Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Obamacare repeal/replace (or 2.0, or Obamacare "lite")


133 replies to this topic

#26
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Poe I agree with that, and that brings up something else I wanted to discuss- what is the way forward for the GOP here?

 

It seems to me that we got two options.  One is, we could just fix Obamacare before the Dems win back power again.  Fixing it wouldn't be hard, you would just have to increase the penalty so that it's more expensive than buying insurance, and then the mandate would start working.  Of course, this would not be popular at all and there would be a huge price to pay, but it's pretty much the only thing that will keep some semblance of a private insurance market existing, if that's what we want.

 

There is another option.  It may sound a bit crazy, but hear me out here.  The Republicans could be the ones to pass universal health care.  Beat the Dems to it before they get back in office.  Call it something like "Medicare for all" or whatever, since people generally like Medicare and it doesn't have the stigma attached to it that Obamacare has.

 

Pass it with a grand compromise bill- along with Medicare for all, a strengthening of immigration laws.  Harder caps, more restrictions on visas (maybe ending some programs like H1B altogether), massive deportations, funding the wall, etc.  Just think about how easy it would be to sell this issue.  Dems would be stuck between a rock and a hard place- if they don't vote for it, then they're saying they don't want universal coverage (cue the ads showing granny dying etc).  And if they say they can't vote for the immigration provisions, well that sells itself- Republicans can go on and on all day about how Dems are insisting we provide health care coverage to illegals instead of good old middle-American law abiding salt of the earth folk.  The GOP could conceivably lock up the Midwest for a generation if they did this.

 

It's something to think about.  Who loses?  Well the insurance companies.  But who cares?  I guess free-marketers and the Ayn Randian types would lose too, but consider this.  There's a real risk that if we don't do it, the Dems will when they're back in power, and they'll push for amnesty too.  It seems to me that if we can win one out of two here, we go ahead and take the medicine, no matter how bad it will taste.  At least this way we get a chance to control what it looks like.  I think a lot of Republicans could be sold on this idea if it was explicitly coupled with deportations.  All you have to say is- hey, if we don't do it this way now, the Dems are gonna create a universal health care system along with open borders and anyone can just come here and leech off our benefits.  The votes will be there.



#27
Transducer X

Transducer X

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,436 posts

 

 

I don't think you can fault the GOP here because they inherited this mess.

Ha! They had 7 years to plan for this moment and they blew it. Trumpcare is dead. ACA stands.

Well aware of that sweetie, but there's nothing they can do. The proverbial cat is out of the bag and ****ing the dog. There's nothing that can be done to fix it.

Or do you have a plan to pay for this mess? Things cost money.

 

You're right, sugar pie, it indeed seems that there is nothing they can do. 



#28
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Yep the die is cast. Taxpayers will be further burdened with a ****ty insurance package that doesn't provide real coverage.

Thanks, Barack. You've done an excellent job of pretending to solve the healthcare crisis at the expense of the American people.
  • The Kurgan +1 this

#29
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

How many times in a week do you use the word "cuck" or "snowflake?" Just curious.



#30
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,114 posts

Yep the die is cast. Taxpayers will be further burdened with a ****ty insurance package that doesn't provide real coverage.

Thanks, Barack. You've done an excellent job of pretending to solve the healthcare crisis at the expense of the American people.

 

This is so very true.  



#31
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,492 posts

Poe I agree with that, and that brings up something else I wanted to discuss- what is the way forward for the GOP here?
 
It seems to me that we got two options.  One is, we could just fix Obamacare before the Dems win back power again.  Fixing it wouldn't be hard, you would just have to increase the penalty so that it's more expensive than buying insurance, and then the mandate would start working.  Of course, this would not be popular at all and there would be a huge price to pay, but it's pretty much the only thing that will keep some semblance of a private insurance market existing, if that's what we want.
 
There is another option.  It may sound a bit crazy, but hear me out here.  The Republicans could be the ones to pass universal health care.  Beat the Dems to it before they get back in office.  Call it something like "Medicare for all" or whatever, since people generally like Medicare and it doesn't have the stigma attached to it that Obamacare has.
 
Pass it with a grand compromise bill- along with Medicare for all, a strengthening of immigration laws.  Harder caps, more restrictions on visas (maybe ending some programs like H1B altogether), massive deportations, funding the wall, etc.  Just think about how easy it would be to sell this issue.  Dems would be stuck between a rock and a hard place- if they don't vote for it, then they're saying they don't want universal coverage (cue the ads showing granny dying etc).  And if they say they can't vote for the immigration provisions, well that sells itself- Republicans can go on and on all day about how Dems are insisting we provide health care coverage to illegals instead of good old middle-American law abiding salt of the earth folk.  The GOP could conceivably lock up the Midwest for a generation if they did this.
 
It's something to think about.  Who loses?  Well the insurance companies.  But who cares?  I guess free-marketers and the Ayn Randian types would lose too, but consider this.  There's a real risk that if we don't do it, the Dems will when they're back in power, and they'll push for amnesty too.  It seems to me that if we can win one out of two here, we go ahead and take the medicine, no matter how bad it will taste.  At least this way we get a chance to control what it looks like.  I think a lot of Republicans could be sold on this idea if it was explicitly coupled with deportations.  All you have to say is- hey, if we don't do it this way now, the Dems are gonna create a universal health care system along with open borders and anyone can just come here and leech off our benefits.  The votes will be there.


This is interesting, but overly practical for Washington. Anything short of being 100% ideologically pure is the same as being pure evil.

#32
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

They're trying again today.  They wouldn't have scheduled the vote if they didn't think they had the votes.



#33
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,492 posts
You are probably right, but at this point a loss on the floor may be less awful than another retreat.

#34
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
I'm trying really hard not to be gaslit, but living with a freelancer that's a cancer survivor is making it pretty hard.

#35
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

...well I guess it doesn't matter. Cancer is generally slow moving and Nuclear war with N Korea will be much quicker.


  • Mara Jade Skywalker, monkeygirl and Cerina +1 this

#36
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,492 posts
Both of Ohio's senators are against it. I wrote a letter to the Republican urging him to not cave on it.

#37
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

Seems like even our resident conservatives don't seem to want to post any sort of support for this garbage.



#38
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,903 posts

It's not going anywhere if the Senate isn't even going to look at it, right?



#39
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

Darth Krawlie is my pre-existing condition.


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#40
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,903 posts

Well I am kinda gross to look at and ooze a little when you poke me



#41
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,935 posts

Seems like even our resident conservatives don't seem to want to post any sort of support for this garbage.

This isn't over. This has to go to the Senate now. Word is the Senate will not adopt the bill as is and that there could be more changes to it. So I don't know what to think since this might not pass.

#42
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
that's an odd stance... you can't have an opinion on what the leadership wants to pass until it passes?

#43
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Seems like even our resident conservatives don't seem to want to post any sort of support for this garbage.

I didn't know we were discussing it either way.  If you want my take on it, I'm actually okay with a lot of the compromises they came up with.  It's not the plan I'd draft, but it's a definite improvement over the status quo.  Unlike the first iteration which felt like the Republicans were pretty much keeping Obamacare in place for the bargain basement price of taking ownership of all of its problems.

 

That said, the final bill will look nothing like this, so it's not really worth discussing.



#44
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
No, it is.

This is a classic form of deflection you love to use. The idea that until something is official you can't comment on it. But why can't we talk about what the GOP's intent is, what sorts of things they WANT to do. We can't talk about how messed up that is?

Or the fact that you are cool with this because its fiscally more responsible than the ACA, but the moral implications of it don't count because they won't all make it in? That's bull.

#45
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,935 posts

that's an odd stance... you can't have an opinion on what the leadership wants to pass until it passes?

On the surface it seems like a better bill than the ACA and what was drafted last month. The thing is we won't know in practice how this actually plays out. Obamacare failed in part because it didn't get the buy in with people that it needed. People paid the penalty because it was cheaper. This plan may slow rising costs, but if there is no incentive for companies to flourish and compete, we're going to be in the same boat as with the ACA.

I don't have an ACA plan so I haven't seen the rising costs luckily.

#46
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
There's a lot of gas lighting and freaking out over pre-existing conditions, but the problem with the new act is that it ends the restrictions on insurance companies that keep them from setting ridiculously high premiums on a lot of pre-existing conditions.

Regardless if it passes or not, the GOP decided on something that endangers a lot of people. I don't think the ACA was all that great, but it made concessions that ensured a poor person who develops cancer(for example) isn't going to be screwed.

The GOP chose saving the money at the expense of lives. That's morally suspect to me. Especially when there's so many places we could find the money, despite what Tex says above.

Edited by Driver, 05 May 2017 - 06:12 PM.


#47
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Caveat, I'm still trying to educate myself and it's really hard considering MSNBC and CNN are about as credible as freedomeagle.org these days.

#48
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
This is a classic form of deflection you love to use. The idea that until something is official you can't comment on it.

 

I'll comment all you want on the individual provisions.  I just don't see the point in getting exercised about them when they're a dead letter.

 

Obviously, this is an important issue to you, but I legitimately just shrugged my shoulders after reading what was in there so I wasn't commenting on it.  I wasn't hiding or trying to stifle discussion about the core ideas.

 

 

 

Or the fact that you are cool with this because its fiscally more responsible than the ACA, but the moral implications of it don't count because they won't all make it in? That's bull.

 

To me it's a market issue, which is separate from a fiscal responsibility issue.  You can pass something with an ideological goal, but no matter what it's going to hit the reality of simple microeconomics.  Eliminating insurers' ability to change prices for consumers that they know will be more expensive to maintain distorts that market and has to, pretty much by definition, either raise the price for everyone else, or lead to the companies losing money.

 

In this case, clearly both of these outcomes are happening.  We are seeing rates spike while at the very same time insurers are declaring deep financial losses and pulling out of markets.  Of course, this is leading to healthy individuals leaving the market because they can't afford it, and why would they pay for insurance when they don't have to before they need it anyway?  Buying health insurance before you need it becomes economically irrational.

 

You can go back to the comments from myself and Carrie that started this thread.  I think that the preexisting conditions provisions in Obamacare essentially makes the market permanently dysfunctional.  I don't see how you can get around it.  Set things up so that insurance companies can't jack up the price or drop your butt if you get sick?  Sure, that's feasible, we can find ways to make that work.

 

But asking an insurance company to treat all new customers equally?  That's just not how insurance works.  At least the current bill seems to make a few nods in the direction of that reality.  It's hardly free market based, but at least it makes it so that purchasing health insurance a task for sick people and suckers.



#49
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,885 posts

I think caps are coming back. By caps I mean that an insurance company can set the highest amount that it can pay out. After that they're not responsible. I think from my research into this so far it's only going to help make insurance companies richer and premiums are going to stay high or go higher. I am not excited by this. I honestly think it's junk meant to make it look like something was happening but it's really just as bad as the original ACA.

 

I think there is going to be pools for high risk pre-existing conditions that can help subsidize those in need but the monies in those pools are small when you consider how much any major type of health issue is to treat. Some cancer meds are 40K a month or more. My sister is on dialysis and goes every other day and her bills are unimaginable. 



#50
Jacen123

Jacen123

    Woggle-Bug

  • Member
  • 36,870 posts

 

why would they pay for insurance when they don't have to before they need it anyway?  Buying health insurance before you need it becomes economically irrational.

Because that is the entire fucking point of insurance of any kindThat has always been the case and always be the case.  You don't buy insurance after you need it, but before hand in case you ever do need it.  The fact that people don't get that speaks volumes about the lack of  education, proper or otherwise, people have about the entire concept.  You pay into the system in case you ever need to make a claim.  In the meantime, that money pays for other people's claims.  Then, eventually, if/when you make one, the money other people have paid in covers your claims.  It's not a hard concept at all, which speaks volumes about people who don't get it.

 

I am already expecting the response of "I know how insurance works, but thanks for speaking down to me like I am an idiot," and I fully don't think that you are an idiot nor do I think that you don't know how insurance works.  However, if you know how insurance works, then the statement that I quoted showcases complete cognitive dissonance.

 

Also, as a preemptive retort to a statement that you don't feel that way, but are simply stating other people's views on it, this shows that the problem is once again with a lack of education (including the development of critical thinking skills) much more so than the mere idea of paying for health insurance when you are healthy.


  • monkeygirl, Tex and Driver +1 this



Reply to this topic