medicaid expansion states is far higher than projected.

It found that the 24 states that made enrollment projections before expanding their programs expected 5.5 million newly eligible people to sign up with Medicaid. The latest data available show that more than 11.5 million did so.

"Some states have signed up more than four times as many," the report notes.

In California, for example, UC Berkeley projected that 910,000 more Californians would enroll in Medicaid as a result of the expansion. Turns out that about 3 million did so.

Not only are enrollment figures higher than expected, a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that per-enrollee costs for newly eligible people were 49% higher than expected.

And in March, the Congressional Budget Office increased its 10-year cost projection for ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion by $136 billion.

Up until now, these overruns didn't matter to the states, since the federal government was picking up the bill.

But starting January, states have to pony up 5% of the cost for all those newly eligible Medicaid enrollees. (The state share gradually increases to 10%.)

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/states-discover-the-high-cost-of-obamacares-free-medicaid-expansion/

For instance, in Oregon:
Oregon lawmakers are considering a plan to cut Medicaid expansion funds to fill a $1.8 billion hole in its state budget.
https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/or-may-cut-aca-medicaid-expansion-funds-to-favor-state-budget

Instead, they passed a $550 million health care tax bill which OR voters are gonna vote on in January - whether to keep or not. That above $55 million Maine estimate, I suspect, will be way under estimated.

More fearmongering and handwaving from far right sources. You should have gone with the Heritage foundation article making this same claim.

As was pointed out, most states saw direct savings from expansion. Whether or not them having to take a up a part of the bill will overrun that remains to be seen. Your article handwaves at what it sees as alarming particulars and misses the forest for those trees. Additionally as the article I posted pointed out, those studies do not consider ancillary benefits such as increased tax revenues and the like.

In your zeal to find a case of a state going over budget you read a headline and did not read the article. You a troll of Darrin's or you just as stupid as he is? First of all as the article pointed out OR had expanded medicaid prior to Obamacare. Additionally, the article never points to medicaid costs causing the deficit.

What you don't consider is that the increased demand without price controls is the cause of the overrun. Every other developed nation at least has a public option and they all pay half of what we do on health care. The rapidly inflating healthcare costs being tied to payrolls is a big reason for wage stagnation.

I agree that Obamacare is flawed but it is flawed for the same reason that Bush's Medicare expansion was flawed. The problem is that demand for healthcare is a vertical slope and without cost controls, suppliers can charge anything the consumer can possibly afford because it is literally a life of death decision. The market itself is broken and just like in economies of scale, the government is much more efficient. As pointed out earlier the per capita healthcare spending in the rest of the developed world speaks for itself.

[RandomGuy]

bou - I have no objections to paying for Medicaid for the disabled, poor elderly or children who can not fend for themselves. But, imo, able-bodied people who receive Medicaid should at least have work requirements. No one here says anything about the expansion taking away from the truly needy:

Second, repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually eliminate a major source of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As I have previously written, the Medicaid expansion gives states a greater incentive to cover able-bodied adults under expansion than individuals with disabilities previously eligible for Medicaid. And states have done just that: Illinois cut medication funding for special needs-children on the same day it voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich cut eligibility for 34,000 individuals with disabilities, even while expanding the Medicaid program to the able-bodied.

Third, CCD did not speak out against Obamacare’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities prior to the bill’s passage. In a 14-page, single-spaced letter dated January 8, 2010, this coalition of disability groups said not one word about the fact that the proposed legislation gave state Medicaid programs a greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities.

In fact, CCD not only did not object to the way Obamacare discriminates against individuals with disabilities, it wanted to expand that discrimination. The coalition called on Congress to expand Medicaid further up the income scale than the legislation signed into law. Had Congress done so, even more able-bodied adults would have qualified for a higher Medicaid match rate than individuals with disabilities—further entrenching Obamacare’s perverse incentives.

Let’s Be Clear: People’s Lives Are At Stake
Given this history, it’s more than a bit rich for CCD to be calling on Americans to “stand up for people with disabilities,” as it said nothing about an issue of critical importance to those individuals seven years ago. On the one hand, it might be unsurprising that individuals working for disability rights groups—with generally leftist political leanings—did not point out a key flaw in a bill that sought to accomplish the liberal dream of universal health insurance coverage for Americans.

But on the other hand, at least hundreds of individuals with disabilities have died awaiting access to Medicaid services since Obamacare’s enactment. These are just some of the more than half a million individuals with disabilities still on waiting lists for home-based personal care, even as millions of able-bodied adults obtain coverage under Medicaid expansion.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/special-interests-wont-tell-expanding-medicaid-makes-disabled-americans-suffer/

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

[RandomGuy]

bou - I have no objections to paying for Medicaid for the disabled, poor elderly or children who can not fend for themselves. But, imo, able-bodied people who receive Medicaid should at least have work requirements. No one here says anything about the expansion taking away from the truly needy:

Second, repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually eliminate a major source of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As I have previously written, the Medicaid expansion gives states a greater incentive to cover able-bodied adults under expansion than individuals with disabilities previously eligible for Medicaid. And states have done just that: Illinois cut medication funding for special needs-children on the same day it voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich cut eligibility for 34,000 individuals with disabilities, even while expanding the Medicaid program to the able-bodied.

Third, CCD did not speak out against Obamacare’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities prior to the bill’s passage. In a 14-page, single-spaced letter dated January 8, 2010, this coalition of disability groups said not one word about the fact that the proposed legislation gave state Medicaid programs a greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities.

In fact, CCD not only did not object to the way Obamacare discriminates against individuals with disabilities, it wanted to expand that discrimination. The coalition called on Congress to expand Medicaid further up the income scale than the legislation signed into law. Had Congress done so, even more able-bodied adults would have qualified for a higher Medicaid match rate than individuals with disabilities—further entrenching Obamacare’s perverse incentives.

Let’s Be Clear: People’s Lives Are At Stake
Given this history, it’s more than a bit rich for CCD to be calling on Americans to “stand up for people with disabilities,” as it said nothing about an issue of critical importance to those individuals seven years ago. On the one hand, it might be unsurprising that individuals working for disability rights groups—with generally leftist political leanings—did not point out a key flaw in a bill that sought to accomplish the liberal dream of universal health insurance coverage for Americans.

But on the other hand, at least hundreds of individuals with disabilities have died awaiting access to Medicaid services since Obamacare’s enactment. These are just some of the more than half a million individuals with disabilities still on waiting lists for home-based personal care, even as millions of able-bodied adults obtain coverage under Medicaid expansion.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/special-interests-wont-tell-expanding-medicaid-makes-disabled-americans-suffer/

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

(sorry for the reposts, this thread prolly got buried)

[sickdsm]

All we here is repeal of obamcare will hurt poor people but the fact is that as of now the middle classgets fucked on health care and people are going to die. I've been to the doctor 4 times this year, nothing has been figured out. Insurance will probably go up to $20k year for young, otherwise healthy family of 4. 6500 deductible, no copays just all out of pocket. Prescriptions are half price if I pay out of pocket, they double if i put them through my insurance. They don't think it's cancer but can't rule that out. Should I spend another $6k to verify something is minor? I guarantee you that I'm not in the minority. Meanwhile others are going to ER instead of the clinic because over the counter medicine is paid 100% through ER visits for them.

Boutons and the rest of his jabronies here saying fuck the middle class.

[RandomGuy]

All we here is repeal of obamcare will hurt poor people but the fact is that as of now the middle classgets fucked on health care and people are going to die. I've been to the doctor 4 times this year, nothing has been figured out. Insurance will probably go up to $20k year for young, otherwise healthy family of 4. 6500 deductible, no copays just all out of pocket. Prescriptions are half price if I pay out of pocket, they double if i put them through my insurance. They don't think it's cancer but can't rule that out. Should I spend another $6k to verify something is minor? I guarantee you that I'm not in the minority. Meanwhile others are going to ER instead of the clinic because over the counter medicine is paid 100% through ER visits for them.

Boutons and the rest of his jabronies here saying fuck the middle class.

Sorry to hear about your health problems. (and health insurance problems)

OCare was as good as could get through congress. Subsidies for people to purchase insurance, and an expansion of Medicare.

You point out a lot of the inefficiencies and short comings of our health care system.

We ration health care in this country by the ability to pay, so people find what routes they can to help with that, such as ER visits.

This leads to really inefficient outcomes, such as someone not being able to afford $200/month for prescriptions, then getting sick, and going to the ER to the tune of $100,000.

There is no free market solution for this, as much as Republicans might wish for it. There just isn't.

Single-payer is the only rational way to go. Get all the costs out in the open, and quit all the inefficient cost-shifting. Every other industrialized county does this for a reason.

[RandomGuy]

Boutons and the rest of his jabronies here saying fuck the middle class.

Also:
You should take a deep dive into the details of the GOP tax plan, and its attempt to, yet again, gut the ACA. The non-partisan analysis is that the middle-class gets a tax increase, and that funds the tax cut for the wealthy.

[sickdsm]

Once again partisian politics is all anyone knows on here. I never said I was for trumps version. I am for the full repeal of ACA however. Burn it down to build it back up. Single payer is the only way but I'm afraid that's flawed also. No amount of tweaking will work. People like Bou don't care about the middle class or small business owner. We are not going to matter until everyone is fucked. Aca was a bandaid, a crappy one at that.



Burn it all down.

[boutons_deux]

"Bou don't care about the middle class or small business owner."

You Lie, and you have no links.

The problem with ACA was, is that the oligarchy owns and runs health care as a privilege, for huge profit, as yet another way to redistribute wealth from citizens to the Capitalists. That ain't ACA's fault.

[RandomGuy]

Once again partisian politics is all anyone knows on here. I never said I was for trumps version. I am for the full repeal of ACA however. Burn it down to build it back up. Single payer is the only way but I'm afraid that's flawed also. No amount of tweaking will work. People like Bou don't care about the middle class or small business owner. We are not going to matter until everyone is fucked. Aca was a bandaid, a crappy one at that.



Burn it all down.

Ain't nuthin' perfect, but it is pretty obvious our health care system is shit, and costs way too much.

[sickdsm]

"Bou don't care about the middle class or small business owner."

You Lie, and you have no links.

The problem with ACA was, is that the oligarchy owns and runs health care as a privilege, for huge profit, as yet another way to redistribute wealth from citizens to the Capitalists. That ain't ACA's fault.




Did he seriously respond to my criticism of his attitude with a "where's the shit-posting hyperlinks?"


I think all lib-leaning posters on here should have to explain and/or defend this piece of crap the same way that they expect the right wingers on here explain Trump.

What a basket case.

[sickdsm]

Ain't nuthin' perfect, but it is pretty obvious our health care system is shit, and costs way too much.

So then you should be pushing for full repeal of ACA and single payer. Otherwise your a joke.

[RandomGuy]

So then you should be pushing for full repeal of ACA and single payer. Otherwise your a joke.

That is precisely what I would prefer. It won't happen until the Republican party is almost destroyed on a national level though. They have gone so far down the rabbit hole of extremism, they can't sign on to anything that might even approach it. Gerrymandering has made them extremists that only need to pass the most pure form of conservative political correctness to get to Congress.

The ACA was the most free-market thing we could get passed, and even though it was originally a Republican idea , it was passed under a Democratic president. The GOP, because it doesn't give a squirt of shit about regular people over its own interests, suddenly got a zeal to kill the ACA that borders on being a religion, for the sole reason that a Democrat might have done something people think was good.

[boutons_deux]

Universal Medicare and universal VA is the ideal

The oligarchy will block both, along with any progress for the bottom 4 quintiles, it really is hopeless

And not one of you can show any steps that justify any hope

[baseline bum]

So then you should be pushing for full repeal of ACA and single payer. Otherwise your a joke.

You'd need 67 Democrat senators and 290 Democrat house members to have even the slightest chance at that. Might as well pray for unicorns that shit cheap blood pressure meds.

[sickdsm]

That is precisely what I would prefer. It won't happen until the Republican party is almost destroyed on a national level though. They have gone so far down the rabbit hole of extremism, they can't sign on to anything that might even approach it. Gerrymandering has made them extremists that only need to pass the most pure form of conservative political correctness to get to Congress.

The ACA was the most free-market thing we could get passed, and even though it was originally a Republican idea , it was passed under a Democratic president. The GOP, because it doesn't give a squirt of shit about regular people over its own interests, suddenly got a zeal to kill the ACA that borders on being a religion, for the sole reason that a Democrat might have done something people think was good.

Again. Your pushing for single payer. Aca needs to be axed first. Where are you promoting that? B

[RandomGuy]

bou - I have no objections to paying for Medicaid for the disabled, poor elderly or children who can not fend for themselves. But, imo, able-bodied people who receive Medicaid should at least have work requirements. No one here says anything about the expansion taking away from the truly needy:

Second, repealing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually eliminate a major source of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As I have previously written, the Medicaid expansion gives states a greater incentive to cover able-bodied adults under expansion than individuals with disabilities previously eligible for Medicaid. And states have done just that: Illinois cut medication funding for special needs-children on the same day it voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich cut eligibility for 34,000 individuals with disabilities, even while expanding the Medicaid program to the able-bodied.

Third, CCD did not speak out against Obamacare’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities prior to the bill’s passage. In a 14-page, single-spaced letter dated January 8, 2010, this coalition of disability groups said not one word about the fact that the proposed legislation gave state Medicaid programs a greater federal match to cover able-bodied adults than individuals with disabilities.

In fact, CCD not only did not object to the way Obamacare discriminates against individuals with disabilities, it wanted to expand that discrimination. The coalition called on Congress to expand Medicaid further up the income scale than the legislation signed into law. Had Congress done so, even more able-bodied adults would have qualified for a higher Medicaid match rate than individuals with disabilities—further entrenching Obamacare’s perverse incentives.

Let’s Be Clear: People’s Lives Are At Stake
Given this history, it’s more than a bit rich for CCD to be calling on Americans to “stand up for people with disabilities,” as it said nothing about an issue of critical importance to those individuals seven years ago. On the one hand, it might be unsurprising that individuals working for disability rights groups—with generally leftist political leanings—did not point out a key flaw in a bill that sought to accomplish the liberal dream of universal health insurance coverage for Americans.

But on the other hand, at least hundreds of individuals with disabilities have died awaiting access to Medicaid services since Obamacare’s enactment. These are just some of the more than half a million individuals with disabilities still on waiting lists for home-based personal care, even as millions of able-bodied adults obtain coverage under Medicaid expansion.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/special-interests-wont-tell-expanding-medicaid-makes-disabled-americans-suffer/

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

This isn't a trick question, not trying for a gotcha, but merely trying to make a point about critical thinking.

(sorry for the reposts, this thread prolly got buried)

[RandomGuy]

Again. Your pushing for single payer. Aca needs to be axed first. Where are you promoting that? B

ACA = better than nothing.

I will not advocate for its repeal, unless fully replaced with single payer, and the ACA is not needed if there is single payer. The answer is "yes, IF replaced by single payer".

[sickdsm]

ACA = better than nothing.

I will not advocate for its repeal, unless fully replaced with single payer, and the ACA is not needed if there is single payer. The answer is "yes, IF replaced by single payer".

Then your just as bad as a politician. Lip service.

You think that i'm better off with ACA then nothing? Out of pocket is almost half rate. The problem is inflated costs bc of mandated insurance. Next time your at a hospital, for shits and giggles ask them what whatever your getting done is going to cost with no insurance. Not saying it will be half but when they tell you, ask them about payment plans. It will drop even more. Then ask them what the minimum per month is to pay. You will be well under half. Too bad that we're aware of what the big medical bill can cost that guys like me are trying to get whatever i have to pay towards my deductable. Dirt cheap if i pay the hospital "under the table" so to speak.

No sir. When you say things like ACA is better than nothing, you are against middle class and especially small business.


Class warfare. We won. That must refer to the war on middle class, no?

[sickdsm]

You'd need 67 Democrat senators and 290 Democrat house members to have even the slightest chance at that. Might as well pray for unicorns that shit cheap blood pressure meds.

So give up and don't try.


Blame the otherside while your at it.

[RandomGuy]

Then your just as bad as a politician. Lip service.

You think that i'm better off with ACA then nothing? Out of pocket is almost half rate. The problem is inflated costs bc of mandated insurance. Next time your at a hospital, for shits and giggles ask them what whatever your getting done is going to cost with no insurance. Not saying it will be half but when they tell you, ask them about payment plans. It will drop even more. Then ask them what the minimum per month is to pay. You will be well under half. Too bad that we're aware of what the big medical bill can cost that guys like me are trying to get whatever i have to pay towards my deductable. Dirt cheap if i pay the hospital "under the table" so to speak.

No sir. When you say things like ACA is better than nothing, you are against middle class and especially small business.


Class warfare. We won. That must refer to the war on middle class, no?

You do understand that millions more people now have health insurance, right?

I have audited HMOs, medical liability, and workers compensation companies. I have spoken to hospital system CEOs directly about how the ACA was going to effect both their hospital systems, as well as the HMOs within the company group. I have spoken to all levels of management of HMOs about the ACA, and how that was effecting their business, then reviewed the nuts and bolts actual financials.

I understand the cost-shifting, and price structures at hospitals. I read yearly detailed academic papers on the causes of health care inflation.

I am a genuine expert on insurance and health insurance. I have read the ENTIRE ACA and understand it pretty well. (it isn't as long as many think it is, after you adjust the print style)

The problems isn't mandated costs because of insurance, it is because so many people don't have insurance to begin with. Getting rid of the ACA will not help that.

[boutons_deux]

So give up and don't try.


Blame the otherside while your at it.

Get with the program of hopelessness.

There is no hope,

with voter suppression (which has not yet peaked) and

partisan gerrymandering (very probably to be approved as Constitutional "settled law" by the oligarchy SCOTUS5 ),

if the oligarchy doesn't have (just barely) enough votes to screw America,

then it will retain enough votes to block all progress for the non-oligarchy.

Tell us how you plan to "not give up" and "to try"

[RandomGuy]

So give up and don't try.


Blame the otherside while your at it.

If you like, give me the libertarian answer for getting people health care or health insurance.

Die and die quickly?

Pop quiz:

Do we ration health care in the USA?

[baseline bum]

So give up and don't try.


Blame the otherside while your at it.

Yes, of course you wouldn't try to enact single payer coverage when Trump is president and Republicans control both houses of congress. Is that hard to understand?

[sickdsm]

If you like, give me the libertarian answer for getting people health care or health insurance.

Die and die quickly?

Pop quiz:

Do we ration health care in the USA?
I see your on that "Libetarian is bad" kick still.


I don't vouch for whatever so called "leader" is promoting. Your question there is one a R or D drone would have to look up. Sort of a ask your mommy and daddy type of question. I'm a registered independent. I'm libetarian leaning. Only a clueless lemming would ask someone who is in favor of single payer insurance, which is about as non-libetarian position as one could get, a question like that. Go home, your drunk.

[sickdsm]

Yes, of course you wouldn't try to enact single payer coverage when Trump is president and Republicans control both houses of congress. Is that hard to understand?

Cuz dem are the bad guys and we gotta wait till we can ram things down our opposition's throat.



Not sure which side believes that more.

[baseline bum]

Cuz dem are the bad guys and we gotta wait till we can ram things down our opposition's throat.



Not sure which side believes that more.

We have seen what the GOP health plan is. They're in control, the Democrats aren't. What's hard to see here?

[Spurminator]

I'd nominate the side that delayed a Supreme Court nominee for a year.

[boutons_deux]

I'd nominate the side that delayed a Supreme Court nominee for a year.

the same side that's pushing pushing through the Senate right wing extremist / incompetent candidates in bunches of 4 or 5

the oligarchy's bloodless (but fatal) coup d'etat is entering the mop up / consolidation phase.

[rmt]

Been making doc appointments recently and don't any of you think that it's strange that the first question they ask is if this is an employer-sponsored plan (as opposed to an Exchange plan, I guess)?

sickdsm, have you tried to see if any organization (maybe a farmers' association) that you could join has any health insurance plan. Trump did sign that EO to allow small employers/individuals through association health plans the same treatment as large employer policies.

Here's what the executive order would do:
Let more small businesses join together to buy coverage. Trump is directing the Labor Department to study how to make it easier for small businesses, and possibly individuals, to collectively buy health insurance through association health plans. Small employers may expand their ability to offer group coverage across state lines, providing them with a broader range of policies at lower rates.
Association health plans are usually sponsored by trade organizations or interest groups. But the administration could amend the rules governing these plans so they are no longer subject to state regulation, said health policy experts. Instead, the nationwide plans may come under the same federal oversight as large-employer policies.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If you like, give me the libertarian answer for getting people health care or health insurance.

Die and die quickly?

Pop quiz:

Do we ration health care in the USA?



I see your on that "Libetarian is bad" kick still.


I don't vouch for whatever so called "leader" is promoting. Your question there is one a R or D drone would have to look up. Sort of a ask your mommy and daddy type of question. I'm a registered independent. I'm libetarian leaning. Only a clueless lemming would ask someone who is in favor of single payer insurance, which is about as non-libetarian position as one could get, a question like that. Go home, your drunk.

Fair enough.

Second question is still an interesting one. Think about it. The answer will probably surprise you.

[RandomGuy]

Been making doc appointments recently and don't any of you think that it's strange that the first question they ask is if this is an employer-sponsored plan (as opposed to an Exchange plan, I guess)?

sickdsm, have you tried to see if any organization (maybe a farmers' association) that you could join has any health insurance plan. Trump did sign that EO to allow small employers/individuals through association health plans the same treatment as large employer policies.

Here's what the executive order would do:
Let more small businesses join together to buy coverage. Trump is directing the Labor Department to study how to make it easier for small businesses, and possibly individuals, to collectively buy health insurance through association health plans. Small employers may expand their ability to offer group coverage across state lines, providing them with a broader range of policies at lower rates.
Association health plans are usually sponsored by trade organizations or interest groups. But the administration could amend the rules governing these plans so they are no longer subject to state regulation, said health policy experts. Instead, the nationwide plans may come under the same federal oversight as large-employer policies.

Did the "conservative Foundation for Government Accountability" provide any benefit analysis to the economy of making a large section of people healthier through access to medicine or appropriate medical care?

This isn't a trick question, not trying for a gotcha, but merely trying to make a point about critical thinking.

Simple question.

[sickdsm]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If you like, give me the libertarian answer for getting people health care or health insurance.

Die and die quickly?

Pop quiz:

Do we ration health care in the USA?




Fair enough.

Second question is still an interesting one. Think about it. The answer will probably surprise you.

Actually i'm not happy with fair enough. I'm for single payer which is not a conservative nor libetarian position. Yet i still get accused of being a closet GOP, Trump supporter, etc... Fuzzy memory but not sure if it was you or baseline or whoever that accused me of defending Moore.


Partisian politics like this is what's wrong with america. Its not us vs them or the other side. The melting pot refers to politics as well. To me, that's the best part of being in the middle.

[RandomGuy]

Actually i'm not happy with fair enough. I'm for single payer which is not a conservative nor libetarian position. Yet i still get accused of being a closet GOP, Trump supporter, etc... Fuzzy memory but not sure if it was you or baseline or whoever that accused me of defending Moore.


Partisian politics like this is what's wrong with america. Its not us vs them or the other side. The melting pot refers to politics as well. To me, that's the best part of being in the middle.

Do we ration health care in the US? If so, how?


(the answer is yes, btw, but guess how we do it)

[RandomGuy]

Been making doc appointments recently and don't any of you think that it's strange that the first question they ask is if this is an employer-sponsored plan (as opposed to an Exchange plan, I guess)?

sickdsm, have you tried to see if any organization (maybe a farmers' association) that you could join has any health insurance plan. Trump did sign that EO to allow small employers/individuals through association health plans the same treatment as large employer policies.

Here's what the executive order would do:
Let more small businesses join together to buy coverage. Trump is directing the Labor Department to study how to make it easier for small businesses, and possibly individuals, to collectively buy health insurance through association health plans. Small employers may expand their ability to offer group coverage across state lines, providing them with a broader range of policies at lower rates.
Association health plans are usually sponsored by trade organizations or interest groups. But the administration could amend the rules governing these plans so they are no longer subject to state regulation, said health policy experts. Instead, the nationwide plans may come under the same federal oversight as large-employer policies.

You really don't seem to want to answer my question.

Why do you think that your conservative site didn't tell you about the economic benefits of making people healthier through access to health care?

[RandomGuy]

Shit.

I guess rmt isn't going to answer.

When someone is too chickenshit to answer usually means that answer hurts her/his arguments.

In this case, rmt's article is easily exposed as one-sided propaganda.

A good critical thinker would ask the question "you only told me about the costs, but what are the benefits?"

Good decision making and good policy NEVER only considers the costs. That is like telling yourself " that high-blood pressure medication costs $200, guess I will take a pass", then ending up in the ER.

Conservative think tanks are literally paid to lie to you. And yet... why do people still trust them?

Confirmation bias anyone?

[rmt]

Shit.

I guess rmt isn't going to answer.

When someone is too chickenshit to answer usually means that answer hurts her/his arguments.

In this case, rmt's article is easily exposed as one-sided propaganda.

A good critical thinker would ask the question "you only told me about the costs, but what are the benefits?"

Good decision making and good policy NEVER only considers the costs. That is like telling yourself " that high-blood pressure medication costs $200, guess I will take a pass", then ending up in the ER.

Conservative think tanks are literally paid to lie to you. And yet... why do people still trust them?

Confirmation bias anyone?

You guessed right.

Just came off a weekend trip to the Urgent Care and ER with ds and finding out that I have to get an outpatient procedure done and am not in the mood to argue about something I posted probably weeks ago. Took ds to urgent care with asthma attack. Doc said he isn't wheezing - I say what do you mean he isn't wheezing - I can hear it with my naked ear and you can't with your stethoscope? Ds: I'm wheezing. Doc: Okay, maybe he's wheezing a bit. He has an abnormal ekg - you need to go to the ER. We go to the ER, doc there is flaming mad that the urgent care doctor did not give my son any treatment and instead is concerned about an ekg when he is in respiratory distress.

And name calling is not exactly the way to get someone to answer your question.

[RandomGuy]

You guessed right.

Just came off a weekend trip to the Urgent Care and ER with ds and finding out that I have to get an outpatient procedure done and am not in the mood to argue about something I posted probably weeks ago. Took ds to urgent care with asthma attack. Doc said he isn't wheezing - I say what do you mean he isn't wheezing - I can hear it with my naked ear and you can't with your stethoscope? Ds: I'm wheezing. Doc: Okay, maybe he's wheezing a bit. He has an abnormal ekg - you need to go to the ER. We go to the ER, doc there is flaming mad that the urgent care doctor did not give my son any treatment and instead is concerned about an ekg when he is in respiratory distress.

And name calling is not exactly the way to get someone to answer your question.

ds? (guessing "dear son")

Hope he is better. My oldest had a couple of scary bouts with asthma that ended in an ER, so I know how scary it can be.

Namecalling is an expression of frustration. I can only patiently ask a question so many times, before civility gives way. I am human.

I wasn't really trying to argue anything, merely make a point about critical thinking. The conservative think tank didn't spend one second trying to calculate the benefits of the policy it tallied the costs for.

Don't you think that is dishonest? I do.

Shouldn't public policy be determined by a rational consideration of cost AND benefit?

[boutons_deux]

Shouldn't public policy be determined by a rational consideration of cost AND benefit?

Not when the oligarchy is implementing public policy for its own profit.

Laws, regs don't happen unless somebody gets paid, and the oligarchy outbids, pays the most.

Politicians ALWAYS have their for-sale hands extended. They are very inexpensive compared to the oligarchy's $Bs of corrupting funds

[rmt]

ds? (guessing "dear son")

Hope he is better. My oldest had a couple of scary bouts with asthma that ended in an ER, so I know how scary it can be.

Namecalling is an expression of frustration. I can only patiently ask a question so many times, before civility gives way. I am human.

I wasn't really trying to argue anything, merely make a point about critical thinking. The conservative think tank didn't spend one second trying to calculate the benefits of the policy it tallied the costs for.

Don't you think that is dishonest? I do.

Shouldn't public policy be determined by a rational consideration of cost AND benefit?

And I apologize for my snippyness - residual from the vaccine thread - I know, I've got to let it go. You have been polite to me - that is NOTHING compared to some of the stuff I've been called on this board (which I refuse to respond to).

Look, I can't even remember now what it was about - much less what conservative site I mentioned. But in general, I want to decide on cost and benefit - not have some entity or government decide for me (especially when they abound with corrupt people). I'm going to have a relaxing Thanksgiving and wish you and yours one too.

[RandomGuy]

And I apologize for my snippyness - residual from the vaccine thread - I know, I've got to let it go. You have been polite to me - that is NOTHING compared to some of the stuff I've been called on this board (which I refuse to respond to).

Look, I can't even remember now what it was about - much less what conservative site I mentioned. But in general, I want to decide on cost and benefit - not have some entity or government decide for me (especially when they abound with corrupt people). I'm going to have a relaxing Thanksgiving and wish you and yours one too.


A new report from the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability finds that enrollment in Medicaid expansion states is far higher than projected.

I am going to be cleaning as wife cooks. Simple family thing for us. My mom is.. not a warm fuzzy person, so we aren't up there with our kids to "stress" her out. :rolleyes

It will be very relaxing not having my mom say something catty to my wife and having to intervene. :lol

Hope yours is relaxing and fun too.

On to the topic, because it is important:

Read the report. Good for costs on Medicaid expansion, but no attempt was made to quantify benefits. Read it directly yourself. (pdf 16 pages, color)
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ObamaCare-Enrollment-is-Shattering-Projections.pdf

The concept of adverse selection (insurance term, click here for definition/explanation (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adverseselection.asp)) pretty much predicts that enrollment will be more than forecast, as the sickest people, who need care the most, sign up. Doesn't surprise me.

It was always going to get more people, and more sick people into it.

We can quibble over cost all day long, but if no conservative is willing to acknowledge that making sick people healthier has some benefit, then we are not going to have an honest discussion, or one that might suggest a policy solution that deals with reality.

Raise taxes to cover it. Not really a difficult solution. Better would be a single payer system. Government covers everything, let the doctors decide what is needed.

Having a huge pool of people will get a LOT of bargaining power to the table, and eliminate a lot of the cost-shifting that goes on behind the scenes.

[TeyshaBlue]

Single-payer is the only rational way to go. Get all the costs out in the open, and quit all the inefficient cost-shifting. Every other industrialized county does this for a reason.

This +10

[TeyshaBlue]

For the fucked and unfuckable cowards in the audience...
We are experiencing a large societal correction via the Weinstein effect.

Corrections and societal evolution happens. It might take something similar to implement single payor. It can happen. Don't be scared.


*Edit....Weinstein not Walmstein. Jeebus!*

[baseline bum]

For the fucked and unfuckable cowards in the audience...
We are experiencing a large societal correction via the Walmstein effect.

Corrections and societal evolution happens. It might take something similar to implement single payor. It can happen. Don't be scared.

I guess Trump is a huge wildcard since he has no real ideology. But it would take an absolute monster Democrat wave election next November for him to abandon his right wing conspiritard governing philosophy and also allow him to be able to twist some Republican arms in the senate to get to 60 on a vote for single payer. But he could claim he repealed and replaced Obamacare with something genuinely good in that case, so you could play up to his ego.

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't think Trump is stable/functional enough too pull that off. I had hoped he would grenade the GOP and force the Tea Party tards to spilt off,but he couldn't even pull that off.

[Spurminator]

I didn't think Trump is stable/functional enough too pull that off. I had hoped he would grenade the GOP and force the Tea Party tards to spilt off,but he couldn't even pull that off.

That could still happen in 2018 when establishment Republicans try to take the party back.

[baseline bum]

That could still happen in 2018 when establishment Republicans try to take the party back.

Haven't they pretty much given up on that? No one has Flake or Corker's back, Trump is the GOP.

[RandomGuy]

For the fucked and unfuckable cowards in the audience...
We are experiencing a large societal correction via the Weinstein effect.

Corrections and societal evolution happens. It might take something similar to implement single payor. It can happen. Don't be scared.


*Edit....Weinstein not Walmstein. Jeebus!*

heh, Good, 'cause I googled "walmstein" and came up with bupkiss. (worked backwards from an unedited quote)

[RandomGuy]

That [GOP implosion] could still happen in 2018 when establishment Republicans try to take the party back.

I think so. The mid-term is going to see a LOT of turnout, and that extra turnout is going to be overwhelmingly Democrat voters.

We are pissed.

That means that the GOP will be fighting itself at the same time the Dems are stomping the shit out of them. Doesn't matter who wins that GOP infighting, they will blame each other, and cost them a complete blowout in 2020.

I cannot fucking wait.

[RandomGuy]

Haven't they pretty much given up on that? No one has Flake or Corker's back, Trump is the GOP.

That is why the GOP is going to get itself curb stomped. Doesn't matter who the top of the GOP ticket is, the next Democratic nominee will just run against Trump and tie him in the minds of voters to whoever is unlucky enough to fight that battle. Middle America is increasingly revolted by what the GOP decided to do once it actually had power.

[boutons_deux]

"GOP is going to get itself curb stomped."

wishful thinking.

Severe partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Trash/Repug base will prevent any curb stomping.

btw, this Friday, a 35-year-old consent decree against the RNC's voter suppression, election queering expires.

If the decree isn't extended, the Kobach/Pence voter suppression project will suppress even many more Ms of voters, esp in swing states.

Then there's the SCOTUS case about partisan gerrymandering. I expect oligarchy 5-4 to enshrine partisan gerrymandering as "settled law" and Constitutionally protected.

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable.

[baseline bum]

That is why the GOP is going to get itself curb stomped. Doesn't matter who the top of the GOP ticket is, the next Democratic nominee will just run against Trump and tie him in the minds of voters to whoever is unlucky enough to fight that battle. Middle America is increasingly revolted by what the GOP decided to do once it actually had power.

The DNC got destroyed last year running on the "Trump is a piece of shit" platform. They better start talking policy and showing how Trump's goals are against the working class.

[boutons_deux]

"something similar to implement single payor. It can happen. Don't be scared."

ain't gonna happen.

Racism is fundamental to America

Racism, esp in red/slave-state counties, is why white people prefer to be fleeced, scammed by BigHealthCare than vote for Medicare-for-all, because that would mean knitters and Mexicans would be covered, and evangelical God says they don't deserve it because they are bad people.

Then there is huge obstacle of the oligarchy's $Bs available to maintain, to buy the status quo, and to purge or defeat any politicians who vote for, campaign on Medicare for all.

Can't even get universal health care in hippy, dippy, flaky, nutty blue CA because Brown, etc are on the BigHealthCare payroll.

[RandomGuy]

The DNC got destroyed last year running on the "Trump is a piece of shit" platform. They better start talking policy and showing how Trump's goals are against the working class.

Since the election, I’ve repeatedly heard these Republican talking points about why they lost, basically making Democratic voters out to be too dumb to vote Republican and caring too much about identity politics. At risk of giving them good ideas, let me break this down. /1

1) I spent 10 months detailing my plan to fix #Route28: how much it would cost ($300M), how to pay for it (reallocating 28-66 funds), what it would look like (replace traffic lights with overpasses) & how I would get it done (local+state). Y’all hit me on “transgenderism.” /2

2) At the state level, y’all made a pediatrician who volunteers at a children’s hospice out to be a member of MS-13 and campaigned throughout the state on Confederate statues and fiscally reckless tax cuts your own state senators called BS. And you wonder why you lost? /3

3) Here in Manassas, @carterforva and I talked relentlessly about jobs. Roads. Schools. Health care. Equality. I know this because Lee and I saw each other on the stump constantly. And y’all went after us for and “teaching transgenderism to kindergartners” and “socialism.” /4

4) When you spend an entire year just trying to make people afraid of people in their community and you apply this asinine labels as if you’re trying to make people afraid of an ideology or an idea, then you’re neglecting the very basics of governing to divide our communities. /5

5) Look at the BS the Democrats in PWC had to put up with from y’all this year. Racism. Xenophobia. Transphobia. When I went on offense in my TV ad, I had a first-person testimonial from someone in PWC who your policies left uninsured. You hit me for my band and my gender. /6


6) Bottom line: Knock off the divisive BS and actually campaign on boring stuff like infrastructure because it’s the boring stuff that the people pay you with their tax dollars to work on so they don’t have to focus on it. That’s literally your job. Try doing it. /7


One more thing: Stop believing your own headlines. I knew beyond a shred of doubt we would win this race when y’all actually, sincerely thought based on a POS robo poll that 27% of Dems wouldn’t vote for me if they knew I’m trans. 1) Wrong. 2) Stop attacking trans people. #NoH8

This is the kind of technocrat that the Democratic party needs, and, thankfully, encourages.

She has my vote if she ever ran for higher office.

[rmt]

"something similar to implement single payor. It can happen. Don't be scared."

ain't gonna happen.

Racism is fundamental to America

Racism, esp in red/slave-state counties, is why white people prefer to be fleeced, scammed by BigHealthCare than vote for Medicare-for-all, because that would mean knitters and Mexicans would be covered, and evangelical God says they don't deserve it because they are bad people.

Then there is huge obstacle of the oligarchy's $Bs available to maintain, to buy the status quo, and to purge or defeat any politicians who vote for, campaign on Medicare for all.

Can't even get universal health care in hippy, dippy, flaky, nutty blue CA because Brown, etc are on the BigHealthCare payroll.




Can't get it in CA because it's too expensive and Brown knows it as do the voters in VT and CO. Because if you think that the homeless and illegals are plentiful in CA now, you ain't seen anything yet - add all the sickly to even more of them.

[boutons_deux]

Despite Trump attacks, Obamacare sign-ups hold steady, new numbers show

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-enrollment-20180207-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

[Spurtacular]

Looks like voters got fed up with Republican attempts to sabotage Obamacare


Voters in Maine on Tuesday approved a ballot initiative to expand the state’s Medicaid program under Obamacare, sending a clear signal of support for the federal healthcare law to lawmakers in the state and Washington D.C.

The approval of the ballot question in Maine comes after Republicans in Washington failed several times over the last few months to pass legislation that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Maine has recently figured prominently in the nation’s debate on how to reform healthcare. U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, helped block her party’s efforts to repeal Obamacare this year, which angered President Donald Trump.

Maine, which becomes the first U.S. state to approve Medicaid expansion by ballot initiative, is one of 19 states that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

About 60% of voters in Maine approved the ballot initiative, according to the Bangor Daily News newspaper.

Tuesday’s ballot asked Maine voters to approve or reject a plan to provide healthcare coverage under Medicaid for adults under the age of 65 with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, which in 2017 is about $16,000 for a single person and about $22,000 for a family of two.

The state’s Republican governor, Paul LePage, staunchly opposes expansion of federal health care insurance, vetoing legislation to do so on several occasions.

“I’ve said it before, “free” is very expensive to somebody,” LePage said in a radio address last week.

About 70,000 residents in Maine would be eligible for the state’s Medicaid program when and if state officials certify the results of the election. Lawmakers could vote to repeal or alter the referendum, much like they have recently for several citizen-initiated referendums, the Bangor Daily News reported.

“It is now the responsibility and the duty of the governor and the legislature to fully and faithfully implement this law,” the state’s Speaker of the House, Sara Gideon, said in a statement.

The Legislature’s Office of Fiscal and Program Review in Maine estimated that expansion of Medicaid would cost the state about $55 million and bring in about $525 million of federal money to the state each year, according to the Bangor Daily News

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-gets-vote-approval-maine-092442593.html

Copy/Paste.

[Pelicans78]

Medicaid expansion is the biggest waste of money especially when less doctors and health systems are taking new Medicaid patients since the reimbursements are trash and late.

[baseline bum]

Medicaid expansion is the biggest waste of money especially when less doctors and health systems are taking new Medicaid patients since the reimbursements are trash and late.

Trump cutting his own taxes is a bigger waste of money

[AaronY]

This is the kind of technocrat that the Democratic party needs, and, thankfully, encourages.

She has my vote if she ever ran for higher office.
Lol Danica Roem. that tranny would have a great chance of winning the presidency. just needs an illegal as a running mate and we're set

[AaronY]

smh dat democratic base today....ooof

[koriwhat]

i'll gladly keep paying the bs yearly fine for not accepting that socialist program put on us citizens illegally.

[AaronY]

^^^GOP base aint too sharp either obv

[koriwhat]

^^^GOP base aint too sharp either obv

gop base... yall are so hard up for lies to be truth that yall will claim/say the same thing ad nauseum. the hive mind has got you under total control! now go play with your lincoln logs and barbie dolls.

[AaronY]

^^^GOP base aint too sharp either obv (cont)

[koriwhat]

^^^GOP base aint too sharp either obv (cont)

^^^ trigglypuff sums up your base. that's how i see all you loons.

[AaronY]

^^^ trigglypuff sums up your base. that's how i see all you loons.
oh, ok

[RandomGuy]

Copy/Paste.

?? It's a news article, you idiot. Of course it is copy and paste.

[Spurtacular]

?? It's a news article, you idiot. Of course it is copy and paste.

Whatever you got to tell yourself about your shitty OP's.

[RandomGuy]

Whatever you got to tell yourself about your shitty OP's.

This made me seriously chuckle.

Not sure what you tell yourself about how well you "argue", but you are almost certainly overestimating your abilities.

Personally, I don't even think you care what is true. Do you?

[Spurtacular]

This made me seriously chuckle.

Not sure what you tell yourself about how well you "argue", but you are almost certainly overestimating your abilities.

Personally, I don't even think you care what is true. Do you?

I sure as shit wouldn't be coming to you for truth in either event.

[SnakeBoy]

I am a genuine expert on insurance and health insurance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXSTMRZv5po

[RandomGuy]

[video link omitted, something about Dunning-Kruger]

What is funny is your misuse of the concept in a discussion in a way that proves you don't understand it. :rollin

[boutons_deux]

Surprise! The Trump administration just admitted it has to follow Obamacare

The rule of law is a harsh mistress

In an unexpected development, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter (https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Letters/Downloads/letter-to-Otter.pdf) to Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) on Thursday reluctantly conceding that

Obamacare “remains the law and we have a duty to enforce and uphold the law.”
The letter, from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, informs Idaho that

insurers will not be allowed to sell illegal plans within that state which threatened to destabilize Idaho’s insurance markets.
Last January, Idaho’s top insurance regulator announced that the state would permit health insurers to sell illegal plans (https://doi.idaho.gov/DisplayPDF?Id=4712) that do not comply with those insurers’ obligations under the Affordable Care Act.

Shortly thereafter, Blue Cross of Idaho submitted several proposed illegal plans (https://thinkprogress.org/an-idaho-insurance-company-is-skirting-obamacare-law-will-the-trump-administration-stop-it-b72fcaadf485/) to state regulators, which it wished to sell within the state.

The unlawful plans, known as

“Freedom Blue” plans, “charge people with pre-existing conditions and older residents significantly more than currently allowed under the ACA.”

They also place “an annual limit on coverage and wouldn’t cover maternity care.”

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-administration-has-to-follow-obamacare-79a3f9ab8ff5/

So much winning! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Republicans flirting with government shutdown over Obamacare sabotage (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/15/1749307/-Republicans-flirting-with-government-shutdown-over-Obamacare-sabotage)

the government could shut down in 8 days if Congress doesn't come up with a spending bill, and

Republicans are figuring out what poison pills to put in the bill to screw over Democrats.

And, of course, it's all about Obamacare.

On the House side,

they're trying to expand abortion restrictions (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/03/14/1749038/-Republicans-can%E2%80%99t-stop-sabotaging-Obamacare,-no-matter-how-politically-disastrous-it-is-for-them)

and on the Senate side

they're trying to chip away at the consumer protections that make the law popular.

Dueling proposals recently introduced in the Senate take aim specifically at the question of cheap, deregulated, short-term health insurance plans (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-trump-admins-short-term-health-plans-are-a-backdoor-repeal-effort),

which are expected to lure younger and healthier people out of the ACA market and drive up premiums for those who remain.

"It lets people buy what works for them and their families—what they want, not what the government wants them to have." :lol LIE

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/15/1749307/-Republicans-flirting-with-government-shutdown-over-Obamacare-sabotage