🚨🚨🚨IRAN WAR IS BACK ON!!!🚨🚨🚨

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
4,318
14,534
113
How am I defending Trump? Democrats have been in charge of the executive branch for 12 of the past 17 years and people Like Huey blame Trump. I say that's ridiculous and you blame me for defending Trump. WTF?
Yes or no? Has Trump made this problem worse?

And go eat yourself about the Dems. Dems are the only ones who attempted to make healthcare better. Millions more Americans gained access through the ACA. Meanwhile Rs have thrown out empty promises and tried taking away healthcare every chance they get. Just look at what they did to Medicaid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73 and Moral

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,715
4,950
113
forget the cost for a minute...can you imagine the federal government managing the entire US healthcare system?

Personnel cost, benefits, hiring and firing, the paperwork...the fraud....the mismanagement that is already prevalent throughout government...we complain about the Pentagon magagement and that organization would be dwarfed by a health and human services organization overseen by a political appointee. (RFK Jr)

How do we deal with the annual government shutdowns? and the list of negatives goes on
 
Last edited:

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
4,318
14,534
113
forget the cost for a minute...can you imagine the federal government managing the entire US healthcare system?

Personnel cost, benefits, hiring and firing, the paperwork...the fraud....the mismanagement that is already prevalent throughout government...we complain about the Pentagon magagement and that organization would be dwarfed by a health and human services organization overseen by a political appointee. (RFK Jr)

How do we deal with the annual government shutdowns? and the list of negatives goes on
Could you imagine the free market handling our healthcare? It could lead to bankruptcies, the highest costs in the world, and results no better than the rest of the world.
 

Moral

Heisman
Dec 16, 2022
10,020
36,782
113
forget the cost for a minute...can you imagine the federal government managing the entire US healthcare system?

Personnel cost, benefits, hiring and firing, the paperwork...the fraud....the mismanagement that is already prevalent throughout government...we complain about the Pentagon magagement and that organization would be dwarfed by a health and human services organization overseen by a political appointee. (RFK Jr)

How do we deal with the annual government shutdowns? and the list of negatives goes on

You are so right. Better keep leading the world in medical bankruptcy, keep feeding money to rapacious middle men, and maintain our levels of underinsured and uninsured people.

I don't think the whole scary federal government thing will fly much longer when the actual system has switched to an oligarchy that has an insatiable need to glut.
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
31,255
24,873
113

New rules expand ACA insurance choices but could come with risks​

Plans could offer 30 percent higher out-of-pocket costs or no set hospital networks. Critics say the changes may reduce enrollment by 2 million.

Wide-ranging ACA changes pushed by the administration were finalized in mid-May, including new offerings such as plans with 30 percent higher out-of-pocket costs, and others with no set networks of doctors and hospitals.

The administration says such plans expand consumers’ choices and may carry lower premiums.

The rule stated, though, that the combined effect of the new provisions could not only cost $1.3 billion each year to implement but reduce enrollment by up to an additional 2 million people next year. That would come on top of already anticipated sign-up decreases this year because of higher premiums and smaller subsidy payments.

Over time, lower enrollment can boost premiums if insurers suspect their costs are rising because healthier people drop coverage more than sicker members do.

Some policy experts fear the changes will erode the ACA and make it more expensive, particularly for those whose subsidies have shrunk or disappeared.

Even more people will lose coverage as health care costs and administrative burdens rise,” said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who writes frequently on changes to the ACA. “All of this comes at a time when millions of consumers are already experiencing a health care affordability crisis.”

 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,715
4,950
113

New rules expand ACA insurance choices but could come with risks​

Plans could offer 30 percent higher out-of-pocket costs or no set hospital networks. Critics say the changes may reduce enrollment by 2 million.

Wide-ranging ACA changes pushed by the administration were finalized in mid-May, including new offerings such as plans with 30 percent higher out-of-pocket costs, and others with no set networks of doctors and hospitals.

The administration says such plans expand consumers’ choices and may carry lower premiums.

The rule stated, though, that the combined effect of the new provisions could not only cost $1.3 billion each year to implement but reduce enrollment by up to an additional 2 million people next year. That would come on top of already anticipated sign-up decreases this year because of higher premiums and smaller subsidy payments.

Over time, lower enrollment can boost premiums if insurers suspect their costs are rising because healthier people drop coverage more than sicker members do.

Some policy experts fear the changes will erode the ACA and make it more expensive, particularly for those whose subsidies have shrunk or disappeared.

Even more people will lose coverage as health care costs and administrative burdens rise,” said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who writes frequently on changes to the ACA. “All of this comes at a time when millions of consumers are already experiencing a health care affordability crisis.”

I know you know this, but any insurance policy be it heath, auto or property or casualty comes with risks...You take the option for lesser coverage, that's a choice...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

lonestar50

All-Conference
Dec 21, 2022
1,026
3,399
113
Israel bombed Beirut, Iran promises harsh response tonight, trump offers cash to prevent Iran from doing so, Iran says **** off they’re bombing Israel tonight and trump says this:



Also



A deal will not get signed because Israel will start bombing if it ever gets close. Bibi got the war he wanted and will not give it up easily
 

BlIIlken2

All-Conference
Dec 4, 2021
740
2,094
92
A deal will not get signed because Israel will start bombing if it ever gets close. Bibi got the war he wanted and will not give it up easily
Bibi got our dumbass in charge to something no one was stupid enough to do. This is trumps fault. You’re right bibi won’t let it go away though.
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
31,255
24,873
113
I know you know this, but any insurance policy be it heath, auto or property or casualty comes with risks...You take the option for lesser coverage, that's a choice...
You'll have to read the whole article to see all the new changes that will result in 2 million more people losing healthcare. They are making everything harder, not easier. Both of Trump's terms have shown us that he isn't friendly to those who need coverage.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,715
4,950
113
You'll have to read the whole article to see all the new changes that will result in 2 million more people losing healthcare. They are making everything harder, not easier. Both of Trump's terms have shown us that he isn't friendly to those who need coverage.
we'll just have to see things differently. I just don't think pushing more money from the government reduces our high healthcare costs.
I know you don't see it that way. The ACA was supposed to reduce healthcare costs, reduce the deficit and insure up to 41 million Americans..we were all supposed to save $2500/year in healthcare costs.

It simply hasn't worked out that way...and I'm not blaming Obama, trump or Biden. The bill was doomed once the individual mandate was thrown out. The people who you say with "lose" health insurance are going to be subsidized at the same amount as before the Biden increased them to get through the pandemic. And yes, democrats wanted to continue the subsidies, and the Republicans wanted to go back to the original prepandemic levels.

There will always be people who want to take the risk of a low premium, low coverage policy and some who simply don't want insurance. Neither you nor I are going to change that.

If we're ever going to get on the same track, we need to reopen discussions on how to improve the ACA. The ACA did some really good things and we should build on that..and yes, I'm sure Trump admin policies make it more difficult for more people.

I respect that you want to continue the subsidies and I think we should help those who really need it. We just differ on how to get there
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
31,255
24,873
113
we'll just have to see things differently. I just don't think pushing more money from the government reduces our high healthcare costs.
I know you don't see it that way. The ACA was supposed to reduce healthcare costs, reduce the deficit and insure up to 41 million Americans..we were all supposed to save $2500/year in healthcare costs.

It simply hasn't worked out that way...and I'm not blaming Obama, trump or Biden. The bill was doomed once the individual mandate was thrown out. The people who you say with "lose" health insurance are going to be subsidized at the same amount as before the Biden increased them to get through the pandemic. And yes, democrats wanted to continue the subsidies, and the Republicans wanted to go back to the original prepandemic levels.

There will always be people who want to take the risk of a low premium, low coverage policy and some who simply don't want insurance. Neither you nor I are going to change that.

If we're ever going to get on the same track, we need to reopen discussions on how to improve the ACA. The ACA did some really good things and we should build on that..

I respect that you want to continue the subsidies and I think we should help those who really need it. We just differ on how to get there
There will always be people who HAVE to take the risk of a low premium, low coverage policy and some who simply don't want insurance. Neither you nor I are going to change that.
FIFY
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,752
4,595
113
You'll have to read the whole article to see all the new changes that will result in 2 million more people losing healthcare. They are making everything harder, not easier. Both of Trump's terms have shown us that he isn't friendly to those who need coverage.
Explain how 2 million people lose healthcare just because they have an option to purchase catastrophic coverage that has higher OOP max.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,752
4,595
113
we'll just have to see things differently. I just don't think pushing more money from the government reduces our high healthcare costs.
I know you don't see it that way. The ACA was supposed to reduce healthcare costs, reduce the deficit and insure up to 41 million Americans..we were all supposed to save $2500/year in healthcare costs.

It simply hasn't worked out that way...and I'm not blaming Obama, trump or Biden. The bill was doomed once the individual mandate was thrown out. The people who you say with "lose" health insurance are going to be subsidized at the same amount as before the Biden increased them to get through the pandemic. And yes, democrats wanted to continue the subsidies, and the Republicans wanted to go back to the original prepandemic levels.

There will always be people who want to take the risk of a low premium, low coverage policy and some who simply don't want insurance. Neither you nor I are going to change that.

If we're ever going to get on the same track, we need to reopen discussions on how to improve the ACA. The ACA did some really good things and we should build on that..and yes, I'm sure Trump admin policies make it more difficult for more people.

I respect that you want to continue the subsidies and I think we should help those who really need it. We just differ on how to get there
The government took over student loans in order to save taxpayers money. The savings turned out to be a negative $200 billion and college costs continued to escalate. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve the problem. In this case the democrat plan has been for the government to increase subsidies. That's great for the people who get those subsidies but it doesn't lower healthcare cost. It just increases the deficit and/or shift costs to other taxpayers.
 

MTTiger19

All-American
Sep 10, 2008
6,020
9,266
113
Israel bombed Beirut, Iran promises harsh response tonight, trump offers cash to prevent Iran from doing so, Iran says **** off they’re bombing Israel tonight and trump says this:



Also



Why do we tolerate this from Israel. It’s unbelievable the harm that nation has caused us. Yet here we are again, having to avoid peace because they’re psychotic. I’m sick of them. Trump should tell Iran we don’t care what they do to Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firegiver and Moral

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,715
4,950
113
I'm sure you're right. But isn't that kind of an indictment or the original ACA? It was supposed to be AFFORDABLE and at the same time not cost the federal budget a "dime"...if I remember the Obama quote correctly. But without getting into a back and forth where both of us will spew "facts" refuting each others "facts", lets agree that the ACA is not serving all Americans the way it was designed/sold. Therefore rational people would reopen discussions, identify what's working and what's not and then fix it. But neither our leaders or the industry seems willing to do that. And the failure is in on both parties..remember democrats had control of the government in Biden''s first two years - house, Senate and presidency. Republican's, to match, had the same control during trump's first two years of his first term and now. And, we've had no major moves on health coverage...

It's a real shame that we don't have a truly functioning government. There's a lot to do, and it's not getting done.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,752
4,595
113
Why do they HAVE to accept a policy with higher OOP max?

Roughly 29% of the non Medicare age population receives free coverage through Medicaid or CHIP. If you add the people who receive ACA premium subsidies that number climbs to over 35%. You're suggesting that more than 35% of the population CAN'T afford to buy coverage or where one family member CAN'T get a job where an employer provides coverage?
 

letsgocu

Heisman
Dec 2, 2003
16,141
15,403
113
We had to take action bc of Obamas stupidity.

Then Trump didn’t finish what he started.

Iran leaders win. Iranians lose. Middle East is status quo - a complete and utter abomination.

and we are letting them into our border freely and building communities in our cities.

we’re not learning from Europe. Sad.
 

AlexanderUrinis

All-Conference
Feb 24, 2025
1,679
3,025
113
So is the reflecting pool back to being an algae infested pile of ****?
Trump is directing his son-in-law and another untra qualified pedophile to negotiate with the algae. The algae is currently requesting $250B to end the bloom, Kushner is offering $500B and a barefoot island tour. Once the algae responds to this MOU, there will be a 60 day period to sort out the details.
 

Moral

Heisman
Dec 16, 2022
10,020
36,782
113
We had to take action bc of Obamas stupidity.

Then Trump didn’t finish what he started.

Iran leaders win. Iranians lose. Middle East is status quo - a complete and utter abomination.

and we are letting them into our border freely and building communities in our cities.

we’re not learning from Europe. Sad.

Obama's stupidity? Is it because Obama had a nuclear treaty that Trump's has to chance of aspiring to?

It has.nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Trump being malleable and getting his arm twisted by Netanyahu.
 

letsgocu

Heisman
Dec 2, 2003
16,141
15,403
113
Obama's stupidity? Is it because Obama had a nuclear treaty that Trump's has to chance of aspiring to?

It has.nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Trump being malleable and getting his arm twisted by Netanyahu.
1.7B to create terror.
Please don’t be dumb.


Now, Trump will have to own how this ends up.
 

Moral

Heisman
Dec 16, 2022
10,020
36,782
113
1.7B to create terror.
Please don’t be dumb.


Now, Trump will have to own how this ends up.

Did he write "to create terror" on the memo line?

Trump will end up giving way more money to Iran.

Iran now knows the power the have in the region through the strait.

Trump got 13 service members killed, and hundred injured, as well as hundreds of strikes on our bases in the region, and for that we will have less leverage over Iran.

Please, don't be an effing idiot. Trump screwed this the entire way, and what Obama did looks like pure genius by comparison.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,715
4,950
113
The government took over student loans in order to save taxpayers money. The savings turned out to be a negative $200 billion and college costs continued to escalate. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve the problem. In this case the democrat plan has been for the government to increase subsidies. That's great for the people who get those subsidies but it doesn't lower healthcare cost. It just increases the deficit and/or shift costs to other taxpayers.
I was going to bring student loans up, but then I get accused of deflection. And just the fact that the ACA is not operating the way it was sold should be enough of a reason to get it on the discussion page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,881
4,085
113
So let's go with this. Over the last 30 years the population has grown 26% while the number of doctors has grown 79%. Yet people are clamoring that we need to invest in more doctors by increasing subsidies for their residencies. How does this make sense? Or let's discuss education. The U.S. spends more per student than any other OECD county except Luxembourg and Norway. We spend roughly 50% more than the average OECD country. In spite of these things life expectancies are down and educational outcomes have become progressively worse. So why do so many in a country that already spends 40% more than we collect always insist that we need to spend more money?
There's a MAGA framing if I ever saw one.

Libs are not "clamoring that we need to invest in more doctors by increasing subsidies for their residencies."

Libs are not "insist[ing] that we need to spend more money."

We need to do better on the points you raised. That's the lib position. That might require more money, or not. It costs what it costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral