Trump Just CALLED Schumer's BLUFF

[Joe Riley]

 

[Don Alaska]

The passage of Obamacare, i.e., the ACA otherwise known as the "bill we have to p[ass to see what's in it" has destroyed American healthcare. I was in the system for almost 60 years and i watched it degrade slowly, but the ACA greatly accelerated that decline, especially at the primary care level. The American government agencies once performed non-biased research into health issues, but that has become the realm of Big Pharma whose research is directed at their own profits and they regulated have actually become the regulators as was best demonstrated during the Covid pandemic when doctors were condemned and threatened for treating patients as they saw fit and where physician's legal prescriptions were denied because Big Pharma wanted to sell their products instead of simple products that have proven safe and effective for decades or generations. Primary care doctors are now replaced by mid-level practitioners--PAs and NPs--and many doctors were forced into retirement either by regulations, threats of audits, or by lack of reimbursement for services rendered. The ACA was failure from the start, but the Democrats have hung their hats on it and insist on continuing subsidies both to funnel more taxpayer dollars to the pharm companies that donate heavily to their campaigns and to support a filed system that they preached to the masses as "affordable healthcare for everyone" when it was nothing of the kind and was designed to funnel money to drug companies while destroying the infrastructure in order to put a single-payer system in place as a replacement as Canada has done.

It is all so sad.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

YouTube is good for entertainment, but it's definitely not a reliable source of information.

 

[Marie Mallory]

Have you heard this from Trump, first few minutes are so true,

 

[Nancy Hart]

... The ACA was failure from the start, but the Democrats have hung their hats on it and insist on continuing subsidies both to funnel more taxpayer dollars to the pharm companies that donate heavily to their campaigns and to support a filed system that they preached to the masses as "affordable healthcare for everyone" when it was nothing of the kind and was designed to funnel money to drug companies while destroying the infrastructure in order to put a single-payer system in place as a replacement as Canada has done.

It is all so sad.

Don, don't you agree you could say the exact same thing about Medicare Advantage (Part C), and Part D? They both waste the money contributed to Medicare on private insurance companies. All 3 came about due to compromises between the R's and the D's. The R's have always wanted to privatize healthcare. It's there in writing in Project 2025 now. No one gets exactly what they want in a Democracy.

Would you really rather have contributed to a personal health savings plan, instead of Medicare, and lose the little bit of leverage the federal government still has over private insurance companies to force them to do at least some of the right things?

 

[Don Alaska]

Don, don't you agree you could say the exact same thing about Medicare Advantage (Part C), and Part D? They both waste the money contributed to Medicare on private insurance companies. All 3 came about due to compromises between the R's and the D's. The R's have always wanted to privatize healthcare. It's there in writing in Project 2025 now. No one gets exactly what they want in a Democracy.

Would you really rather have contributed to a personal health savings plan, instead of Medicare, and lose the little bit of leverage the federal government still has over private insurance companies to force them to do at least some of the right things?

This may be more than you want @Nancy Hart but here goes:
Original Medicare (Part A) did little harm. The "original" Part B was when the problems began. Under Medicare Part B as originally established, the Federal government picked up 50% of the capital improvements to hospitals based on the number of Medicare-eligible people treated by the institution, i.e., capital improvements were funded more heavily in areas that treated more seniors. This led to hospitals and large clinics "recruiting" Medicare patients much in the same way as they do Medicaid patients today. Under the old Part A Medicare, institutions shared facilities such as scanners and surgical specialties, as well as diagnostics. Once Medicare B came into existence, every facility tried to recruit eligible patients so they could each have their own CT, MRI, high-tech labs, etc. That changed the Standard of Care over time and led to an increase in health care costs for those covered by private insurance and even the old Medicare Part A. As a result, something called DRGs were established and the reimbursement was eliminated to try to control the rapidly escalating medical costs. If you are at all familiar with DRGs (Diagnosis-Related Groups), a hospital for example would only be paid for an original diagnosis. Say you were hospitalized for pneumonia but while you were hospitalized, you had a stroke or heart attack. The hospital would be reimbursed (at a low rate) for treating the pneumonia but, while legally required to care for the stroke or MI, the hospital would receive nothing in the way of payment. This led to diagnoses being put off and eventually pushing as much as possible to outpatient care to reduce the probability of further medical entanglements. If they can get you out of the hospital and your stroke or other issue occurs AFTER discharge, you can be readmitted and then the facility would be paid at least something.

If you watch the EOBs (Explanation of Benefits) that you receive, you may see that the bill will be substantially greater than what is paid. That is in part due to the way Medicare reimburses and the amounts vary by state and region, or at least did when I retired. Medicare would reimburse for a certain percentage of what is billed up to an established maximum for each procedure. That means the hospital or clinic has to overbill to make sure they get the established maximum, which is still generally less than what the procedure cost the facility. The problem then lies in the Federal law that states you cannot bill Medicare more than you bill others payors. Most insurance companies have negotiated payment schedules with "networks" of providers to pay less than is billed but usually more than what Medicare pays. That is in part why most insurance plans have "in-network" providers. This goes on and on, but you get the gist of that.

When Part C was established, that was a way for insurance companies to get more money from the government. I didn't have to deal with that aspect much, so I can't give an educated point of view on that. When Part D was established, however, President George W. Bush expressly stated that he would not sign the bill if it allowed the Medicare system to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma as Canada and most governments do. I suspect, but do not know, that this was a payback for contributions they made to his campaigns. Much of Congress also receives large payments from Big Pharma, especially the Senate with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren being the biggest recipients...at least in the public statements, so that has not been changed and the U.S. has been funding the drug research for the rest of the world for decades, since higher drug costs in the U.S. preceded the establishment of Part D.

Would I rather pay into a Health Savings Plan? Maybe. I would like the option to do so at least. I have one son who is in one of the healthcare cost sharing plans and he pays significantly less for healthcare than most people. The Federal government would have huge leverage with insurance companies, drug companies, and healthcare providers if it chose to do so, but the graft and corruption on both sides of the aisle in Congress prevents that from happening. That is why we pay far more for equivalent healthcare than any other developed nation, and our care except for emergency care and surgery is below the standards of other nations who pay much less for it.

 

[Mary Stetler]

Trump is floating an idea of giving money directly to citizens to find the insurance they want with it as opposed to government direction. Kind of like an HSA.

 

[Mary Stetler]

I don't know why they keep AI-ing Elon Musk to make these posts. HIs hair flipping at the part annoys me.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

No matter how you slice it, who set it up, who's right or wrong, the bottom line is there $billions taken by Medicare scams.

National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud

 

[Don Alaska]

The governor of New York has backed away from Mamdani even though she endorsed him for mayor. Free busses alone would cost New York City almost a billion dollars, and when Hockel did the math, she almost fainted. Universal free child care would cost an estimated 5 billion dollars. He also miscalculated the tax increase on millionaires and billionaires and discovered his threatened tax increases would not bring in anywhere enough money to pay for his promises, especially when both and state subsidies may disappear.

 

[Axel Slingerland]

I don't know why they keep AI-ing Elon Musk to make these posts. HIs hair flipping at the part annoys me.

Money. That Channel has YouTube monetization, has YouTube ads, etc. for multiple revenue streams.

The governor of New York has backed away from Mamdani even though she endorsed him for mayor.

That happens a lot. Look at all the people that voted for Trump and ended up not liking what he's been doing. That is one of the key reasons why I don't like Political partys.

 

[Don Alaska]

@Nancy Hart this may help your drug price issues. It would prevent anyone form raising drug prices above the lowest in the developed world. In other words, it would bring drug prices down to the Canadian and Japanese levels. I know it is a Trump program, so you may want to continue to go through Canada, but this at least would be another option. It is a Godsend for those on insulin especially, but it won't start until the beginning of the calendar year.

TrumpRx: How the Drug Pricing Program Works

TrumpRx is a federal government initiative centered around a new website, TrumpRx.gov, slated to launch in early 2026. The primary stated goal is to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans by creating a new pathway for purchasing medications directly from manufacturers at discounted...

govfacts.org

 

[Nancy Hart]

@Nancy Hart this may help your drug price issues. It would prevent anyone form raising drug prices above the lowest in the developed world. In other words, it would bring drug prices down to the Canadian and Japanese levels. I know it is a Trump program, so you may want to continue to go through Canada, but this at least would be another option. It is a Godsend for those on insulin especially, but it won't start until the beginning of the calendar year.

TrumpRx: How the Drug Pricing Program Works

TrumpRx is a federal government initiative centered around a new website, TrumpRx.gov, slated to launch in early 2026. The primary stated goal is to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans by creating a new pathway for purchasing medications directly from manufacturers at discounted...

govfacts.org

Thanks Don. I only signed up for Part D because they said you had to when you turned 65, or else you would pay a penalty forever, for each month you did not sign up, if you tried to later. Who knows what the future brings. Frankly I've never used Plan D because I've rarely used Rx drugs, except for little things like antibiotics maybe a pain killer or two over the years. Only recently did I discover how it worked.

I just don't like the way it's set up. I don't like throwing away Medicare money that the young people have to contribute to, and their premiums keep going up because of these retirement plans. And then one side fights like crazy to keep from offering similar plans for those not retired that don't have access to insurance, unless the insurance companies get a big cut.

 

[Nancy Hart]

This may be more than you want @Nancy Hart but here goes:
... Much of Congress also receives large payments from Big Pharma, especially the Senate with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren being the biggest recipients...at least in the public statements, so that has not been changed and the U.S. has been funding the drug research for the rest of the world for decades, since higher drug costs in the U.S. preceded the establishment of Part D.

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes details of how these plans were hammered out. Just the legislation that passed. But I'll quibble with the above. Of all the Senators, I don't think Sanders and Warren are anywhere near the top recipients of Big Pharma money. That is a false claim made by RFK Jr. during his confirmation hearing.

 

[Don Alaska]

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes details of how these plans were hammered out. Just the legislation that passed. But I'll quibble with the above. Of all the Senators, I don't think Sanders and Warren are anywhere near the top recipients of Big Pharma money. That is a false claim made by RFK Jr. during his confirmation hearing.

I read it in other sources, but I can't confirm it absolutely.

 

[Mary Stetler]

I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes details of how these plans were hammered out. Just the legislation that passed. But I'll quibble with the above. Of all the Senators, I don't think Sanders and Warren are anywhere near the top recipients of Big Pharma money. That is a false claim made by RFK Jr. during his confirmation hearing.

They are definitely paying more senators than those two.

 

[Don Alaska]

They are definitely paying more senators than those two.

MANY Congress folks on both sides are being paid both by Big Pharma and Big Insurance. That is why things are as they are.

 

[Bobby Cole]

The passage of Obamacare, i.e., the ACA otherwise known as the "bill we have to p[ass to see what's in it" has destroyed American healthcare. I was in the system for almost 60 years and i watched it degrade slowly, but the ACA greatly accelerated that decline, especially at the primary care level. The American government agencies once performed non-biased research into health issues, but that has become the realm of Big Pharma whose research is directed at their own profits and they regulated have actually become the regulators as was best demonstrated during the Covid pandemic when doctors were condemned and threatened for treating patients as they saw fit and where physician's legal prescriptions were denied because Big Pharma wanted to sell their products instead of simple products that have proven safe and effective for decades or generations. Primary care doctors are now replaced by mid-level practitioners--PAs and NPs--and many doctors were forced into retirement either by regulations, threats of audits, or by lack of reimbursement for services rendered. The ACA was failure from the start, but the Democrats have hung their hats on it and insist on continuing subsidies both to funnel more taxpayer dollars to the pharm companies that donate heavily to their campaigns and to support a filed system that they preached to the masses as "affordable healthcare for everyone" when it was nothing of the kind and was designed to funnel money to drug companies while destroying the infrastructure in order to put a single-payer system in place as a replacement as Canada has done.

It is all so sad.

Everyone should have known how bad Obamacare would be when the website went from a 1.7 Billion dollar estimate to 5 billion beans of taxpayer money and paid to a Canadian website developer.

 

[Don Alaska]

Everyone should have known how bad Obamacare would be when the website went from a 1.7 Billion dollar estimate to 5 billion beans of taxpayer money and paid to a Canadian website developer.

Barney Franks all those years ago said the the ACA would either lead to single-payer government based healthcare, or the entire system would collapse under the weight of added costs. It is all now coming to fruition and will have to be supported with higher and higher subsidies, or it will be replaced by "something".