Why voters won't sit still for a repeal[W:8]

DifferentDrummr said:

Nope. Otherwise you could never explain how the red states get more federal aid per capita than the blue ones.

Click to expand...

Thats simple

The federal government decides who gets the money and who doesn't

Why dont you stop complaining and agree to end all the federal welfare programs to all the states?

Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

buck said:

I don't think you understand. The WaPo article, is discussing a Vox article about people that voted for Tump but rely on Obamacare and are worried about losing it. I do not believe Vox is particularly credible. and they certainly are, openly, biased. When I responded, I was discussing your point (from the Vox article) that many of the Trump voters are worried about losing Obamacare. That is what I was calling (potentially) fake news.

Sorry. Thought that was apparent from both your original post on the subject, and my reply (taken in context) about askig how many people that they had to talk to to get the response they wanted.



Yes, my parents are now on Obamacare. They want to see it repealed. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Many people on Obamcare are on it because it is required or you face a fine.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I read the Vox article and gave it more credibility because WaPo chose to discuss it. Granted both lean left and have axes to grind with Trump but I give more credence to the articles simply because they are easily verifiable (though I haven't done so tbh)

Interesting that your parents are on Obamacare and want to see it repealed. I'd expect older people, who generally have a much higher probability of needing medical insurance, to be more likely to not want to see a repeal once they've been covered. If you don't mind my asking are they expecting that Trump will replace Obamacare with something better with no interim loss of coverage to them?

Perotista said:

Perhaps I not understanding you. Are you saying that it is okay to hurt about twice as many people as you help as long as you are helping some?

There are probably two ways to attack this. One would be to set up a VA style healthcare system for the poor, those who can't afford insurance. Those who can afford it, leave it up to them.

Second would be sort of a medicare for all. The government takes the premiums out of social security before they send you a dime in benefits. That wouldn't work in the civilian sector, you would have to have the employer without the medicare portion along with the social security portion. Then there are those who aren't working or can't. No easy answers, just questions.

Medicaid kind of sucks, low reimbursement rates and a long time for the provider to receive the reimbursement. My grand daughter is on medicaid and it is hard to find a doctor who takes it.

Then again, maybe a combo of medicare for all and the VA style health care for the poor who can't afford it. I don't know. But I am pretty sure, not certain that the GOP congress doesn't really want to do anything for the ACA. When the majority of Americans are still opposed to it and one has to rely on their vote to remain in congress, what is the incentive?

Click to expand...

Actually there are several much better ways to attack this. However, the real question is whether the republican congress has the political guts to do whats needed.

The major failure of Obamacare is that it focused on healthcare costs. AS most reform has focused on healthcare costs. The idea being that decreasing healthcare costs necessarily means decreases in healthcare insurance premiums. but it doesn't.

While healthcare cost growth has slowed substantially (despite a HUGE increase in demand.. which has led to all sorts of care issues).... healthcare insurance premiums are once again on a meteoric rise. And that's because Obamacare does little to control insurance premiums. It mandates insurance both individually and from companies larger than 50 full time employees. So it increases demand for insurance.

It increases demand for employer provided insurance.. and since companies are wealthier than individuals.. that increase in demand increases prices exponentially.

It increases demand for individual insurances.. and puts the government on the hook for the subsidy.. which increases demand and increases prices exponentially.

Its why overall insurance companies are making money hand over fist. Increases in demand.. increases in ability to pay for that demand.. and decreases in healthcare cost growth as well.

Obamacare is a huge boon to the insurance companies.

The question is whether the republicans can reverse decades of lobbying by insurance companies and do the right thing and put more free market competition on the insurance companies.

Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

Gaius46 said:

Fair enough. I read the Vox article and gave it more credibility because WaPo chose to discuss it. Granted both lean left and have axes to grind with Trump but I give more credence to the articles simply because they are easily verifiable (though I haven't done so tbh)

Interesting that your parents are on Obamacare and want to see it repealed. I'd expect older people, who generally have a much higher probability of needing medical insurance, to be more likely to not want to see a repeal once they've been covered. If you don't mind my asking are they expecting that Trump will replace Obamacare with something better with no interim loss of coverage to them?

Click to expand...

the reason that people on Obamacare would vote for trump is because Obamacare is simply a patch to fix a much larger problem. Which is the decrease in wage growth in this country. Better wages and better jobs in this country to most folks mean that they can afford their healthcare or have a job that provides healthcare.

the democrat answer has been...well when you lose your job and have no or little income.. we will help you. this is not popular with most americans that are struggling. Most americans.. particularly older people remember the better economy when they were younger and how their parents lived. Trump in his angry and bumbling way... does offer changes that can benefit the poor and middle class. Fixing immigration (fewer illegals means fewer folks competing for a job and thus better wages). Getting better trade deals that benefit the poor and middle class worker.. And better conditions for business in America which can decrease outsourcing.

jaeger19 said:

Actually there are several much better ways to attack this. However, the real question is whether the republican congress has the political guts to do whats needed.

The major failure of Obamacare is that it focused on healthcare costs. AS most reform has focused on healthcare costs. The idea being that decreasing healthcare costs necessarily means decreases in healthcare insurance premiums. but it doesn't.

While healthcare cost growth has slowed substantially (despite a HUGE increase in demand.. which has led to all sorts of care issues).... healthcare insurance premiums are once again on a meteoric rise. And that's because Obamacare does little to control insurance premiums. It mandates insurance both individually and from companies larger than 50 full time employees. So it increases demand for insurance.

It increases demand for employer provided insurance.. and since companies are wealthier than individuals.. that increase in demand increases prices exponentially.

It increases demand for individual insurances.. and puts the government on the hook for the subsidy.. which increases demand and increases prices exponentially.

Its why overall insurance companies are making money hand over fist. Increases in demand.. increases in ability to pay for that demand.. and decreases in healthcare cost growth as well.

Obamacare is a huge boon to the insurance companies.

The question is whether the republicans can reverse decades of lobbying by insurance companies and do the right thing and put more free market competition on the insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. What about this idea proposed by the GOP of letting insurance companies compete across state lines? Wouldn't that take what is basically state regulations of insurance companies to national regulated. There probably would be anymore Blue Cross of Georgia, but a national Blue Cross to use an example from my state.

Mac77 said:

Thats simple

The federal government decides who gets the money and who doesn't

Why dont you stop complaining and agree to end all the federal welfare programs to all the states?

Click to expand...

Why don't you stop ignoring the facts and agree not to troll this thread any longer?

DifferentDrummr said:

Obamacare repeal has never been much more than a talking point for the GOP hacks. Soon they'll be in for a rude awakening, though, because this sentiment doesn't extend to the American people, or even to the Republican minority. And the reason is simple:

Walmart nation is FAT.

Plagued by an abundance of fast food and motorized scooters at the stores, red state voters have been left so physically weakened that they now race toward early deaths from cancers, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. If they don't have big doctor's bills, they definitely are acquaintances with someone who does.

Guess what will happen when they're faced with losing coverage. The town halls that first promoted the ACA will look tame by comparison.

Click to expand...

I lost coverage with the passage of Obamacare. Coverage I was quite happy with. My cancellation letter came in the mail just weeks before the first Obamacare mandate took effect. Yes....I could have switched to an Obamacare qualified plan, however it would have come with a 300% increase in the premiums and a 500% increase in the deductible. What the hell kind of insurance is that? I would have had to spend $6000.00 out of pocket in any given year just for it to kick in. I opted for V.A, care and will be eligible for medicare in less then two years. Obamacare can and will be repealed.

Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

Gaius46 said:

Interesting that your parents are on Obamacare and want to see it repealed. I'd expect older people, who generally have a much higher probability of needing medical insurance, to be more likely to not want to see a repeal once they've been covered. If you don't mind my asking are they expecting that Trump will replace Obamacare with something better with no interim loss of coverage to them?

Click to expand...

They don't believe the government should be forcing participation.. They don't believe that they should be taxing some to provide to others... even though it benefits my parents with subsidies. They were very happy with their prior insurance.

Most interesting item I learned form there experience.. is that net worth doesn't matter. In other words, a wealthy family with little income (my parents both retired early) still get the full subsidy. Tell me that isn't' dumb.

ObamacareFail said:

I lost coverage with the passage of Obamacare. Coverage I was quite happy with. My cancellation letter came in the mail just weeks before the first Obamacare mandate took effect. Yes....I could have switched to an Obamacare qualified plan, however it would have come with a 300% increase in the premiums and a 500% increase in the deductible. What the hell kind of insurance is that? I would have had to spend $6000.00 out of pocket in any given year just for it to kick in. I opted for V.A, care and will be eligible for medicare in less then two years. Obamacare can and will be repealed.

Click to expand...

All because of you?

DifferentDrummr said:

All because of you?

Click to expand...

Unless you are Rip Van Winkle, you must be aware that the vast majority of Americans despise Obamacare and want it to be gone. The damage done to the democrat party primarily over that issue p[rove it.

ObamacareFail said:

Unless you are Rip Van Winkle, you must be aware that the vast majority of Americans despise Obamacare and want it to be gone. The damage done to the democrat party primarily over that issue p[rove it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. At the same time, though, the vast majority of Americans don't want to lose all hope of access to health insurance, either.

DifferentDrummr said:

Perhaps. At the same time, though, the vast majority of Americans don't want to lose all hope of access to health insurance, either.

Click to expand...

True. everyone wants viable healthcare reform. Obamacare is simply not viable. It's only making the problem worse.

Perotista said:

Makes sense to me. What about this idea proposed by the GOP of letting insurance companies compete across state lines? Wouldn't that take what is basically state regulations of insurance companies to national regulated. There probably would be anymore Blue Cross of Georgia, but a national Blue Cross to use an example from my state.

Click to expand...

Great question.

Okay.. on one hand it sounds great.. because of the increased competition.

BUTTTTT... here is the caveat... THEY DON"T WANT TO CROSS STATE LINES. Insurance companies want monopolies and have set up monopolies in states specifically to maximize their profits. Its not a matter of letting them compete across state lines.. its a matter of FORCING them to compete across state lines.

now.. you will hear a lot about the "regulatory hurdles" of going across state lines. THAT is a bunch of BS. Insurance companies cross state lines ALL the time. I treat patients.. who live in my state.. who have insurance from almost all 50 states. WHy? Because their policy comes from WHERE THEIR COMPANY HEADQUARTERS IS. So I may see a blue cross of Georgia.. in Oregon. or Idaho. or Texas.. because the parent company is headquartered in Georgia... though the employee lives and works in Oregon.

And where do I send the Bill for a blue Cross of Georgia? Often to blue cross of the state I work in. that's right... so the bill probably goes to Blue Cross of Oregon, or Texas, or Idaho, or Colorado. that's the kind of relationships these insurance companies have. They don't want to compete. Competition means that they have to compete on price and quality and they don't want to do that.

jaeger19 said:

Great question.

Okay.. on one hand it sounds great.. because of the increased competition.

BUTTTTT... here is the caveat... THEY DON"T WANT TO CROSS STATE LINES. Insurance companies want monopolies and have set up monopolies in states specifically to maximize their profits. Its not a matter of letting them compete across state lines.. its a matter of FORCING them to compete across state lines.

now.. you will hear a lot about the "regulatory hurdles" of going across state lines. THAT is a bunch of BS. Insurance companies cross state lines ALL the time. I treat patients.. who live in my state.. who have insurance from almost all 50 states. WHy? Because their policy comes from WHERE THEIR COMPANY HEADQUARTERS IS. So I may see a blue cross of Georgia.. in Oregon. or Idaho. or Texas.. because the parent company is headquartered in Georgia... though the employee lives and works in Oregon.

And where do I send the Bill for a blue Cross of Georgia? Often to blue cross of the state I work in. that's right... so the bill probably goes to Blue Cross of Oregon, or Texas, or Idaho, or Colorado. that's the kind of relationships these insurance companies have. They don't want to compete. Competition means that they have to compete on price and quality and they don't want to do that.

Click to expand...

I hear you, monopolies want to remain monopolies. Sort of like cable companies. Rarely in all my travels have I seen two cable companies trying to complete in the same area. Down here a cable company makes an agreement with the county and then the county is theirs from that time until eternity or whenever another cable company buys them out.

It sort of sounds like insurance companies operate the same way. Down here we have a state insurance commission which controls the insurance companies or at least regulates them to a certain extent. I imagine these insurance companies donate quite a lot of money to ensure the same people remain on the commission during election time.

I don't have an answer. I don't know that much about it. I do get bothered when I read an article from Gallup which shows the ACA is hurting close to twice as many as it helps. That seems to go against the health care mantra of do not harm. So where are we, back to medicare for all or some concept of it which would basically do away with health insurance companies?

DifferentDrummr said:

Obamacare repeal has never been much more than a talking point for the GOP hacks. Soon they'll be in for a rude awakening, though, because this sentiment doesn't extend to the American people, or even to the Republican minority. And the reason is simple:

Walmart nation is FAT.

Plagued by an abundance of fast food and motorized scooters at the stores, red state voters have been left so physically weakened that they now race toward early deaths from cancers, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. If they don't have big doctor's bills, they definitely are acquaintances with someone who does.

Guess what will happen when they're faced with losing coverage. The town halls that first promoted the ACA will look tame by comparison.

Click to expand...

Said it before and Ill say it again. I do not fully support all of the ACA but "REPEALING" it would be severely stupid and it won't happen. If it does by some crazy fantaisie scenario it would be party suicide. Many parts of ACA BOTH sides agree with, in fact both sides agree with the majority of the bill. That has been stated by the politicians on the right already. So repealing it is illogical. Just keep working at it and change the parts that need fixed/changed. Not to mention unless something is instantly put in its place you complete screw the millions using it. It just can;t be taken away thats insane.

AGENT J said:

Said it before and Ill say it again. I do not fully support all of the ACA but "REPEALING" it would be severely stupid and it won't happen. If it does by some crazy fantaisie scenario it would be party suicide. Many parts of ACA BOTH sides agree with, in fact both sides agree with the majority of the bill. That has been stated by the politicians on the right already. So repealing it is illogical. Just keep working at it and change the parts that need fixed/changed. Not to mention unless something is instantly put in its place you complete screw the millions using it. It just can;t be taken away thats insane.

Click to expand...

About the only things both sides agree with is "pre-existing condition coverage" and letting young men and women stay on mommy and daddy's policy until the age of 26. Both sides do not agree with the patently stupid mandate. Obamacare must be repealed and it will be repealed. Not repealing it would be suicide for the republican party and enacting it turned out to be suicide for the democrat party. Prior to the passage of Obamacare, the democrats held the White House, both houses of congress, and the majority of state legislatures. Now that is all in republican hands. Healthcare reform was and still is needed. Obamacare was just a patently stupid way to go about it. any solution to healthcare must address the actual cost of providing healthcare. That means any viable reform should be directed at market based solutions that spur competition.

Perotista said:

I hear you, monopolies want to remain monopolies. Sort of like cable companies. Rarely in all my travels have I seen two cable companies trying to complete in the same area. Down here a cable company makes an agreement with the county and then the county is theirs from that time until eternity or whenever another cable company buys them out.

It sort of sounds like insurance companies operate the same way. Down here we have a state insurance commission which controls the insurance companies or at least regulates them to a certain extent. I imagine these insurance companies donate quite a lot of money to ensure the same people remain on the commission during election time.

I don't have an answer. I don't know that much about it. I do get bothered when I read an article from Gallup which shows the ACA is hurting close to twice as many as it helps. That seems to go against the health care mantra of do not harm. So where are we, back to medicare for all or some concept of it which would basically do away with health insurance companies?

Click to expand...

Well first.. a medicare for all program wouldn't do away with insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid are all administered by private insurance companies. In fact, for many insurance companies their largest profit center is government payments to administer medicare and Medicaid. A medicare program for all would be a boon for the insurance companies. They would administer it for a nice fat fee. and no risk. And then offer supplemental insurance or private insurance to the upper middle class and rich who can afford exorbitant prices for supplemental coverage.

Second. There is no way we can financially go to a medicare for all program. Medicare is a AWESOME if you are a senior. Medicare is WAY better insurance than almost any universal government insurance in universal coverage countries. It covers WAY more.. gives way more choice.. no waiting periods, no pre authorization etc.
The only reason that it is financially viable is because you pay premiums your whole working life. Decades really.. without using it. If you expand to medicare for all.. then suddenly you have added millions who have not paid into the system.. and they are now taking out.

now.. any system will have to be a Medicaid for all. Which means that the medicare you have now..will have to be downgraded to Medicaid.. which is about the worst insurance americans currently have. And even that's iffy.. because our Medicaid is actually better.. than many universal government programs offered by other countries. It pays for things like therapies.. that aren't paid for say in Canada or Australia.

Most people who push universal government healthcare simply don't realize that for those that have insurance.. including Medicaid.. a program like Canada, or Australia. or even Britain would be a downgrade from what they have.

there are plenty of things that can be done and would work.. and would preserve a free market healthcare system.. with affordable premiums, and still have choice etc. the real question is whether there is a political will to buck the insurance companies.

ObamacareFail said:

About the only things both sides agree with is "pre-existing condition coverage" and letting young men and women stay on mommy and daddy's policy until the age of 26. Both sides do not agree with the patently stupid mandate. Obamacare must be repealed and it will be repealed. Not repealing it would be suicide for the republican party and enacting it turned out to be suicide for the democrat party. Prior to the passage of Obamacare, the democrats held the White House, both houses of congress, and the majority of state legislatures. Now that is all in republican hands. Healthcare reform was and still is needed. Obamacare was just a patently stupid way to go about it. any solution to healthcare must address the actual cost of providing healthcare. That means any viable reform should be directed at market based solutions that spur competition.

Click to expand...

Its not financially feasible to keep "pre existing condition coverage".. without a mandate to have insurance.

jaeger19 said:

Well first.. a medicare for all program wouldn't do away with insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid are all administered by private insurance companies. In fact, for many insurance companies their largest profit center is government payments to administer medicare and Medicaid. A medicare program for all would be a boon for the insurance companies. They would administer it for a nice fat fee. and no risk. And then offer supplemental insurance or private insurance to the upper middle class and rich who can afford exorbitant prices for supplemental coverage.

Second. There is no way we can financially go to a medicare for all program. Medicare is a AWESOME if you are a senior. Medicare is WAY better insurance than almost any universal government insurance in universal coverage countries. It covers WAY more.. gives way more choice.. no waiting periods, no pre authorization etc.
The only reason that it is financially viable is because you pay premiums your whole working life. Decades really.. without using it. If you expand to medicare for all.. then suddenly you have added millions who have not paid into the system.. and they are now taking out.

now.. any system will have to be a Medicaid for all. Which means that the medicare you have now..will have to be downgraded to Medicaid.. which is about the worst insurance americans currently have. And even that's iffy.. because our Medicaid is actually better.. than many universal government programs offered by other countries. It pays for things like therapies.. that aren't paid for say in Canada or Australia.

Most people who push universal government healthcare simply don't realize that for those that have insurance.. including Medicaid.. a program like Canada, or Australia. or even Britain would be a downgrade from what they have.

there are plenty of things that can be done and would work.. and would preserve a free market healthcare system.. with affordable premiums, and still have choice etc. the real question is whether there is a political will to buck the insurance companies.

Click to expand...

I hear you and thanks for the information. Those are things I never thought of. Unless most Americans demand a change for our politicians to buck the insurance companies, industries, it will never happen. This is why insurance companies donate their millions to our political candidates. To make sure they owe these companies. But that is a different subject for another thread.

But you have given me something to think about. For that I appreciate it.

jaeger19 said:

Its not financially feasible to keep "pre existing condition coverage".. without a mandate to have insurance.

Click to expand...

It can be done with high risk pools Such insurance would be more expensive, however only needed temporarily. The mandate is not just patently stupid, it is unconstitutional

jaeger19 said:

Its not financially feasible to keep "pre existing condition coverage".. without a mandate to have insurance.

Click to expand...

In addition to the prior response.. They can probably do something like they did with HIPPA. Just expand that to the individual markets.

Perotista said:

I hear you and thanks for the information. Those are things I never thought of. Unless most Americans demand a change for our politicians to buck the insurance companies, industries, it will never happen. This is why insurance companies donate their millions to our political candidates. To make sure they owe these companies. But that is a different subject for another thread.

But you have given me something to think about. For that I appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Cool. I think its something that americans really do need to think about it because the BS that's been slung is far and wide.

for example... you hear all the time..."we need to reduce the price of healthcare"... but you don't pay the price of healthcare.. YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY does.. so while we have done a lot to reduce healthcare costs.. insurance premiums WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE PAY.. is on the rise. Meanwhile.. they benefit from a decrease in the rise of costs.

Here is another thing to think about. The medical industry makes up about 20% of GDP. And who is that medical industry? Its a lot of US based companies.. US based employers. And many of them are NON PROFITS. In almost every town.. healthcare is a major industry and a major employer. And an employer that generally pays very good wages to the poor and middle class. That x ray tech.. with no school is making way more money they would make shoveling onions into a bin. The secretary in the doctors office is probably making much more money than a secretary in a parts supply house. Nurses are all middle class people making good wages. And that money is all going back into the communities. Its not ending up being shuttled to a bank for China. and why is healthcare costs growing? is it some nefarious scheme by physicians? No.. its because demand for our services is growing. Its because of people getting older. And in some cases sicker.
So what in our wisdom do we do? Why we hurt the very industry that is 20% of GDP!. now does that really make any sense? The auto industry has been overcharging for SUV's that people don't need to get from point a to point b with more horsepower and 4 wheel drive. At 60-70 thousand dollars a car. And when that industry gets hurt because of its poor choices...? Why those are jobs.... and so IT BAILS OUT THE INDUSTRY.

But healthcare? Made up of tons of non profits.. that is a large part of the economy.. that is growing because of actual demand. that has been seeing decreased reimbursement per patient since the late 1990's? Why we are everyones "a hole". those dang doctors! Why should they make 500,000 a year just because they save peoples lives!!... Now a bank president that ran his company into the ground producing crappy investments made up of a loans that weren't worth the paper they were written on..... now THAT guy;. we have to bail out and make sure he gets his bonus.

ObamacareFail said:

It can be done with high risk pools Such insurance would be more expensive, however only needed temporarily. The mandate is not just patently stupid, it is unconstitutional

Click to expand...

no it can't. I go without insurance for years.. hurt my knee.. and then go get health insurance just prior to my knee surgery. After my 64,000 dollar surgery.. I cancel my insurance.

No "high risk" pool covers that.

buck said:

In addition to the prior response.. They can probably do something like they did with HIPPA. Just expand that to the individual markets.

Click to expand...

First I don't think you are talking about HIPPA.. which has to do with patient records.

You are probably thinking of EMTALA.. which is the emergency treatment and Labor act.. which requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment and labor treatment regardless of the ability to pay.

and that already puts a huge strain on hospitals and leads to higher costs for those with insurance. . Now if you require physicians offices to provide care for colds, knee surgeries, arthritis treatments regardless of ability to pay? WOW.

jaeger19 said:

no it can't. I go without insurance for years.. hurt my knee.. and then go get health insurance just prior to my knee surgery. After my 64,000 dollar surgery.. I cancel my insurance.

No "high risk" pool covers that.

Click to expand...

\

Problem is if you have to past the exorbitant deductible before you get any surgery on the knee. and the deductible is likely higher then the cost of the surgery.