Trumped

[Glen]

Semantics, really. It's still a significant chunk.

[InsideThePark]

 

[tdawg87]

3 hours ago, Glen said:

significant chunk.

That's what I named my schlong.

[Amazing Larry]

I wonder if tdawg's schlong can do the truffle shuffle. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Lawrence said:

I wonder if tdawg's schlong can do the truffle shuffle. 

How long have you wondered this?

[Amazing Larry]

Ever since Trout made the show. 

[Tank]

Lawrence, you and I wonder about completely different things.

[tdawg87]

You guys are really immature. Try to keep this thread on topic ok? 

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

You guys are really immature. Try to keep this thread on topic ok? 

Fixed

[Jason]

14 hours ago, InsideThePark said:

 

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 3/25/2017 at 5:49 PM, Stradling said:

So reading everything here from the libs, I am only assuming that Trump failed at repealing ACA and even though he has 3.75 years left (assuming he doesn't quick, get impeached or something else) he won't be able to try to repeal it again?  Is that what happened?  Or is this something that the right can revise and come back and give it another go?  I honestly don't know, but I would assume that they could circle the wagons again and come up with something more agreeable, right?  When I ask this I don't want a "if they had 7 years and couldn't figure it out, what makes you think they can figure it out in the next few years", I am looking for, can they revise their plan and try again?

They claimed that they already had something ready to go.

[Amazing Larry]

Sessions will cut funding to "sanctuary cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-jeff-sessions-takes-aim-sanctuary-cities-doj/story?id=46404503

[mtangelsfan]

I don't have a problem with that.  I think that one of the true functions of the federal government is to defend/protect our borders.

 

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, Lawrence said:

Sessions will cut funding to "sanctuary cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-jeff-sessions-takes-aim-sanctuary-cities-doj/story?id=46404503

This was inevitable.  It's what has been done around the country for years.  If I remember right, states had highway money withheld by the feds when age limits for alcohol were raised to 21. 

[RallyMo]

19 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

They claimed that they already had something ready to go.

 

[Jason]

4 hours ago, Lawrence said:

Sessions will cut funding to "sanctuary cities."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-jeff-sessions-takes-aim-sanctuary-cities-doj/story?id=46404503

Good

[Troll Daddy]

[Blarg]

You follow Trump on twitter? 

[Tank]

On 3/26/2017 at 8:02 PM, Vegas Halo Fan said:

They claimed that they already had something ready to go.

Yeah, I wonder what happened. I'm sure the news that as many as 24 mil people would lose their Obamacare probably didn't help with publicity. 

Wonder where they'll go with this now that it's been pulled. 

[Jason]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

Yeah, I wonder what happened. I'm sure the news that as many as 24 mil people would lose their Obamacare probably didn't help with publicity. 

Wonder where they'll go with this now that it's been pulled. 

It doesn't matter what they come up with. The sky is falling will be the Dems mantra with it.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

It doesn't matter what they come up with. The sky is falling will be the Dems mantra with it.

good point. i never heard how many more people will receive health care, only how many would lose it. 

the opposition seems to forget that when obamacare was implemented, there were probably as many people who lost healthcare as those who finally got it.

this may be an oversimplification or a captain obvious moment, but if the cons can figure out a way to keep existing insurance for people while adding those who don't have it and simultaneously eliminating that stupid "tax" for those who don't sign up, they'll be on to something useful that even our morons in congress should be able to support.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

good point. i never heard how many more people will receive health care, only how many would lose it. 

the opposition seems to forget that when obamacare was implemented, there were probably as many people who lost healthcare as those who finally got it.

this may be an oversimplification or a captain obvious moment, but if the cons can figure out a way to keep existing insurance for people while adding those who don't have it and simultaneously eliminating that stupid "tax" for those who don't sign up, they'll be on to something useful that even our morons in congress should be able to support.

Then there are people that will opt out of insurance all together without a mandate. Doesn't mean they are being denied coverage like we are led to believe

[red321]

The reason why you didn't hear how many additional people would get healthcare is under the Republican plan is because...the overall net was 24 million people losing insurance. They weren't expanding coverage to anyone. A little reporting nugget in the CBO is not only would people who gained insurance through exchanges or the medicaid expansion under Obamacare would lose it, but they also projected approximately 7 million of people who currently had coverage under their employer would lose it through a combination of the employer choosing not to offer coverage or people deciding not to sign up.

I think this is where people are confused...while it was called the American Healthcare Act, it wasn't actually designed to fix the healthcare system, it was a giant tax break for the rich. I know, the naming of it was a little misleading, so it's understandable folks were confused.

[Blarg]

Red, how many people lost their health care benefits in 2011 from companies they were getting insurance from and then had to pay for Obamacare?

It is a disingenuous argument to say 25 million would lose their health care benefits when that is exactly what happened when the ACA went into effect and then rate hikes made their coverage more expensive without employer contributions. 

The only recipients of health care at a discounted rate were those in incomes so low their premium was discounted but their co-pay may not have been and that equaled $5k or more before any benifits were paid. So in effect, they didn't get anything more than disaster care if reasonably healthy. 

Subsidized health care is a cluster fuck to get the accounting to pay off, which the ACA is incapable of achieving without raising rates to a non competitive rate for people in a median income. 

I don't think there is a solution through mediation on this considering the way the ACA was designed as a Ponzi scheme. To repeal Obamacare is going to be fiscally necessary and there isn't going to be a butterflies and unicorns replacement.

I'm glad Congress shot down the current bill on the floor but I also don't believe a truly better or equitable plan will come out of Congress, simply because our nation and the way we conduct business, will not have a practical solution. We will not be going socialized medicine in the near future. 

 

[red321]

I don't know Blarg...how many? 

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

Statistics show a significant drop in the overall uninsured rate. That number also does not take into account people who were previously underinsured.

The 2016 uninsured rate remains at an all-time low with the uninsured rate at 11.9% for Americans 18 – 64 and 8.6% of all Americans 0 – 65. 8.6% is down from 9.1% as of 4th quarter 2015, and 15.7% before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. 

We don’t have exact enrollment numbers for employer coverage or enrollments outside of the Marketplace, so it can be tricky to get exact enrollment numbers. Studies on these types include a March 2015 Gallup poll shows about 1 million more covered through their employer. (ps. I lied...I was able to find an estimate). The same poll shows private enrollments are up but doesn’t differentiate between the marketplace and non-marketplace private coverage for individuals and families.

 

The rest of your shouting at clouds highlights how little you understand how insurance works, or how the level of care in the exchange based policies was structured.

There was nothing perfect about the ACA, and it was never intended to be the final stop...in a functioning government changes would have been to address issues with the law.