|
Post by Angie on Jun 22, 2017 19:56:40 GMT -5
How is this any better than the miserable House bill that got nearly no voter support??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 7:01:09 GMT -5
It isn't.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 23, 2017 9:24:12 GMT -5
No, it's not.
The Repubs are basically snookered here. They don't have the gumption to go simple repeal and there's no way to craft a bill that will satisfy the ones who want that to happen, protect the insurance companies, and avoid the charge of taking healthcare away from millions of people. They'll likely never have the votes.
But the ACA remains a horribly flawed and fiscally damaging piece of legislation, though I guess it was crafted well enough to prevent its repeal. Yay.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 23, 2017 20:49:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 27, 2017 12:13:42 GMT -5
Unraveling the ACA is much easier said than done. There are people who have health insurance now that didn't before, just as there are people who lost it through ACA or have had their rates explode.
What they should have done, was start with things like allowing insurance to be purchased over state lines, and some tort reform so prices went down, then bust ACA apart bit by bit, so you can keep parts you like, and get rid of parts you don't. It's not a quick and easy fix.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 27, 2017 12:40:26 GMT -5
The whole thing--from the ACA to the current attempts to replace it--is a colossal clusterfuck and represents one of the most egregious overreaches by the Feds in the history of the US, imo. I'm sympathetic to people who want and need health care, who can't afford to pay out-of-pocket for such things and lack a fully paid for health insurance program (from work or the like). Hell, I just about am such a person. But the government was--and still is, even in the GOP plans--completely wrong to involve itself in the health insurance business to these degree. Health insurance is not the same thing as health care. It just isn't. And that's the thing that needs to be fixed above all else, imo. There was a news story about a woman who tweeted her son's hospital bill for a two week period (he has lots of health issues). Here it is: www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/health/mom-tweets-on-health-care/index.htmlThe whole thing topped out at over $230,000...for two weeks! Look at the top line item on the bill. $22,525 for room and board in a semi-private room. That's $1600 a day! What's going on here is that hospitals are padding their bills when insurance companies are picking up the tabs and insurance companies are spreading out that cost by increasing premiums. And it's going to keep happening at a rate far greater than inflation, imo. This is one of the things that makes health care unaffordable for so many. Really, it makes health insurance unaffordable for the same people. Yet the government is "fixing" the problem by mandating that this process should be the norm and will continue. It's so unbelievably stupid, it drives me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 28, 2017 8:16:40 GMT -5
This is an interesting piece: www.wsj.com/articles/why-didnt-obamacare-make-us-healthier-1498508891It's about the fact that there's no evidence that shows the implementation of Obamacare has saved lives, a valid counter to Sanders' (and others') repeated claims that repealing it means that "thousands of people will die," people who otherwise wouldn't have (which I guess Sanders knows through his powers of socialist clairvoyance; if he know who these thousands are, I guess he could warn them now). Anyway, the conclusion: You know, if it's true that wealthier tends to lead to healthier (and I'm pretty sure it is), we're back to "it's the economy, stupid."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 12:49:34 GMT -5
Assuming we don't ultimately end up with a firm of single-payer, I'd love to see them try do do something about costs -- I agree with Rob that they are ridiculous and a huge problem -- and to disconnect healthcare from employment. The latter makes no sense and needlessly puts the self-employed and unemployed in a separate category in terms of paying for insurance.
The focus on providing insurance rather than on providing care sucks, too.
if the GOP were trying to do something about those two things -- or anything that would genuinely make care more accessible and affordable, I'd be applauding wildly and cheering them on. As it is, I'm fucking disgusted that all they care about is getting more money to our wealthiest citizens and shredding Obama's legacy, without any regard for the impact it will have on the rest of us to get care.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 3, 2017 19:58:48 GMT -5
What I find interesting here is that Trump has seemingly supported every idea the GOP has floated on health care, even when there are significant differences among the different proposals. Even the bill that Trump called "mean" was something he actually supported at one point. Now Trump is saying the repubs should just repeal now and worry about a replacement later, but I think he's only saying that because there are some repubs in the senate who floated the idea first.
One gets the sense that Trump isn't following the details of any of this stuff; he just wants to get this over with and move on, regardless of what the outcome is. What a wonderful attitude for such a hugely important issue, amirite?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 20:14:58 GMT -5
One gets the distinct feeling that if McConnell floated a proposition to euthanize the sickly, elderly,and poor in order to bring down health care costs, Trump would say "Tremendous!" and sign it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 3, 2017 20:18:28 GMT -5
From a National Review piece: LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 3, 2017 20:20:49 GMT -5
This is everything Trump knows about healthcare, right here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoHZbJXJ1GcThe press had to leave because after that stunning display of knowledge, it was naptime.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 4, 2017 8:08:53 GMT -5
This is an interesting piece: www.wsj.com/articles/why-didnt-obamacare-make-us-healthier-1498508891It's about the fact that there's no evidence that shows the implementation of Obamacare has saved lives, a valid counter to Sanders' (and others') repeated claims that repealing it means that "thousands of people will die," people who otherwise wouldn't have (which I guess Sanders knows through his powers of socialist clairvoyance; if he know who these thousands are, I guess he could warn them now). Anyway, the conclusion: You know, if it's true that wealthier tends to lead to healthier (and I'm pretty sure it is), we're back to "it's the economy, stupid." It's always "it's the economy, stupid." We've pretty much squandered our Buck Rogers future by listening to politicians claim that by misallocating resources from their most-beneficial use, they can improve the economy, in spite of generations of proof to the contrary. OTOH, it's glaringly obvious to any impartial observer that the areas of the economy (indeed, of society) that are most fucked-up are precisely those areas where the politicians hold the most power, and personal choice is most restricted. It ain't rocket science, but it is basic economics. Too bad they don't teach economics in government school. I wonder why that is?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 12:05:00 GMT -5
It ain't rocket science, but it is basic economics. Too bad they don't teach economics in government school. I wonder why that is? Obviously, a bunch of government types all got together and very carefully designed a government school curriculum that would keep everyone in ignorance, and passively obedient to government directives. They then implemented this plan nationwide, and have done so for generations, all while keeping it a secret that no one but a few libertarians have figured out. It's always fascinating how inept you think the government is, especially in the area of long-term planning and social engineering, except when it comes to pulling off secret schemes on a grand scale that would do the Illuminati proud.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 12, 2017 8:31:43 GMT -5
It ain't rocket science, but it is basic economics. Too bad they don't teach economics in government school. I wonder why that is? Obviously, a bunch of government types all got together and very carefully designed a government school curriculum that would keep everyone in ignorance, and passively obedient to government directives. They then implemented this plan nationwide, and have done so for generations, all while keeping it a secret that no one but a few libertarians have figured out. It's always fascinating how inept you think the government is, especially in the area of long-term planning and social engineering, except when it comes to pulling off secret schemes on a grand scale that would do the Illuminati proud. That's just silly. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to understand why Keynesian economics is taught in government school, any more than it takes a conspiracy theory to explain why respect for authority is number one in a classroom of students or why more and more children are diagnosed as problematic and drugged to get through the school day every year. It simply take an understanding of the incentives inherent in bureaucracies, a smattering of non-Keynesian economics, a smidgeon of public choice theory, and the basic ability of logical integration. OTOH, I didn't learn about bureaucratic incentives, non-Keynesian economics, public choice theory or serious critical thinking in government school either. All that required some personal effort on my part. Government schools, not surprisingly, take the pro-government stance seriously, even to the extent of distorting reality to defend it.
|
|