GOP ACA Replacement Imminent....Predictions

[Jhhnn]

Assuming this garbage scow passes, which is a big if at this point:

I'm interested to see how Trump supporters in dirt poor places react once they realize Obamacare benefits were more generous than what they are getting with Trumpcare and Ryancare.

Republicans say the delays with some of the rollouts (i.e. changing Medicaid to block grants to the states) are to give people time to adjust, but I wonder if it's actually strategic thinking that assumes Democrats will take the House in 2018 or 2020. Then the Dems can take the blame for people realizing they suddenly have less money in their bank account at the end of the month/year.

Repub efforts are geared entirely to more money & tax cuts for the financial elite. Whatever happens to the rest of us is immaterial if we're dumb enough to keep voting for them. They have their irrational & emotional perma-issues working as always- abortion, gun grabbers, welfare queens, illegals, Radical Islamic Terrorists, faux crime waves, Jesus, Jade Helm & shit I never thought of.

I hope nobody believes that they're sincere about any of that. They don't care, but they know who does & how to get them to vote for the old Trickle Down flimflam.

 

[Jhhnn]

.

 

[Balt]

Repub efforts are geared entirely to more money & tax cuts for the financial elite. Whatever happens to the rest of us is immaterial if we're dumb enough to keep voting for them. They have their irrational & emotional perma-issues working as always- abortion, gun grabbers, welfare queens, illegals, Radical Islamic Terrorists, faux crime waves, Jesus, Jade Helm & shit I never thought of.

I hope nobody believes that they're sincere about any of that. They don't care, but they know who does & how to get them to vote for the old Trickle Down flimflam.

It's really hard to break down the percentages, at least for me. Obama got elected twice, let's not forget that.

Trump made more people show up at the polls than his Republican predecessors. He lost the popular vote, but he made the folks in rural red districts show up which counts for quite a lot in our electoral system. I guess my question is: how long will the faith of these formerly reluctant voters last after his promises fail to materialize?

 

[Bitek]

I think it's time I stopped posting here because I've been put in my place. If there's someone who had no clue WRT health insurance it's clearly me. See ya ATP&N!

/s hopefully.

Please don't. You are one of a select few I would put in the "genuinely valuable" category of posters.

 

[Bitek]

Assuming this garbage scow passes, which is a big if at this point:

I'm interested to see how Trump supporters in dirt poor places react once they realize Obamacare benefits were more generous than what they are getting with Trumpcare and Ryancare.

Republicans say the delays with some of the rollouts (i.e. changing Medicaid to block grants to the states) are to give people time to adjust, but I wonder if it's actually strategic thinking that assumes Democrats will take the House in 2018 or 2020. Then the Dems can take the blame for people realizing they suddenly have less money in their bank account at the end of the month/year.

One of my concerns is that the fuse to the HC timebomb has already been lit. This Congress has no true interest in providing affordable, quality coverage and they have already taken actions to undermine the current ACA, even if no repeal/replace bill gets passed.

How is the next open enrollment not a complete shitshow?

 

[First]

I think the legislation says "the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) will define essential health benefits." What do you think it says?

It literally says it is subject to judicial review. Educate yourself on what judicial review means, you're still confused.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4505781

 

[First]

sactoking, I choose to believe you are merely being facetious, as your posts are self-evidently invaluable.

 

[trenchfoot]

One of my concerns is that the fuse to the HC timebomb has already been lit. This Congress has no true interest in providing affordable, quality coverage and they have already taken actions to undermine the current ACA, even if no repeal/replace bill gets passed.

How is the next open enrollment not a complete shitshow?

Considering that the Repubs have for decades fought tooth and nail against the gov't providing health care assistance in any way shape or form to those Americans that couldn't/can't afford the astronomically rising cost of health care and because the Repubs view on the ACA as being a big piggy bank that they can empty out into the pockets of the very wealthy and their health insurance/health care industry sponsors, this whole dog and pony show the Repubs are holding over accomplishing Trump's promises to the American public for a new more affordable and more comprehensive health care plan can't be anything other than a complete shitshow.

The goals of the Repubs have been and will always be to get rid of any all federal programs that shield the general public from the predatory practices of the Wall Streeters, the banksters and any of those other crooks looking to make a fast buck off of deregulating and destroying any obstacles that the federal gov't provides to the people for their protection and general welfare.

In this regard, having the Repubs author and administer a health care program that is totally against their ideological dogma is exactly like putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA and DeVos in charge of the DOE.

They're all in it to bury the federal assistance programs deep and have their wealthy sponsors take it all over via privatization for the immense profits they know they can extract out of it.

 

[agent00f]

Considering that the Repubs have for decades fought tooth and nail against the gov't providing health care assistance in any way shape or form to those Americans that couldn't/can't afford the astronomically rising cost of health care and because the Repubs view on the ACA as being a big piggy bank that they can empty out into the pockets of the very wealthy and their health insurance/health care industry sponsors, this whole dog and pony show the Repubs are holding over accomplishing Trump's promises to the American public for a new more affordable and more comprehensive health care plan can't be anything other than a complete shitshow.

The goals of the Repubs have been and will always be to get rid of any all federal programs that shield the general public from the predatory practices of the Wall Streeters, the banksters and any of those other crooks looking to make a fast buck off of deregulating and destroying any obstacles that the federal gov't provides to the people for their protection and general welfare.

In this regard, having the Repubs author and administer a health care program that is totally against their ideological dogma is exactly like putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA and DeVos in charge of the DOE.

They're all in it to bury the federal assistance programs deep and have their wealthy sponsors take it all over via privatization for the immense profits they know they can extract out of it.

In all fairness their base largely believe they're in a position to make that money.

 

[Sea Ray]

It literally says it is subject to judicial review. Educate yourself on what judicial review means, you're still confused.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4505781

Every law is subject to judicial review. I can see the answer to my question is that you don't think. You have no countering argument. That's abundantly clear

 

[VRAMdemon]

Its interesting watching the different factions in the GOP fight it out over healthcare...

• There is a libertarian leaning crowd, such as Rand, that wants to wipe out any government support for healthcare under their ideal that "the market" can and will provide anything that is needed, despite having already failed to do so.
• There is the Tea Party faction that also wants to destroy Obamacare without replacement, but based on a nebulous "Let's hate on Obama" rather than a genuine libertarian ideology.
• There is a group that wants to make radical changes to the ACA, while still leaving some aspects of which the voting public generally approves in place.
• There is a group that wants to make enough changes to the ACA to align more with older GOP ideals to be able to claim that they fulfilled their campaign promises to abolish Obamacare without actually destroying it so badly that they face an election revolt in 2018 for screwing up the benefits from the ACA. There is a sadly large contingent of people who oppose "Obamacare" based on dire GOP predictions while happily embracing ACA.

If there was one, single plan that they had to replace the ACA, they would have had the plan written and fleshed out when they were sworn into office at the beginning of January. For too many of them, they had no plan beyond whatever anti- rhetoric they included in their campaign rhetoric, which is a bit sad given that they have had six years to actually put such a plan together. The GOP, always able to present a united front against Obama, now has the unenviable task of getting all their factions together without the Obama boogeyman to unite them. According to some in the GOP, even though the real Obama is gone, the imaginary one, the one who tapped Trump's phone and released all those prisoners from Bush's torture prison, he's still destroying America. It seems Trump thinks Obama is running a "shadow government" now. All the Republicans have to do now is to oppose everything that this shadowy secretive force does.

The downside to being a party of perpetual opposition is sometimes you may find yourself having to lead.

 

[First]

Every law is subject to judicial review. I can see the answer to my question is that you don't think. You have no countering argument. That's abundantly clear

Administrative law is subject to that review and, as sactoking delineated quite clearly, without sufficient reasons the HHS can't simply wipe away minimum requirements without still adhering to the actual statute that'll be challenged in a lengthy oversight process, and so those rules aren't likely to disappear while that while multi-year process occurs. Had you carefully read my link or paid attention to sactoking's professional analysis, you wouldn't have made these easily avoidable mistakes. So sorry you think your lame, laymen know nothingism can replace documented reality and legal terms of art you simply don't understand.

 

[fskimospy]

Every law is subject to judicial review. I can see the answer to my question is that you don't think. You have no countering argument. That's abundantly clear

You recognize that sactoking is a professional in this field, right? It doesn't mean what he says MUST be right, but it's probably right. From what I've seen you're countering his expertise with right wing editorial pieces. Those are not credible sources.

 

[Moonbeam]

You recognize that sactoking is a professional in this field, right? It doesn't mean what he says MUST be right, but it's probably right. From what I've seen you're countering his expertise with right wing editorial pieces. Those are not credible sources.

Those right wing editorial pieces are there like the Creation Museum to provide ignorant brain-washable people with a sophisticated rationalization they would be unable to creatively develop themselves. Every person motivated by religious or ideological faith or similar delusion and the money and or voting power they represent, will be guided and supported in those delusions by the cunning who manipulate them even against their own real interests. Sociopaths have for centuries and centuries lived off the naivety of fools.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-supporters-20170312-story.html

 

[senseamp]

Tom Price has some fresh bullshit for you if you are inclined to believe in alt-facts:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...obody-will-be-worse-financially-under-n732376

"I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we're going through"

 

[Jhhnn]

Those right wing editorial pieces are there like the Creation Museum to provide ignorant brain-washable people with a sophisticated rationalization they would be unable to creatively develop themselves. Every person motivated by religious or ideological faith or similar delusion and the money and or voting power they represent, will be guided and supported in those delusions by the cunning who manipulate them even against their own real interests. Sociopaths have for centuries and centuries lived off the naivety of fools.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-supporters-20170312-story.html

They were so busy screaming "Screw You!" at the top of their lungs that they forgot about screwing themselves. Funny how voting Repub always seems like a good idea at the time so they'll apparently keep on doin' it...

It's also interesting that they don't see that libs are willing to subsidize their lifestyles, help them to live in low population areas like they want.

And they keep on believing that the Job Creators will be back even though they got dumped long ago in favor of a higher profit urban model of living. It's been going on since the end of WW1. The sad truth is that the only reason a lot of people can live half-assed decently in poorer rural parts of the country is that they're subsidized by the rest of us. The local economy would implode w/o subsidy & depopulation would be sharp. That's not a complaint. It's just reality. If some small part of my taxes helps them do that, no complaints & God bless 'em. The ACA is just part of that.

Just don't be hatin' on me & people like me for doing it & insisting that the people at the top pay for it, either. They'll still have plenty.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tom Price has some fresh bullshit for you if you are inclined to believe in alt-facts:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...obody-will-be-worse-financially-under-n732376

They'll say anything to secure tax cuts for their billionaire backers.

 

[Moonbeam]

They were so busy screaming "Screw You!" at the top of their lungs that they forgot about screwing themselves. Funny how voting Repub always seems like a good idea at the time so they'll apparently keep on doin' it...

It's also interesting that they don't see that libs are willing to subsidize their lifestyles, help them to live in low population areas like they want.

And they keep on believing that the Job Creators will be back even though they got dumped long ago in favor of a higher profit urban model of living. It's been going on since the end of WW1. The sad truth is that the only reason a lot of people can live half-assed decently in poorer rural parts of the country is that they're subsidized by the rest of us. The local economy would implode w/o subsidy & depopulation would be sharp. That's not a complaint. It's just reality. If some small part of my taxes helps them do that, no complaints & God bless 'em. The ACA is just part of that.

Just don't be hatin' on me & people like me for doing it & insisting that the people at the top pay for it, either. They'll still have plenty.

I like to imagine what would happen to their manipulators of they ever figured out who it was that is really fucking them. I would hate to face the carefully crafted buckets of rage these people have been trained to carry around to train of those they were lied to as the causes of their woes. I wouldn't want to be downwind if they ever burn the real witches.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Tom Price has some fresh bullshit for you if you are inclined to believe in alt-facts:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...obody-will-be-worse-financially-under-n732376

Just a typo, should be "nobodies"

 

[Sea Ray]

You recognize that sactoking is a professional in this field, right? It doesn't mean what he says MUST be right, but it's probably right. From what I've seen you're countering his expertise with right wing editorial pieces. Those are not credible sources.

Problem is he hasn't said anything of substance. These decisions will be up to the HHS secretary now just they were under Sebellius. Talking about judicial review gets us nowhere at this point other than to say "maybe a liberal judge will bail us out on this one." Furthermore it does NOT mean that the current HHS Sec cannot dictate rules that are different from his predecessor. All sacto has done is muddy the waters. That's not anything of substance. His insistence on including personal attacks in each of his posts is another sign that he has little to say

 

[fskimospy]

Problem is he hasn't said anything of substance. These decisions will be up to the HHS secretary now just they were under Sebellius. Talking about judicial review gets us nowhere at this point other than to say "maybe a liberal judge will bail us out on this one." Furthermore it does NOT mean that the current HHS Sec cannot dictate rules that are different from his predecessor. All sacto has done is muddy the waters. That's not anything of substance. His insistence on including personal attacks in each of his posts is another sign that he has little to say

He has said a great deal of substance. Don't be so proud.

 

[Sea Ray]

He has said a great deal of substance. Don't be so proud.

Don't be such a cheer leader. You don't look good in a miniskirt

 

[First]

From

Don't be such a cheer leader. You don't look good in a miniskirt

 

[Jhhnn]

Problem is he hasn't said anything of substance. These decisions will be up to the HHS secretary now just they were under Sebellius. Talking about judicial review gets us nowhere at this point other than to say "maybe a liberal judge will bail us out on this one." Furthermore it does NOT mean that the current HHS Sec cannot dictate rules that are different from his predecessor. All sacto has done is muddy the waters. That's not anything of substance. His insistence on including personal attacks in each of his posts is another sign that he has little to say

You seem to believe that the Secretary can change the definitions of esential services on the basis of political whim when the statute is to the contrary. Page 59-

ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS
.—
(1) IN GENERAL
.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall define the essential health benefits, except that such ben-
efits shall include at least the following general categories and
the items and services covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and de-
vices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic dis-
ease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
(2) L
IMITATION
.—
(A) I
N GENERAL
.—The Secretary shall ensure that the
scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1)
is equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical
employer plan, as determined by the Secretary

http://obamacarefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/obamacarebill.pdf


That shoots your Spectator piece right in the ass.




Quotes of the so-called personal attacks?

Sactoking is always civil, at least to my recollection.

 

[agent00f]

It comes as no surprise and rather makes sense that dunning kruger posterkids are afflicted proportionate to their conservatism.