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.
I suspect this won’t be a battle. And it’s gonna take months before any changes go into affect but Trump will use the recent event of the day as usual to deflect from the outcome.
If there is a mass amount of people sans health insurance in the summer of 2018, which isn't that far off, instead of MAGA rallies, it will be the angry villagers chasing FrankenTrump!
Democrats are reacting badly to President Trump's plan to eliminate the health care subsidies that are the backbone of Obamacare. They will throw everything they have into their battle to keep transferring wealth.
Providing subsidies from taxpayers' money is now the entire purpose of Big Government. Transferring wealth from people to earned more, to people who earned less.
It's what all of leftist government is about. Whether it's done by inventing the "Progressive" Income Tax, or sending money to people who can't pay their heating bill this winter, or giving taxpayer money to people who can't afford their (govt-mandated) health care. Leftist politicians absolutely depend on using such subsidies to buy the votes of people who otherwise would want nothing to do with them.
And such Wealth Transfer is completely unconstitutional, of course.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to charge and collect taxes, of course. But it does NOT give it the power to simply turn around and hand that money to other people in the population, unless it gives to everybody equally. Which Obamacare is expressly designed NOT to do.
The Constitution expressly states there are only three things that tax money can be used for:
1.) To pay the debts of the U.S. government;
2.) To provide for the defense of the U.S.;
3.) To provide for the General Welfare of the United States.
"General Welfare" had a specific meaning back in 1789. It meant programs that would help everybody equally. As opposed to "local welfare", which in 1789 meant smaller groups, what we now call Special Interests. Paying out tax money to only part of the population is strictly forbidden by this part of the Constitution.
And yet that is exactly the purpose of "progressive" programs, from progressive taxes to Obamacare: To make some people pay more, while others pay less or nothing, for the same service. And then transferring that money to the ones who pay less... because there are a lot more of them, than people who pay more... but they all have an equal vote.
Now President Trump is talking about eliminating the Federal subsidies for people who can't afford Obama's govt-mandated health care.
This hits Democrats where they live. Be prepared for the Mother Of All Battles to be fought in the Press and other Democrat organs. They literally can't afford to lose this one.
Democrats are reacting badly to President Trump's plan to eliminate the health care subsidies that are the backbone of Obamacare.
Providing subsidies from tazpayers' money is now the entire purpose of Big Government. Transferring wealth from people to earned more, to people who earned less.
It's what all of leftist government is about. Whether it's done by inventing the "Progressive" Income Tax, or sending money to people who can't pay their heating bill this winter, or giving taxpayer money to people who can't afford their (govt-mandated) health care. Leftist politicians absolutely depend on using such subsidies to buy the votes of people who otherwise would want nothing to do with them.
And such Wealth Transfer is completely unconstitutional, of course.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to charge and collect taxes, of course. But it does NOT give it the power to simply turn around and hand that money to other people in the population, unless it gives to everybody equally. Which Obamacare is expressly designed NOT to do.
The Constitution expressly states there are only three things that tax money can be used for:
1.) To pay the debts of the U.S. government;
2.) To provide for the defense of the U.S.;
3.) To provide for the General Welfare of the United States.
"General Welfare" had a specific meaning back in 1789. It meant programs that would help everybody equally. As opposed to "local welfare", which in 1789 meant smaller groups, what we now call Special Interests. Paying out tax money to only part of the population is strictly forbidden by this part of the Constitution.
And yet that is exactly the purpose of "progressive" programs, from progressive taxes to Obamacare: To make some people pay more, while others pay less or nothing, for the same service. And then transferring that money to the ones who pay less... because there are a lot more of them, than people who pay more... but they all have an equal vote.
Now President Trump is talking about eliminating the Federal subsidies for people who can't afford Obama's govt-mandated health care.
This hits Democrats where they live. Be prepared for the Mother Of All Battles to be fought in the Press and other Democrat organs. They literally can't afford to lose this one.
Government is all about who's doing the wealth transfer to whom!
If someone assesses the current state of the ACA objectively - not with the religious faith in it, how can it be defended? There are aspects of what it was supposedly intended to do which make sense if implemented in a sensible way (e.g. address those with pre-existing conditions), and aspects which are just wrong (e.g. mandate). It's a mess but no one is willing to be seen as the first Apostate and help nail a new approach on the door.
If someone assesses the current state of the ACA objectively - not with the religious faith in it, how can it be defended? There are aspects of what it was supposedly intended to do which make sense if implemented in a sensible way (e.g. address those with pre-existing conditions), and aspects which are just wrong (e.g. mandate). It's a mess but no one is willing to be seen as the first Apostate and help nail a new approach on the door.
If someone assesses the current state of the ACA objectively - not with the religious faith in it, how can it be defended? There are aspects of what it was supposedly intended to do which make sense if implemented in a sensible way (e.g. address those with pre-existing conditions), and aspects which are just wrong (e.g. mandate). It's a mess but no one is willing to be seen as the first Apostate and help nail a new approach on the door.
You can't have a stable market without all of those features, though.
That is really the issue at the core of all HC debates, and illustrates why it hasn't gone anywhere. No one wants to admit that we can't get the "Good stuff" without the "bad stuff".
There is likely no solution that gets us cheaper rates and no mandate, and more coverage.
Some people might suggest cheaper rates and less coverage - but that is going to be very unpopular. Likely as unpopular, if not more so, than what we currently have with the ACA.
I think they're all going about it the wrong way...no one is talking about HC costs. It's all about coverage...when the real problem of escalating rates has to do with escalating HC costs. If you can figure out how to address that, then you can make some real progress here. But no one wants to do that...
If there is a mass amount of people sans health insurance in the summer of 2018, which isn't that far off, instead of MAGA rallies, it will be the angry villagers chasing FrankenTrump!
I have never been able to understand why people are always screaming about insurance all the time.
My sister pays $3270 a year for employer provided insurance for her family of 6, husband and 4 kids. I pay $350 a year, plus the no insurance penalty, for my family of 3, that is an annual physical and blood work. Last time I needed to go to the hospital was a year ago when my son broke his leg and that only cost me $1200 at the hospital and another $2200 for all the castings, none of which would have been insurance paid with today's deductibles. If I had paid for insurance plus all that I would be WAY worse off. Hell it only cost $3500 for the birth of my son and that includes the 40 weeks of doctors visits and ultrasounds/blood work and the C-section.
Insurance is a scam and not even the real problem with our health costs to begin with. Wish we would get off this insurance kick and focus on really cutting and controlling costs; prescriptions, hospitals, ambulances, and specialists are the real problem.
You can't have a stable market without all of those features, though.
That is really the issue at the core of all HC debates, and illustrates why it hasn't gone anywhere. No one wants to admit that we can't get the "Good stuff" without the "bad stuff".
There is likely no solution that gets us cheaper rates and no mandate, and more coverage.
Some people might suggest cheaper rates and less coverage - but that is going to be very unpopular. Likely as unpopular, if not more so, than what we currently have with the ACA.
I think they're all going about it the wrong way...no one is talking about HC costs. It's all about coverage...when the real problem of escalating rates has to do with escalating HC costs. If you can figure out how to address that, then you can make some real progress here. But no one wants to do that...
Alot of the healthcare costs are simply, "what amount of money can I charge ...and get away with it?"
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.
