Live longerAye, even if SS remains solvent and no changes are made, I will never see all of the money I've paid into it.
Live longerAye, even if SS remains solvent and no changes are made, I will never see all of the money I've paid into it.
You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'
My executives will run [my various companies] with my children. It's a big company, it's a great company. But I'm going to have nothing to do with management.
Generally looks like a reasonable plan, especially the divestiture of future foreign business opportunities. Mr. Shaub looks a bit silly with his comments.Trump on why he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings:
Trump previews how he will handle his conflicts of interest:
did you see the stacks of folders he had beside him, and his serious lawyer? how dare you question him.Trump on why he doesn't need daily intelligence briefings:
Trump previews how he will handle his conflicts of interest:
Binders full of women??did you see the stacks of folders he had beside him, and his serious lawyer? how dare you question him.
many of those heavy industry jobs have been lost to productivity improvements.I think the real need of for the ACA was brought on by:
#1 Loss of major industry that once insured their employees and their families. This is a direct result of NAFTA.
#2 Millions of illegal aliens not being able to get or demand fair treatment from employers or care providers.
I believe that our president elect is interested in solving both of these issues. I also realize that there are many who are worried about what will happen to these people, I am one of those people. With that being said I still can't allow myself to be too bought into the plight of someone who is breaking the law. I realize many of you will think me harsh and frankly brand me as an idiot. I will pray for these people. I will do anything I can to apply pressure to get a smoother immigration policy. That still doesn't mean it is okay to break existing law. I also believe he is going to work to gain employment for more Americans in heavy industry. Employer insurance will increase the cost of products but it was there once upon a time and we all lived.
binders aren't classy enough for his wimmenz, unless they are these bindersBinders full of women??
Good thoughtful post. It looks at it all from political aspects. It totally discounts pass and delay of the ACA itself and the fallout from that. No real solution proposed. But it's still a good thoughtful post and I mean that. The R's can't govern and they're about to prove it. They will do no better than the D's.Okay, back to actual policy conversations: the fate of the ACA. I feel like the GOP has painted themselves into a corner on this, and I'm not sure how they're going to escape it. They've spent the last 7 years publicly criticizing the failings of the ACA: too many people were left uncovered, many areas of the country have a shrinking number of insurer choices in the marketplace, premiums and deductibles are too high, many plans don't cover what people would want or expect.
And to be clear, I agree with all of that criticism. McConnell and Ryan made the calculus that instead of trying to fix those problems, they would just complain about the law. It ended up being a great political strategy in the short-term, but I've always anticipated long-term repercussions that I think are now starting to manifest.
There is no single GOP replacement plan, but all the proposals are very similar: the ACA was largely funded by increasing taxes on the wealthy, and all the GOP replacement plans roll that back. The result is that their replacement plans actually worsen many of the criticisms the party has leveled at the ACA for years. They result in, at best, the same coverage level as the current ACA; in truth, the vast majority of plans would actually reduce the number of Americans covered with healthcare. And no plan reduces premiums. There are some interesting ideas, like healthcare saving accounts and various forms of rebates, but nothing that actually makes the delivery of care less expensive to the individual. Which is completely understandable when you consider that the major source of ACA funding is removed in all GOP replacement ideas.
Assuming their fundamental tax reform idea will not change, here's how I see their options:
1) Repeal and immediately replace: This will be tough, not only because the party hasn't unified behind a single plan, but also because the political price of telling millions of Americans that they're suddenly off healthcare is pretty steep. Given the chaos in Congress around this option, I don't see it as a likely outcome. Especially given that a repeal vote seems imminent and a replacement plan is nowhere in sight.
2) Repeal and delay a replacement: This will be initially easy, but a terrible burden in the long-term. First, the idea that markets will remain stable in the interim between repeal and replacement has been debunked by every health policy expert. The marketplaces will destabilize, premiums will hike, and GOP congressmen will rightfully start to get tons of angry phone calls from their constituents. It also 100% ties the GOP to formulating and owning a replacement plan. In general, it's easy to have ambitions towards enacting a huge sweeping governmental reform of an existing system (think social security privatization with Bush); but when that ambition fails, as it did with Bush, you can always just walk away and leave the existing system in place. The problem with repeal and delay is that the GOP would never be able to just walk away. They'll be stuck having to find a replacement plan, which is very, very hard. Because of the difficulty, I would anticipate that the delay timeline would be continually pushed back again and again as no consensus gets reached, and piecing together a new healthcare system would become the issue that defines this Congress.
3) Keep the ACA and fix the broken aspects: This is the most reasonable option, and what I've been hoping they would do for years. But politically, this is now impossible. They've demonized the law and promised a repeal for so long that they cannot simply keep and reform it.
4) Repeal and do nothing: Political suicide.
NAFTA gets all the blame, but you can take one look at the regulatory burden and see that is perhaps more responsible for the problem you site. Trade is good. Free trade is better. But when you price yourself out of the market it hurts.I think the real need of for the ACA was brought on by:
#1 Loss of major industry that once insured their employees and their families. This is a direct result of NAFTA.
#2 Millions of illegal aliens not being able to get or demand fair treatment from employers or care providers.
I believe that our president elect is interested in solving both of these issues. I also realize that there are many who are worried about what will happen to these people, I am one of those people. With that being said I still can't allow myself to be too bought into the plight of someone who is breaking the law. I realize many of you will think me harsh and frankly brand me as an idiot. I will pray for these people. I will do anything I can to apply pressure to get a smoother immigration policy. That still doesn't mean it is okay to break existing law. I also believe he is going to work to gain employment for more Americans in heavy industry. Employer insurance will increase the cost of products but it was there once upon a time and we all lived.
Regardless of ones feeling on the ACA, at this point, to completely repeal or to repeal and at a later date replace would screw over millions of Americans. Whatever is done would need to be immediate to prevent any gaps.College .
3) Keep the ACA and fix the broken aspects: This is the most reasonable option, and what I've been hoping they would do for years. But politically, this is now impossible. They've demonized the law and promised a repeal for so long that they cannot simply keep and reform it.
4) Repeal and do nothing: Political suicide.
So I have a couple questions. These are not aimed directly at you tattooguy21, but you happened to give me a handy jumping off point. I would be interested in anyone's point of view on these.Regardless of ones feeling on the ACA, at this point, to completely repeal or to repeal and at a later date replace would screw over millions of Americans. Whatever is done would need to be immediate to prevent any gaps.
I understand your point and it's valid, but you are pretending nothing has changed since ACA passed and that no "responsible" person was impacted by the ACA. My MIL, for instance, always carried insurance for a reasonable cost but the premiums sans subsidies have grown to the point she could no longer afford them without big brother's help. I'm amazed by this woman's frugality. There are many others in her position or a similar one. Screwing these people would be bad for everyone involved. I just wish our elected leaders on all sides would have tried to find common ground in the beginning before using tricks to pass a bad law.So I have a couple questions. These are not aimed directly at you tattooguy21, but you happened to give me a handy jumping off point. I would be interested in anyone's point of view on these.
Aren't the people who are getting ACA now, typically considered people who didn't deserve/need health care by those who were arguing against the ACA? I seem to recall many people saying that it is something that should be a personal responsibility.
If that is the case, and you believe that it would "screw over millions of Americans" isn't it really just bringing it back to the status quo of what it was beforehand?
Considering all of the above, do you believe that the stance of those on the right has sufficiently changes such that health care is something that should be within the domain of the government, or is it more of a perception thing? Now that you have given the poor health care it is too politically costly to take it away now.
The milk has been spilled. We can't act like it didn't happen. Taking away the ACA without something to replace it will have a negative impact on those currently utilizing the system.So I have a couple questions. These are not aimed directly at you tattooguy21, but you happened to give me a handy jumping off point. I would be interested in anyone's point of view on these.
Aren't the people who are getting ACA now, typically considered people who didn't deserve/need health care by those who were arguing against the ACA? I seem to recall many people saying that it is something that should be a personal responsibility.
If that is the case, and you believe that it would "screw over millions of Americans" isn't it really just bringing it back to the status quo of what it was beforehand? .
I believe that in a perfect society, everyone gets healthcare. Then I wake up and realize that I could get shot for the color of my skin or decapitated fire my religion and realize ain't nothing perfect. As such, the healthcare plan CAN be made into a better product.Considering all of the above, do you believe that the stance of those on the right has sufficiently changes such that health care is something that should be within the domain of the government, or is it more of a perception thing? Now that you have given the poor health care it is too politically costly to take it away now.
This may technically be true, by I think you'll find that plans being offered by businesses have been degrading since ACA adoption and converging toward looking like exchange plans. The primary cause? The Cadillac tax and other expenses being loaded up on businesses, which are the key mechanisms of the wealth transfer that is occurring in order to pay for all the goodies being handed out.3) benefits/plans not a good as those offered to business
I assume the so-called "political fallout" will be no more than the fallout that occurred after ACA adoption and implementation, which screwed over millions more Americans than it ended up "helping".Regardless of ones feeling on the ACA, at this point, to completely repeal or to repeal and at a later date replace would screw over millions of Americans. Whatever is done would need to be immediate to prevent any gaps.
Again, I can't speak intelligently. The wife's company had insurance prior, so they didn't have to play ACA games. She says they did compare in case it was cost/service effective, but saw that it was not, Shi they stayed with what they had.This may technically be true, by I think you'll find that plans being offered by businesses have been degrading since ACA adoption and converging toward looking like exchange plans. The primary cause? The Cadillac tax and other expenses being loaded up on businesses, which are the key mechanisms of the wealth transfer that is occurring in order to pay for all the goodies being handed out.