JoeUser Forums
If Republicans manage to find a way to screw up healthcare they will be damaged for decades to come... although, Democrats are already damaged for decades to come, so that may give may give Republicans wiggle room.
Meanwhile 20-30 million people will be without health insurance and many will die. So it's all worth it.
I guess that's why Repubs are suddenly squeamish about full repeal. They know the news media would descend like locusts on any scenario to be seen as a person dying from the loss of Obamacare and would beat a drum, but when Obama bombs a hospital in Afghanistan murdering doctors and incinerating patients in their beds the news media does anything they can to divert any attention. So its a heavy lift in the land of double standard.
So two wrongs make a right?.... Besides, Obama is history. It's time to look ahead.
“I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan, where he called this repeal bill ‘an act of mercy.’ With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture,” Kennedy said as the House Energy and Commerce Committee dove into the details of the GOP effort … The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick.”
Just one of the many reasons people don't trust conventional media - they know the dishonesty of the playbook now.
For what it's worth, DailyKos is all-virtue-signalling, all-ad-hominen, all-appeal-to-authority, all-the-time. YMMV
If the Ryan bill ends up being all there is, it's a sick joke of a jokey sickness. I'm not sure it will pass the House, actually; worrying about overcoming a Senate filibuster is pointless.
The extent of the Dem's 'participation' is/will be to vote NO on whatever shows up. Their votes are already cast, in fact - you can bank on it. With the possible exception of Manchin. Which is the problem in the Senate - Republicans can't use reconciliation to toast the whole enchilada because they can't get to 60 votes the way the Dems did to pass the damn thing.
Yes, from what I read they also have enough votes to totally scrap the (KKK) Byrd rule regarding reconciliation. Whatever they need to do they probably should. Trump ran on it and they should find a way to do it.
I know people who work and make good money and lost their healthcare last year because the
price of insurance has become ridiculous and unaffordable.
If I were in congress I would do what the President wants to do
and let the chips fall where they may.
If after time the new plan doesn't work we could try something else.
I say give The President a chance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-obamacare-is-not-in-a-death-spiral/
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/02/news/economy/repealing-obamacare-health-insurance/
I think those who want a full repeal of the ACA forget that healthcare cost prior to the ACA were very high, and increased by double digits annually. Reverting healthcare back to the way it was is not the solution. It's clear from history that the free market model for health insurance does not lower or contain costs. Also, another thing some people forget is that "choice" (Paul Ryan) is irrelevant if you can't afford the thing you want to choose.
The biggest mistake that Obama made was not to get bipartisan support from the beginning. That's the true reason why Republicans opposed it - because they didn't get a say in it. Had they been included, the ACA wouldn't have been so maligned - even with the individual mandate and the added regs. Let's not forget that the fundamental principles of the ACA were originally a Conservative idea.
I would argue that 'the free market model' for health insurance has never been implemented. Furthermore, before 2010, my small business could purchase health insurance for its employees. A market for that existed. We can't buy it now at any price.
Also, another thing some people forget is that "choice" (Paul Ryan) Obamacare is irrelevant if you can't afford the thing you want to choose are forced to buy. FIFY
Well, DUH. But giving the finger to the minority & telling them to shove it was widely praised, even hailed as 'on the right side of history' and 'brave' at the time. "I won."
Well, DUH. But giving the finger to the minority & telling them to shove it was widely praised, even hailed as 'on the right side of history' and 'brave' at the time. "I won."
If the pure free market model existed (a zero regulation environment), almost no one except perfectly healthy 20 years could afford health insurance.
I don't remember those arguments being used at the time, but nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama, the Republicans should have worked in a bi-partisan manner to make improvements to it. Their priority should be to do what's best for their constituents, not what's best to bandage their hurt egos.
An assumption about a straw man - talk about two wrongs not making a right.
Did I say 'pure'? Or 'zero regulation environment'? When I was a young buck, all I wanted (or needed) was catastrophic coverage for the SMOD or unexpected incapacitating illness, a thing called Major Medical back in the day. And I could buy it, at an affordable cost, because a market existed for it, even though 'regulated'. The demand side of that market didn't go away, but the supply side was inexorably 'regulated' out of existence. The 'regulatory ratchet' is a thing. Suppliers can meet the need/demand only if allowed to. Regulatory requirements as to reserves and re-insurance, aimed at minimizing the risk of insolvency, are good things, but they should stop pretty much there.
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama in an effort to prevent or mitigate the damage that Obamacare would inevitably do... (known once we had a chance to read it, after it was passed).
FIFY again. I consider undoing a 'wrong' a 'right'.
An assumption about a straw man - talk about two wrongs not making a right.
Did I say 'pure'? Or 'zero regulation environment'? When I was a young buck, all I wanted (or needed) was catastrophic coverage for the SMOD or unexpected incapacitating illness, a thing called Major Medical back in the day. And I could buy it, at an affordable cost, because a market existed for it, even though 'regulated'. The demand side of that market didn't go away, but the supply side was inexorably 'regulated' out of existence. The 'regulatory ratchet' is a thing. Suppliers can meet the need/demand only if allowed to. Regulatory requirements as to reserves and re-insurance, aimed at minimizing the risk of insolvency, are good things, but they should stop pretty much there.
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama in an effort to prevent or mitigate the damage that Obamacare would inevitably do... (known once we had a chance to read it, after it was passed).
FIFY again. I consider undoing a 'wrong' a 'right'.
Oh, I agree. Here in my neck of the woods, there is only one insurance provider, so the ACA failed miserably in that regard. But I'm talking about the underlying good such a program can potentially bring. That's why I don't have a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" perspective.
There is a vocal neo-Libertarian contingent on the SD boards, so I made a bad assumption re: your view on regulation. Sorry about that.
No worries. I've enjoyed the conversation.
The republicans are working on single payer health care
and a tax increase.
You can thank them when it happens.
What a disaster. Can't blame House Republicans for not voting for it. The only thing that seems like good news is that Trump and Ryan relented and pulled the bill rather than force and bribe members to walk the plank and vote as Pelosi and Obama did during the passage of failed and disastrous Obamacare.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.