• 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!

The Dem plans for health care and the ACA

Greenbeard said:
Weirdly enough, that appears to be the de facto GOP position as well. They increasingly like the Medicaid expansion, they just hate markets. I would not have guessed a decade ago that this is how it would shake out.

?
Click to expand...

Not really when you think about it. the insurance companies give to both sides. So.. Medicaid expansion means fewer uninsured people driving up costs for hospitals that gets passed on to private insurance. And without a competitive market.. the insurance companies are free to develop de facto or outright monopolies.

What ransom will the GOP demand for more affordable plans and lower deductibles?
Click to expand...

Call it Trumpcare. that's the demand. Seriously.. I am not BS ing here. The senate is now Trumps baby. The only way it passes.. is if Trump thinks it makes him look good. And calling it Trumpcare.. he would like that.
 
Helix said:
during the next Democratic majority, priority one should be Medicaid for all. push it through, and then let Trumpists try to take it away. should have done that in 2010 rather than the ACA Romneycare half measure. the Democrats need to learn that Trumpists will never support them in any way no matter what they do.
Click to expand...

Medicaid for all? Yeah.. that's a death knell for democrats. If you thought obamacare was unpopular.. watch millions of americans have to go on Medicaid.. and the ensuing loss of doctors etc.

Oh and if you meant medicare? WORSE.. when medicare benefits have to be slashed to older people and those almost medicare aged.
 
Dittohead not! said:
People with pre existing conditions can have access to health care.
The working poor don't lose their insurance by going to work or getting a raise in pay.
College kids have until age 26 to get a job that provides health insurance.
People without health insurance who are nonetheless treated at the emergency room pay a fee to defray the cost to the rest of us.

That's why.
Click to expand...

the only problem is the subsidies. Which means that the insurance companies have the government on the hook. So.. the government.. meaning john Q taxpayer.. will have to cough up more subsidy.. and the person getting the insurance..will have to cough up more..

Or.. they will lose insurance and the politicians will be wondering where their jobs went.

The real issue here is that the portion of the ACA that needs to be revamped and expanded is competition in the healthcare insurance marketplace.. to drive prices down. BUT.. that seems absent in this bill.
 
Greenbeard said:
The politics of the ACA have shifted beneath your feet and you don't seem to have realized it. People don't want the ACA repealed, they want it preserved and improved. The policies in the OP are one way to begin that work.



Click to expand...


Hard working families will still reject high premium costs and high deductibles necessary to provide universal care for all at lessened government expense. Still, the government will have to fork over more than $30 trillion to make any plan work, according to reported official estimates.
 
jaeger19 said:
Medicaid for all? Yeah.. that's a death knell for democrats. If you thought obamacare was unpopular.. watch millions of americans have to go on Medicaid.. and the ensuing loss of doctors etc.

Oh and if you meant medicare? WORSE.. when medicare benefits have to be slashed to older people and those almost medicare aged.
Click to expand...

A lot of Trumpists are on medicaid. Take that away from them and see where that gets you.
 
TrumpTrain said:
Obamacare was a horrible horrible law that threw people off their plans, and made other people accept plans with features they did not want. Obama LIED when he said you could keep your doctor. Why anybody would want to save that foul law is beyond me.
Click to expand...

SIAP. And premiums and deductibles are intolerable for most people who have to pay for premiums and deductibles (certainly not those with pre-existing conditions).
 
washunut said:
You understand of course that this is just a cheap political stunt with no hope of passage. Notice your buddy forgot to mention cost. Insurance companies won't pick up the tab, you DID notice the word subsidized didn't you?

I have from the beginning of this joke called ACA said single payer is the true answer. However you have to get through two hurdles. One, who pays. Currently most private insurance is paid for largely by corporations. So whomever changes that will be attacked as a corporate stooge. That is why Warren Buffett wanted this over tax cuts. Next is accessibility. When something is free clearly usage goes up. Where will the increased supply of doctors come from.

Most hard questions have a thousand easy answers. Sadly they are almost always wrong. Wish I had the silver bullet to fix this problem. Alas I do not.

Yes HC is a hard problem to fix.
Click to expand...
Single-payor healthcare insurance is the answer? You've got to be kidding me. Have I posted this on this thread already? Single-payor healthcare is cheap healthcare insurance for all but does not provide for good healthcare. Rather is rations healthcare. There it is. Do you want healthcare insurance for all that is cheap (single-payor healthcare) or do you want good healthcare? You can't have both if the gov't runs healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
during the next Democratic majority, priority one should be Medicaid for all. push it through, and then let Trumpists try to take it away. should have done that in 2010 rather than the ACA Romneycare half measure. the Democrats need to learn that Trumpists will never support them in any way no matter what they do.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, would Medicaid for all be funded? Keep in mind that states now pay a significant portion of Medicaid costs. Would those now getting Medicare or VA benefits be granted "free" (entirely federally funded) Medicaid or would they be expected to "make sacrifices" to help the younger and non-veterans get new federal/state subsidies?
 
Helix said:
A lot of Trumpists are on medicaid. Take that away from them and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...

More are on Medicare or VA get medical benefits - take that away and see where that gets you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
More are on Medicare or VA get medical benefits - take that away and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue for that. I argued that we should have a system more similar to the rest of the first world.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How, exactly, would Medicaid for all be funded? Keep in mind that states now pay a significant portion of Medicaid costs. Would those now getting Medicare or VA benefits be granted "free" (entirely federally funded) Medicaid or would they be expected to "make sacrifices" to help the younger and non-veterans get new federal/state subsidies?
Click to expand...

We'd pay for it the same way the rest of the first world does.
 
Helix said:
I didn't argue for that. I argued that we should have a system more similar to the rest of the first world.
Click to expand...

If you like the healthcare insurance of the rest of the first world, you can go and get healthcare insurance that is similar to the rest of the first world.
Oh, and you can go and get their military defensive capabilities, too.
 
Helix said:
I didn't argue for that. I argued that we should have a system more similar to the rest of the first world.
Click to expand...

Yes you did because that is precisely what Medicaid for all means. Otherwise, you would have to say Medicaid for some and then explain how that some would be defined.
 
cabse5 said:
If you like the healthcare insurance of the rest of the first world, you can go and get healthcare insurance that is similar to the rest of the first world.
Oh, and you can go and get their military defensive capabilities, too.
Click to expand...

The rest of the first world receives similar care for a fraction of the cost.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes you did because that is precisely what Medicaid for all means. Otherwise, you would have to say Medicaid for some and then explain how that some would be defined.
Click to expand...

It means that the healthcare would cover everything, as medicaid does. Try taking that away from the poor and see where that gets you.
 
Helix said:
The rest of the first world receives similar care for a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

Actually, single-payor is better and cheaper healthcare insurance. Healthcare is rationed, though, so not similar to healthcare in the US...single-payor is better and cheaper healthcare insurance.
 
Helix said:
We'd pay for it the same way the rest of the first world does.
Click to expand...

Those UHC systems vary considerably and you know it - define which specific other country you think has it right, what their 'out of pocket' care costs are and how they fund (subsidize?) it. When you say Medicaid "for all" that means a system with no premiums, no co-pays and no deductibles - I doubt that "the rest of the first world" has that as their UHC plan.
 
Helix said:
It means that the healthcare would cover everything, as medicaid does. Try taking that away from the poor and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...

I know what Medicaid now does but I doubt that any country has that (no premiums, no co-pays and no deductibles) as their UHC system. I also know that the states must now pay a significant portion of (normal - for the very poor) Medicaid costs (yet they pay far less for expanded Medicaid which was added as part of PPACA).
 
vesper said:
They never worried about it before why would you ask how they would pay for it now? :) These people live on Rock Candy Mountain. Bottom line they can vote away in the House on any old thing they want but it isn't going anywhere accept sit on a shelf and collect dust.
Click to expand...

The ACA was paid for with tax increases.

And of course it might happen the Senate and/or Trump block the legislation, but there's another election in two years. During the Obama years, as you know, the GOP House passed I think 284 different repeal bills (seemed like that many...), knowing they wouldn't get through the Senate or Obama. The point is to demonstrate what the party wants done, and let the voters decide.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They made such a stink over the tax rate cuts not being paid for - I just expected that some additional revenue would be proposed to fund this give away.
Click to expand...

Either deficits matter or they don't. If the GOP wants to pass tax cuts and increase the deficit to pay for them, and that's fine, then deficits don't matter. Why would Democrats play by different rules? The House in the runup to this most recent election passed HUUUGGE tax cuts - not a spending cut in sight! Let the GOP whine about the cost if they want. Screw em.
 
JasperL said:
Either deficits matter or they don't. If the GOP wants to pass tax cuts and increase the deficit to pay for them, and that's fine, then deficits don't matter. Why would Democrats play by different rules? The House in the runup to this most recent election passed HUUUGGE tax cuts - not a spending cut in sight! Let the GOP whine about the cost if they want. Screw em.
Click to expand...

OK, so which is it? About 17% of the 2018 $779B deficit was due to the tax rate cuts with the other 83% simply due to conducting business as usual (congress critters spending more than they would dare ask for in taxation).
 
cabse5 said:
Actually, single-payor is better and cheaper healthcare insurance. Healthcare is rationed, though, so not similar to healthcare in the US...single-payor is better and cheaper healthcare insurance.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. Pre-ACA and post, healthcare in the U.S. is also rationed. The biggest rationing happens with the 25-30 million severely rationed because they currently have no insurance. But even those with insurance have all kinds of limits on care, so does Medicare/Medicaid/VA. Pre-ACA, rationing was far worse, with some "insurance" plans not even covering hospitalization, laughably low annual and lifetime dollar limits, excluding things like having a baby, or huge lists of drugs that are costly.

The minimum benefits requirements in ACA killed off a lot of the worst "rationing" in fact. But the bottom line is any healthcare system must by definition "ration" in some way, and they do.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, so which is it? About 17% of the 2018 $779B deficit was due to the tax rate cuts with the other 83% simply due to conducting business as usual (congress critters spending more than they would dare ask for in taxation).
Click to expand...

Business as usual is tax rates too low or spending too high. I see what the GOP did about it - made it worse, then right before the election, tried to hand out more free goodies. I'm just wondering what the rules are here. Do deficits matter or not? If not, fine. Democrats can play by those rules.

I'm not picking on you because you're generally reasonable, but I get sick and tired of Republicans who cheer tax cuts that blow up the deficit, then whine like stuck pigs when Democrats propose bills that might increase the deficit. I get tired of the press doing the same thing. For some reason what has to be paid for are programs for the non-top 1/10th of 1%, but not tax cuts for those people. Weird how that works.
 
JasperL said:
Business as usual is tax rates too low or spending too high. I see what the GOP did about it - made it worse, then right before the election, tried to hand out more free goodies. I'm just wondering what the rules are here. Do deficits matter or not? If not, fine. Democrats can play by those rules.

I'm not picking on you because you're generally reasonable, but I get sick and tired of Republicans who cheer tax cuts that blow up the deficit, then whine like stuck pigs when Democrats propose bills that might increase the deficit. I get tired of the press doing the same thing. For some reason what has to be paid for are programs for the non-top 1/10th of 1%, but not tax cuts for those people. Weird how that works.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a deficits don't matter (at least yet) response. That seems to be shared by a majority of voters since congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% while continuing to approve of deficit spending. I hope to die before Austerity Day forces a major reality check on the continued policy of federal defict spending. As things now stand, even cutting 100% of non-defense, discertionary federal spending would not eliminate the federal deficit.
 
Helix said:
A lot of Trumpists are on medicaid. Take that away from them and see where that gets you.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. our Medicaid is way better than most single payer healthcare plans.

So.. if you want to go to a Medicaid for all.. and get the savings you plan on getting... you are going to have to cut their benefits..

As well as lower everyone that has better insurance privately or through medicare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom