• 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

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
21,258
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The campaign to bring back pre-existing conditions kicks into high gear this week.

A sophistic ruling from a single Texas judge unveiled late last year, held until safely after the midterm elections when it couldn't further doom the GOP's chances, would dismantle the entire ACA, depriving tens of millions of people of their coverage and throwing the American health system into chaos. This week the oral arguments in front of a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans begin. The stakes are life-and-death.

Affordable Care Act threatened as Trump administration, GOP states fight U.S. House, Democratic states in court
That ruling has not been implemented pending appeal, but the implications are huge. If the law is wiped out, so too would be insurance for 20 million people, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, subsidies for low-income people, Medicaid expansions in many states, coverage for young adults up to age 26 and more.
On one side are the Trump administration and 18 states, led by Texas, that agree with O'Connor's decision and want the law dismantled. On the other side are the U.S. House of Representatives and 16 states, led by California, seeking to have that ruling reversed. A threshold question is whether the House, and possibly the liberal states, have the required legal authority to defend a law the federal government is not defending.

Hearing the two sides will be a three-judge panel that includes two judges chosen by Republican presidents and one nominated by a Democrat. If its decision eventually goes to the full appeals court, that too is dominated by GOP presidents' choices.
 
The campaign to bring back pre-existing conditions kicks into high gear this week.

A sophistic ruling from a single Texas judge unveiled late last year, held until safely after the midterm elections when it couldn't further doom the GOP's chances, would dismantle the entire ACA, depriving tens of millions of people of their coverage and throwing the American health system into chaos. This week the oral arguments in front of a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans begin. The stakes are life-and-death.

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

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.
 
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.

I can't imagine this won't be a major issue--the issue if the GOP succeeds at destroying the health system--in 2020. 2018 was a health care election and it was a historic midterm victory for the Dems, but at that point the GOP was still lying about defending pre-existing condition protections. Most people saw through it but clearly there were at least some folks who found it plausible that they wanted to protect those folks.

Now that Trump and the GOP are going all-in on bringing back pre-existing conditions and stripping tens of millions of coverage, they don't seem to be trying to hide their position anymore.
 
2020 will also be a healthcare election.

Mark my words.
 
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
 
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.

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.
 
So Democrats will run on the same issue that handed them back control of the House in 2018.

Okey dokey.
 
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.
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.
 
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.
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
 
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

How does this work in the scenario when health insurance can be sold across state lines as proposed by the GOP?
 
How does this work in the scenario when health insurance can be sold across state lines as proposed by the GOP?
Health insurance and healthcare are 2 different things but to snswer your question

If the health insurance carrier offers a policy that meets both states atandards it should not matter where it is purchased

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
If the health insurance carrier offers a policy that meets both states atandards it should not matter where it is purchased

Alas, that isn't what the GOP has proposed. Back when they still pretended to propose things, anyway.
 
Alas, that isn't what the GOP has proposed. Back when they still pretended to propose things, anyway.
Ok but im not defending their proposal. The only thing i suggested is that we should not nationalize healthcare and should.do it stste by state.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
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.
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach, my friend, and it is not philosophical: The resources of the various States and territories are wildly disparate. I worked as an EMT in one of those less-provisioned States. Medical outcomes were not good.

As an American citizen, who has a constitutional right and expectation of "free travel", I should not be inhibited from travel because of the third world (not an exaggeration) conditions in some States. Indeed, for some years I worked directly in interstate commerce (as a truck driver). Uniform availability of medical services throughout the United States is, indeed, an issue of interstate commerce as well as General Welfare.

What is so often missed when discussing the ACA is that it, indeed, left to the States implementation of the basic standards mandated by the Federal law. Each State was allowed to implement its own exchange, to administer its own Medicaid allotment, and to provide public health services in is own ways. That is one reason why I find resistance to it so perplexing. In my experience, most resistance is based upon misperception and misinformation. When the program, and its elements, are explained, further objection tends to be muted.
 
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach, my friend, and it is not philosophical: The resources of the various States and territories are wildly disparate. I worked as an EMT in one of those less-provisioned States. Medical outcomes were not good.

As an American citizen, who has a constitutional right and expectation of "free travel", I should not be inhibited from travel because of the third world (not an exaggeration) conditions in some States. Indeed, for some years I worked directly in interstate commerce (as a truck driver). Uniform availability of medical services throughout the United States is, indeed, an issue of interstate commerce as well as General Welfare.

What is so often missed when discussing the ACA is that it, indeed, left to the States implementation of the basic standards mandated by the Federal law. Each State was allowed to implement its own exchange, to administer its own Medicaid allotment, and to provide public health services in is own ways. That is one reason why I find resistance to it so perplexing. In my experience, most resistance is based upon misperception and misinformation. When the program, and its elements, are explained, further objection tends to be muted.
To clarify your position;
Are you claiming that its impossible to produce adequate funding for healthcare unless its paid for with federal funding?

If you are i would argue that your completely wrong on that and i suspect we will find that you and i share a fundamental disagreement on what the denifition of adequate means.

If my suspicion is correct the model you advocate using is not only finacially unsustainable but it will also deliver subpar results.

I would like you to confirm that i did not misrepresent your position in any way before getting any further into it and if i did misscharacterize you please correct me. It is not my intent to have a dishonest conversation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
To clarify your position;
Are you claiming that its impossible to produce adequate funding for healthcare unless its paid for with federal funding?

If you are i would argue that your completely wrong on that and i suspect we will find that you and i share a fundamental disagreement on what the denifition of adequate means.

If my suspicion is correct the model you advocate using is not only finacially unsustainable but it will also deliver subpar results.

I would like you to confirm that i did not misrepresent your position in any way before getting any further into it and if i did misscharacterize you please correct me. It is not my intent to have a dishonest conversation.

Honestly, I don't believe your characterization is accurate or adequate, but I'm a bit confused about what you think our respective positions are. Let me clarify: a) it is perfectly appropriate, in my view, both constitutionally and logically, for the federal government to establish uniform minimum standards for medical care/services throughout the United States under at least the interstate commerce clause (as well as the general welfare clause); b) in pursuit of such a policy, it is perfectly appropriate to provide financial support to States to ensure compliance with the standards. I believe the federal government has even more authority over the subject, but that clarification should suffice at this stage of the discussion. For a bit of background, I offer this report; and this, from, Peterson-Kaiser: How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

As to whether that model is financially sustainable, I'm not sure what you think the model is (as I haven't offered one), so I'm loathe to opine. I would offer, however, that I can't think of any model or standard that would be financially unsupportable by our economy, nor can I fathom how establishing uniform minimum standards could make them "subpar". A great deal of elucidation of your position on that point would be necessary.
 
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.


Agriculture is also heavily dependent on subsidies...
 
I don't want to go too far off the farm, here, but I have some very strong, and experience-related views about health care in the United States, as well as the federal-State relationship in the area (and others). Suffice it to say, I believe there is a legal and constitutional basis for a robust federal role in provision of health care in the United States. The ACA is, in my view, the minimum role for the federal government.
 
How does this work in the scenario when health insurance can be sold across state lines as proposed by the GOP?

Insurance sold across state lines is a race to the bottom. GOP run states will have deregulation wars seeing who can attract the most corrupt companies...
 
Agriculture is also heavily dependent on subsidies...

And not merely agricultural. Most of the work and all of the fertilizer is basically fossil fuel. And water used unsustainably. And externalities.
 
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.

If this is the only way that you're going to present your argument. Then the only one being dishonest here is you.
 
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

Let them keep crying about it on this thread. It's not like they know what's actually going on behind closed doors anyway, and everyone wants to paint the opposite side as the enemy for purely tribalistic reasons.

I really do hate how threads like this can just devolve so quickly.
 
Let them keep crying about it on this thread. It's not like they know what's actually going on behind closed doors anyway, and everyone wants to paint the opposite side as the enemy for purely tribalistic reasons.

I really do hate how threads like this can just devolve so quickly.
I find it astounding that you, of all people, make such a claim when it is you that is fomenting discord and prevaricating about the substance of the thread. Rather than decrying it, how about you just don't participate? It seems everyone would be much happier.
 
2020 will also be a healthcare election.

Mark my words.

Healthcare is the Democrats best issue. Illegal immigration is the Republicans best issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom