Trump is trying to crash health care market.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_591f541be4b034684b0c6212?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Read it and weep.

That could be his undoing. Insurance companies aren't to be trifled with.

He told them no more cost sharing payments unless they support the Republican nonplan. Which would be illegal I believe. Congress allocated the money and he is refusing to release it. There are court rulings going back to Andrew Jackson with the Bank of the United States saying Presidents can't do that.

It's burnt into my head, in the 00's some Fox News pundit said words to the effect of "I'm so tired of being told that if I'm conservative/Republican, then I want to see little old ladies thrown out on the street...".

Well, that's what they're about, fella.
If that sits badly with you, swap parties.
Even libertarian would be better.

They want to deliberately crash the health care market then they will lie and claim "it was always unstable and it fell apart on its own; we didn't do anything". When in fact it was Republicans constantly changing rules just to destabilize the market and refusing to pay allocated and authorized subsidies which did it.

If legal, Trump should not make any payment that would continue Obamacare. None. Healthcare is not a right.

Muffington Post, nuff said.

So they are the federal fetus of the news world.

in fact, a very great deal of the ACA's current difficulties were already created on purpose by Ryan Republicans in Congress before Trump was ever elected.

All this "some states only have one provider left"? Ryan and his crew caused that.
Those gigantic rate increases that coincidentally occurred during election year? Ditto.

Well, healthcare is a right -- but not in the sense you're thinking of. You'd be correct in saying by 'right' we can't force others to provide said care [without compensation for time]. But expecting healthcare is a right.
Afterall, ER's can't turn people away for inability to pay; health care professionals operate under the maxim, "Do no harm."
This right, unlike others, isn't a black and white issue, as both sides of the aisle would like to think it is, but is a very nuanced grey.

In addition to healthcare should we give them guaranteed income, housing, transportation, food and phones? Should all people be guaranteed these comforts and necessities? Should expecting these things also be a right?

Yes, we can now provide all of those things so we should. I am not saying luxury accommodations, but we should have guaranteed food, shelter, medical treatment, transportation, electricity, communications (phone and internet), basic tv, and employment for profit to get better than the minimum.

Food and shelter just has to be minimum healthiness levels for survival. You get a room and you have electricity and communications in that room. You get a basic phone with a browser. You get your basic tv channels. I am not talking about even giving people Doritos or coke. You can get by with generic food and it can be limited to healthy options. You have the internet so you can go get a job whenever you want, and then you earn better things based on capitalism. I can it the inconvenient annoying minimum. You do not be choice or luxury. If you can live like that then be a mooch on the system, but most people will want and need better than some blank room and the basics. However, it keeps you out of becoming homeless and getting trapped into poverty because you cannot crawl it of the gutter without some place to clean up and be acceptable for employment.

Trump's budget is also calling for $800 million cut from Medicaid: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/medicaid-budget-cuts/index.html

I'd argue health is the glue that holds together "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Can't have liberty without motility, and can't have motility without a healthy body.
Can't have life without health.
Can't pursue happiness without life and liberty, and as shown above, can't have those without health.

Look at at that, with that one argument, I'm smarter than all the "originalists", that ever drew breath.
Huh, guess they're wrong, and they devoted their lives to folly.
Sucks to be them.

These fuckers are worse than the ransomware hackers.
The hackers just didn't give a fuck that they were fucking up hospitals, the Repugs are willfully coming after our grannies like Jason Voorhees.

Lol, why do they need tv if they have the internet? Exactly who decides what "healthy options" these people are given? The government? What would the cutoff be for this assistance? Would there ever even be one?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...90-day-delay-in-obamacare-subsidy-suit-238674

Trump Admin asks court for 90 day delay on ruling about them withholding low income consumer subsidies from insurance companies. This tells me they know they will lose but they want to drag it out for as long as possible to hurt insurance companies as much as possible. That goal is two fold 1) Encourage as many as pissible to drop so Republicans can pretend "it was falling apart anywayy" when it was Republicans who crashed it 2) Punish healthcare providers for daring to publicly oppose the shit sandwich which is the Republican bill.

Medicaid is for the poor not the old like Medicare.

Oh, well, kill 'em then.

Are you trying to be dumb?

He doesn't have to try.

Yep, that's totally what @Dinner is saying.

You:

FTFY

Apology accepted.

We already have people who decide healthy needed options for WIC. Unlike SNAP you cannot purchase anything but options needed for pregnant women and growing children based upon medical information. We adjust the options for SNAP and eliminate snack foods, luxury foods, and unhealthy options. If people want those things they can work to earn them, but we will make sure you have food. I am sure the health section of the government can set it up.

As for a cut off you give them a weekly or daily allowance. If you are limiting options you can simply give them the food they get because you remove the monetary aspect from the basics. If you have money you can pay for better food with some sort of basic daily allowance to start with. Yes, it is a different system, but we can accomplish it. We even have a lot of the tools already in place in our commercial food distributors. You can already limit purchases to certain items when a person is using the ebt system. I agree that there should be no option to buy high end foods or junk food on public assistance. The reason those options are there is not poor people. It is because companies like General foods make profit off of SNAP and other public assistance programs while overcharging and offering unhealthy options.

I realize you aren't actually a Christian but for those out there that would like a Christian perspective on the healthcare debate:
http://www.americamagazine.org/poli...ocial-teaching-say-about-gop-health-care-plan

There wouldn't be, that's the point.

From WaPo:

The advocacy group Save My Care is out with a new Web video that shows Trump claiming that letting the Affordable Care Act explode is a good political move, because it can then be blamed on Democrats. The video also notes that, by refusing to say whether the administration will continue “cost-sharing subsidies,” Trump is actually “trying to make that happen.”

The refusal to clarify the fate of the cost-sharing subsidies does seem designed to stoke uncertainty about the markets so that insurers pull out and cause them to collapse, leaving millions uninsured.

* HOW TRUMP SABOTAGE COULD HURT WORKERS: Paul Krugman notes that Trump’s sabotaging of the individual markets could have an unexpected impact:

The Trump administration is effectively sabotaging individual insurance markets, so that in many cases Americans who lose employer coverage will have no place to turn — which will in turn tie those who do have such coverage to their current employers.

It is not often discussed, but the ACA has given many the freedom to move jobs without fearing the loss of coverage — another gain that Trump is now threatening to demolish. OpinionSo, let’s say Trump gets impeached. Then what?

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/22/did-trump-obstruct-justice-rod-rosenstein-may-have-just-provided-another-clue/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.ed45bb65e3c9

A Christian's obligation to help others does not come from government mandates. It also doesn't include OPM.