Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

141,269 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, lostone said:

We seem to be okay with Israel getting people elected though

And sending over taxpayer money to influence their elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, falconsd56 said:

I have not been down that way in like 12 years....but I tell you that is the same way up here in the Pensacola area

Coming to Pensacola towards the end of next week from Atl. Hope the rain threat goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I do believe somebody predicted that support for M4A would start falling when Republicans began attacking it.  

 

This is a self-inflicted wound. Dems kept talking about how they were going to take people's insurance away. This all started after Kamala said as much in her town hall. Most people thought M4A was optional and if they didn't like it, they could keep their employer insurance or Medicare Advantage plans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

This is a self-inflicted wound. Dems kept talking about how they were going to take people's insurance away. This all started after Kamala said as much in her town hall. Most people thought M4A was optional and if they didn't like it, they could keep their employer insurance or Medicare Advantage plans. 

And what do you think was going to happen when people got that information?  It’s not like Dems could pass the bill and nobody would know that the bill ended private insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

And what do you think was going to happen when people got that information?  It’s not like Dems could pass the bill and nobody would know that the bill ended private insurance.

It doesn't end private insurance. Supplemental private insurance would still exist, as it does in other singlepayer countries. It does, however, end the domination of private health insurance over the market, which advocates have been clear about from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like Rubio is trying to use this as bait, even though corporations already made record buybacks thanks to the tax cut instead of paying their employees more as promised, to make the investment write offs permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is going to sign the spending bill and then declare a national emergency for the wall. Mitch the B*tich just announced.

I knew he would do that to save face with Rush, Coulter, Sean and his hordes of idiots.

This will be held up in courts for a decade and nothing will happen. Imminent domain cases from the Bush Era are still in courts trying to get land for border walls.

I look forward to President AOC when she's old enough declaring emergencies for Climate Change, Health Care, Tax Structure on the rich.

Thanks Trump for opening the flood gates on this!!!

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1096139449388486657

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

And what do you think was going to happen when people got that information?  It’s not like Dems could pass the bill and nobody would know that the bill ended private insurance.

Support drops dramatically when people find out you are killing private insurance. In Morning Consult's poll nearly 50% of support switches to undecided or oppose when they find out.

Dems weren't going to pass M4A. They would have passed Medicare for America, which keeps Medicare Advantage and Employer-sponsored insurance as qualifying options to opt out of the public plan. 

Most candidates look at M4A as an aspirational slogan than a legitimate bill to be passed. 

 

33 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

It doesn't end private insurance. Supplemental private insurance would still exist, as it does in other singlepayer countries. It does, however, end the domination of private health insurance over the market, which advocates have been clear about from the start.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother even trying to legislate M4A? Just wait two years and have the next Dem President declare a National Health emergency. Cut through all the crap and just declare it and do it.

Trump is leading by example, might as well take advantage of that when the opportunity rises.

We are gonna get our M4A, Gun Control, Climate Change legislation, Education all through EO's, Ha Ha

Sn4tteRBoxXeR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Support drops dramatically when people find out you are killing private insurance. In Morning Consult's poll nearly 50% of support switches to undecided or oppose when they find out.

Dems weren't going to pass M4A. They would have passed Medicare for America, which keeps Medicare Advantage and Employer-sponsored insurance as qualifying options to opt out of the public plan. 

Most candidates look at M4A as an aspirational slogan than a legitimate bill to be passed. 

 

 

lol

Opponents have been pointing out for a while that M4A doesn't fully end private insurance as a gotcha attempt and now they're saying it's not a good look that proponents say that, yeah, it doesn't fully end private insurance. Sad.

Private insurance would still exist based on how M4A would be set up. No point in lying about that. The private health insurance industry, however, would have its back broken and would never be a dominant force in the market again. Once that is out of the way it will mostly replaced by the public program, thereby reducing costs for people, ending all the nonsense private insurance entails and that M4Am would attempt to preserve (along with lying about provisions within it), and freeing people up to seek jobs they want instead of prioritizing finding or staying at a job they may not necessarily like just for the health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MAD597 said:

Why bother even trying to legislate M4A? Just wait two years and have the next Dem President declare a National Health emergency. Cut through all the crap and just declare it and do it.

Trump is leading by example, might as well take advantage of that when the opportunity rises.

Not enough money? We do not raise enough to pay for M4A by shuffling around money. Climate change can be done via national emergency, but M4a will likely have to be done post killing the filibuster OR though Budget Reconciliation. 

But we are going to seize all the oil, gas, and coal refineries/mines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Not enough money? We do not raise enough to pay for M4A by shuffling around money. Climate change can be done via national emergency, but M4a will likely have to be done post killing the filibuster OR though Budget Reconciliation. 

But we are going to seize all the oil, gas, and coal refineries/mines. 

We just do a two fer, National Emergency on Wealth inequality and take that money to pay for the National Emergency for M4A, or just don't pay for it.

Not like the GOP ever pays for any of their initiatives, F it at least M4A might actually be good for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

That stretch between Gainsville and Orlando is packed with crazy.

My Ex, who is Dominican, never left in Gainesville and now I see why! 

She is from Poinciana and we never stopped outside of G’ville. Now I know why! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

lol

Opponents have been pointing out for a while that M4A doesn't fully end private insurance as a gotcha attempt and now they're saying it's not a good look that proponents say that, yeah, it doesn't fully end private insurance. Sad.

Private insurance would still exist based on how M4A would be set up. No point in lying about that. The private health insurance industry, however, would have its back broken and would never be a dominant force in the market again. Once that is out of the way it will mostly replaced by the public program, thereby reducing costs for people, ending all the nonsense private insurance entails and that M4Am would attempt to preserve (along with lying about provisions within it), and freeing people up to seek jobs they want instead of prioritizing finding or staying at a job they may not necessarily like just for the health insurance.

No one considers private cosmetic insurance equal to insurance as people understand it today. In other SP countries, it is supplemental because the public plan has gaps. M4A doesn't have Gaps. No one is paying for supplemental cosmetic/ experimental insurance. And there are plenty of UHC countries were private plans exist as a complementary system. 

It wouldn't exist in M4A. We both know that. That has been something you have been clamoring for and boasting about it. Now that the polling shows support crumbles, you are backtracking. 

M4Am gives people the option to choose what is best for their families. M4Am also frees people to seek the job they want, because they would be put into a public plan if they lose their employer insurance. M4Am also reduces costs for people. It won't hit M4A efficiencies, but it will be a small difference since the bulk of savings comes from breaking the back of monopolistic hospital providers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I declare a national Emergency on the Electoral college. Two Presidents since 2000 have been elected that lost the popular vote. This is an Emergency that must be corrected for the will of the people to be heard and democracy is resorted to the Nation.

Imagine the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GEORGIAfan said:

No one considers private cosmetic insurance equal to insurance as people understand it today. In other SP countries, it is supplemental because the public plan has gaps. M4A doesn't have Gaps. No one is paying for supplemental cosmetic/ experimental insurance. And there are plenty of UHC countries were private plans exist as a complementary system. 

It wouldn't exist in M4A. We both know that. That has been something you have been clamoring for and boasting about it. Now that the polling shows support crumbles, you are backtracking. 

M4Am gives people the option to choose what is best for their families. M4Am also frees people to seek the job they want, because they would be put into a public plan if they lose their employer insurance. M4Am also reduces costs for people. It won't hit M4A efficiencies, but it will be a small difference since the bulk of savings comes from breaking the back of monopolistic hospital providers. 

More like acknowledging that it doesn't ban private health insurance, which is the point opponents have been trying to make. Practically speaking it wouldn't exist because, as you said, M4A doesn't have those gaps. Not going to run from that since it is a very positive thing and is something we're going to campaign on to solidify and grow support, which I have said over and over again.

The cost reductions are for the program itself. The high cost sharing isn't going to go down smoothly like you're pretending it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.