UN warned Trump that ObamaCare repeal could violate international law

[Renae]

Well, when that 50% only earn about 10% of all income, that 2.5% is indeed a rip-off.

But, you keep defending the rich. I get a kick out of seeing poor people argue for rich ones.

You miss the forest for the trees, as usual

 

[AlbqOwl]

UN warned Trump that ObamaCare repeal could violate international law | Fox News

I think the UN can go fly off a cliff.

Amen to that and I hope all the others whose role in life is to tell the rest of us what we are required to think, believe, and how we are to react and behave in order to be as acceptable and noble and as 'nice people' as they are will follow them.

 

[calamity]

You miss the forest for the trees, as usual

If we left it up to you there would be no more forest and the only trees would all be on someone's private property.

 

[apdst]

Well, when that 50% only earn about 10% of all income, that 2.5% is indeed a rip-off.

But, you keep defending the rich. I get a kick out of seeing poor people argue for rich ones.

What do you suggest be done?

 

[HailTrump]

UN warned Trump that ObamaCare repeal could violate international law | Fox News

I think the UN can go fly off a cliff.

Does the UN seriously want Obamacare to stay as it is and have no insurers providing care, thus all users become uninsured? I wonder?

 

[chromium]

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. The UN is a cluster **** that has no teeth without American involvement. Further...it thinks dealing with OUR health care is relevant? When our health care industry allows other nations to have access to cheap generic medications?

:eye roll:

The UN is a bunch of pretentious European socialist asshole moochers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um the entire world is socialist just about, especially with health care and yeah, laws that lead to the early death of millions is a big deal to any global organization. It's basically corporate genocide and it's perfectly reasonable to say "This is the point where national sovereignty crosses the line"

Throwing the sick off health care is something the nazis did routinely. Yeah, it's a fair comparison. I'd rather get a bullet than be told by HMO "Sorry you're sick now, you can't renew coverage for under $24k (AARP estimate of latest republican scheme), time to let nature take its course" We are not sierre leone, there's no excuse for this

 

[chromium]

So, are you saying that if Obamacare was repealed that there would be no health insurance? Seems like I remember there was health insurance before Obamacare.

costs all around have skyrocketed since then and yeah, there would be additional 24 million uninsured under the free market. To them there would be no health insurance

You really need to ask why the republican plan failed so utterly

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's the funny part about liberals defending Obamacare. They're perfectly fine with taxpayers footing the bill for higher and higher health insurance premiums, making the insurance company's CEO's richer and richer.

So long as the illusion remains that ever higher federal government spending has no "real" cost to the (half?) that pay no federal income tax then congress critters from both parties will continue to do so. Note that a simple repeal of PPACA's "help" (defined as federal health care subsidies) is now not even a talking point - we are "negotiating" how much of the PPACA increase in federal medical care subsidies is OK to keep and, of course, eventually add to. Subsidies do not make the cost of X go down - they merely change who is paying that cost.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Translation: taking from the poor to give to the rich.

Nope giving less is not taking anything. You have decided that federal subsidies (once given?)are deserved (become a new right?) and that they may never, ever, be decreased. Subsidies do not decrease the cost of X - they merely change who is paying that cost and, by clever use of borrowing, when.

 

[Moderate Right]

So long as the illusion remains that ever higher federal government spending has no "real" cost to the (half?) that pay no federal income tax then congress critters from both parties will continue to do so. Note that a simple repeal of PPACA's "help" (defined as federal health care subsidies) is now not even a talking point - we are "negotiating" how much of the PPACA increase in federal medical care subsidies is OK to keep and, of course, eventually add to. Subsidies do not make the cost of X go down - they merely change who is paying that cost.

Exactly. And, it just boggles my mind that the left is so willing to take money away from taxpayers and just hand it over to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies, no questions asked.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I said that....

Not in the post to which I replied - unless you consider an insurance company to actually provide medical care rather than to simply (partially) reimburse those that did.

 

[joG]

Exactly. And, it just boggles my mind that the left is so willing to take money away from taxpayers and just hand it over to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies, no questions asked.

Why? Would you prefer turning it over to government bureaucrats or better to the poor to use as they require?

 

[joG]

So long as the illusion remains that ever higher federal government spending has no "real" cost to the (half?) that pay no federal income tax then congress critters from both parties will continue to do so. Note that a simple repeal of PPACA's "help" (defined as federal health care subsidies) is now not even a talking point - we are "negotiating" how much of the PPACA increase in federal medical care subsidies is OK to keep and, of course, eventually add to. Subsidies do not make the cost of X go down - they merely change who is paying that cost.

Most people do not understand that the direct recipents of government transfers are often the ones that lose most from that transfer payment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly. And, it just boggles my mind that the left is so willing to take money away from taxpayers and just hand it over to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies, no questions asked.

Don't think, for even a minute, that only congress critters on "the left" are reluctant to cut off "free" federal money now being pumped into their state/district. It is not "the left" that is preventing "the right" in the House from simply proposing (far?) less in federal subsidies - it is knowing that a cut to John (Jane and their cute little offspring) Doe's federal subsidy will have a political price to be paid. The many folks that get a (small?) break from paying higher premiums/taxes are not likely to make the evening news - but the few that lose their federal subsidies will include many that do make the evening news.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Most people do not understand that the direct recipents of government transfers are often the ones that lose most from that transfer payment.

That point is likely too deep to be accepted. It all be for the chillruns - just wait (about 50 years?) and the rainbows and unicorns will surely appear. If one defines poverty as a lack of income, rather than the lack of personal, social and educational skills to earn that income, then direct personal transfer payments "fix" poverty. Conversely, if one sees poverty as a natural result of a lack of personal, social and educational skills to earn an income then direct personal transfer payments are simply a reward for said failure.

 

[Moderate Right]

Don't think, for even a minute, that only congress critters on "the left" are reluctant to cut off "free" federal money now being pumped into their state/district. It is not "the left" that is preventing "the right" in the House from simply proposing (far?) less in federal subsidies - it is knowing that a cut to John (Jane and their cute little offspring) Doe's federal subsidy will have a political price to be paid. The many folks that get a (small?) break from paying higher premiums/taxes are not likely to make the evening news - but the few that lose their federal subsidies will include many that do make the evening news.

That's why I am against both Obamacare (and "fixing" it) and the Republican plan. Neither one does much to decrease health care costs. The left uses taxpayer subsidies to decrease health care costs while the right give tax credits for decreasing health care costs - same thing. Both plans take taxpayer money and give it to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies. My main gripe is the hypocrisy of the left in saying that they are against making the rich richer and yet they have absolutely no qualms at all about taking taxpayer dollars and handing them over at an ever increasing rate to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies instead of actually working to decrease health care costs.

 

[joG]

The UN Wants to be the World Government, the world isn't ready for such, certainly not the stupidity of the UN's "governance"

If the UN begins to guarantee and enforce the world population from aggression by their elites and foreign powers, I would begin to take the type complaint this is half seriously. But an organization that lets populations across Africa, South America and Asia starve and bleed isn't worth listening to.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's why I am against both Obamacare (and "fixing" it) and the Republican plan. Neither one does much to decrease health care costs. The left uses taxpayer subsidies to decrease health care costs while the right give tax credits for decreasing health care costs - same thing. Both plans take taxpayer money and give it to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies. My main gripe is the hypocrisy of the left in saying that they are against making the rich richer and yet they have absolutely no qualms at all about taking taxpayer dollars and handing them over at an ever increasing rate to the rich CEO's of health insurance companies instead of actually working to decrease health care costs.

Income inequality is simply a ruse to support growth in (mainly federal) government spending but funded (mainly, if not only) by those (evil?) others. Say anything bad about any other tiny minority (aren't they merely the economically top 1% to 10%) in the US and you will be branded a "hater". Income redistribution is a winning political position (it gets congress critters re-elected at over a 90% rate) - you take from a few and give to many more and each of them get one vote on the matter.

 

[cuban smokes]

Shouldn't the UN be focusing on more important issues like..... preventing war or nuclear weapons being launched in the sky?

actually the 'so called' leadership within the US Government should be the ones attempting to reign in the bellicose rhetoric concerning war BUT instead they are the very ones pushing for war; Trump, Pence, Tillerson, McCain, and others

why should the UN be focused on preventing war when we have those in within our own nation already in place to demonstrate their abilities to lead & to prevent armed conflict, or worse, near global extinction?

all we currently have in DC are a few idiots Hell bent on showing who has the biggest set of balls; they could care less about the millions, or billions that will suffer & die just because they are flexing their egos .............

Trump has demonstrated he has no problem pissing gasoline on a fire when it comes to Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, ............. who is next? .......


and who is gonna go & fight Little Donnies ego tantrums for him?

 

[sookster]

Is the Government paying for my car insurance?

Is the government paying for your health insurance?

 

[ocean515]

The UN Wants to be the World Government, the world isn't ready for such, certainly not the stupidity of the UN's "governance"

Exactly right. Why do people think Maurice Strong created the Global Warming initiative in 1992?

 

[Nap]

When the constitution gives license to defend the wealth of the rich while denying healthcare to the poor, it's time to scrap it.

Yep, it is completely irrational that in a free country that people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. We should all be slaves to the government and let them make all of our life choices because we are obviously to ignorant to make our own decisions.

 

[calamity]

Yep, it is completely irrational that in a free country that people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. We should all be slaves to the government and let them make all of our life choices because we are obviously to ignorant to make our own decisions.

A case for that can certainly be made.

 

[Moderate Right]

A case for that can certainly be made.

The only case is that government is corrupt and wasteful, not efficient and doesn't know what they are doing. The bigger the government the more that is true.

 

[calamity]

The only case is that government is corrupt and wasteful, not efficient and doesn't know what they are doing. The bigger the government the more that is true.

Unless you need to drive across the country on an interstate or fly from or into an airport :roll: