Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's my thinking. If you are of the mind set our budget is out of control...the only way to fix it is to cut expenses AND raise revenue.
Cutting taxes is cutting revenue. Sure sure some would argue with the hope to stimulate the economy and bring in more tax revenue -- EVENTUALLY> But that whole trickle down and around theory has proven to be a little sketchy at best.
Exactly.
The auto execs meeting with Trump was a perfect example of the fallacy of the trickle-down theory.
Though they appreciated the tax breaks and his lifting the EPA and MPG regs, there would be no new factories. They were still only going to manufacture as many vehicles as they thought they could sell.
Good. I think we should keep Obamacare in place as I think it's the best we are going to get without moving to a single payer system. I think if it went away, people would realize that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be and a lot of people would end up worse off.
Health care should NOT be run by Wall Street which is what we have now.
They had the votes and DID NOT do this. They had the White House, 60 votes in the Senate and the House and we got crap.
They weren't all that supportive of healthcare for everyone. There were a lot of scare tactics being used. Talk radio bleating about death panels, old people being warned about Medicare cuts. People were afraid of this scary socialized medicine and they let their representatives know it.
They did not understand that Medicare for everyone and single payer is the same damn thing.
I will simply note, as I have before, that when I got out of law school in 1984 one job I applied for was with a health insurance company. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that part of my job duties would be find any basis to invalidate health insurance contracts held by individuals that filed claims on new, and expensive, ailments.
One basis for voiding the contract would be the 'pre-existing' condition. If it could be shown that the claimant had a 'concealed' pre-existing condition, then the insurance company would declare the policy void, and thus avoid having to pay the costs incurred.
The health insurance companies had their own company medical doctors, hired to make the medical declaration that a claimant's cardiac problem (for instance) that led to a heart attack was a pre-existing condition. If it could be reasonably (or not so reasonably) shown that (in our example) the claimant had some undiagnosed condition, such as hypertension or diabetes, then the wheels would start turning to deny the claim.
Other ailments that were subject to being declared as 'undisclosed pre-existing conditions' included alcoholism, sleep apnea, Hepatitis, Lupus, and kidney disease.
To make clear: you have many people walking about with undiagnosed conditions. Back in the old days they would obtain health insurance, either privately or through employment. Often they would not be required to undergo a physical examination (if you were purchasing life insurance, you often did have to undergo a physical). If the person then became sick down the line, the job I was seeking (and refused) involved finding that the claimant had some underlying, unknown, undisclosed, condition that led, either directly or indirectly, to the current health problem.
Let us be clear: When people sought health insurance, they had to declare all medical problems they had. If one had diabetes, one would declare that, which, of course, would mean that either the insurance company would decline coverage, or would charge correspondingly higher premiums. I had no problem with that.
I did have a problem with the health insurance company actively trying to void policies right when the person needed coverage the most.
The problem is that pre-existing condition coverage - quite apart from any moral or financial arguments - has proven to be electorally popular. And politicians of all political persuasions love getting re-elected.
This was back when Democrats were naively believing they could work with Republicans.
18 months of negotiations, 161 Republican amendments, and not a single Republican voted for it.
They should have gone for single-payer UHC.
We'll get there. It's all we can afford.
They should have started there. They were too afraid of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. They were too afraid to lose their backing and money. We are NEVER going to get there until people quit making excuses and hold ALL politicians accountable.
They should have started there. They were too afraid of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. They were too afraid to lose their backing and money. We are NEVER going to get there until people quit making excuses and hold ALL politicians accountable.
Exactly.
One of the good things to come out of this whole fiasco is that people seem to be waking up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
