PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 24, 2017, 07:07:34 AM
-
The piece of legislation seems like a real loser from listening to folks talk about it. One thing I do not understand is, if the ACA was passed using reconciliation why the whole thing cannot be repealed via reconciliation?
The quickest way to lose the midterm elections is to pass this thing and have premiums and deductibles continue to rise.
This sounds like a pig that they are trying to put lipstick on.
It is hard to understand how they did not have something ready to go on day one that would have everyone ready to back it.
At this point why doesn't Tom Price change everything he can in the ACA through the 1400+ place where it the say the Secretary can or the Secretary may?
At this point it appears Ryan is incapable of truly leading the House and the fact that this thing was kept in a locked office, etc. is not a good thing.
I hope that the Freedom Caucus kills this thing at this point.
-
Absolutely, this is .NOT difficult and should be smooth, efficient and fast. I feel like they are hiding something ... it is very un-Trump-like to have this deal be unclear and awkward. To botch this is as bad as the Dems rushing the original thing into place.
http://www.michellesmirror.com/2017/03/whats-so-hard-about-repeal-and-replace.html#.WNUsnpFHahB
Repeal Obamacare entirely effective December 31, 2018 or upon the enactment of a replacement HIP law. Immediately eliminate all mandates, taxes, penalties and coverage requirement minimums. Continue the pre-existing condition mandate and allow children under 26 years of age to remain on their parents plan until 12/31/2018 or until replaced by a new HIP.
Enact a replacement HCI law doing the following:
Allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines.
Lower costs in Medicare & Medicaid
Negotiate maximum price for prescription drugs as is done everywhere in the civilized world.
Simplify Medicare by eliminating the absurd prescription “donut hole”
Require insurance companies to allow individuals to purchase any plan the insurance company offers to anyone, including any group plan whether the purchaser is a member of the group or not.
Prohibit health care providers, including pharmacies and medical device providers from charging uninsured higher amounts for products and services than they charge insurance companies.
Return Medicaid eligibility to pre-Obamacare standards, allowing states to establish different eligibility standards which would be self-funded by the state.
Permit states to establish work related requirements, co-pays and deductibles for Medicaid eligibility.
Allow taxpayers to receive a tax credit (not a refundable tax credit) for out of pocket health care and health care insurance costs including co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles.
Increase tax credit for contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSA) to $5,000 for an individual and remove the maximum limit on contributions. Remove all requirements that HSA participants be enrolled in any particular health insurance plan and allow HSA participants to enroll in any insurance plan of their choosing or not enroll in any plan at all.[quote/]
-
[sarcasm]
I hope they pass it because I don't know what is in it yet.
[/sarcasm]
-
I'm pissed at both sides. Ordinarily I'd be fully supporting the Freedom Caucus. However, I also believe Ryan is in a box because McConnell won't get off his ass and get rid of the Cloture rule for everything.
However, I sense the Freedom Caucus is moving the goalposts and are trying to flex their muscles.
Enough already you goddamn pussies. Pass this together, put the Dems on their heals, and keep pushing the agenda forward. Every fucking day these guys are playing games, the democrats are getting emboldened. Enough already.
-
I'm pissed at both sides. Ordinarily I'd be fully supporting the Freedom Caucus. However, I also believe Ryan is in a box because McConnell won't get off his ass and get rid of the Cloture rule for everything.
However, I sense the Freedom Caucus is moving the goalposts and are trying to flex their muscles.
Enough already you goddamn pussies. Pass this together, put the Dems on their heals, and keep pushing the agenda forward. Every fucking day these guys are playing games, the democrats are getting emboldened. Enough already.
Agree completely.
If this passes, then Trump can work on tax reform with an apparently unified, or at least manageable majority. That is more important to me than this.
If this doesn't pass then the rifts within the GOP, aided by the emboldened Democrats will make any future conservative legislationi that much harder.
And even if we don't love this bill, it is much better than Obamacare, AND it will be easier to revise later than the ACA was. The ACA was written with the intent of making it almost impossible to dismantle. It is being called "Obamacare light" because it is not as heavy-handed or as oppressive as Obamacare.
If I can't have a touchdown, I'd rather have a field goal than turning the ball over the the opposition.
-
I'm pissed at both sides. Ordinarily I'd be fully supporting the Freedom Caucus. However, I also believe Ryan is in a box because McConnell won't get off his ass and get rid of the Cloture rule for everything.
However, I sense the Freedom Caucus is moving the goalposts and are trying to flex their muscles.
Enough already you goddamn pussies. Pass this together, put the Dems on their heals, and keep pushing the agenda forward. Every fucking day these guys are playing games, the democrats are getting emboldened. Enough already.
If the result of passing this causes premiums and deductibles to continue to climb and the promised phase II and III never happen, you would be okay with that?
-
If the result of passing this causes premiums and deductibles to continue to climb and the promised phase II and III never happen, you would be okay with that?
I think dropping the required services should be a part of this bill, but apparently it's not. That was the Freedom Caucus' request on Wednesday. Today I hear they have a list of increased demands. That's moving the goal posts.
So it's not in the bill. This is where we're at. So do we NOT pass the bill today? Is that the solution - to keep Obamacare in place? Because that's the only solution on the table today.
And if that happens, then Trump, Ryan, the Freedom Caucus, the entire GOP caucus in both the House and Senate, and every single Trump voter loses. And the Dems win.
Unacceptable by any measure.
If the Freedom Caucus wants to continue being relevant, they can and must hold Ryan's feet to the fire to pass phase 2 and 3.
-
Just found this, very appropriate.
-
I think dropping the required services should be a part of this bill, but apparently it's not. That was the Freedom Caucus' request on Wednesday. Today I hear they have a list of increased demands. That's moving the goal posts.
So it's not in the bill. This is where we're at. So do we NOT pass the bill today? Is that the solution - to keep Obamacare in place? Because that's the only solution on the table today.
And if that happens, then Trump, Ryan, the Freedom Caucus, the entire GOP caucus in both the House and Senate, and every single Trump voter loses. And the Dems win.
Unacceptable by any measure.
If the Freedom Caucus wants to continue being relevant, they can and must hold Ryan's feet to the fire to pass phase 2 and 3.
I can hear the TV commercials now in 2018, Rep xyz voted for the AHCA and watched your premiums increase by 50%.
-
If the result of passing this causes premiums and deductibles to continue to climb and the promised phase II and III never happen, you would be okay with that?
No. I would not be ok with that.
But I would be pissed at them for not passing phase II and III.
And I will be pissed if premiums and deductibles don't come down, after a reasonable time period. I don't think there is anything that will bring the rates down in the first couple of years. The system has to staunch the bleeding before recovery an occur.
Given a choice, would you rather have this bill, or Obamacare?
-
The saddest thing is more people would retain coverage if they just 86'd Obamacare.
-
The saddest thing is more people would retain coverage if they just 86'd Obamacare.
Can you elaborate on that? I'd love to use a good argument for that with my in-laws.
-
Can you elaborate on that? I'd love to use a good argument for that with my in-laws.
I wish I could, but to be perfectly honest its just something I've read a number of times in the news. That said, the bill appears to be a reverse Robin hood in classic GOP style, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest were it true. If someone has facts that suggest otherwise I would love to see them.
-
I'm hoping this gets torpedoed. I'm just not happy with the lack of info about it and I'm not happy with it being rammed through. Ryan should have brought all the republican parties in to start, had that happened I think this would have been a better bill that would have sailed through. I say back to table and fix it. This deadline is an artificial one, I doubt the conservatives will be intimidated.
-
No. I would not be ok with that.
But I would be pissed at them for not passing phase II and III.
And I will be pissed if premiums and deductibles don't come down, after a reasonable time period. I don't think there is anything that will bring the rates down in the first couple of years. The system has to staunch the bleeding before recovery an occur.
Given a choice, would you rather have this bill, or Obamacare?
I also keep hearing about needing to pass this bill so Tom Price can start making the changes that he's allowed to. Since he is the HHS Secretary, why can't he start making changes now?
-
And this from a facebook post, I just don't know...
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION :
Statement on Upcoming House Healthcare Vote
(WASHINGTON DC) -- Conservatives find themselves in a difficult spot as they face the repugnance of Obamacare and the realities of passing an alternative that can win the support of majorities in both chambers.
The process of legislating is a practical exercise in which competing viewpoints get worked out. We must find a way to replace Obamacare’s centralized control of healthcare with the most free-market alternative that can pass the House and Senate.
As we approach the first step, which is the vote in the House, there are good conservative friends and allies on both sides of the debate. One reason for this is that House Leadership was disrespectful to conservative Members of Congress and conservative groups by hatching a highly complicated and controversial Obamacare replacement without collaboration and input from the conservative movement, the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
There are parts of the bill that conservatives applaud, including the bold step of defunding Planned Parenthood and preventing further support of the abortion industry with tax dollars. In addition, conservatives have demanded historic entitlement reforms in the Medicaid program through the ability to convert Medicaid funding into block grants. The repeal of the Obamacare taxes, the employer mandate, and the defanging of the individual mandate are all needed and positive changes.
As it stands, ACU believes there is a compelling enough case for the bill and conservatives should vote for it. Passing this bill will allow the legislative process and debate to continue about what additional improvements can be made. For this Congress to fail to pass an alternative would further cement Obamacare into our society, making any future plans to repeal it virtually impossible.
It is that simple and it is that perilous.
-
The problem with dismantling Planned Parenthood is they're the chief suppliers of contraceptive care to the poor. Moreover, if Obamacare is well and truly gutted, contraceptive care will be cut off to even more of the impoverished. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
-
What about abstinence, or using condoms which the poor can get free at clinics or other places?
-
Well, it looks like this bill is dead.
Now what?
-
What about abstinence, or using condoms which the poor can get free at clinics or other places?
Those choices have always been available. How well have they done? What has changed? Have young people become more conservative and practical?
-
Well, it looks like this bill is dead.
Now what?
WTF is wrong with Republicans? They voted >50 times to repeal Obamacare when they KNEW it wouldn't pass. Now they have a chance, and they screw it up.
Perhaps Democrats are right Republicans are much better at saying NO than they are at actually governing.
I hope I have enough scotch to get me through the weekend.
The GOP sucks.
-
WTF is wrong with Republicans? They voted >50 times to repeal Obamacare when they KNEW it wouldn't pass. Now they have a chance, and they screw it up.
Perhaps Democrats are right Republicans are much better at saying NO than they are at actually governing.
I hope I have enough scotch to get me through the weekend.
The GOP sucks.
The GOP does suck. There are TOO MANY Establishment Republicans who like Big, more Intrusive government, and higher taxes, they just don't say that like the Dems do. At least the Dems are honest about that.
-
Taking tax dollars away from Planned parenthood will not put them out of business. It is only a small part of their funding. Same thing goes for PBS and NPR.
-
Well, it looks like this bill is dead.
Now what?
Now EppyGA gets to keep Obamacare.
-
This bill needed to fail. It was terrible from the start. Further, the Republicans are in disarray. They've had 8 years to come up with a workable solution and all they needed to do was pull the bill off the shelf and introduce it. It's absolutely unacceptable that they've screwed it up this badly. Between President Trump and Speaker Ryan setting a made up deadline, not working with all the parties to begin with and then the President saying he'll leave Obamacare in place, the entire thing is a disaster.
Repeal Obamacare and let the states handle the rest. This is not a federal issue.
-
The problem with dismantling Planned Parenthood is they're the chief suppliers of contraceptive care to the poor. Moreover, if Obamacare is well and truly gutted, contraceptive care will be cut off to even more of the impoverished. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Or people could be adults and make responsible decisions.
-
WTF is wrong with Republicans? They voted >50 times to repeal Obamacare when they KNEW it wouldn't pass. Now they have a chance, and they screw it up.
Perhaps Democrats are right Republicans are much better at saying NO than they are at actually governing.
I hope I have enough scotch to get me through the weekend.
The GOP sucks.
The GOP does suck. There are TOO MANY Establishment Republicans who like Big, more Intrusive government, and higher taxes, they just don't say that like the Dems do. At least the Dems are honest about that.
It was a huge mistake to keep Paul Ryan as speaker. Also, having McConnell has Senate majority is a mistake as well.
You're now seeing the results. Pathetic.
-
Now EppyGA gets to keep Obamacare.
If he likes his Obamacare, he can keep his Obamacare.
I'm thinking about cancelling my voter registration. I thought about just registering for Independent or Libertarian, but I think I would rather just cancel it completely and stop worrying about what our "free" citizens do to themselves. I'll be dead before it all comes home to roost any way. I'm just going to start collecting my Social Security and accepting Medicare next month and let others give me free money. Even if I don't need it.
-
Or people could be adults and make responsible decisions.
As I said before, how well has that been working out lately?
Do you really believe there is any chance that society will suddenly do an about face? I don't.
-
As I said before, how well has that been working out lately?
Do you really believe there is any chance that society will suddenly do an about face? I don't.
So the federal government should step in and provide contraceptives? I don't need nor want the federal government that far into my life.
-
The problem with dismantling Planned Parenthood is they're the chief suppliers of contraceptive care to the poor. Moreover, if Obamacare is well and truly gutted, contraceptive care will be cut off to even more of the impoverished. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
That's a specious argument. What did the poor and impoverished do for contraception before Obamacare?
Abortion rates have been coming down for two decades, but was there a marked reduction in abortion rates since Obamacare magically provided contraceptives to the poor? No.
-
The problem with dismantling Planned Parenthood is they're the chief suppliers of contraceptive care to the poor. Moreover, if Obamacare is well and truly gutted, contraceptive care will be cut off to even more of the impoverished. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
That's a specious argument. What did the poor and impoverished do for contraception before Obamacare?
Abortion rates have been coming down for two decades, but was there a marked reduction in abortion rates since Obamacare magically provided contraceptives to the poor? No.
-
So the federal government should step in and provide contraceptives? I don't need nor want the federal government that far into my life.
No, I did not say that, and I did not mean that. But I do happen to be in favor of legal abortion.
You don't want the Federal government that far in your life, but you are fine with the Federal government deciding if a woman should get an abortion, regardless of circumstances or risks.
-
What about abstinence, or using condoms which the poor can get free at clinics or other places?
Condoms don't work at anything near 100% efficacy. Abstinence would be wonderful, but the reproductive drive has been evolving for millions of years and is the one constant in biology. That, and even the brightest people can make poor decisions. Contraception is a far more reliable method of birth control.
-
That's a specious argument. What did the poor and impoverished do for contraception before Obamacare?
Prior to Roe v. Wade they still got abortions, but they weren't sanitary or safe, and lots died.
Abortion rates have been coming down for two decades, but was there a marked reduction in abortion rates since Obamacare magically provided contraceptives to the poor? No.
The real problem is Obamacare never provided for the sort of expensive (up front) long term contraception that is truly effective. Things like IUDs and Norplant are effective for years and highly efficacious. I have read that these haven't been funded and aren't in use for those without private insurance. The sad thing is I think they're actually parsimonious compared to other methods of birth control (the pill isn't cheap), but the cost is all up front.
As I've said before, if someone has information to the contrary I'm all ears. I worry a great deal about politification of the sources I see. I miss Al Jazeera.
-
No, I did not say that, and I did not mean that. But I do happen to be in favor of legal abortion.
You don't want the Federal government that far in your life, but you are fine with the Federal government deciding if a woman should get an abortion, regardless of circumstances or risks.
No, I don't want the federal government involved in abortion at all. That's a state issue.
-
Prior to Roe v. Wade they still got abortions, but they weren't sanitary or safe, and lots died.
The real problem is Obamacare never provided for the sort of expensive (up front) long term contraception that is truly effective. Things like IUDs and Norplant are effective for years and highly efficacious. I have read that these haven't been funded and aren't in use for those without private insurance. The sad thing is I think they're actually parsimonious compared to other methods of birth control (the pill isn't cheap), but the cost is all up front.
As I've said before, if someone has information to the contrary I'm all ears. I worry a great deal about politification of the sources I see. I miss Al Jazeera.
Why do you think the federal government should be involved in health care or abortion and where do they derive this authority from?
-
No, I don't want the federal government involved in abortion at all. That's a state issue.
Right answer.
Legal abortion would be the easiest way to help alleviate poverty and crime. But if the majority of residents of a State are against it, that is their right. At least then we would have a way of indirectly measuring the results of such laws. When the law for all is mandated from DC, there can be no determination of cause and effect, or measuring the differences in results.
-
Why do you think the federal government should be involved in health care or abortion and where do they derive this authority from?
Authority clearly arises from interstate commerce. Why should they be involved? Because every nation like ours that has government sponsored health care system does it better than us. They spend less and get more. That isn't some damned liberal talking point, it is the plain and honest truth. I honestly don't care whether something is Liberal or Conservative. I care about what works.
The only arguments you can make against government sponsored health care are all ideological ones. Fact of the matter is it works.
-
Authority clearly arises from interstate commerce.
Incorrect. There is no such authority in the Constitution (to include the commerce clause) that provides for, or allows, health care at the federal level.
Why should they be involved? Because every nation like ours that has government sponsored health care system does it better than us. They spend less and get more.
You mean like the British NHS, which is facing budget issues and being able to provide care?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/nhs-faces-humanitarian-crisis-rising-demand-british-red-cross
In order for government to provide health care for everyone, someone has to pay for it. You cannot give a benefit to person B without first taking money from person A to pay for it. What right does the government have to take away money from person A to provide for person B? They don't. Government health care not only doesn't work, it's also not sustainable because someone has to pay for it.
If you want health care to become a right then have Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution and get 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4's of the States to ratify it. Then we can revisit this. Until then, it's not a right nor something that the federal government should be involved in. If you want to argue the commerce clause then argue from the stand point of the federal government ensuring that insurance can be sold across state lines, making it easier for people to access and purchase, not that that's the justification for government to provide it.
That isn't some damned liberal talking point, it is the plain and honest truth. I honestly don't care whether something is Liberal or Conservative. I care about what works.
The only arguments you can make against government sponsored health care are all ideological ones. Fact of the matter is it works.
You just told me that the only arguments against government sponsored health care are ideological ones while at the same time telling me that it's a fact that government health care works. You just contradicted yourself seeing as how government run health care is an ideological viewpoint, held by liberals.
-
Authority clearly arises from interstate commerce.
Health care is sold within a state. It clearly does not arise from that.
Previously Dems tried to say that authority came from general welfare. Although even that falls flat because health insurance is about specific welfare and that is NOT a power entrusted to the government.
Try to keep up?
-
Perfesser Triple Digit doesn't understand the difference between interstate and intrastate.
-
I see everyone has just given up and called it done. They need to go back to the drawing board, bring in everyone, including the Freedom Caucus, and put together something they can all get behind. This has shown that Ryan is not really a leader. Trump should have never had to get involved in this and Ryan should have led. He is the Speaker of the House, but chose to freeze out those that are not establishment Republicans.
-
I see everyone has just given up and called it done. They need to go back to the drawing board, bring in everyone, including the Freedom Caucus, and put together something they can all get behind. This has shown that Ryan is not really a leader. Trump should have never had to get involved in this and Ryan should have led. He is the Speaker of the House, but chose to freeze out those that are not establishment Republicans.
Damn right.
-
I see everyone has just given up and called it done. They need to go back to the drawing board, bring in everyone, including the Freedom Caucus, and put together something they can all get behind. This has shown that Ryan is not really a leader. Trump should have never had to get involved in this and Ryan should have led. He is the Speaker of the House, but chose to freeze out those that are not establishment Republicans.
I agree with this, Ryan doesn't get it, we got the same crap with the democrats and it is what people who have a clue voted against last November.
-
I see everyone has just given up and called it done. They need to go back to the drawing board, bring in everyone, including the Freedom Caucus, and put together something they can all get behind. This has shown that Ryan is not really a leader. Trump should have never had to get involved in this and Ryan should have led. He is the Speaker of the House, but chose to freeze out those that are not establishment Republicans.
Yeah, I have given up. What makes you think they can come up with something better now? Unless they come up with something the Democrats like, they will just fail to agree again.
Trump and Ryan made many concessions to the Freedom Caucus, but each time they demanded more. And it got to the point where the more changes they made to appease the few all-or-nothing hard liners, the more votes they lost on the other side. After 7 years of demanding change, you would have thought they would have had a suitable bill ready to present. But they didn't. So that leaves us with Obamacare, and that is going to make tax reform even harder and that is going to lead to a Dem takeover in the next few election cycles.
I don't care if you blame the establishment, or the Freedom Caucus or GWB, it just points out what a failure the GOP is.
They make me think of the grave stone with the inscription "But I was right".
I hope you like your Obamacare.
-
Was quite the week! Republicans demonstrate governance, really didn't turn out all that well..
Anyone tired of winning yet??
-
Was quite the week! Republicans demonstrate governance, really didn't turn out all that well..
Anyone tired of winning yet??
I'm winning where it counts; the stock market. Not only do I have more money than I ever thought possible, but next month I start collecting SS and go on Medicare. How's that for irony.
I have pretty much given up caring about what happens in government, and it actually feels pretty good.
But I am afraid with time this will wear off and I will relapse into my old partisan ways. But for now, I hate all of you. :) Well, except maybe for Stan, but that's only because his daughter is a veterinarian.
-
Jumping back over the abortion tangent to the bill itself, my understanding is that the bill purported to do away with the parts of Obamacare that were unpopular (like the individual mandate and its associated penalty tax); but kept the expensive parts of Obamacare that people liked -- no restriction on pre-existing conditions; no lifetime caps on benefits.
This bill was a recipe for disaster -- it would have done nothing to reduce premiums or deductibles. All the bill would have accomplished was to accelerate the obvious impending collapse of the health insurance market. And then, both of those outcomes would have been plausibly blamed squarely on the GOP. The Freedom Caucus saved Ryan's ass this week. Its funny to hear the Dems crowing about this, when it was the conservatives who were responsible for stopping the bill, and when they eventually get will be something the left likes even less.
At least one problem that Obamacare caused and repeal can't fix is that the insurers have been shown a new high water mark of how much the public will pay for their product. Think about market dynamics -- what does a seller charge? As much as the market will bear. Well, Obamacare -- through lavish minimum benefits provisions; prohibition on rejection for pre-existing conditions; forced community rating price structure -- placed insurers in a position where they raised their premiums higher than they ever dared before. By and large, the public paid it. That's a one-way ratchet, and they are never going to forget it. If I was with a large health insurer (Humana, Oxford, American Health, etc.) I would be thanking Gaia for putting Obama in office every day until I died.
-
The bill left Obamacare in place and they were going to count on HHS Secretary Price to undo many things through regulation. That would have left the door open for a Demcratic HHS Secretary to come in and put it all back the way it was or worse. Is that what you guys wanted?
They need to just repeal it with a provision that those folks with current policies are covered until the end of the year or whatever period is necessary and the. Pass a new bill and figure out how to do the new bill though reconciliation like the Democrats did for Obamacare.
Either that or repeal it and let things go back. Then pass simple bills to take care of the prexisiting condition cases and the age 26 folks.
-
Yeah, I have given up. What makes you think they can come up with something better now? Unless they come up with something the Democrats like, they will just fail to agree again.
Trump and Ryan made many concessions to the Freedom Caucus, but each time they demanded more. And it got to the point where the more changes they made to appease the few all-or-nothing hard liners, the more votes they lost on the other side. After 7 years of demanding change, you would have thought they would have had a suitable bill ready to present. But they didn't. So that leaves us with Obamacare, and that is going to make tax reform even harder and that is going to lead to a Dem takeover in the next few election cycles.
I don't care if you blame the establishment, or the Freedom Caucus or GWB, it just points out what a failure the GOP is.
They make me think of the grave stone with the inscription "But I was right".
I hope you like your Obamacare.
Hopefully they can come up with something better now that certain elements have showed they won't just be steamrolled anymore. This bill, as I've said before, was terrible and needed to fail. There's a lot of talk going on that it'll never happen or will be even harder now and I don't understand where this is coming from. This "deadline" was self-imposed so there's no reason it can't be done.
-
The left and pretend centrists are all over proclaiming this a big defeat for the GOP.
The bill is a pig and we all knew it. Voting for this pig was just like creating the DHS to "do something" without doing something substantive.
Paul Ryan proved he is a left of center, progressive leaning, republican just like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell, to people who are too stupid to already have known it.
Now that the business as usual, no reform about it, pretend to reform bill is dead, maybe congress can introduce an actual reform bill that KILLS obamacare once and for all.
-
Hopefully they can come up with something better now that certain elements have showed they won't just be steamrolled anymore. This bill, as I've said before, was terrible and needed to fail. There's a lot of talk going on that it'll never happen or will be even harder now and I don't understand where this is coming from. This "deadline" was self-imposed so there's no reason it can't be done.
I don't think a new bill will be harder now BECAUSE this failed. This just shows me that the Rs, can't get their shit together enough to pass a bill on their own. There are too many idealistic, all-or nothing, my way or the highway people in the GOP. They will never get their people to fall in line like the Dems do, which is why the Rs are doomed to fail.
If we don't get a new bill, we will be stuck with Obamacare until the Dems agree to shit can it. And by then, Americans will have suffered needlessly through a longer period of high premiums and deductibles.
The only way I can see that we will get a new bill is if it is one that can get some Democrat votes, and that means it will be worse than the one we just defeated.
But I don't care. I'll have my Medicare. Until it goes broke too, but I'll probably die before that anyway.
-
I don't think a new bill will be harder now BECAUSE this failed. This just shows me that the Rs, can't get their shit together enough to pass a bill on their own.
Agreed. This bill should be a very simple bill, unlike the ACA. It shouldn't take weeks to look over and go through the complexities of it.
There are too many idealistic, all-or nothing, my way or the highway people in the GOP. They will never get their people to fall in line like the Dems do, which is why the Rs are doomed to fail.
Those types exist in both parties. The difference is the Democrats have a way of getting their people to vote how they want. I actually think it's better this way because it shows that there are other ways of doing things and allows other ideas to be explored instead of a, "here it is, now vote for it even if you don't like it" type approach.
If we don't get a new bill, we will be stuck with Obamacare until the Dems agree to shit can it. And by then, Americans will have suffered needlessly through a longer period of high premiums and deductibles.
The only way I can see that we will get a new bill is if it is one that can get some Democrat votes, and that means it will be worse than the one we just defeated.
But I don't care. I'll have my Medicare. Until it goes broke too, but I'll probably die before that anyway.
The only way the Democrats can the law is if we move to a single payer system, which is what they wanted from the start.
Here are some (all?) components of a simple bill the Republicans can, and should, pass:
- Fully repeal Obamacare
- Allow the states to run health care as they see fit
- Use the federal government to ensure that the insurance companies can compete across state lines
That's it. This is 100% a state's rights issue, not a federal government issue. [/list]
-
I don't think a new bill will be harder now BECAUSE this failed. This just shows me that the Rs, can't get their shit together enough to pass a bill on their own. There are too many idealistic, all-or nothing, my way or the highway people in the GOP. They will never get their people to fall in line like the Dems do, which is why the Rs are doomed to fail.
If we don't get a new bill, we will be stuck with Obamacare until the Dems agree to shit can it. And by then, Americans will have suffered needlessly through a longer period of high premiums and deductibles.
The only way I can see that we will get a new bill is if it is one that can get some Democrat votes, and that means it will be worse than the one we just defeated.
But I don't care. I'll have my Medicare. Until it goes broke too, but I'll probably die before that anyway.
So Republicans should not be able to think for themselves, gotcha. ;) Just line up behind Massa Ryan and vote yes.
-
Was quite the week! Republicans demonstrate governance, really didn't turn out all that well..
Anyone tired of winning yet??
Spiking the ball, Gary?
I'm not laying all of this at Ryan's feet. This is what happens when you have a multitude of (usually) good ideas. Often the GOP doesn't run in lockstep; thats OK. I'm hoping this results in a better bill. Soon.
I'll take what happened on Friday, as frustrating as it was, vs ANYTHING that has been produced in the last 50 years from the Democrats running in lockstep. And they do that lockstep thing pretty well. And that's not governing.
-
I'm winning where it counts; the stock market. Not only do I have more money than I ever thought possible, but next month I start collecting SS and go on Medicare. How's that for irony.
I have pretty much given up caring about what happens in government, and it actually feels pretty good.
But I am afraid with time this will wear off and I will relapse into my old partisan ways. But for now, I hate all of you. :) Well, except maybe for Stan, but that's only because his daughter is a veterinarian.
Ha! Yep, it was a good day for Dr. Kaity yesterday. She helped bring a big 110# Holstein bull calf and two goats into the world, and nothing died.
-
Trump, Spicer and some others are saying that after the GOP failure to pass a new health bill, the Democrats OWN Obamacare.
I disagree. I think they owned it before. Now, the Freedom Caucus shares ownership with the Ds.
-
Trump, Spicer and some others are saying that after the GOP failure to pass a new health bill, the Democrats OWN Obamacare.
I disagree. I think they owned it before. Now, the Freedom Caucus shares ownership with the Ds.
Agreed.
-
Trump, Spicer and some others are saying that after the GOP failure to pass a new health bill, the Democrats OWN Obamacare.
I disagree. I think they owned it before. Now, the Freedom Caucus shares ownership with the Ds.
The Freedom Caucus doesn't share responsibility for Obamacare at all. That is 100% on the Democrats and always will be. The Freedom Caucus shut this bill down because it didn't actually get rid of government being involved in health care. This also isn't the only opportunity to repeal Obamacare and people need to stop pushing that narrative.
-
Trump, Spicer and some others are saying that after the GOP failure to pass a new health bill, the Democrats OWN Obamacare.
I disagree. I think they owned it before. Now, the Freedom Caucus shares ownership with the Ds.
Absolutely not. Failing to vote for a half-assed O'care-lite does not mean that the Freedom Caucus "owns" Obamacare. To the contrary, had they passed this bill and O'care-lite predictably cratered anyway, then the GOP would have owned its failure.
-
The Freedom Caucus doesn't share responsibility for Obamacare at all. That is 100% on the Democrats and always will be. The Freedom Caucus shut this bill down because it didn't actually get rid of government being involved in health care. This also isn't the only opportunity to repeal Obamacare and people need to stop pushing that narrative.
Absolutely not. Failing to vote for a half-assed O'care-lite does not mean that the Freedom Caucus "owns" Obamacare. To the contrary, had they passed this bill and O'care-lite predictably cratered anyway, then the GOP would have owned its failure.
Who controls the Executive and Legislative branches lock, stock and barrel? And which party has been promising to repeal Obamacare for 7 years?
I think the point is that by failing to pass this bill, as imperfect as it was, saddles the GOP with whatever remains, and at this point that means Obamacare. Like it or not.
And what remains is due in part to the Freedom Caucus. In ordinary times, I'm 100% behind the most conservative members of Congress. I'm a Tea Party guy.
But in this case, perfect got in the way of the good, and now the Democrats feel that they have some power and moral authority, which they do not. That's unacceptable in my book.
-
Oh, yeah, and if the Democrats are lambasting the GOP for not passing this bill, why wouldn't a single one of them vote for it?
Seems to me they are really lambasting the GOP for not being a autocratic collective with out a modicum of individual thought -- just like the Democrats are. Nancy P says vote for it, the the little D-bots fall right in line.
They'd prefer to not read it -- that gives them a plausible excuse later.
-
Oh, yeah, and if the Democrats are lambasting the GOP for not passing this bill, why wouldn't a single one of them vote for it?
Seems to me they are really lambasting the GOP for not being a autocratic collective with out a modicum of individual thought -- just like the Democrats are. Nancy P says vote for it, the the little D-bots fall right in line.
They'd prefer to not read it -- that gives them a plausible excuse later.
Twist it or spin it any way you want. The Republicans would rather lose everything rather than win some thing.
Remember the phrase "United we stand, divided we fall"? Which party would you say is united, and which is divided. I would rather live in a pretty good world than a purely Democrat world.
The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare. And the tax savings that we could have had would have made tax reform easier. Now, tax reform is going to be a giant hurdle, which I am sure the Freedom Caucus will block because they probably won't get EVERYTHING they want. Is that a great way to run a country or what?
-
The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare.
complete and utter horse manure.
-
The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare.
Not even wrong. Obama, Pelosi and Ried are the reason we have Obamacare. And the incremental changes that were the AHCA would not have changed that. Meaning -- but for the Freedom Caucus -- we STILL would have had Obamacare, with the added "benefit" that its impending collapse could be plausibly blamed on the GOP.
-
Who controls the Executive and Legislative branches lock, stock and barrel? And which party has been promising to repeal Obamacare for 7 years?
I said before that the Republicans screwed this up and that they should've had a bill ready to go to pull off the shelf and introduce. There is zero excuse as to why this happened.
I think the point is that by failing to pass this bill, as imperfect as it was, saddles the GOP with whatever remains, and at this point that means Obamacare. Like it or not.
Obamacare didn't suddenly become the GOP's problem because this bill failed. If they don't pass anything at all, then it'll be their fault for not repealing it. It's still a Democratic bill and always will be.
And what remains is due in part to the Freedom Caucus. In ordinary times, I'm 100% behind the most conservative members of Congress. I'm a Tea Party guy.
But in this case, perfect got in the way of the good, and now the Democrats feel that they have some power and moral authority, which they do not. That's unacceptable in my book.
This wasn't about the bill being perfect, this was about ensuring that we didn't pass something that was just a diet version of Obamacare. There shouldn't need to different phases to this bill. It should simply be repeal and let the states handle.
-
The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare. And the tax savings that we could have had would have made tax reform easier. Now, tax reform is going to be a giant hurdle, which I am sure the Freedom Caucus will block because they probably won't get EVERYTHING they want. Is that a great way to run a country or what?
The Democrats are the reason we have Obamacare, not the Freedom Caucus. I really don't understand where this attitude is coming from (from everyone, not just you) that this was the one and only chance to repeal Obamacare. It just simply isn't true. Conservatives and Republicans should be embarrassed that they've had 7 years to get this right and still can't.
-
The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare.
My understanding is that everyone in congress had a hand in why the bill was never submitted for a vote.
Although Republicans have a majority in house and senate, they do not have 60 votes in the senate to avoid a filibuster on any bill that is not a budget bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress))). So the budget neutral sections of the ACA (e.g. Essential Health Benefits) could not be repealed without some votes from Democrats, which are not to be had for any bill that comes from Republicans of any stripe.
Moderate Republicans are not interested in the kinds of changes sought by Republicans in the Freedom Caucus; both groups are presumably holding to positions that they believe got them elected (or believe will win them the next election.)
Then there is the U.S. voter, who often seems open to unreasonable expectations. Just maybe their unreasonable expectations are why the ACA is still law.
-
There is no single reason why we still have that POS obamacare crap.
A lot of people bear responsibility. But my position is that the group of people that bear the most responsibilty are the democrats.
-
complete and utter horse manure.
Nope. The Freedom Caucus squirreled any deal. They own it now.
And understand I'm a Tea Party guy. My sole purpose in life is Liberty.
-
I said before that the Republicans screwed this up and that they should've had a bill ready to go to pull off the shelf and introduce. There is zero excuse as to why this happened.
Obamacare didn't suddenly become the GOP's problem because this bill failed. If they don't pass anything at all, then it'll be their fault for not repealing it. It's still a Democratic bill and always will be.
This wasn't about the bill being perfect, this was about ensuring that we didn't pass something that was just a diet version of Obamacare. There shouldn't need to different phases to this bill. It should simply be repeal and let the states handle.
Agree or disagree, right or wrong, we were told that because of the Senate's stupid fucking rules, this is all we could accomplish through reconciliation. Ryan is not a Senator or Parliamentarian, and could be wrong. But I believe him in this narrow matter.
-
The Democrats are the reason we have Obamacare, not the Freedom Caucus. I really don't understand where this attitude is coming from (from everyone, not just you) that this was the one and only chance to repeal Obamacare. It just simply isn't true. Conservatives and Republicans should be embarrassed that they've had 7 years to get this right and still can't.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, but disagree with the rest. The FC wanted everything. I understand "everything" couldn't be accomplished through reconciliation.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, but disagree with the rest. The FC wanted everything. I understand "everything" couldn't be accomplished through reconciliation.
They wanted one thing. They didn't get it. So why should they vote for something that wasn't what they wanted?
Repeal will not happen unless there is a real replacement. The half measures that the establishment put out there were horrible. Economically, very few of them made sense and they wouldn't have had much of an impact.
The things that need to be fixed are
1) Fix tort. Without this, doctors will not not be able to expand their practice. "Fix" means raise the standard for proving real negligence.
2) Provide a pilot program for universal coverage via a clinic system that gets Dems on board. Target it at the top X areas which incur the biggest cost to the government for health care. In those areas that the clinic system is used, people will not have Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid, they will use the clinic. Fund the clinics with a portion of the funds previous used to buy the super expensive "for profit" health care. Mandate that the cost is less than what we currently spend.
2 a) Schedule the rollout of the clinic system through the entire country. Medical insurance will continue in private use. Doctors will continue in private practices - everyone has the option of both.
3) Staff the clinics via a new medical corp under the Surgeon General. Build out a scholarship program similar to the military, in exchange for tuition, X years of service.
4) Reduce the number of foreign students in the medical schools, ones who will leave the US after graduation. Increase the supply of doctors. Offer internships (in the clinics) to any citizen who is a graduate of medical school but cannot otherwise get an internship.
5) Reverse the mandate on Obamacare. Remove penalties. Remove mandates on doctors.
Net result of all this -
Universal coverage is tried out in small areas with a schedule to grow it if it is successful. Private practices continue. We get the best of both worlds. Individuals and companies that want better service than the clinic may pay for it.
More doctors = more supply
Better legal situation and lower insurance costs to the doctors = less cost
fewer patients = less demand.
I expect doctors will reconsolidate services into their practice, things they've been forced out of because of the legal risk. Doctors who have left practice because of the tort situation will return.
Prices will go down.
-
Nope. The Freedom Caucus squirreled any deal. They own it now.
And understand I'm a Tea Party guy. My sole purpose in life is Liberty.
I understand that you don't grasp the concept of primary and secondary responsibility.
That's ok, many people have trouble with it.
-
I understand that you don't grasp the concept of primary and secondary responsibility.
That's ok, many people have trouble with it.
No need to be a condescending douchebag, Bob. Being your normal dickhead self should suffice.
And as of today Obamacare is the law of the land, and Planned Parenthood remains federally funded. Congratulations. Nice job. It doesn't really matter who is primarily and secondarily responsible. The people who voted in a GOP House, Senate, and Presidency will say "All of the above." And they would be right.
-
Leaving the disastrous obamacare in place continues the total 100% ownership of the democrats who passed it through reconcilliation with ZERO republican votes.
FAILURE to repeal this piece of shit lies 100% on republican shoulders.
-
Leaving the disastrous obamacare in place continues the total 100% ownership of the democrats who passed it through reconcilliation with ZERO republican votes.
FAILURE to repeal this piece of shit lies 100% on republican shoulders.
And if this doesn't get fixed, and soon, I predict a House electoral bloodbath in 2018.
-
Repeal will not happen unless there is a real replacement. The half measures that the establishment put out there were horrible. Economically, very few of them made sense and they wouldn't have had much of an impact.
The only replacement should be letting the states handle it.
The things that need to be fixed are
1) Fix tort. Without this, doctors will not not be able to expand their practice. "Fix" means raise the standard for proving real negligence.
2) Provide a pilot program for universal coverage via a clinic system that gets Dems on board. Target it at the top X areas which incur the biggest cost to the government for health care. In those areas that the clinic system is used, people will not have Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid, they will use the clinic. Fund the clinics with a portion of the funds previous used to buy the super expensive "for profit" health care. Mandate that the cost is less than what we currently spend.
2 a) Schedule the rollout of the clinic system through the entire country. Medical insurance will continue in private use. Doctors will continue in private practices - everyone has the option of both.
3) Staff the clinics via a new medical corp under the Surgeon General. Build out a scholarship program similar to the military, in exchange for tuition, X years of service.
4) Reduce the number of foreign students in the medical schools, ones who will leave the US after graduation. Increase the supply of doctors. Offer internships (in the clinics) to any citizen who is a graduate of medical school but cannot otherwise get an internship.
5) Reverse the mandate on Obamacare. Remove penalties. Remove mandates on doctors.
Net result of all this -
Universal coverage is tried out in small areas with a schedule to grow it if it is successful. Private practices continue. We get the best of both worlds. Individuals and companies that want better service than the clinic may pay for it.
More doctors = more supply
Better legal situation and lower insurance costs to the doctors = less cost
fewer patients = less demand.
I expect doctors will reconsolidate services into their practice, things they've been forced out of because of the legal risk. Doctors who have left practice because of the tort situation will return.
Prices will go down.
I'm not going to respond to each point of this because your argument is based on a flawed premise. That being that the government has the authority to run health care at all. It is not one of the enumerated powers and is un-Constitutional. I'll agree that tort law needs to be fixed, though.
The Republicans don't need Democratic support. They control both houses of Congress and the White House. It's time they started acting like it.
-
And as of today Obamacare is the law of the land, and Planned Parenthood remains federally funded. Congratulations. Nice job. It doesn't really matter who is primarily and secondarily responsible. The people who voted in a GOP House, Senate, and Presidency will say "All of the above." And they would be right.
Nothing is stopping the Republicans from passing a separate bill that defends Planned Parenthood. Or passing (again) one of the many bills that repeals Obamacare.
-
FAILURE to repeal this piece of shit lies 100% on republican shoulders.
If the Republicans fail to repeal it then I'll agree. We're not there yet.
-
And as of today Obamacare is the law of the land, and Planned Parenthood remains federally funded. Congratulations. Nice job. It doesn't really matter who is primarily and secondarily responsible. The people who voted in a GOP House, Senate, and Presidency will say "All of the above." And they would be right.
Speaking of Planned Parenthood, the AHCA would've only defunded it for one year, according to the CBO report on page 23:
Provision Affecting Planned Parenthood. For a one-year period following enactment, the legislation would prevent federal funds from being made available to an entity (including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics) if it is:
...
CBO expects that, according to those criteria, only Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and clinics would be affected.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact.pdf#page=23
-
No need to be a condescending douchebag, Bob. Being your normal dickhead self should suffice.
and a big ol' F you to you too.
And as of today Obamacare is the law of the land, and Planned Parenthood remains federally funded. Congratulations. Nice job. It doesn't really matter who is primarily and secondarily responsible. The people who voted in a GOP House, Senate, and Presidency will say "All of the above." And they would be right.
and once again, wrong.
-
Failure to bury a turd does not relieve the responsibility of the person who dropped it in the first place.
-
Spiking the ball, Gary?
No, not really. The result here is actually a bit sad. The President and his administration have something greater than 3 ½ years to go, so I’m hoping that this is a learning event and not an example of their continued governance.
Heard much about how the Democrats “rammed through” Obamacare, but the Republicans have now re-defined the term. The AHCA was written by a small cabal with zero input from Democrats, healthcare providers, pharma, equipment suppliers, doctors, insurance providers or even members of their own party. Kept secretly hidden from view except to those deemed worthy. Bulldozed through committee meetings on partisan votes, only minor amendments permitted. The Republicans had SEVEN years to figure this out and can’t offer a bill that is supported by their own party? Was the President and the Republican leadership that oblivious to the views of their own party – or – did a select group just decide to say… “I know what’s best, so all you others, sit down and STFU”?
So… this POS lands on the House floor, universally panned by the left, the right, doctors, insurance providers, hospitals and pretty much everyone else with the exception of the President (wonderful plan! – insurance for everybody!) and the Speaker.
Kudos to those House members that looked at the AHCA and said “how in the world is this good for Americans?”.
Will be interesting times.
-
The things that need to be fixed are
1) Fix tort. Without this, doctors will not not be able to expand their practice. "Fix" means raise the standard for proving real negligence.
2) Provide a pilot program for universal coverage via a clinic system that gets Dems on board. Target it at the top X areas which incur the biggest cost to the government for health care. In those areas that the clinic system is used, people will not have Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid, they will use the clinic. Fund the clinics with a portion of the funds previous used to buy the super expensive "for profit" health care. Mandate that the cost is less than what we currently spend.
2 a) Schedule the rollout of the clinic system through the entire country. Medical insurance will continue in private use. Doctors will continue in private practices - everyone has the option of both.
3) Staff the clinics via a new medical corp under the Surgeon General. Build out a scholarship program similar to the military, in exchange for tuition, X years of service.
4) Reduce the number of foreign students in the medical schools, ones who will leave the US after graduation. Increase the supply of doctors. Offer internships (in the clinics) to any citizen who is a graduate of medical school but cannot otherwise get an internship.
5) Reverse the mandate on Obamacare. Remove penalties. Remove mandates on doctors.
You deserve a fair measure of credit for actually proposing a solution! Personally believe quite a few of those ideas deserve further consideration.
-
So now that (ding, dong) the Ryan bill is dead, how about this option from Rand Paul, which has already passed Congress once in 2015?
-
So now that (ding, dong) the Ryan bill is dead, how about this option from Rand Paul, which has already passed Congress once in 2015?
Improvement, but the establishment GOP won't let it go forward.
-
Improvement, but the establishment GOP won't let it go forward.
Meaning the GOP leadership were only willing to vote for it when they knew it didn't have a chance of becoming law.
The funny thing is, that's how we got Obamacare, too -- When Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ted Kennedy and became the 41th vote against cloture on Obamacare, he forced the Democrats in the House to pass on the version of the bill that already passed the Senate. It was a version that most never expected to become law as it read -- they always believed it would be "worked out" in conference committee between the two houses. Alas...
-
Meaning the GOP leadership were only willing to vote for it when they knew it didn't have a chance of becoming law.
Bingo!
The funny thing is, that's how we got Obamacare, too -- When Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ted Kennedy and became the 41th vote against cloture on Obamacare, he forced the Democrats in the House to pass on the version of the bill that already passed the Senate. It was a version that most never expected to become law as it read -- they always believed it would be "worked out" in conference committee between the two houses. Alas...
-
Point fingers all you want. Blame helps no one and solves nothing. No doubt you'll all accuse me of academic tripe just for saying this much.
I told this to all of you months ago. Once given, a benefit is very difficult to take away. The GOP learned this the hard way. There is a contingent that will not compromise on anything whether or not it is good for the land. Compromise leaves them vulnerable to electoral challenge from their own party. So for the Freedom Caucus it is their way or the highway. They have made the House GOP very unruly. Ryan is the second GOP speaker to go down in flames.
In the mean time there are GOP Representatives who know repeal will see the end of their Congressional careers. It's a weird thing, folks were lukewarm about receiving the benefit, but are outraged at loosing it. Go figure.
Personally I think the best way forward is for moderates on both sides to get together and actually fix the ACA. That I don't expect to see in my lifetime.
-
It's a weird thing, folks were lukewarm about receiving the benefit, but are outraged at loosing it.
You said "loosing it"! ;D ;D ;D
-
Personally I think the best way forward is for moderates on both sides to get together and actually fix the ACA. That I don't expect to see in my lifetime.
One would think that to be true. Never know, American politics can be unpredictable. One thing the President isn't, is an ideologue. Forming a mix of center-left and center-right legislators would be something to see. Such a coalition would be pretty successful.
-
One thing the President isn't, is an ideologue.
True. He is a pragmatist, through and through. That gives me some hope that he can rally the middle.
-
Heard much about how the Democrats “rammed through” Obamacare, but the Republicans have now re-defined the term. The AHCA was written by a small cabal with zero input from Democrats, healthcare providers, pharma, equipment suppliers, doctors, insurance providers or even members of their own party. Kept secretly hidden from view except to those deemed worthy. Bulldozed through committee meetings on partisan votes, only minor amendments permitted.
Oh?
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1628/BILLS-115hr1628rh.pdf
The Republicans had SEVEN years to figure this out and can’t offer a bill that is supported by their own party?
This point we agree on.
-
You deserve a fair measure of credit for actually proposing a solution! Personally believe quite a few of those ideas deserve further consideration.
Can you tell me where the authority comes from which gives the Congress the power to regulate health care?
-
Can you tell me where the authority comes from which gives the Congress the power to regulate health care?
You should know by now the Constitution is a living, breathing document to be interpreted as Democrats see fit for their agenda. ;)
-
Can you tell me where the authority comes from which gives the Congress the power to regulate health care?
Unfortunately, Justice Roberts (and he isn't the first one) decided to ignore the Constitutional LAW, and let his "FEELINGS" control his ruling. He pretty much admitted it was illegal, but said he didn't want to be the one to strike the ACA down. Isn't it his job to enforce the rule of law, even if it goes against his personal feelings, and beliefs? Oh yeah, who appointed him? A REPUBLICAN!
Roberts was either blackmailed, or threatened in some manner due to something in his past or present to come up with those shenanigans, and that may be why he was appointed in the first place.
-
Can you tell me where the authority comes from which gives the Congress the power to regulate health care?
Just for the sake of argument, it could be said that it falls under Article I, Sec.8, clause 1 of the Constitution ("provide for the general welfare"). And no, I am not one of those that thinks "welfare" authorizes wealth distribution. But it could be honestly argued that healthcare is essential to the "welfare" of the nation.
-
Just for the sake of argument, it could be said that it falls under Article I, Sec.8, clause 1 of the Constitution ("provide for the general welfare"). And no, I am not one of those that thinks "welfare" authorizes wealth distribution. But it could be honestly argued that healthcare is essential to the "welfare" of the nation.
Even if you made the argument that the General Welfare clause allows for the Congress to force people to buy health insurance, there are two problems:
1.) There are virtually no limits to what the Congress can then mandate
2.) It still requires everyone to pay for it. If you can't afford it, there will be subsidies that will help you out. The problem with that is that is still requires the government to take from person A to give to person B and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for that.
If the founders believed that health care was a right, they would've included it in the enumerated powers or in the amendments. Again, if people want this to be a right, get 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4's of the States to pass a constitutional amendment.
I really am curious as to what Gary's and Steingar's answers to this are.
-
Justice Roberts got around the ruling by calling the cost for the ACA a "TAX". My other concern, and it goes beyond the ACA is when do we get State's Rights back? Yes, the states ratified, and signed the Constitution so there are certain things that are considered Natural Rights which government can not infringe which the states' agreed to not touch. I don't see health care being stated in the Constitution as a Natural Right. Shouldn't the state's be allowed to push back on this issue? Yes, I know they are currently stopped from doing so because of the SCOTUS, and Robert's illegal ruling.
-
I really am curious as to what Gary's and Steingar's answers to this are.
I'm sure Steingar is fully capable of responding if he so wishes! ;)
I will be the first to agree with you that the words “health care” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Having the Federal government regulate, prescribe or otherwise offer health care is, IMHO, not a “right”.
There are many things that have evolved over the years that the Founders could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. Air traffic control is regulated by the Federal government over the airspace of each individual state, yet we all agree that this is a power that makes sense.
Guess my view is that the ability of a person to have effective and affordable health care available is better defined as a worthwhile benefit (or perhaps a privilege?) that does rightly fall within the Federal governments purview. The General Welfare clause is a good starting point, but is not the only justification. It is a huge advantage to the success and prosperity of our society that its inhabitants can maintain good health.
Universal access to health care (not necessarily single-payer) reduces the cost to business, increases productivity, makes us more competitive on the global market, saves lives and provides a measure of financial security for us as individuals and as families, as we all age.
How to accomplish this, and who pays, is of course, the problem. There is absolutely no doubt that the cost of health care is increasing….. since, well, as long as I can remember. Many factors for that including the ageing of the population, advances in care and technology. However, NOT providing health care also has a cost, the negative of the advantages listed above. In the end, we all currently pay for healthcare in some way, shape or form, it is just that the path of payment is torturous, often hidden and very inefficient.
Wish I had an elegant solution, but don’t. Thought the ACA was a step in the right direction, even considering its flaws. The AHCA was decidedly a step backward.
-
It all sounds good Gary until you try to justify taking my tax dollars to pay for someone else's insurance. How can you justify that?
Personally I think the country would be better off if limited the government to 10% of our money allowing us to give 25-30% to the church and let them handle these things.
-
Part of the general welfare is the containment of disease. I think you would all agree that the Federal government has every right to prevent the spread of disease across state lines. Hence we have things like vaccination programs, which do all of us more good than I can possibly say, unless you are one of the morons who won't vaccinate your child for fear of autism. If that's you, I never ever want to meet you in person. I do not suffer fools lightly.
The problem becomes what do you do when a good sized portion of the population is shut out from medical care. In the Founders day it didn't matter, doctors couldn't do much anyway and most people could easily afford what doctors could do. Now its different, and you can easily spend more than you'll ever make on medical care. We still have the problems of infectious diseases, and they''re compounded by the fact that everyone shows up sooner or later when the pain gets too bad or when they're found unconscious on the floor. I've seen examples of both. If they can't afford health insurance you pay for them one way or another.
Hence the ACA. Set up a penalty so healthy people who don't have health insurance have to pay in anyway. Call it a tax, because truly that's what it is. We like to give tax breaks to promote desired behavior (owning a house, for example) so we tax an undesirable behavior. Lots of those, by the way, like cigarette and liquor taxes. I have to admit, the ACA is more sweeping. This is a simple thing. If healthy people don't put in the whole thing doesn't work. We're back to being shut out if you have a "preexisting condition", which the insurance companies can declare you breathing.
The ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a step in the right direction. If your politicians could just get together and cooperate, I bet they could fix its shortcomings and turn it into something that would really work for the American people. It isn't going anywhere.
As far as what does the Constitution allow and what doesn't it, that question is now moot. The ACA got the blessing of the Supreme Court, its a done deal. Yeah, perhaps some court in the future will see differently, but that won't come any time soon. Courts respect precedent. You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't. Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional. Do you really think its that cut and dried? Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?
-
You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't. Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional. Do you really think its that cut and dried? Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?
Three our four of the current eight justices typically believe the Constitution as written. It really isn't that hard to understand. The others want to "interpret" it using their own beliefs, and feelings for Social Justice, or whatever cause du jour they want. That's not how it should work. If you want it changed AMEND IT to reflect what you want. Don't read things into it that aren't there.
I am tired of the government and politicians using the broad "for the public good", or "the public welfare" to steal from me, and confiscate others hard earned LIFE'S work. It has become a form of slavery where we have to pay a larger, and large percentage of our life's earnings, often approaching or even exceeding 50% if you add up all the taxes, fees, and surcharges on everything you buy, or earn. Government has become a for profit entity with only one goal in mind. It's own growth. That is what the ACA is about. It didn't improve anyone's health care.
-
Three our four of the current eight justices typically believe the Constitution as written.
The problem is the Constitution is written in the broadest terms imaginable. The Founders almost certainly did this on purpose, they wrote a document to last the ages. In many cases it simply can't be read as written. The Founders didn't know about airplanes, the internet, or vaccines.
The others want to "interpret" it using their own beliefs, and feelings for Social Justice, or whatever cause du jour they want. That's not how it should work. If you want it changed AMEND IT to reflect what you want. Don't read things into it that aren't there.
That's the problem. no matter what, you HAVE to read things in that aren't there, because there are lots of things now that weren't there in 1776.
I am tired of the government and politicians using the broad "for the public good", or "the public welfare" to steal from me, and confiscate others hard earned LIFE'S work. It has become a form of slavery where we have to pay a larger, and large percentage of our life's earnings, often approaching or even exceeding 50% if you add up all the taxes, fees, and surcharges on everything you buy, or earn. Government has become a for profit entity with only one goal in mind. It's own growth. That is what the ACA is about. It didn't improve anyone's health care.
Says you. I know quite a few people who's health care was improved dramatically. I suspect GOP Senators would have had an easier time back in their districts if no one benefitted from it.
By the way, I am really tired of MY tax dollars getting sucked up into a military that builds more and more sophisticated weapons to blow up camels and tents and make me no safer and do almost no one any good. I am tired of a War on Drugs in which the drugs are the only victors. I am tired of paying for law enforcement that has turned America into an armed camp and regards my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as a trite inconvenience. I am tired of initiatives based on someone else's invisible man in the sky. I pay huge amounts of my taxes for this nonsense that doesn't benefit me in any way at all and I'm tired of it.
I bet there are lots of people who are tired of their taxes going to noisy airports so some rich guys can enjoy their airplanes.
-
Free shit, give people more free shit. Pay your own f'n health care. Stop this madness, the government has mandated insurance pay for things that never would have been covered in the past, that's why it is so expensive. People think healthcare should be free now because of it. Liberals keep wanting more free shit because they have no clue that it isn't free, someone actually has to pay for it, but they never think they should have to pay for it. As long as it's someone else paying, not them, they are fine with the gov't giving it away.
-
The problem is the Constitution is written in the broadest terms imaginable. The Founders almost certainly did this on purpose, they wrote a document to last the ages. In many cases it simply can't be read as written. The Founders didn't know about airplanes, the internet, or vaccines.
That doesn't mean the courts can decide how those things should be handled. That is what Congress is for.
That's the problem. no matter what, you HAVE to read things in that aren't there, because there are lots of things now that weren't there in 1776.
See above.
Says you. I know quite a few people who's health care was improved dramatically. I suspect GOP Senators would have had an easier time back in their districts if no one benefitted from it.
That is true. But the other truth is that the ACA did this in a most inefficient, expensive and and tyrannical way.
By the way, I am really tired of MY tax dollars getting sucked up into a military that builds more and more sophisticated weapons to blow up camels and tents and make me no safer and do almost no one any good.
Proof that the government solves problems in the most innefficient and expensive ways imaginable. However, National Defense IS the provence of the Federal Government. I wish they more cost conscious about it, but this is an area where cost is of a tertiary issue.
I am tired of a War on Drugs in which the drugs are the only victors.
I mostly agree.
I am tired of paying for law enforcement that has turned America into an armed camp and regards my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as a trite inconvenience.
Law enforcement absolutely needs to be better armed and trained than the criminals. If our society wasn't so tolerant of criminal acts like looting and rioting (which is NOT equal to lawful assembly and freedom of expression), then perhaps law enforcement wouldn't need to be so militantly defensive.
I am tired of initiatives based on someone else's invisible man in the sky. I pay huge amounts of my taxes for this nonsense that doesn't benefit me in any way at all and I'm tired of it.
I agree with this too, but I can't think of any ways we spend money on this nonsense, except for the fact that many of our laws are based on Judeo Christian ethics, which I largely do believe in.
I bet there are lots of people who are tired of their taxes going to noisy airports so some rich guys can enjoy their airplanes.
If airports were just so that some rich guys could enjoy their airplanes, then I would agree with this too. But you know as well as I do that this isn't the reason for airports. It is a benefit of them.
Do you agree with people that move into a house under a known flight path and THEN complain about the noise?
Personally, I have no problem with the Federal Government taking some sort of lead in helping to make sure that all Americans can access health care. I just object to them forcing a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire United States of America. But I also agree with those that say if the government wants to tackle such an initiative, which is clearly unconstitutional, then they should follow clearly delineated procedures for changing the Constitution.
-
I will be the first to agree with you that the words “health care” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Having the Federal government regulate, prescribe or otherwise offer health care is, IMHO, not a “right”.
Then why should they be involved any further than ensuring it can be sold and made available across state lines?
There are many things that have evolved over the years that the Founders could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. Air traffic control is regulated by the Federal government over the airspace of each individual state, yet we all agree that this is a power that makes sense.
There's a movement to privatize it.
Guess my view is that the ability of a person to have effective and affordable health care available is better defined as a worthwhile benefit (or perhaps a privilege?) that does rightly fall within the Federal governments purview. The General Welfare clause is a good starting point, but is not the only justification. It is a huge advantage to the success and prosperity of our society that its inhabitants can maintain good health.
How? Why is it the government's responsibility to ensure I'm healthy? Why is that not my responsibility?
How to accomplish this, and who pays, is of course, the problem. There is absolutely no doubt that the cost of health care is increasing….. since, well, as long as I can remember. Many factors for that including the ageing of the population, advances in care and technology. However, NOT providing health care also has a cost, the negative of the advantages listed above. In the end, we all currently pay for healthcare in some way, shape or form, it is just that the path of payment is torturous, often hidden and very inefficient.
Shouldn't responsible adults take care of their own health? Why does the government need to be involved in this? Where will it stop?
Health care costs are increasing, in part, because there is no competition in the market place. If there's only one provider they can charge whatever they want. There's no incentive for them to charge less because people will pay for it. If they don't, they're penalized.
-
Hence the ACA. Set up a penalty so healthy people who don't have health insurance have to pay in anyway.
Why do you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to tell its citizens what they will and will not purchase? I'm still waiting to see the authority for it because the general welfare clause fails.
Call it a tax, because truly that's what it is. We like to give tax breaks to promote desired behavior (owning a house, for example) so we tax an undesirable behavior. Lots of those, by the way, like cigarette and liquor taxes. I have to admit, the ACA is more sweeping. This is a simple thing.
Article 1, Section 8 actually specifies that the Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It doesn't mention health care.
If healthy people don't put in the whole thing doesn't work.
Why should a healthy person pay for a sick person? That makes no sense other than a sick person is going to have a higher health care cost and may need some help paying for it.
We're back to being shut out if you have a "preexisting condition", which the insurance companies can declare you breathing.
Insurance is like any other business: it provides a service in exchange for payment. It exists to make money. If an insurance company decides to charge a higher premium for a person with a pre-existing condition (because that person is at a higher risk of having to need the insurance) then why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
The ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a step in the right direction. If your politicians could just get together and cooperate, I bet they could fix its shortcomings and turn it into something that would really work for the American people. It isn't going anywhere.
The ACA is a terrible law and it's failing. Maybe the Democrats should've actually put some thought into this and sought bipartisan support instead of ramming it through. Or maybe they shouldn't have done it at all, but then that is completely against the progressive mindset. The government must be involved in every aspect of a person's life and control them.
As far as what does the Constitution allow and what doesn't it, that question is now moot. The ACA got the blessing of the Supreme Court, its a done deal. Yeah, perhaps some court in the future will see differently, but that won't come any time soon.
The SCOTUS also once ruled against Dredd Scott and that internment camps were legal. The point being that the SCOTUS doesn't always get it right.
Courts respect precedent. You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't. Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional. Do you really think its that cut and dried? Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?
They can't agree on what's Constitutional because (currently, anyway) at least four of them would rather look at what they want the Constitution to say instead of what it actually says.
Liberals use the courts at all levels to change the law to what they want it to say instead of using the mechanisms in place to actually change the laws: state houses and the Congress.
-
The problem is the Constitution is written in the broadest terms imaginable. The Founders almost certainly did this on purpose, they wrote a document to last the ages. In many cases it simply can't be read as written. The Founders didn't know about airplanes, the internet, or vaccines.
So we should just make it say whatever we want through court rulings instead of going through the process that was placed into the Constitution to change it?
That's the problem. no matter what, you HAVE to read things in that aren't there, because there are lots of things now that weren't there in 1776.
No, you don't.
Says you. I know quite a few people who's health care was improved dramatically. I suspect GOP Senators would have had an easier time back in their districts if no one benefitted from it.
Arizona (116%), Oklahoma (69%) and Tennessee (63%). The number in parenthesis are the increases in those states. Tell me again how those people's health care was improved by those increases?
By the way, I am really tired of MY tax dollars getting sucked up into a military that builds more and more sophisticated weapons to blow up camels and tents and make me no safer and do almost no one any good.
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
I am tired of a War on Drugs in which the drugs are the only victors.
There's a point that you can actually make an argument with.
I am tired of paying for law enforcement that has turned America into an armed camp and regards my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as a trite inconvenience.
Take it up with your state then because they're the ones who control the law enforcement and accept the federal funding for some of the militarized equipment. Also, you don't get to complain about a more militarized law enforcement because it messes with your Constitutional rights and then tell me I must purchase health care as if forcing me to pay a penalty if I don't purchase terrible insurance is somehow not messing with my Constitutional rights or my ability to be an independent and responsible adult.
I am tired of initiatives based on someone else's invisible man in the sky. I pay huge amounts of my taxes for this nonsense that doesn't benefit me in any way at all and I'm tired of it.
Cite the federal taxes you pay that go towards these. Otherwise, sounds like a state issue.
This is such a great quote:
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
-
Quote from: Steingar on March 27, 2017, 02:28:11 PM
Says you. I know quite a few people who's health care was improved dramatically. I suspect GOP Senators would have had an easier time back in their districts if no one benefitted from it.
Arizona (116%), Oklahoma (69%) and Tennessee (63%). The number in parenthesis are the increases in those states. Tell me again how those people's health care was improved by those increases?
I'm in one of these states, and both our monthly payment portion of company sponsored healthcare as well as max deductible and max out of pocket have gone through the roof. I recently suffered a badly broken humerus that required surgery for internal fixation. My portion of the bill was $6k. Yes, $6k for a broken arm. Luckily I have the $6k to pay, but what about those who don't? How is a max out of pocket increase from $2k eight years ago to $8k now helping anyone?
Oh, I know! I'm helping to pay for all the people now on Obamacare. Wonderful! Guess what? I now have less money to donate to the charities of my choice because Obama has decided for me.
-
I'm in one of these states, and both our monthly payment portion of company sponsored healthcare as well as max deductible and max out of pocket have gone through the roof. I recently suffered a badly broken humerus that required surgery for internal fixation. My portion of the bill was $6k. Yes, $6k for a broken arm. Luckily I have the $6k to pay, but what about those who don't? How is a max out of pocket increase from $2k eight years ago to $8k now helping anyone?
Oh, I know! I'm helping to pay for all the people now on Obamacare. Wonderful! Guess what? I now have less money to donate to the charities of my choice because Obama has decided for me.
My company sponsored plan doubled in cost under Obamacare, and the deductibles more than doubled. I can't afford to get sick, or hurt. Charities, like the Salvation Army, and various church sponsored charities do a MUCH more efficient job than government as most of the dollars actually get to the people that need them instead of funding the huge government bureaucracy, and inefficiency. It is criminal in how government missuses funds.
-
How much per year would it have cost to purchase health insurance for the 24M who didn't have insurance?
-
I'm in one of these states, and both our monthly payment portion of company sponsored healthcare as well as max deductible and max out of pocket have gone through the roof. I recently suffered a badly broken humerus that required surgery for internal fixation. My portion of the bill was $6k. Yes, $6k for a broken arm. Luckily I have the $6k to pay, but what about those who don't? How is a max out of pocket increase from $2k eight years ago to $8k now helping anyone?
Oh, I know! I'm helping to pay for all the people now on Obamacare. Wonderful! Guess what? I now have less money to donate to the charities of my choice because Obama has decided for me.
But in the perfesser's world, since you have the money then you are obligated to pay it! Your purpose is to provide funding for others.
It's all about transfer of wealth, nothing more.
-
How much per year would it have cost to purchase health insurance for the 24M who didn't have insurance?
A lot less than it's costing the taxpayer now.
Bottom line, the ACA (Obamacare) was never about health insurance. It's all about transfer of wealth, control of 1/6th of the economy and most important, it's about designing a system that would ultimately fail (by design) to thrust healthcare into total government control.
-
I can't afford to get sick, or hurt.
Three years ago I got hit out of the blue with a genetic issue that required immediate major surgery and hospital stay. As that was in late December and the testing and procedures went will into the 1st quarter of the following year, I had the privilege of satisfying two years of max deductible and out of pocket. That health issue set me back $16k+, and again with what is considered to be a decent company provided heath plan. Fun times. :'(
Health care cost is changing how everyone thinks and what risks they are willing to take. I know people who are giving up life long hobbies because they can't afford $6k if they break an arm or leg.
-
Why do you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to tell its citizens what they will and will not purchase? I'm still waiting to see the authority for it because the general welfare clause fails.
Because the government winds up paying for it in the end. Like I said, when the pain gets bad enough or when they find you unconscious on the floor you wind up in the ER. If you haven't the cash government pays. Since they're paying anyway says me they should be able to stipulate the how and why. ER can't turn anyone away.
I feel horribly for those on the wrong side of this. I feel awful for defending the ACA, I know it was worked out in a hurry and is far from perfect. I do think it a step in the right direction. The problem is simple, medical care is an inelastic commodity, and it sucks up 25% of our GDP. Just throwing up your hands and saying let the markets do their thing is nuts, folks will die of easily treatable disease because they haven't enough cash. And that's a waste.
Again, its here to stay. If someone really does repeal it or defund the subsidies there will be heck to pay. I think all but the most ideologically hidebound politicrats know this. Says me, since we got it why not make it work right?
-
Because the government winds up paying for it in the end. Like I said, when the pain gets bad enough or when they find you unconscious on the floor you wind up in the ER. If you haven't the cash government pays. Since they're paying anyway says me they should be able to stipulate the how and why. ER can't turn anyone away.
No, the government doesn't pay for it. WE PAY FOR IT. The government does not create any wealth, it only takes wealth, but I agree we need to manage care for those that can not pay for it in a more efficient manner. The ACA does NOT do that.
-
A lot less than it's costing the taxpayer now.
Bottom line, the ACA (Obamacare) was never about health insurance. It's all about transfer of wealth, control of 1/6th of the economy and most important, it's about designing a system that would ultimately fail (by design) to thrust healthcare into total government control.
Of course some 11M of those that did not have insurance are actually on Medicaid, so we are paying for their insurance.
-
An American Legion Post I belonged to had a sign over the bar:
The only money the government has to spend comes from YOU.
-
Because the government winds up paying for it in the end. Like I said, when the pain gets bad enough or when they find you unconscious on the floor you wind up in the ER. If you haven't the cash government pays. Since they're paying anyway says me they should be able to stipulate the how and why. ER can't turn anyone away.
As Anthony pointed out, the government doesn't pay for it, we do. The government doesn't inherently have any money except that which it takes from the people.
I feel horribly for those on the wrong side of this.
By wrong side of this, you mean anybody who doesn't agree that we need a national socialized single-payer system?
I feel awful for defending the ACA, I know it was worked out in a hurry and is far from perfect. I do think it a step in the right direction. The problem is simple, medical care is an inelastic commodity, and it sucks up 25% of our GDP. Just throwing up your hands and saying let the markets do their thing is nuts, folks will die of easily treatable disease because they haven't enough cash. And that's a waste.
Since when is letting the markets handle this considered "throwing my hands up"? The market will ensure that the costs are lowered if the government stays out of it. Costs are out of control right now, continuing to rise and quality of care is decreasing. All because of government.
Again, its here to stay. If someone really does repeal it or defund the subsidies there will be heck to pay. I think all but the most ideologically hidebound politicrats know this. Says me, since we got it why not make it work right?
You still have not identified where the authority comes from to fund the subsidies or why you seem to think I should pay for someone who is less healthy.
We don't have to have the ACA, or the AHCA. We can have something that actually works that has little to no federal government involvement. Here's an article on why Sanders' recent proposal of "Medicare for all" won't work:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14819/sanders-wants-medicare-all-here-are-9-reasons-aaron-bandler#.WNll3OnnOF8.twitter
-
Since when is letting the markets handle this considered "throwing my hands up"? The market will ensure that the costs are lowered if the government stays out of it. Costs are out of control right now, continuing to rise and quality of care is decreasing. All because of government.
No, costs are rising because there are more patients because there are more old people. Moreover, modern medicine can do things to save lives that old-fashioned medicine couldn't. Problem is it takes highly trained and specialized people (read expensive) not to mention expensive equipment and drugs. Many cardiac events and cancers cost more than most folks make in their lifetimes.
You still have not identified where the authority comes from to fund the subsidies or why you seem to think I should pay for someone who is less healthy.
I can't account for the why. If you're looking for teleological arguments I'd tell you to look up philosophies on altruism and living in a society. I can tell you that you do one way or another. If everyone waits to get medical insurance until they get sick the whole thing collapses. You need healthy people to pay for the sick ones.
We don't have to have the ACA, or the AHCA. We can have something that actually works that has little to no federal government involvement.
We had that. Tens of millions lacked any sort of coverage or medical care.
-
No, costs are rising because there are more patients because there are more old people.
That's a bullshit argument. The cost are rising because (a) Insurance can't be sold across state lines, (b) Due to intrusive regulations of the ACA many insurers are dropping out of the market, and (c) many young healthy people are paying the penalty rather than buy insurance because the ACA will allow them to buy a policy when they are sick or injured.
The ACA was designed to become overloaded and eventually break down, thus giving the government a convenient excuse to take over healthcare completely.
The catastrophic climb in policy rates coupled with the decline in policy provisions (higher out of pocket expenses) didn't take place until the ACA was implemented.
Moreover, modern medicine can do things to save lives that old-fashioned medicine couldn't. Problem is it takes highly trained and specialized people (read expensive) not to mention expensive equipment and drugs. Many cardiac events and cancers cost more than most folks make in their lifetimes.
Again, these rises in cost are directly proportional to government intervention.
-
Kudos to those House members that looked at the AHCA and said “how in the world is this good for Americans?”.
Funny how no one asked this question in 20010 when the POS ACA was procedurally rammed through Congress to the president's waiting pen.
-
Funny how no one asked this question in 20010 when the POS ACA was procedurally rammed through Congress to the president's waiting pen.
Well, the Republicans asked the question, and were told you have to pass the bill to see what is in it by the Democrats (Pelosi), so none of them voted for it. It passed anyway, and the Democrats stuck us with it. Not saying the Republicans are great or anything, but they were right on Obamacare.
-
We had that. Tens of millions lacked any sort of coverage or medical care.
Yet people weren't dying from "easily treatable diseases" because hey had no cash, as you predicted would happen if the ACA went away. Why is that and why would it be different now?
The "tens of millions" that had no insurance included the poor, who had Medicaid, the elderly, who had Medicare, and the large group of people were too cheap and who who didn't want to spend the money. Yet even THOSE people weren't dying in the streets.
Your predictions of catastrophic levels of death are quite dramatic.
-
They were all here illegally or didn't want insurance.
-
No, costs are rising because there are more patients because there are more old people. Moreover, modern medicine can do things to save lives that old-fashioned medicine couldn't. Problem is it takes highly trained and specialized people (read expensive) not to mention expensive equipment and drugs. Many cardiac events and cancers cost more than most folks make in their lifetimes.
I can't account for the why. If you're looking for teleological arguments I'd tell you to look up philosophies on altruism and living in a society. I can tell you that you do one way or another. If everyone waits to get medical insurance until they get sick the whole thing collapses. You need healthy people to pay for the sick ones.
We had that. Tens of millions lacked any sort of coverage or medical care.
Costs are rising and you think a single payer system is going to make that better? You obviously have no idea of the forces of economics.
What will make prices better are structural and legal.
Tort reform so doctors can practice medicine rather than a legal defense. It will allow doctors to consolidate services they have been forced out of by insurance. This is lower cost.
Policies which encourage more American doctors (as opposed to those who take a medical school slot and then leave). This is more supply.
Elimination of government mandates on insurance - purchasing, coverage, deductibles, etc. This is lower cost and lower demand.
Stop thinking of things as "free" and realize that everything has a cost. The more money the government puts into medical care, the more it will cost. We haven't learned that with student loans yet, but it's true. The demand and the supply don't change so more money equals higher prices as the supply is bid up.
The way to lower the price is to saturate the market with doctors. Allow the doctors to treat almost everything in their practice. Prices WILL come down and everyone will be able to directly pay for medical care without requiring anyone else to pay for it.
-
That's a bullshit argument. The cost are rising because (a) Insurance can't be sold across state lines, (b) Due to intrusive regulations of the ACA many insurers are dropping out of the market, and (c) many young healthy people are paying the penalty rather than buy insurance because the ACA will allow them to buy a policy when they are sick or injured.
You missed a few
d) Costs for medical care went up due to government mandates on doctors, especially in the areas of billing and record keeping.
e) Many doctors retired rather than deal with the ACA
f) The government put more money into an essentially closed system. The market bid the prices up.
g) Doctors got stuck with more liability resulting in narrowing practice fields and more stratification / more profit points in the market.
Inter state competition really has little impact. The ACA mandates the insurance coverage and requirements.
The one good idea that I can think of from the ACA is the elimination of risk pools. Insurance companies should not be allowed to give discounts to healthy people, nor to reject those who need coverage. Bake it all in together. There are ways to handle people who join just to get treatment.
-
Every time I go to the DMV. Every time I have a dealing with the IRS. Every time I read about a veteran dying waiting for VA care. Every time I check out the federal deficit. Every time I read about another politician enriching herself by taking advantage of inside information. Every time I drive under a rusting bridge. Every time I hear about SS and medicare programs about to run out of money. The list goes on and on. Every time, I wonder how so many people can be so fucked in the head, as to think that having these incompetent morons in government in charge of health insurance and health care is a good idea. Really, if you think this, fuck off.
-
Democrats won't be happy until we all have the same type of care our Veterans have.
-
Democrats won't be happy until we all have the same type of care our Veterans have.
I'd be fine with that;
once we start giving veterans the care they deserve!
-
Every time I go to the DMV. Every time I have a dealing with the IRS. Every time I read about a veteran dying waiting for VA care. Every time I check out the federal deficit. Every time I read about another politician enriching herself by taking advantage of inside information. Every time I drive under a rusting bridge. Every time I hear about SS and medicare programs about to run out of money. The list goes on and on. Every time, I wonder how so many people can be so fucked in the head, as to think that having these incompetent morons in government in charge of health insurance and health care is a good idea. Really, if you think this, fuck off.
I'm a diehard fan of capitalism, and believe that health insurance should be sold competitively as a product, like auto and home insurance, and designed exclusively for preventing financial catastrophe.
I do think sometimes that the unholy duo of capitalism and government creates an out-of-control hot mess of the type we are seeing now with health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
Some of the ideas for improvement expressed in this thread carry great possibility, I think, but I don't know why as a species we seem so averse to actually doing what makes sense.
-
Of course some 11M all but an statistically insignificant handful of those
11M that did not have insurance are actually on Medicaid, so we are paying for their insurance.
You would still be correct as modified.
-
(https://mises.org/sites/default/files/holly1.jpg)
Guess what happened at the "knee" in that figure - beginning at 1965?
Here's one explanation:
https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive (https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive)
-
Democrats won't be happy until we all have the same type of care our Veterans have.
Exactly. That is the problem with government run, big ticket (which is everything) issues. There is little to no motivation for efficiency, and there is a good amount of patronage, and corruption. Managers (bureacrats) are encouraged by their agency heads to spend their entire budget for fear it gets cut the next year. I know, I have been there as a Department head in government (state level), and was told use it our lose it at the end of the fiscal year. Both the Republicans, and Democrats do this, and I have worked under both administrations. However, in my experience, the Republicans were more fiscally responsible, but since when have you seen government budgets go down from the previous year, no matter what party is in charge? Both laughingly call a PROPOSED reduction in the rate of growth a "budget cut". Duh.
-
I can explain health care prices very quickly.
Example 1
There are 5 apples. There are 5 people. Every person has $1 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $1.
Why? In a perfectly efficient market, everyone ges what they want for the price they want to spend.
Example 2
There are 5 apples. There are 5 people. Every person has $5 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $5.
Why? More money in a closed system inflates the price without changing distribution.
Example 3
Now there are 5 apples but there are 10 people. Everyone has a different amount, $1, $2, etc, up to $10 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $6 and some people don't get apples.
Why? The price for a short commodity will be set by the market at the point that the suppliers make the most money available to them.
Example 4
The government arrives to "fix" the situation. Some apple growers shut down because they cannot survive under the new government rules for apple growers. There are now 2 apples and the government hands out money so everyone can pay $10 per apple. Everyone still wants an apple. The price of 1/5th of an apple is $10 and everyone is dissatisfied.
Why? An attempt to fix the prices artificially low results in shortages.
-
I can explain health care prices very quickly.
Example 1
There are 5 apples. There are 5 people. Every person has $1 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $1.
Why? In a perfectly efficient market, everyone ges what they want for the price they want to spend.
Example 2
There are 5 apples. There are 5 people. Every person has $5 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $5.
Why? More money in a closed system inflates the price without changing distribution.
Example 3
Now there are 5 apples but there are 10 people. Everyone has a different amount, $1, $2, etc, up to $10 and everyone wants an apple. The price of each apple is $6 and some people don't get apples.
Why? The price for a short commodity will be set by the market at the point that the suppliers make the most money available to them.
Example 4
The government arrives to "fix" the situation. Some apple growers shut down because they cannot survive under the new government rules for apple growers. There are now 2 apples and the government hands out money so everyone can pay $10 per apple. Everyone still wants an apple. The price of 1/5th of an apple is $10 and everyone is dissatisfied.
Why? An attempt to fix the prices artificially low results in shortages.
Hmmm... an apples to oranges comparison. ;) Can't say I agree with that. ;D