Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, March 17, 2017

Roughly half of Americans were covered by employer-sponsored health plans in 2015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that could change, according to the Congressional Budget Office's report on the GOP's American Health Care Plan. Lawmakers and regular Americans digesting the findings of the report have focused on the big numbers: 24 million fewer insured and $337 billion in savings over the next decade. But a potentially more troubling sign comes from a comparatively smaller number: 7 million, the number of people the CBO estimates will drop off the rolls of employer-sponsored health insurance over the next decade.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Everyone is going to hate Trump by the time his term is over.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Very, very Newsworthy

#2 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They are writing these bills so they take effect in 2019. That way when the shtf the Democrat that replaces Donald will get the blame.

#3 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-03-17 04:36 PM | Reply

"Everyone is going to hate Trump by the time his term is over."

It's gonna be before this month is over.

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2017-03-17 04:59 PM | Reply

56% of American's dislike Trump and 44% of the previous group think he's sum.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2017-03-17 05:03 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-03-17 04:23 PM | FLAG:

Yep. They're going to give a Nobel Prize to the next person, just for not being Trump.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-03-17 06:00 PM | Reply

I just had a right-wing colleague ask me if it's fair for him to have pay an extra $500 a month for his insurance just so that poor people or unemployed people can also get insurance. I said "yes". And I believe that. He just looked at me and said we would never have a meeting of the minds on this issue. He's blown away at how generous I am with other people's money. I'm blown away with how self-focused he is. As a fitting coda, he pointed out that he makes money by his individual efforts, to which I pointed out that we in fact are a village, interconnected.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-03-17 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

he pointed out that he makes money by his individual efforts, to which I pointed out that we in fact are a village, interconnected.

#7 | Posted by moder8

That's the fundemental flaw in the conservative brain.

They think they accomplished everything on their own. You could call it egomania, narcissim, or simply ungrateful as hell.

To be blind to everything others have done for you is to be a true -----.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-17 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | Posted by danni

No. There is the .1% and some REALLY STUPID people.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-17 08:24 PM | Reply

Everyone is going to hate Trump by the time his term is over.
#1 | Posted by danni

That's if he lasts a full term.

#10 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-17 10:07 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

he pointed out that he makes money by his individual efforts, to which I pointed out that we in fact are a village, interconnected.
#7 | Posted by moder8
That's the fundemental flaw in the conservative brain.
#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Where did I go wrong? I should have gotten a government job.

#11 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-17 10:14 PM | Reply

When I had cancer I still paid my own premiums, paid my bills and racked up a lot of debt. It took several years to recover.

I don't belive I owe anyone, anything that I did not receive.

#12 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-17 11:11 PM | Reply

So you lose your employer health insurance. Someone has to pay for the tax cuts for Paris Hilton.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2017-03-18 08:08 AM | Reply

When I had cancer I still paid my own premiums, paid my bills and racked up a lot of debt. It took several years to recover.
I don't belive I owe anyone, anything that I did not receive.

#12 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

When you had cancer, did your individual premiums themselves cover the full cost of your treatment and care? Of course not. Where did the rest of the money come from and why aren't you "responsible" for paying back every cent that was spent to make you better?

You don't need to "believe" that you owe anyone to realize you owe EVERY ONE of your insurance company's policy holders for contributing to YOUR care and YOUR treatment and YOUR continued life, including every US taxpayer who subsidizes private health insurance costs through tax credits the government generously funds for the public's benefit.

It's amazing how utterly ignorant you show yourself to be about the true nature of most economic realities within the vastness of the US economy. There is hardly a single area where citizens (and especially not businesses) ever fully pay for all that they receive. And to be more on point, it's because corporations and big business set things up this way to increase their profitability, and not by poorer people trying selfishly to help themselves survive.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 08:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And to be more on point, it's because corporations and big business set things up this way to increase their profitability, and not by poorer people trying selfishly to help themselves survive.
#14 | Posted by tonyroma

They are hardly morally inferior to libs who believe healthy people should be forced to subsidize their premiums. It's one thing insurance companies and libs can agree.

And to be more on point, it's because corporations and big business set things up this way to increase their profitability

They couldn't have done it by themselves. They had help from Obama, Congress and the Supreme Court. The best government money can buy.

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 08:26 AM | Reply

Yeah Ray, it would have been better if health insurers could just rescind coverage or say that you had reached your lifetime limit on coverage when any of us got cancer. And let's all join the game of pretending healthcare insurance costs weren't rising before Obamacare. Let's also join the game of pretending that millions of people weren't paying for virtually worthless coverage which they wouldn't discover til they got seriously ill. ACA accomplished many things, it provides real coverage not face insurance.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-18 08:44 AM | Reply

They couldn't have done it by themselves. They had help from Obama, Congress and the Supreme Court. The best government money can buy.

#15 | POSTED BY RAY

I see Raystradumbass has crawled back out of his gilded sarcophagus to grace us with his ignorance, blaming the former President for legislation that was passed before his birth:

The enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, permanently established in federal law generous tax advantages for employer-paid health-insurance premiums. Those group health benefits are excluded from employees' taxable wages and thereby are not subject to income and payroll taxes.

www.nationalreview.com

Your schtick was tiring years ago and remains as irrelevant and trite today as it was insipid then.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see Raystradumbass has crawled back out of his gilded sarcophagus to grace us with his ignorance, blaming the former President for legislation that was passed before his birth:

How did I not see that. Obamacare should have been called Ikecare. It was Ike's fault.
You didn't disappoint me, Tony. Same old Tony.

#18 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 08:54 AM | Reply

The topic was not Obamacare Ray, it was tax credits for employer-based health insurance plans. Maybe your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your predictive skills, eh?

How could you not see that? Try opening your eyes and closing your mouth and you may figure it out.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 08:59 AM | Reply

I just had a right-wing colleague ask me if it's fair for him to have pay an extra $500 a month for his insurance just so that poor people or unemployed people can also get insurance. I said "yes".

This guy must think everyone but the poor make 6 figures!

Maybe understanding the average wage might help this individual.

#20 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:15 AM | Reply

#19 | Posted by tonyroma

You're quibbling over semantics. Ikecare was absorbed by Johnsoncare was absorbed by Obamacare. Trumpcare is the latest attempt to compound medical costs.

According to the title of this thread, the subject is Trumpcare.

#21 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 09:17 AM | Reply

As a fitting coda, he pointed out that he makes money by his individual efforts, to which I pointed out that we in fact are a village, interconnected.

Not that I don't agree with this partially, when his individual efforts fall on hard times that village is going to keep him afloat? Not a chance, they'll wait until he loses everything and then just maybe by chance help.

#22 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:19 AM | Reply

That's the fundemental flaw in the conservative brain.

No, just you showing ignorance.

You're showing the flaw that the self recognition is his work drive and effort for his achievement VS the village aiding and pushing for the same achievement.

The village usually puts up road blocks and to break them down cost money and when the success of his effort is gained the village wants 1/2 the credit.

#23 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:26 AM | Reply

Yeah Ray, it would have been better if health insurers could just rescind coverage or say that you had reached your lifetime limit on coverage when any of us got cancer. And let's all join the game of pretending healthcare insurance costs weren't rising before Obamacare. Let's also join the game of pretending that millions of people weren't paying for virtually worthless coverage which they wouldn't discover til they got seriously ill. ACA accomplished many things, it provides real coverage not face insurance.
#16 | Posted by danni

Healthcare rose in steps:
Employee exemption.
Medicare and Medicaid
Over the years Congress expanded benefits without raising premiums.
Then Obamacare forced the uninsured into the system.
Whatever Trumpcare turns out to be, it'll be another abortion.

The system is going broke and there is no way of stopping it.

The irony is that before government intervention, health care was affordable. It's a law of economics. When you subsidize something, you increase demand.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 09:28 AM | Reply

#21

My comment to Prolix had ZERO to do with the entirety of Trumpcare and any sentient person reading it should have discerned that immediately if they weren't preoccupied with their own tangential meanderings unrelated to what I commented about.

Try re-reading what I wrote instead of repeating what you want to read into your misinterpretations.

Believe it or not, not every single post is related directly to the issue articulated by the thread's title. Again, if you're not going to even bother to understand the conversation underpinning a comment then be prepared to have your own obliviousness pointed out.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 09:30 AM | Reply

The irony is that before government intervention, health care was affordable.

Would you provide proof for your ridiculous assertion please?

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 09:32 AM | Reply

The system is going broke and there is no way of stopping it.

There is a simple way to stop it. Take the insurance companies out of the middle and do what every other wealthy country does and provide a form of single-payer system with provider incentives built in for wellness and preventative care resulting in healthier patients and a lowered need for more expensive curative care.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-03-18 09:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It isn't the subsidies, it is choice and affordability.

500 a month by a poster here is ridiculous, and insurance companies should have no say what so ever in what is needed for care.

Insurance is a risk game and providing them with guaranteed low or no risk is no longer insurance, it become similar to a trust.

Pharmaceutical companies should not be able to provide benefits to hospitals and doctors, there product should be on the market for sale like most other products. Doctors and hospitals should be forced to provide prices of all care and what is amazing is we are forcing the restaurants to provide prices and nutritional information cause the government is worried about our health....LOL!

People make choices by cost, quality and service and the healthcare industry lacks all.

#28 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:43 AM | Reply

"The system is going broke and there is no way of stopping it. "

Utter nonsense. Guess what, we could have single payer and be done with it. We could stop wasting hundreds of billions on a military that creates more problems than it solves. Just think how much better off we would be today if Bush had announced that we weren't going to invade Iraq but instead were going to use that money to pay for Medicare for all. We'd be safer, the world would be more peaceful, healthcare would be affordable, our economy would have skyrocketed and the rest of the world would respect us. We would actually be a more powerful nation today.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-18 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just think how much better off we would be today if Bush had announced that we weren't going to invade Iraq but instead were going to use that money to pay for Medicare for all.

By the cost of our horrible adventure in irag and afgan. will be 2.4 trillion, the cost of Obama care is 3.1 trillion for the benefit of roughly 12 million people.

I understand what you are trying to say but get off the emotion and run some numbers.

#30 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:51 AM | Reply

We'd be safer, the world would be more peaceful

No one knows this, don't know if the world would be safer or more peaceful. To think such is just political projection.

#31 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 09:53 AM | Reply

Would you provide proof for your ridiculous assertion please?
#26 | Posted by tonyroma

I'm old enough to remember when doctors made house visits. My father could afford insurance on a machinist's salary. When I used to visit the doctor, it was no big deal to pay cash. Back in those days, an experienced doctor could tell what was wrong with you by your symptoms. Today, they'll subject you to a battery of tests if you complain of a stomach ache.

When there is a third party payer, neither patient nor doctor don't care about costs. This is the program's Achilles heal.

This graph shows how much health care costs have risen compared to the broad price index.

fred.stlouisfed.org

#32 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 09:55 AM | Reply

Utter nonsense. Guess what, we could have single payer and be done with it. We could stop wasting hundreds of billions on a military that creates more problems than it solves. Just think how much better off we would be today if Bush had announced that we weren't going to invade Iraq but instead were going to use that money to pay for Medicare for all. We'd be safer, the world would be more peaceful, healthcare would be affordable, our economy would have skyrocketed and the rest of the world would respect us. We would actually be a more powerful nation today.
#29 | Posted by danni

If I had my way, military spending would be reduced to 1%. But be that it may:

According to this source, defense counts for 21% of federal spending, healthcare 28%, pensions 25%, welfare 9%.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Federal spending doubles about every nine years. There is no stopping this economy from crashing and burning. It's only a matter of how many more years. The fight over the debt limit may be the opening kick.

#33 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 10:05 AM | Reply

There is a simple way to stop it. Take the insurance companies out of the middle and do what every other wealthy country does and provide a form of single-payer system with provider incentives built in for wellness and preventative care resulting in healthier patients and a lowered need for more expensive curative care.
#27 | Posted by tonyroma

Dream on. As Milton Friedman said to the effect: "You could put government in charge of the Sahara Desert and they would run out of sand."

Governments exist to take from those who produce to those who produce nothing. Eventually they either implode from the inside or they are absorbed from the outside.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 10:11 AM | Reply

This was predicted in a similar fashion when ACA was being debated....it was predicted that a lot of workers covered in a group plan from their employer would lose that coverage and move to individual plans. They were way off on that as employers chose to keep those plans in tact.

IOW, these kinds of predictions are wild guesses. It may be true...but just keep in mind they were way off on this the last time they predicted it.

this thread's attached article mentions this in case you're interested in reading it.

But I do remember when this was predicted before this was a GREAT thing about Obamacare....in that employees wouldn't be tied to a group plan any more....they weren't shackled to their employer like before....they could leave, start their own business without fear of losing their coverage because of the pre-existing condition removal and more people would be insured and it would just great.

Now you are all pissing and moaning about it.

LOL

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2017-03-18 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This was predicted in a similar fashion when ACA was being debated....it was predicted that a lot of workers covered in a group plan from their employer would lose that coverage and move to individual plans. They were way off on that as employers chose to keep those plans in tact.

#35 | POSTED BY EBERLY

This is purely anecdotal, but I know of several small businesses that dropped insurance for their employees and told them to hit the exchange.

I personally thought forcing an employer mandate in the ACA was a huge mistake anyway. Individual mandate, yes. Employer mandate, bad idea.

#36 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-03-18 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Governments exist to take from those who produce to those who produce nothing. Eventually they either implode from the inside or they are absorbed from the outside.

#34 | Posted by Ray

Did you get that from the Declaration of Independence? Or maybe the preamble to the Constitution. What does "General Welfare" mean, and why does the Constitution give the Congress the right to levy taxes to pay for it? Wingers are always about the Constitution and the "Founding Fathers", funny that the guys who created this government disagree with you.

#37 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-03-18 01:44 PM | Reply

"Governments exist to take from those who produce to those who produce nothing."

That is why we call it a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people.

F the poor people.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-18 01:59 PM | Reply

Did you get that from the Declaration of Independence? Or maybe the preamble to the Constitution. What does "General Welfare" mean, and why does the Constitution give the Congress the right to levy taxes to pay for it? Wingers are always about the Constitution and the "Founding Fathers", funny that the guys who created this government disagree with you.
#37 | Posted by WhoDaMan

To me it's an obvious fact. Governments can't sustain themselves without taxes, which by definition, are a form of confiscation - one party gains at the expense of others.

Whereas in a free market, businesses are dependent on voluntary exchange with customers. In voluntary exchange, both parties benefit. No business can force customers to buy their products unless they have the laws changed to their benefit.

Look at it as a law of physics. A thing cannot be consumed unless it is first produced. There is no point to producing if a producer cannot profit enough to make the endeavor worth their while. You can't change human nature any more than you can change the laws of physics.

The communists tried to replace the free market. You know how that turned out. The pattern repeats throughout history.

#39 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 02:15 PM | Reply

The communists tried to replace the free market. You know how that turned out. The pattern repeats throughout history.

#39 | Posted by Ray

And the capitalists let the free market rule. Government intervention is the only thing that kept the wealthy from taking EVERYTHING.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-18 02:36 PM | Reply

And the capitalists let the free market rule. Government intervention is the only thing that kept the wealthy from taking EVERYTHING.
#40 | Posted by SpeakSoft

I'll let you in on a secret. It's the capitalists who sponsor intervention. They have Congress and every regulatory agency in their pocket. They hate and fear free markets because they can't control them.

And in case you haven't noticed, they almost have everything.

"Free Market" simply means a market where government doesn't interfere with consumer choice. Consumers are the drivers of free markets.

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 02:59 PM | Reply

"Free Market" simply means a market where government doesn't interfere with consumer choice. Consumers are the drivers of free markets.

#41 | Posted by Ray

You can't have free market capitalism combined with corporate personhood and privately funded elections.

That automatically creates plutocracy, where the rich own the government.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-18 08:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That automatically creates plutocracy, where the rich own the government.
#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Elections are a ruse. This country has been a plutocracy since its inception. The Constitution was written and signed by wealthy merchants and farmers. DC is bought and paid for by plutocrats.

The definition of free market still stands. While markets are regulated and taxed, consumers still make free choices. Corporations and elections are creatures of government.

#43 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-18 09:27 PM | Reply

Corporations and elections are creatures of government.

#43 | Posted by Ray

I'd say government is now a creature of corporations since corporations control government.

It doesnt HAVE to be that way though.

If we outlaw campaign contributions, the government will serve the voters instead of the donors.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-18 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They are writing these bills so they take effect in 2019. That way when the shtf the Democrat that replaces Donald will get the blame.

#3 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-03-17 04:36 PM | Reply |

Obama did that too.

#45 | Posted by Robson at 2017-03-19 08:47 PM | Reply

I'd say government is now a creature of corporations since corporations control government.
#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

That's about right. The symbiosis is usually called fascism.

It doesnt HAVE to be that way though.
If we outlaw campaign contributions, the government will serve the voters instead of the donors.

I try to look at it like a chemist. Put 300 million people in a crucible. Heat and centrifuge. What you see is how it comes out.

"We" is a ghost.

#46 | Posted by Ray at 2017-03-19 08:57 PM | Reply

I try to look at it like a chemist. Put 300 million people in a crucible. Heat and centrifuge. What you see is how it comes out.

Would that be a sodium hydroxide fusion or a lithium metaborate fusion? In any case, at 1100°C the only thing left would be alkaline earth metal oxides, transition metal oxides, and gold fillings.

#47 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-03-19 11:45 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort