Graham-Cassidy thing

And, of course, Trump is raging on Twitter, claiming that McCain betrayed his best friend Senator Graham:




Senator Graham himself, though he is pressing on with his bill and stated that he disagrees with McCain, is way more gracious:





THAT, Mr. Trump, is actually the way this shit should work, in my opinion. Not Senators voting based on nothing but lemming party obedience and personal loyalty, but on their beliefs on what is best for the country and with mutual respect, even in disagreement. I hate Graham's bill, but in my book he gets big points for being gracious and a gentleman about McCain's refusal to sign onto it.

Needless to say, I'm thrilled McCain made the announcement he did.  It's not even just about this icky bill.  It's about a return to good faith discussion and debate, and to regular order. 

Yeah, one can still think there are major flaws in the current system without buying into this new one. And the GOP has had plenty of time. McCain is correct that this needs a bipartisan approach, as it should have had the first time.

I'd suggest the gop separate certain parts of healthcare out, like preexisting conditions so they can become their own law, and then taking on the less popular parts. Also, no reason why we can't allow health care to compete over state lines now as far as I can see.

Susan Collins is officially a no:

I don't disagree. But then, it's equally mind-boggling to me that the ACA was actually passed--by the Dems, alone--back in 2010 and it's huge problems were never addressed by the Dems or the previous admin. And even now, the Dems in Congress aren't doing jack shit in the way of offering solutions. They've just switched over to the previously Repub mantra: oppose, oppose, oppose. 

There is also the fact that they spent eight years bashing the process that resulted in the ACA -- but then used one that was much, much, much worse.

The contrast between their complaints for eight years and their actions now that they own the place is just astonishing.

I agree with much of your assessment of the ACA.

But it was, at least, motivated by an attempt to help people who couldn't afford health insurance and/or had pre-existing conditions. Many who got insurance through employers were and are unaware of just how crazy expensive it was if you didn't get it that way, or downright unobtainable if you had a pre-existing condition.

And the trouble is, without insurance, healthcare is just not affordable for most of us.

Do something about the insane costs, and the inability to get insurance might not be such a big deal. But minus that, insurance pretty much has to one into it.

So as ill-designed as the ACA was, at least I could get on board with the intentions. I can't get onboard with the going back to the pre-ACA status quo, nor with the intentions behind any GOP bill s far (which seem to be, at best, about taxcits to those who don't need it, abandoning those who most need help, and simply tearing down the ACA without regard to what, if anything replaces it.

If the GOP were giving serious efforts to plans to bring down the cost of healthcare itself, and/or a real effort to preventing the cost of insurance from being out of reach, I'd give them some points, even if I didn't think their plan was great. As t is? I can't give them credit for squat -- not for plans, intentions, or process.

Here's what I'd love to see:

(a) A bipartisan effort to identify problems and shared essential goals. (I submit that these goals should include that no one be unable to afford and obtain basic healthcare, and that no one should die from a perfectly preventable disease or suffer unnecessarily because of lack of money. Really, do most Republicans disagree that's important?).  And then

(2) An open-minded discussion of ways to meet those goals and the obstacles (in each state). The ACA focused on insurance. I'd be happy to talk about bringing down costs. why is healthcare more expensive here than in other first-world countries? It is not better. We spend more and overall our citizens get less, despite talented doctors and great facilities.  And at the same time, many doctors, particularly primary care doctors, don't seem to be flourishing -- many are struggling with student loan debt decades after graduation.  Why? This is bad, no? What might fix all that?

(iii) proposed solutions that don't meet the goals in (a) get tossed.  Solutions that might meet those goals get considered for feasibility from the standpoint of cost, etc. (Democrats can agree that we don't want to bankrupt the country and that we need a sustainable system, right?)

But instead of talking about that, it's all about political philosophy and partisan opposition. People pound their chests and talk about insurance instead of healthcare, and about "freedom" from having to buy insurance, which is all fine and well until you get cancer, or bitch because they are currently healthy and yet their dollars help the sick, or worrying about whether a lottery winner might get more than their fair share, whatever the fuck that might be.

I feel like the whole question of actual care for actual people gets lost in the bluster.


ETA:

I submit that part of the expense is that huge amounts of money end up with the middleman insurance companies.  Agree? Disagree? And if so, what should be done about it?  If not, what is the big problem?

Another thing I'll keep saying until my tongue withers -- we should de-couple healthcare and employment.  If employers want to pay an extra bonus to go towards the employee's healthcare, fine, but the two things should not be tied the way they are now.  It hides the true costs and the fact that Americans, even in the same state, are not on the same footing when it comes to buying healthcare.  

ETA:

I also agree that Trump would sign anything put in front of him, up to and including a single-payer plan.