What comes after the ACA?

[Tyson]

If somebody earning $20k a year has a $2100 hospital bill and files bankruptcy, t hat's not a health care cost issue, it's an income issue. 

Wow.

Jrr85 - does this mean you are in favor of drastically increasing the federal minimum wage?

Oh snap!

[DavidAnnArbor]

The Republican dithering is going to make medical bankruptcy a very common problem for anyone without sufficient income.

[EnjoyIt]

I'll second the comments about your posts being well written.  I'll even go as far as saying they're insightful - it's useful to have the physician's input since you guys really should be at the center of this issue (you are not, as you probably realize). 

I still take issue with your continued descriptions of the status quo as if there only existed 2 groups of people:  those working and covered and the poor.  You can be in many places between those two groups.  Wealthy, working, with a relatively high net worth does not guarantee that a heath issue couldn't wreck it all.  That's what I don't like.  I'm still young (32), working, above average income, well above average net worth for my age.  I'm covered by a decent employer policy as is my family.  I can still imagine a scenario where we lose everything because protections to prevent that are weak - and AHCA proposes to make them weaker.  This is ridiculous for the wealthiest country on the planet.

Second - I understand that hospitals don't put liens on people's homes but your defense is quite weak there as well.  There is no formal protection against that and that's a fact.  Also, when hospitals sell their slow paying/uncollectible receivables - you lose visibility as to what happens next.  Sure, you can still say "our hospital doesn't sue poor people"...but you can bet your bottom that a collections company will do everything allowed under the law (and then some) to get their money.

I wrote the below prior to the 23 new messages that came later but accidentally did not hit send:

NESailor, I am not denying or disputing that a catastrophic health event could lead to financial ruin for those even with insurance. This is especially true for a middle class family paying $10,000 a year for health insurance and then has to pay another $6k a year to cover the deductibles on a chronic condition.  That extra $6k/year will lead to being unable to pay their mortgage or car payments and will lead to bankruptcy forcing them out of their homes.  It is indeed a round about way of medical issues affecting that family and leading to bankruptcy and loss of property.  I can think of similar scenarios where medication or treatments are not covered by insurance forcing people into a debt spiral. I fully agree that our system is warped and many people fall victim to it.

I would love to see real change and not just the garbage we see proposed by our politicians.  The who will pay argument is ridiculous when the cost is so absurdly high.  If the cost was more manageable that straw man example of the middle class family above may have had enough finances to cover the medical costs of that chronic condition.

I added the below just now:

So I think we're getting lost in the weeds here.  Or not seeing the forest for the trees.  We got on the "medical bankruptcy" topic as a proxy for illustrating the very real risk of ruin posed by our overall healthcare deliver/insurance/payment system in the US.  The study has problems, no doubt about it.  Nevertheless, it points to an actual, real problem.

The main point to drive home is that this risk of financial catastrophe due to medical conditions is significantly higher in the US than it is in the other developed countries.  It was higher still prior to the ACA.  The ACA did not address the core problem - costs - but attempted to address some related factors like lifetime caps, pre-existing condition issues, essential benefits, community ratings etc. 

For everything that is wrong with the ACA...AHCA does not appear to address almost any of the main issues and simply caps or cuts spending on care for the poor in order to finance a corresponding reduction in taxes for the rich.   If it goes through, bankruptcies where there is medical debt involved are likely to go higher.   Is this line of thinking being disputed?

I fully agree with the above.  The ACA helped a little, but I see nothing that addresses the cost and AHCA just spreads the who is paying around a bit.  It may help some of the middle class on the cost of insurance though.  I personally hate using the word "tax cuts for the rich." 1) it is tax cuts for those who make higher incomes.  Higher income does not mean rich.  I know plenty of people making $250k+ have a very negative net worth.  There are much richer mustachians making $50k/yr than these $250k people. 2) High income people pay the most taxes.  Therefor they get the most benefit on most tax cuts.  The ACA imposed higher taxes on them and the AHCA is scheduled to reduce them. 3) Wealthy people who have no W2 income get all their money from investment returns.  This is no different than the rich retired mustachians.  Their income is not taxed any more or less.

[jim555]

I guess it's a good thing that every child has two parents capable of working to cover those costs.

My father died when I was 7 so I guess I would be SOL in that situation, sucks to be poor in a free market I guess.

[radram]

Do you honestly think the factors they used were reasonable?  You could defend combining them with a straight face?  And defend their justification on why their sample (post bankruptcy reform) doesn't make comparing percentages to pre-bankruptcy reforms useless?

Well, yes actually. The sole reason for my post linking this article was to counter the claim on this thread that medical bills simply do not have an effect on foreclosures. As long as my link can provide a number of medical foreclosures larger than 0, then it has served the purpose I intended it to. From the beginning, I agreed that they used to liberal of definitions to reach the 62% threshhold. Admitting that does not change the fact that medical forclosures exsist.

My link uses factors you do not agree with. Fine. Where is your study showing no connection, using any timeframe, from any period in history, using any factors you can describe.


Let us assume the article I linked is the equivilent of the fake research linking autism to immunizations. Even if it is discredited, the next step is still to provide evidence showing there is no found link. That is what I a waiting for.  This article is very similar to your argument:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/the-myth-of-the-medical-bankruptcy

Again, where is the evidence in this article that there is no link between medical bills and losing your home. So far the closest example that was given in this thread was a home income of $20,000 and a $2,000 medical bill. How many household incomes of $20,000 are homeowners exactly?

[Jrr85]

If somebody earning $20k a year has a $2100 hospital bill and files bankruptcy, t hat's not a health care cost issue, it's an income issue. 

Wow.

Jrr85 - does this mean you are in favor of drastically increasing the federal minimum wage?

Minimum wage laws are a cruel and counterproductive policy (and I rarely meet anybody that can even offer a logical defense of them), so no.  But that makes a lot more sense than somebody seeing a low income person with a $2,000 medical bill thinking the problem they should be addressing is with the healthcare industry and health insurance industry.  If a low income person could not pay for a $1,000 car repair, they would generally be logical and recognize that problem is the low income, not a problem with the car repair industry and collision insurance industry. 

We actually do have a screwed up healthcare system and it's a moderately complex problem made extremely complex by politics.  It doesn't help to make it more complex by dishonestly lumping it in with redistribution issues.  It's certainly possible (maybe likely) that addressing redistribution issues at the same time will make the healthcare issues politically easier to address, but I don't think being dishonest about it will help. 

I think a lot of the disproportionate backlash with Obamacare has been driven by the fact that they couched all the rhetoric prior to its passing in terms of lowering costs and increasing access to coverage, but then passed a bill primarily focused on redistribution, not just paid for through general funds but also by artificially increasing the health insurance of most people to reduce costs to the old and/or unhealthy.  If they had been more honest up front, I don't think what was actually don't would have generated so much vitriol (outside of the individuals that were big losers compared to the pre-Obamacare situation).  Granted, it probably wouldn't have passed if they had been more honest about it, but seeing as how we still need to legislate regarding healthcare, I think it was short sighted to think that the ends justified the means. 

 

[mm1970]

If somebody earning $20k a year has a $2100 hospital bill and files bankruptcy, t hat's not a health care cost issue, it's an income issue. 

Wow.

Hm.  Makes me wonder.  When I was 12, I required emergency surgery and 2 weeks of hospitalization.  The cost of this?  $6000 (bear with me, small town and in the early 80s).  My family's income?  $12k a year (my dad was the only one working).  Yep, half of his income.

(My parents paid it off at $100 a month.  It did not take 5 years. They applied any income tax return to it, and my mother started working that summer for $6000 a year.  I believe it was paid off in 3 years.)

I guess it's a good thing that every child has two parents capable of working to cover those costs.

That's sarcasm right?  I hope so.  Because once my parents divorced, things got REALLY tight.

(And before my parents married, they were both single parents...my dad had 6 kids and raised 4 on his own after his wife died.  Had to give up the other 2 for adoption.)

[Jrr85]

Well, yes actually. The sole reason for my post linking this article was to counter the claim on this thread that medical bills simply do not have an effect on foreclosures. As long as my link can provide a number of medical foreclosures larger than 0, then it has served the purpose I intended it to. From the beginning, I agreed that they used to liberal of definitions to reach the 62% threshhold. Admitting that does not change the fact that medical forclosures exsist.

Except that's not what you said you posted the article for.  You said:

I can certainly understand how someone could conclude that $5000 in medical bills should not alone trigger a foreclosure, so I would claim that the 62% number is inflated. Still, average within that group was close to $18,000, which shows me that prior to 2009 medical bills were absolutely more than a trivial factor.

And the study doesn't show that medical bills were more than a non-trivial factor in foreclosures.  5.2% of the surveyed said they had taken out a mortgage to help with medical bills.  How many people go through a foreclosure without filing bankruptcy?  That would be necessary to determine whether that was more than a trivial number of foreclosures.  And that still wouldn't disentangle the issue of whether they were foreclosed on because they had insurmountable medical bills, or because of being unable to work because of health issues.  I really have no clue and would not be surprised if medical bills did or did not cause more than a trivial number of foreclosures, but I was just pointing out that the study was generally garbage, at least as to how it is represented, and it seemed the authors intended it to be used in a misleading manner. 

My link uses factors you do not agree with. Fine. Where is your study showing no connection, using any timeframe, from any period in history, using any factors you can describe.


Let us assume the article I linked is the equivilent of the fake research linking autism to immunizations. Even if it is discredited, the next step is still to provide evidence showing there is no found link. That is what I a waiting for.  This article is very similar to your argument:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/the-myth-of-the-medical-bankruptcy

Again, where is the evidence in this article that there is no link between medical bills and losing your home. So far the closest example that was given in this thread was a home income of $20,000 and a $2,000 medical bill. How many household incomes of $20,000 are homeowners exactly?

Never made the claim that there wasn't a link, I just pointed out that the study was garbage and couldn't be used to justify that anything near 60% of bankruptcies are "medical bankrupcties" if you interpret that phrase to mean something close to what the common usage of those words would imply, and that generally, while healthcare in the U.S. is unduly expensive, it's manageable for most people, and that only a small percentage if still significant number of people get hit with a devastating burden. 

[radram]

Well, yes actually. The sole reason for my post linking this article was to counter the claim on this thread that medical bills simply do not have an effect on foreclosures. As long as my link can provide a number of medical foreclosures larger than 0, then it has served the purpose I intended it to. From the beginning, I agreed that they used to liberal of definitions to reach the 62% threshhold. Admitting that does not change the fact that medical forclosures exsist.

Except that's not what you said you posted the article for.  You said:

I can certainly understand how someone could conclude that $5000 in medical bills should not alone trigger a foreclosure, so I would claim that the 62% number is inflated. Still, average within that group was close to $18,000, which shows me that prior to 2009 medical bills were absolutely more than a trivial factor.

How, exactly are these two statements any different in any way shape or form?

Regardless of how you view the data, the average medical debt of those poorly grouped sample was close to $18,000, which I find non-trivial.

Think of it this way: For that sample, the average medical debt at foreclosure is very close to 1.3 times annual wages of a minimum wage earner. Was it a minimum wage earner that lost their mortgage? Of course not, since that worker would not have been able to buy a home to begin with.

[Jrr85]

How, exactly are these two statements any different in any way shape or form?

Regardless of how you view the data, the average medical debt of those poorly grouped sample was close to $18,000, which I find non-trivial.

Think of it this way: For that sample, the average medical debt at foreclosure is very close to 1.3 times annual wages of a minimum wage earner. Was it a minimum wage earner that lost their mortgage? Of course not, since that worker would not have been able to buy a home to begin with.

As long as my link can provide a number of medical foreclosures larger than 0, then it has served the purpose I intended it to. --> requires that a single foreclosure, which everyone can pretty much stipulate to without even looking at data or agreeing on the definition of medical foreclosure.  Whatever definition, as long as it is tenuously related to medical and foreclosure, there was certainly at least one foreclosure that matches somewhere in the country. 

I can certainly understand how someone could conclude that $5000 in medical bills should not alone trigger a foreclosure, so I would claim that the 62% number is inflated. Still, average within that group was close to $18,000, which shows me that prior to 2009 medical bills were absolutely more than a trivial factor. --> requires some non-trivial number of bankruptcies caused by medical foreclosures. 

If you look at the numbers inside the study rather than the sensationalized BS, 5.7% of bankruptcies where somebody refinanced their home to pay for medical bills could get you to a non-trivial amount, but you'd need to know whether bankruptcy filers are representative of people being foreclosed on in general.  Just doing some quick googling, it looks like there were around 1.3 million foreclosures in 2007 and 827,395 bankruptcies in 2007.  These numbers obviously don't match as there could in theory be lots of bankruptcies without foreclosures because people don't have a house or affirm their mortgage through the bankruptcy, and there can be foreclosures without a bankruptcy, or multiple foreclosures associated with one bankruptcy.  But simplifying it, you get about .64 bankruptcies for every foreclosure, so it seems like 3.6% of foreclosures involving someone that refinanced their homes for medical bills to be a reasonable back of the envelope calculation. 

That's on the borderline of trivial, but it's also still intermingling the issue of income loss due to health issues and refinances due to medical bills, but it's also still possible that people who get foreclosed on without bankruptcy are maybe more likely to have mortgaged their house to pay for medical bills, so I'm not sure the 3.6% is even a reasonable back of the envelope calculation. 

All that to say, I don't know whether more than a non-trivial number of foreclosures are caused by medical bills.  I'm sure somebody has made an honest attempt to figure it our and probably has a pretty decent estimate, but I'm not sure who they are or what they found.  I do know that the original article referenced doesn't provide the answer, and as far as I can tell, doesn't provide enough information to get to the answer.   

[DavidAnnArbor]

It's been reported widely and common knowledge that a majority of bankruptcies were due to medical debt.

[Scandium]

For everything that is wrong with the ACA...AHCA does not appear to address almost any of the main issues and simply caps or cuts spending on care for the poor in order to finance a corresponding reduction in taxes for the rich.   If it goes through, bankruptcies where there is medical debt involved are likely to go higher.   Is this line of thinking being disputed?

Of course not. It's the republican party, it's what they do. Goal of ACA was redistribution (rich>poor). Goal of AHCA is re-redistribution (poor/state> richest). It's pretty clear and I don't think anyone can honestly dispute that.

FWIW I'm no fan of the self-service democrats either, but their policies tend to turn out slightly less evil, if a bit too paternalistic/nanny-statey. Glad I don't vote so I don't have to choose.

[Scandium]

It's been reported widely and common knowledge that a majority of bankruptcies were due to medical debt.

Is it? Are you referring to the Elizabeth Warren (Queen of "let the state handle that for you" ) report where anyone who declared bankruptcy and had a single medical bill was a "medical bankruptcy? I mean the system is messed up, no need to be shady with data.

[Paul der Krake]

Are there sources for the average medical bankruptcy debt?

[radram]

All that to say, I don't know whether more than a non-trivial number of foreclosures are caused by medical bills.  I'm sure somebody has made an honest attempt to figure it our and probably has a pretty decent estimate, but I'm not sure who they are or what they found.  I do know that the original article referenced doesn't provide the answer, and as far as I can tell, doesn't provide enough information to get to the answer.

Here is another. I do not have access to methodology, but conclusions seem more than trivial.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0020731415614249

[DavidAnnArbor]

All that to say, I don't know whether more than a non-trivial number of foreclosures are caused by medical bills.  I'm sure somebody has made an honest attempt to figure it our and probably has a pretty decent estimate, but I'm not sure who they are or what they found.  I do know that the original article referenced doesn't provide the answer, and as far as I can tell, doesn't provide enough information to get to the answer.

Here is another. I do not have access to methodology, but conclusions seem more than trivial.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0020731415614249

Yes this article is very clear about the connections between medical debt, foreclosure, bankruptcy.

[lemonde]

To answer the OP, universal healthcare...there just might be some rubbish in between first.

[GuitarStv]

If somebody earning $20k a year has a $2100 hospital bill and files bankruptcy, t hat's not a health care cost issue, it's an income issue. 

Wow.

Hm.  Makes me wonder.  When I was 12, I required emergency surgery and 2 weeks of hospitalization.  The cost of this?  $6000 (bear with me, small town and in the early 80s).  My family's income?  $12k a year (my dad was the only one working).  Yep, half of his income.

(My parents paid it off at $100 a month.  It did not take 5 years. They applied any income tax return to it, and my mother started working that summer for $6000 a year.  I believe it was paid off in 3 years.)

I guess it's a good thing that every child has two parents capable of working to cover those costs.

That's sarcasm right?  I hope so.  Because once my parents divorced, things got REALLY tight.

(And before my parents married, they were both single parents...my dad had 6 kids and raised 4 on his own after his wife died.  Had to give up the other 2 for adoption.)

As someone who grew up in a single parent household in a pretty poor community where that was the norm . . . hell yes that was sarcasm.

[nereo]

Well this keeps the whole AHCA...um... dynamic... or something.


The house passed a proposal which was fundamentally about reducing the federal government's spending on health care (and elimination of the 'Obamacare tax" on the highest earners).  Now DJT is tweeting that we ought to invest more money in healthcare and have 'the best' system anywhere.  Not certain how he would define 'the best'. Hopefully not the same way he defined Trump U as "the best".

[jim555]

How can he lie so blatantly?  It is not like we can't see what he is doing.

NO ONE IS FOOLED!

[nereo]

How can he lie so blatantly?  It is not like we can't see what he is doing.

NO ONE IS FOOLED!

Well, it's either a lie or a major shift from the house's proposal. If it's a lie the sad thing is that many of his supporters either won't believe its a lie or won't care, yet now his lies have widespread impacts that they did not have when he was a candidate.  If DJT is dictating or suggesting a shift in policy I fail to see how the Freedom Caucus will accept spending more.

[protostache]

How can he lie so blatantly?  It is not like we can't see what he is doing.

NO ONE IS FOOLED!

Well, it's either a lie or a major shift from the house's proposal. If it's a lie the sad thing is that many of his supporters either won't believe its a lie or won't care, yet now his lies have widespread impacts that they did not have when he was a candidate.  If DJT is dictating or suggesting a shift in policy I fail to see how the Freedom Caucus will accept spending more.

Alternatively, he doesn't understand how any of this works, doesn't understand what the AHCA actually does, and is completely and totally focused on "winning," which he defines as good PR. Witness the focus on the electoral college win map. Witness the party he threw for the Congressional Republicans after AHCA passed. He doesn't care about details, he cares about looking good.

[nereo]

How can he lie so blatantly?  It is not like we can't see what he is doing.

NO ONE IS FOOLED!

Well, it's either a lie or a major shift from the house's proposal. If it's a lie the sad thing is that many of his supporters either won't believe its a lie or won't care, yet now his lies have widespread impacts that they did not have when he was a candidate.  If DJT is dictating or suggesting a shift in policy I fail to see how the Freedom Caucus will accept spending more.

Alternatively, he doesn't understand how any of this works, doesn't understand what the AHCA actually does, and is completely and totally focused on "winning," which he defines as good PR. Witness the focus on the electoral college win map. Witness the party he threw for the Congressional Republicans after AHCA passed. He doesn't care about details, he cares about looking good.

it very well may be true that DJT cares foremost about "winning" and looking good.  But in the sausage-making world that is politics I wonder what it will ultimately mean. He continues to undermine his party's efforts by saying and tweeting things which oppose their actions. I can't imagine this will make passing any version of the AHCA easier (IMO a good thing given the plans we've seen thus far), which ironically just keeps the WH from having a substantial 'win'.

The party for congressional republicans after the house passed the AHCA was akin to throwing a parade when your team scored a field goal after your opponent fumbled the ball on their own 2 yard line in the first quarter - it's two soon, it's not actually a 'win', and given their advantages it should have been worth a lot more.

[GuitarStv]

How can he lie so blatantly?

Lying blatantly has been nothing but a boon to Donald Trump.  It got him elected, it has prevented him from losing more money during his days as a business exec, it has kept him out of jail, etc.  A better question would be why should he stop now?  Lying is a goldmine for him.

[NESailor]

I think we're trying to find some logic with a statement that is not really the product of rational thought.  Just read that tweet again - it doesn't even make sense on its own - regardless of what his party is pushing for.  "Add money to healthcare"?  C'mon...I know it's Twitter but surely, the President of the United States should be able to conjure up a more coherent 140 character statement.  He is a buffoon with 0 understanding of complicated policy issues and sadly, 0 awareness of this 'handicap' he is living with.

[DavidAnnArbor]

What if merely having Hay Fever excludes you from regular health insurance and forces you into a high risk pool under the Republican's AHCA law?

Quote from article:
“The A.C.A. was a lifesaver for us. Everyone in my family has something that could be defined as a pre-existing condition. It’s expensive but I don’t have to worry about being excluded from insurance or about bankruptcy anymore.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/opinion/pre-existing-conditions-health-care-bill.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront

[nereo]

I think we're trying to find some logic with a statement that is not really the product of rational thought.  Just read that tweet again - it doesn't even make sense on its own - regardless of what his party is pushing for.  "Add money to healthcare"?  C'mon...I know it's Twitter but surely, the President of the United States should be able to conjure up a more coherent 140 character statement.  He is a buffoon with 0 understanding of complicated policy issues and sadly, 0 awareness of this 'handicap' he is living with.

My take on the tweet was that he was talking about healthCARE rather than health insurance or coverage. Basicly let's funnel money to big pharma and medical companies to produce expensive life saving drugs and treatments so all the rich (and thus worthy) people who can afford medical care can live forever! All the unimportant po' folk who can't afford medical insurance can just go in a corner and die.

It could be anything.  In the continuing budget resolution funding was left in place for Obama's "moon-shot cancer program" @ $6.3B.  Big pharma already makes tons of money coming up with new medications - ironically vaccines (which may offer the greatest advances in medicine) typically lose money and DJT has publically questioned their efficacy.  Somehow I doubt we'll see more federal funding going toward vaccine development.

No one wants to kill the golden goose, but serious attempts at controlling medical costs would need to include ways of limiting the profitability and patent protection for prescription drugs while simultaneously ensuring that they continue to be developed (and that R&D is directed more towards need than profit).

[EnjoyIt]

First he want to cut healthcare and no one is happy.
Now he says to spend more on healthcare and no one is happy.

First he praises Comey and no one is happy.
Then he fires Comey and no one is happy.

I think, no one is happy as long as it comes from Trump.

Disclaimer: I am not a republican.

[nereo]

First he want to cut healthcare and no one is happy.
Now he says to spend more on healthcare and no one is happy.

First he praises Comey and no one is happy.
Then he fires Comey and no one is happy.

I think, no one is happy as long as it comes from Trump.

Disclaimer: I am not a republican.

Regarding healthcare, I"m just not happy ditching a system which has allowed two close family members to get health insurance for the first time ever.  If they had started this whole thing saying they'd work to fix its shortcomings I would have been more receptive.
It's hard to support someone after he's been publicly routing and privately pushing the system to implode, and then he holds a garden party to celebrate the most draconian healthcare policy in the developed world.

If Trump truly wants to create the best/greatest* healthcare in the world I'll be thrilled. His support thus far leaves any tweets very suspect.

*best to me means, at a minimum, affordable coverage for everyone and a degree of care that is at least as good as today's insured already get. That's my benchmark.

[Lagom]

I'm pretty sure in some parallel universe where Trump ran as a Democrat, he is pushing a single payer system while congress marches through impeachment proceedings.

[EnjoyIt]

I'm pretty sure in some parallel universe where Trump ran as a Democrat, he is pushing a single payer system while congress marches through impeachment proceedings.

For years before running for president he stated he was a democrat.  Who knows what he really believes in.

When Obama was president, he could never do anything right among the republicans.  If it came from Obama it was wrong.  The same is going on for Trump on the Democrat side. If you are a conservative and you watched Fox News, everything was anti Obama.    Most liberals watch CNN (or other liberal new organization) and everything on the news there is anti Trump.  I find the whole thing kinda funny.

If you were a Republican and listened to the media you thought the whole world will come to an end thanks to Obama and his crazy policies. Some things got better and some things got worse but alas, we are still here.  Today the world will come to an end thanks to Trump.  I'm pretty sure in 3.6-7.6 years from now we will still be here with a few minor tweaks.  Some will make things better and some will make things worse.

As for making healthcare better, I just don't see it getting affordable for some time to come. I don't think it has reached a tipping point just yet. In my personal opinion, I believe it has to get a lot more expensive before we see some real push for changing the cost of delivering healthcare. 

[DavidAnnArbor]

I'm pretty sure in some parallel universe where Trump ran as a Democrat, he is pushing a single payer system while congress marches through impeachment proceedings.

For years before running for president he stated he was a democrat.  Who knows what he really believes in.

When Obama was president, he could never do anything right among the republicans.  If it came from Obama it was wrong.  The same is going on for Trump on the Democrat side. If you are a conservative and you watched Fox News, everything was anti Obama.    Most liberals watch CNN (or other liberal new organization) and everything on the news there is anti Trump.  I find the whole thing kinda funny.

If you were a Republican and listened to the media you thought the whole world will come to an end thanks to Obama and his crazy policies. Some things got better and some things got worse but alas, we are still here.  Today the world will come to an end thanks to Trump.  I'm pretty sure in 3.6-7.6 years from now we will still be here with a few minor tweaks.  Some will make things better and some will make things worse.

As for making healthcare better, I just don't see it getting affordable for some time to come. I don't think it has reached a tipping point just yet. In my personal opinion, I believe it has to get a lot more expensive before we see some real push for changing the cost of delivering healthcare.

I think I believe just about the opposite of everything you said I don't even know how to wade through this thicket of illogic.

This false equivalence that the critique of Trump by the mainstream media is the same as the scorched earth opposition to Obama by Fox and friends is clarified by simply looking at facts as we know them as the scientists most of us are on this forum.  Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, who is trying to abet terrorism in this country, and create death panels - that's what we got from you Republicans/Fox people.

What's the criticism that is leveled at Trump by the mainstream and thinking media?  The ties Trump and his campaign have to Russia seem perfectly reasonable to question in light of Flynn, Sessions lying under oath to the Senate about meeting with Kisylak et al.
Then there's the lie Trump made about healthcare, that it would be great and better than Obamacare.
Instead we have a plan by the Congressional Budget Office that scores it to causing 23 million to lose health insurance. So of course the media would cover that. That's a fact. That's not "Obama is a Muslim terrorist born in Kenya" like you'd find on Fox and alt right websites.

[Davnasty]

What's the criticism that is leveled at Trump by the mainstream and thinking media?  The ties Trump and his campaign have to Russia seem perfectly reasonable to question in light of Flynn, Sessions lying under oath to the Senate about meeting with Kisylak et al.
Then there's the lie Trump made about healthcare, that it would be great and better than Obamacare.
Instead we have a plan by the Congressional Budget Office that scores it to causing 23 million to lose health insurance. So of course the media would cover that. That's a fact. That's not "Obama is a Muslim terrorist born in Kenya" like you'd find on Fox and alt right websites.

Not to mention the quality of reporting by certain right wing media. I always wonder how anyone with decent critical thinking skills can take news sources like Fox, Breitbart, Drudge Report seriously. I make it a point to read some of these even though it pains me and what I've seen is lists of inflammatory headlines with articles that repeat the headline, cite another article from another conservative media source, and in 3-5 paragraphs tells me nothing I could consider news, usually bashing some individual for being a snowflake or pointing out that "hey, somewhere in a country with 320 million people a transgender/Mexican/Arab person did a bad thing a few weeks ago". Regardless of my opinions or beliefs, I could never trust information presented like that.

And while I realize there's plenty of biased and poorly written liberal media as well, I can freely ignore both of the extremes and the thoughtful news sources I'm left with that have actual reporters are still thoroughly anti-trump, not due to a bias against him, but because factual information is anti-trump.

I'll leave you with this. This guy endorses Trump and Trump has even been on his show. I haven't watched it yet because I currently have no sound but I can be fairly certain that it is absurd. This man claims 9/11, Sandy Hook shooting, Boston Marathon bombings and many other attacks were inside jobs by the US government. He even claimed the government has the ability to create and control tornadoes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5KTiAcTEyc

EnjoyIt, is this what you see coming from NBC, Reuters, The Washington Post, NPR?

[MrGreen]

Seems like the gravity of just how far Washington is from an actual law on the AHCA is finally sinking in. I will not be surprised at all if they inevitably end up having to abandon the AHCA and work to improve the existing framework of the ACA.

[EnjoyIt]

What's the criticism that is leveled at Trump by the mainstream and thinking media?  The ties Trump and his campaign have to Russia seem perfectly reasonable to question in light of Flynn, Sessions lying under oath to the Senate about meeting with Kisylak et al.
Then there's the lie Trump made about healthcare, that it would be great and better than Obamacare.
Instead we have a plan by the Congressional Budget Office that scores it to causing 23 million to lose health insurance. So of course the media would cover that. That's a fact. That's not "Obama is a Muslim terrorist born in Kenya" like you'd find on Fox and alt right websites.

Not to mention the quality of reporting by certain right wing media. I always wonder how anyone with decent critical thinking skills can take news sources like Fox, Breitbart, Drudge Report seriously. I make it a point to read some of these even though it pains me and what I've seen is lists of inflammatory headlines with articles that repeat the headline, cite another article from another conservative media source, and in 3-5 paragraphs tells me nothing I could consider news, usually bashing some individual for being a snowflake or pointing out that "hey, somewhere in a country with 320 million people a transgender/Mexican/Arab person did a bad thing a few weeks ago". Regardless of my opinions or beliefs, I could never trust information presented like that.

And while I realize there's plenty of biased and poorly written liberal media as well, I can freely ignore both of the extremes and the thoughtful news sources I'm left with that have actual reporters are still thoroughly anti-trump, not due to a bias against him, but because factual information is anti-trump.

I'll leave you with this. This guy endorses Trump and Trump has even been on his show. I haven't watched it yet because I currently have no sound but I can be fairly certain that it is absurd. This man claims 9/11, Sandy Hook shooting, Boston Marathon bombings and many other attacks were inside jobs by the US government. He even claimed the government has the ability to create and control tornadoes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5KTiAcTEyc

EnjoyIt, is this what you see coming from NBC, Reuters, The Washington Post, NPR?

Do you really think anything will come with this Russia thing or is this just a huge scandal which will either last his entire presidency or be discarded for another scandal in the future. Mark my words, no one is getting impeached over this. As for news, there are many ways to interpret the information.  There are actually people in the US who truly believe Trump is Hitler. This is completely asinine. Knowing everything Hitler did and making that comparison is ridiculous. But people truly see the information and even very intelligent people can make that comparison with total commitment.  I can equally create similarities between Bernie Sanders and Adolf Hitler, but that would make me just as asinine if I believed Bernie was just like Adolf.  My point is this; We all view the world through a filter of our ideals which is modified by our surroundings. Two very intelligent people can view the same events in completely different ways and truly in the bottom of their soul believe that their version is right.  It is just part of human nature and does not make either of those people more or less intelligent. Don't get me wrong, I am not immune to this filter though I hope to trying my best to be more objective.  Who knows maybe what I am seeing is completely wrong because of the way I perceive my surroundings.  What I can tell you is that over the next 1 - 2 terms very little will change.

Let me give you a recent example of opposing views I am currently seeing regarding Trumps trip abroad and Europe's response.
On one side people think that we are breaking our alliances with Europe making the world worse as a whole.
On the other side people believe Europe needs to take care of itself and the US should stop funding so many foreign countries.
Who is right?  Maybe they both are in a way.

When Obama was president he did things that I liked and some that I did not like. The same is currently going for Trump.

[sol]

When Obama was president he did things that I liked and some that I did not like. The same is currently going for Trump.

What has trump done, on healthcare or otherwise, that you have liked?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely looking for any meager bright spot in what appears to be just a storm of incompetence and lies.

[brooklynguy]

Seems like the gravity of just how far Washington is from an actual law on the AHCA is finally sinking in. I will not be surprised at all if they inevitably end up having to abandon the AHCA and work to improve the existing framework of the ACA.

That would almost be funny, given that, in the meantime, they're doing such an excellent job of sabotaging the existing framework.

[Jrr85]

When Obama was president he did things that I liked and some that I did not like. The same is currently going for Trump.

What has trump done, on healthcare or otherwise, that you have liked?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely looking for any meager bright spot in what appears to be just a storm of incompetence and lies.

Gorsuch was a slam dunk that should be loved by conservatives and people on the left that still want the little guy protected from government.  Not sure how much of that credit should go to Trump, but much better pick than Merrick Garland for anybody that does not have law and order and unchecked administrative power as their number one issue they care about promoting. 

After that, not much is getting done.  I'm not sure how much of that is due to the incompetence of his administration and being unable to find people to fill positions and how much of it is due to the rebellion by entrenched bureaucrats.  I'm thinking the latter would be manageable if it weren't for the former. 

But at the same time, not much is being harmed either.  We got a appropriations deal that was basically a continuation of the status quo.  A lot of relatively meaningless symbolism going on (the courts blocking legal but probably ineffectual immigration orders; the paris accord which is just a symbolic deal anyway that won't actually slow global warming even according to the people who believe in a huge multiplier, lots of budget proposals that won't meaningfully effect the ultimate budget, lots of noise about healthcare/health insurance with no clear path to anything actually being passed, lots of talk about tax reform or even just tax cuts that probably won't be passed).  Doing a little better on foreign relations in that at least we are treating allies like allies and actually pursuing our interests, but not really any more comfortable with this administrations competence than Obama's. 

Overall it's a meh, which is blowing my expectations away, so relatively happy if compared to what the likely scenario looked like once we got down to Trump and Hillary.   

[Davnasty]

Do you really think anything will come with this Russia thing or is this just a huge scandal which will either last his entire presidency or be discarded for another scandal in the future. Mark my words, no one is getting impeached over this.

Maybe. I honestly don't know, but that's not really the point of my comment. I was questioning your likening outrage at Trump to outrage at Obama. They are not the same.

We all view the world through a filter of our ideals which is modified by our surroundings. Two very intelligent people can view the same events in completely different ways and truly in the bottom of their soul believe that their version is right.  It is just part of human nature and does not make either of those people more or less intelligent.

This is true. Like you, I sometimes stop to think. "the people I disagree with seem to be just as committed to their beliefs as I am. What if somehow I'm the one who's been duped?" Admittedly I accept the possibility. But what I'm talking about is not the content but the quality of news sources. Do you honestly think that the sources I've mentioned are equivalent to Fox news?

Now if you want to argue that maybe people who believe what they read from the alt-right see their sources being less professional as a good thing because that means they are not part of the establishment, ok. Maybe they see short articles as 'plain speak'. I'm not saying there are no arguments counter to my point, in fact they must exist because intelligent people do believe.

Edit: I'm not suggesting that this is sound reasoning, I'm just trying to understand why others feel they should trust Fox news and the like over more established and thoughtful media.

[nereo]

Do you really think anything will come with this Russia thing or is this just a huge scandal which will either last his entire presidency or be discarded for another scandal in the future. Mark my words, no one is getting impeached over this. As for news, there are many ways to interpret the information.  ...
[snip]
When Obama was president he did things that I liked and some that I did not like. The same is currently going for Trump.

Odd that you started this with a question about whether anything will come from "this Russia thing".  I'd argue that a lot has already come from it.  Example 1: Michael Flynn.  Example 2: Director Comey. You could also connect the dots and say that Mike Dubke left due to the president's ire with the whole focus. I'm guessing a few more will follow in the weeks to come. I'd also say the Russia scandals have taken all momentum from what normally should be a newly elected POTUS's most productive period - four congressional committees investigating "this Russia thing" plus the FBI's special prosecutor.

Will DJT specifically get impeached by this?  I have no idea, but I doubt it would happen before the midterms. (yet another example - House members are having to spend an inordinate amount of time talking/defending/deflecting "this Russia thing").

So yes, I'd say they've already had a large effect.  I predict it will keep going - more people will be sacked, more shoes will drop, more legislative-hours will be spent on Russia instead of passing laws (interpret that as a good or bad thing depending on your philosophy).

Finally, there's a difference between arguing about policy and facts. I've agreed with some policies of every past president and disagreed with them on others. People on both sides are free to compare whomever they like to Hitler, Jesus or John Henry but its understood those are opinions and comparisons. Deliberately trying to pass fiction as fact (e.g. Birthers) or declare facts are fiction leads us away from opinion and into the territory of outright lies.

[MrGreen]

Seems like the gravity of just how far Washington is from an actual law on the AHCA is finally sinking in. I will not be surprised at all if they inevitably end up having to abandon the AHCA and work to improve the existing framework of the ACA.

That would almost be funny, given that, in the meantime, they're doing such an excellent job of sabotaging the existing framework.

I just have a feeling that this is where we're going to end up, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there wasn't all the sabotage in the middle. I would love to see how they'll explain that away without losing votes.

[nereo]

Gorsuch was a slam dunk that should be loved by conservatives and people on the left that still want the little guy protected from government.  Not sure how much of that credit should go to Trump,
...
But at the same time, not much is being harmed either.  We got a appropriations deal that was basically a continuation of the status quo.  A lot of relatively meaningless symbolism going on (the courts blocking legal but probably ineffectual immigration orders; the paris accord which is just a symbolic deal anyway that won't actually slow global warming even according to the people who believe in a huge multiplier...

 Doing a little better on foreign relations in that at least we are treating allies like allies and actually pursuing our interests, but not really any more comfortable with this administrations competence than Obama's.

Geez, I'd almost forgotten about Gorsuch b/c, as you said, once the GOP blocked Garland a confirmation of their choice was pretty much guaranteed.  I chalk that up to McConnell though.

Stongly disagree with some of oyur other points.  The courts interpret legality, and so far several have indicated that the EO was NOT legal. Maybe the supreme court will interpret things differently but not much grounds to stand on saying "well, it's legal but the courts are blocking it..."

Also disagree that the Paris accord is just symbolic and that experts say it will be ineffective. The scientific community (which I consider myself a member) is pretty clear that its a good step.  No, it probably won't keep us below the +2ºC threshold on its own but it will slow it down. The broadscale hope is that the Paris accord holds and then more ambitious targets emerge in another 5-10 years.  Saying its ineffective just because it isn't a complete solution is akin to saying "well, I'm 40 with no savings and despite my resolution to fund my IRA every year I've learned that this will not be enough, so I won't even do that."

Can't see how we are treating our allies like allies - DJT seems intent to piss of the germans now after antagonizing Canada while turning a blind eye to human rights violations of Russia and Saudi Arabia (but not, at least on one occation, to Syria.  Odd).

Do agre that the appropration bill is essentially continuation of the status quo (but we'll see what the next budget congress drafts actually does)

[EnjoyIt]

When Obama was president he did things that I liked and some that I did not like. The same is currently going for Trump.

What has trump done, on healthcare or otherwise, that you have liked?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely looking for any meager bright spot in what appears to be just a storm of incompetence and lies.

Thanks for asking Sol, You and I have disagreements though there is plenty that we see eye to eye on. I enjoy our discourse.

1) Through all his bitching and moaning regarding immigration, he created fear and now we have a very large reduction in illegal immigration. I'm all for immigration but it should be done legally.  I'm am also for deporting criminals. No need to pay for illegals in our prison system if we don't have to.

2) Working on getting China to take more responsibility of North Korea.

3) Cutting 2 regulations for every 1 regulation that is implemented. To me this is a huge pro.

4) Looks like we may be seeing a decreasing in financial support to foreign countries.

5) His inspiration to the business community has given more stamina to the stock market and has improved all of our staches. Some have even retired earlier than expected. I am fully aware that presidents have little control over the economy as a whole.  But equities going up and then us rebalancing into bonds is a big win for many here.

6) Incentivized a few extra manufacturing jobs to stay in the US and hopefully created a precedent.

There may be more I did not think of in the few minutes I typed this response. There are also plenty of things I am completely neutral about that has received lots of media attention.  Equally there are plenty of things I disagree with as well. It has been less than half a year so I am curious what the future will bring.  I suspect some good and some bad. I highly doubt we will be in Mad Max territory by the end of 2020.

Overall it's a meh . . .   

couldn't agree more.

[EnjoyIt]

dabnasty,
There is really only one considered "credible" news source that portrays republicans in a good light and that is Fox.  The others are minor representations. Contrary most of the media is liberal and therefor many more "credible" sources out there. There are plenty of ridiculous liberal news organizations out there  that spew out garbage just as the ridiculous conservative media you alluded to.  I honestly don't think any of it really matters.

Nereo,
So some people got fired...so what?  It is just more controversy in a very controversial presidency.

[Jrr85]

Geez, I'd almost forgotten about Gorsuch b/c, as you said, once the GOP blocked Garland a confirmation of their choice was pretty much guaranteed.  I chalk that up to McConnell though.

Stongly disagree with some of oyur other points.  The courts interpret legality, and so far several have indicated that the EO was NOT legal. Maybe the supreme court will interpret things differently but not much grounds to stand on saying "well, it's legal but the courts are blocking it..."

Courts interpret legality, but they don't get to legitimately make new law.  The arguments have basically been, yes, the order is facially valid, but remarks made while campaigning mean that DJT can't issue it, even though any other president could.  That's not exactly in line with other caselaw on pretexts, which wouldn't apply to orders on immigration anyway. 

Also disagree that the Paris accord is just symbolic and that experts say it will be ineffective. The scientific community (which I consider myself a member) is pretty clear that its a good step.  No, it probably won't keep us below the +2ºC threshold on its own but it will slow it down. The broadscale hope is that the Paris accord holds and then more ambitious targets emerge in another 5-10 years.  Saying its ineffective just because it isn't a complete solution is akin to saying "well, I'm 40 with no savings and despite my resolution to fund my IRA every year I've learned that this will not be enough, so I won't even do that."

  This is not saving 10% of income after 40 and hoping to do better later.  This is more like stopping drinking coffee as a symbolic commitment to funding retirement, except if stopping drinking coffee actually caused you to make less money going forward. 

Can't see how we are treating our allies like allies - DJT seems intent to piss of the germans now after antagonizing Canada while turning a blind eye to human rights violations of Russia and Saudi Arabia (but not, at least on one occation, to Syria.  Odd).

  He is treating Russia like a political adversary with whom we have aligned interest on certain issues (Syria), which is at least better than the Obama's "flexibility" to let Russia do what they want.  He's treating Israel like an ally.  He's treating NATO countries as allies who are not complying with commitments they have made (which, coincidentally, they are).  Saudi Arabia has always been a least ugly girl at the dance and he's maintaining the status quo there of pretending they are not as horrible as they are.  Not sure that's the right approach, but it's the status quo and it makes sense when you look at what kind of disaster there can be when you assume that whatever comes next will be better (e.g., Iran).

Not a fan of his antitrade stuff, but compared with clearing the way for Iran to go nuclear, I guess the antitrade stuff could be worse.     

Do agre that the appropration bill is essentially continuation of the status quo (but we'll see what the next budget congress drafts actually does)

  It will be interesting.  Trump had tons of leverage for this cycle and got absolutely steam rolled.  He's going to have even less next time, so it will be interesting to see if democrats actually make legislative gains beyond maintaining the status quo as the minority party in both the House and Senate with a Republican (I guess) President.  That would both be the logical expectation based on the last appropriation bill but also would be a bass ackwards crazy result. 

[Davnasty]

dabnasty,
There is really only one considered "credible" news source that portrays republicans in a good light and that is Fox.  The others are minor representations. Contrary most of the media is liberal and therefor many more "credible" sources out there. There are plenty of ridiculous liberal news organizations out there  that spew out garbage just as the ridiculous conservative media you alluded to.  I honestly don't think any of it really matters.

I said exactly that. There are and always will be crazy's on both sides. But your claim was that the accusations against Trump are equivalent to the accusations against Obama. Are you suggesting that the investigation into Russian ties is just as baseless as the suggestion that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya?

As for Fox being a credible source, both Fox reporters and the current president have cited Infowars and others as a legitimate source of information. They're tied together and promoting similar storylines everyday. Also, Sean Hannity.

I don't want to get too far away from healthcare, the only question I'm trying to ask: do you believe that the outrage over Trump is equivalent to the outrage over Obama?

[Davnasty]

Also disagree that the Paris accord is just symbolic and that experts say it will be ineffective. The scientific community (which I consider myself a member) is pretty clear that its a good step.  No, it probably won't keep us below the +2ºC threshold on its own but it will slow it down. The broadscale hope is that the Paris accord holds and then more ambitious targets emerge in another 5-10 years.  Saying its ineffective just because it isn't a complete solution is akin to saying "well, I'm 40 with no savings and despite my resolution to fund my IRA every year I've learned that this will not be enough, so I won't even do that."

 
This is not saving 10% of income after 40 and hoping to do better later.  This is more like stopping drinking coffee as a symbolic commitment to funding retirement, except if stopping drinking coffee actually caused you to make less money going forward. 

I don't get this analogy. Are you suggesting that limiting carbon emissions will increase the temperature of the planet?

[nereo]

Nereo,
So some people got fired...so what?  It is just more controversy in a very controversial presidency.

You asked the question: "Do you really think anything will come with this Russia thing?"
My point was merely that we've already had some major things 'come out of this Russia thing'.  We don't have to wait.  It's already happened.
Maybe more and bigger things will come - only time will.
Agreed that it's just more controversy in a very controversial presidency. 

[EnjoyIt]

dabnasty,
There is really only one considered "credible" news source that portrays republicans in a good light and that is Fox.  The others are minor representations. Contrary most of the media is liberal and therefor many more "credible" sources out there. There are plenty of ridiculous liberal news organizations out there  that spew out garbage just as the ridiculous conservative media you alluded to.  I honestly don't think any of it really matters.

I said exactly that. There are and always will be crazy's on both sides. But your claim was that the accusations against Trump are equivalent to the accusations against Obama. Are you suggesting that the investigation into Russian ties is just as baseless as the suggestion that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya?

As for Fox being a credible source, both Fox reporters and the current president have cited Infowars and others as a legitimate source of information. They're tied together and promoting similar storylines everyday. Also, Sean Hannity.

I don't want to get too far away from healthcare, the only question I'm trying to ask: do you believe that the outrage over Trump is equivalent to the outrage over Obama?

Yes they are similar in that they are meaningless to what will actually be the outcome to this country and its well being.

No, they are different in that you picked some really crazy item the conservatives were blubbering about which is definitely less crazy than Trump having some ties with Russia.  How about we instead talk about Obama and the deal the US made with Iran.  Conservative news beat the crap out of him on that going as far as saying he is muslim and has muslim ties.  Obama being a muslim is just as preposterous as saying that Trump is Putin's puppet.

Either way nothing will come of this.

[Davnasty]

Yes they are similar in that they are meaningless to what will actually be the outcome to this country and its well being.

No, they are different in that you picked some really crazy item the conservatives were blubbering about which is definitely less crazy than Trump having some ties with Russia.  How about we instead talk about Obama and the deal the US made with Iran.  Conservative news beat the crap out of him on that going as far as saying he is muslim and has muslim ties.  Obama being a muslim is just as preposterous as saying that Trump is Putin's puppet.

Either way nothing will come of this.

But there is evidence of ties between his campaign and Russia. Something has come of it, an individual at a high level in our government has been fired for lying. I don't care that someone got fired, I care because this damages public trust in government and is indicative that others in his administration may be involved.

Are you suggesting that there's nothing we can do so we might as well give up?

Or are you saying it will all work out in the end so don't worry about it?