President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

(in others, they know people will vote for the letter R even if it literally means committing suicide)

Just to reiterate this point... I doubt the bill is going to pass the Senate, but let's keep an eye on how many senators from these states vote for it (the bill allows insurance companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. Also as an aside, they include rape as a "pre existing condition")



Republican Senators from these states:
1. Shelley Moore Capito.
2. Thad Cochran
3. Roger Wicker
4. Mitch McConnell
5. Rand Paul
6. Richard Shelby
7. Luther Strange.
8. Tom Cottom
9. John Boozman
10. Lamar Alexander
11. Bob Corker
12. Jim Inhofe
13. James Lankford
14. Bill Cassidy
15. Jonh N. Kennedy
16. Roy Blunt
17. Joe Donnelly
18. Todd Young
19. Pat Robers
20. Jerry Moran
21. Mike Pence (deciding vote in the event of a tie)

West Virginia and Missouri, each with 1 Rep & 1 Dem are the only two states to not have full Republican representation in the Senate.

Six of those eleven states rank in the top 10 nationally for federal welfare dependence (that they keep voting to have cut) - Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi. It is very, very clear that if the AHCA passes and the Republicans get their way on other issues relating to welfare and such, that a lot of people are going to die as a result of it.

So of those who do vote for the AHCA among those 20 senators, let's see how many see their party voted out as a result come the next elections.

I'm not saying I wish death on those who don't vote them out and I want to be perfectly clear on that, but what I am saying is - if you vote for your own death, do you really even deserve to live in the first place? As in is how can you muster sympathy for those in need of health care and welfare/disability/etc assistance who will inevitably continue to vote for those out of those 20 senators who prove to be actively trying to kill them?

BabyCheeses

Didn't Rand Paul complain that healthy people pay for sick people? I doubt how he votes will be a surprise. Fortunetly the states affected voted for this.

aloyisious

I can imagine how much advice the admin will be giving senators on what the best way to vote will be. I hope it doesn't come down to the ex-officio president of the Senate using his casting vote to break a tie.

demfad

Billy86 wrote: »

Just to reiterate this point... I doubt the bill is going to pass the Senate, but let's keep an eye on how many senators from these states vote for it (the bill allows insurance companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. Also as an aside, they include rape as a "pre existing condition")

And Domestic Violence, and a C section......

This just goes to illustrate that the driving force behind this admin (not counting Putin ;-)) is the evangelical right. They are deep in this Whitehouse admin.
Many, many attacks on LGBT, women, poor, sick.

Phonehead

So women shouldn't report rape or domestic violence for fear of their insurance premiums going up. Please, can some Trump supporters/republicans on here explain why they support this measure?

PopePalpatine

Phonehead wrote: »

So women shouldn't report rape or domestic violence for fear of their insurance premiums going up. Please, can some Trump supporters/republicans on here explain why they support this measure?

To defeat the "feminazis", of course. :rolleyes:

Water John

Don't see that getting past the Senate. Really is mad ****e.

Ash.J.Williams

That dinner with the aussie prime minister sounded like a right bunch of c**ts

Leroy42

How can this possibly to sold to anybody as a plus? I know we are coming from a different perspective on this side of the Atlantic, but this whole thing seems a mess.

Trump is saying wait for Phase 2, although nobody knows what that is.
Many GOP congress members have agreed that although not perfect, its better to make a start and the Senate will start to work on it and hopefully make it better
There has been no update on the potential 24m people who were due to loose cover on the original bill.
No check of the new bill was undertaken. No financial impact was undertaken.
The rich still appear to be getting massive credit whilst the poorer will suffer higher fees.

I mean is party politics so ingrained that people will actually vote for their own death warrant rather than vote a Democrat (and I assume vice versa)

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean is party politics so ingrained that people will actually vote for their own death warrant rather than vote a Democrat (and I assume vice versa)

Yep.

I posted above about the Republican Senators but the Senate have apparently said they'll be making a tonne of changes and sending it back to the house. But we can still see what Republican house representatives in the worst impacted states (which also tend to be heavily red states) will be voted right back in - and that will answer your question.

It's literally valuing the letter R above your own life. Let's say it or something like it passes - I don't see how it's going to be possible to feel any sympathy for these people as they die. Not to say I'd wish them death or anything at all like that, but they literally are voting for their own deaths all due to a fanatical worship of the letter R.

InTheTrees

Phonehead wrote: »

So women shouldn't report rape or domestic violence for fear of their insurance premiums going up. Please, can some Trump supporters/republicans on here explain why they support this measure?

The way the pre-existing condition restrictions work is that it doesn't raise your premiums it means that the condition is just not covered at all.

For instance, It means if you have diabetes and try to get a new policy you won't be covered for anything connected with diabetes.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean is party politics so ingrained that people will actually vote for their own death warrant rather than vote a Democrat (and I assume vice versa)

There's also the element of putting "points on the board" - basically getting something, anything done. According to Ezra Kelin at Vox, the R's in congress aren't thinking about anything beyond their desperate need for some kind of a win, consequences be-damned.

Itssoeasy

I'm just watching CNN and rep Marsha Blackburn was asked the question about which parts of the bill she has issues with and she didn't answer the question. I doesn't matter if the healthcare is affordable if it doesn't cover an pre existing condition you have through no fault of their own.

She is now being thick with the presenter. Jesus, I know Irelands politicians aren't perfect but compared to some of the members of the US congress they are magical.

Phonehead

Trump just said during his meeting with the Australian PM that Australia has better healthcare than we do...... Australia has universal healthcare!!!! it further reinforces the opinion that Trump has no idea what he is signing/supporting.

Overheal

Phonehead wrote: »

Trump just said during his meeting with the Australian PM that Australia has better healthcare than we do...... Australia has universal healthcare!!!! it further reinforces the opinion that Trump has no idea what he is signing/supporting.

Counterspin is so easy though: "look at how awful Obamacare made us" etc.

Christy42

Overheal wrote: »

Counterspin is so easy though: "look at how awful Obamacare made us" etc.

On the one hand that argument does not stand up to even a small bit of scrutiny but on the other you are correct and that style of counters pin would probably gain traction.

As some have pointed out the democrats have issues but I have yet to see anyone attempt a defense of the Republicans. They are scum in suits and even the right wingers know attempting to defend them is a losing battle (hilariously you get counters like Sand's which was to attack the Democrats for being too right wing).

Kitsunegari

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm just watching CNN and rep Marsha Blackburn was asked the question about which parts of the bill she has issues with and she didn't answer the question. I doesn't matter if the healthcare is affordable if it doesn't cover an pre existing condition you have through no fault of their own.

She is now being thick with the presenter. Jesus, I know Irelands politicians aren't perfect but compared to some of the members of the US congress they are magical.

The rhetoric surrounding this issue from the Democrats comes from the optional waiver that states can seek from the community ratings regulation but even if you have a pre-existing condition insurers will still be forced to provide you with health insurance but at a higher premium. However, each state that obtains a waiver has to help these people pay for insurance through the 'high risk pool' fund. It's also not clear how easy it will be to obtain a waiver.

States that opt out will do so because their is support for doing so. I wouldn't agree with opting out of the community ratings regulations as it allows insurers to effectively charge premiums based on health status. A lot of people benefit and a lot of people lose out in terms of premium costs.

The spin from the media has been incredible on this topic.

listermint

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The rhetoric surrounding this issue from the Democrats comes from the optional waiver that states can seek from the community ratings regulation but even if you have a pre-existing condition insurers will still be forced to provide you with health insurance but at a higher premium. However, each state that obtains a waiver has to help these people pay for insurance through the 'high risk pool' fund. It's also not clear how easy it will be to obtain a waiver.

States that opt out will do so because their is support for doing so. I wouldn't agree with opting out of the community ratings regulations as it allows insurers to effectively charge premiums based on health status. A lot of people benefit and a lot of people lose out in terms of premium costs.

The spin from the media has been incredible on this topic.

Your spin is worse.

There is no high risk pool fund.

It's practically empty.

You know this so why bring it up

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The rhetoric surrounding this issue from the Democrats comes from the optional waiver that states can seek from the community ratings regulation but even if you have a pre-existing condition insurers will still be forced to provide you with health insurance but at a higher premium. However, each state that obtains a waiver has to help these people pay for insurance through the 'high risk pool' fund. It's also not clear how easy it will be to obtain a waiver.

States that opt out will do so because their is support for doing so. I wouldn't agree with opting out of the community ratings regulations as it allows insurers to effectively charge premiums based on health status. A lot of people benefit and a lot of people lose out in terms of premium costs.

The spin from the media has been incredible on this topic.

Because what? The President does not want to get blamed for this? Are these separate countries or what? Or are we really going to justify people in the United States being punished for reporting their rapists?

I don't give a flying if there is popular support for that in Utah. It was Trump that allowed that. It is on Trump's hands how the number of uninsured will increase.

The optional part of the waiver is nothing more than something for the Republicans to try and remove culpability for the people this law kills.

(All this on the assumption that this bull gets through the senate which is no where near guaranteed).

InTheTrees

Christy42 wrote: »

Because what? The President does not want to get blamed for this? Are these separate countries or what? Or are we really going to justify people in the United States being punished for reporting their rapists?

I don't give a flying if there is popular support for that in Utah. It was Trump that allowed that. It is on Trump's hands how the number of uninsured will increase.

The optional part of the waiver is nothing more than something for the Republicans to try and remove culpability for the people this law kills.

(All this on the assumption that this bull gets through the senate which is no where near guaranteed).

There's many more issues in addition to the pre-existing condition restrictions too.

Lifetime caps on benefits will return. That means you may be half way through your cancer treatment and you'll hit the end of your benefits so you're done for.

The provision that premiums charged to older people are never more than 120% of regular premiums will be gone so premiums can shoot up in cost. The elderly won't be able to afford it.

They're also ditching requirements for policies provided by employers to cover basic treatment so employers can offer cut rate plans that offer very little.

What else? Basically if you can think of a basic protection a person needs the republicans are removing it.

It won't pass the senate but I almost wish it would because the people who will be most effected by it will be poor working class people in republican states, trumps core of support.

Estimates before Obamacare were introduced were that 45,000 died every year because of lack of care, it will be even worse with this new bill.

Kitsunegari

listermint wrote: »

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The rhetoric surrounding this issue from the Democrats comes from the optional waiver that states can seek from the community ratings regulation but even if you have a pre-existing condition insurers will still be forced to provide you with health insurance but at a higher premium. However, each state that obtains a waiver has to help these people pay for insurance through the 'high risk pool' fund. It's also not clear how easy it will be to obtain a waiver.

States that opt out will do so because their is support for doing so. I wouldn't agree with opting out of the community ratings regulations as it allows insurers to effectively charge premiums based on health status. A lot of people benefit and a lot of people lose out in terms of premium costs.

The spin from the media has been incredible on this topic.

Your spin is worse.

There is no high risk pool fund.

It's practically empty.

You know this so why bring it up

What are you talking about? The high risk pool fund will get $138Bn from the federal budget available over 10 years.

As usual a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

listermint

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What are you talking about? The high risk pool fund will get $138Bn from the federal budget available over 10 years.

As usual a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's 190 billion short.


A little knowledge is a dangerous think horse.

Xxx

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What are you talking about? The high risk pool fund will get $138Bn from the federal budget available over 10 years.

As usual a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You are right that there is a high risk pool. Is it enough? I mean if it was, if there truly would be enough to buy all these people insurance from this pool why make any changes at all? What about after 10 years? How often will this get topped up?

What is the difference between this and Obamacare? Why build in an opt out if you are just going to pay for them with tax payer money? Is that really cheaper? It isn't as we both know but it isn't meant to pay for all of them. It is meant to leave those that cost money to take care by the wayside so that the rich and wealthy can save a few bucks.

Kitsunegari

It's very unlikely that this act passes though the senate at this point anyway. The Democrats won't support anything associated with Trump, good or bad, and he won't be able to get the support of all the Republicans senators.

Leroy42

Exactly, if this high risk fund is really going to cover all people then isn't it just the government paying for healthcare for those that cant afford it?

Why would A) anybody bother paying themselves when they can simply get the state to pay and b) whats to stop the insurance companies by massively increasing costs as they know the state has to pay?

It seems to me, if you believe the spin, that the GOP has just voted on social healthcare!

So much for small government, they have basically put Obamacare on steroids

Leroy42

Exactly, if this high risk fund is really going to cover all people then isn't it just the government paying for healthcare for those that cant afford it?

Why would A) anybody bother paying themselves when they can simply get the state to pay and b) whats to stop the insurance companies by massively increasing costs as they know the state has to pay?

It seems to me, if you believe the spin, that the GOP has just voted on social healthcare!

So much for small government, they have basically put Obamacare on steroids

Hank Scorpio

This is gas, I guess he never changed

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

You are right that there is a high risk pool. Is it enough? I mean if it was, if there truly would be enough to buy all these people insurance from this pool why make any changes at all? What about after 10 years? How often will this get topped up?

What is the difference between this and Obamacare? Why build in an opt out if you are just going to pay for them with tax payer money? Is that really cheaper? It isn't as we both know but it isn't meant to pay for all of them. It is meant to leave those that cost money to take care by the wayside so that the rich and wealthy can save a few bucks.

Nobody really knows. It will depend on how access to the high risk pool is structured. I don't think it will get out of the Senate unless it is means tested but I don't think the Democrats will agree to any form of an opt out waiver anyway so it's unlikely to ever be an option. On paper it could work as long as premiums could be capped at a certain point.

ACA is too heavily weighted in favour of 50-64 year olds who are the people who are most vulnerable to health conditions before Medicaid eligibility kicks in. However, this passes the costs of their health insurance on other groups and younger families that are already struggling. ACA also penalised people who didn't buy health insurance so both acts have major disadvantages for different reasons.

Both pale in comparison to universal health care.

Kitsunegari

listermint wrote: »

It's 190 billion short.


A little knowledge is a dangerous think horse.

Xxx

You said one doesn't exist and now it does but it's $190Bn short now. Where did you pull that figure out of? How many premiums and states opting out is that figure based on? You know it's not yet clear how states would even opt out in the first place nor how high premiums would be. So any figure is a complete estimation at this point. Only time will tell whether or not $138Bn will be enough as too many external factors are unknown at this point.

Why did lie about it in the first place? Bizarre.

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's very unlikely that this act passes though the senate at this point anyway. The Democrats won't support anything associated with Trump, good or bad, and he won't be able to get the support of all the Republicans senators.

If Republicans, who have been so loud and so eager to replace Obamacare seemingly no matter what, are unable to get behind this bill then it tells you all you need to know.