It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MOMof3
And then they can own it's failure. Like the Dem's own ACA.
Imagine if everyone worked together to make the ACA work.
Imagine if everyone worked together to fix the problems.
The "broken" ACA belongs to the "Do Nothing Objectionis Congress" in my opinion.
If it worked the Dems would not be delaying it as long as possible. They are working together from keeping it from being fully activated, because it's a terrible piece of legislation that will drain wealth from Main St right into insurance company pockets.
National Health Care is not a Dem/Rep issue - - IMO.
ALL of Congress should have worked together to make something that worked. Instead of acting like petulant children.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No not just working together. Working together for the common good. NEITHER party has any interest in that.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You need to understand, NEITHER PARTY wants to help you.
originally posted by: desert
a reply to: MOMof3
Unfortunately, I am now coming to believe that Ryan etal now see the exact person they saw and wanted in Romney...
We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. [...]
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared."
source
If people think ACA is bad, try privatized SS or privatized Medicare.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Annee
Well although that is sad that is practical, . .
Evolution proves that by working together, a species is stronger than when they try to tear each other down. This is called altruism, and it is proven to be an important part of nature, especially with social animals.
[T]he problem isn’t the design of Medicare itself, but rather health cost inflation. Shrinking or dismantling the program would only exacerbate Americans’ health insecurity, because Medicare does a better job of restraining costs than private insurers.
Social Security, meanwhile, is still running a surplus, though this will change in a few years as the bulk of the Baby Boomers enter retirement. However, despite annual cash flow deficits that have appeared recently and will persist for some time, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits for much longer as it taps trust fund savings. Tapping the trust fund is not the sign of a crisis, instead it’s what’s supposed to happen. Policymakers in the early 1980s decided to build up a trust fund precisely to help smooth financing of Social Security in the face of the Baby Boomer bulge in the beneficiary population. This is analogous to the federal government running a deficit during a recession—it is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary. There is a crucial difference, however: unlike the rest of the federal government, Social Security is prohibited by law from borrowing—it can only “dissave” what it saved up in the first place. Unfortunately, many people associate running a deficit with borrowing, not spending down savings, and don’t understand that while Social Security can run annual surpluses or deficits the program cannot add to the federal debt over time.
The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
We just can't go back to the days of denying people to see a doctor based on income
During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump was largely silent on Medicare, though he often suggested he’d leave the program untouched. Not any more. It now looks as if Trump may push for major changes in the principal health care program for older adults and some younger people with disabilities. But what will he do?
He has not said, but House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been explicit about what he has in mind. And since the election Trump seems to have adopted much of Ryan’s language, suggesting he may also embrace his policy proposals. Those include redesigning the basic financial structure of the program and making Medicare Advantage managed care plans more attractive.
Trump’s official transition website now says, “With the assistance of Congress and working with the States, as appropriate, the Administration will act to: Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond.”
......
These and other Medicare changes will be extremely controversial and are unlikely to be included in the first round of policy changes Trump sends to Congress. But look for lawmakers to consider them starting in 2018. And watch carefully: They could profoundly change the way seniors get, and pay for, health care.