Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1166026]Trump needs to stick to reading someone else's words on a teleprompter...he doesn't look as stupid.Can't believe he went with the grieving widow after the father refused to talk to Trump and still wants an investigation.His speech was grandstanding to the Trumpettes.He needs to remember it's not Obamacare it's The Affordable Care Act, and the republicans don't have a clue on how to fix it.If I remember the republicans having a shit fit when Obama proposed spending on infrastructure to help with jobs in 08 and now it's ok for Trump to add on another trillion,why not it's not his money is it?

Oh and before I forget this was pretty damn good last night too......


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwfN18Pllk[/url][/QUOTE]
Were you dressed in all white as you watched it?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1166030]Were you dressed in all white as you watched it?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

:laughing2

very mature when those hags wouldn't like something they would give the thumbs down and laugh. I swore they were pouring wine while whining.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1166026]Trump needs to stick to reading someone else's words on a teleprompter...he doesn't look as stupid.Can't believe he went with the grieving widow after the father refused to talk to Trump and still wants an investigation.His speech was grandstanding to the Trumpettes.He needs to remember it's not Obamacare it's The Affordable Care Act, and the republicans don't have a clue on how to fix it.If I remember the republicans having a shit fit when Obama proposed spending on infrastructure to help with jobs in 08 and now it's ok for Trump to add on another trillion,why not it's not his money is it?

Oh and before I forget this was pretty damn good last night too......


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwfN18Pllk[/url][/quote]

Except no one calls it the ACA, they call it Obama Care, including most of your media twits, so I've no idea what you're on about.
And I like how you admitted that Obama and the dems sold (forced down our throats) a broken product.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1166034]Except no one calls it the ACA, they call it Obama Care, including most of your media twits, so I've no idea what you're on about.
And I like how you admitted that Obama and the dems sold (forced down our throats) a broken product.[/quote]



No, politicians need to call it what it is ,it's all about being Presidential something the current one has trouble with.When did I say ACA was perfect or the answer to everything ,find the post,I'll wait. Throw it out ,you can't.So yes fix what is broken....who ever said you couldn't?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1166033]:laughing2

very mature when those hags wouldn't like something they would give the thumbs down and laugh. I swore they were pouring wine while whining.[/quote]


Lord knows republicans are all about class.



[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Pxf89rDXM[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

I agree, call it the ACA. Just think getting that name in there is just for politics.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1166067]I agree, call it the ACA. Just think getting that name in there is just for politics.[/quote]

Both names are politically motivated. Obamacare carries a negative connotation. The Affordable Care Act carries a positive one. Both get used to create the political tone the speaker wants to spend.

Republicans probably will name their act, the Truly Affordable Care Act (TakeCare for short), while Democrats will tag it TrumpCare. The name that sticks will give a sense of public support/disdain for it.

Re: What would it take?
 

Basically I'm just saying call it what it is, lol.

Interesting article from a guy who just retired from where I work: [url=http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/01/examining-the-presidents-speech-to-congress/]Examining The President’s Speech To Congress[/url]

He leans left too, but I think he's reasonable...

Re: What would it take?
 

Solid speech. Short on details - big on aspirations. Loved the "I'm not here to represent the world. I'm here to represent the US." (or something like that).

Also, liked the focus on economic goals as opposed to social issues. If he gets off twitter, and pulls off a few more of these speeches - throw in a rally or two for the faithful - the Dems are going to have some real problems in the next election (mid-term) where they have 23 incumbents up for reelection versus only nine for the Republicans - plus two independents who caucus with the Dems.

Someone said to me, "If he fixes healthcare so that costs are controlled and basically retains coverage for the at-risk folks, he will get four more years."

I think the speech was the first step down that road. Still, lots of promises, and for me, I am not seeing how the math is going to work. New infrastructure, more defense spending, fixes to healthcare - lots of new money being spent. Just wondering where it's supposed to come from b/c, apparently, [I]everyone[/I] is getting a tax cut.

Speeches like this should be aspirational and outline big picture plans. However, the devil is always in the details.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1166089]Solid speech. Short on details - big on aspirations. Loved the "I'm not here to represent the world. I'm here to represent the US." (or something like that).

Also, liked the focus on economic goals as opposed to social issues. If he gets off twitter, and pulls off a few more of these speeches - throw in a rally or two for the faithful - the Dems are going to have some real problems in the next election (mid-term) where they have 23 incumbents up for reelection versus only nine for the Republicans - plus two independents who caucus with the Dems.

Someone said to me, "If he fixes healthcare so that costs are controlled and basically retains coverage for the at-risk folks, he will get four more years."

I think the speech was the first step down that road. Still, lots of promises, and for me, I am not seeing how the math is going to work. New infrastructure, more defense spending, fixes to healthcare - lots of new money being spent. Just wondering where it's supposed to come from b/c, apparently, [I]everyone[/I] is getting a tax cut.

Speeches like this should be aspirational and outline big picture plans. However, the devil is always in the details.[/quote]

the devil is in the government. just saying...

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1166071]Basically I'm just saying call it what it is, lol.

Interesting article from a guy who just retired from where I work: [url=http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/01/examining-the-presidents-speech-to-congress/]Examining The President’s Speech To Congress[/url]

He leans left too, but I think he's reasonable...[/quote]

It's a good article and I agree with a lot of his points. Healthcare reform was a messy business the first time around and the ACA was a horrible compromise that basically poured gas on the old broken system.

I do think the author's downplaying the role of malpractice is disingenuous. The study he cites analyzes only actual payments for lost claims and legal costs. The study says [I]only[/I] these factors are the "costs" of malpractice and to include premiums would be to "double count" those costs because that is what the premiums are intended to cover. Okay, true enough BUT (and it's a big Kim Kardashian type but) the study uses this rational to entirely ignore insurance company profits saying they are not a "cost" of the doctor's actual malpractice. Sorry, that's just intellectual dishonesty. Insurance companies, the premiums they charge, and the profits they make are an essential element of malpractice costs. If insurers don't make a profit, the indemnity payments don't get made, doctors go bankrupt, and injured patients get no financial recoveries. W/out insurance companies, their profits, and the profits the make, the risk of being a doctor would be to great for anyone to bear.

We had a looong discussion about the whole healthcare reform issue back in the day. At the time, I think I predicted the ACA would be good for about four or five years and then competition would dry up because of the structure's systemic unprofitability and shortly thereafter the exchanges would become the only options. Once that occurred, costs would spiral out of control very quickly. The article cited fails to note that it's not just Kentucky where private carriers are leaving; almost every exchange has fewer private carriers than when first enacted - 38% now have only one or two [In 2016, that number was 14%. Even more stark is the growth of single-insurer states: 2% in 2016; 19% in 2017].

[url=http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/preliminary-data-on-insurer-exits-and-entrants-in-2017-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/]Preliminary Data on Insurer Exits and Entrants in 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation[/url]

The ACA [I]is[/I] imploding. Once it does, simple market dynamics of insurance and the ACA's structure of allowing opt outs with penalties will easily double and treble costs to the government through the exchanges.

The ACA was a Band-Aid to a broken system. It barely addressed the symptoms and most certainly did not address the underlying flaws of our current health-care system. The benefits that it has provided (and there are many) will be short-lived or force draconian economic cuts to other programs.

... but, four years ago, we walked down the road of least resistance. The piper will be coming for his payment shortly.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1166102]It's a good article and I agree with a lot of his points. Healthcare reform was a messy business the first time around and the ACA was a horrible compromise that basically poured gas on the old broken system.

I do think the author's downplaying the role of malpractice is disingenuous. The study he cites analyzes only actual payments for lost claims and legal costs. The study says [I]only[/I] these factors are the "costs" of malpractice and to include premiums would be to "double count" those costs because that is what the premiums are intended to cover. Okay, true enough BUT (and it's a big Kim Kardashian type but) the study uses this rational to entirely ignore insurance company profits saying they are not a "cost" of the doctor's actual malpractice. Sorry, that's just intellectual dishonesty. Insurance companies, the premiums they charge, and the profits they make are an essential element of malpractice costs. If insurers don't make a profit, the indemnity payments don't get made, doctors go bankrupt, and injured patients get no financial recoveries. W/out insurance companies, their profits, and the profits the make, the risk of being a doctor would be to great for anyone to bear.

We had a looong discussion about the whole healthcare reform issue back in the day. At the time, I think I predicted the ACA would be good for about four or five years and then competition would dry up because of the structure's systemic unprofitability and shortly thereafter the exchanges would become the only options. Once that occurred, costs would spiral out of control very quickly. The article cited fails to note that it's not just Kentucky where private carriers are leaving; almost every exchange has fewer private carriers than when first enacted - 38% now have only one or two [In 2016, that number was 14%. Even more stark is the growth of single-insurer states: 2% in 2016; 19% in 2017].

[url=http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/preliminary-data-on-insurer-exits-and-entrants-in-2017-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/]Preliminary Data on Insurer Exits and Entrants in 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation[/url]

The ACA [I]is[/I] imploding. Once it does, simple market dynamics of insurance and the ACA's structure of allowing opt outs with penalties will easily double and treble costs to the government through the exchanges.

The ACA was a Band-Aid to a broken system. It barely addressed the symptoms and most certainly did not address the underlying flaws of our current health-care system. The benefits that it has provided (and there are many) will be short-lived or force draconian economic cuts to other programs.

... but, four years ago, we walked down the road of least resistance. The piper will be coming for his payment shortly.[/quote]

You're right but as I remember and I have been wrong before wasn't it all so mentioned how close the ACA was to what Mitt Romney had done in Massachusetts and had he won we would be in a similar situation,so the republicans can't just blame Obama for the mess.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1166030]Were you dressed in all white as you watched it?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]


Nope, Red ,White and Blue.What about you?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1166106]You're right but as I remember and I have been wrong before wasn't it all so mentioned how close the ACA was to what Mitt Romney had done in Massachusetts and had he won we would be in a similar situation,so the republicans can't just blame Obama for the mess.[/quote]

The dems modeled it on the Massachusets plan that was put in place while Romney was governor. I think he was instrumental in getting passed there.

However, my recollection is that Romney opposed the ACA and that it was not the plan put forward by the R's at the time or even really close to it.

... and I don't JUST blame Obama, I blame everyone who voted for it:

[quote]In December 2009, the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 39 for Obamacare. The Washington Post reported “The [B]Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote.[/B]”

In March 2010, the U.S. House voted 219 to 212 for Obamacare. 34 House Democrats and all of the House Republicans voted against Obamacare. [B]The NO votes were the only bipartisan votes[/B].[/quote]

oh, the Democrats.

[url]http://oregoncatalyst.com/25561-reminder-obamacare-passed-single-republican-vote.htm[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

first rule of being considered politically astute - never blame Obama
second rule of being considered politically astute - always blame Bush
third rule of being considered politically astute - be willing to call a deer a horse if it likes to be a donkey