80/20 RULE

[dayman]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/226575-gop-shies-from-healthcare-alternative

 

I am not sure what "The Hill" is, but this is the very scenario that scares me personally about the GOP and Healthcare.

 

 

 

If ACA is repealed, healthcare will not be a priority and will go unaddressed for decades more... that is scary.

 

This is true. The only scenario where it might get rehashed is if it were totally destroyed by SCOTUS and Obama won the White House and (somehow) the house as well. Then we can go ahead and start over... ...or we can move forward. Implement it, fix what doesn't work, change things that need to be changed...the issue of healthcare is a clear example of the GOP being simply "the party of 'no'."

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Chef Jim]

 

 

 

If ACA is repealed, healthcare will not be a priority and will go unaddressed for decades more... that is scary.

 

Healthcare wasn't a priority with the original legislation.

[B-Large]

This is true. The only scenario where it might get rehashed is if it were totally destroyed by SCOTUS and Obama won the White House and (somehow) the house as well. Then we can go ahead and start over... ...or we can move forward. Implement it, fix what doesn't work, change things that need to be changed...the issue of healthcare is a clear example of the GOP being simply "the party of 'no'."

 

The GOP has made a attitude on healthcare based on "Ideological Preference". The ACA was basically the same legislation signed by the current GOP POTUS frontrunner, and it was also the platform in the 90's that the GOP came up with to compete with the Hillary Clinton's national health platform. If people would put partisanship aside for a second and actually seek to understand the intentions/changes in the ACA, they would realize it isn't that bad.... perfect, no... but nothing in life is perfect!

 

I remeber Democrats crying to high heaven when GWB passed the Medicare part D. That program has helped seniors, streghten Medicare, and has not cost as much as the CBO had estimated.

 

The US does not want to get rid of Private Health Insurers in favor of a single payor..... well, then you are going to pay a premium for everything (no pun intended)because insurers are in business to make MONEY- I don't fault them for that, that is what our coutry is about.... but it creates this awful scenario where GOOD PEOPLE, hard working PEOPLE cannot protect themselves and their families because of pre-exisiting conditions, etc.

 

We are being short-sighted. Once everybody has insurance, and IF the State Exchanges are successful.. think about it..... you could realistically voucher Medicare.... something the GOP creams all over themsleves about... well, you want to privatize Medicare, here is the path to do just that.

 

Selling Policies across State Lines is empty rhetoric. Insurance Companines can do business in any state they want, they can sell in Colorado, Florida, ND all the way to Maine if they want... it will do nothing to reduce cost. Not Malpratice Reform, there are probably savings there to cap the ergregious lawsuits against MD's.... the REALITY of health in the US, people live longer, they live sicker, and there are more drugs and procedures and scans to keep sick people going.... THAT is the underlying issues in Healthcare, CONSUMPTION- and not of the preventative nature.

 

My fingers hurt from typing.

[Doc]

I talked earlier about my take on addressing costs and how no piece of legislation will do it. My thoughts are a mere page or two back as to how costs will hopefully come down as the industry reforms itself. Either way the GOP put forth no intelligent thoughts on any of this...it's all just "no, no, no." The PPACA does address costs in some measure where it can as well as fraud...how successful those particular parts of the bill will be is up for interpretation. The costs issue in particular is not something that is reasonable to ask be fixed with a magic document produced by either party.

That pretty much sums it up. The cost of PPACA, in just the space of 2 years, has doubled. Guess where it's going to be scored by the CBO in another 2 years?

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

 

 

I thought it was supposed to be 85% fo each dollar, as in this tutorial- I guess it has changed to 80%.

 

Either way, althought not perfect, there is SO much good that has been implemented so far....

Why do you think the good things have been implemented already, yet the majority of it will wait until 2014?

[B-Large]

Healthcare wasn't a priority with the original legislation.

 

Yes it was, and continues to be.

 

go through this, be honest, cite what part of this was not about improving care and delivery.

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

 

That pretty much sums it up. The cost of PPACA, in just the space of 2 years, has doubled. Guess where it's going to be scored by the CBO in another 2 years?

 

Why do you think the good things have been implemented already, yet the majority of it will wait until 2014?

 

Because they were easy, impactful and could be done quickly? From day one, essentially, people were benefitting.

 

States were giving time to figure out how their exchanges are going to operate, giving that process time makes sense to me.

[B-Man]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/226575-gop-shies-from-healthcare-alternative

 

I am not sure what "The Hill" is, but this is the very scenario that scares me personally about the GOP and Healthcare.

 

 

 

If ACA is repealed, healthcare will not be a priority and will go unaddressed for decades more... that is scary.

 

 

B-Large, I have always admired your passion and input on this subject, but I just read the article and I don't know where you are getting this "GOP will not address healthcare" BS

 

They said that, rather than just substituting their own "omnibus" replacement bill, it would be more effective to pass parts of the reform that would help sooner rather than later.

 

That close to what you were always saying......"save the parts that are good"

 

.

[GG]

 

 

If ACA is repealed, healthcare will not be a priority and will go unaddressed for decades more... that is scary.

 

As opposed to moving forward with ACA and killing the federal budget along the way?

[dayman]

B-Large, I have always admired your passion and input on this subject, but I just read the article and I don't know where you are getting this "GOP will not address healthcare" BS

 

They said that, rather than just substituting their own "omnibus" replacement bill, it would be more effective to pass parts of the reform that would help sooner rather than later.

 

That close to what you were always saying......"save the parts that are good"

 

.

 

LOL c'mon man. C'mon now.

 

 

 

As opposed to moving forward with ACA and killing the federal budget along the way?

 

[B-Man]

LOL c'mon man. C'mon now.

 

 

 

From the Hill article;

 

the public opposes Obama’s healthcare law in part because of the messy process through which it passed. He wants conservatives to take an incremental approach that keeps the focus on individual policies.

 

“We have a number of simple, common-sense solutions, including allowing folks to buy health plans in other states, giving tax equity to those who don’t get healthcare from their employer, expanding health savings accounts, and state pools for those with pre-existing conditions,” DeMint said.

 

“These can be passed in a step-by-step process that would allow Americans to digest each new reform and build trust that each of these ideas stand on their own and will improve quality and lower costs.” - Sen. DeMint

 

Of course you can disagree with the steps the GOP will use instead of the Obamacare debacle, but to state that they would simply go back to business as usual and ignore the problem "for decades" is incredibly dishonest.

 

 

The ACA will bankrupt us if left in place, its time to state the obvious.

 

.

[dayman]

From the Hill article;

 

 

 

Of course you can disagree with the steps the GOP will use instead of the Obamacare debacle, but to state that they would simply go back to business as usual and ignore the problem "for decades" is incredibly dishonest.

 

 

The ACA will bankrupt us if left in place, its time to state the obvious.

 

.

 

If by state the obvious you mean state what you want to state. The GOP method described there was "maybe we'll do almost nothing and pass a token easy small change here and there...but maybe we'll just do nothing."

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Yes it was, and continues to be.

 

go through this, be honest, cite what part of this was not about improving care and delivery.

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

 

Seriously? There's maybe two things on that list about improving care and delivery. Almost everything on that list is about making sure the consumer doesn't have to pay more out of pocket.

[IDBillzFan]

As opposed to moving forward with ACA and killing the federal budget along the way?

It won't kill the federal budget because everyone will be covered. Even healthy people. That iwll make things okay. I guess.

[B-Man]

If by state the obvious you mean state what you want to state. The GOP method described there was "maybe we'll do almost nothing and pass a token easy small change here and there...but maybe we'll just do nothing."

 

 

Thanks for the gibberish.

 

 

 

 

Even supporters of Obamacare acknowledge that its cost is not sustainable...........................I have no intention of doing your homework for you.

 

Check the CBO numbers, or any other multiple sources, but since you have laughingly misstated the GOP position, I don't hold much hope for your effort.

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Interesting read here.

 

Franciscan University, in Steubenville, PA, decides that instead of adhering to the ACA mandate, it will drop coverage for all students, and they're on their own.

 

From the college:

 

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

 

Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future.

 

Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance. The current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15, 2012.

 

We encourage you to decide how you are going to provide for accidents or illnesses requiring visits to physicians, health clinics, or the hospital emergency room while you are a student here. As always, our Health Center on campus will be staffed by a certified nurse practitioner Monday – Friday during normal business hours. No insurance is necessary to receive basic health-related services at the Health Center, and the visits cost only $5 at the time of service. However, if you are referred off campus for further lab testing, physician specialists, X-rays, etc., you will be responsible to pay for those services.

 

But hey...everyone will be covered, even the healthy people, so it will all very easily just pay for itself.

Edited May 16, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Doc]

Because they were easy, impactful and could be done quickly? From day one, essentially, people were benefitting.

 

States were giving time to figure out how their exchanges are going to operate, giving that process time makes sense to me.

No, those things were done because they were the only real good parts of the legislation, and ones that could be touted before the presidential election. But even after getting these benefits, the majority of Americans don't like PPACA. Because they know the rest of it, to be implemented later, is bad for the country/individual freedom.

[WorldTraveller]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

 

 

I thought it was supposed to be 85% fo each dollar, as in this tutorial- I guess it has changed to 80%.

 

Either way, althought not perfect, there is SO much good that has been implemented so far....

Net net, it's more damaging than good

[dayman]

No, those things were done because they were the only real good parts of the legislation, and ones that could be touted before the presidential election. But even after getting these benefits, the majority of Americans don't like PPACA. Because they know the rest of it, to be implemented later, is bad for the country/individual freedom.

 

Why is it so bad for the country and freedom? Why do you really think this? You do realize there is nothing all that new in this Bill right? There is nothing radical. Nothing not kicked around before.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

Why is it so bad for the country and freedom? Why do you really think this? You do realize there is nothing all that new in this Bill right? There is nothing radical. Nothing not kicked around before.

Wait, this is 2,700 pages of "nothing all that new?" People being forced by the federal government to buy a private product, just for breathing, is nothing new? Sorry but that's a path down a road I don't want to go, even if in theory it would make me richer.

 

Look, I realize that you Barry supporters need to support this thing. All I have to do is point to the original projections of things like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, and how they've cost at least 5X more than their original projections. Then I can show you how the CBO scored Obamacare as costing twice as much as it was originally projected to cost just TWO years ago. Then I can show you that nowhere are costs reduced, except for maybe a 2-3% reduction to providers, despite the fact that there is another 85% that can be addressed, but isn't because Barry made his deals with them. Hoping there will be savings is ridiculous. We can't go on "hope and change" anymore.

 

Lastly, and as I've said before, all the good things that have been implemented could have been done without creating a 2,700 page monstrosity of an entitlement. Thinking change is good because, well, it's change, and that things can be "tweaked," when the entitlements we already have haven't been adequately tweaked and are on the verge of insolvency, is the definition of insanity. But that's what I've found with liberal thinkers. They're child-like in that they don't plan for the future, can't see the future consequences of their present-day actions, and think that it's the government's money, so it's all good. And basically that's what's gotten us into the state we're in now.

[IDBillzFan]

Why is it so bad for the country and freedom? Why do you really think this? You do realize there is nothing all that new in this Bill right? There is nothing radical. Nothing not kicked around before.

Really? A federal mandate to purchase something that may be against your will or religious beliefs simply because you live in the US? Nothing radical? Nothing that nips at your individual freedoms?

 

Way to think for yourself, Julia.

[dayman]

Wait, this is 2,700 pages of "nothing all that new?" People being forced by the federal government to buy a private product, just for breathing, is nothing new? Sorry but that's a path down a road I don't want to go, even if in theory it would make me richer.

 

Look, I realize that you Barry supporters need to support this thing. All I have to do is point to the original projections of things like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, and how they've cost at least 5X more than their original projections. Then I can show you how the CBO scored Obamacare as costing twice as much as it was originally projected to cost just TWO years ago. Then I can show you that nowhere are costs reduced, except for maybe a 2-3% reduction to providers, despite the fact that there is another 85% that can be addressed, but isn't because Barry made his deals with them. Hoping there will be savings is ridiculous. We can't go on "hope and change" anymore.

 

Lastly, and as I've said before, all the good things that have been implemented could have been done without creating a 2,700 page monstrosity of an entitlement. Thinking change is good because, well, it's change, and that things can be "tweaked," when the entitlements we already have haven't been adequately tweaked and are on the verge of insolvency, is the definition of insanity. But that's what I've found with liberal thinkers. They're child-like in that they don't plan for the future, can't see the future consequences of their present-day actions, and think that it's the government's money, so it's all good. And basically that's what's gotten us into the state we're in now.

 

Most of this bill is about reforming many of the entitlements you speak of, and then yes also regulating the healthcare industry, allocating more funds for fraud detection etc... You act as though it is creating a whole new entitlement...this bill has been framed as more than it is to be honest. As is well documented if you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and you are willing to shift the costs to the rest of us if/when the time comes then you suffer a tax penalty and you are free to continue to risk personal bankruptcy and all the other wonderful things that go with freedom from health insurance...

 

Really? A federal mandate to purchase something that may be against your will or religious beliefs simply because you live in the US? Nothing radical? Nothing that nips at your individual freedoms?

 

Way to think for yourself, Julia.

 

...very politically-charged, overblown dramatic take on the situation....that's my take anyway.