• 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!

Affordable Care Act threatened as Trump administration, GOP states fight U.S. House, Democratic stat

Jay59 said:
As an informed person, I wish you luck.
Click to expand...

I do not need luck. I just nee people with honesty. When you try to express your support for Trump by arguing that he has a plan that we can see after he wins the House, you clearly show that you WANT to remain uninformed.
 
pamak said:
I do not need luck. I just nee people with honesty. When you try to express your support for Trump by arguing that he has a plan that we can see after he wins the House, you clearly show that you WANT to remain uninformed.
Click to expand...

It's honestly a little depressing that seems to be working for the GOP, at least for some people.

1) Elect us, and we'll unveil our awesome, bigger, better, less costly, more effective plan to save healthcare.
2) They get elected.
3) Offer a crap sandwich that fails
4) Yeah, OK, we didn't get anything done that time, and we lost the House. But if you elect us AGAIN!!, this awesome plan we promised before but didn't reveal will finally emerge!!!!!
5) GOP faithful: "OK! We believe you!"
 
pamak said:
I do not need luck. I just nee people with honesty. When you try to express your support for Trump by arguing that he has a plan that we can see after he wins the House, you clearly show that you WANT to remain uninformed.
Click to expand...
The plan is out in the open and I gave it to you. Win the House back is stage one of the plan. If you want the rest, wait for the unveiling like everyone else.

That said, some educated guesses are possible. Medical savings plans, cooperative plans and catastrophic coverage are likely a part of it. In general, ways that make the medical industry more exposed to market forces and eliminate the ACA subsidies to insurance companies. Multi-state coverage, portability and some form of pre-existing condition rules are likely.

Access to health care is a right. Free health care is not.
 
JasperL said:
It's honestly a little depressing that seems to be working for the GOP, at least for some people.

1) Elect us, and we'll unveil our awesome, bigger, better, less costly, more effective plan to save healthcare.
2) They get elected.
3) Offer a crap sandwich that fails
4) Yeah, OK, we didn't get anything done that time, and we lost the House. But if you elect us AGAIN!!, this awesome plan we promised before but didn't reveal will finally emerge!!!!!
5) GOP faithful: "OK! We believe you!"
Click to expand...
I'm with you on a lot of this. It's why I am not a Republican. I was Never-Hillary not pro-Trump. Trump proved himself. The party, not so much. Their best sales pitch is that Democrats are worse and mean, too.
 
MTAtech said:
I'd love this to be a fight during the 2020 election season. On one side, Democrats, who want to keep tens of millions of Americans' on insurance plans. On the other side, Republicans bent on taking away insurance from tens of millions of Americans.

Republicans have been trying to market themselves as being on the side of blue collar workers. Nothing shows how dishonest that characterization really is than the actual policies and actions of Republicans.
Click to expand...

Republicans don't want to take away health insurance. They just don't want it to be a government run thing.
 
Jay59 said:
The plan is out in the open and I gave it to you. Win the House back is stage one of the plan. If you want the rest, wait for the unveiling like everyone else.

That said, some educated guesses are possible. Medical savings plans, cooperative plans and catastrophic coverage are likely a part of it. In general, ways that make the medical industry more exposed to market forces and eliminate the ACA subsidies to insurance companies. Multi-state coverage, portability and some form of pre-existing condition rules are likely.

Access to health care is a right. Free health care is not.
Click to expand...

This plan that you gave is NOT a healthcare plan and does NOT inform a responsible voter. I do not care about your educated and very vague guesses. Basically, you are just content with the partisan side of politics related to who will win and you want to ignore the deeper political questions regarding which candidate has the better healthcare plan.
 
trouble13 said:
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's kind of stupid to have all of these state by state insurance regulations and then want the federal government to control it all.
 
Greenbeard said:
Trump and the GOP are trying to get the entirety of the ACA thrown out.

That doesn't just undo the insurance market reforms including the pre-existing protections, or the creation of marketplaces, or the financial assistance for paying premiums and deductibles. It reverses reforms of Medicare and Medicaid (including anti-fraud provisions) that have held Medicare cost growth to unprecedented lows. It eliminates reforms to health care and the revamping of provider business models that support better care delivery and higher quality. It reverses investments in the nation's public health infrastructure and the health care workforce (i.e., increases in the number of care providers and facilities available to treat people). It even eliminates FDA reforms to speed approval of biosimilar drugs.

It's not just tens of millions of lives that are in the balance, it's the entire economics of the health sector. "Let each state decide" is pithy but misses the scale of what's going on here.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah. And Republicans are fighting a war against women, a war against minorities, a war against the poor, a war against seniors, a war against immigrants, and a war against cute little puppy dogs. This is why Trump is president. Voters don't believe the propaganda anymore.
 
MTAtech said:
Good idea -- because Mississippi and Kentucky are so well equipped to provide healthcare on their own. As a liberal Democrat from a wealthy state, I don't mind some of my tax money subsidizing health care in poor states. They are Americans.

But if your view is that the progressive agenda is morally wrong, that people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, you should be aware how many Americans are already “takers,” “moochers,” whatever. In fact, we’re talking about a vast swath of the heartland that includes just about every state that voted for Donald Trump. Take the case of Kentucky. In 2017, KY received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes. That’s about one-fifth of the state’s G.D.P.; if Kentucky were a country, we’d say that it was receiving foreign aid on an almost inconceivable scale.

This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined.
Click to expand...

I live in KY. Our healthcare is superior to many other states in the larger cities, where most of the population is. Your bias is obvious. Once again, the left shows their utter and complete bias against rural areas which, by the way, in Kentucky has a disproportionate number of blacks receiving government assistance. Why are you prejudiced against black people?
 
JasperL said:
It's honestly a little depressing that seems to be working for the GOP, at least for some people.

1) Elect us, and we'll unveil our awesome, bigger, better, less costly, more effective plan to save healthcare.
2) They get elected.
3) Offer a crap sandwich that fails
4) Yeah, OK, we didn't get anything done that time, and we lost the House. But if you elect us AGAIN!!, this awesome plan we promised before but didn't reveal will finally emerge!!!!!
5) GOP faithful: "OK! We believe you!"
Click to expand...

I know this is anecdotal, but I retired in2008. Since then, whenever we got a COLA raise, which is only 2-3%, my check would either go down, or remain stagnant as my health insurance continued to go up and up after the passage of the ACA. I saw my first raise after the Trump tax cuts took effect. I don't have enough understanding of macro economics to attribute it to any certain politician or bill, but after the ACA my health insurane kept going up much faster and more often than before. I'm sure big pharma plays it's part as well as other thing, but all things considered, the ACA was the only variable that change when I started to see the change. Right now, I like my insurance and want to keep it. If universal is anything like I had in the military, forget it. No way.
 
pamak said:
This plan that you gave is NOT a healthcare plan and does NOT inform a responsible voter. I do not care about your educated and very vague guesses. Basically, you are just content with the partisan side of politics related to who will win and you want to ignore the deeper political questions regarding which candidate has the better healthcare plan.
Click to expand...
It is a healthcare plan but not a step toward single payer. You seem to equate national healthcare with government healthcare. That's a false equivalence.

That said, time for more detail is still a year away, at least. Even then, only the outline is needed.
 
Jay59 said:
It is a healthcare plan but not a step toward single payer. You seem to equate national healthcare with government healthcare. That's a false equivalence.

That said, time for more detail is still a year away, at least. Even then, only the outline is needed.
Click to expand...

Here I do not talk about WHICH plan is better. In order to do that, I need FIRST to see TRUMP's plan. Your attempt to provide "educated guesses" about what Trump's healthcare plan may be is not a serious basis for making comparisons and political decisions regarding the best presidential candidate. This is even more so when Trump is unpredictable.
 
Affordable Care Act threatened as Trump administration, GOP states fight U.S. House, Democratic states in court

And yet the Democratic Party is being accused of being "too far Left".
I guess wanting to have affordable and accessible health care for all Americans is too far Left and that every truly patriotic NATIONALISTIC American should be PROUD of a medical industry that tosses people with preexisting conditions overboard.

Yeah, right.
It appears that even when Democrats adapt a formerly REPUBLICAN health care idea (the ACA is based on a blueprint from The Heritage Foundation and some aspects of RomneyCare) it's too much for the Republicans, so we're all traitorous commie America haters.
 
pamak said:
Here I do not talk about WHICH plan is better. In order to do that, I need FIRST to see TRUMP's plan. Your attempt to provide "educated guesses" about what Trump's healthcare plan may be is not a serious basis for making comparisons and political decisions regarding the best presidential candidate. This is even more so when Trump is unpredictable.
Click to expand...

Hold that thought. In a year or so, they will probably be rolling out the teasers for the election.

It isn't as if your mind was not already made up. Facts would not change anything.
 
Jay59 said:
Hold that thought. In a year or so, they will probably be rolling out the teasers for the election.

It isn't as if your mind was not already made up. Facts would not change anything.
Click to expand...

Ohh, so your argument now is that there is no need to show a plan because my mind is already made up.

What about the undecided voters?
Do they have a reasonable expectation in your republic to make an informed decision?

And for your information, even though I believe in "socialist" healthcare, I am still interested in debating the different details of the various "socialist" healthcare plans, and I think that conservatives who hate "socialist healthcare" would still want to have a debate about the details of a conservative plan. But if the idea is to have just decisions based on which candidate is better to have a beer with him, then it does not matter...
 
Last edited:
mrdeltoid said:
I know this is anecdotal, but I retired in2008. Since then, whenever we got a COLA raise, which is only 2-3%, my check would either go down, or remain stagnant as my health insurance continued to go up and up after the passage of the ACA. I saw my first raise after the Trump tax cuts took effect. I don't have enough understanding of macro economics to attribute it to any certain politician or bill, but after the ACA my health insurane kept going up much faster and more often than before. I'm sure big pharma plays it's part as well as other thing, but all things considered, the ACA was the only variable that change when I started to see the change. Right now, I like my insurance and want to keep it. If universal is anything like I had in the military, forget it. No way.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of MFA, in large part because there are millions like you who know their insurance right now works for them, and you cannot know how making Medicare the plan for everyone will impact you personally, and there are valid reasons to distrust government promises. No doubt MFA will create a lot of losers, and lots of winners, but the vast bulk of voters in this country won't really know until it happens.

At any rate, I don't dispute your account. I'm not sure the ACA is responsible - healthcare spending growth is lower post-ACA than pre-ACA - but provisions of it might have impacted your rates negatively. It's impossible to know, as you suggest.

My biggest problem are partisans who have spent the past 9 years tearing down the ACA but who cannot suggest ACTUAL changes that would improve on it.
 
JasperL said:
What's clear enough is big deductibles deter use, but that's got upsides and downsides. There's a good reason why lots of private insurance now and even before ACA made some preventive care free, such as an annual checkup. I've also not seen evidence that the kind of 'overuse' that you're referring to is a big cost driver. What I've seen is a relatively small share of the population that's very sick with chronic problems consume a huge share of the healthcare costs.



I have no problem with high deductible plans or HSAs, but a bronze ACA plan is pretty much there, and as you know high deductible plans are also permitted under ACA. The problem is when people are old or sick, those "high deductible" plans aren't anything but high cost plans, year after year after year, because sick and old people need and use lots of care. I have arthritis and the cost of the drug that keeps me from being a cripple costs $5,000/month taken as prescribed. I take it 1/4th that often, but the 'cost' is still about $15,000. So a plan with a $10k deductible to me is just a plan with premiums of what I pay directly plus that $10k deductible, because I WILL meet it every single year. For the 45 years before I was diagnosed with arthritis, a high deductible plan would have worked great, then overnight it didn't.



OK, great, then I'll wait on the 'free market' GOP plan that's not coming to see how this fictional plan will work.... :roll:

The serious point is all this is very easy to say on a debate forum, but putting the details to paper is incredibly difficult and there is NO indication the GOP has any desire to do that hard work, because by all indications they simply don't care about the issue. The kind of plan you envision will also have lots of losers, like me most likely, which is fine, but politically allowing voters to see who loses, which happens when an ACTUAL plan is put to a vote and scored, doesn't work that well. So it's easier to promise a bunch of stuff that sounds good, call what the other guy does terrible, awful, etc. and never put your own plan into practice. That's the GOP strategy as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Anybody know if there is an existing GOP alternative health care plan in the works? All I have seen are references to legislation that would deal with pre-existing conditions.
 
trouble13 said:
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL F*** the States. We are all humans with the same need for healthcare that does not bankrupt us.
 
Nickyjo said:
Anybody know if there is an existing GOP alternative health care plan in the works? All I have seen are references to legislation that would deal with pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

No there is no plan and high risk pools for pre-existing conditions makes it unaffordable for those that have them.
 
trouble13 said:
Your not speaking for me. That isnt my position at all. If you would like to understand my position here it is

In general i am not opposed to reforming the heathcare industry but i do disagree with what is being proposed. That is an entirely seperate discussion that im more than willing to also have with you.

My position is that it is outside the role of the federal gov to mandate a single approach healthcare for 50 states and however msny nonstates it oversees.

Each state should be free to impliment its own regulations and standards as they see fit. The sucessful ones will flurish and eork best will eventually be adopted by all the states and the ones that dont will be abandoned for the ones that do.

That is the democratic approach. Allow competing ideas to compete and let the best ones rise to the top. Its about as american of a priniciple as any.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you object to the economies of scale and want 50 bureaucracies instead of one? What is so different about the HC needs of a person in NY than in MN that would justify such increased expenses? Like it or not this is not the 1700's and we have moved further and further away from State independence ever since then and rightly so IMO. Are we one Country or not?
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This does not work unless you change the constitution and have things like the prohibition of free movement of residents from one state to another. In your scenario, young and healthy residents can play the "tough responsible and independent" workers in some states with private healthcare, and will come in droves to get "socialist" medicine when they need it without putting into the system of those states enough contributions.
 
jonny5 said:
Being correct makes me correct. Do you disagree that 3/4 of the states would not ratify an amendment adding regulation of healthcare to the constitution?
Click to expand...

Again F*** the States. All Americans have a right to affordable HC. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom