The Trumpcare Zombie Rises From the Grave: Trump Desperate For A Win Before 100 Days!

[melodramocracy]

Desperate for a win? I've been assured by his devotees that winning is all he does!

[HumbleDuck]

Haha, the only way to get the Freedom Caucus on board was to fuck people over some more.

Who the fick keeps electing these clowns?

People who just want to watch the world burn?
IMO death drive is becoming a very real these days.

[DocSavageFan]

Ahh right so you are for killing people to enable to give tax cuts to the 1%. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

No. What we have cleared up here is your level of intelligence and inability to engage in reasonable discussion.

[Smitzelplix]

I was saying the irresponsibility was in the choice not to purchase insurance...NOT that they were irresponsible by getting ill. Why is this so hard to understand?

Or you know, the people who are going off their parents plan and are already ill at that point?
Or the people who have a cheap plan and want a more comprehensive plan?
Or people who couldn't afford the premiums and let their insurance lapse?

Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is doing so to game the system in fact, there are plenty of good reasons not to:

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j...92877281137405

Hypermode already responded to you with some scenarios on why someone might not have insurance prior to their diagnosis and I'm surprised that you completely ignored them. Another scenario I would like to add is that insurers would sometimes drop people from their plan if they got seriously sick using a process called rescission, but I think this was made illegal under the ACA, but may come back if ACA gets replaced. So no I don't believe that not having insurance prior to being diagnosed with a health issue is always a matter of personal responsibility, sure sometimes it might, but not always.

[Deleted]

Ah no Donald already had his victory. Over an empty base in syria with tomahawk missiles exploding for a hundred million dollars in tax cash. And he already had his victory in asking the tax payers to pay his mar-a-largo-site.

[DocSavageFan]

Yes it was immoral yes it was wrong, but I'm not going to be outraged at the person who changed this. That makes no sense.

But you did not answer my question. Do you think it's OK to put in high risk pools to be able to give tax cuts to the 1% while killing people in the process?

Obama put people in high risk pools and gave the 1% tax cuts "while killing people in the process". So sure, I'm OK with this...except for the insane hyperbole of "killing people in the process".

[alexw]

No. What we have cleared up here is your level of intelligence and inability to engage in reasonable discussion.

Republicans want to gut the ACA so they can give tax cuts to the 1%. Its what all their tax cut plans hinge on. They need to find somewhere to get the money from and gutting healthcare spending does it. This is their whole aim here. Its nothing more or less than this. The inevitable result which they also know is that a heck of a lot more deaths due to untreated medical conditions will occur.

So if you support their proposals then you support their plan to kill people to enable tax cuts for the 1%. There isn't any other option here. Either you are for killing sick people to enable 1%er tax cuts, or you are against killing sick people to enable 1% tax cuts. Its a binary choice. There is no other position to take.

I'm against it, now which are you if not against?

[MuLLvaD3n]

you would have student insurance to help, if for some reason you don't have that or catastrophic insurance (that was cheap pre-ACA) that would take care of the most exterme cases.. if you had nothing you negotiate a payment plan with the hospital or via loan.

And Americans prefer this system over a system where tax pays for healthcare?

I don't even want to get into the discussion about what system is the "best", but it's extremely interesting how people can think so different about healthcare just based on what continent you live on, (Europe and USA). Must suck hard time being a average earning person or lower over there and getting sick.

[DocSavageFan]

Hypermode already responded to you with some scenarios on why someone might not have insurance prior to their diagnosis and I'm surprised that you completely ignored them. Another scenario I would like to add is that insurers would sometimes drop people from their plan if they got seriously sick using a process called rescission, but I think this was made illegal under the ACA, but may come back if ACA gets replaced. So no I don't believe that not having insurance prior to being diagnosed with a health issue is always a matter of personal responsibility, sure sometimes it might, but not always.

I have a lot of people coming at me and I don't have the time to respond to everyone. hypermode had some good points for sure but I'm not sure how accurate they are and I don't have time to fact check them. But I will say that he was one of the few people who could actually grasp what what I was talking about.

[alexw]

Obama put people in high risk pools and gave the 1% tax cuts "while killing people in the process". So sure, I'm OK with this...except for the insane hyperbole of "killing people in the process".

????? Obama didn't cut taxes on the wealthy.

As for your claim of hyperbole its not. Its a statement of reality. Cutting subsidies WILL kill people. Significant numbers won't be able to afford treatment without them and that means many will die.

[DocSavageFan]

Republicans want to gut the ACA so they can give tax cuts to the 1%. Its what all their tax cut plans hinge on. They need to find somewhere to get the money from and gutting healthcare spending does it. This is their whole aim here. Its nothing more or less than this. The inevitable result which they also know is that a heck of a lot more deaths due to untreated medical conditions will occur.

So if you support their proposals then you support their plan to kill people to enable tax cuts for the 1%. There isn't any other option here. Either you are for killing sick people to enable 1%er tax cuts, or you are against killing sick people to enable 1% tax cuts. Its a binary choice. There is no other position to take.

I'm against it, now which are you if not against?

So let me get this straight...it was OK for Obama to give tax cuts to the 1% and put people into high risk pools but that's not OK for Republicans to do the same? Am I right?

- - - Updated - - -

????? Obama didn't cut taxes on the wealthy.

As for your claim of hyperbole its not. Its a statement of reality. Cutting subsidies WILL kill people. Significant numbers won't be able to afford treatment without them and that means many will die.

Wrong. He agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts when they were due to expire. BTW...when you use that kind of hyperbole, it's hard to take you seriously. Just saying.

[Zan15]

Before Obama came into office my school district offered multiple health care plans with different deductibles. Thanks to Obama care, I only have one option with a $6,000 deductible. The news only focuses on the people who would have no health care without Obamacare. No one cares about the guy who just had his deductible tripled.

So your company you work for jacked up your rates, killed off options, raised your deductible and you blame ACA?

ACA has nothing to do with EMPLOYER based insurance, the impact of the ACA on those plans are minimal at best.

They jacked up the rate/coverage/deductible because they are passing on more of the cost to you, if they used ACA as an excuse then shame on them.


Nothing in the law forced them to jack up your deductible or change your coverage options.

Here is a great resource to see the changes over time of employer based insurance, the cost, the deductibles, etc etc
it shows how little the ACA has changed the steady pace of increases

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2...nefits-survey/

As i had to educate someone else who continually focus on the ACA as being the reason why his rates and coverage has so dramatically changed:


http://www.realclearhealth.com/artic...ts_110255.html

In 2014, an American Health Policy Institute study found that over the next decade, the cost of the ACA to large U.S. employers (10,000 or more employees) will be $4,800 to $5,900 per employee.

10 year cost 5900 or 590 dollars a year split between employee and employers at various %'s.
So a 50/50% split would cost around 25 dollars per month for the implementation of ACA to employer based insurance




http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2...-cost-sharing/

welcome to a trend that started long before ACA

[DocSavageFan]

Considering the fact they are pro-life, but anti-education, anti-healthcare and anti-religion (except for their own!), I consider most Republicans domestic terrorists until proven otherwise.

It's just an easier way to live assuming it and being right a vast majority of the time.

Such sweeping generalizations and stereotypes frame the worldview of simple-minded bigots. How nice. Thanks for sharing.

[Zan15]

wow i did not notice, they want to charge 425% just because a woman got pregnant but in the same scope they say they are going to prevent discrimination based on gender.
holy shit you can't make this shit up.


Guess trump will have to pay 200% or more for his insurance because of his mental disorders huh?


Nothing for the fatty sitting on the couch 200 lbs overweight, until he actually gets diagnosed with something.


So people with treatable but not quite life threatening conditions will avoid any kind of preventative or structured care of their problem/disease until it blows up and ends up costing 10000% more then if they had treatment the whole time.

So then they will need catastrophic care before the insurance companies have a chance to jack up their rates.


for instance, someone could have been controlling their blood pressure or diabetes. instead they fear a 400% increase in insurance rates so they wait, and wait.....bam...stroke/heart attack/etc. Now they need 400%+ more costly service performed immediately. The very next year after all this money has been spent that person will drop their insurance because they will not be able to afford the surcharge.

huge problems only get (as trump would say) Yuuuggerrr

[DocSavageFan]

wow i did not notice, they want to charge 425% just because a woman got pregnant but in the same scope they say they are going to prevent discrimination based on gender.
holy shit you can't make this shit up.

Don't cry. She can pay it for a couple months and then let the insurance lapse...and then do it again with her next kid....paying way less than all those other suckers. WIN!

[Deleted]

if you get to pay 425% for a normal completed pregnancy, what do you get to pay for a incomplete pregnancy and/or major complications? and while were at it is a c-section normal, a minor complication, or more?

[Smitzelplix]

I have a lot of people coming at me and I don't have the time to respond to everyone. hypermode had some good points for sure but I'm not sure how accurate they are and I don't have time to fact check them.

Fair enough. It does get hectic in these types of threads in more ways than one with how fast people respond and how impassioned the arguments can get, it's why I spend most of my time both reading and responding in the video game threads. I don't see how some people can stand making Gen-OT their preferred hangout on mmo-champion, to each their own I guess, but I think I would have punched my monitor by now if I devoted so much time with political discussions. I think it would get maddening after awhile.

[Tinykong]

Desperate for a win? I've been assured by his devotees that winning is all he does!

Yuge win. It's...let me tell you, it's massive, first of all, it's the biggest win in history.

[Kujako]

Yuge win. It's...let me tell you, it's massive, first of all, it's the biggest win in history.

I wonder if someone once told Trump that high scores are better in golf so he think's he's winning?

[DocSavageFan]

Fair enough. It does get hectic in these types of threads in more ways than one with how fast people respond and how impassioned the arguments can get, it's why I spend most of my time both reading and responding in the video game threads. I don't see how some people can stand making Gen-OT their preferred hangout on mmo-champion, to each their own I guess, but I think I would have punched my monitor by now if I devoted so much time with political discussions. I think it would get maddening after awhile.

Personally, I've learned a lot over the years by participating in these forums. And some of my opinions on issues have actually changed as well. Imagine that! lol