• 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!

Repeal and replace "Aint gonna happen"

Vetplus40 said:
I am not the one "whining" incessantly about the ACA. You want it repealed? Fine, repeal it.

How much time before the POTUS "repeal and replace" program becomes law?
Click to expand...


I concede that repealing ObamaCare is a tricky propisition

Ted Cruz knew how hard it would be when he tried to get republicans to go along with defunding it in 2013 but they went wobbly.

Now too many deadbeats are enjoying the free ride and they can be a vocal group if they lose any benefits or have to pay for them with their own money

I really don't have an easy answer to give the repubs in washington on this topic
 
Slyfox696 said:
Then why haven't the Republicans resubmitted them now that they have the power in all three branches? If there have been plenty of bills presented, then it seems like a simple matter of resubmitting them now that Harry Reid doesn't run the Senate and a Republican is President.

So why haven't the Republicans done that?

Indeed.
Click to expand...

I guess that the 30 days they've had hasn't been quick enough for you...
 
faithful_servant said:
I guess that the 30 days they've had hasn't been quick enough for you...
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.

The Republicans voted well over 50 times to repeal the ACA when Obama was President. You claim they already have bills written up and ready to go.

It's a simple question...why have they not done so? They control House, Senate and Presidency...so where is the bill?

You're right, they've had 30 days and they've been shouting about the ACA for over half a decade...so where's the action? According to you, they have several bills already created...so why haven't they resubmitted those? What are they waiting on?
 
Vetplus40 said:
How much time?
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I posted or you don't understand how insurance works. If you are covered and you have an on-going illness, it's not preexisting, it's just your illness and insurance covers it. It's when you change insurance carrier that preexisting conditions become an issue. Most people only change insurance carriers when they change jobs. If you take the employer out of the picture and make insurance your responsibility, then changing jobs does not mean changing insurance carriers. Your employer can still compensate you for the cost of your insurance if they want to (and would have a legal right to require that you have insurance and/or that there are specific coverages), but having insurance is your responsibility. That means that unless you choose to change insurance carriers, preexisting conditions are not an issue and if you do change carriers, then you do so with full knowledge that you risk having an issue with a preexisting condition. YOU are the one responsible for your insurance.
 
faithful_servant said:
I'm pretty sure that you're one those who are expecting more from Pres. Trump in the first 90 days than Pres. Obama accomplished in his first two years. How about sitting tight for a year and see how things actually work out, instead of projecting failure at every opportunity??

There have been plenty of bills presented by the Reps. to address the problems with the ACA, most of which died on Harry Reid's desk. But that's just truth and since it doesn't fit the narrative you want to push, can be ignored at will.
Click to expand...

It's going to take a year to replace the ACA?

I don't care for the man, but Obama passed the ACA and Dodd-Frank and the Stimulus, among other things, in his first two years. As a matter of fact, that's why his party lost the 2010 midterms. Because he had actually done too much.
 
Socrates1 said:
When was the last time you guys were right about anything ? :lol:
Click to expand...

november 6, if i remember correctly



before that i recall many dozen attempts by republicans to repeal Obamacare
they must have misplaced that paperwork
 
Vetplus40 said:
After seven years, it is obviously that the R's have no plan to repeal and replace the ACA. What they do have is a very wide array of alternative plans than none of them can agree on. None of which satisfy the mandate that Trump made that saves the three most popular components of the ACA.

In all likelihood, what you will see is some type of "Revise and Renew" plan that essentially tweaks the program and addresses the problems with the ACA.

If you repeal the ACA, then keep the three major components of the ACA, then you simply have an amended ACA. That said, we shall see. We have been waiting 7 years for the opponents to create an alternative yet they have nothing to date. what's a few more months.....:)


Boehner: Republicans won't repeal and replace Obamacare - POLITICO
Click to expand...

Boehner certainly knows something about herding cats.
 
45Loyalist said:
Just nationalize the entire industry already...including the drug companies that are making billions in profits per quarter off the misery of others. There are thousands of ways to make a million dollars in America. Healthcare does not need to be one of them.
Click to expand...

absolutely not

that said, there is nothing preventing the government from becoming a single payer heath coverage provider - such as making medicare open to all citizens and legal aliens and no longer subject to an age threshold
 
Mac77 said:
I concede that repealing ObamaCare is a tricky propisition

Ted Cruz knew how hard it would be when he tried to get republicans to go along with defunding it in 2013 but they went wobbly.

Now too many deadbeats are enjoying the free ride and they can be a vocal group if they lose any benefits or have to pay for them with their own money

I really don't have an easy answer to give the repubs in washington on this topic
Click to expand...

by 'deadbeats', i assume you mean poor people who financially qualify for a subsidy

aren't you from that wing that went ape **** at the term 'deplorables'
 
Huge reason as to why the Republicans will not "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act:
qrxjio.png

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: The Public?s Views on the ACA | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
 
faithful_servant said:
That means that unless you choose to change insurance carriers, preexisting conditions are not an issue and if you do change carriers, then you do so with full knowledge that you risk having an issue with a preexisting condition. YOU are the one responsible for your insurance.
Click to expand...

So you would like a system in which if you ever have any sort of medical expense you're stuck. Regardless of your satisfaction with your insurer, quality of their product, or rate of premium increase, you can't take your business to a competitor.

What's the point of having something superficially resembling a market if the key motivating factor behind market dynamics (threat of consumer defection to competitors) is missing?
 
justabubba said:
by 'deadbeats', i assume you mean poor people who financially qualify for a subsidy

aren't you from that wing that went ape **** at the term 'deplorables'
Click to expand...

I'm not hillary

If deadbeats want to get pissed and not vote for me in 2020 so be it
 
Dittohead not! said:
The main thing has to be to shake the Democrat cooties off of it and quit calling it "Obamacare."

Republicans have no plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, LOL. I think they just hate Obamacare. But they would be OK with the ACA.

You know, when my son was younger, he insisted on dressing himself for school. And the choices he would sometimes make were, well, somewhat questionable. So for a while we were constantly arguing. Then, by middle school, I just let him choose his own stuff. He wore his rather questionable choices to school a few times, and was apparently met with a lot of ridicule. Because soon after that his taste in clothing became even more conservative than mine.

Sometimes you just gotta let people knock themselves out doing what they want to do, and let reality and its consequences speak for themselves. The more you try to talk sense and argue something, the less open to any reason or rationality they become. I think that's what's happened with the Republicans and the ACA.
 
Greenbeard said:
So you would like a system in which if you ever have any sort of medical expense you're stuck. Regardless of your satisfaction with your insurer, quality of their product, or rate of premium increase, you can't take your business to a competitor.

What's the point of having something superficially resembling a market if the key motivating factor behind market dynamics (threat of consumer defection to competitors) is missing?
Click to expand...

I could see requiring ins. cos. to put a portion of the monies you paid them aside (they still get to keep some in order to stay in business and they still get use of those funds to invest and get a return on) and that fund goes with you if you change carriers. That would offset a lot of the risk involved in covering a preexisting condition and provide an incentive for ins. cos. to retain you and an incentive for ins. cos. to try to get you to change carriers.

See that?? It's called working on a solution, instead of just whining about the problem and picking at possible solutions.
 
faithful_servant said:
I could see requiring ins. cos. to put a portion of the monies you paid them aside (they still get to keep some in order to stay in business and they still get use of those funds to invest and get a return on) and that fund goes with you if you change carriers. That would offset a lot of the risk involved in covering a preexisting condition and provide an incentive for ins. cos. to retain you and an incentive for ins. cos. to try to get you to change carriers.

See that?? It's called working on a solution, instead of just whining about the problem and picking at possible solutions.
Click to expand...
Where are all those bills you claim died on Reid's desk and why have they not been submitted now that Republicans have power? You still haven't answered that very important question.
 
Vetplus40 said:
As usual, you have nothing of substance to add to the topic, but in answer to your lame question:

When we said that Hillary would win the popular vote. It would appear that we were right about 3 + MILLION times...............LMAO
Click to expand...

Hang your hat on that for the next 8 years ! :lol:
 
justabubba said:
november 6, if i remember correctly



before that i recall many dozen attempts by republicans to repeal Obamacare
they must have misplaced that paperwork
Click to expand...

It was buried in those unread 25,000 pages of BS ! :lol:
 
faithful_servant said:
I could see requiring ins. cos. to put a portion of the monies you paid them aside (they still get to keep some in order to stay in business and they still get use of those funds to invest and get a return on) and that fund goes with you if you change carriers. That would offset a lot of the risk involved in covering a preexisting condition and provide an incentive for ins. cos. to retain you and an incentive for ins. cos. to try to get you to change carriers.
Click to expand...

You said pre-existing conditions aren't an issue if you stay with the same insurer. Let's say I develop a medical condition next year. Under what you originally said, that presumably shouldn't impact my premiums if I stick with my insurer because otherwise I'm being penalized for a condition (which wasn't even pre-existing since I don't have it right now). Yet next year after I become a higher risk, they have to raise my premium so that they can set aside additional funds--plus take an additional cut for themselves!--to give to me should I decide to go to some other insurer who would undoubtedly charge me higher premiums on the basis of my hypothetical condition.

So now I am effectively being penalized for my condition--one that I developed after buying insurance--via higher premiums even if I stay with the same insurer. This is convoluted and it's unclear what the point is.
 
faithful_servant said:
You didn't read what I posted or you don't understand how insurance works. If you are covered and you have an on-going illness, it's not preexisting, it's just your illness and insurance covers it. It's when you change insurance carrier that preexisting conditions become an issue. Most people only change insurance carriers when they change jobs. If you take the employer out of the picture and make insurance your responsibility, then changing jobs does not mean changing insurance carriers. Your employer can still compensate you for the cost of your insurance if they want to (and would have a legal right to require that you have insurance and/or that there are specific coverages), but having insurance is your responsibility. That means that unless you choose to change insurance carriers, preexisting conditions are not an issue and if you do change carriers, then you do so with full knowledge that you risk having an issue with a preexisting condition. YOU are the one responsible for your insurance.
Click to expand...

How long before we see a bill that repeals and replaces? 7 years to write one. How long to submittal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom