(10-16-2017 10:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Sanders said that drug companies, insurance and some parts need fixing. Need tO lOwer prices. You can l0wer prices by bringing generics ln.

Drug Companies - Which punishes the companies that are developing the drugs. Can't allow generics on the market too quickly unless the generic producing companies pay the original developers some sort of licensing fee or something.

Insurance - Big "No ****" there. Obamacare is a disaster. I like allowing insurance across state lines. Keep it regional though, someone in NY probably isn't going to be served well with a policy originally designed for someone in New Mexico.

"Some Parts" - Tort reform first.

These payments were blatantly illegal. Kudos to Trump for doing what had to be done.

Now Congress needs to do its job.

(10-16-2017 05:26 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Just as I thought. This hurts Trump voters most.

"States that voted for President Trump in the 2016 presidential election will be most impacted by his decision to cut off key ObamaCare payments, according to an analysis conducted by The Associated Press.

The study found that 70 percent of those who benefit from the subsidies are from states where Trump won.

In the 30 states that Trump carried, about 4 million people benefit from the cost-sharing payments, the AP reported."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/355...uts-report

So, the total number of people affected in the US is less than 6 million? Thats it? Thats less than 2% of the population. And its fairly likely that of those 4 million affected in Trump states---nearly all voted Democrat since they were benefiting greatly from Obamacare. Sounds like winning to me. Its amazing to me it was costing that much money to bring healthcare to less than 2% of the population. It continues to amaze me how expensive, worthless, and horribly inefficient this Obamacare program really is.

(10-16-2017 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:26 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Just as I thought. This hurts Trump voters most.

"States that voted for President Trump in the 2016 presidential election will be most impacted by his decision to cut off key ObamaCare payments, according to an analysis conducted by The Associated Press.

The study found that 70 percent of those who benefit from the subsidies are from states where Trump won.

In the 30 states that Trump carried, about 4 million people benefit from the cost-sharing payments, the AP reported."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/355...uts-report

So, the total number of people affected is less than 6 million? Thats it? And it fairly likley that of those 4 million---nearly all voted Demcrat since they were benefiting greatly from Obamacare. Sounds like winning to me.

With the MSM/Dem propaganda machine it's all about how to package the lie.

(10-16-2017 10:16 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 10:13 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds should be celebrating this move, as this retains the real Obamacare. Why suddenly all of the butthurt? Its now pure Obamacare.

Well, there's that.

But they are trying desperately to re-brand it under Trump to shift any scorn and blame away from them.


And given their voting base is, self-professed, stupid they're going to dupe a lot of people into believing it.

it's all they got......and it's been that way for some time

#policybedamned

The Governors of both parties want Trump to keep a bigger amount of money for medicaid/medicare for the disabled and the elderly. These people have more needs than several other people. If you start giving less money? Than it would hurt them.

Plus there are some disabled who do not earn enough depends on this money for them to have a cheaper cost. They have medical needs than others. These people are always winding up slipping through the cracks. Disabled people do not earn enough for health care. Maybe he should cut parts of it off, and kept some of this money going towards people with disabilities or families with special needs child. These people have been hit hard before Obamacare came into place, and they got a safety net thanks to Obamacare. That is why Republicans and even Trump wants to keep those parts in. The bills to replace Obamacare by the Republicans in the house and Senate would hurt and harmed these people. I think Bannon is smart in targeting Ryan and McConnell. Bannon knows Trump supporters are part of this group with disabilities.

(10-17-2017 03:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Governors of both parties want Trump to keep a bigger amount of money for medicaid/medicare for the disabled and the elderly. These people have more needs than several other people. If you start giving less money? Than it would hurt them.

Plus there are some disabled who do not earn enough depends on this money for them to have a cheaper cost. They have medical needs than others. These people are always winding up slipping through the cracks. Disabled people do not earn enough for health care. Maybe he should cut parts of it off, and kept some of this money going towards people with disabilities or families with special needs child. These people have been hit hard before Obamacare came into place, and they got a safety net thanks to Obamacare. That is why Republicans and even Trump wants to keep those parts in. The bills to replace Obamacare by the Republicans in the house and Senate would hurt and harmed these people. I think Bannon is smart in targeting Ryan and McConnell. Bannon knows Trump supporters are part of this group with disabilities.

The governors of those states want to remain on the Federal teet because if the Feds cut them off, it falls to the state to cover the healthcare costs of those you are talking about. It's exactly why some states refused the Federal money in the 1st place - they knew that eventually the Feds would cut off the cash giveaway - particularly given that Congress never appropriated the funds for it.

Hell yeah those governors are crying - now they'll have to go to the people of their state and ask for a tax increase to cover no more federal money. Obvious why they are crying.

(10-17-2017 03:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Governors of both parties want Trump to keep a bigger amount of money for medicaid/medicare for the disabled and the elderly. These people have more needs than several other people. If you start giving less money? Than it would hurt them.

This... this exact thing right here -- that the disabled and the elderly need more $$$ -- that's why Russia's suicide rate among the elderly is so high.

The state encourages people who are no longer producers to stop being a drain on society.


This is the end you achieve when you devalue the sanctity of human life.

(10-17-2017 07:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 03:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Governors of both parties want Trump to keep a bigger amount of money for medicaid/medicare for the disabled and the elderly. These people have more needs than several other people. If you start giving less money? Than it would hurt them.

Plus there are some disabled who do not earn enough depends on this money for them to have a cheaper cost. They have medical needs than others. These people are always winding up slipping through the cracks. Disabled people do not earn enough for health care. Maybe he should cut parts of it off, and kept some of this money going towards people with disabilities or families with special needs child. These people have been hit hard before Obamacare came into place, and they got a safety net thanks to Obamacare. That is why Republicans and even Trump wants to keep those parts in. The bills to replace Obamacare by the Republicans in the house and Senate would hurt and harmed these people. I think Bannon is smart in targeting Ryan and McConnell. Bannon knows Trump supporters are part of this group with disabilities.

The governors of those states want to remain on the Federal teet because if the Feds cut them off, it falls to the state to cover the healthcare costs of those you are talking about. It's exactly why some states refused the Federal money in the 1st place - they knew that eventually the Feds would cut off the cash giveaway - particularly given that Congress never appropriated the funds for it.

Hell yeah those governors are crying - now they'll have to go to the people of their state and ask for a tax increase to cover no more federal money. Obvious why they are crying.

This.

Exactly. And a number of the "white paper" studies done for and by the State agencies themselves said this very same thing.
Another colossal unfunded federal mandate, and it was coming sooner or later, by cynical design.

This simply moved the inevitable up by several months, maybe a year or two.

Theory being that by then it would be so ingrained that those dummy states would just raise taxes, again, to pay for someone else's schit.

You know, "spread the wealth around" and all...

Every state that took that carrot (moneybag from the feds) was going to get hit with the stick (State would be responsible for larger portions of the payments in upcoming years).

A couple of years ago several states sounded the dire budgetary alarms of how that move was going to kill them. Shutting off the illegal payments didnt change that one iota. They took the bait. They took large sums of money upfront, while committing to having to pay extremely large sums of money thereafter.