Trump warns Republicans to 'be careful' over Obamacare: tweet

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters


04 JAN 2017 AT 09:21 ET

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday warned fellow Republicans to be careful over their effort to repeal U.S. Democratic President Barack Obamas signature healthcare law, urging conservatives not to let the pressure off Democrats.

Republicans must be careful in that the Dems own the failed ObamaCare disaster, with its poor coverage and massive premium increases, Trump tweeted. Dont let the Schumer clowns out of this web, he added, referring to U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who along with other Democrats is meeting with Obama about the law Wednesday morning.

###

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trump-warns-republicans-to-be-careful-over-obamacare-tweet/

[gordianot]

1. That's right since Democrats control congress.

Oops cognitive dissonance Alert!

[Initech]

2. Go fuck yourselves!!!

The GOP doesn't give a shit about the greater good of this country, they only care about party loyalty!

[stevenleser]

10. They don't , but they care that the repeal could blow up in their faces, which it would.

This is going to be fun to watch. I just hope no one dies or suffers as a result.

[Initech]

12. I'm hoping it blows up in their faces too.

[bdamomma]

3. trump really thinks he's king/dictator

he should not be allowed to hold office how much proof do they need?

Arrogant SOB.

[earthside]

4. If they're going to do it ...

... then let them do it quickly and completely and get it over with.

Democrats in Congress shouldn't enable Trump and the Repuglicans to minimize the pain and disruption repeal is going to cause.

Let it be on their heads.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Guess what fuckhead

premiums had huge increases before Obamacare and they will increase after Obamacare more again. Sure, there were some big increases last year (as planned when the law passed), but on average, Obamacare increases have been less than they were before Obamacare.

[ffr]

13. Those increases were for certain plans, year-to-year. Other plans with same ACA benefits were less

I changed plans to one with slightly higher co-pays, which lowered my out of pocket thresholds and premium. My premium this month (2017) will be the same as it was in 2013. The ACA is keeping my premium lower.

Of course, no News outlet has looked into that, simply because a lot of viewers have a bigoted hatred of PBO. So instead of shining a light on how people can save on their ACA plans in 2017, they parrot the RW talking point that focuses on same plan rates from 2016 to 2017. I don't need to buy my gas from the same gas station if the one across the street gets its fuel from the same delivery truck, but charges less for it.

[Aviation Pro]

6. What he really wants

Is for people to stop calling it Obamacare and call it Trumpcare.

[unblock]

8. bingo. the long-term "plan" is to repeal and replace it with something remarkably similar

but just different enough for toxic trump to claim it's his.

i say "plan" because they aren't thinking that far ahead, but that's the way it will unfold. they'll look around for something better, realize obamacare actually *was* their better plan (it's from the right-wing heritage foundation, after all) and rebrand it as their own.

and of course, the media and the republican rank-and-file will then eat it all up and insist all is right in the universe.

[Cracklin Charlie]

9. You got it!

He'll make a few small changes, then...Poof!

Trumpcare.

This should be disallowed. The Idiot republicans were the ones to name it "Obamacare". They tried to make it a curse word.

[unblock]

7. aren't the poor coverage and massive premium increases due to

things like republican governors not playing ball, republican refusal to let the government negotiate prices, and a feature the right-wing normally celebrates, which is market-based price action?


so much of whatever's less than ideal with obamacare is the fault of republicans doing everything they can to undermine it.

[Phoenix61]

14. Republican governors who are more concerned with their party

than the health of their constituents. Sadly, I'm in a heavily red state.

[Hortensis]

19. Poor coverage!?? Unlimited lifetime coverage for all conditions

is POOR coverage? THIS IS RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA, Unblock. Most of us remember all too clearly $50K annual and $250K lifetime limits for a condition--payable only if the insurance company couldn't find some excuse to claim it was preexisting.

20 million more insured people, who were previously denied insurance or cut out because of too-high costs, is poor coverage?

MASSIVE premium increases? THIS IS RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA. Premium increases for the 75% who get insurance through work are the lowest in 50 years. A smallish percentage getting policies through the marketplace have seen massive increases, but that's unusual. Most of us have NOT, and all have been offset by the subsidies. And the cracks some fall through altogether were created by the Republicans; the ACA was designed to make coverage available to almost everyone.

Heritage Foundation's DeMint said that unless the companies want to go out of business, they’ll have to offer affordable plans. “What we have to do is create competition,” he explained. He said that Trump will do that, as well as “create a vibrant insurance market.” Costello wondered who has that plan and why no plan has been proposed by the GOP in the last several years.

Amusingly enough, Obamacare IS that plan. The ACA is modeled on a plan the Heritage Foundation developed as a conservative alternative to the plan the Clintons tried to pass 20 years ago. As Chuck Schumer says, the Republicans are like a dog that actually caught the bus. Now what?

[unblock]

22. thanks. didn't mean to imply that i was accepting their premises,

just noting that whatever shortcomings are their fault for trying to hobble it rather than obamacare's fault for trying to make things better.

indeed, some of the features are wildly popular and successful, like staying on parents' policy until 26, no lifetime cap, no pre-existing crap.

also, the millions extra insured is a huge success even if the number might have been higher had republicans been remotely reasonable about it.

and the premium increases, yeah, they cherry-picked the worst numbers, and never mind that premiums have been going up like crazy for decades, long before and having nothing to do with obamacare.

[Hortensis]

23. Sorry for not knowing who you are better. Interesting that

the most popular provision is kids staying on policies into adulthood. My guess is it's because those who benefit are a much larger group, including lots of younger, healthy parents, than those who are ill enough to be threatened by policy limits. Unfortunate in some respects as the pubs should be able to keep that most-popular coverage extension pretty easily and inexpensively for insurance companies.

[Sunlei]

20. Rs lie. there are Obamacare insurance plans that are no cost-$75 a month for basic coverage

The government subsidizes (pays for) about $600-$700 of monthly premium cost directly to insurance corps for people who make under about $20k-$30k a year.

[Liberalagogo]

11. "Failed Obamacare disaster"

Since when?
Nothing the RUMP says is ever REMOTELY true.

[ffr]

15. Since never, but they keep repeating it anyway for those not smart enough to know the difference.

Repeat a lie and people will eventually buy into it. It's right there in the GOP dirty tricks handbook on page 8 under how to hoodwink dummies and get elected. Yeah, there are a lot of things just as evil in it that come before.

[Sunlei]

18. Republicans back Insurance Corporations and always LIE to the American people.

Republicans always lie and deceive "the people", they even take advantage of their unfit, dangerous and ignorant trump.

[treestar]

16. all the Republicans care about is how it looks

and who is blamed!

[Sunlei]

17. I tweeted this to the Republicans twit addict.

I pay 400 a month premium for my Obamacare insurance, Blue Cross with 1k a year total deductible & zero co-pay! very affordable.

[turbinetree]

21. Time to bring in Single Payer (Medicare For all)

and just watch theme twist there shorts, even if it gets shot down.

If someone within the democratic party were to get up in the well of the Congress and say this is how Medicare and Social Security works:

I have Fred or Susan citizen 65 years of age, they have been paying into the FICA system for over 45 years. out of that payroll tax they and there employer each contribute 1.45 % of there wages into Medicare, the other 5% is for Social Security being paid by the employee and the employer, which means that after all is said and done over 15% is being contributed to these programs to help the individual out when they get older, this is plain fact.

When they reach that age of 65 they go down to the Social Security Administration to fill out there Social Security benefits, and the person looking at there work history figures out exactly how much Fred or Susan is going to get in Social Security benefit that they have and there employer have paid into there insurance retirement. Then they have the option to get Medicare Part D. That is subtracted from there Social Security monthly payment, and lets say they pay only $25.00 a month for there drugs to the "insurance " provider in Medicare Part D, they then get there prescription drugs for a certain price and only allowed a set amount per year to buy there drugs, if they have costs that go over the amount of the deductible then they have to pay for the overage or have a "supplemental" plan to cover the cost.

To take this one step further:
Lets say a retire person gets from Social Security $2,000 a mouth in his or her benefits. Medicare cost will be subtracted from the Social Security lets say $125.00 per mouth for Medicare cost. Then if the individual has Medicare Part D, they then have to pay for example $25.00 per month for your prescription drugs provider plus whatever the cost are (for conversation in this example) cost the individuals for a 90 supply of medication of around $50.00 dollars:

Someone in the current age of 65 retired on Social Security and Medicare: example

$24.000.00 yearly Social Security benefit
- $1,800.00 Medicare Part A & B & D cost per year excluding drug costs
- $200.00 Medicare Part D drugs costs for 90 day supply 4 X $50.00 per year
-----------------
$ 22,000.00 per year in retirement benefits, does not include 401K or Defined benefits earned


Current system for a "for profit insurance plan" example only:


$75,000.00 per year income
- $6,500.00 ( note: 500.00 per bi-weekly deductible from employer based health care or ( 13 X 500.00=$6,500.00)
- $5,750.00 ( FICA- Social Security and Medicare @ 7.5%)
- $6,560.00 ( state tax for wages @ 8.75%)
----------------------------
$ 56,190.00 yearly take home earnings


Why not take:

$75,000.00 yearly earnings
- $1,800.00 for Medicare @1.45% of wages
- $5,750.00 for Social Security@ 6.0% of wages
- $6,560.00 (state taxes @8.75%)
-------------------------------------
$60,890.00 yearly earnings


The individual is making more per year in take home earnings with the single payer Medicare deducted from the check:

$4,700.00 in the first example



Medicare and Social Security life time earnings of 45 years for example:

45 (years) X $60,890.00 = $2,740,000.00 / $22,000.00 = 124.545 years of retirement after reaching the age of 65

How would a republican frame this easy:

They want you to pay the for profit insurer, so that your yearly take home pay is less, and them blame Social Security and Medicare as being the culprit and for those not paying there fair share after they make at present $122,500.01 cent and saying that the programs are going broke and then means test everyone to the age of 70, and then later on come back and say the same crap and raise the age to 72 for example and let the insures and the banks have this money
( $2,740,000.00 )

If I am wrong, at least on the right track, this is what its about, that age of 65 (means test) and that money sitting in the trust fund, this is what they want (banks and insurance companies) and if they fail on there wall street ponzi scheme oh well they charge the retiree with fees and they have that $2.7 money in the bank doing whatever they want-----------no transparency, just like the shell and pea game on the street


I apologize, I don't have much to do I'M retired, and I hope I passed my own math test