• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s Obamacare Replacement Push Has Been Totally Abandoned

Re: Trump’s Obamacare Replacement Push Has Been Totally Abandoned

This is how one news outlet describe the Insurance Bill the left passed in the House. I'll highlight a few things to illustrate my point.

But those quotes simply don't indicate the proposals aren't sound legislation that if the GOP would pass would improve the ACA.

I've acknowledged half a dozen times McConnell won't pass anything changing the ACA - of course he won't. He hasn't changed a thing since 2010. Back then there wasn't the excuse of Democrats being mean to Trump, but he blocked everything anyway.

There is no expectation that any of these bills will pass, or that they even make sense. They are just smoke a mirrors to be used during the campaign next year.

If you think they don't make sense, explain why. I don't think you can or care enough to think about the bills, what they might do, and figure out if they make sense.

You think they actually expect the President to sign anything, after fighting to remove and/or imprison him for the last two years?

That's delusional to think that.

Trump won't get anything to sign because McConnell has been blocking nearly every bill from the Democratic House for nearly a decade now. It's what he does.
 
So, do you know the bill number of the Insurance Bill the Dems in the House passed that sought to nullify the Dept of Treasury actions and the Department of HHS in regards to waivers states can take?

Do you know anything about it? I should let you know I know it, and have it teed up and I'm ready to comment on anything you'd like.

You're the one alleging that that bill isn't substantive. If you know all about the bill, explain your objections to it. It's your claim, your burden to defend.
 
I believe the point on the table is what have the Dems done in 10 years to correct the flaws in their health plan?

Are we just supposed to ignore that McConnell blocked nearly everything passed by the House from 2010 forward? And will block anything the House passes for the next 18 months? They haven't "done" anything because anything they did in the House was DOA in the Senate, thanks to McConnell. You have to know this, you know I know this is true, so why are you gaslighting me with this question?
 
Last edited:
So as I said this is way bigger than ACA. If that was the only problem they could just make a better plan. But the problem is serving two masters while holding on to power. They fear that right wing voters and donors will punish them if they become more moderate, and that it's easier to suppress any voters on the left than to win them over.

I snipped most of that for space reasons, but I'm afraid most of that is true. We've seen a bit of that in this thread with the "traitor" McCain bit. Bottom line is he voted against a bill that was hugely unpopular, and that was opposed by industry, and the states, including several GOP led states, and he's a 'traitor' to the cause.

I'd feel a little sorry for Republicans these days, but they unleashed the crazy and this is the price. The only way to solve it is to vote them out in big numbers in 2020.
 
I'd feel a little sorry for Republicans these days, but they unleashed the crazy and this is the price. The only way to solve it is to vote them out in big numbers in 2020.

And they know this so their way to oppose it - wedded as they are to crazy, and in the absence of workable ideas - will be to prevent people from voting.
 
That's what I don't get about GOP strategy here. They have to know their position on healthcare is a political loser and is playing right into the hands of the AOC/Sanders crowd. The public sees an ACA that is objectively failing many people, and so why not Medicare for all? If the GOP are going to oppose any efforts to make the existing system work, then why not burn it down, and replace it with the far left alternative?

The reason is that 80% of Americans like the health coverage that they get from their employers and are suspicious of anything that will rock the boat. The answer, in my humble opinion, is to provide a public option. If it turns out that the PO is better, employers will switch to it. Thus, the PO will compete against private insurance.
 
You're the one alleging that that bill isn't substantive. If you know all about the bill, explain your objections to it. It's your claim, your burden to defend.

If you note, I've already explained my objections to it. It's worthless pap. It's political BS. I've read the bill, as I've indicated. I've got it posted up.

How many pages is this Insurance Bill you claim is substantive?

You're the one defending it. I imagine you know.
 
What does employer group health plan have to do with Obamacare?

Only that 80% of the insured population gets their health insurance through an employer. All of those policies covers stuff some people don't need covered. Group policies allow guaranteed acceptance regardless of pre-existing conditions, just as the ACA policies do. They are not priced based on coverage. They are priced based on the cost to insure the group. In the case of the employer that is the employees, in the case of the ACA its the community.
 
If you note, I've already explained my objections to it. It's worthless pap. It's political BS. I've read the bill, as I've indicated. I've got it posted up.

How many pages is this Insurance Bill you claim is substantive?

You're the one defending it. I imagine you know.

Those aren't objections. You could say that about any bill ever drafted and no one could tell the difference because it's fact free drivel. :shrug:
 
Those aren't objections. You could say that about any bill ever drafted and no one could tell the difference because it's fact free drivel. :shrug:

Are you having trouble seeing the questions I've asked?
 
Are you having trouble seeing the questions I've asked?

No I see them I just will not agree to your shifting of the burden to me.

Tell us again how the Senate is powerless to draft their own healthcare reform bill. That's a good one.
 
No I see them I just will not agree to your shifting of the burden to me.

Tell us again how the Senate is powerless to draft their own healthcare reform bill. That's a good one.

You keep claiming the Dems have passed solid legislation. Prove it.

I've got the Insurance Bill linked earlier in this thread tabbed right now. I can read it right now.

I'm guessing your reluctance to even cite anything from it means you have no idea what's in the bill they passed. Could be wrong, but I think that is the case.

So how can you make the claims you are making with any degree of confidence? If you don't know what is in the bill, you can't.

I don't see you changing course here, so I'll just move on.
 
Only that 80% of the insured population gets their health insurance through an employer. All of those policies covers stuff some people don't need covered. Group policies allow guaranteed acceptance regardless of pre-existing conditions, just as the ACA policies do. They are not priced based on coverage. They are priced based on the cost to insure the group. In the case of the employer that is the employees, in the case of the ACA its the community.

So you didn't tie the two together.
 
You keep claiming the Dems have passed solid legislation. Prove it.

They've passed solid legislation and they're moving more solid legislation. We know what their health agenda is so far:

  • End 'pay-for-delay' of generic drugs (PASSED)
  • Bolstering generic and biosimilars market competition by making it easier to get sufficient brand product samples for testing (PASSED)
  • Bolstering generic market competition by addressing abuses of the initial 180-day exclusivity period (PASSED)
  • Funding the navigator program (PASSED)
  • Requiring HHS outreach and education around open enrollment (PASSED)
  • Preventing market segmentation by banning junk insurance plans (PASSED)
  • Preventing market segmentation by forbidding HHS from using the ACA's state innovation waivers to allow discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions (PASSED)
  • Intervening in Texas v. United States to defend the ACA (PASSED)
  • Endorsing silver loading (PASSED)
  • Increasing affordability by making the premium tax credits (1) more generous, and (2) available to buyers above 400% FPL
  • Fixing the family glitch
  • Preventing market segmentation by reversing the AHP rule
  • Introducing plans with benefit designs offering more deductible-exempt services
  • Providing funds for state-based reinsurance programs and additional cost-sharing reductions
  • Medicare price negotiation for at least ~250 drugs annually

Obviously there are many more but I'm just picking out the ones that have already passed or the ones currently being moved by the Energy and Commerce chairman with 157 co-sponsors or the Speaker's prescription drug legislation.

Premium relief, deductible/cost-sharing relief, drug pricing relief, market stabilization. I know it must be bewildering for a GOPer but this is what having an actual agenda looks like.
 
They've passed solid legislation and they're moving more solid legislation. We know what their health agenda is so far:

  • End 'pay-for-delay' of generic drugs (PASSED)
  • Bolstering generic and biosimilars market competition by making it easier to get sufficient brand product samples for testing (PASSED)
  • Bolstering generic market competition by addressing abuses of the initial 180-day exclusivity period (PASSED)
  • Funding the navigator program (PASSED)
  • Requiring HHS outreach and education around open enrollment (PASSED)
  • Preventing market segmentation by banning junk insurance plans (PASSED)
  • Preventing market segmentation by forbidding HHS from using the ACA's state innovation waivers to allow discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions (PASSED)
  • Intervening in Texas v. United States to defend the ACA (PASSED)
  • Endorsing silver loading (PASSED)
  • Increasing affordability by making the premium tax credits (1) more generous, and (2) available to buyers above 400% FPL
  • Fixing the family glitch
  • Preventing market segmentation by reversing the AHP rule
  • Introducing plans with benefit designs offering more deductible-exempt services
  • Providing funds for state-based reinsurance programs and additional cost-sharing reductions
  • Medicare price negotiation for at least ~250 drugs annually

Obviously there are many more but I'm just picking out the ones that have already passed or the ones currently being moved by the Energy and Commerce chairman with 157 co-sponsors or the Speaker's prescription drug legislation.

Premium relief, deductible/cost-sharing relief, drug pricing relief, market stabilization. I know it must be bewildering for a GOPer but this is what having an actual agenda looks like.

That doesn't prove anything. Want me to list all the BS the House has passed involving "the sense of" type resolutions?

How many pages was the "Insurance Bill" the House passed that has been commented on? I'll tell you. 6 pages, including the title pages and empty pages.

6 pages for meaningful legislation? That's BS. That insurance bill was just political maneuvering designed for talking points.
 
Trump's plan is way better.

MAGA

The system is broken until insurance in the health arena is designed for catastrophic events. Cash health service prices are exploitative. When people can get routine care done at a reasonable cash price and insurance doesn't even enter the picture, we are on the right track.
 
The individual mandate is gone, which was the pain point for lots of people. The other pain point is being required to buy coverages you don't need as a form of wealth distribution. I shouldn't have to pay for maternity coverage.

The whole point of insurance is that the insurance pool cover things they don't need so that healthcare and premiums are more affordable for those who are actually sick. If you could pick and choose what you wanted covered, then the amount of healthy people paying for each condition will be lower compared to the number of sick people, and the cost to cover each condition will actually go up. Insurance will be less expensive because people are covering less, but will be more expensive because each item will be more expensive, so essentially your premiums will be unchanged and less will be covered.
 
That doesn't prove anything.

It proves the Dems are advancing an actual health care agenda in the chamber they control.

Not a blank page of "TBDs" like the GOP has been sitting on for ten years.

How many pages was the "Insurance Bill" the House passed that has been commented on? I'll tell you. 6 pages, including the title pages and empty pages.

Health policy discussions with GOPers seem to always come down to page counts.

"It's too many pages!"

"It's too few pages!"
 
The whole point of insurance is that the insurance pool cover things they don't need so that healthcare and premiums are more affordable for those who are actually sick. If you could pick and choose what you wanted covered, then the amount of healthy people paying for each condition will be lower compared to the number of sick people, and the cost to cover each condition will actually go up. Insurance will be less expensive because people are covering less, but will be more expensive because each item will be more expensive, so essentially your premiums will be unchanged and less will be covered.

On what planet is $18K per year for a family policy "affordable"? Over a twenty year time span that's something like a half million dollars if you account for the interest you would have earned on that money.
 
On what planet is $18K per year for a family policy "affordable"? Over a twenty year time span that's something like a half million dollars if you account for the interest you would have earned on that money.

Yes, our healthcare isn't affordable and overpriced. However, people being able to pick and choose what is covered will just result in each item being more expensive and make healthcare unaffordable for people who are actually sick. The reason insurance is overpriced is because our healthcare is overpriced and we have to address that problem with better price bargaining and emphasis on preventative care over expensive care.
 
Yes, our healthcare isn't affordable and overpriced. However, people being able to pick and choose what is covered will just result in each item being more expensive and make healthcare unaffordable for people who are actually sick. The reason insurance is overpriced is because our healthcare is overpriced and we have to address that problem with better price bargaining and emphasis on preventative care over expensive care.

It's incredibly stupid to spend a half million dollars in insurance and use maybe $50K worth of services. The punitive pricing for cash health services must end. Cash for service health care would lead people to treat preventative care as an investment.
 
It's incredibly stupid to spend a half million dollars in insurance and use maybe $50K worth of services. The punitive pricing for cash health services must end. Cash for service health care would lead people to treat preventative care as an investment.

What you don't get is that insurance is expensive because healthcare providers charge a lot of money. Just the other day I paid $200 for an ointment to be applied to my child during a doctor's visit. Health insurance only charges to cover the cost they are paying healthcare providers with a 10% to 15% overhead for their staff, bill review, executives, and profits and aren't the reason insurance is so expensive.

If we spent only $250,000 on insurance, that will only mean we will be paying $250,000 more out of pocket, and if we make each item on insurance optional, every individual insurance item will only cost more or just go to out of pocket, keeping the cost of insurance and healthcare about the same overall.

If you treat preventative care as an investment and forced people to pay more for it out of pocket, then they will delay preventative care, and incur a lot more costs when their conditions get a lot worse, raising the coverall cost of insurance. Other developed nations make preventative care virtually free and people are far less likely to have preventable illnesses. They have a lot more doctors, hospital beds, days spent in the hospital, and doctor visits than we do. This all helps to catch illnesses early before they become more expensive. Our focus on expensive advanced treatments over cheap preventative care is one reason we pay so much more for healthcare than anyone else in the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom