|
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. |
![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-30-at-9.40.45-AM-1-768x409.jpg)
The enquirer story
|
On July 01 2017 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line. When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor. Right, so your going with the Fox line of "Everyone dies at some point, access to healthcare doesn't stop that". Does access to Medicaid allow these people access to healthcare sooner, and therefor cheaper and safer, then when they had to wait to land on the ER as an uninsured where the rest of society ends up paying the (higher) bill because they cant pay and we don't like to leave people dying in the streets because their poor?
The study also showed it increased trips to the ER.
|
United States42024 Posts
On July 01 2017 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line. When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor. Right, so your going with the Fox line of "Everyone dies at some point, access to healthcare doesn't stop that". Does access to Medicaid allow these people access to healthcare sooner, and therefor cheaper and safer, then when they had to wait to land on the ER as an uninsured where the rest of society ends up paying the (higher) bill because they cant pay and we don't like to leave people dying in the streets because their poor? The study also showed it increased trips to the ER.
Whereas we all know the healthiest people make one trip to the ER and never need to go again. To anywhere. Ever.
|
On July 01 2017 01:42 Nevuk wrote:The enquirer story
Neither are married so how is it cheating. They are engaged to one another? I'm confused.
|
On July 01 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:25 a_flayer wrote:
Dear god @ that whole extended Mika story - from the petty insults to women on Twitter to the National Enquirer stalking her children and the Joe Scarborough Whitehouse visit where he was told it could stop. Just unbelievable.
Horrifying from start to finish. This has got to be found out from start to finish with regards to any potential trace of communications between various parties to see what exactly happened & used in the impeachment. This kind of thing can't be happening at levels of the highest level of the office, right? I mean this seriously, you should do a deep dive into the Nixon administration and the ramp up to him being impeached. From his sweeping victory in in 1972 to him resigning. The tactics he used were very similar to Trump, but he was better at them. It will be a slow build. Yesterday the a republican controlled committee allowed floor debate of a democrat's amendment to end the 2001 authorization for force in the middle east. Out of no place, even she was surprised. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it is a big deal and likely not possible 6 months ago.
Intimidation of the press like this has got to be a big deal.
|
On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes!
You don't seem to know how Medicaid works. You don't need subsidies if you qualify for Medicaid because you (edit: generally) don't pay premiums (edit: and if you do they're vastly lower than the ones on the exchanges). Medicaid recipients also have a pretty low ceiling on prescription prices in most states (generally in the 1-3 dollar range). They also don't have deductibles.
You seem to be confusing the Medicaid expansion with providing graded insurance subsidies for individuals at up to 300% of the FPL, which it is not in any way, shape, or form.
Edit: For some orientation on what cost-sharing is and isn't allowed under existing federal law, here's a Kaiser brief I just found that's pretty useful. Corrected some of my misconceptions. Generally, Medicaid cost-sharing can exist, but it's mostly for disability folks with incomes >150% FPL rather than folks qualifying purely through FPL
|
There's also the added complication relative to program administration; Medicaid's soft implementation requirements allow each state to basically put out their own brand of Medicaid. Thus, broad remarks as to Medicaid that do not pay lip service to the wide differentiations at play across different states are not very useful.
|
On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes!
If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion.
|
|
|
By tweeting about the Enquire story Trump opens the door for yet another investigation into him and his staff; this time for blackmail! Find the smoking gun pls so we can end this. Or at least have this result in someone like Miller or Bannon being canned.
|
On July 01 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:44 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line. When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor. Right, so your going with the Fox line of "Everyone dies at some point, access to healthcare doesn't stop that". Does access to Medicaid allow these people access to healthcare sooner, and therefor cheaper and safer, then when they had to wait to land on the ER as an uninsured where the rest of society ends up paying the (higher) bill because they cant pay and we don't like to leave people dying in the streets because their poor? The study also showed it increased trips to the ER. Whereas we all know the healthiest people make one trip to the ER and never need to go again. To anywhere. Ever.
We all recall advocates of Medicaid claiming it would decrease visits to the ER and increase visits to primary care physicians. The goal was to claim an increase in preventative care.
|
On July 01 2017 02:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2017 01:44 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! I would love a trustworthy source on that Medicaid does nothing for peoples access to healthcare compared to being uninsured. Sounds an awful lot like the Fox News "They would have died anyway at some point" line. When I said health outcomes, I meant outcomes. You can say access to education in the US is great, but educational outcomes are piss-poor. Right, so your going with the Fox line of "Everyone dies at some point, access to healthcare doesn't stop that". Does access to Medicaid allow these people access to healthcare sooner, and therefor cheaper and safer, then when they had to wait to land on the ER as an uninsured where the rest of society ends up paying the (higher) bill because they cant pay and we don't like to leave people dying in the streets because their poor? The study also showed it increased trips to the ER. Whereas we all know the healthiest people make one trip to the ER and never need to go again. To anywhere. Ever. We all recall advocates of Medicaid claiming it would decrease visits to the ER and increase visits to primary care physicians. The goal was to claim an increase in preventative care.
Yup. And the Oregon study you're citing without citing it showed an improvement in depression and preventative diabetes detection and management.
Edit: As well as "nonsignificant" decreases in a large number of biomarkers but I'll not try to explain why calling nonsignificant findings null is absurd on a politics thread in a gaming forum.
On July 01 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! You don't seem to know how Medicaid works. You don't need subsidies if you qualify for Medicaid because you (edit: generally) don't pay premiums (edit: and if you do they're vastly lower than the ones on the exchanges). Medicaid recipients also have a pretty low ceiling on prescription prices in most states (generally in the 1-3 dollar range). They also don't have deductibles. You seem to be confusing the Medicaid expansion with providing graded insurance subsidies for individuals at up to 300% of the FPL, which it is not in any way, shape, or form. Edit: For some orientation on what cost-sharing is and isn't allowed under existing federal law, here's a Kaiser brief I just found that's pretty useful. Corrected some of my misconceptions. Generally, Medicaid cost-sharing can exist, but it's mostly for disability folks with incomes >150% FPL rather than folks qualifying purely through FPL Losses in insurance are not just changes to Medicaid expansion (if you like the 22 million figure) It also involves private insurance, both of which qualify you to a break in the individual mandate penalty-tax. So when I say "And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts," I was referring to how the ACA fucked over people on the private insurance market (employer and individual make up over 80% affected). Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. The first sentence was directed to the dire need of Medicaid reform to improve health outcomes on the program, which suck, and the remainder to how private insurance needs to be made great again (if you'll pardon the tongue in cheek).
Oh, sorry. I definitely read it as all one thought rather than two separate thoughts. My apologies.
|
On July 01 2017 01:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! You don't seem to know how Medicaid works. You don't need subsidies if you qualify for Medicaid because you (edit: generally) don't pay premiums (edit: and if you do they're vastly lower than the ones on the exchanges). Medicaid recipients also have a pretty low ceiling on prescription prices in most states (generally in the 1-3 dollar range). They also don't have deductibles. You seem to be confusing the Medicaid expansion with providing graded insurance subsidies for individuals at up to 300% of the FPL, which it is not in any way, shape, or form. Edit: For some orientation on what cost-sharing is and isn't allowed under existing federal law, here's a Kaiser brief I just found that's pretty useful. Corrected some of my misconceptions. Generally, Medicaid cost-sharing can exist, but it's mostly for disability folks with incomes >150% FPL rather than folks qualifying purely through FPL
Losses in insurance are not just changes to Medicaid expansion (if you like the 22 million figure) It also involves private insurance, both of which qualify you to a break in the individual mandate penalty-tax. So when I say "And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts," I was referring to how the ACA fucked over people on the private insurance market (employer and individual make up over 80% affected). Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. The first sentence was directed to the dire need of Medicaid reform to improve health outcomes on the program, which suck, and the remainder to how private insurance needs to be made great again (if you'll pardon the tongue in cheek).
|
If Trump makes it to 2020, is he automatically the nominee for the Republican party?
|
On July 01 2017 02:20 Dromar wrote:
If Trump makes it to 2020, is he automatically the nominee for the Republican party?
One of them could challenge, but they might as well give the White House to the Democrats if they took him off the ballot.
|
On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion.
Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate.
|
On July 01 2017 02:20 Dromar wrote:
If Trump makes it to 2020, is he automatically the nominee for the Republican party?
no; but it's very rare for a sitting president to not get the nomination. it can happen if they're sufficiently unpopular though.
|
On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion. Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate.
Why is it whenever people try to nail you down to specifics, you ramp up the hyperbolic statements?
Expanding Medicaid has been a huge boon to some states and helped poor people. It is not perfect, but better than the free market solution.
The ACA has problems and can be repaired.
The House and senate bills do not address either of the two issues stated above. But it does give tax cuts for rich people.
|
On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion. Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate.
Don't turn this around. You claimed that "health outcomes on Medicaid are provably no better than uninsured". People have asked you to back that claim up, which shouldn't be that hard if it is "provably" the case. So far, you have failed to show any proof of anything. And now you try to shift the discussion away from that subject.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2017 02:20 Dromar wrote:
If Trump makes it to 2020, is he automatically the nominee for the Republican party?
No - but primarying the sitting president seldom works. And by seldom I mean that I can't recall a single case in which it was successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
