Evil Obamacare

[Vrede too]

Donald Trump may have just destroyed the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare

... We should begin with the assumption that nothing Trump says can be taken at face value; the “plan” that he claims is being devised could be no more real than the secret plan to defeat the Islamic State he used to claim that he had formulated. But that’s not the point. What matters is this: Donald Trump just emphatically promised universal health coverage. That’s an absolutely gigantic promise, and it’s one that Republicans have no intention of keeping.

But now they’re stuck with it. Democrats will be saying, “President Trump promised that everyone would be covered!” every day for as long as this debate goes on. Every time a congressional Republican is interviewed on this topic, they’ll be asked, “President Trump said that everyone would be covered. Does your plan do that?,” and they’ll have to bob and weave as they try to avoid admitting the truth....

This would be funny if this wasn't Americans' health and lives at stake.

[rstrong]

Leaving aside the fact that he's a serial liar and raging lunatic that has no idea how he'll do this, excellent goals. Making drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid to lower their prices alone would be YUGE.

Canada's healthcare system negotiates bulk purchases with the drug companies to keep prices down. (Though we still have the *2nd*-highest drug prices in the world thanks to pressure from the highest-price country next door.)

Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by Congress - that is, congressmen owned and operated by the drug companies - to negotiate for lower prices.

[Vrede too]

Yep, it was discussed and shot down with both the ACA and Shrub's Medicare drug benefit program. Republicans and some Dems love giving truckloads of our money to big, often non-American corporations.

[Vrede too]

White House rips Trump health pick over stock deal

Outgoing White House press secretary Josh Earnest tore into President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for health and human services secretary, Georgia Rep. Tom Price, amid a report that the Republican congressman bought stock in a medical company, then introduced legislation that would have directly benefited the company.

“Given the incoming administration’s priority that is placed on draining the swamp, I think they have a unique obligation to explain exactly what happened,” Earnest told reporters at his final press briefing Tuesday.

“Because the facts of the report don’t appear to be quite complicated. You have a member of Congress buying stock in a company and then, within a week, sponsoring legislation that would benefit that company and its stock price, only to see that legislation followed shortly thereafter by a political donation from that company to the campaign of that member of Congress in question.”

On Monday, CNN reported reported that Price bought between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of shares in medical device maker Zimmer Biomet last year before introducing legislation that could have shielded the company by delaying regulations on spending on joint replacements for Medicare patients. The company’s political action committee subsequently contributed to Price’s reelection campaign.

The report prompted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to call for an investigation of Price.

“If he knew about it, it could very well be a violation of the law,” Schumer told CNN. “This is a very narrow, specific company that dealt with implants — hip and knee — and the legislation specifically affects implants. He puts it in a week after he buys the stock? That cries out for an investigation.”

... In December, after Price was announced as Trump’s pick, the Wall Street Journal reported that Price had traded more than $300,000 in shares of health-related companies in the past four years.

On Tuesday, Time magazine reported that in 2016 Price invested as much as $90,000 in six other pharmaceutical companies “shortly before leading a legislative and public relations effort that benefited those specific companies.” ...

The Price is WRONG.

[Vrede too]

Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act #2



Caveat: The people that replied, "They're the same thing, asshole," never made it into the video. Still, there are millions that don't know that they're the same thing and many of them vote.

[billy.pilgrim]

Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act #2



Caveat: The people that replied, "They're the same thing, asshole," never made it into the video. Still, there are millions that don't know that they're the same thing and many of them vote.

And that is why I think obama was a failure in so many ways. It was either in your face or just palin and simple stupid to allow the repugs to name everything. Obama had the clout to ask other dems and the mainstream media to stop using the repug brand. As long as it's Obamacare all racists will refuse to accept it and will fall in with the bachman and palin lies about death panels.

Didn't he realize that racism applies to everything

[Vrede too]

I can't remember all the details but I believe they stuck with ACA for a long time and only conceded in calling it Obamacare after it had become so entrenched in our culture. Plus, it was a way to add to his personal legacy, so I don't think he thought it was a terrible thing once it was a done deal, anyhow. Not too fair, thanks to con Dems it didn't end up looking that much like what he campaigned on.

[billy.pilgrim]

I can't remember all the details but I believe they stuck with ACA for a long time and only conceded in calling it Obamacare after it had become so entrenched in our culture. Plus, it was a way to add to his personal legacy, so I don't think he thought it was a terrible thing once it was a done deal, anyhow. Not too fair, thanks to con Dems it didn't end up looking that much like what he campaigned on.

Really? You can't look at the polls that show most repugs like the aca and hate obamacare. What self respecting racist will ever accept ni66ercare?

If dems would accept that repugs will use names to defeat good policy they haven't been watching.

He screwed up big and we have to pay the price.

[Vrede too]

I'm just not sure that asking "other dems and the mainstream media to stop using the repug brand" would have worked. They did try. I agree with you about the result.

That said, ACA isn't very accurate, either. They went for access and punted on affordability.

[billy.pilgrim]

Also strange that most on msnbc started using the term aca after trump won

[rstrong]

If the goal is to improve healthcare - rather than win popularity contests - then letting Republicans hate "ObamaCare" while supporting "the ACA" seems like a good strategy.

Especially given that the ACA is 15 years of Republican healthcare policy until the moment Obama adopted it. They declared a jihad against "ObamaCare" regardless. The opposition was never based on reality, and neither will the solution. Declaring "ObamaCare bad, ACA good" or making a few improvements that they previously opposed to declare ObamaCare repealed and replaced, is perfectly logical under the circumstances.

[O Really]

I'm just not sure that asking "other dems and the mainstream media to stop using the repug brand" would have worked. They did try. I agree with you about the result.

That said, ACA isn't very accurate, either. They went for access and punted on affordability.

The "affordability" part would be in reference to the subsidies, without which the mandated coverage would not be affordable.l It wasn't really about premiums, over which they did decline to take any responsibility for. Too many payoffs from the insurance industry. Maybe an exaggeration (shock!), but not really a punt.

[Vrede too]

The original intent was to better address skyrocketing healthcare costs. It wasn't just about the subsidies.

[O Really]

The original intent was to better address skyrocketing healthcare costs. It wasn't just about the subsidies.

Well sure, that's the smoke and mirrors, pie in the sky version, but that's the same thing other schemes in the past have claimed, only to end up just pushing around the numbers and get costs and premiums increasing.

You've got a vicious circle with no easy out. Medical costs are too high to afford without insurance. But with insurance, the consumer loses any sense of cost as well as competitive control. The providers don't compete in the usual fashion and have no incentive to hold down pricing. Give me a business providing an essential service or product, a third party to pay for it, and no price controls and I'd probably make out like a bandit too. What results from that kind of system? That would be the Shrekli scum, et. al.

[Vrede too]

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

:cussing:

[Vrede too]

Today in Obamacare: Trump quickly changed his mind on drug prices. Expect the same on Obamacare.

President* Trump a mere two weeks ago, at a press conference in Manhattan: “Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists, and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly.”

Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover all: Report

Leaving aside the fact that he's a serial liar and raging lunatic that has no idea how he'll do this, excellent goals. Making drug companies negotiate directly with Medicare and Medicaid to lower their prices alone would be YUGE.

President* Trump after meeting with pharmaceutical executives Tuesday: “I’ll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market. That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare, which is what's happening.”

Actually, it's not "happening" with drugs, but it was President* Trump's plan that it should just two weeks ago. Liar and flip-flopper in chief.

[Vrede too]

Obamacare just keeps getting more popular

... A poll released by Public Policy Polling on Thursday showed that 46% of Americans said they support the ACA, while 41% oppose the law.

Additionally, PPP found that 62% of people polled said they wanted to keep the ACA and make changes to it, while 33% said they wanted it repealed and the US to start over with a new healthcare law.

"Obamacare continues to become more popular the more talk there is about repealing it," PPP said in a release.

The poll follows two others that show the ACA is becoming more popular with Americans. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month found that 45% of Americans said they approved of the law and 41% disapproved, and a Morning Consult/Politico poll this week found 47% said they approved while 45% disapproved.

:-0?>

Interestingly enough, PPP also found that President Donald Trump's approval rating was 47% approval and 49% disapproval, meaning that the healthcare law has a better net approval rating than the president.

New epithet: You're more unpopular than Obamacare.

... The three-month open enrollment period for the ACA's exchange-based plans ended Tuesday night. Because of decreased communications from the Department of Health and Human Services since President Donald Trump was inaugurated, the final number of Americans who signed up for plans during the period is unclear.

[Boatrocker]

Obamacare just keeps getting more popular

Yes. Yes, it does.
Constituents Give GOP Reps an Earful About Obamacare

Especially now that the unwashed rural teacrackers are realizing that Obammercare and the ACA are the same thing, after all.

[Vrede too]

Tell Your Senator To Oppose the Confirmation of Rep. Tom Price for Secretary of Health & Human Services!

[Vrede too]

Jamie Lynn Spears Watched Daughter Maddie, 8, Crash ATV into Pond But Couldn’t Rescue Her, Police Say

Sad, from the little that's stated recovery seems unlikely.

My former hospital once offered a child's ATV in a raffle. Nice of the company to donate, but inappropriate. Apparently, I wasn't the only staffer to complain, the raffle was canceled.