• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again

Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,181
Reaction score
21,525
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is great. Given how much everyone (including the GOP!) hates the GOP's awful replacement bill, they've invented this mythical series of undefined future unpassable bills that will mitigate the extreme damage they're proposing to do. Which Chait astutely notes is essentially a throwback to their original dumb repeal-and-delay strategy of destroying the health system and sometime down the road coming up with a great idea to fix the damage they cause.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again
The greatest advantage the Republican Party held, through eight years of political war over the provision of health care, was not having a plan to defend. After November’s elections handed them full control of government, Republicans designed a strategy to retain that advantage: repeal-and-delay, which would have allowed them to eliminate Obamacare without specifying the replacement. Repeal-and-delay failed, forcing them instead to pass a replacement plan. That plan has proven wildly unpopular. Indeed, it is so deeply unpopular that Republicans have given up defending the plan at all. Instead, they are back to promising an unspecified, future plan that will be revealed only after Obamacare has been gutted first.

The most significant development to come out of the last week is that Republicans no longer defend the American Health Care Act. When confronted with the fact that his plan would make counties that supported him far worse off, Trump acknowledged, “Oh, I know.” Paul Ryan, appearing on Fox News Sunday, echoed Trump. “We do believe we need to add some additional assistance to people in those older cohorts,” he told Chris Wallace. “We believe we should have more assistance, and that’s what we are looking at.” Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price told CNN, “This is not the plan.”

By “this,” Price meant the plan that the White House and Republican leadership had claimed as its plan. The real plan has “three prongs,” of which the bill is only the first. The other two involve a combination of regulatory moves that may or may not be legal and a package of legislative changes that stands a zero-percent chance of being passed into law. (They’re omitted from this bill because they cannot be included in a reconciliation bill, and thus are subject to a filibuster and require Democratic support, which will not be forthcoming.)
Click to expand...

Watching these idiots flail around trying to govern would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
 
Greenbeard said:
This is great. Given how much everyone (including the GOP!) hates the GOP's awful replacement bill, they've invented this mythical series of undefined future unpassable bills that will mitigate the extreme damage they're proposing to do. Which Chait astutely notes is essentially a throwback to their original dumb repeal-and-delay strategy of destroying the health system and sometime down the road coming up with a great idea to fix the damage they cause.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again


Watching these idiots flail around trying to govern would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Click to expand...

Yep, once federal handouts are offered then many folks (including state governments) come to depend on them. You just can't keep the "good parts" of PPACA and eliminate that which funded them. It is strange that this basic fact did not occur to these sage policy wizards. The idea of a "private" lapse of coverage penalty to replace the insurance lapse tax penalty (the mandate to remain covered) is an extremely bad idea, as is the ignoring of most actuarial risk factors (now called pre-existing conditions).

Having undefined future phases is much like having 5 and 10 year plans - the "good parts" come up front and the pay for part (just might possibly) come later. These clowns must now produce in writing the details of a magical insurance plan that covers everyone and is "affordable" to everyone - the Trump plan's "big picture" campaign promise that we were constantly told would be his first legislative priority.

At least that puts all sorts of other big spending plans on hold - inculding the reduced federal taxation (for everyone?) miracle.
 
Greenbeard said:
This is great. Given how much everyone (including the GOP!) hates the GOP's awful replacement bill, they've invented this mythical series of undefined future unpassable bills that will mitigate the extreme damage they're proposing to do. Which Chait astutely notes is essentially a throwback to their original dumb repeal-and-delay strategy of destroying the health system and sometime down the road coming up with a great idea to fix the damage they cause.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again


Watching these idiots flail around trying to govern would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Click to expand...

Maybe the GOP can warm-up that wiretapping-thing again. This time have Trump find it in his hair. That might continue hiding his obvious reluctance to govern. :roll:
 
Greenbeard said:
This is great. Given how much everyone (including the GOP!) hates the GOP's awful replacement bill, they've invented this mythical series of undefined future unpassable bills that will mitigate the extreme damage they're proposing to do. Which Chait astutely notes is essentially a throwback to their original dumb repeal-and-delay strategy of destroying the health system and sometime down the road coming up with a great idea to fix the damage they cause.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again


Watching these idiots flail around trying to govern would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Click to expand...

Obamacare is much like a human life. The time to kill it was when it was in the womb. Now that it has been born, we are stuck with it. You cant cut an entitlement program let alone get rid of it. All the republicans can do is fiddle around the edges
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, once federal handouts are offered then many folks (including state governments) come to depend on them. You just can't keep the "good parts" of PPACA and eliminate that which funded them. It is strange that this basic fact did not occur to these sage policy wizards. The idea of a "private" lapse of coverage penalty to replace the insurance lapse tax penalty (the mandate to remain covered) is an extremely bad idea, as is the ignoring of most actuarial risk factors (now called pre-existing conditions).

Having undefined future phases is much like having 5 and 10 year plans - the "good parts" come up front and the pay for part (just might possibly) come later. These clowns must now produce in writing the details of a magical insurance plan that covers everyone and is "affordable" to everyone - the Trump plan's "big picture" campaign promise that we were constantly told would be his first legislative priority.

At least that puts all sorts of other big spending plans on hold - inculding the reduced federal taxation (for everyone?) miracle.
Click to expand...

Tom Price's vision of health care insurance completely cuts all ties to employment. This means his vision would affect every American. With the possible exception of legislators. 70 or so percent of Americans get their insurance through employment. Personally, I can afford my insurance, and it is serving me and my family well. He wants to take that away and replace it with what? I have choices. It's affordable. I took my wife to the Mayo clinic in Jacksonville 5 times last year. That is as good as it gets. Didn't pay it all, but paid enough. What is Price's plan going to do? We don't know. But it will be "patient focused", and "market driven" whatever the hell that drivel means. Show me something in writing. Oh wait, you don't have anything in writing other than drivel.
 
Bob N said:
Maybe the GOP can warm-up that wiretapping-thing again. This time have Trump find it in his hair. That might continue hiding his obvious reluctance to govern. :roll:
Click to expand...

That was good. I needed a laugh. Thanks!
 
trblmkr said:
Tom Price's vision of health care insurance completely cuts all ties to employment. This means his vision would affect every American. With the possible exception of legislators. 70 or so percent of Americans get their insurance through employment. Personally, I can afford my insurance, and it is serving me and my family well. He wants to take that away and replace it with what? I have choices. It's affordable. I took my wife to the Mayo clinic in Jacksonville 5 times last year. That is as good as it gets. Didn't pay it all, but paid enough. What is Price's plan going to do? We don't know. But it will be "patient focused", and "market driven" whatever the hell that drivel means. Show me something in writing. Oh wait, you don't have anything in writing other than drivel.
Click to expand...

That is precisely my point - vague visions and spiffy (really great, amazing and fantastic?) campaign slogans mean nothing unless and until they can be articulated into public law. Promises of "coming soon in a future phase" are even more insulting to our intelligence.
 
Fletch said:
Obamacare is much like a human life. The time to kill it was when it was in the womb. Now that it has been born, we are stuck with it. You cant cut an entitlement program let alone get rid of it. All the republicans can do is fiddle around the edges
Click to expand...

Few would ever admit that but examples escape me of an eliminated federal entitlement.
 
Fletch said:
Obamacare is much like a human life. The time to kill it was when it was in the womb. Now that it has been born, we are stuck with it. You cant cut an entitlement program let alone get rid of it. All the republicans can do is fiddle around the edges
Click to expand...

by "fiddle around the edges" you mean lie non stop for the last 8 years that they could come up with a better plan? And since you use the word "entitlement" I have to assume the subsidies in Obamacare and the republicans "plan" upset you. So did you prefer the original republican plan of "status quo" or single payer?
 
Vern said:
by "fiddle around the edges" you mean lie non stop for the last 8 years that they could come up with a better plan? And since you use the word "entitlement" I have to assume the subsidies in Obamacare and the republicans "plan" upset you. So did you prefer the original republican plan of "status quo" or single payer?
Click to expand...

No, vern I don't think the federal government should have any role whatsoever in providing health insurance.
 
Fletch said:
No, vern I don't think the federal government should have any role whatsoever in providing health insurance.
Click to expand...

so just to be clear, you were mad at republicans when they changed from their chant from "repeal" to "repeal and replace"?
 
Greenbeard said:
This is great. Given how much everyone (including the GOP!) hates the GOP's awful replacement bill, they've invented this mythical series of undefined future unpassable bills that will mitigate the extreme damage they're proposing to do. Which Chait astutely notes is essentially a throwback to their original dumb repeal-and-delay strategy of destroying the health system and sometime down the road coming up with a great idea to fix the damage they cause.

The Republican Health-Care Plan Has Disappeared Again


Watching these idiots flail around trying to govern would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Click to expand...

Its just amazing that the one,single, overriding priority of the GOP was unified hatred of Obamacare and complete resolution to 'repeal and replace' on day 1.

Now that they have complete control, its like watching a complete disaster unfolding, with no one having a viable plan, no ability to honestly address shortcomings of the ACA and correct them, and no real effort to improve healthcare in the US while doing it.


Its really shocking how many people are still strongly behind the GOP, despite this clear demonstration of epic failure. The whole fiasco clearly broadcasts their near incomplete inability to govern - and this cant be blamed on Trump at all.
 
Vern said:
so just to be clear, you were mad at republicans when they changed from their chant from "repeal" to "repeal and replace"?
Click to expand...

No, repeal would just return US healthcare to what it was before Obama--and the problem then was too much government interference. If the bill being proposed moves us in a more market oriented direction I might support it. But healthcare is lost. Medicine will ultimately be socialized here. It is inevitable.
 
Fletch said:
No, repeal would just return US healthcare to what it was before Obama--and the problem then was too much government interference. If the bill being proposed moves us in a more market oriented direction I might support it. But healthcare is lost. Medicine will ultimately be socialized here. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...

fletch, can you explain what you think is a "more market oriented direction." I have to ask because I thought the exchanges moved us to a "more market oriented direction." I just don't think there is a "private enterprise" solution to cost and complexity of healthcare. and personally I'd rather have Obamacare than single payer or employer based healthcare. I'd even like to see the employer mandate removed for companies under 100 employees. I benefit from employer based healthcare but I think it hurts our ability to compete. (on a side note, think about how much you hear "increasing minimum wage" hurts our ability to compete but never hear it for medical costs).
 
Vern said:
fletch, can you explain what you think is a "more market oriented direction." I have to ask because I thought the exchanges moved us to a "more market oriented direction." I just don't think there is a "private enterprise" solution to cost and complexity of healthcare. and personally I'd rather have Obamacare than single payer or employer based healthcare. I'd even like to see the employer mandate removed for companies under 100 employees. I benefit from employer based healthcare but I think it hurts our ability to compete. (on a side note, think about how much you hear "increasing minimum wage" hurts our ability to compete but never hear it for medical costs).
Click to expand...

A more market driven approach would be.

1. All americans have a healthcare savings plan for which an employer can put in an amount toward the employee purchasing healthcare insurance. Thus the employer still gets a tax advantage to provide money for health insurance.. but is not responsible for actually deciding what to purchase for their employees.

this does several things: It solves the portability problem of insurance. Now if an employee switches jobs, the insurance is his and his next employer simply puts money into the account.
It solves the overpayment to insurance companies by the employer which drives up prices. the employer often is paying for insurance that his employees don't actually need. So my insurance covers dependents.. but my wifes company also covers dependents.. and so both companies are PAYING based on the premise that each of us COULD be covered under the others policy.. but in actuality.. we never will.

Now the employee just has to purchase what they need.

In addition it solves the overpayment in another way: Initially you may have a low deductible plan that's more expensive but with a health savings account.. as you build up money in the account for deductibles etc.. you can then LOWER your monthly insurance cost by going to higher deductible plans as your savings built up and can cover a higher deductible if necessary.

Think of all the employers paying for low deductible plans at a high rate.. who the vast majority of their employees DON"T USE THE INSURANCE!.

Its a huge boon to the insurance companies.

The advent of millions upon millions of americans now responsible for buying their own healthcare insurance.. will mean that insurance companies have to compete for those customers.. rather than simply wrapping up say a couple of big employers in a region.

2. The exchanges need to be expanded so that insurance crosses state lines. and there should be a state AND a federal exchange that you can get into rather than.. oh.. sorry you don't qualify for an exchange. Insurance companies need to be forced to compete across state lines.. instead of build up state monopolies.

3. The subsidies should go away they way they are. Perhaps the better thing is to give a block grant to states to set up their own public options to compete with private insurance companies and force the prices down to where people can afford them.

4. Keep the Medicaid expansion for those states that choose to keep them. For those states that don't take the Medicaid expansion.. then more money for a public option?
 
jaeger19 said:
A more market driven approach would be.

1. All americans have a healthcare savings plan for which an employer can put in an amount toward the employee purchasing healthcare insurance. Thus the employer still gets a tax advantage to provide money for health insurance.. but is not responsible for actually deciding what to purchase for their employees.

this does several things: It solves the portability problem of insurance. Now if an employee switches jobs, the insurance is his and his next employer simply puts money into the account.
It solves the overpayment to insurance companies by the employer which drives up prices. the employer often is paying for insurance that his employees don't actually need. So my insurance covers dependents.. but my wifes company also covers dependents.. and so both companies are PAYING based on the premise that each of us COULD be covered under the others policy.. but in actuality.. we never will.

Now the employee just has to purchase what they need.

In addition it solves the overpayment in another way: Initially you may have a low deductible plan that's more expensive but with a health savings account.. as you build up money in the account for deductibles etc.. you can then LOWER your monthly insurance cost by going to higher deductible plans as your savings built up and can cover a higher deductible if necessary.

Think of all the employers paying for low deductible plans at a high rate.. who the vast majority of their employees DON"T USE THE INSURANCE!.

Its a huge boon to the insurance companies.

The advent of millions upon millions of americans now responsible for buying their own healthcare insurance.. will mean that insurance companies have to compete for those customers.. rather than simply wrapping up say a couple of big employers in a region.

2. The exchanges need to be expanded so that insurance crosses state lines. and there should be a state AND a federal exchange that you can get into rather than.. oh.. sorry you don't qualify for an exchange. Insurance companies need to be forced to compete across state lines.. instead of build up state monopolies.

3. The subsidies should go away they way they are. Perhaps the better thing is to give a block grant to states to set up their own public options to compete with private insurance companies and force the prices down to where people can afford them.

4. Keep the Medicaid expansion for those states that choose to keep them. For those states that don't take the Medicaid expansion.. then more money for a public option?
Click to expand...

Actually, a more market driven approach would lead to this:

Encinitas woman dead after turmeric IV infusion - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego


FREEDOM!!!!
 
Fletch said:
No, vern I don't think the federal government should have any role whatsoever in providing health insurance.
Click to expand...

So just the Govt. paying for healthcare then? That is what the alternative is.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, a more market driven approach would lead to this:

Encinitas woman dead after turmeric IV infusion - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego


FREEDOM!!!!
Click to expand...

Come now.. You have to be kidding right? I post a response on how to take a market based approach your response is to post a article about a woman who had a "spice IV"? While its being investigated as a criminal case?

Wait... you right.. surely this couldn't happen in GERMANY.. a country with universal public insurance right?

Ooops...

German police took action on 4 August after two patients from the Netherlands and one from Belgium died shortly after undergoing treatment at the Biological Cancer Centre, run by alternative practitioner Klaus Ross in the town of Brüggen, Germany, 50 kilometers west of Düsseldorf. Two other patients had to be treated for life-threatening conditions, the prosecutor's office said in a press release today. Police in Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium have urged other patients treated at the center to contact local health authorities; at least 26 have done so. Media reports suggest that cancer patients often sought Ross's help after they ran out of conventional therapy options, or to avoid aggressive chemotherapy. He offered a 10-week “basic therapy” against cancer for €9900 ($11,057).
Click to expand...

Come on man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom