Pre-existing conditions

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Pre-existing conditions (& discussion of entitlement cuts)

Please defend the veracity of this tweet

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,173
Reaction score
2,195
Points
113
At the firm I used to work for, one of our managers said to one of my colleagues, "Andy, sometimes you have to lie to the client."
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,689
Reaction score
1,297
Points
113
Bottom line - Trump - or any other political candidate of EITHER party - can say whatever they want. It's up to the voters to decide whether to support them or not. if a politician - of either party - says things that are not true - and you vote for them - that is your fault.

Once upon a time, I would have said it was also the job of the media to check the honesty of statements, but the media has become as polarized as the electorate. Conservatives don't believe anything they read or hear from the "liberal" media, and liberals don't believe anything they read or hear from the "conservative" media. That results in a majority of the public not believing the media. Which allows politicians free reign to say anything they want.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Republicans are all in favor of protections for pre-existing conditions and keeping children on up to 26 years of age, we just don’t like the $hit sandwich that Democrats want us to eat with it.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,622
Reaction score
1,326
Points
113
Once upon a time, I would have said it was also the job of the media to check the honesty of statements, but the media has become as polarized as the electorate. Conservatives don't believe anything they read or hear from the "liberal" media, and liberals don't believe anything they read or hear from the "conservative" media. That results in a majority of the public not believing the media. Which allows politicians free reign to say anything they want.
Soooooo, you think the politicians are the problem here?

Kinda seems to me like the media has to get it's house in order. It's a disgrace. Anchors engaging in racist discussions on air saying that white men are the biggest threat to the country?

I think media accountability is one of the biggest problems facing our country today. Seriously. The media is dividing us, adding fuel to the fire of every hot button issue, and all for ratings, ratings, ratings.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Soooooo, you think the politicians are the problem here?

Kinda seems to me like the media has to get it's house in order. It's a disgrace. Anchors engaging in racist discussions on air saying that white men are the biggest threat to the country?
Numbers don't lie, they are by far. But I agree, the media is part of the problem along with politicians. Money in politics is the biggest problem. Take the money out of it, make the politicians actually vote the way their constituents want them to not the way a few rich corporations pay them to.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
Republicans are all in favor of protections for pre-existing conditions and keeping children on up to 26 years of age, we just don’t like the $hit sandwich that Democrats want us to eat with it.
LOLOLOLOL, you actually believe this?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Please defend the veracity of this tweet

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"You have to pass the plan to see what is in it!" :)

" If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor!" :)

"We will save $2500 per family per year!" :)

When it fails: "It was a Republican idea!"
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Republicans are all in favor of protections for pre-existing conditions and keeping children on up to 26 years of age, we just don’t like the $hit sandwich that Democrats want us to eat with it.
They can say that. They have no plan to doing anything but repealing the ACA. Going back to what we had before + mandating that you must cover pre-existing conditions isn't a health care plan and would only result in sky high premiums for everyone. The R's have no plan. This is an outright lie to keep from losing the election. Nothing more.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Republicans are all in favor of protections for pre-existing conditions and keeping children on up to 26 years of age, we just don’t like the $hit sandwich that Democrats want us to eat with it.
If this were just a matter of wanting to repeal the ACA, that would be true, but the House-passed bill to repeal would have greatly reduced protections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-existing-conditions/?utm_term=.136534900065
https://www.politifact.com/north-ca...ew-version-ahca-protect-coverage-pre-existin/
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/p...higher-premiums-under-the-houses-health-bill/

Also, the Trump DOJ, is not defending the constitutionality of the pre-exisiting conditions protections:

https://www.texasobserver.org/trump...-conditions-protections-are-unconstitutional/
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ACA.Azar_.filing.pdf

For these reasons, this Court should hold that the ACA’s individual mandate will be
unconstitutional as of January 1, 2019, and that the ACA’s guaranteed-issue and community-rating
provisions are inseverable from the mandate.
"Guaranteed-issue" is

A requirement that health plans must permit you to enroll regardless of health status, age, gender, or other factors that might predict the use of health services. Except in some states, guaranteed issue doesn't limit how much you can be charged if you enroll.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/guaranteed-issue/
 
Last edited:

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
A whole bunch of posts showing how dumb or dishonest Ds are. Trump has guaranteed to protect social security, medicare, and pre-existing conditions from day 1. The Rs have not liked that and fought him through the campaign and the first year of his presidency. Few are holding out and most are not running for re-election because they lost their support trying to #neverTrump him. The Rs of 2018? They have fallen in line behind Trump on these social program protections. Dishonest or dumb, you decide.

Let me remind you, Trump is not a republican.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
This is a really good issue for Democrats. They have a couple healthcare insurance protection items, that a majority of people agree should remain intact, tied to a larger subsidized healthcare scheme that was passed on a 100% partisan vote by deceiving the American public as to the costs, sacrifices, and changes to their healthcare plans that would actually occur.

The Republican Congress is to blame for not reaching an agreement on repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and by not doing so, they’ve given Democrats a club to hit them with this election. Of course, the Democrats act like coverage for pre-existing conditions is only available if Obamacare isn’t repealed, which is obviously a lie. Yet, they don’t even mention Obamacare in their pitch b/c that would acknowledge that Republicans aren’t against pre-existing conditions subsidies, but against Obamacare as a requirement to deliver them.

The Lefty-biased media and the fact-checkers carry the Democrats water by perpetuating that falsehood and focusing on the changes that would make subsidizing some of the additional costs for people with pre-existing conditions more practical, economical, and flexible for the states and the Federal government.

Of course, as Democrats, it’s always better to focus on what you are getting from the government instead of what it is costing you.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,732
Reaction score
946
Points
113
Republicans are all in favor of protections for pre-existing conditions and keeping children on up to 26 years of age, we just don’t like the $hit sandwich that Democrats want us to eat with it.
KGF, buddy, you keep proving that even amongst your RW crowd on this board, you are big on the Kool-Aid drinking. You really will believe any RW lie, no matter how ridiculous, won't you? Wowzers.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
A whole bunch of posts showing how dumb or dishonest Ds are. Trump has guaranteed to protect social security, medicare, and pre-existing conditions from day 1. The Rs have not liked that and fought him through the campaign and the first year of his presidency. Few are holding out and most are not running for re-election because they lost their support trying to #neverTrump him. The Rs of 2018? They have fallen in line behind Trump on these social program protections. Dishonest or dumb, you decide.

Let me remind you, Trump is not a republican.
bga1 has assured us that Trump plans to cut entitlements.

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/bo...-doing-well-under-Trump&p=1612671#post1612671

Please let us know what you two figure out.
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
This is a really good issue for Democrats. They have a couple healthcare insurance protection items, that a majority of people agree should remain intact, tied to a larger subsidized healthcare scheme that was passed on a 100% partisan vote by deceiving the American public as to the costs, sacrifices, and changes to their healthcare plans that would actually occur.

The Republican Congress is to blame for not reaching an agreement on repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and by not doing so, they’ve given Democrats a club to hit them with this election. Of course, the Democrats act like coverage for pre-existing conditions is only available if Obamacare isn’t repealed, which is obviously a lie. Yet, they don’t even mention Obamacare in their pitch b/c that would acknowledge that Republicans aren’t against pre-existing conditions subsidies, but against Obamacare as a requirement to deliver them.

The Lefty-biased media and the fact-checkers carry the Democrats water by perpetuating that falsehood and focusing on the changes that would make subsidizing some of the additional costs for people with pre-existing conditions more practical, economical, and flexible for the states and the Federal government.

Of course, as Democrats, it’s always better to focus on what you are getting from the government instead of what it is costing you.
Trump had the DOJ argue in court that protections for pre-existing conditions were unconstitutional. We don't need to analyze the AHCA to understand that.

The way that the AHCA makes subsidizing the additional costs of people with pre-existing conditions is by allowing insurance companies to charge those people anything they want. Those seem like changes that are worth focusing on
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Do you recall even 1 time bga1 disagreed with me and was correct? BTW, we do not disagree that often. He has shaken free of some of his establishment R values.
Trumps main plan to reduce entitlements is to reduce dependency as he is doing with a booming economy. But his group has discussed looking at entitlements next year. See here:
Today, for example, Larry Kudlow, the director of the Trump White House’s National Economic Council, spoke at the Economic Club of New York, and had this exchange with CNBC’s Becky Quick:

QUICK: Will the Trump administration tackle entitlement reform?

KUDLOW: Well, we’ve already tackled a big part of the newest entitlement, namely Obamacare. As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that probably next year. I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.

As CNBC reported, Kudlow added that the White House is determined to reduce federal spending, and “part of the Republican plan to curb spending is tackling entitlements.”


So that's one time right there. :) There are others....
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Trump had the DOJ argue in court that protections for pre-existing conditions were unconstitutional. We don't need to analyze the AHCA to understand that.

The way that the AHCA makes subsidizing the additional costs of people with pre-existing conditions is by allowing insurance companies to charge those people anything they want. Those seem like changes that are worth focusing on
IMO, the purpose of that was to continue to dismantle Obamacare and not to prevent alternatives to subsidizing pre-existing conditions insurance.

Again, there are more ways to subsidize pre-existing conditions insurance than just what Obamacare does.

The main point is that it is a popular subsidy that has bi-partisan support if considered in much skinnier legislation.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Both entitlement reform and maintaining SS benefits for older Americans could be accomplished by allowing older Americans to continue to draw their SS as guaranteed, but phase in changes for younger Americans.

SS was a Democrat pyramid scheme dependent on population growth to stay feasible. It was a poorly designed scheme when it was conceived that didn’t take into account the ebbs and spurts of population growth since it depended on current workers to fund retired, older Americans, especially when exceptionally large generations (baby boomers) reached retirement age.

A realistic and practical social security system would be one that allows retirees to withdraw benefits that they paid into the system over the course of their lives rather than being dependent on withholdings from current workers. Of course, this would probably require taxpayers to get current unfunded SS obligations off the books, but so be it to improve the system for the future.

No doubt Democrats would try to confuse and scare Americans about such changes that will ensure the long term stability of mandatory retirement savings.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,067
Reaction score
599
Points
113
Your argument would be a lot more convincing, KFC, if Social Security:

1. Were currently hopelessly underwater - or even close to imminently so.

or

2. Not very easily fixable.

Neither of these is the case, however.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Your argument would be a lot more convincing, KFC, if Social Security:

1. Were currently hopelessly underwater - or even close to imminently so.

or

2. Not very easily fixable.

Neither of these is the case, however.
Enlighten me with what you mean by “easily fixable”?

https://www.businessinsider.com/soc...-out-and-no-one-will-like-the-solution-2017-7

Last year, on the Social Security Administration's blog, the then-acting commissioner of Social Security wrote, "[As] a whole, Social Security is fully funded until 2034, and after that it is about three-quarters financed ... the DI (Disability Insurance) fund will now be able to pay full benefits until 2023, and the retirement fund alone will be adequate into 2035."

Part of the problem can be attributed to longer life expectancies, a smaller working-age population and an increase in the number of retirees. By 2035, the number of Americans 65 and older will increase from about 48 million today to more than 79 million. As a result, more people will be taking money out of the system — but there will be fewer people paying into Social Security.

That doesn't mean the program will run out of money entirely, though. Payroll taxes are expected to cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. But if the gap isn't filled, retirees could get less Social Security or workers might need to pay more into the system.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,732
Reaction score
946
Points
113
Enlighten me with what you mean by “easily fixable”?

https://www.businessinsider.com/soc...-out-and-no-one-will-like-the-solution-2017-7

Last year, on the Social Security Administration's blog, the then-acting commissioner of Social Security wrote, "[As] a whole, Social Security is fully funded until 2034, and after that it is about three-quarters financed ... the DI (Disability Insurance) fund will now be able to pay full benefits until 2023, and the retirement fund alone will be adequate into 2035."

Part of the problem can be attributed to longer life expectancies, a smaller working-age population and an increase in the number of retirees. By 2035, the number of Americans 65 and older will increase from about 48 million today to more than 79 million. As a result, more people will be taking money out of the system — but there will be fewer people paying into Social Security.

That doesn't mean the program will run out of money entirely, though. Payroll taxes are expected to cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. But if the gap isn't filled, retirees could get less Social Security or workers might need to pay more into the system.
Have you seriously not heard the various ideas for SS fixes thrown around the news, much less say this board itself? They are simple, and include but are not limited to small increases in SS tax and increasing the retirement age.

Former Conservative hero Ronald Reagan fixed SS in the 80s with a small but significant increase in SS tax collection. It was completely solvent for decades.

Stop perusing the looney-toon RW sites and start reading about real stuff, KGF. You act like an under-educated clown for no reason; I know you're not actually an idiot.
 
Last edited:

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Trumps main plan to reduce entitlements is to reduce dependency as he is doing with a booming economy. But his group has discussed looking at entitlements next year. See here:
Today, for example, Larry Kudlow, the director of the Trump White House’s National Economic Council, spoke at the Economic Club of New York, and had this exchange with CNBC’s Becky Quick:

QUICK: Will the Trump administration tackle entitlement reform?

KUDLOW: Well, we’ve already tackled a big part of the newest entitlement, namely Obamacare. As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that probably next year. I don’t want to be specific, I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.

As CNBC reported, Kudlow added that the White House is determined to reduce federal spending, and “part of the Republican plan to curb spending is tackling entitlements.”


So that's one time right there. :) There are others....
They have done nothing. Until you can show cuts to social security and medicare you have nothing. You continue as O for a bunch. Sorry Charlie, you still got nothing. BTW, what is Trump's definition of entitlements.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Have you seriously not heard the various ideas for SS fixes thrown around the news, much less say this board itself? They are simple, and include but are not limited to small increases in SS tax and increasing the retirement age.

Former Conservative hero Ronald Reagan fixed SS in the 80s with a small but significant increase in SS tax collection. It was completely solvent for decades.

Stop perusing the looney-toon RW sites and start reading about real stuff, KGF. You act like an under-educated clown for no reason; I know you're not actually an idiot.
However, you have shown no proof of not being an idiot. Quite to the contrary.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Have you seriously not heard the various ideas for SS fixes thrown around the news, much less say this board itself? They are simple, and include but are not limited to small increases in SS tax and increasing the retirement age.

Former Conservative hero Ronald Reagan fixed SS in the 80s with a small but significant increase in SS tax collection. It was completely solvent for decades.

Stop perusing the looney-toon RW sites and start reading about real stuff, KGF. You act like an under-educated clown for no reason; I know you're not actually an idiot.
RW sites? Business Insider is Center-Left according to howie’s mediabias/factcheck website.

I don’t know what you consider easy fixes, but to keep SS feasible, I would expect that there will be increases in the retirement age, decreases in benefits, increases in withholdings, or some combination of all. I don’t think people will like that or think that it’s easy.

For guys that worry about increases in deficits due to tax cuts, you sure do have a lot of confidence in SS’s long term future solvency with slight changes required.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
588
Points
113
KGF, buddy, you keep proving that even amongst your RW crowd on this board, you are big on the Kool-Aid drinking. You really will believe any RW lie, no matter how ridiculous, won't you? Wowzers.
even diehard of all people proved him wrong. That's just sad.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
They have done nothing. Until you can show cuts to social security and medicare you have nothing. You continue as O for a bunch. Sorry Charlie, you still got nothing. BTW, what is Trump's definition of entitlements.
DH- Get serious. You are sounding like jtf or TrollSeeker (hmmm) now. Of course they have done nothing about entitlements. I never said they did. I said that they have talked about working on entitlements. Anyone that represents what I have said differently is not telling the truth.

Here's what jtf said: bga1 has assured us that Trump plans to cut entitlements. See anything in that about having "done anything" yet?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
DH- Get serious. You are sounding like jtf or TrollSeeker (hmmm) now. Of course they have done nothing about entitlements. I never said they did. I said that they have talked about working on entitlements. Anyone that represents what I have said differently is not telling the truth.

Here's what jtf said: bga1 has assured us that Trump plans to cut entitlements. See anything in that about having "done anything" yet?
Point: diehard

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,067
Reaction score
599
Points
113
I don’t know what you consider easy fixes, but to keep SS feasible, I would expect that there will be increases in the retirement age, decreases in benefits, increases in withholdings, or some combination of all. I don’t think people will like that or think that it’s easy.
Please read carefully, KFC. I didn't say anything about passing those fixes being easy. But the fixes themselves are very easy and if Don did it by EO and nobody ever bothered to check, they would barely notice.

1. Raise retirement age 5 years over the next 10 - or some combination thereof that makes the numbers work (5 over 20, 5 over 15). People live longer now, this only makes sense that we would expect them to work longer. Grandfather close folks in, whatever, just do something.

2. Raise the cap $5K or $10K or whatever number makes it work, in combination with #1 above.


Done.
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Please read carefully, KFC. I didn't say anything about passing those fixes being easy. But the fixes themselves are very easy and if Don did it by EO and nobody ever bothered to check, they would barely notice.

1. Raise retirement age 5 years over the next 10 - or some combination thereof that makes the numbers work (5 over 20, 5 over 15). People live longer now, this only makes sense that we would expect them to work longer. Grandfather close folks in, whatever, just do something.

2. Raise the cap $5K or $10K or whatever number makes it work, in combination with #1 above.
Done.
I’m sure those changes will be really popular. :rolleyes:

Or, you could redesign a mandatory retirement savings system for younger Americans that wasn’t dependent on those younger working generations to pay for retired generations, so than when population growth slows or levels off, SS funds are depleted or more changes required.
 
Top Bottom