Skinny Repeal Disaster

Medicare requires private insurers to pay more for the same services because medicare doesn't cover the cost of the care. If I remember correctly, Medicare only pays about 75% of the cost of care.

Single payer may have the buying power. That only works of there are enough doctors willing to take it to matter.

Those lower rates are made possible by the private insurers picking up the tab.

1. Medicare can cover them because there are 100 million people paying for it.

2. Where do you get this extra 6% tax from?

3. Why would there be private insurance when everyone gets the best care money can buy for free?

 

Maybe donald should have been!

 

Administrative expenses are the same whether you go to the doctor once a year or once a week.

 

That's nonsense. First, Medicare doesn't require anything about what private insurers pay. Each insurer negotiates its own price terms with providers. And second, Medicare provides as much, if not more, than typical private insurer plans do.

I'm not worried they're going to drop out en masse to flip hamburgers at McDonalds.

There possible because Medicare has the market power to pay lower rates and they don't have to distribute a bunch of money to shareholders.

Increase in Medicare tax to cover universal coverage. But the offset is that businesses would be freed from the increasingly crushing burden of providing health care for employees, making they more cost efficient -- and competitive internationally.

Same reason why there are private high schools and colleges when there are good public ones. Folks can pay for private if they want.

 

Not true at all. Every time you make a visit medical records are generated, bill are generated, the provider has to bill the insurer and get reimburse and the insurer has to audit the trail etc. Every use of health care services is an increase in administrative need.

 

Which makes sense as to why other nations have healthcare costs that are so much lower than ours. They are paying Medicare rates for 100% of their healthcare spending.

 

The number of people paying for it is IRRELEVANT since Medicare is fully paid for by modest Medicare premiums AND the 1.45% tax rate.

Since Medicare covers senious who are the MOST EXPENSIVE to insure I made the assumption that to cover the ENTIRE population would cost 5 times as much. That would mean increasing the Medicare tax rate from 1.45% to 7.25% or about a 6% tax increase over where it is now.

There will ALWAYS be those who are willing to pay extra for "premium" services. Since they don't care about the cost the private health insurers will provide them with "premium service" policies.

 

No she wouldn't. But just like the Democrats began their program of destruction against Trump the day after the election, the Republicans would have begun their own program of destruction against Hillary Clinton. Perhaps in controlling both chambers of congress, they might have been more successful. I think you forget, she was as a divisive figure among the public as Trump was up till the election.

Her negative honest and trustworthy numbers were right up there with Trump and in some polls even higher. In some polls, YouGov comes to mind independents were giving her an unfavorable rating of 70%, higher than Trump's. In the end she ended up at 38% favorable/positive to 36% for Trump. Instead of Democrats and independents being against Trump, it would have been Republicans and independents against Clinton. This is what happens when both parties nominate candidates no one outside of their avid supporters want to be their next president.

Back in February of 2016 there were two separate polls done just before or just after the primaries started. 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone else other than Clinton. 61% of all Americans wanted the Republicans to nominate someone else other than Trump. Being in most states only Republicans and Democrats are allowed to vote in the primaries and caucuses, independents or most Americans didn't have a say on whom the two parties nominated. Both parties told America as a whole to go shovel sand. That was their right, no disputing that. But we have what we have because of whom was nominated and both parties doing their normal thing, not listening to America as a whole.

 

While noting the above it is fair to say that if Hillary had won she would have had a smooth transition with all of her nominees picked and ready for the Senate to approve. There would have been no attacks on the media nor any petty quibbling about the size of her inauguration crowd. There would not have been a veritable "tweetstorm" of insults and vacuous allegations from the Oval office.

In fact the only screaming and venting would be coming from the frustrated extremist alt right.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a Republican Congress would be empanelling committees to impeach her for coughing during the swearing in ceremony and appointing investigators to find out her shoe size to match up with those on the Grassy Knoll but the Hillary Administration itself would probably be boring in it's competence.

 

Clinton would have continued to be the target of hyper-partisans attacks, no doubt, and her favorability figures could well have been nearly as dismal as Trump's. We can only guess, or indulge in biased musings.

What is clear is that her experience in political life demonstrated a stable temperament, grasp of pertinent information, and level of competence that would have insured business-as-usual, whether that is judged good or bad. You would not have been entertained by hysterical tweets, the savaging of her own Cabinet, and her aspiring to pariah status on the world stage.

 

Perhaps not, but I'm sure they would reopen or congress at the least would form a committee to look into the classified e-mails put at risk. Most of the media would be on Hillary's side and you're correct, no obnoxious tweets. But both have an ego the size of Mars.

With the GOP still in control of the senate, I doubt quite a lot of her nominees would have had smooth sailing. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to her SCOTUS nominee. With 52 votes, that is enough to defeat anyone she put forth. But Hillary would still be stuck in the low 40's approval wise. More independents disliked her than Trump. You can see that by the 46-42 margin independents voted for Trump and the negative or unfavorable numbers at the time of the election independents had for Hillary. 70% for her, 65% for Trump. 54% of all independents didn't want either one to become president.

 

Calmer may be the word you're looking for. We've only had turmoil and chaos since Trump became president. Now Trump may be president because enough people didn't want business-as-usual. That is debatable. But most of Trump's 46% was wanting to get rid of career politicians who owe their heart and souls to Wall Street, Lobbyists, Corporations, etc. A lot of those who voted third party, who really disliked Trump, didn't vote for Hillary as she was the business as usual candidate.

Me, I voted third party because I didn't trust either Trump or Hillary and I came to the conclusion that both would leave this country in far worst shape than when either entered the office of the presidency. Of course you know that too.

 

I doubt if a Clinton presidency would have been transformative, one way or the other. The inexperienced, crass television entertainer's routing a number of real politicians to win the nomination, and securing enough electoral votes to defeat Clinton, even after he was confirmed as a lowlife that mocked the handicapped and boasted that his celebrity licensed him to violate women, clearly indicated that enough Americans were in the mood for novelty.

I'm anticipating a return to normalcy.

 

Yeah and the CBO also estimated that Obamacare would result in 30 million more Americans with health insurance! The actual number was 11 million so their estimates on anything are garbage! Would someone try to explain to me why it it makes sense for women 55 or older and men to have to pay for insurance to cover pregnancy/abortion?

 

That probably says as much about Hillary Clinton if not more than Donald Trump. What folks who supported Hillary don't know or won't acknowledge is how much disliked she was and how inept of a campaign she ran. She let Trump out work her, out campaign her, even out strategized her. Trump concentrated on the electoral college, Clinton on running up the score by trying to capture Arizona and Georgia and not paying attention to what was her blue line.

I could run the numbers by you again, but I think I have done so numerous times. Last years election was more about whom the electorate didn't want as president as to whom they did. According to CNN half of Trump's 46% of the vote was an anti-Clinton vote. That could mean only 23% of the electorate actually wanted him as president. Somewhere between 23% and those who had a positive view of him or his favorable rating of 36%. The lowest ever of any presidential candidate since Gallup started to keep track of these things back during FDR. Hillary Clinton was right behind him, the second worst in history at 38%. Goldwater back in 1964 had held the lowest at 43% until these two came along.

It's simple, we have who we have as president as a direct result of whom the two major parties chose last year as their nominees. By picking Trump the Republicans were trying to hand the presidency to the Democrats on a silver platter. But the Democrats threw it back at the GOP by nominating Clinton. Their choice. But look what that choice lead to. Any other Democrat would have won by 15 points. The way I look at it, both parties got what they wanted and deserve. Not what America deserves, but what both major parties deserve.

 

You are exaggerating the number the CBO claimed would be covered...and where they were off it was because of SPECIFIC changes in how the ACA was administered

 

It is true that only 2.9 million more Americans preferred that she be president. She was a poor choice for '16, and she and the Democratic Party failed to address the needs of one of their key traditional constituencies, White, older, blue collar workers - while Trump promised them the moon and the stars.

 

I think you can throw in most of the third party voters who would have gone to the Democratic nominee if it had been someone else other than Clinton. 8 million people voted third party last year. According to the exit polls, most were independents, not affiliated with either party. 12% of all independents voted third party. Compare those numbers to 2012 and 2008, 1.5 million voted third party in 2012 and 1.2 million in 2008. That's a four fold increase in third party voters since 2012.

Gallup had shown that 54% of all independents disliked both major party candidates. Yes, Trump promised the working class the moon while Hillary was promising to be the third Obama term. The moon won. By that I mean Obama won the union household vote by 18 points in 2012, Hillary by 9 points. She could have used those votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now a lot of that was Hillary's own fault. She never visited Wisconsin, Trump did five times. Hillary made it to Michigan only once vs. six trips for Trump. See a pattern here. Pennsylvania, Trump 8, Clinton 5 closer. Even in Florida which was close and electoral vote rich, Trump 13 visits or rallies to Hillary's 8.

Over all Hillary made 71 campaign stops to Trump's 116. Some of Hillary's campaign stops were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. One has to wonder if she didn't take the election for granted. Everyone, including I was saying she would win.