WWTBAM Bored

Bob78164 wrote:The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

There's proof? You demand it of others, yet blather on without citing anything.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
So you believe if you can't afford the water bill, rent or grocery bill you should die of dehydration, elements or starvation? The point being, who pays for it all.

The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Simply put, it's cheaper for everyone to keep people healthy than to treat them after they get sick, and we long ago made the decision as a nation that people are going to get at least Emergency Room care whether they can afford it or not.

Now, the recent sabotage of the Act is going to make it more expensive for the government. By actions including but not limited to eliminating the penalty for the individual mandate, the Republicans ensured that fewer healthy people will buy insurance. They'll choose to gamble with other people's money that they won't get sick, and many of those who lose the gamble will simply declare bankruptcy, sticking the rest of us with their bills. The net result of this will be that insurers will have to raise premiums. But that won't affect people who are eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they'll still pay the same price. The government subsidy will simply increase as necessary to keep it that way. --Bob

Um, I don't think this is true.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Simply put, it's cheaper for everyone to keep people healthy than to treat them after they get sick, and we long ago made the decision as a nation that people are going to get at least Emergency Room care whether they can afford it or not.

Now, the recent sabotage of the Act is going to make it more expensive for the government. By actions including but not limited to eliminating the penalty for the individual mandate, the Republicans ensured that fewer healthy people will buy insurance. They'll choose to gamble with other people's money that they won't get sick, and many of those who lose the gamble will simply declare bankruptcy, sticking the rest of us with their bills. The net result of this will be that insurers will have to raise premiums. But that won't affect people who are eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they'll still pay the same price. The government subsidy will simply increase as necessary to keep it that way. --Bob

Um, I don't think this is true.

Which part? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Um, I don't think this is true.

Which part? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. --Bob

I don't have time to provide you with links. I watch a 3 yr old and 1 yr old five days a week, so you'll have to support your own argument.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Simply put, it's cheaper for everyone to keep people healthy than to treat them after they get sick, and we long ago made the decision as a nation that people are going to get at least Emergency Room care whether they can afford it or not.

Now, the recent sabotage of the Act is going to make it more expensive for the government. By actions including but not limited to eliminating the penalty for the individual mandate, the Republicans ensured that fewer healthy people will buy insurance. They'll choose to gamble with other people's money that they won't get sick, and many of those who lose the gamble will simply declare bankruptcy, sticking the rest of us with their bills. The net result of this will be that insurers will have to raise premiums. But that won't affect people who are eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they'll still pay the same price. The government subsidy will simply increase as necessary to keep it that way. --Bob

Um, I don't think this is true.

Which part? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Um, I don't think this is true.

Which part? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. --Bob

Everything but where you said "Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong."

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Which part? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Everything but where you said "Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong."

Really? You think it’s cheaper to let people get sick enough to need an Emergency Room?

It seems to me like I’m trying to have a serious conversation and you’re more interested in playing word games and scoring debate points. If that’s how you choose to conduct yourself, your outrage when people lose interest in your point of view will be misplaced.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Everything but where you said "Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong."

Really? You think it’s cheaper to let people get sick enough to need an Emergency Room?

It seems to me like I’m trying to have a serious conversation and you’re more interested in playing word games and scoring debate points. If that’s how you choose to conduct yourself, your outrage when people lose interest in your point of view will be misplaced.

Only people like you get outraged when other people lose interest in their point of view. Others don't give a shit.

Bob78164 wrote: I, for one, will encourage them to use their power in every way available to them to advance Democratic priorities without worrying about playing nice. —Bob

jarnon wrote:Trump Foundation to shut down amid allegations of misuse

Trump still thinks the Clinton Foundation is the one that's crooked.

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:Trump Foundation to shut down amid allegations of misuse

Trump still thinks the Clinton Foundation is the one that's crooked.

One does not negate the other. Most likely, they are both crooked as hell.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

jarnon wrote:Trump Foundation to shut down amid allegations of misuse

Trump still thinks the Clinton Foundation is the one that's crooked.

One does not negate the other. Most likely, they are both crooked as hell.

Every organization I've found that rates charities differs with you there.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:One does not negate the other. Most likely, they are both crooked as hell.

Every organization I've found that rates charities differs with you there.

Financial Bounty Hunters Testify: Clinton Foundation Operated As Foreign Agent

The Justice Department — under the command of Trump loyalist and former hot-tub promoter Matthew G. Whitaker — refused to testify (leading one witness to suggest the administration had joined the cover up), and the IRS also sent regrets. Instead, Republicans summoned conspiracy theorists, including “investigators” poised to make money as tipsters if the IRS brings a Clinton Foundation case. But even these witnesses refused to provide documents supporting their dubious claims.

“If you’re not going to share the information with this committee . . . my patience is running out,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), recently on the short list to be President Trump’s next chief of staff.
“Are you going to prosecute the Clintons?” one witness, John Moynihan, replied. “I don’t think you are.” “Don’t get cute with me!” Meadows returned.

On Thursday, unable to get the administration’s cooperation, the oversight committee brought in Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, whose investigations director was banned from Fox News after alleging the “Soros-occupied State Department” funded the migrant caravan. Later came Moynihan, who employs the man behind the false allegation in 2008 that a tape had Michelle Obama disparaging “whitey,” and who in 2013 used doctored audio to declare John F. Kerry a rapist.

On Thursday, Moynihan repeated a conspiracy theory that the Justice Department had “brought a 757 down and taken all the materials out of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock.” (The FBI cited an unrelated drug-trafficking operation.)

The Republicans couldn’t get their own witnesses to document the allegations they made against the Clintons. “I feel like you’re using us for your own benefit,” Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) told Moynihan.
“Excuse me, sir, you invited us,” Moynihan interjected. “But you didn’t turn over the documents,” Hice protested. “Then disinvite us,” Moynihan proposed.

Estonut wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:18 pm

jarnon wrote:Trump Foundation to shut down amid allegations of misuse

Trump still thinks the Clinton Foundation is the one that's crooked.

One does not negate the other. Most likely, they are both crooked as hell.