(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just think what he could have got done if he wasnt busy outplaying Muehller for the past 9 months.

Mueller didn't stop him from repealing health care. They screwed that up all by themselves.

(12-20-2017 02:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just think what he could have got done if he wasnt busy outplaying Muehller for the past 9 months.

Mueller didn't stop him from repealing health care. They screwed that up all by themselves.

Repealing health care? WTF kind of over the top hyperbole is that? Nobody has ever even remotely considered repealing health care. Health care was there before Obamacare and would still be there after it went away.

So. Much. #Winning !!!!!

(12-20-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just think what he could have got done if he wasnt busy outplaying Muehller for the past 9 months.

Mueller didn't stop him from repealing health care. They screwed that up all by themselves.

Repealing health care? WTF kind of over the top hyperbole is that? Nobody has ever even remotely considered repealing health care. Health care was there before Obamacare and would still be there after it went away.

I meant to say Obamacare.

(12-20-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just think what he could have got done if he wasnt busy outplaying Muehller for the past 9 months.

Mueller didn't stop him from repealing health care. They screwed that up all by themselves.

Repealing health care? WTF kind of over the top hyperbole is that? Nobody has ever even remotely considered repealing health care. Health care was there before Obamacare and would still be there after it went away.

No more health care!

(12-20-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just think what he could have got done if he wasnt busy outplaying Muehller for the past 9 months.

Mueller didn't stop him from repealing health care. They screwed that up all by themselves.

Repealing health care? WTF kind of over the top hyperbole is that? Nobody has ever even remotely considered repealing health care. Health care was there before Obamacare and would still be there after it went away.

It's the updated version of 'MUH ROADS!"

(12-20-2017 01:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't disagree but what happens when these people end up in general hospital with sickness that could have been avoided with preventative check ups? Who will pay their medical costs?

I'll tell you who..........the tax payers.

Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they won't get check-ups. Since 'preventable check-ups' cost around $300/yr and the individual mandate costs more like $2000/yr... Many people can afford $300/yr, but not $2,000. If you're talking about people with subsidized insurance, then the taxpayers are paying for that anyway. The overwhelming number of people (still) go to the ER for primary care because they can't get in to see their PCP because the ACA failed to start with 'supply'... so the taxpayers are on the hook for that anyway.

Your complaint SOUNDS good and thus people buy it, but when you look at reality, it completely falls apart.

(12-20-2017 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well if you listen to Republicans who first proposed the insurance mandate before they were against it, it was the responsibility of every American to be accountable for their own health.

What happened to accountability?

Nothing. What happened to a healthy person paying $300 for $300 in care, or even $400 for $300 in care rather than $2000 just so that someone who routinely engages in risky behavior can be shielded from the consequences of it?

I'd support paying for people who are victims of genetic lottery.... but I don't support paying for people who engage in risky behavior and then demand treatment.

you smoke, no coverage (or vastly higher deductibles) for COPD/Lung Cancer etc. You drink? No coverage for alcohol induced accidents or liver cancer. You go bungee jumping? No coverage for injuries sustained in the accident. Lose 200 pounds because you change your lifestyle, I'll even cover your basic excess skin removal surgery if you want it because you will cost me less in the long run. I'll even cover your gym membership, as long as you go and report your training. Don't want to report? That's fine... you pay for it.

Is it 'hard'? Yes... but it's fair.... and more importantly, it encourages 'good decisions' by people as opposed to encouraging bad ones because they bear the brunt of the cost of bad decisions and benefit from good ones.

(12-20-2017 03:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't disagree but what happens when these people end up in general hospital with sickness that could have been avoided with preventative check ups? Who will pay their medical costs?

I'll tell you who..........the tax payers.

Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they won't get check-ups. Since 'preventable check-ups' cost around $300/yr and the individual mandate costs more like $2000/yr... Many people can afford $300/yr, but not $2,000. If you're talking about people with subsidized insurance, then the taxpayers are paying for that anyway. The overwhelming number of people (still) go to the ER for primary care because they can't get in to see their PCP because the ACA failed to start with 'supply'... so the taxpayers are on the hook for that anyway.

Your complaint SOUNDS good and thus people buy it, but when you look at reality, it completely falls apart.

(12-20-2017 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well if you listen to Republicans who first proposed the insurance mandate before they were against it, it was the responsibility of every American to be accountable for their own health.

What happened to accountability?

Nothing. What happened to a healthy person paying $300 for $300 in care, or even $400 for $300 in care rather than $2000 just so that someone who routinely engages in risky behavior can be shielded from the consequences of it?

I'd support paying for people who are victims of genetic lottery.... but I don't support paying for people who engage in risky behavior and then demand treatment.

you smoke, no coverage (or vastly higher deductibles) for COPD/Lung Cancer etc. You drink? No coverage for alcohol induced accidents or liver cancer. You go bungee jumping? No coverage for injuries sustained in the accident. Lose 200 pounds because you change your lifestyle, I'll even cover your basic excess skin removal surgery if you want it because you will cost me less in the long run. I'll even cover your gym membership, as long as you go and report your training. Don't want to report? That's fine... you pay for it.

Is it 'hard'? Yes... but it's fair.... and more importantly, it encourages 'good decisions' by people as opposed to encouraging bad ones because they bear the brunt of the cost of bad decisions and benefit from good ones.

Its pretty ignorant of what happens in the real world. There are public health clinics in all the major metro areas. There are public hospitals in all the major metro areas. Obamacare made access worse in rural areas since not everyone takes medicare/Medicaid and its expansion caused problems for the people trying to get into those doctors and facilities.

Obamacare didn't even attack the right problem. Health insurance was not the problem. Access and affordability were the problems. It froze in place the items driving up costs and subsidized insurance companies.

Quote:Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they won't get check-ups.

Sure some people will but most won't.

Quote:Since 'preventable check-ups' cost around $300/yr and the individual mandate costs more like $2000/yr... Many people can afford $300/yr, but not $2,000. If you're talking about people with subsidized insurance, then the taxpayers are paying for that anyway. The overwhelming number of people (still) go to the ER for primary care because they can't get in to see their PCP because the ACA failed to start with 'supply'... so the taxpayers are on the hook for that anyway.

$2000 a year? I don't know about that. I have a friend who pays the penalty and it's only like $80. Yes, subsidized health insurance get paid by tax payers anyway but the value in having a health tax paying citizen is better than paying the bills on some cancer patient that ends up dying. How much do we as a country lose when a recent graduate of college dies because they couldn't afford health insurance? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

Subsidizing people's insurance is a good investment. Surely you can see that.

Quote:I'd support paying for people who are victims of genetic lottery.... but I don't support paying for people who engage in risky behavior and then demand treatment.

But that's just it. You do anyway when they don't have insurance and they end up in the ER.

(12-20-2017 01:35 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:53 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  1) Removed the United States from ridiculous overseas Climate agreements.
2) De-certified the Iran Nuclear "Deal".
3) Began re-negotiation of NAFTA.
4) Pulled out of the TPP.
5) Illegal border crossings from Mexico are at the lowest rate in years.
6) Untied the hands of the US Military and defeated ISIS before Christmas.
7) Rolled back and removed unnecessary EPA restrictions, leading us down the path of energy independence.
8) Green-lighted the Keystone Pipeline.
9) Appointed a Conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
10) Achieved tax reform. (Only a matter of time) HUGE boom to the economy by slashing the corporate tax. Tax rates cut for all Americans. Doubled the standard deduction.
11) GDP well beyond anything Obama ever accomplished.
12) Slashed and capped SALT deductions for high-tax blue states, letting the fine folks of those states finally see what Democratic leadership and wasteful spending for decades has got them. They haven't ever had to really feel their 10-14% state tax rate because the rest of America has subsidized them. Now they get to direct their anger towards their elected Democratic leaders. (I really like this one.)

Love him or hate him... President Trump is defying the norm and getting his agenda accomplished at an unprecedented rate... despite 91% negative news coverage, and an ongoing coup attempt by the deep state. Truly astonishing.

Here's to you, POTUS.

And yet he still has only a 35% approval rating.

I never really approved of or was happy with my parents when they led me, kicking and screaming down the correct path.

Approval ratings are for suckers. The fact that Obama had a high number only proves that, considering the damage he did to this country.

Trump doesn't deal in approval ratings. He deals in actual tangible progress. Nice try, though.

Well said.

Real work. No more style over substance. No more fake Greek columns.

(12-20-2017 01:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So if the number of people in the country who have health insurance is significantly lower this time next year, we can thank Trump right?

Uhhhhh, no.

When your “replacement plan” comes in at $2647.00 a month cause your current plan and company pulled out of the market entirely, what do you suggest?

Fine me? What should someone do instead?

This is zerOcare as it was intended, with the complicit Dim congress right there in lockstep, goose stepping along.

Blow the existing insurance market up entirely and create a demand for government taking over.

Just what we need, the DMV running our health care industry...

The socialist left can own this debacle for a generation.

(12-20-2017 04:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So if the number of people in the country who have health insurance is significantly lower this time next year, we can thank Trump right?

Uhhhhh, no.

When your “replacement plan” comes in at $2647.00 a month cause your current plan and company pulled out of the market entirely, what do you suggest?

Fine me? What should someone do instead?

This is zerOcare as it was intended, with the complicit Dim congress right there in lockstep, goose stepping along.

Blow the existing insurance market up entirely and create a demand for government taking over.

Just what we need, the DMV running our health care industry...

The socialist left can own this debacle for a generation.

This this this this this

(12-20-2017 03:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its pretty ignorant of what happens in the real world. There are public health clinics in all the major metro areas. There are public hospitals in all the major metro areas. Obamacare made access worse in rural areas since not everyone takes medicare/Medicaid and its expansion caused problems for the people trying to get into those doctors and facilities.

Obamacare didn't even attack the right problem. Health insurance was not the problem. Access and affordability were the problems. It froze in place the items driving up costs and subsidized insurance companies.

Were you talking to me? I essentially said the same thing, talking about 'supply'. I work in rural healthcare.

(12-20-2017 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they won't get check-ups.

Sure some people will but most won't.

Your comment was about 'who would pay their costs'. Most of the people you're talking about would be having 'the taxpayer' pay the bulk of their premiums (since the IM is a tax on health, not wealth). You can't have it both ways.

Generally speaking, the people who earn too much to have the taxpayers subsidize their insurance would have the $300/yr to pay out of pocket for preventative primary care. If you want to make those check-ups mandatory, fine... so long as we have enough providers to deliver them.

Quote:

Quote:Since 'preventable check-ups' cost around $300/yr and the individual mandate costs more like $2000/yr... Many people can afford $300/yr, but not $2,000. If you're talking about people with subsidized insurance, then the taxpayers are paying for that anyway. The overwhelming number of people (still) go to the ER for primary care because they can't get in to see their PCP because the ACA failed to start with 'supply'... so the taxpayers are on the hook for that anyway.

$2000 a year? I don't know about that. I have a friend who pays the penalty and it's only like $80. Yes, subsidized health insurance get paid by tax payers anyway but the value in having a health tax paying citizen is better than paying the bills on some cancer patient that ends up dying. How much do we as a country lose when a recent graduate of college dies because they couldn't afford health insurance? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

Subsidizing people's insurance is a good investment. Surely you can see that.

What I meant by the individual mandate was the cost of a policy that meets the requirements of the mandate.

The individual mandate penalty isn't remotely $80. For 2017, its $695 per adult and $347.50 per child under 18 with a family max of $2,085 OR 2.5% of household income up to the total premium of a bronze plan... WHICHEVER IS HIGHER.... meaning it's NEVER less than $695 per adult. Maybe you mean $80 per month? But again, that's not what I was speaking of. I was speaking of the cost of compliance (and thus the cost of getting the care we're talking about).

As to subsidizing people's healthcare being a good investment, that's far too broad a comment. No, I don't think that subsidizing the people I see every day in my ER who do drugs all day long or otherwise abuse their bodies... refuse treatment for the addiction or abuse and simply want us to treat the symptoms so that they can go back out and abuse their bodies some more is a good investment... In fact its a HORRIBLE one... as these people often engage in behaviors that endanger others, including but not limited to their children.....

which is specifically why I suggested this.....

Quote:

Quote:I'd support paying for people who are victims of genetic lottery.... but I don't support paying for people who engage in risky behavior and then demand treatment.

But that's just it. You do anyway when they don't have insurance and they end up in the ER.

First, all the ER is required to do is treat the emergent event within their legal limits. That's all. You're not guaranteed specialty services.
Second, I never said I'd provide universal care 'without regard to ability to pay', did I? In fact, that's specifically what I'd change.

If the government is offering universal healthcare for everything except intentional acts (trying to shorten my preference into few words) then i expect hospitals to offer that emergency care as they do today. Lifelong smoker comes in with ARF, he gets O2 and is offered outpatient cessation treatment and sent home.

Obviously I'm being draconian there and there would have to be a period of transition where say we kept things 'as is' for the next 2 years with a focus on smoking cessation, in fact we'd probably have to do 2-3 major contributors every few years and it could take 10 years to get to where I'm talking about being.... but I think I'm being clear.

Otherwise, why would you ever quit smoking or over-eating? Quitting smoking and losing 100 pounds is hard. Sure, you'll die sooner, but everyone already knows that and they still smoke. We're making them MORE comfortable in the interim and I don't think we should do that. I'd love to make them LESS comfortable to force them to quit, but I'd be okay with just making them bear the costs of their unwillingness to quit.

(12-20-2017 04:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:35 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:53 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  1) Removed the United States from ridiculous overseas Climate agreements.
2) De-certified the Iran Nuclear "Deal".
3) Began re-negotiation of NAFTA.
4) Pulled out of the TPP.
5) Illegal border crossings from Mexico are at the lowest rate in years.
6) Untied the hands of the US Military and defeated ISIS before Christmas.
7) Rolled back and removed unnecessary EPA restrictions, leading us down the path of energy independence.
8) Green-lighted the Keystone Pipeline.
9) Appointed a Conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
10) Achieved tax reform. (Only a matter of time) HUGE boom to the economy by slashing the corporate tax. Tax rates cut for all Americans. Doubled the standard deduction.
11) GDP well beyond anything Obama ever accomplished.
12) Slashed and capped SALT deductions for high-tax blue states, letting the fine folks of those states finally see what Democratic leadership and wasteful spending for decades has got them. They haven't ever had to really feel their 10-14% state tax rate because the rest of America has subsidized them. Now they get to direct their anger towards their elected Democratic leaders. (I really like this one.)

Love him or hate him... President Trump is defying the norm and getting his agenda accomplished at an unprecedented rate... despite 91% negative news coverage, and an ongoing coup attempt by the deep state. Truly astonishing.

Here's to you, POTUS.

And yet he still has only a 35% approval rating.

I never really approved of or was happy with my parents when they led me, kicking and screaming down the correct path.

Approval ratings are for suckers. The fact that Obama had a high number only proves that, considering the damage he did to this country.

Trump doesn't deal in approval ratings. He deals in actual tangible progress. Nice try, though.

Well said.

Real work. No more style over substance. No more fake Greek columns.

I'll simply go back to pre-election hashtag......

#muhpoles

#swabemhoney

If I remember this right, this guy is one of the biggest doofus' of all. He wouldn't be drinking to Trumps success, he hates Trump.

(12-20-2017 01:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I still say #9 should be at the top of the list...

That's the only reason I voted for him. The rest are icing on the cake.

Thanks President Trump.

(12-20-2017 09:31 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 01:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I still say #9 should be at the top of the list...

That's the only reason I voted for him. The rest are icing on the cake.

Thanks President Trump.

we can only hope the midterms work out in our favor or remain status quo so he gets a shot at two more before the middle of '19.....if not, that scenario becomes a huge CF.....

having said that, I'm more in the camp of the USD vs. the social side of the equation....

either way, what a helluva first year for the good guys......ol' boy even exceeded my expectations.....

never thought I would see a non politician, pragmatic centrist, with a titanium codsack as POTUS.....thank you 0'bummer and hill-lair-liar for being the biggest dipshites in power in my lifetime.....wouldn't have happened otherwise....

next year is going to be Yuge!.......yesterday was a monster in relative terms to maintain momentum.....

the ®s can only **** it up from here....

.