|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2017 05:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Text of the CBO report on RepublicareHighlights: good news:decreases the deficit by ~323b over 10 years (so $33b/ yr) bad news: 14m lose insurance by 2018, 24m lose insurance by 2026, death spiral
I'm confused. The document says...
Other parts of the legislation would repeal or delay many of the changes the ACA made to
the Internal Revenue Code that were not directly related to the law’s insurance coverage
provisions. Those with the largest budgetary effects include:
• Repealing the surtax on certain high-income taxpayers’ net investment income;
• Repealing the increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for certain
high-income taxpayers;
• Repealing the annual fee on health insurance providers; and
• Delaying when the excise tax imposed on some health insurance plans with high
premiums would go into effect.
But then never mentions these budgetary changes again or how much they will cost by delaying/repealing them. Were they factored in or just left out? Are they too small to be relevant? Why mention them specifically then?
|
The Trump Administration is saying everyone should focus on the top lines of the report then said the CBO only read the bill that was before Congress...
|
On March 14 2017 05:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 05:45 opisska wrote:
How does it work with the age dependence in practice? Is it meant that "if you get insurance while old and previously uninsured, you pay more", or is it "you pay more as you get older"? The first would actually be rather sensible (you are supposed to be insured from young age, the whole point of the system is that you are insured all the time, not just when you start getting sicker), while the second one would be outright idiotic. The half is cuts to.meducaid which a lot of Senior Citizens have as secondary to Medicare, the other is tax cuts.
That's why the whole topic is so inaccessible to non-americans. There are just too many things happening, I'd just want to know how much is a person gonna effectively pay for some reasonable standard of healthcare and what does this sum depend on. Because otherwise it's nigh useless to try to have any opinion on what's happening (the only somewhat clear number is the number of uninsured).
|
|
|
On March 14 2017 06:12 Logo wrote:I'm confused. The document says... Show nested quote +Other parts of the legislation would repeal or delay many of the changes the ACA made to
the Internal Revenue Code that were not directly related to the law’s insurance coverage
provisions. Those with the largest budgetary effects include:
• Repealing the surtax on certain high-income taxpayers’ net investment income;
• Repealing the increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for certain
high-income taxpayers;
• Repealing the annual fee on health insurance providers; and
• Delaying when the excise tax imposed on some health insurance plans with high
premiums would go into effect. But then never mentions these budgetary changes again or how much they will cost by delaying/repealing them. Were they factored in or just left out? Are they too small to be relevant? Why mention them specifically then?
The way I read it it looks like the repeal of the ACA provisions would be the big revenue reductions, though they don't have a detailed breakdown.
|
I love how Democrats are swerving right to try to pick up Trump voters, meanwhile Bernie is just going to talk to them. Tell them that healthcare is their right, and Trump wants to take it away.
Why are Democrats just sitting around with their thumb in their ass instead of rallying hard behind this guy?
|
On March 14 2017 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how Democrats are swerving right to try to pick up Trump voters, meanwhile Bernie is just going to talk to them. Tell them that healthcare is their right, and Trump wants to take it away.
Why are Democrats just sitting around with their thumb in their ass instead of rallying hard behind this guy?
Sucking at that corporate teat.
|
On March 14 2017 07:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how Democrats are swerving right to try to pick up Trump voters, meanwhile Bernie is just going to talk to them. Tell them that healthcare is their right, and Trump wants to take it away.
Why are Democrats just sitting around with their thumb in their ass instead of rallying hard behind this guy? Sucking at that corporate teat.
I don't understand how this hasn't become apparent to Democrat (or Republican for that matter) voters yet?
|
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises.
|
On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises.
I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race?
If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR.
But that's not the problem.
|
Channeling LegalLord, Most Popular Politician Around Bernard Sanders lost the nomination by over 3m votes
|
On March 14 2017 07:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
Channeling LegalLord, Most Popular Politician Around Bernard Sanders lost the nomination by over 3m votes
lol. You know that she got crushed in the primaries that weren't closed. That whole shtick is old hat. Yeah, Democrats like her, Bernie's popularity extends beyond Democratic party loyalists though.
|
On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem.
Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results...
|
On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results...
The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance.
If it was a real argument the Democrats would be saying "This is how we get medicare for all..."
|
Hillary's results speak for themselves - she successfully got a self-confessed grabber of involuntary pussies elected president. It's quite the accomplishment, but her supporters keep trying to run from it.
|
On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance.
?
I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers.
I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told.
|
On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told.
Well on one hand you have Democrats who heard Bernie promise the world and Hillary promise what was possible and those Hillary
Confronted with a similar choice the Republicans went the other way with Trump.
I tend to prefer realistic solutions to fairy tales.
|
On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told.
The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare
"Mission accomplished"
The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president.
|
On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president.
Cool.
Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool?
|
On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool?
It's pretty standard for some people when discussing anything Democrat that they must bring up Clinton and blame her for something or shit on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
