GoBirds
Footballguy
Or just the liberal excuse to deflect from the disaster that is Obamacare if you want to be accurate.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Trump care, Trump just lied straight into your face (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bosoxs45
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
If it’s such a disaster, why do 60% of Americans want it to stay?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/413268-poll-nearly-60-percent-want-obamacare-to-remain-in-place%3famp
timschochet
Footballguy
Today on Meet The Press, Chuck Todd interviewed Senator John Barrasco, Wy (R)
Todd: Now Senator Barrasco, President Trump has named you as the architect of a new Republican healthcare plan that’s going to do away with Obamacare but still protect people with pre-existing conditions. Can you tell us what this will look like?
Barrasco Well Chuck, hummuna hummuna Obamacare really doesn’t work well yadda yadda so we have to work to replace it err err and we will protect pre-existing conditions and I am confident that the American people will approve!
Todd: Now Senator Barrasco, President Trump has named you as the architect of a new Republican healthcare plan that’s going to do away with Obamacare but still protect people with pre-existing conditions. Can you tell us what this will look like?
Barrasco Well Chuck, hummuna hummuna Obamacare really doesn’t work well yadda yadda so we have to work to replace it err err and we will protect pre-existing conditions and I am confident that the American people will approve!
James Daulton
Footballguy
That one guy
Footballguy
Sorry to dogpile here, but I would consider you one of the resident Republicans. What’s your take on Republican policy for healthcare? Obamacare = bad, fine, I’m okay with that stance. What’s after it, though? We don’t have a free market, so that can’t be the suggested solution. Is coverage and access a goal to be strived for and attained? Where does federal intervention occur with big pharma, if at all? Is there any scenario where this industry, health care/insurance, qualifies as a utility like electricity and water?
GoBirds
Footballguy
It’s the echo chamber norm.
I’m not going to re-argue all the points that Matty already debunked in the other thread but as far as a Republican policy....what do you recommend they do after the Dems gave away a pie in the sky promise that was never realistic and can’t be afforded? I’ve watched our company coverage go to garbage at an accelerated rate.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
He didn't ask you to re-litigate why Obamacare was bad or why Democratic talking points are wrong.
He asked for your take on Republican policy.
And your only answer to that was to deflect the question right back to him ("What do YOU recommend they do?")
Which, ironically or coincidentally, is basically the Republican strategy right now -- deflect and give a non-answer and hope nobody notices.
GoBirds
Footballguy
You guys seem critical when it was your parties plan that put it in a death spiral....that’s what makes it so funny the attempt to pin it on Republicans and create threads like this one to not be responsible. Everyone sees through these echo chamber methods is my only point. You guys have fun, I’ll stick to the Obamacare thread where you have guys like Matty posting good and relevant info not pushing agenda.
timschochet
Footballguy
You seem to be focused on the past and whose fault it was that we’re where we are now. The problem is, whatever your views on that, it’s not pertinent to the upcoming election. Republicans lost badly in 2018 on this issue and they’re likely to lose in 2020 as well. Because they want to gut Obamacare without providing an alternative. Do you not see this?You guys seem critical when it was your parties plan that put it in a death spiral....that’s what makes it so funny the attempt to pin it on Republicans and create threads like this one to not be responsible. Everyone sees through these echo chamber methods is my only point. You guys have fun, I’ll stick to the Obamacare thread where you have guys like Matty posting good and relevant info not pushing agenda.
But don’t worry GoBirds, as you watch Republicans get swept out of office over healthcare, you can at least have the inner knowledge that it was Democrats who caused the problem. Hope that sustains you.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Good lord, this is an awful post. Are you so blinded by your bias that you just assume that anyone who calls you out for a terrible post, must therefore be a Democrat?You guys seem critical when it was your parties plan that put it in a death spiral....that’s what makes it so funny the attempt to pin it on Republicans and create threads like this one to not be responsible. Everyone sees through these echo chamber methods is my only point. You guys have fun, I’ll stick to the Obamacare thread where you have guys like Matty posting good and relevant info not pushing agenda.
For the record, I'm not a Democrat. And I oppose Obamacare. And I think Medicare For All is a terrible idea. And I'd like to see a health care proposal that is based on supply and demand (i.e., increasing the supply of doctors while reducing the demand for them) while allowing private insurance companies to continue to exist and be profitable.
There. See how easy that was? All you had to do was say something that had just the slightest bit of an idea or suggestion in it, and then you wouldn't have been called out for your trolling-like behavior.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Sorry but you all need to be called out for this “Safe Space” version of a thread that already exists. Not trolling, just calling a spade a spade sorry it wasn’t the echo you like.
I’ll bow out of the safe space, see if you can handle limiting your immature insults.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Stop making sweeping generalizations ("you guys"/"your parties") and other troll-like behavior and you won't get called out. Pretty simple.
P.S. it's "your party's".
(And you'll cry if you want to.)
The Commish
Footballguy
Why do you guys keep responding to this guy? 
He has no idea who's argued for what. He simply sees an attack against the GOP and thinks you're against him. I'll bark against the GOP and their lack of a plan just like I barked against Obamacare and the embarrassment that was yet he'll label in black/white because he doesn't really want to have honest discussion. You should know this by the fact that the GOP has had years to get of and replace obamacare yet hasn't completely. He doesn't talk about today and the current situation, only what was. He's not all that different than the "but Bush" guys after four years of Obummer....different sides of the exact same coin at best.
He has no idea who's argued for what. He simply sees an attack against the GOP and thinks you're against him. I'll bark against the GOP and their lack of a plan just like I barked against Obamacare and the embarrassment that was yet he'll label in black/white because he doesn't really want to have honest discussion. You should know this by the fact that the GOP has had years to get of and replace obamacare yet hasn't completely. He doesn't talk about today and the current situation, only what was. He's not all that different than the "but Bush" guys after four years of Obummer....different sides of the exact same coin at best.
The Commish
Footballguy
IF he thinks about it that much...I doubt he does. It's the reason no one is responding in any meaningful way in any of the other threads to him....you should do the same here.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-ne-rick-scott-health-care-20190329-story.html
Man responsible for the largest medicare fraud in history named Presisdent's point man on Health care.
Sounds about right.
is blatant corruption a job requirment for this Administration?
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott is taking the lead on Republican health care policy as the Trump administration tries once again to end Obamacare.
President Trump named Scott and fellow GOP U.S. Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana as his point people on Capitol Hill at a question-and-answer session at the White House.
"They are going to come up with something really spectacular," Trump told reporters Thursday.
Scott’s new role is a long way from his political origins in 2009 and 2010, when as one of the earliest critics of Obamacare, he launched ads arguing that pre-existing condition protections would cause premiums to skyrocket.
Scott also was the CEO of the hospital company Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, who resigned four months after a federal inquiry into the company was made public. The company was later fined $1.7 billion in 2000 and 2007 for what was then the largest case of Medicare fraud in history.
Man responsible for the largest medicare fraud in history named Presisdent's point man on Health care.
Sounds about right.
is blatant corruption a job requirment for this Administration?
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott is taking the lead on Republican health care policy as the Trump administration tries once again to end Obamacare.
President Trump named Scott and fellow GOP U.S. Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana as his point people on Capitol Hill at a question-and-answer session at the White House.
"They are going to come up with something really spectacular," Trump told reporters Thursday.
Scott’s new role is a long way from his political origins in 2009 and 2010, when as one of the earliest critics of Obamacare, he launched ads arguing that pre-existing condition protections would cause premiums to skyrocket.
Scott also was the CEO of the hospital company Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, who resigned four months after a federal inquiry into the company was made public. The company was later fined $1.7 billion in 2000 and 2007 for what was then the largest case of Medicare fraud in history.
timschochet
Footballguy
Albert Einstein couldn’t come up with a plan that eliminates Obamacare and protects people with pre-existing conditions.
The Commish
Footballguy
Made a post about this before gobirds came in trying to spam the thread and derail the conversation. He was on the morning shows yesterday. The positive was he talked about costs and driving them down. That's the key. The negative of course is talk is cheap and he's made his millions off of scamming the healthcare industry. He said he's a "issue" driven guy...he sees an issue and addresses it. We know focus on a single issue isn't going to cut it and it showed in the follow up questions from the host. He had no answers for the things that would be covered in a plan, almost like it was just dumped in his lap 10 minutes before going on air
Osaurus
Footballguy
Can we please stop already with Republicans promising to come up with something new for healthcare and the press allowing that to go unchallenged. They have literally spent the past decade saying that over and over again and have yet to come up with even a remotely coherent plan.
The evidence couldn't be clearer: They don't give a rat's ### about healthcare but also recognize they have to pretend they support all of the popular provisions in the ACA. There is no way to square that circle so they just keep lying.
matttyl
Footballguy
I've never understood the need for this. By definition, aren't you no longer a "child" after adolescence, which ends at age 19? Should Dak Prescott still be on his parent's plan?
Moreover, I never saw anyone against this. These "kids" between 23-26 (and those under 23) aren't "free" on mom and dad's plan no matter how you want to slice it. They are still being paid for, either inside the group (if on an employer plan) or as a line item on a family (individual) plan. The only real benefit is the sharing of one family deductible/max OOP assuming there are more than two people on the plan....and even that is baked into the price.
matttyl
Footballguy
Technically, end of month in which you turn 26. So really, to avoid having two deductibles in the same calendar year, I tell people with kids age 24-25 to put that child on their own plan January 1st of the year in which they will turn 26, unless other factors.
matttyl
Footballguy
True, but if we're going to plan this game, lets at least be accurate. The law allow a child to be a "dependent" on their parents plan up to the end of the month in which they turn 26. Now, why there isn't any age requirements of being a "dependent", lets at least use the term "dependent child" here.
matttyl
Footballguy
That's lower than I've seen anywhere. In fact, before the ACA I saw that 80% of all employers offered covered. Has that dropped with the ACA (and I can understand it doing so in the small group market)? Got any links for that?
matttyl
Footballguy
Would lead to a higher amount of uninsured. Meaning that many people today are only insured because their employer does it for them. Cut that off and people will just forgo doing it on their own for either the hassle of it, or more likely - for the cost.
I'm not clear on what you're going for here. What started this discussion was a poster who mentioned that his coworkers were concerned about being able to keep their children on their insurance plan. A couple posters objected to calling people in their 20s children. I was just pointing out the difference between "children" (meaning people who have not yet reached adulthood) and "their children" (meaning parents' offspring of any age).
matttyl
Footballguy
It wasn't 60%. In that same poll, over half of those asked ranked the current health care system as POOR.timschochet said:
People don't love the ACA, they think they love what's in it (no pre-ex). Quick example - when the ACA first came on in the individual market, I distinctly remember a call I got from a client who was "rated" for his pre-exisiting condition of a bad back. He called, very happy, thinking that his premiums would drop because he no longer would have to pay more because of his back issues. I remember running a quote for him for a similar plan to the individual policy he already had. In the end, the rate was about the same (it's gone up drastically since, as I'm sure you know from the other thread). He was confused as to why this was, saying "but I'm no longer paying more for my bad back, right?" My reply was, "right, but now you're paying more for everyone's bad back...and all of their other health issues as well. Everyone is is one big pool now."
See, he thought he was going to love the no pre-ex extra premium feature of the ACA, but it turned out to eventually be a detriment to him. When you ask people if those with a pre-ex should be charged more, they'll inevitably say no - it's an easy question to say no to. But when you see what ends up happening, maybe you'd feel differently.
matttyl
Footballguy
Technically, it's what we had before the ACA depending on your definition of protecting.
timschochet
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Oh I get what you were doing - using definitions to show that it would apply. My point was that if we're going to use definitions, here in a conversation about insurance, to at least use the appropriate term to define. In this case, it would be "dependent children". When you use the term "keep their children on their insurance plan".....what you mean technically is to allow them to continue being a "dependent" on the plan.
I'm an insurance agent if you haven't read that in my other posts in various other healthcare related threads. I'm looking at a health insurance application right here on my desk - it asks for "employee/enrollee", then their "spouse or domestic partner", and then simply "dependent" with two spots for those (and instructions to attach additional pages if needed). It doesn't even say child/ren in that section.
Now will this change in terms change your feelings on the topic at hand - probably not. But how long should we allow a "child to remain as a dependent on their parent's health insurance plan." My kid is only 3, so I don't have a dog in this fight personally. Moreover, I don't think the insurance companies really care. If the ACA is overturned, the carriers might just keep that standardized definition afterwards - they'll still charge the company/family for that 23-26 year old "child" to be on the plan.
matttyl
Footballguy
Though even with the ACA we still allow carriers to do so, for smoking. "Tobacco use" is still a pre-ex....why shouldn't excessive drinking, horrible BMI, high blood-pressure/cholesterol due to lifestyle choices be any different?
And I still don't follow what you're saying above. That we can't eliminate the ACA and still have protections for those with pre-ex conditions. Why not?
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
The study is linked in the M4A thread. It contains two different sets of projections for National Health Expenditures (NHE) over the 10 year period 2022-2031:I guess this is as good a place to put this as anywhere else. Have any of you read the study from Mercatus Center (funded by the Koch brothers) stating the Bernie plan will cost 32.6 trillion over 10 years? I think I need some help understanding how that's a bad thing when in our current system we are projected to spend $59 trillion from 2022-2031
That's roughly a $2 trillion saving if my math is correct.
Now, I fully acknowledge that after reading the study with the assumptions, it's pretty clear the assumptions are "best possible outcome" in their generosity, but I can't help but laugh at these yahoos for putting out a study that they are using to demonize Bernie's plan that, when you look at it and it's assumptions actually shows a savings like that
- Based on the M4A assumption that all providers will be paid at Medicare levels, it projects that M4A will add $32.6T to the already planned Federal share of NHE cost. It projects NHE cost as 57.6T, which is approximately 2T less than the currently projected NHE of $59.65T.
- Based on providers being paid at current levels, it projects that M4A will add $38.0T to the already planned Federal share of NHE cost. It projects NHE cost as 62.9T, which is approximately 3.25T more than the currently projected NHE of $59.65T.
I am not aware that any politicians advocating for M4A have actually put forth a plan that shows how this tremendous cost will be covered. If anyone has seen that, please link.
matttyl
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
That was a major point in the study, which is why the second set of numbers is in the study.
GoBirds
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
This is why focus on cost is so important and the distinction between group plans and individual plans. The GOP talk around cost is good, but the source it's coming from is not so it seems we will still be in "wait and see" mode to see if any meaningful action is taken.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Curious of your insights on this. What's the reason it won't happen? That it can't or that the politicians simply won't do the needful to make it happen?
matttyl
Footballguy
Just so it doesn’t get lost - the assumption that I don’t think will happen is that providers will just all of a sudden accept everyone at Medicare reimbursement levels.
I think you can throw that assumption right out the window because providers will want to make up that lost revenue somehow. Take for example my friend that works for a local Ford dealership. She mainly deals with fleet sales, mainly to large companies that get their vehicles pretty much at cost - very little profit to the dealership (which they make up for in other ways, but that’s a different question). Going to Medicare for all would be like everyone buying a Ford at her dealership doing so at these very low prices. The dealership can’t continue business at those low rates, so will thus have to increase that rate that everyone is now paying to make up for their lost profits. Same idea in the medical field. People with private insurance give them their largest margin, and those with Medicare and especially medicaid give them the smallest margin, if any at all for the latter. So if everyone had it, they’d go out of business. Only thing to stay in business would be to increase that Medicaid rate - which the study above did with its second set of examples.
matttyl
Footballguy
I know we’ve been around and around this discussion....but why weren’t those people getting their bad backs treated before? Is it because they didn’t have coverage? Why not? Why didn’t they have coverage before their backs went bad? Isn’t that the point of insurance in the first place?
The General
Footballguy
Who knows? Could be any number of reasons.
Was only pointing out in your scenario that perhaps people were benefitting and your buddy, while he wasn’t at the moment, could perhaps find himself in a different situation later.
The Commish
Footballguy
What would their choice be? Isn't that the "fear" the GOP has, that if the government can set the prices it will somehow blow the whole thing up? FWIW....I think it's a bit unrealistic to see an immediate cut of 40%, but I can see that being a target that's phased in. I can't help but wonder, after my wife's recent gall bladder surgery, that they wouldn't be able to save that in administrative costs alone. I sat there watching dollar bill burned up by the minute in inefficiencies of their processes.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Because if the founders thought health care was a right they would have put it in the Constitution. We need to be more like them. Get gonorrhea from a whore? Tough. Go to your local pharmacy and get some opium or morphine.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
I thought this thread was about Trumps "Health Care plan", not rehashing the ACA.
There is a thread for Obamacare.
There is a thread for Obamacare.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112906931868520452
I will bet you any amount of money that he has no idea what pre-existing conditions actually are.
Also, now i really want a bumper sticker that says "GOP: PARTY OF GREAT HEALTCARE!"
I will bet you any amount of money that he has no idea what pre-existing conditions actually are.
Also, now i really want a bumper sticker that says "GOP: PARTY OF GREAT HEALTCARE!"
The General
Footballguy
He has no plan, other than there should be no Obamacare. Oh and it will be fabulous.
msommer
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Founding fathers were in a very different age of healthcare. There weren’t giant hospitals and expensive treatments- they didn’t even know germs existed. Delivering a baby required a bucket and some towels, not a 3 day hospital stay. There weren’t emergency rooms. Doctors treated people because they took an oath to (not sure when they began the Hippocratic oath in all honesty.) There wasn’t insurance, so having a pre existing condition wasn’t an issue, you’d get treated with the methods they had.
Waaaaiiiit a minute, was there a whooshing noise as that one flew over my head?
Osaurus
Footballguy
Some of them practiced “air bathing” so their mastery of medicine may have been pretty limited.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
