Reply With Quote
Do you think the Trump administration is actively working to sabotage the ACA?
How many days is your enrollment period, Th'Pusher? Dh had from Nov. 1 until Nov. 17 to sign up. My enrollment for next year hasn't started yet so it will be at most 38 days [7 (left in Nov) + 31 (in Dec)]. Why does anyone need 92 days - over 1/4 of the year in which to enroll?
Do you think the Trump administration is actively working to sabotage the ACA?
Did he (and most of the republicans) campaign (and was voted in) on repealing and replacing Obamacare? Why should you be surprised when he tries to do what he said he would do? Obamacare is what brought me down here in the first place - what made me become politically active. If I was into swearing, I'd be doing the same thing as mavsfan.
It's probably the most ill-conceived piece of junk ever passed - the most insidious (Feds paying 100% to get states hooked on it - and how are these states gonna afford even their eventual 10%) pos. Men's policies with maternity, mammogram, birth control coverage - beyond ridiculous. Do you need to hear more about what I really feel about Obamacare?
He said he would repeal and replace the ACA. His attempts have failed. It’s the law of the land and it’s his job to ensure that the law is executed. You threw a fit when Obama selectively enforced the law. Are you a hypocrite rmt?
I know you hate the law. But it’s the law and Trump failed to convince congress to repeal it. I don’t know why you continue to make excuses for the impotent fool.
Can't believe anything that comes out of that fat 's mouth tbh
Please tell me where in this law of land that it says the enrollment period must be 3 months long. Do you think that is a reasonable time period? Do you know ANY company or organization that has an enrollment period of 3 months? Do you even know ANY that has an enrollment period of 45 days?
So when there is a bad law (of course, this is a matter of opinion), it must never be changed or repealed?
Why not have the enrollment period 6 months? Or better yet, all year round - that way, whenever one gets sick or injured, one can sign up. Or just sign up before the 15th of the current month and you're covered as of the 1st of the next month.
I am making no excuses for Trump regarding Obamacare - I see it as him trying his best to fulfill a campaign promise. You see him as lessening the enrollment period - I see it as putting it at a much more reasonable period but still way more than most companies/organizations. I see Obama's 3 month enrollment as excessive (who needs 3 months to make up their mind about a health plan?) - you know what you see it as and maybe you'll share whether you think 3 month's enrollment is reasonable/too short and why.
"trying his best"what a strange phrase to a 100% bad faith, corrupt, lying asshole, esp when his entire life and campaign is a lie, a fraud, his is campaign LIES known at the time to be totally unachievable (eg "repeal on day one" with "better and cheaper") and/or implemented exactly 180 out, eg, hiring Goldman Sacks crooks and other swamp monsters.
How is shortening the enrollment period fulfilling a campaign promise? He campaigned on repealing and replacing the law. He failed to do that. So you're ok with the chief executive sabotaging the law because he's too ing incompetent to convince a republican majority congress to repeal the law? And we're not even talking about 60 votes to get real legislation passed. That moron couldn't get enough support in his own party to get 50 votes and repeal the ACA under bull reconciliation. He's a completely ineffective leader and people like you just continue to make excuses for him.
Would you say the transfer of wealth is more efficient than paying increased premiums when the uninsured visit the ER?
What would an "efficient" transfer of wealth be in that case?
Doesn't really answer the question. In the case of Medicaid, any increase in visits would not affect others' premiums, because the hospital would not need to eat the costs, then charge others more.
Would you say the transfer of wealth under the ACA is more efficient than paying increased premiums when the uninsured visit the ER?
What would an "efficient" transfer of wealth be in that case? Is the term "efficient" even relevant or defined?
It is an ok law. When fully implemented, it does what it is supposed to do. The "men's policies" schtick is stupid, meaningless propaganda. A uniform insurance policy between the sexes means you don't have to differentiate forms. That's pretty much it.
The expected premium impact from such a thing is zero. If the actual dollar effect is zero, who cares?
It is the closest thing to a free-market solution that we are going to get, which is doubly ironic.
For the people who think they believe in the free market, it is the closest thing to a solution they like that they are likely to have in their lifetime.
The alternative is downright socialist. I think it is coming.
ACA was a fantastic law, considering it lies on top of the US health racket, had 100+ weakening/compromising amendments attached, and had to make sure BigPharma, BigInsurance got paid in any case, and health care costs and cost increases were not directly limited.
But poor people got health care, and poorer people got into Medicaid and health care.
It's very rare for USA, esp oligarchy's lap dog called USA, to do anything humanitarian for its own citizens. eg, oligarchy has screwed PR and letting it rot right now, with 100s if not 1000s of hurricane-related deaths to come. They're brown, don't speak English, and are Catholic, iow, white male Protestant supremacists say "let 'em rot".
So you also believe women shouldn’t have to pay for boner pills, right?
^whataboutism strikes again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions