Jump to content
IGNORED

Obamacare Question


Ali

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, feministxtian said:

What is the big opposition to single payer? Besides the insurance companies? Why are people so opposed to it? 

I'm not an expert, but from what I know the objections to a single payer system are: 

  • there isn't any competition and without competition there isn't any incentive to save money and prices will go sky high
  • when a budget is created for this system, there will be a set amount for knee replacements (as an example), once the money from that runs out there won't be any more knee replacements until the next budget cycle, leading to rationing healthcare and waiting lists
  • lack of options when it comes to picking and choosing your providers and/or the type of care you want to receive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Bethella said:

there isn't any competition and without competition there isn't any incentive to save money and prices will go sky high

There isn't any competition or incentive now. Have you ever gotten an estimate from a hospital? Insurance companies definitely don't "compete" with the premiums...you have high, higher and "I ain't paying that much". The outrageous deductibles are saving the insurance companies money when you have to spend 10 grand of your own money BEFORE they even start the 80/20 split. 

2 hours ago, Bethella said:

when a budget is created for this system, there will be a set amount for knee replacements (as an example), once the money from that runs out there won't be any more knee replacements until the next budget cycle, leading to rationing healthcare and waiting lists

Have to wait now...

2 hours ago, Bethella said:

lack of options when it comes to picking and choosing your providers and/or the type of care you want to receive

Same as above...have to stay "in network" even if your network has the shittiest doctors around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2016 at 8:45 AM, Childless said:

I find this odd considering Alabama is one of the states that takes more federal dollars than they contribute and has one of the highest poverty rates in the country.  Why would people vote against their own best interests?

Simply put, many whites would rather go without healthcare themselves than have a program that would benefit blacks. This is why white Southerners loved the New Deal (which they arranged a deal in the Senate that the programs wouldn't benefit Southern blacks), but hated the Great Society programs, which covered everybody, regardless of race. White conservatives like Medicare because they perceive that it benefits more whites, whereas SNAP and WIC are bad because they are perceived to benefit mostly blacks, even though many more whites use these programs in reality.  I think if Trump proposed a single-payer system that only benefited whites, all the people who claim to be against the idea would suddenly be for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, feministxtian said:

There are two other single-payer systems in the US. The VA Medical system and Tri-Care for military, retired military and dependents. Hub just went this morning for bloodwork at the VA clinic. Very orderly, a little bit of a wait (less than 30 min) for his number to be called, free coffee and cookies available, no cashier. 

When we were active duty, well...things could get a wee bit chaotic at times at the Air Force hospital but in many ways good care. Again, no out of pocket expense then (don't know about now). 

What is the big opposition to single payer? Besides the insurance companies? Why are people so opposed to it? 

There's also the Alaska Native Medical System, and I think the lower 48 Native Americans have the IHS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

There isn't any competition or incentive now. Have you ever gotten an estimate from a hospital? Insurance companies definitely don't "compete" with the premiums...you have high, higher and "I ain't paying that much". The outrageous deductibles are saving the insurance companies money when you have to spend 10 grand of your own money BEFORE they even start the 80/20 split. 

Have to wait now...

Same as above...have to stay "in network" even if your network has the shittiest doctors around. 

Those are the arguments I've heard against a single-payer system, it doesn't mean I agree with them.

Personally I think one of the biggest problems with our current system is the for-profit companies (insurance and hospitals). Before Obamacare I had a high deductible plan that only covered hospitalization. At the time our hospital had recently switched from a non-profit to a for-profit. I went in for physical therapy after an injury and wanted to know how much each appointment was going to cost before receiving treatment. The receptionist was able to tell me what the insurance company would pay but it took the hospital almost two weeks to figure out and then give me a quote for nearly twice as much since I was paying out of pocket. They wanted to sell me a brace for $120, I found it online for less than $20, including shipping. I ended up using exercises I found online to do my own "physical therapy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bethella said:

I'm not an expert, but from what I know the objections to a single payer system are: 

  • there isn't any competition and without competition there isn't any incentive to save money and prices will go sky high
  • when a budget is created for this system, there will be a set amount for knee replacements (as an example), once the money from that runs out there won't be any more knee replacements until the next budget cycle, leading to rationing healthcare and waiting lists
  • lack of options when it comes to picking and choosing your providers and/or the type of care you want to receive

See, I don't get this.  Countries with single payer spend half as much on healthcare per individual and still have higher life expectancies.  So how is it they justify a silly excuse like prices going up?

My dad is against single payer.  His reasoning?  The government will decide what care you can and cannot get.  Don't insurance companies already do that?  I'd rather have government ran by people employed by me (I vote them in after all) making that decision than some greedy for profit corporation trying to line their pockets.  He also thinks government would suck at running the program.  Nevermind that Medicare and Medicaid spend much less in admin costs than insurance companies and they control medical costs better.  The excuses people use for not wanting single payer just don't make any sense.  They're simply parroting Republican talking points without doing any research and using their brains to think through the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Childless said:

See, I don't get this.  Countries with single payer spend half as much on healthcare per individual and still have higher life expectancies.  So how is it they justify a silly excuse like prices going up?

Agreed. The US already has the highest health care cost of all OECD member countries, even though it has some of the shittiest health outcomes (low life expectancy compared to other Western countries, very high infant and maternal mortality rates, etc.). Here's a nifty little diagram:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita)

750px-Health_care_cost_rise.svg.png

A single-payer system, or even just another comprehensive health care system like we have in Germany (even though I would prefer a single-payer system myself), would more than likely lower health care costs in the US.

I have to agree with @Cleopatra7: Many Americans will vote against their own interest if it just means that others are held down as well. And yes, this is mostly a race/ethnicity issue. Can't have those uppity black people thinking they deserve medical attention, even if that means I won't get any either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With MediCare, I can go to any doctor who accepts MediCare*; I'm not tied to a health insurance network of physicians.   This means its portable.  If I live in another state half time, it's not a problem.  Yes, traditional MediCare has lower administrative costs than MediCare Advantage Plans.  

*all doctors so far accept MediCare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Paul Ryan's plan to "fix" Medicare. For those who are already on Medicare or are close to being old enough for Medicare:

Quote

While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the choice to opt in to the new Medicare program once it began in 2024.  This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health security throughout their retirement years.

Freedumb!!!

For us younger folks:

Quote

For younger workers, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options – including a traditional fee-for-service option – from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs. 

Hot damn! I'm going to get a coupon with Paul Ryan's face on it that will only pay for a fraction of my health insurance plan. :pb_rollseyes:

He's also pissed that seniors are going to the doctor so damn much, so he's gonna make seniors understand the value of a dollar by increasing their costs. 

Quote

Our plan would also achieve savings by making two other structural reforms.  First, we would ask higher income seniors to contribute more to their care—something we have called for in the House Republican budget for years.  Starting in 2018, seniors who make more than $133,000 a year would pay a higher premium for their doctor and prescription-drug coverage. Secondly, our plan would discourage unnecessary doctor visits and give seniors the incentive to seek out the most effective care.  Many seniors have "Medigap" insurance—a private plan that helps pay for costs that Medicare does not cover, such as co-payments and deductibles.  These plans insulate people from costs and, experts believe, encourage the overuse of health care.  Beginning in 2020, this agreement would prohibit Medigap plans for covering the first $147 of out-of-pocket spending, so cost is once again a consideration in health care decisions. 

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

Speaking of healthcare, does anybody else think that this Congress is going to try and repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act?

Quote

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're currently on our way to third world status where the rich get medical treatment/education/retirement funds and everyone else works at some crap unskilled job until they drop dead of an illness or injury they couldn't afford to get treated.  Oh, joy.  Along with their opposition to government in general, I'm convinced the Republicans want to turn the U.S. into Somalia.  Canada is looking better and better despite the shitty weather.

Maybe this is the Republicans' plan to fight illegal immigration.  Make the U.S. such a miserable hell hole that no one wants to come here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Childless said:

Canada is looking better and better despite the shitty weather.

Hah! I had some friends who RV'd extensively in Canada.  They spoke to many Canadians who wanted to tour the US, but were afraid of what would happen if they had a medical emergency!  With gun violence as well, the US can look like a very scary place. 

When I was still doing admin at a university, I spoke with a woman in a different department who was planning on moving to Australia when she retired.  She was about 5 years out at that point (maybe 10 years ago) and I'd be very curious to know if she ultimately made that move.  She'd done her research and even as a recent immigrant, she'd be better off as a senior with Australian housing and medical than if she stayed in the US. 

ETA: I don't know where this fits into the current discussion on health insurance, but about 25 years ago I had to have major surgery.  Approval of my health insurance application had been held up because I'd noted an adolescent heart murmur (that had resolved) on my application when it became apparent I needed surgery ASAP.  The health insurance agent pushed through approval of my policy at the last minute and I'll always be grateful to that man.  I also learned that the hospital charged significantly more for the surgery for those paying out of pocket; the insurance companies negotiated lower rates, or at least that's how I understood it at the time.  The difference would have been about $10,000, and as noted, that was 25 years ago.  Is this no longer the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

I found Paul Ryan's plan to "fix" Medicare. For those who are already on Medicare or are close to being old enough for Medicare:

Freedumb!!!

For us younger folks:

Hot damn! I'm going to get a coupon with Paul Ryan's face on it that will only pay for a fraction of my health insurance plan. :pb_rollseyes:

He's also pissed that seniors are going to the doctor so damn much, so he's gonna make seniors understand the value of a dollar by increasing their costs. 

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

Speaking of healthcare, does anybody else think that this Congress is going to try and repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act?

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.

I've read (I can't find the article to quote it) that part of Paul Ryan's plan is to force everyone to the stupid Medicare (Dis)advantage plans starting in 2024.

The only thing I want with Paul Ryan's face on it is a piece of paper my dog can poop on.  He is such a nasty jerk.

I think the Republicans in Congress are going to do everything they can to screw Americans in the health care arena, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try to repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

Simply put, many whites would rather go without healthcare themselves than have a program that would benefit blacks. This is why white Southerners loved the New Deal (which they arranged a deal in the Senate that the programs wouldn't benefit Southern blacks), but hated the Great Society programs, which covered everybody, regardless of race. White conservatives like Medicare because they perceive that it benefits more whites, whereas SNAP and WIC are bad because they are perceived to benefit mostly blacks, even though many more whites use these programs in reality.  I think if Trump proposed a single-payer system that only benefited whites, all the people who claim to be against the idea would suddenly be for it.

Omg. This. We were just talking about this. Anything that benefits blacks they hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hospitals issue dire warning about repealing Obamacare: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hospitals-issue-dire-warnings-about-repealing-obamacare_us_58471202e4b016eb81d87cbf

Quote

 The hospital industry has a warning for President-elect Donald Trump and congressional leaders: Eliminating the Affordable Care Act without first crafting a “replacement” would create major hardships throughout the health care system.

Hospitals traded billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid payment cuts for expanded health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, reasoning it would be good for hospital finances to have fewer uninsured patients who don’t pay for their care. Congressional Republicans are leaning toward a plan that would repeal the law early next year, but delay enacting a new system for up to three years.

That won’t work, according to two influential hospital lobbying groups.

The American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals laid out their concerns in letters sent Tuesday to Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who will become minority leader next year.

These groups are demanding that legislation repealing the law and creating an alternative pass simultaneously, or that Congress and the incoming Trump administration restore the funding cuts from the law.

Hospitals will be seriously threatened if neither action occurs, Tom Nickels, executive vice president for government relations and public policy, said Tuesday during a conference call with reporters.

“Repealing the ACA while leaving its Medicare and Medicaid cuts in place will have huge implications for hospitals and the patients they serve,” Nickels said. “Loses of the magnitude that we’re going to discuss cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses.”

Hospital companies hold uncommonly large sway over lawmakers because the facilities they operate are vital elements of the infrastructure and economy of virtually every community in the United States. They are major employers and have a physical presence in every congressional district in the country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about Chuck Schumer, where he says the Democrats won't throw the Republicans a lifeline if they screw up healthcare. Let's see if he holds to it.

Quote

The emerging GOP plan to repeal Obamacare on a delayed schedule — and then maybe kinda sorta replace it later — has raised a big question: Will Democrats help Republicans pass a replacement that is far less generous and comprehensive than the health law is, allowing Republicans an escape from the political fallout from repeal?

In an interview with me, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer answered this question with a resounding No. Under no circumstances, he vowed, would Democrats throw Republicans such a political lifeline.

“We’re not going to do a replacement,” Schumer said of the Senate Democratic caucus. “If they repeal without a replacement, they will own it. Democrats will not then step up to the plate and come up with a half-baked solution that we will partially own. It’s all theirs.”

This could have far-reaching implications for the political battle over the health law that’s set to unfold — and indeed for the future of the health care system. Senate Republicans just announced that they will begin the process of repealing most of the health law in January, including the subsidies and Medicaid expansion that have helped cover many millions of previously uninsured people. Republicans are currently arguing over when exactly repeal should kick in — conservatives want it to be sooner, while GOP Senate leaders want to defer it to push off the political fallout until after the 2018 elections.

But whenever repeal does kick in, Republicans have insisted, they will have some kind of replacement ready. And here’s where Democrats come in. Republicans appear to be calculating that the looming prospect of millions losing insurance will force Dems to cooperate with them to pass a replacement that covers far fewer people and offers less in consumer protection than the ACA does. (They may need Dems to pass a replacement, because some conservatives may not vote for anything that spends and regulates to expand coverage.) But if Democrats do hold the line against anything far short of the ACA, they may be able to leverage Republicans into replacing it with something that is not nearly as regressive as the GOP replacement might otherwise have been.

This is what Schumer is now vowing to do. Asked directly if Democrats would refuse to support anything that falls significantly short of the ACA in terms of expanding social welfare, Schumer said: “The odds, after they repeal without any replacement, of us sitting at the table to do something that will chop one arm off instead of two is very small.”

“They’re giving us tremendous leverage,” Schumer insisted.

Time, of course, will tell whether Democrats make good on this vow. But it’s worth noting another important factor here: If Republicans do opt for repeal-and-delay, it could make a big mess very quickly, well in advance of any vote on a replacement, which could make the politics of this even worse for them.

As Jonathan Cohn reports today, health experts are predicting that repeal-and-delay could cause insurance markets to unravel very quickly. Insurance companies may exit the markets due to the uncertainty of seeing any replacement materialize. They may also pull out because Republicans look likely to repeal the individual mandate while trying to keep the protections for preexisting conditions (which cannot be repealed by a simple majority), which will make the risk pools older and sicker. The overall result could be millions losing coverage and all around chaos.

Schumer said that in this scenario, Democrats would not toss Republicans a lifeline. “They broke it, they own it,” Schumer said. “All the problems in the health care system that they blamed on Obamacare will now be in their laps. We’re going to make sure that we say things would have been a lot better, had they been thoughtful and careful and worked with us to fix Obamacare.”

It’s hard to say for sure how this will all play out. But here’s one possible scenario: Republicans do repeal much of Obamacare; a big mess ensues; Democrats refuse to participate in any vastly substandard replacement; Republicans are unable to pass it; no replacement materializes; and in several years, 20 million fewer people have health coverage. That would be a tremendous lurch backward. But Democrats would try to make Republicans own the outcome and the fallout, and this would all be re-litigated once again, heading into the 2020 elections.

The Republicans need to be hung out to dry -- U.S. citizens have been and are going to be paying the price for their games for far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interesting article about Chuck Schumer, where he says the Democrats won't throw the Republicans a lifeline if they screw up healthcare. Let's see if he holds to it.

The Republicans need to be hung out to dry -- U.S. citizens have been and are going to be paying the price for their games for far too long.

Yep.  Let it happen.  I feel bad for those who will be affected, but if Republicans are hell bent on repeal and delay, nothing those of us who voted for Clinton say will make a bit of difference.  Here you have experts literally begging them not to do it with examples of what will happen and they are being roundly ignored.  And not just by the politicians.  Trump supporters are doing the same.  So, yeah, I say let them own it.  Then maybe people will pull their heads out of their asses and support a single payer system like the rest of the industrialized world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about why the Republican health reform ideas are likely to fail. Here's the beginning of the article:

Quote

Obamacare is squarely in the cross hairs of the incoming Trump administration and congressional Republicans: Both the president-elect and Republican congressional leaders have said they plan to repeal and replace the sweeping health care law. What comes next? They’ve assured the public there will be an orderly transition, and that Americans who don’t have insurance through an employer will still have choices of stable, affordable, high-quality coverage.

Republican leaders have suggested a few ideas, including creating high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, allowing interstate health plan competition, expanding the availability of health savings accounts and providing tax subsidies for individuals with low incomes. President-elect Donald Trump also has said he wants to keep Obamacare’s requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing medical conditions. Most important is what Republicans say won’t be in their plan: a mandate for Americans to purchase health insurance.

This set of policies is highly unlikely to result in stable, affordable, high-quality coverage choices. I should know: As Rhode Island’s health insurance commissioner from 2005 to 2013, I was responsible for trying to implement a system that made many similar promises. What we found, in the end, was that without a requirement to buy, many healthy people opt out of insurance, resulting in an unstable market that requires heavy regulation with limited choices. Republicans are likely to face the same challenges with their favored reforms in the years ahead.

...

The article is written by a former health insurance commissioner from Rhode Island. Unfortunately, Ryan, Drumpf, and the rest of the Dumb and Dumber crowd won't learn from articles like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article: "The GOP strategy to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare is a joke"

Quote

...

It demonstrates key weaknesses that Republicans face in the coming battle, ones that Democrats can exploit — if they handle this correctly. Here’s the crux of it:

Senate Democrats will never vote to repeal Obamacare. But once the deed is done, a surprising number of them say they’re open to helping Republicans replace it. “If it makes sense, I think there’ll be a lot of Democrats who would be for it,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

As Republicans aim to make good on their years-long vow to quash Obamacare and replace it with their own health care vision, they’ll have to do something Democrats were never able to: Bring members of the opposing party on board. Enacting any substantive alternative will take at least eight Democratic votes in the Senate.

Yet the GOP will have powerful leverage that Democrats lacked in 2009 – namely, a huge number of members facing reelection in hostile territory. Twenty-five Democrats are on the ballot in 2018, including 10 in states that Donald Trump just won. The GOP is betting that many or most in the latter group will be under irresistible pressure to back an Obamacare replacement, if the alternative is leaving millions of people in the lurch without insurance.

The GOP game plan is to repeal much of the law via a simple majority “reconciliation” process, killing the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies that have expanded coverage to many millions. Republicans would implement a delay in repeal kicking in, so they can develop a replacement that — because it would be much more in keeping with GOP health reform ideas — would end up covering far fewer people.

At this point, goes the theory, Democrats facing reelection in 2018 would be under pressure to join Republicans in backing this replacement, because it would at least cover some people. Result: Obamacare is repealed; GOP replace goes into effect; far fewer people are covered, but Republicans can say they did reform the health system and helped people. The story quotes a few Democrats saying they might be open to backing some kind of replacement in this scenario.

But there are problems with this plan. Some Republicans want to delay repeal to push the fallout (millions losing health insurance) until after the 2018 midterm elections, while using the specter of that fallout as a leverage point in the run-up to those elections to force Dems into cooperating to bail all those people out with a GOP replacement. But to do this, Republicans would have to be offering a plan that actually bails all those people out with a GOP replacement. Only then could they blast Democrats for failing to join them in helping bail out all those people.

Most experts expect Republicans to offer a replacement plan that would cover far fewer people. If so, at that point, Republicans would still be in the position of rolling back the health coverage of millions — those who benefited from Obamacare, but won’t regain coverage under the GOP replacement — even if the GOP replacement were to pass. With that looming, that’s the point at which Democrats can position themselves as the ones who are arguing for actually bailing out those people, by saying that they will only support a more generous replacement plan that covers a lot more people than the GOP replacement would.

At this point, the Republican argument would devolve into absurdity. Are Republicans really going to blast Democrats for refusing to cooperate in covering people, after they have already voted to repeal coverage for all of Obamacare’s beneficiaries, and even as they are insisting on a replacement that covers far fewer people than the Democrats want to cover? No question, Republicans are highly skilled at covering up their policy gibberish with all manner of obfuscation, but good luck messaging that one.

What’s more, if Republicans do repeal much of the ACA through reconciliation — and they are almost certain to succeed at that — the fallout from this vote may well begin immediately. As others have already pointed out, insurers might exit the exchanges rather than stick around and wait for a replacement that might never materialize. And, if Republicans keep the ban on discrimination against preexisting conditions while repealing the mandate, that could wreak havoc on the insurance markets. The ensuing mess could shift the political calculus in the near term, putting more pressure on Republicans to do something to replace the ACA, which in turn (since a number of congressional conservatives won’t support any replacement) would require Democratic cooperation. Dems could theoretically leverage that for a much better replacement.

To be sure, for Democrats to play this right, they need to hold to a hard, unified line against any sub-standard GOP replace plan. Chuck Schumer has vowed to me that Democrats will do that. But we don’t know for sure if they will. Right now, Democrats probably should be laying down a marker, making it clear that the only replacement they’ll accept is one that does not substantially roll back the coverage expansion achieved by Obamacare.

To be sure, one very possible outcome is that the ACA is mostly repealed and falls apart, and no replacement ever passes, either because Republicans cannot reach consensus on any replace plan, or because Democrats end up refusing to support the one they do create. Many Republicans would be quietly fine with this outcome, and surely some conservatives would celebrate it. But it wouldn’t be “repeal and replace.” It would just be “repeal.” More than 20 million would lose coverage, a huge mess would ensue, and we’d battle all this out again heading into the 2020 elections.

It's too bad to there is this huge pissing contest and the American people are turning yellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Childless said:

I think a lot of people are going to regret voting for Trump.  And I'm enough of a bitch to say "I told you so".

Yeah, I'm right there with you, but instead I think I'll quote Sheldon Cooper from one of my favorite episodes of "The Big Bang Theory": "I informed you thusly"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Childless & @GreyhoundFan I can't tell you how many articles I've read now about people who voted for him but were like "he can't touch healthcare otherwise I'll resent my vote for him" and I've just been like am I supposed to feel bad for you?...

 

I'm a Christian and I'll admit that I won't feel sorry for those who voted for him and are going to suffer the consequences. Instead I'll be helping in any way to protect those who didn't vote or couldn't vote that have the pay the consequences of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

I'm a Christian and I'll admit that I won't feel sorry for those who voted for him and are going to suffer the consequences. Instead I'll be helping in any way to protect those who didn't vote or couldn't vote that have the pay the consequences of others.

There was an editorial on Daily Kos that said that the author doesn't feel sorry for coal miners who lost their health insurance because this is what they voted for. There was a huge outcry about that and a lot of people were horrified and saying it's too harsh. But I agree with it. I feel sorry for the coal miners who didn't vote for Trump (I'm not really sure what the numbers are, but I'm sure there were some that didn't vote for him.) But the ones that did, nope. They're getting no sympathy from me. This is what they voted for, and votes have consequences. I just want to slap these people and say, "how much suffering are you going to endure before you finally stop voting against yourself." 

I have a brother who does this. He's a teacher and the Republicans in this state have totally screwed the teachers over. They've been stripped of some of their benefits and they've been on a pay freeze for about 12 years. The other members of my family has made a joint decision that we're no longer listening to him complain about his job, or the pay freeze or his lack of benefits (which he normally complains about at EVERY holiday and family gathering. From now on we're going to respond by reminding him that he keeps voting against himself and then we're telling him that he's going to have to complain to someone else because we're not listening to it anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

There was an editorial on Daily Kos that said that the author doesn't feel sorry for coal miners who lost their health insurance because this is what they voted for. There was a huge outcry about that and a lot of people were horrified and saying it's too harsh. But I agree with it. I feel sorry for the coal miners who didn't vote for Trump (I'm not really sure what the numbers are, but I'm sure there were some that didn't vote for him.) But the ones that did, nope. They're getting no sympathy from me. This is what they voted for, and votes have consequences. I just want to slap these people and say, "how much suffering are you going to endure before you finally stop voting against yourself." 

I have a brother who does this. He's a teacher and the Republicans in this state have totally screwed the teachers over. They've been stripped of some of their benefits and they've been on a pay freeze for about 12 years. The other members of my family has made a joint decision that we're no longer listening to him complain about his job, or the pay freeze or his lack of benefits (which he normally complains about at EVERY holiday and family gathering. From now on we're going to respond by reminding him that he keeps voting against himself and then we're telling him that he's going to have to complain to someone else because we're not listening to it anymore. 

I have a sister like this.  All her children are on Medicaid thanks to the ACA expansion.  She voted for Trump and one of the reasons she gave was his promise to repeal the ACA.  Ugh!  It makes me want to slam my head against a wall.  And when her kids inevitably loose their Medicaid coverage, she'll bitch about it.  It's like she never learns no matter how bad it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Childless said:

I have a sister like this.  All her children are on Medicaid thanks to the ACA expansion.  She voted for Trump and one of the reasons she gave was his promise to repeal the ACA.  Ugh!  It makes me want to slam my head against a wall.  And when her kids inevitably loose their Medicaid coverage, she'll bitch about it.  It's like she never learns no matter how bad it gets.

I think we need to keep reminding Trump supporters "this is what you voted for." I'm sure for some of them, it will never sink into their thick skulls. But there might be some who realize what a mistake they've made. 

Oh, if only the rest of us didn't have to suffer along with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting numbers about ACA.

Quote

Republicans have said that among the first things they will do after Donald Trump takes office next month is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Now, 45 percent approve of the 2010 health care law, and 50 percent disapprove.

Still, just one in ten think the ACA is working well and should be left as it is. Sixty-three percent think there are some good things in the law, but changes are needed, and 25 percent want the law repealed altogether. The percentage that supports repealing the law is down 10 points since January.

And the Republicans keep saying there is a mandate to get rid of the ACA...yeah a 45-50 approve/disapprove is a real mandate. <end sarcasm>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.