Home | About | Donate

'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Files Legal Brief Aiming to Kick 20 Million Off Health Insurance in Middle of Pandemic

What is her position on the GATS trade agreements’ capture of services? (why all this is happening)

The Medicaid expansion was long overdue and has saved and improved thousands of lives despite not being implemented in some states. The rest of the law should be discarded. Neoliberal high deductible private insurance with unaffordable cost sharing and balance billing is a monstrosity and if Trump wants to destroy this I am all in. We need, we must have something better especially in a pandemic. All that nonsense about Barrack Obama’s “signature” “landmark” "achievement is growing old when faced with the reality of more and more medical bankruptcies. The left needs to realize that except for the medical expansion they have been had by the Heritage Foundation and other right wing think tanks. There is a reason Republicans have kept their distance from this unaffordable, unworkable scheme to allow insurance companies to sell worthless insurance and then force patients, many of whom are sick and dying to come up with most of the cash or have their net worth destroyed with unpayable loans.

2 Likes

Wasn’t Obamacare exactly ten years, as of March or some such?

Did you realize that the whole situation is controlled by WTO rules, not US rules?

What makes you think the court would be fine with M4A if it is willing to ditch the ACA on the silliest of arguments?

1 Like

Not sure they actually believe. It’s a way of controlling the “believers”. To them, god is the reason and excuse for man to do the work of the devil.

2 Likes

God doesn’t do that. God stood down when he was elected. Americans need to vote to do that. Sorry.

AGREED. IF there be a God and Satan, i second your sentiment. Personally I see more of Satan’s influence these days than ever in my lifetime, a LONG time.

1 Like

In order to ‘make the ACA better’ the private medical insurance Gods needs to be happy with a drastic drop in their profits. And I do not see that happening. Those monsters have not had to do a bloody damn thing but stomp their bashing-boots hard on our heads to make us behave and deny healthcare. I had ACA insurance the year prior to my medicare kicking in and it was great except the carrier in OR one day sent out letters saying they were done, profits taking a hit and they could not’ SURVIVE’ the onslaught of being good providers of insurance anymore. No warning, no advice. Just screw you very much. Does anyone really believe they will act responsibly now because olJoe asks nicely?

This could be the reason for Trumps attack on the ACA with no apparent replacement. His narcissistic mind is like a roller-coaster, after the Tulsa rally he’s in a valley, and feeling sorry for himself, and might believe this is his last chance to do the damage his rich buddies want,

(h)ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-seemingly-tells-sean-hannity-that-biden-will-win-saying-hes-going-to-be-your-president / The Daily Beast (with video)

1 Like

Probably not the best idea if you actually want it to become law, the Sanders name is tainted almost as badly as Mudd’s among many, if not most, of us who gave blood, sweat, and tears (as well as quite a bit of cash) to his “campaigns” for nearly a decade. You surely don’t expect DNC loyalists or Reptards to support anything that smacks of Sander’s campaign rhetoric, do you?!

1 Like

This situation may originate in a tremendously stupid WTO treaty we participate in!

For that reason, if Trump succeeds in eliminating the ACA, (which may have been time-limited from the start) its possible that the rigid one way street ideology, because WTO mandates a one way street to privatization. (progressive liberalization)

The ACA itself may have been a violation of a standstill we signed in 1998. (its effective weight is Feb 26, 1998)

That date may be a ceiling on regulation, which would be a very bad situation for people with illnesses that exist when they purchase their policy. (“pre-existing conditions”) Insurance is generally for new illnesses. insurance is not suited to covering existing or chronic illnesses.

Its possible that that date’s regulatory situation is the official default.

(SPECULATION BUT SUPPORTED BY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION ) Subsequent increases in regulation may only be permitted if they are associated with a emergency?

(If they violate GATS rules which are pretty strict. the rules only apply when partial subsidies i.e. “on a commercial basis” - in the US healthcare is on a commercial basis, for example. Some other countries are exempt, such as Canada where healthcare is not, its free, also there are no competing payers in Canada in the narrow healthcare for human beings market) Different rules apply to Medicare because its only for retired people and is a part of Social Security as far as GATS is concerned…

GATS also applies if money is are involved or a healthcare system has one or more competitors . Some healthcare setups are included in GATS commitments but even more countries avoided committing healthcare programs. The US however did commit many healthcare areas including health insurance. So we may be stuck with this situation unless we leave GATS.)

In the case of the ACA, that emergency is likely the 2008 global financial crisis. There may be a 10 year time limit for exceptions. I dont know. I’m not a lawyer. All I know is that a standstill exists on financial services, and health insurance is a financial service.

Foreign countries see US patients as a huge potential source of money to fund their underfunded healthcare systems.

Just basing this on things that I have read on global governance organization web sites, foreign “activist” foreign countries likely frame US “subsidies” as depriving them of these low income customers who have pre-existing conditions whom they may say should not be subsidized by the US government any more than they were in Feb 1998.

Because of these comitments they may be proposing that they are in a sense entitled to that business. (Since they are cheaper and those Americans cannot afford it without help here)

A similar situation may exist with potentially tens of millions (or possibly more jobs) since we joined the GATS in 1994, however negotiations over the details have repeatedly broken down.

Instead they want to provide them with services elsewhere, and they want US government payment mechanisms to allow the use of eligible peoples Social Security and Medicare funds to pay for them (currently that is prohibited) Because its cheaper, we can expect that the chance is that this kind of arrangement might become the norm when people receive subsidies because it would support more price differentiation/tiering.

~http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/872051468141297222/pdf/wps3667.pdf

2 Likes

you left out giving SS money to wall street investors (and manditory ID/tracking chips implanted at birth).

You’re right about that. I meant only to give Bernie some credit for being probably the only prominent voice for M4A during the past five years.

Sheepdogs bark, Judas sheep lead the flocks to slaughter, and yet both are always spared the fate of those flocks they protect from outside evils while doing the bidding of those who earn profits from their flock’s slaughter…

1 Like

I think Marx said much the same thing when Marx called religion the opiate of the people.

Look, the reason the ACA is being rolled back is that it was doomed from the start as we committed financial services under GATS, meaning set a ceiling on how much they could be regulated, and how. And that ceiling was established in February 1998. That was it’s ceiling.

So everything added since them was impermanent. I am guessing that the time limit is ten years.

Privatizing (or expanding) Medicare a little will probably be successful in killing both it and Social Security. (Of which it is supposed to be a part)

Social Security doesnt work for guest slavery anyway because engineer and other professional people who are making US minimum wage cant afford to have money taken out and shouldnt. They should also be allowed to bring that money back to India or wherever they come from.

The argument is that Americans expect too much from business. So they plan to replace us in large numbers. Thats why they claim its not worth it. (healthcare) they basically are washing their hands of the responsibilities but keeping the profits. And of course, the GOP is worse, so fuck us.

Back to your cells.

1 Like

When exactly do we become armed citizens. Protest marches are needed on too many levels and instances.

1 Like

Correct. There’s more than enough psychopathy to go around. I’m tired of the focus on Trump.

1 Like

No because Bernie left some key facts out.

If we want to be accurate we should call it Single Payer because thats the only name that avoids confusion and possible horrible pitfalls if we were dumb enough to expand Medicare without leaving GATS first…