• 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!

3 GOP Senators to Oppose Health Care Bill

From Greg Sargent:

DC8x9fVXsAIoXcF.jpg
 
MTAtech said:
From Greg Sargent:

DC8x9fVXsAIoXcF.jpg
Click to expand...

That truly is the core of the bill, always has been. Steal from the sick and poor to give to the rich.

Of course, the counter argument will be. Why should to healthy and wealthy subsidize the sick and poor? But that's a strawman.
 
calamity said:
That truly is the core of the bill, always has been. Steal from the sick and poor to give to the rich.

Of course, the counter argument will be. Why should to healthy and wealthy subsidize the sick and poor? But that's a strawman.
Click to expand...
This front-page Times article says it all:
Shifting Dollars From Poor to Rich Is a Key Part of the Senate Health Bill

Anyone who is deluded at this point to think that Republicans had your interest in mind needs to rethink their beliefs. The purpose of the House and Senate bills had nothing to do with making health coverage in America better or improving Obamacare. It has everything to do with just lowering taxes on the wealthy regardless of the cost and ramifications to everyone else. All the talk from Trump about looking out for the little guy was, just as us liberal eggheads said, just false populist nonsense. He has shown he wants to make headlines with regular folk as backdrops and nothing more. Their health coverage and jobs are not nearly as important to him as his backswing.

The Senate and House bills screw the same down-on-their-luck Trump voters that put him over the top. They were double-crossed and should feel as used as a Trump University student.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Why should the rich pay for your health care?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it is right thing to do?

And before you say I want a subsidy....

Let it be known that my husband is in top 5 percent income and we pay higher taxes so the poor and those with pre exsisting conditions can get health care.
 
As Paul Krugman wrote today, the GOP doesn't even make excuses for why they want to shift dollars to the rich and away from everyone else. It's just that they can.

This bill does nothing to reduce health care costs. It does nothing to improve the functioning of health insurance markets – in fact, it will send them into death spirals by reducing subsidies and eliminating the individual mandate. There is nothing at all in the bill that will make health care more affordable for those currently having trouble paying for it. And it will gradually squeeze Medicaid, eventually destroying any possibility of insurance for millions.

Who benefits? It’s all about the tax cuts, almost half of which will go to people with incomes over $1 million, the great bulk to people with incomes over 200K.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
This front-page Times article says it all:
Shifting Dollars From Poor to Rich Is a Key Part of the Senate Health Bill

Anyone who is deluded at this point to think that Republicans had your interest in mind needs to rethink their beliefs. The purpose of the House and Senate bills had nothing to do with making health coverage in America better or improving Obamacare. It has everything to do with just lowering taxes on the wealthy regardless of the cost and ramifications to everyone else. All the talk from Trump about looking out for the little guy was, just as us liberal eggheads said, just false populist nonsense. He has shown he wants to make headlines with regular folk as backdrops and nothing more. Their health coverage and jobs are not nearly as important to him as his backswing.

The Senate and House bills screw the same down-on-their-luck Trump voters that put him over the top. They were double-crossed and should feel as used as a Trump University student.
Click to expand...

The real shame is that so many of them (Trumpbots) are too wrapped up in their hate boners for the poor and sick to realize they too or their loved ones are also probably part of that group who are poor and sick. It's a truly :crazy3: moment in US history.
 
Cigar said:
At least three Republican senators are expected to publicly oppose the Senate's health care proposal Thursday afternoon, a Senate GOP source familiar with their plans told CNN.

Republicans can only lose two members of their 52-senator caucus in order to pass their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The news of three senators opposing the plan was first reported by NBC News. A number of other GOP senators are avoiding outright supporting the new health care bill unveiled by Republican leaders Thursday morning -- saying they need more time to read the fine print before taking a stand

Read more: Source: 3 Republican senators to oppose health care bill - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

I am glad they are taking their time to get it just right. Any doubts must be addressed. They bill should be such that most Senators, D and R alike, can stand behind it. Rushing it through just to find out what's in it later, and failing the American people once again, would be a mistake.
Why some people are gloating about the fact that a non working HC bill is being adjusted and possibly being replaced to serve our citizens well, is beyond me. It is high time to stop the partisan nonsense and do what is right for the people.
 
calamity said:
The real shame is that so many of them (Trumpbots) are too wrapped up in their hate boners for the poor and sick to realize they too or their loved ones are also probably part of that group who are poor and sick. It's a truly :crazy3: moment in US history.
Click to expand...
It really is a slap to working-class Trump voters, who do in fact receive a lot of government handouts. These voters are almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from Obamacare. The expansion of Medicaid was a boon to these voters. They really can't want those benefits to go away. Have they really deluded themselves into thinking that the Senate bill, if passed and Trump would sign, doesn't seriously effect them and just cuts "those people?" If so, they are really as stupid as they accuse liberals of believing.
 
Lovebug said:
I am glad they are taking their time to get it just right. Any doubts must be addressed. They bill should be such that most Senators, D and R alike, can stand behind it. Rushing it through just to find out what's in it later, and failing the American people once again, would be a mistake.
Why some people are gloating about the fact that a non working HC bill is being adjusted and possibly being replaced to serve our citizens well, is beyond me. It is high time to stop the partisan nonsense and do what is right for the people.
Click to expand...

First, neither the Senate nor the House are "taking the time" to "get it just right." They are rushing a bill through with no debate. Obamacare was debated for nine months and 150 GOP amendments were included. Since the new bill doesn't improve coverage, make it cheaper nor have any real improvements -- only reductions, why should anyone stand behind it?

Second, there was no "failed the American people once again." The ACA was working; the CBO wrote a report in March as to how it was stable. Only since Trump and the GOP scared off insurance companies by threatening to stop payments, did it become unstable in some markets.

Third, while I agree that "It is high time to stop the partisan nonsense and do what is right for the people," trying to pass a bill that does nothing more than reduce health care services for the many, so that a few can get tax-cuts, is the peak of partisan cynicism.
 
MTAtech said:
First, neither the Senate nor the House are "taking the time" to "get it just right." They are rushing a bill through with no debate. Obamacare was debated for nine months and 150 GOP amendments were included. Since the new bill doesn't improve coverage, make it cheaper nor have any real improvements -- only reductions, why should anyone stand behind it?

Second, there was no "failed the American people once again." The ACA was working; the CBO wrote a report in March as to how it was stable. Only since Trump and the GOP scared off insurance companies by threatening to stop payments, did it become unstable in some markets.

Third, while I agree that "It is high time to stop the partisan nonsense and do what is right for the people," trying to pass a bill that does nothing more than reduce health care services for the many, so that a few can get tax-cuts, is the peak of partisan cynicism.
Click to expand...
What was it that I said, exactly? Did I say that they should rush the bill through?
The bill should be such that most Senators, D and R alike, can stand behind it.
Click to expand...
Good grief.
 
calamity said:
The real shame is that so many of them (Trumpbots) are too wrapped up in their hate boners for the poor and sick to realize they too or their loved ones are also probably part of that group who are poor and sick. It's a truly :crazy3: moment in US history.
Click to expand...

While the left is only hating on non Dem poor?
 
Lovebug said:
While the left is only hating on non Dem poor?
Click to expand...

Please show the line in the ACA that says the health care law only applies to Democrat poor.
 
calamity said:
Please show the line in the ACA that says the health care law only applies to Democrat poor.
Click to expand...

Right next to where Trumpbots wrote they are hating on the poor and sick.
 
Lovebug said:
Right next to where Trumpbots wrote they are hating on the poor and sick.
Click to expand...

Oh, that part is backed up by clear and convincing evidence. But, you can't show one bit of proof indicating that ACA is somehow only benefiting poor democrats.
 
calamity said:
Oh, that part is backed up by clear and convincing evidence. But, you can't show one bit of proof indicating that ACA is somehow only benefiting poor democrats.
Click to expand...
A really good example is West Virginia, which went Trump by more than 40 percentage points, topped only by Wyoming. What did West Virginians think they were voting for?

They are, after all, residents of a poor state that benefits immensely from federal programs: 29% of the population is on Medicaid, (that's now on the GOP chopping block) almost 19% on food stamps. The expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare is the main reason the percentage of West Virginians without health insurance has halved since 2013. It has nothing to do with policies that help Democrats or "Those People" -- just to be clear, we’re talking about white West Virginians: At 93% white, West Virginia is one of the most minority- and immigrant-free states in America.
 
minnie616 said:
Maybe because it is right thing to do?
Click to expand...
There are lots of things that can be labelled 'the right thing to do' but we don't employ the state to force free people to do them.

And before you say I want a subsidy....

Let it be known that my husband is in top 5 percent income and we pay higher taxes so the poor and those with pre exsisting conditions can get health care.
Click to expand...
If you and your husband believe it is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But you have no right to compel me to join you if I see things differently. The unique aspect of a free people is not the right to agree, but the right to disagree and go your way in peace.
 
Fletch said:
There are lots of things that can be labelled 'the right thing to do' but we don't employ the state to force free people to do them.

If you and your husband believe it is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But you have no right to compel me to join you if I see things differently. The unique aspect of a free people is not the right to agree, but the right to disagree and go your way in peace.
Click to expand...

The thing is, a free-market true believer can go around screaming TYRANNY! whenever a rule, regulation or law exists that they don't like. Rational people have a recognition that some things are best not left up to markets or individuals because there is a thing called common interests. That concept should not be a disturbing notion. Yes, laws that prevent you from throwing garbage in the street or burning off toxins in the air are recognized as not being undue burdens on liberty. The courts have ruled that the ACA mandate is effectively a tax and Congress has the constitutional authority to levy taxes.

Now that the legal impediment to your claim of infringement on your individual liberty has been put to the side, the only issue is whether the law requiring a mandate is rational and meets a public purpose. The mandate exists to provide a viable insurance pool. As one may know, one can't provide insurance if all the insured are sick or bad risks. There needs to be a pool of a mixture of people, some paying premiums and others claiming benefits. Without that, no insurance works.

Start with the proposition that we don't want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions -- which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to. If we just pass a law saying that insurance companies can't discriminate on this basis, that leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.

So, not only is the mandate legal, it's also a good idea, if you think that we don't want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. Remember, one day that may be you.
 
MTAtech said:
The thing is, a free-market true believer can go around screaming TYRANNY! whenever a rule, regulation or law exists that they don't like. Rational people have a recognition that some things are best not left up to markets or individuals because there is a thing called common interests. That concept should not be a disturbing notion. Yes, laws that prevent you from throwing garbage in the street or burning off toxins in the air are recognized as not being undue burdens on liberty. The courts have ruled that the ACA mandate is effectively a tax and Congress has the constitutional authority to levy taxes.

Now that the legal impediment to your claim of infringement on your individual liberty has been put to the side, the only issue is whether the law requiring a mandate is rational and meets a public purpose. The mandate exists to provide a viable insurance pool. As one may know, one can't provide insurance if all the insured are sick or bad risks. There needs to be a pool of a mixture of people, some paying premiums and others claiming benefits. Without that, no insurance works.

Start with the proposition that we don't want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions -- which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to. If we just pass a law saying that insurance companies can't discriminate on this basis, that leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.

So, not only is the mandate legal, it's also a good idea, if you think that we don't want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. Remember, one day that may be you.
Click to expand...

That's interesting and all, but not one word actually addressed what I wrote. You are simply citing law as if the law justifies itself rather than address the principles that support and create just law that my post was dealing with.
 
Fletch said:
That's interesting and all, but not one word actually addressed what I wrote. You are simply citing law as if the law justifies itself rather than address the principles that support and create just law that my post was dealing with.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of your previous post was that you believe that the government forcing you to buy health insurance was an undue restraint of your liberty. My reply was two-fold:
A) There was no constitutional denial of your liberty by such a law, and;
B) that there was a more important public interest involved, namely, covering preexisting conditions. Without the mandate to "force" you to buy insurance that you should have good enough sense to buy anyway, we get the premium death spiral that I mentioned above, that results in people not getting insurance and further results in deaths. My morality says that preventing deaths outweighs your sense of bruised liberty.

EDIT:
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy. If you don't, you pay a tax.
 
MTAtech said:
Under the ACA there is 'community ratings' that average the price of premiums in the community. That doesn't exist in the House or Senate bill. That's why the price of insurance for an older person is 5X higher -- a price most older Americans can't afford -- so they'll 'decide' not to have coverage. The GOP's plans screws older Americans and lower income Americans.
Click to expand...

Obviously the example I gave you of my insurance being significantly higher than a co-workers was under the ACA, rules. so those community ratings were not working.
 
Greenbeard said:
Let's imagine you're 50 and your income is at 300% of the federal poverty level. We'll use a real example: you live in Topeka and want to buy a silver-level plan (the cheapest one available will do).

Right now, you'll pay a premium of $292/month and your federal subsidy of $226/month will pay the rest.

Under the GOP's bill, you'd pay a premium of $384 for that exactly same plan and your federal subsidy of $134/month would pay the rest. Well, that would be the case if the GOP's bill didn't also allow insurers to charge older people even higher premiums. So in reality under the GOP's bill the premium you pay for that same plan would be even higher than $384.

Older folks still lose under this bill.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is the ACA fails, the house bill failed, and the senate bill fails. the primary issue isn't coverage , its cost.
There is another thing to consider though. For me, the last time I checked, the cheapest healthcare.gov plan was 395$/month. I'm talking about the cheapest bronze plan. the deductible for that plan is $6700 and then the copayment-coninsurance is still 80/20 for most things. This is really where the ACA failed. the deductibles were/are so high than even if you can afford the premium you really cant afford to use the insurance.
 
SocialD said:
Obviously the example I gave you of my insurance being significantly higher than a co-workers was under the ACA, rules. so those community ratings were not working.
Click to expand...
Since I don't have either to compare, who knows? They may have a bronze individual plan and you have a gold family plan. What I do know is that insurance companies have to offer the same price to everyone in the group buying the same insurance. That's the law.
 
MTAtech said:
Since I don't have either to compare, who knows? They may have a bronze individual plan and you have a gold family plan. What I do know is that insurance companies have to offer the same price to everyone in the group buying the same insurance. That's the law.
Click to expand...

As I said, my friend/coworker and I got on healthcare.gov at the same time , this was like maybe a year ago. We selected the exact same plan, with coverage just for self. both selected non smoker. we both had the same job with same income .. so everything was exactly the same except age. my premium was like $395 and his was like $268

The ironic thing is he has a congenital heart condition and would rack up a lot more medical bills than I do even though he is a lot younger than me.
 
SocialD said:
The bottom line is the ACA fails, the house bill failed, and the senate bill fails. the primary issue isn't coverage , its cost.
There is another thing to consider though. For me, the last time I checked, the cheapest healthcare.gov plan was 395$/month. I'm talking about the cheapest bronze plan. the deductible for that plan is $6700 and then the copayment-coninsurance is still 80/20 for most things. This is really where the ACA failed. the deductibles were/are so high than even if you can afford the premium you really cant afford to use the insurance.
Click to expand...
Bronze plans will have a higher deductible than more expensive plans. I assume that those prices are without subsidies.

Insurance companies set the prices, no the government. If you want more coverage, lower deductibles and lower premiums -- and you want the government to do something about it, you are talking subsidies -- which is the opposite direction the Republicans are going. They plan to take government money out of the system so they can lower taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Thus, you if you are complaining about price now, your complaints will more so if the GOP gets its way.
 
MTAtech said:
Bronze plans will have a higher deductible than more expensive plans. I assume that those prices are without subsidies.

Insurance companies set the prices, no the government. If you want more coverage, lower deductibles and lower premiums -- and you want the government to do something about it, you are talking subsidies -- which is the opposite direction the Republicans are going. They plan to take government money out of the system so they can lower taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Thus, you if you are complaining about price now, your complaints will more so if the GOP gets its way.
Click to expand...

Yes without subsidies I make a few thousand dollars too much per year to get a subsidy. I do want better coverage and lower deductibles and premiums... which was what I had before the ACA came along. premiums for me for comparable coverage have went up almost 400% since the ACA was passed 7 years ago.

- As to the Senate Health plan don't get me wrong I don't like it either. ive said the ACA sucks, the House bill sucked and the Senate bill also sucks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom