Jump to content

The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All


Recommended Posts

 

 

The Democrats already have their sights set on Medicare-for-all, even leadership is talking about it. And since the Democrats already won the argument with the American public that government should play a role in the expansion of coverage and that the Republicans have squandered their opportunity, it's just a matter of time before Medicare-for-all becomes the law of the land.

 

Yep it's inevtiable.

 

We're going to go bankrupt as a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats already have their sights set on Medicare-for-all, even leadership is talking about it. And since the Democrats already won the argument with the American public that government should play a role in the expansion of coverage and that the Republicans have squandered their opportunity, it's just a matter of time before Medicare-for-all becomes the law of the land.

 

And given how Medicare does - and more importantly, does not - work, that is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people forget the concept of the ACA was somewhat based on a Republican health plan to counter Hillary's efforts on health reform in the early 90's? The main crux of that bill included an individual mandate, ban on insurance companies denying people with preexisting conditions, voucher program for the poor, and standardized benefits. The employer mandate and the medicaid expansion wasn't in there, but the concept of ACA wasn't just thought up in some Democratic think tank. It's always amused me over the years hearing Republicans calling Obama a socialist because of the ACA when it was partly their idea.

Obviously. It was based on Romney Care but because it was Obama and dems it was bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upset about failed ObamaCare votes, Trump calls on changes from Senate Republicans


In the aftermath of the Senate’s failed ObamaCare votes, President Trump on Saturday urged leaders of the GOP-controlled chamber to change the rules to a simple 51-vote majority to pass legislation, saying they are “looking like fools” and calling the 60-vote requirement a “joke.”




This last vote on repeal ObamaCare only needed 50 votes + Pence to pass, or am I wrong ? Not sure if it had to go back to the House again then back to Senate for 60. Sorry I don't follow Congress that close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even under the form of single payer form of health insurance that is being pushed by the progressives which is Medicare-for-all, there would still be a major role for the private insurance industry.

 

 

So insurance companies will actually be allowed to participate in their own industry? How very magnanimous our federal benefactors can be. Look, I understand you're taking a realistic and pragmatic view of what's going on, and I know that it would do me good to just get used to it. It's just that it seems really stupid to turn to the government to fix something that was largely, if not completely, screwed up by the government in the first place.

 

What he said. The Medicare reimbursement rates already drive reimbursements. The practicality of this change is not that hard. It's not what I "want" by any means but it does seem inevitable and better than the kluge we are in now.

 

 

See above. The current disarray of both the insurance and medical fields are due to government interference, not to mention the current policy battles in Washington. I personally believe that it's a lose-lose for us as a nation if we wind up with something comparable with even the most efficient European single-payer system.

 

I also realize that this is my problem and that there's nothing I can do but accept it. It does feel good to $#%@ about it though. :lol:

Edited by Azalin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Upset about failed ObamaCare votes, Trump calls on changes from Senate Republicans
In the aftermath of the Senate’s failed ObamaCare votes, President Trump on Saturday urged leaders of the GOP-controlled chamber to change the rules to a simple 51-vote majority to pass legislation, saying they are “looking like fools” and calling the 60-vote requirement a “joke.”
This last vote on repeal ObamaCare only needed 50 votes + Pence to pass, or am I wrong ? Not sure if it had to go back to the House again then back to Senate for 60. Sorry I don't follow Congress that close.

 

No. It only required 51. I assume he knows they'll never get rid of the filibuster so he's simply setting up a fake excuse for failure in the future and hoping to get people to give him the Senate supermajority in '18. Now he's threatening to not provide any bailouts to the insurance companies to kill the ACA. It's actually a good strategy, but Congress will call his bluff.

Edited by Doc Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It only required 51. I assume he knows they'll never get rid of the filibuster so he's simply setting up a fake excuse for failure in the future and hoping to get people to give him the Senate majority in '18. Now he's threatening to not provide any bailouts to the insurance companies to kill the ACA. It's actually a good strategy, but Congress will call his bluff.

 

Thanks Doc this is getting complex for ALF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It only required 51. I assume he knows they'll never get rid of the filibuster so he's simply setting up a fake excuse for failure in the future and hoping to get people to give him the Senate majority in '18. Now he's threatening to not provide any bailouts to the insurance companies to kill the ACA. It's actually a good strategy, but Congress will call his bluff.

 

They actually only needed 50 with Pence on hand to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It only required 51. I assume he knows they'll never get rid of the filibuster so he's simply setting up a fake excuse for failure in the future and hoping to get people to give him the Senate supermajority in '18. Now he's threatening to not provide any bailouts to the insurance companies to kill the ACA. It's actually a good strategy, but Congress will call his bluff.

Will they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will they?

They've got to get onto tax cuts as the only reason they spent seven months trying to pass an extremely unpopular health care bill was to please their donors with the medicaid cuts. Now they need to ensure they at least get their tax cuts like they did under W as the clock is ticking before the midterms. It's why McConnel's Oscar like speech started with "it's time to move on." Having a president who isn't completely bought and hates to lose threatening them though is something new and amusing to me. Here's a decent article written a month ago showing the panic of their donors.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-26/koch-urgency-conservative-network-fears-closing-window

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So insurance companies will actually be allowed to participate in their own industry? How very magnanimous our federal benefactors can be. Look, I understand you're taking a realistic and pragmatic view of what's going on, and I know that it would do me good to just get used to it. It's just that it seems really stupid to turn to the government to fix something that was largely, if not completely, screwed up by the government in the first place.

 

 

See above. The current disarray of both the insurance and medical fields are due to government interference, not to mention the current policy battles in Washington. I personally believe that it's a lose-lose for us as a nation if we wind up with something comparable with even the most efficient European single-payer system.

 

I also realize that this is my problem and that there's nothing I can do but accept it. It does feel good to $#%@ about it though. :lol:

 

Azalin, my comments shouldn't be considered as an endorsement of these plans but rather an opinion of what I believe to be an inevitability. Also, I was simply pointing out that the Medicare business still has a lot of private corp. components to the industry, which was in response to Joe 6 packs belief that the ACA was meant to destroy private health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Azalin, my comments shouldn't be considered as an endorsement of these plans but rather an opinion of what I believe to be an inevitability. Also, I was simply pointing out that the Medicare business still has a lot of private corp. components to the industry, which was in response to Joe 6 packs belief that the ACA was meant to destroy private health insurance.

 

I know you're not endorsing any of it, and I don't mean to come across in such a combative manner. I'm just venting some of my irritation over the whole debacle. You're one of the more knowledgeable posters on the subject, and while I appreciate that, it's especially disheartening to see you using words like "inevitability" with regard to the impending implementation of a single-payer system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...