|
Post by ben on Sept 29, 2017 0:59:51 GMT -5
My libertarian leanings make me hesitate to suggest this, but this idea came to mind so I'm going to say it. Have a law that REQUIRES every insurance company to offer the same plan in two (or perhaps more) states, thus "requiring" competition. Maybe require them to expand into one or more states every year or so, until there's "Real Competition" between them. The companies appear to be maintaining the same turf they've had for however many decades.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 7:28:03 GMT -5
That's a fairly generous reading of the provision in the beginning of that article, though it then goes on to explain the reality of it, which is hardly consistent with this line: That's only true if certain conditions are met by the States. And the problem is that States don't want to allow an insurer to swoop in from another State that allows superior/cheaper plan and take away customers from their programs. Tres disingenuous. It's not that insurers are uninterested, it's that States aren't going to allow it unless the cross-state insurers can only offer the same plans or worse that are in the State already. I.e the provision automatically strips away any incentives insurers might have to take this route. It's a bullshit provision, like so many other parts of the ACA, dreamed up by technocrats who've fooled themselves--and much of the public--into believing they can have absolute control over everything in the healthcare sector.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 29, 2017 12:07:46 GMT -5
Seriously, it just boggles me that the,GOP couldn't get their act together and come up with something better after all these years of bitching about the ACA. It's truly pathetic. 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. Hey, maybe this is a news flash to you, but the House and the Senate are both controlled by Republicans and they rammed their Kill Obamacare bills through without hearings, without amendments, and this latest atrocity without a complete Congressional Budget Office score. If the Dems aren't doing jack shit in the way of offering solutions its because the Repubs don't want them. The only "solution" the Republicans have is coming up with new ways to accomplish old goals: to rape and fuck the American people.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 13:21:41 GMT -5
*shrug*
I think the Repub's efforts so far have been simply awful, which is ridiculous, given how much time they've had to prepare for this (repealing/replacing the ACA).
That reality doesn't excuse the Dems for passing a massive piece of crap bill, then doing almost nothing to address its horrible shortcomings (which were readily apparent as soon as the ACA started to go into effect).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 30, 2017 9:56:56 GMT -5
*shrug*I think the Repub's efforts so far have been simply awful, which is ridiculous, given how much time they've had to prepare for this (repealing/replacing the ACA). That reality doesn't excuse the Dems for passing a massive piece of crap bill, then doing almost nothing to address its horrible shortcomings (which were readily apparent as soon as the ACA started to go into effect). The Dems don't need an excuse. The ACA had its shortcomings to be sure. Every piece of legislation should come with a warning label "May Not Work As Originally Intended." However, the Repubs aren't trying to fix what's wrong with the ACA because like the Orange Cheeto, because it has Barack Obama's name associated with it this means it must be utterly and completely destroyed. Of course, people may die because there is no replacement once the ACA is repealed--- and it will be repealed just as soon as John McCain shuffles off to his great reward---but who cares about that? Certainly not the Repubs.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 30, 2017 12:03:35 GMT -5
*shrug*I think the Repub's efforts so far have been simply awful, which is ridiculous, given how much time they've had to prepare for this (repealing/replacing the ACA). That reality doesn't excuse the Dems for passing a massive piece of crap bill, then doing almost nothing to address its horrible shortcomings (which were readily apparent as soon as the ACA started to go into effect). I think the early efforts were for show only, to gin up their base. Now they're like, 'shit we really have to do this thing!' Much like our president. Also, the GOP held the WH, Senate and House for 6 years under Bush. They didn't fix healthcare then. Obama and company made an effort. I think there are huge problems with ACA, and they didn't want any GOP input then. If I were in charge, I wouldn't repeal and replace. I'd slice it up. Separate say the pre existing conditions part so it's not part of the whole so that can be protected. Do the same with each piece. Fix it if possibly, keep it if it's good, and for the bad parts, kill it with fire.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 30, 2017 21:42:13 GMT -5
Also, the GOP held the WH, Senate and House for 6 years under Bush. They didn't fix healthcare then. Obama and company made an effort. I think there are huge problems with ACA, and they didn't want any GOP input then. What input was the GOP offering, other than "No!"? That sounds like a meaningless feelgood idea devoid of any practical value. I mean, for all Congress's faults, they are not all completely and totally stupid and if you could just pass a big complicated bill that's supposed to reform the enormous mess that is US healthcare, I'm sure they'd try to "fix the good parts and kill the bad parts." It's not just that the two parties disagree on which parts are good and which parts are bad, it's that everything is interrelated. Like, protection for preexisting conditions is contentious precisely because it's really expensive for providers. You want to keep that part - okay, then it has to be paid for somehow. The ACA tried to address that by, among other things, requiring everyone to pay for insurance or be penalized. This is one of the "bad" parts according to a lot of people, but if you kill that with fire, where does the money for insuring all the people with expensive chronic conditions who want to jump on a low-cost insurance plan come from? We are eventually going to have to face up to the fact that modern health care cannot realistically be both affordable and profitable. Pick one.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Oct 2, 2017 12:22:48 GMT -5
The Dems don't need an excuse. The ACA had its shortcomings to be sure. Every piece of legislation should come with a warning label "May Not Work As Originally Intended. That should be "May Not Work As Originally Described/Advertised." There's no telling what was truly intended by so many of these bills' authors.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 3, 2017 5:37:27 GMT -5
|
|